Spring Break
SGA votes to deny Debate, Mock Trial funding
Joshua Seiden
Issue date: 10/8/07 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The Debate and Mock Trial teams are barred from asking the Student Activity Fee Committee (SAFC) for funding beginning next year.
This is the result of a resolution passed by the Student Government Association (SGA) Oct 3.
Prior to passage of the resolution, Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs and Enrollment Management Mel Tyler addressed the SGA. He spoke of the Debate team's need to secure permanent funding sources outside of student activity fees.
"We think there's opportunity in this community to raise money to endow funding for our debate program," Tyler said. "There's a lot of different strategies that can take place, but really nothing is going to happen until a decision is made; whether to fund it or not … As long as you continue to fund [Debate] out of [student activity fees], the administration will not have that conversation."
SGA Comptroller DaRon McGee disagreed with prohibiting the teams from approaching the SAFC for money before securing alternative funds, noting also that Tyler made no mention of Mock Trial.
"The problem I have with this is that what if we try to force their hand and lose and nobody funds them," McGee said. "Then, we have some programs that were very successful and nobody to support them."
Tyler replied, "That's a risk that you really have to take."
SGA Administrative Vice President Emily Shaw said she supported the resolution, as it served merely as a recommendation.
"This resolution has absolutely no power to stop it from going to the SAFC," Shaw said. "It just says something to the administration."
Later in the meeting, the SGA made several maneuvers before passing the resolution, the first of which removed a key amendment voted in during the Sept. 19 meeting. The amendment would have allowed the teams to continue requesting funding from the SAFC.
SGA President Sean McClain told the senate he would have a much better chance at securing funding for the teams through other avenues if the original resolution was restored.
This is the result of a resolution passed by the Student Government Association (SGA) Oct 3.
Prior to passage of the resolution, Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs and Enrollment Management Mel Tyler addressed the SGA. He spoke of the Debate team's need to secure permanent funding sources outside of student activity fees.
"We think there's opportunity in this community to raise money to endow funding for our debate program," Tyler said. "There's a lot of different strategies that can take place, but really nothing is going to happen until a decision is made; whether to fund it or not … As long as you continue to fund [Debate] out of [student activity fees], the administration will not have that conversation."
SGA Comptroller DaRon McGee disagreed with prohibiting the teams from approaching the SAFC for money before securing alternative funds, noting also that Tyler made no mention of Mock Trial.
"The problem I have with this is that what if we try to force their hand and lose and nobody funds them," McGee said. "Then, we have some programs that were very successful and nobody to support them."
Tyler replied, "That's a risk that you really have to take."
SGA Administrative Vice President Emily Shaw said she supported the resolution, as it served merely as a recommendation.
"This resolution has absolutely no power to stop it from going to the SAFC," Shaw said. "It just says something to the administration."
Later in the meeting, the SGA made several maneuvers before passing the resolution, the first of which removed a key amendment voted in during the Sept. 19 meeting. The amendment would have allowed the teams to continue requesting funding from the SAFC.
SGA President Sean McClain told the senate he would have a much better chance at securing funding for the teams through other avenues if the original resolution was restored.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
Anonymous
posted 10/08/07 @ 5:44 PM CST
This article misses so many important questions in this sotry.
1) Why is Mel Tyler and Student Affairs now taking a hard line to prevent the Debate Team and Mock Trial from getting SAF funding now?
2) Why not ensure that funding is available for those two groups before prohibiting them from receiving SAF funding?
3) How much money does the Debate Team receive from non-SAF sources? How much money is needed to run a Debate Team or Mock Trial team? How much scholarship money do their members receive?
4) Why are the Debate and Mock Trial Teams targeted as being ineligible since they can raise money from outside sources? If all student organizations were held to this standard, than none of the fraternities and sororities, the Indian Student Association, the Muslim Student Association, Campus Crusade for Christ, the African-American Student Union, or the University News should receive student fee funding since all of them can and do raise money from external sources. (Continued…)
Monte Stevens
posted 10/09/07 @ 7:22 AM CST
As a UMKC Debate alumni, I am disappointed that the SGA would take this action, especially at a time when the debate program is coming off a runner-up finish at the National Debate Tournament. (Continued…)
Matt Baisley
posted 10/10/07 @ 12:47 PM CST
As another former debate alumni, I also find this resolution extremely disappointing. UMKC should fund programs that distinguish it from other universities. (Continued…)
Anonymous
posted 10/10/07 @ 4:17 PM CST
So many of these posts are nothing but rants. Just answer the real questions:
Why the change now?
How much does the Debate Team receive from all sources?
What do they spend their money on?
Micheal Thomas - student
posted 10/11/07 @ 10:12 AM CST
I think its utter nonsense that we leave funding of any organization in the hands of the "SGA". Also, the fact that the University raises my fees every other semester to happily feed the "administration" is ridiculous. (Continued…)
Alfred Snider
posted 10/12/07 @ 8:36 AM CST
The real issue is whether UMKC students will be able to:
1. Gain the important educational advantages that debate offers .. critical success skills for the 21st Century. (Continued…)
Post a Comment