Clubs voice frustrations with UOFC funding

For many student clubs, the process of applying for funding from the Undergraduate Organizations Funding Committee (UOFC) is usually pretty straightforward: they apply, they wait, they're rejected or rewarded for their effort. This year, though, some have found it a harrowing experience, full of miscommunication, unanswered questions, and, ultimately, disappointment.

Ethel Higonnet, BR '00, co-chair of the Yale Accords, a conference modeled on the Middle East peace process, described how her group applied for funding last semester, only to hear nothing from the committee. "The implication was that if you fill out the application correctly, if your organization is doing something important, you get money if you need it--and that's a totally good premise," she said.

Higonnet was upset when she later discovered the application had been tabled as incomplete. The UOFC had never bothered to inform her. "It's just really irresponsible," she said. "It is one thing to table the application because you think the organization does not deserve funding. It
is another simply not to give any explanation." The
Yale Accords is now in the process of filling out its third funding application.

Higonnet remains frustrated with the way the funding process quickly crumbled into a breakdown in communication. "I honestly think they're doing the best they can to help undergraduate organizations, but it's a mystery to me," she said. "There seems to be a fundamental structural problem."

UOFC Chair Adiya Dixon, BR '00, insisted that communication was never a problem. She said she had worked extensively with members of the Yale Accords, both when the application was initially tabled as incomplete and in all subsequent revisions. Dixon explained that the Accords requested $2,000 for one event, an unusually large amount for the UOFC, which is only authorized to give a maximum of $500 a semester to any one organization. Dixon claimed that she emphasized to the organization that its request was "unprecedented, against the guidelines."

Dixon also stressed that although applicants were notified about their status at the beginning of the process by
the committee and periodically contacted by phone and e-mail, it was the organizations' responsibility to check the UOFC website (www.yale.edu/uofc) for updates and the final notification.

"Our letters are really to confirm that the groups understand the allocation based on the decision, not as the first-line source of information," Dixon explained. "The information is all on the web, and as soon as we get results, we turn them in and contact the organizations."

Many times, however, organizations can do all the right things and still be left with empty bank accounts. According to Rebecca Pace, BR '00, an organizer for the Yale chapter of Amnesty International, her group applied for funding last fall and was never informed that the application had been processed or even received.

Pace said she asked UOFC members how she could keep track of Amnesty's application and was told to check the committee's website. But although Pace checked repeatedly, Amnesty was never even listed.

At the beginning of this term, Pace finally found out the reason for the delay. Since Amnesty is still not a recognized student organization, it is not eligible for UOFC funding according to Committee on Undergraduate Organizations regulations. But Amnesty was never informed that its application was ineligible. "Despite our repeated emails and inquiries, we received no communication at all about the status of our application," Pace said.

If Amnesty had been notified earlier, Pace believes the organization would have had a chance to reapply for funding. Instead, Amnesty got nothing. "In past years, the UOFC has notified organizations when their applications were tabled," Pace observed. "I wonder why this process was discontinued, and I hope that the new UOFC board will return to this more organized and fair system. If we had been notified of the problem with our application, we could have corrected the error and reapplied. Unfortunately, we were not notified and were unable to raise funds last semester."

In this case, too, Dixon insists there wasn't any miscommunication regarding the funding process. Amnesty is still not listed as an approved undergraduate organization, and Dixon claims the UOFC does not even have Amnesty's funding application.

Dean of Student Affairs Betty Trachtenberg is both concerned and surprised by the problems encountered by Amnesty International and the Yale Accords. "We don't need any sort of fundamental reforms with the UOFC funding and communications process, [but] we have obviously been remiss in not communicating with those groups," she said. "From what I can guess there is some glitch, although this is the first instance of such a complaint that I have heard."

UOFC members believe the main reason for the confusion is that newer campus organizations are unaware of the intricacies of the funding process. An anonymous member remarked,"Generally, certain people are informed, certain ones aren't, and it tends to be the newer organizations that aren't as aware. However, we do try to give all groups the benefit of the doubt."

Back to News...