tl19731005-000 "towerlight Volume XXVII No. 5 Towson State College October 5, 1973 Towson, Md. 21204 Policy and dance funds approved by Sue DeBolt Senators approved a new financial policy plus allocated $2,840 for the October 20 Homecoming Dance. Student Government President Rick Danoff said that he devised the policy to include a section on mini-grants to avoid the state tax, and to include requirements that organizations must submit inventory lists and officer's names or budgets will be frozen. Otherwise, it remains the same as the former policy. Although questions arose over the $1,000 allocated for decorations, the Senate voted $2,840 for the dance. Sophomore class president Clarke Porter proposed a Homecoming concert with Badfinger on October 21, but Senate voted against the proposal. Bob Arnold brought up the idea of future concerts with better groups. Supplemental budgets again came up as Senate allocated $200 - to the Ancient Arts and Armaments Club but sent an American Marketing Association request for $804.25 to the Student Services Fee Governing Board. Senators first questioned the necessity of $527 for publicity purposes but association members explained that it was not necessarily a college based organization, and needed more money for such purposes. They also emphasized that they were just getting off the ground and there was a need to make the community aware of the club. Since there was only approximately $1,300 in the Senate budget, the request was sent to SSFGB. A bill proposed by David Nevins concerning Senate Action was withdrawn by him when several Senators expressed the belief that the bill would only cause more paper work. Nevins first explained that there was a need for better enforcement of bills, and called for progress reports by bill sponsors. Arnold stressed the need that all Senators must have a knowledge of what is going on, plus if a Senator voted for a bill, he then has the responsibility of making sure it functions. SSFGB undergoes major change by Bryan Harness Fee policy changes at Towson have resulted in a major change for the Student Services Fee Governing Board. Last year, the $60 student fee was handled largely by the SSFGB. This year, however, due to the change in the Student Fee Policy, SSFGB has found that it now controls only five percent of the Student Fee. As a result of this change, SSFGB now acts, according to Chairman George Mattingly, as a body to reward areas of the college for outstanding services to the college and denies reward to areas mat are not serving students well. In addition, it serves as an auditory body overseeing the student fee funded areas of the college."" Need student input ""What we're looking for now,"" Mattingly continued, is a good student input. If an area comes to fee board, and the students feel that that area is doing a lousy job, then they can say no, we're not going to give you the money�. Mattingly also expressed concern that the current funding resources are not being used Properly, a fact which he attributed largely to the current Percentage breakdown of the fees. He expressed the belief that the Student Government areas have more money than they need, and that they are wasting a great deal of it. ""I think that the whole problem in the student area is not a problem of people spending money maliciously it's that they don't know what is available. This situation is going to change, however, in that Wayne Schelle's assistant Bob Wolfe is going to work with the student areas on precisely these kinds of problems.."" Mattingly added. Funds wasted Mattingly further lamented the wasting of funds, saying, ""the real pity is that student areas waste their funds while other areas like Day Care really need the money, and it isn't there to give them."" There is a new system with a form that requires the requesting organization to provide historical funding data, and comparative data that will require them to give their actual budget funding for the last three years. Funding information Additionally, the form requests that the organizations provide the SSFGB with , funding information from three similar organizations at public colleges or Universities with fulltime enrollments similar to Towson's. The form will also ask for the cost per student contract hour, and how the additional money will help the organization better something for the students, or, should the requested allocation not be granted. what decreases in student services can be expected as well. ""This form,"" said Mattingly ""will give us the information We need to make an intelligent decision."" In the past, SSFGB had made what Mattingly described as ""gut decisions. . .it would vote on one or two line memos from organizations saying 'we need $6,500 for 'X' because we need it."" The form will also provide the SSFGB with records of previous allocations. Not enough monies The only negative aspect that Mattingly saw in the new policy was that he felt the administration had used poor financial planning in accepting SGA President Rick Danoff's proposals, not, he said, because SSFGB had only been given five percent of the fees, but because they failed to provide enough monies for those areas which were removed from SSFGB controls. As examples, he cited the Day Care Center, which received only $8,500 this year, but needed $15,000 just to take care ot current services, and the athletic area, which is short on money for funding its recreational areas. Mattingly indicated that the new SSFGB policy will allow it to act with greater ability under the contemporary situation that Towson has become. ""The board is at the present time operating without a definitive document, but really with the verbal consent of the President of the College, and operating in this manner, we feel directly responsible to the President for our actions,"" he said. Article corrected In the September 28. 1973 issue of Towerlight, the article on 120 credits should refer to P-DNC rather than 1'-DC in the discussion of alternatives to the proposal wording. Senior class president Chris Homecoming funds. photo by Buddy Rehrey Connolly calls for Mini-grant questioned by Sue DeBolt Mini-grant was designed to aid in the improvement of courses, development of new courses and-or new techniques. The program met with controversy at the first Senate meeting this year when Senator Bob Arnold questioned the workings of the grant. At the September 26 Senate meeting, he proposed a bill to set up a committee to study those workings only to see that bill vetoed by Student Government Association President Rick Danoff. Danoff to submit bill Danoff ,now plans to submit a bill which calls for the Senate to establish a committee to study the quality of work submitted by students receiving mini-grants, and. that the committee make recommendations to the quality examiners. Bob Arnold has been proposed as the head of the committee with the number of members left to his discretion, and to be confirmed by Senate. The mini-grants are approved by a six-member committee designated by the Senate. Applications are submitted to that committee, and must explain the project. Established guidelines to determine which project will be funded include a call for greater emphasis upon student-directed study and learning. experimentation with television and video tape techniques to provide more efficient group and individualized instruction. experimentation with the undergraduates as part of the instructional team, development of multi-disciplinary courses. and developing other new approaches to learning and teaching. Andy Eble chaired last year's committee which rejected two proposals, and accepted projects by David J. Perkoski and Craig Schloer. John Matzke. and Jesse G. Harris III. Three projects accepted Perkoski and Schloer received $1.000 to work on a ""Course Guide Development'� to determine practical methods of evaluating classroom instruction. Art Education major Matzke is working on the development of a techniques course ""Plastics as Art Materials"" with his $500. Allocated $500. Harris is seeking to study SGA Leadership Course Development. All requests have an established completion date. and must be approved by a quality examiner However, SGA Vice President Allen Mosley called for more study of the completion of work done for the grant. He said that there was no way of getting worth out of the program as nothing was in writing. "
