It’s a miserable Monday, but CCSC is refreshed from Fall Break and ready to make your day brighter and replete with spreadsheets. Nadra Rahman reports.

CCSC is out here getting that bread

Last night, CCSC worked on tying up loose ends, revisiting issues that had been raised in previous meetings. The main course was a discussion on the co-sponsorship process, and how and whether student groups should approach CCSC. Also on the menu: fundraising, Programming Board proposals, and constitutional amendments.

Again, CCSC Has A Budget

This time, we got to see the actual budget! Or at least, a terse, 8 line spreadsheet explaining how much money is left in CCSC’s surplus. If you’ve been following the news, you know that student council has been approached by an unprecedented number of student groups this year for co-sponsorships, and while they accommodated many of the early requests, they’ve come to be more stingy. After all, according to the spreadsheet, the council has about $5,000 left in its surplus (once you take out contributions to Bacchanal, overdrafts from last year, increased funding for class councils, and so on)—do we want all of that to go to student groups, which already have diverse avenues for accessing funds? The surplus has also been used for a metrocard fund and a subsidized farmshare this semester, showcasing its potential.

VP Finance Adam Resheff asserted that the budget is in “good health,” but reiterated his comments from past weeks that CCSC is not suited for large co-sponsorships of student group events. He pointed out that groups are meant to get money from their governing boards, and when additional funding is needed, they can access JCCC, the Capital Investment Fund, governing board co-sponsorships, and various grants and funds set up by administrative offices. He said that providing funding to student groups approaching CCSC is “in some ways redundant, and in some ways a financial strain I’m not sure we can take on.”

He, along with VP Campus Life Sim Mander, suggested some alternatives to the current status quo. Mander advocated for a two-step co-sponsorship process, whereby student groups that want to collaborate with CCSC can approach the Campus Life committee first, which would vet the application before it reached the general body. This would (a) achieve the goal of CCSC actually being part of the planning and execution of an event, which is the aim for a Campus Life co-sponsored event, and (b) reduce the amount of time spent on co-sponsorships in general body.

While Resheff thought there was merit to this, he was also wary of taking on additional (financial) obligations. For him, the Platonic ideal of a CCSC co-sponsorship would be the mere provision of publicity. But he did wonder—did they need to increase allocations to governing boards? To JCCC?

Together, the group also discussed ways to publicize other funding sources to student groups; Resheff mentioned that there had been talk of creating a single, centralized application for funding, so that student groups could easily see the streams for which they were eligible. This application would be housed on the Undergraduate Student Life page and CCSC’s own website.

To close this section of the meeting out, President Jordan Singer jotted down the names of those interested in drafting new language on the co-sponsorship process for the Constitution and bylaws. Though completely tangential, it may be of interest to note that Resheff characterized the F@CU process two years ago as “a complete shitshow on every level.”

Again, That’s A No For Bacchanal

A few weeks ago, Council had deliberated over the focus they would suggest for future alumni fundraising; they eventually settled on recommending “student needs” as the area towards which contributions would go. In support of this, CCSC is in the process of drafting a survey that would help them determine what student needs actually are. So far, the survey has broad categories (like Public Spaces, Mentorship Activities) under which subcategories are listed. Last night, members pored over a draft and shared insights, both high-level and incredibly pedantic.

Resheff, Champion of Bacchanal, was shot down again as he suggested adding the event to the list of surveyed categories. VP Policy Elise Fuller gently rebuked him, reminding him that they were focusing on student needs, not campus traditions.

The conversation about engaging the student body on the survey was more robust. 2020 Rep Patricia Granda Malaver asked if they could reach out to identity-based student groups affected by some of the surveyed categories, so they could ask for their input on what to include in subcategories. Other members agreed, and VP Communications Isabella Lajara recommended a supplementary town hall. With regards to publicizing the survey, Singer said the path for maximum engagement was one of door-to-door canvassing and tabling. 2019 President Mina Mahmood even suggested a competition by class, so that the class council that facilitated the most survey responses would receive an additional $5,000 in funding.

Members then volunteered to attend future Communications meetings to provide more input into the drafting of the survey.

Carnivals And Quorum

With minimal discussion, CCSC voted to approve the body’s Programming Board proposal. This proposal consists of campus traditions that student council hopes to kickstart, from a LitHum dinner for freshman to a Core-themed carnival for seniors. Initially, CCSC would support and execute these events, but eventually, they will largely become the responsibility of the Dean’s Office as they become campus traditions.

To close out the meeting, Council voted to approve Constitutional amendments that would align it with changes to the bylaws made earlier this year; these changes made it so a ⅔ majority is required for most votes. Though everyone was on board, the proceedings were delayed by the unexpected departure of Alumni Affairs Rep Joyce Tan, which caused the meeting to lose quorum. Collapsing into hysterical laughter, members called the often-absent Tan back into the room so voting could commence. Well, you know the result: it was unanimous.