There are few organizations on campus that can puzzle students as much as the SSFC. Many people don't even know what it does (allocate a select amount of your segregated fee dollars to various eligible student groups) or for that matter what those letters stand for (Student Services Finance Committee). Those who do know tend to think of it as the most stereotypical of bureaucracies, the kind of group in which jargon is thrown around so often they almost speak a different language and you need to fill out three different forms just to get permission to sneeze (though with the looming threat of swine flu, additional paperwork may be required).
So it is understandable that many expressed dismay at the SSFC's rejection of funding for the Campus Women's Center and Wunk Sheek last week. The Campus Women's Center in particular has received a great deal of support, with many students failing to see how a benign organization with such clear visible services, such as support groups, condom crawls and family assistance could be denied funding.
However, while the Campus Women's Center clearly provides meaningful services to the student body, it still must meet the standards the SSFC has established in order to secure funding. One of the criteria states that at least fifty percent plus one of the group's efforts must go toward providing a direct service to students. This is why Wunk Sheek was denied, as the majority of its time is dedicated to putting on events such as pow wows, which are not considered a direct service by the SSFC's eligibility criteria. Because of the questionable nature of Wunk Sheek's direct service, we believe the rejection of their application was justified.
The Campus Women's Center also experienced problems with the direct service threshold. While the SSFC declined comment, analysis of the Campus Women's Center's application indicates that they as well did not meet the 50 percent plus one requirement.
Documentation of time spent on direct services was loose at best in the application. The organization's directors were listed as spending approximate amounts of time on various projects, such as ""approximately one-half of the Support Services Coordinator's time"" spent on resource advising, no numerical total for hours was listed. In addition, one-ninth of the center's time was incorrectly billed as a direct service—their Kid's Time and Kid's Nite Out services did not meet SSFC requirements, as they were not educational to university students, a fact which the Campus Women's Center has since acknowledged. As the original percentage of time spent on direct services was submitted at 61 percent, subtracting one-ninth of the hours meant the center was dedicating less than 50 percent of its activities to direct services, and was thus ineligible for funds.
While it may not be the easiest decision to appreciate, it is the job of the SSFC to look at applications for funding from all groups with a critical eye. They have standards and no group is exempt from them. Though there is often some ambiguity whether certain tasks can be designated as a direct service or not, in this case it was fairly clear that the threshold was not met.
That being said, we still feel it would be a shame for the Campus Women's Center to disappear, especially considering that they came so close to meeting eligibility. The center's overall mission is worthwhile, and we encourage them to seek other methods of funding to stay afloat, such as fund raising or seeking grants from the ASM Finance Committee. With some very minor restructuring and some more documentation, we see no reason why the Campus Women's Center should be rejected in the future, allowing them to continue their assistance to students.
