|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Rob Ewaschuk on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 04:28 PM CDT |
The point I'm making is that any group (including a business like Revolution wanting to run events on campus) could claim to be doing an "amount of good" for a "number of students" Well, for me there's a pretty clear delineation between a for-profit event (i.e. Rev night club) doing good for students and a not-for-profit event (which I would generally categories ESA night as, though I imagine enough fundraising is done there for someone else to make an argument to the contrary.) So I dismiss that analogy.one must wonder why clubs themselves are not funded on the same principle (per capita basis Absolutely I wonder that. I think per-capita funding makes a lot of sense. There's an issue of clubs signing up "phony" memberships (pets and dead people!) but I think if that was treated seriously it won't be a real problem.
In fact, I think council should amend clubs procedure to this effect. The funding should probably be some fixed amount plus some amount per person. Clubs are one of the categorically best things that Feds does, and they shouldn't be afraid to fund them more.
There are minor policy issues to be dealt with -- perhaps a person has $x to "allocate" by joining clubs, and so if they join 3 clubs, each gets $x/3.
Council should not get into the game of how much (net) good a club does "per member", so yes, an arbitrary number will have to be fixed for all clubs.
At a quick glance, I don't see anything in Procedure 3 about arbitrary definitions of clubs. Can you be more specific?
There's a lot of ugly crud that's overly bureaucratic in Proc. 3. It needs a big overhaul, though I imagine cries of phantom liability will prevent real reductions in bureaucracy. Lord knows if the Buffy Watchers Club doesn't keep their bank account with Feds, we'll be sued into the ground.
ESA should abide by policy and procedure. But policy and procedure shouldn't suck. And when ESA highlights that they do suck, and when committees make sucky decisions in line with sucky procedure, council should intervene, fix the procedure (to the best of their ability ignoring the whinging of various parties, though taking the salient reasoned advice on how to do better), and then re-judge the ESA by the new procedure. If that doesn't help the ESA, tough beans, council hath spoken. But at least procedure gets fixed up in the process.
-Rob
---
Rob Ewaschuk - rob.infinitepigeons.org[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
