Club sports teams are scrambling to revise budget plans after a failure to receive block funding in last week’s Student Union (SU) election. Instead, the club teams’ governing body plans to submit a proposal to SU for the same amount during the regular allocation process.
Twenty-three club teams fall under the leadership of the Sport Club Federation (SCF), which applied for a $1 Student Activity Fee increase, from $8.75 to $9.75 per student. In the past, the SCF has allocated portions of the lump sum to each club sport based on individual budget proposals.
SU Treasurer-elect Jonathan Frick said the club teams have several options. Frick said the allocation process will be very convoluted if each team applies for funding separately. Instead, Frick said SCF will most likely receive a lump sum directly from SU.
SCF President Josh Edwards hopes the group will continue to organize the club teams next semester and apply for funding again next year.
“Right now, my hope is that SCF stays together, and we just submit our budget as a whole, and we’ll be able to allocate our money as usual,” said Edwards, who added that SCF is currently in talks with the current and upcoming SU presidents and treasurers.
SCF considers proposals from the volleyball, lacrosse, crew, cycling and rugby teams, among others. According to Edwards, block funding from SU allows the SCF more freedom.
“Because we’re such a large group, it’s a lot easier for us as an organization to manage our money if we know upfront how much money we’re given,” said Edwards. “We’re still accountable to SU, but at the same time we’re able to manage ourselves more independently.”
Edwards believes that student voters didn’t pass the block funding proposal for SFC because of a lack of understanding about the role of the organization.
“I think that people didn’t realize exactly what SCF is,” said Edwards. “Everybody knows what the lacrosse team is, what the women’s volleyball team is-they see them around campus. But what they don’t realize is that they get their money from SCF.”
Edwards blamed weak publicity for not informing students of SCF’s function and goals.
“We tried to push that during our last week of campaigning, but we didn’t get our message across,” said Edwards. “They saw it on the ballot and thought, ‘Too expensive.’”
Freshman lacrosse player Bess Nuland agreed that students might have no incentive to support club teams. She said any addition to WU’s “outrageous tuition” probably would be widely contested.
“I can definitely understand why people who are not on sports teams would not want to vote for it,” said Nuland. “The fee for student activities is already high, and to add a dollar for sports teams you don’t play on-I probably wouldn’t pay it.”
The student activities fee is one percent of tuition each year. This sum of money does not change pending block funding proposals.
Nuland said that even with SU block funding, each club team fundraises to cover their costs. The women’s lacrosse team must raise start-up costs for items such as practice jerseys and goals.
“Last year the team didn’t have jerseys-we had to wear tee shirts with duct tape on them,” said Nuland. “We do so much fundraising, like car washing, selling magazines, phone-a-thons.”
According to Nuland, the year-old lacrosse team has more trouble getting funds from the SCF than more established groups. She said many students don’t know about the lacrosse team. Last year, though, the team qualified for nationals, but they couldn’t afford to travel to the competition.
Edwards said most club teams have to qualify to compete in nationals, so they don’t always apply for money from the SCF ahead of time. He advised teams to submit a request for emergency funds to SU.
“Because we have so many sports clubs that are competing in so many different events, we don’t have enough money,” said Edwards. “That’s what those emergency funds are meant for.”
Noel Vivar, president of the men’s volleyball team, said the SCF has chipped in to cover a lot of their needs.
“SCF is pretty efficient at getting our money to our teams,” said Vivar. “We’ve gotten almost three-fourths of what we’ve applied for.”
Vivar said the SCF works efficiently and represents all the teams’ needs. He attends the monthly meetings along with a representative from each club team. Vivar compared the 23 members of SCF to the much larger number of student groups in SU.
“A nice thing about SCF is that [the amount of] paperwork is really small,” said Vivar. “When I first heard the news I was upset because I know I have enough paperwork to do as it is. Just knowing I have to go through SU now, I’m assuming I’ll have more bureaucracy to deal with.”

Contact Rachel at
rachel.streitfeld@
studlife.com

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 26th, 2002 at 12:00 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.