Iowa State wants to get a lot tougher on student clubs. At least, that is the general theme of recommendations for changes to the organization recognition policy put forth by a committee of staff and students created by former Government of the Student Body President Mike Banasiak and Vice President for Student Affairs Thomas Hill.

The changes include:

• Implementing a tiered system under which some clubs would receive preferential treatment (though some do already)

• Requiring all organizations to file a constitution

• Requiring that groups give detailed descriptions of their activities and include contact information for five members every year

• Strengthening training requirements for officers and advisers

• Creating a review board with the power to classify a group by tier, accept or reject a constitution, and refuse to recognize any group

Although we understand the motivation behind some of these changes, others perplex us. What need is there for “a detailed summary of [a club’s] activities for the past year”? In its report, the committee noted that the universities it cribbed ideas from generally have more dedicated staff.

If we are understaffed as it is, creating more paperwork can’t help. It might make sense to require this of groups classified as the highest tier (“Sponsored Organizations”), but for groups below that, it seems like needless watchdogging.

One also has to wonder whether the president of the Guild of Wargamer and Roleplayers has the same training and constitutional needs as the Veishea co-chairpersons.

The biggest concern, though, is the Student Organization Recognition Board, given the responsibility of overseeing the recognition process. Its members have a great deal of power. They can declare a group is not “consistent with the broad educational mission of the university,” thus making it ineligible for recognition (Cuffs, anyone?) They are the ultimate authority on ratifying any organization’s constitution. They decide to which tier a group belongs. And they are being picked by the same people who came up with this plan.

Having an unaccountable body making such significant decisions is a bad idea. If they really are just arbiters of the rules, then the board is unnecessary. If they are to make subjective decisions about the university’s mission and the value of clubs, they should be responsive to the student body in some way, even if just via GSB appointment.

The current system is working pretty well. The university should move slowly on these proposed changes and address the concerns above. To express your own views on this issue, e-mail your thoughts to [email protected].