Spring Break
SAFAC responds to The Triangle
Letters to the Editor
Issue date: 6/6/08 Section: Ed-Op
Dear Triangle Editorial Board and Students,
In the May 9 and 23 issues of The Triangle, the Editorial Board calls into question SAFAC's policies and procedures. While we feel it is great that students are taking an interest in SAFAC, we feel the article poorly represents the way SAFAC works. In this letter we will clear up the misconceptions that have come to our attention.
First, The Triangle did request the following information: the amount each individual student organization originally requested and copies of the SAFAC meeting minutes. This information was requested "in the interest of learning more about SAFAC and this very important decision making process." In reality, the information you requested would not help you towards either goal, and it would be irresponsible for SAFAC to release this information.
SAFAC currently releases the total amount of funding requested along with the amount that SAFAC was able to fund. The details about how SAFAC came to the final number are between SAFAC and the group requesting funding. The reason we are unable to release the numbers is because they have to do with the financial standing of certain groups, which is not readily available to the public. If the group requesting funding wants to release the information, they are more than welcome to, but it is not SAFAC's place to give out those details.
After the article was written, we asked many of the groups stopping by with questions or purchase requests their feelings on the topic. Mind you, there was a fine mix between groups that had received their allocation already and were not appealing, and those that were appealing, so for some groups there was no fear of "biting the hand that feeds them."
The student organizations that we spoke with either stated that they supported the fact that we do not release this information, or at the very least, they could understand why certain groups would prefer not to have the information released while it made little difference to them. Hardly the reaction that the article stated most groups had.
In the May 9 and 23 issues of The Triangle, the Editorial Board calls into question SAFAC's policies and procedures. While we feel it is great that students are taking an interest in SAFAC, we feel the article poorly represents the way SAFAC works. In this letter we will clear up the misconceptions that have come to our attention.
First, The Triangle did request the following information: the amount each individual student organization originally requested and copies of the SAFAC meeting minutes. This information was requested "in the interest of learning more about SAFAC and this very important decision making process." In reality, the information you requested would not help you towards either goal, and it would be irresponsible for SAFAC to release this information.
SAFAC currently releases the total amount of funding requested along with the amount that SAFAC was able to fund. The details about how SAFAC came to the final number are between SAFAC and the group requesting funding. The reason we are unable to release the numbers is because they have to do with the financial standing of certain groups, which is not readily available to the public. If the group requesting funding wants to release the information, they are more than welcome to, but it is not SAFAC's place to give out those details.
After the article was written, we asked many of the groups stopping by with questions or purchase requests their feelings on the topic. Mind you, there was a fine mix between groups that had received their allocation already and were not appealing, and those that were appealing, so for some groups there was no fear of "biting the hand that feeds them."
The student organizations that we spoke with either stated that they supported the fact that we do not release this information, or at the very least, they could understand why certain groups would prefer not to have the information released while it made little difference to them. Hardly the reaction that the article stated most groups had.
Be the first to comment on this story