With that being said, however, the “Renewal or Continuation of ASUO Recognized Status” section is troubling, as it specifically states that the RRC will inherit the PFC’s responsibility to perform a “review of [existing fee-funded] student group mission and goals as well as recent program and fiscal history.” There is no mention of verifying that existing groups are “advantageous to the cultural or physical development of students,” but I would guess that this responsibilty is presumed to be a part of the annual review of a group’s mission and goals.

Wilbur quoted me after I had just learned of the memo and not fully read it, so I think I overreacted at first. At the moment I doubt this change gives the ASUO Executive any additional leverage against student groups it dislikes. Indeed, on the surface it appears to take leverage away from the Exec. But the fact that the RRC could potentially change every year at the whim of each incoming president is a bit troubling. Whatever the case, it’s another committee that’ll soak up money and resume space.

As far as Wilbur’s story goes, he quoted me accurately and gave me a chance to read over the memo before responding. I must say, though, that the sentence which first mentions my name is worded oddly. It may give the appearance that I’m skeptical that our “student group’s stated mission and goals” are compatible with “the insititution’s broader educational mission.” That certainly isn’t the case. I’m just skeptical of how that wording will be applied by the RRC.

I’d post the full memo but I’m in a bit of a rush this morning. Apologies for any incoherence/errors.