Union proposal to restructure clubs still in the works
Last Wednesday, Student Union President Todd Kirkland '13, Treasurer David Clements '14, and Senator at Large Charlotte Franco '15 held an open forum regarding the proposed club restructuring plan.
Student Union leaders and staff devised the new structure proposal to try to resolve organizational problems within the current free-for-all system of 275 on-campus clubs. The structuring plan strives to foster communication, organization and fiscal efficiency between clubs.
The new proposal still features 12 associations separated by categories such as performance, dance, sports and competition.
Each association would exist to foster communication between both the clubs under their umbrella and other associations. According to the Student Union leaders, a club would formally fit under one association and its council, but would be able to attend open meetings for other associations.
According to Clements, in addition to following in the path of models that are currently in place at many schools such as Tufts University, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania, the plan would be similar to existing structures of the Intercultural Center and Club Sports Council. Regardless of size, all clubs would elect seven people to hold voting power in each association's council.
"The main difference [between the first and newer club proposals] is eliminating the main fiscal attribute to it," said Kirkland in an interview with the Justice. "What I mean by that is the first draft said that if you are a club requesting money, instead of going directly to F-Board you would go to the council for which your club falls under and you would put the request through there and then they would look over it."
Still, according to the Student Union representatives, the recently revised proposal seeks to create fiscal efficiency.
Associations would be sent a list of events and items clubs ask to obtain. In this way, collaboration would be possible when groups' goals align. However, funding would be approved by the F-Board and not the association under the revised proposal. The requirement to share activities and plans in order to gain funding would be solely to promote collaboration and avoid overlap.
"Clubs won't suffer at all," said Clements, but he emphasized that this new plan will be an investment for the future.
The new structure would allow for associations to receive some funding from the account of rollover funds from previous years. Associations' votes would serve primarily to use discretionary funds for any type of collaborative work, such as larger events, with multiple clubs' sponsorships.
After the Student Union representatives gave a presentation, there was a feedback session during which students scrutinized the plan's details.
These students voiced a number of concerns. One student expressed concern over whether an unpopular club could be negatively affected by these new guidelines, especially if they do not hold secured club status. The Student Union leaders assured the student that the new structure would not serve to oust or marginalize certain clubs.
An advisor assignment for each association is also part of the plan. Clubs would be able to ask these faculty or staff advisers for help in areas such as hiring any teachers clubs might need and providing ideas for club progress. The Student Union representatives said that advisors could be especially useful when clubs are created and need help developing their activities. Some staff members have expressed interest in these positions, said Franco, but suggestions for advisers would be welcomed from councils and the student body.
"If our adviser is from the Politics department who has coached Model U.N., et cetera., they maybe wouldn't be familiar with working with other wider national groups. So who are these people; where do they come from?" asked Avi Snyder '13, the president of Mock Trial Association and a columnist for the Justice.
Another forum is planned for next Friday. A meeting has also been held where faculty and staff from the Intercultural Center, the Hiatt Career Center as well as Senior Vice President for Students and Enrollment Andrew Flagel discussed the proposal.
According to Kirkland, criticisms from that meeting and from the student body will be taken into account for proposal edits.
"I would say that how the council is defined would have to change because we're sort of pulling on two ends where it's like, you don't want to give no definition to what a council is and just let the association make it up, but on the other hand you don't want to put too much regulation on it because then it seems too bureaucratic," said Kirkland in the interview.
Kirkland emphasized the hope that people will continue to be proactive in giving their input.
"I hope people provide feedback, otherwise we won't be able to identify what the issues are," said Kirkland. He urges people to contact him with any further input and to participate in these forums. The final vote and amendment referendum for this proposal will take place when it is felt that the proposal has been formulated at the student body's satisfaction. A two-thirds vote in favor would allow it to pass.
"We have our niche kind of interests and it's great because everyone works toward their own causes, but there's a huge lack of communication and bigger lack of collaboration and that's detrimental to everyone who is involved in campus life... I think this plan does increase efficiency," said Jessica Goldberg '13, who is part of Hillel and the Brandeis Interfaith Group, in an interview with the Justice. She added her support of passing the proposal this year, saying that whether we pass it now or later, it will need to be done in order to proceed to fix any issues that should arise.
"I think it's a really good idea, it will allow for better events with more funding going toward each one, and more creative ideas will be in place as different clubs will be in contact with each other," wrote Harris Cohen '16 from WBRS radio in an email to the Justice.
Clements said in an email to the Justice that gathering feedback is a necessary part of creating good policy. "This is just another step in the process, we're going to see where it goes," he wrote. "We don't want to just put up a proposal that's going to be forced upon students, we want the students to be happy with it and to understand it before it's even put to vote."
Kirkland hopes to have the student body vote on the club proposal before the end of the year, although it may not be ready. "[W]e don't want to put anything to a vote until we believe that it's a solid plan that most people agree upon. You can't really just say like, 'We're going to vote on it on this day no matter what,' because that's just extremely rigid and that shows that we are not caring about what people are saying," he said.
-Marissa Ditkowsky and Sam Mintz contributed reporting.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Justice.