It is a Monday night, and on the bottom floor of Logan Hall, techno music is playing.
The beat serves as background music for the countdown that is being displayed on three huge projector screens. The seconds are slowly ticking away as Simon Bland, chairman of the Student Activities Council executive committee, prepares to get another SAC general body meeting under way.
When the countdown hits zero, the eyes of SAC's 195 members focus on Bland. They are here to determine funding and recognition for almost 200 organizations scattered throughout Penn's campus.
It is the job of this general body to approve or deny the recommendations made by the executive committee. This academic year, SAC has given out $367,268 to clubs, in addition to the $128,607 it distributes throughout the year in contingency. This money comes from the $643,030 that the Undergraduate Assembly allocated for SAC's budget this year.
All SAC-recognized campus organizations submit a detailed budget every spring and are interviewed by the executive committee, who then allocate a specific amount of money to each group.
"We pretty much decide what we think is fair," Bland said.
The executive committee must base its decisions on a set of predetermined standards that are reviewed each year.
"Normally, we stick to the guidelines," Bland said, while noting that it is still "up to [the executive committee's] discretion."
Bland said that usually, the reaction from student groups is positive.
"Ninety-nine percent of the time, everyone is happy," he said.
If a club is not satisfied with the board's decision, they can make an appeal to the general assembly, which consists of representatives from all SAC-recognized groups.
But even after this lengthy process, some students still feel that some SAC decisions are biased.
College senior Alexander Ruutiainen, the president and founder of the Penn Scandinavian Society, said that he thinks the system "is a bit too skewed toward the executive committee."
Though he praised SAC as a whole, Ruutiainen called the funding process "faulty."
"They refused to recommend us for recognition, they cited that we haven't had a lot of activities that were beneficial for the student body," Ruutiainen said, adding that he was "confused" by this determination.
College senior and Penn Singers President Molly Lazer has also experienced some difficulties with SAC.
"Basically every year since I've been on the Penn Singers board, we've been getting less and less funding" from SAC, she said. "Just dealing with SAC gives people a headache."
Vice Chairwoman of the SAC executive board Naomi Berkowitz disagrees with Lazer and Ruutiainen.
"There's so many details of the process that a lot of student representatives don't understand," the College senior said.
In order to receive SAC recognition, clubs must exhibit sustainability, proven interest from the student body, strong leadership and "events that will enrich campus life," according to Berkowitz.
Though she said she "understand[s] how a typical representative might not feel comfortable within the system," she also acknowledged that "the groups who are in touch with [the executive committee] have a higher level of satisfaction."
According to a survey conducted last spring, the majority of SAC representatives say they are content with the board's performance. Sixty percent of those who participated in the survey rated the executive committee's decisions as "good" or "excellent" in terms of fairness. The statistic rose slightly to 63 percent when the students were asked to evaluate the board's effectiveness.
Michael Coyne, secretary-treasurer for Mask and Wig, said he believes that SAC is fair and effective.
"The system works very well [and] the board makes intelligent recommendations," the College senior said, adding that Mask and Wig has been "very appreciative" of SAC's services.
Berkowitz would like to see more students echo Coyne's sentiments.
"It really is unfortunate that there's a negative tone surrounding SAC," she said. "Everyone's here to facilitate opportunity, not to deny anything."
