This is the first article in a two-part series taking a deep look at a funding request from a student journal. The first piece focuses on the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate meeting at which students representing the publication appealed for more funding. The second piece will focus on Discourse's transition away from Institute for Global Leadership sponsorship, and the Senate's procedure for allocating funding to student groups.
Fifteen leaders of the student magazine Discourse stood in a stuffy room in the campus center last month watching thousands of dollars and, essentially, the future of their publication debated in an intense and at times confusing Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate meeting.
The proceedings shined a light on a number of ongoing controversies over the way student publications apply for and receive funding — as well as a lapse in adherence to the bylaws that govern treasury appeals.
Members of Discourse, an interdisciplinary journal with strong connections to the Institute for Global Leadership (IGL), had originally asked the Senate for $23,500 to fund two issues, to be printed in color. The Allocations Board (ALBO) voted 5-1, with one abstention, to recommend that Discourse receive only $3,700, to fund one scaled-back issue.
In the Oct. 25 Senate meeting, Discourse appealed that recommendation to the body, which must approve all ALBO recommendations.
The Senate, in a 13-5 vote during the meeting, approved a compromise number, $5,450, which would provide three quarters of the funding needed for one full, black-and-white issue.
In a sometimes-heated debate that took up almost half of the approximately three-hour-long Senate meeting, senators discussed how large of a role an outside group like the IGL should play in the Senate's funding decisions for organizations linked to those groups.
Discourse's somewhat unique position as both an IGL- and TCU-sponsored publication triggered an emotional discussion about how much of a dwindling pot of funding should go to pay for accessories like a professional designer or color pages. Some senators argued that Discourse should be forced to downgrade.
Arguments also exposed mixed feelings about the TCU Judiciary's practices in approving new student organizations.
Discourse became a TCU-recognized student group this semester after the IGL indicated to student editors that they would have to look elsewhere for much of their funding because of the institute's suffering endowment, students involved with Discourse told the Daily. Discourse members thought their group had already received official recognition from the TCU Judiciary, but upon applying for funding this semester, they discovered this was not the case.
The group's initial request would have covered two color issues, professionally designed and widely distributed on campus and outside Tufts, including at other schools and bookstores.
ALBO's significantly pared-down recommendation would have funded one issue without the bells and whistles editors wanted. Members of ALBO argued that student publications can use the Media Advisory Board's computer lab for design and that TCU funds should only go toward on-campus distribution.
While most senators agreed that, at most, scrapping a professional designer and funding only one issue was appropriate, division remained on whether the Senate should fund half or all of one black-and-white issue — or provide no funding at all. The number that passed was a compromise: The Senate would fund 75 percent of costs for one issue.
"The feeling behind that number was really, we want to fund them to some extent because we think it's a worthwhile publication, but we still see it as under the IGL, and we think the IGL will match our number," said TCU Associate Treasurer Kate de Klerk, a sophomore.
The $5,450 allocation came from new-group funding, which is intended for recently recognized organizations that did not participate in the annual budgeting process held every spring in anticipation of the next school year. New-group money comes from a pot that this year started out at $85,000 and, at the start of the Oct. 25 meeting, stood at about $65,566.
De Klerk was the sole ALBO member who voted against the board's recommendation, saying afterward that it did not make sense to fund what seemed to be an arbitrary percentage of an issue.
"I thought we should fund them the way we fund other publications, which is fully, or to the point which they can function and publish," de Klerk said, although she added that she thought the IGL would fill in the gap left by senators.
Funding less than one full issue could have proved perilous, according to Discourse Co-Editor-in-Chief Aalok Kanani, a junior.
"Any time the number went below $7,200, there goes our publication," said Kanani, who is also a photo editor for the Daily.
The IGL did pledge the next day to help Discourse reach $7,200, according to students with the journal.
The Senate's debate over numbers marked the first treasury appeal of the semester, and confusion reigned during portions of the process. At one point, senators voted on a number with the expectation that they needed a two-thirds majority for passage, but they were forced to vote again once a person in the room pointed out — after officers had started counting votes — that only a simple majority was needed.
Discourse members had notified the Senate's Executive Board approximately 45 minutes before the meeting began that they planned to appeal ALBO's recommendation, and TCU officers did not have time to fully familiarize themselves with the relevant rules, a number of senators said.
That resulted in numerous procedural questions from senators, confusion about who could talk when and admonishments from the Senate's Executive Board when members asked questions that went against debate rules.
"No one really had time to prepare for it," said Senator Dan Pasternack, a junior.
TCU Treasurer Aaron Bartel is writing a procedural change that he will propose, requiring groups to notify the Senate of their intent to appeal at least 48 hours before the Senate meeting following the Wednesday ALBO meeting at which funding recommendations are made. Currently, there is no time restriction on groups, aside from that requiring the appeal to occur at the first Senate meeting after ALBO makes its funding recommendation for the group.
"Our rules weren't as set in stone as they should've been, but that's something we're fixing in the coming weeks," said Bartel, a sophomore.
De Klerk called the Senate's discussion "unorganized" and "a little chaotic and unprofessional."
"It was just sort of messy," she said, but she added that this fact probably did not affect the outcome. "I think considering that we wanted to hear them, and they wanted to present, we did the best with the situation."
In conversations afterward, senators said they felt the discussion could have been handled more professionally, and officers spoke at a later Executive Board meeting about how they hope this sort of situation will not arise again, according to de Klerk.
