Student groups fearful for SAC finances

Some student groups’ “historic debt” may have contributed to the Student Activities Council’s unstable financial situation, according to former SAC chairwoman and College senior Ali Huberlie.

SAC — which funds about 300 student groups on campus ­— instituted a temporary moratorium on Jan. 13, preventing new student groups from receiving funding. Although the moratorium only affects new student groups seeking SAC recognition and funding, some SAC-recognized groups are worried about what this moratorium means for them.

Wharton senior and outgoing Treasurer of Penn Outdoors Nicholas Greif — who is also the Nomination and Elections Committee chairman — said he is concerned that this moratorium could eventually lead to reduced funding for SAC-recognized groups such as Penn Outdoors.

He cites the amount of money the University allocates to student government as one of the main factors that could lead to SAC to take even more cost-cutting initiatives.

“The current funding levels aren’t sustainable,” Greif said.

“It entirely depends on what kind of conversation SAC is having with the school itself. The [University] controls funding at the end of the day,” he added. “SAC may have to make tough choices. That’s how the math works.”

Huberlie said there are currently no plans to cut funding for groups that are already supported by SAC.

“The reason that a moratorium was established was because we thought that it would be a solution that could help us tackle the financial difficulty without hurting the groups that are our primary responsibility,” she said.

College senior and former Penn Parliamentary Debate President Tanvi Gupta, who is a former Daily Pennsylvanian columnist, said she is “not too concerned” about SAC’s current financial situation. Gupta is a former SAC executive member.

According to Greif, Penn Outdoors is well known for its large historical debt of approximately $9,000 which occurred six years ago when members of Penn Outdoors “basically embezzled from the University.”

The group has a “50-50 debt agreement [with SAC]” under which both Penn Outdoors and SAC each pay $500 annually.

SAC will not let them pay more, Grief said.

According to Greif, Penn Outdoors earned a surplus of money this year and was willing to pay more than their $500 payment but were never given a response.

“I’m sitting here with a checkbook, I’m willing to write you a check,” Greif explained.

Although Penn Parliamentary Debate — like other SAC funded groups in debt — is working every year to repay what they owe SAC, Gupta explains that the more important thing “is nipping it in the bud and not letting groups get into debt in the first place.”

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.