The latest information from the Office of the Assemblies can be found on the Dashboard.
November 19, 2009 Meeting
R.29 SA Organizational Review Committee & RSO Taskforce Recommendations
|Originally Presented On:||November 19, 2009|
|Sponsors:||Vincent Andrews ‘11, Yuliya Neverova ‘10|
|Subject of Resolution:||SA Organizational Review Committee & RSO Taskforce Recommendations|
|Type of Action:||Legislation|
Whereas the Student Assembly passed (Spring 2009) Resolution 21 establishing a moratorium on the formation of new student organizations during the Spring 2009 semester and ended June 1, 2009 in an effort to formally analyze and document issues facing the student organization registration and funding process,
Whereas the RSO Auditing Task Force was commissioned to find solutions to the problems that have hindered efficient and proper allocation of student funds and campus resources, and to develop a system of registration that discourages unnecessary replication of student organizations,
Whereas the members of the RSO Auditing Task Force, comprised of Ryan Lavin (past SA President), Tony Miller (past VP IOP), Emlyn Diakow (past SA Liaison to the SAFC), Kate Duch (past Student Elected Trustee) as well as the current resolution sponsors, spent the Spring 2009 semester reviewing data and procedures from the Student Activities Office and the SAFC in an attempt to devise better and more effective solutions to the registration of groups and the allocation of limited resources,
Whereas the Student Assembly passed this Resolution as Resolution 44 in the Spring 2009 semester but was asked to re-consider it by President Skorton because it previously did not distinguish between undergraduate and graduate groups and as such has been amended to this current version,
Whereas the Student Assembly has encountered conflicts between overlapping organizations during this Fall 2009 semester,
Be it therefore resolved that the Student Assembly adopts the attached changes, procedures, and list of potential duplicate groups recommended by the RSO Auditing Task force,
Be it therefore resolved that the following bylaw be added to the SA charter bylaws as follows:
Bylaw 7.5.a.7 - Student Assembly Organizational Review Committee (SAORC)
The Organizational Review Committee (SAORC) will be charged with reviewing new undergraduate student organization applications and reviewing undergraduate organizations that are in current existence. The SAORC shall be chaired by an assembly member, staffed by four more assembly members, one of which shall be the SAFC liaison and four community members. Quorum is six voting members.
New Organization Review Process: This function of the committee is (1) to analyze the organization’s potential longevity as well as the group’s space and funding needs, (2) to assess how the new organization is different from existing groups on campus, and (3) to encourage the students who wish to form an organization to take advantage of economies of scale by working with pre-existing organizations. The committee has the power to grant or deny the students’ request to form an organization. The committee can only deny the students’ request if (1) the proposed organization’s charter/bylaws duplicate the charter/bylaws of a pre-existing organization on campus, (2) the proposed organization’s mission statement duplicates the mission statement of a current group on campus and (3) the proposed organization’s essential function duplicates the essential function of an existing organization on campus. Exceptions to these three criteria may be made if the new organization can demonstrate the necessity for the duplication of an organization. The committee must have a simple majority to approve the registration of a new student organization. The committee must have a two-thirds majority of those present to deny the formation of an organization and, if a two-thirds majority is attained, the committee must present a written statement to the SA outlining how the proposed organization fulfills criteria 1, 2 and/or 3. The committee must meet with the group’s representatives within ten business days, excluding days when classes are not in session, of the filing of the group’s application. Upon meeting with the organization, the committee must present its decision to either approve or deny the application within ten business days, excluding days when classes are not in session. If the committee does not fulfill this time-line the group is automatically approved and allowed to form.
Continuing Organization Review Process: This function of the committee is to review the status of undergraduate groups currently registered on campus. This committee has the power to revoke the RSO recognition of an organization on campus if an organization is deemed a duplication of another existing organization on campus per duplication criteria outlined in the New Organization Review Process and this section.
The SAORC will research and address (1) the overlap of purpose, members, advisers, and events between organizations, (2) the per student funding ratio, and (3) the narrowness or specificity of the organization’s purpose in relation to other existing organizations on campus. This committee will review each existing organization on campus at least once every three years. For the review process, the committee must notify the group that it is being reviewed by the SAORC. If necessary, the committee may require (1) a list/count of their members, a list/count of the members on their listserv, a list/count of the individuals who attended their largest event each semester, (2) a summary of their activities in the last four semester, (3) a spreadsheet with their revenues per funding sources and expenses per activity, and (4) a calculation of their SAFC funding per member. If deemed necessary, one member of the committee may attend the organization’s meetings to learn about the organization’s membership and the organization’s dynamics.
Upon completion of the continuing review process, the committee must have a 4/5 majority to revoke an organization’s RSO recognition and must submit a written statement to both the Student Assembly and the organization detailing the proceedings. The group may appeal the committee’s decision to the Student Assembly.
Vincent Andrews ‘11
VP for Public Relations
Yuliya Neverova ‘10