The Undergraduate Student Senate reviewed the Allocation Committee’s guidelines in an informal ad hoc meeting yesterday.
A major issue is permanent seats on the Allocations Committee. The All Campus Programming Board, Intercollegiate Greek Programming Board, BUS and the USS are guaranteed a permanent seat.
Many students view the permanent seats as unfair to other organizations who want representation on the committee, PRIDE!Kent President Christopher Taylor said.
Taylor, who is running for USS executive director, said he believes the process is unfair because it implies those four organizations are more qualified.
“I don’t think they can select four student organizations because they aren’t being fair to all organizations,” he said. “PRIDE!Kent would love to have a permanent seat.”
A proposed alternative is the elimination of permanent seats, and to make all members at-large regardless of what organization they belong to.
Ross said he believes the programming board and USS should keep their permanent seats since they are internal organizations who oversee how money is allocated.
“We need to have at least one person to oversee allocations and someone in charge of programming to be involved,” Ross said. “ACPB and BUS creates oversight for people who are responsible.”
Another issue discussed was funding eligibility requirements because the guidelines say “allocations can only be used for programs, conferences or services that have the potential to directly benefit all undergraduate students.”
Ross said he believed the statement could possibly limit who receives funding.
“It’s a pretty vague statement,” Ross said. “This has been a back and forth argument that never comes to a common ground.”
Preston Mitchum, senator for student advancement, said he believes this statement could hinder programming.
“Who’s to say if a program benefits all people?” he said. “BUS is more likely to get a black audience, so I definitely think it’s a statement that can be removed.”
Another issue brought up by Taylor was the allocation’s appeal process, which requires approval by a two-thirds majority of allocations committee members to pass.
“I’m unsure of a two-thirds majority because it seems like a sticky process to me,” he said. “If the program is good in the first place, I don’t know if it’s fair enough to an organization.”
Ross disagreed and said he believed the two-thirds majority is a fair process.
“The USS does have the right to say ‘look at this again,'” he said. “It’s the same process the U.S. government uses. It’s a model they use that works.”
The Allocation’s Committee will review the senate’s proposed changes in the coming weeks and the USS will vote on them at its last two meetings of the semester.
Contact student politics reporter Breanne George at [email protected]