In response to your editorial "Club Proposal Concerns" (March 12, 2013):

Like the editorial board, we too are excited about a change in the club structure at Brandeis, which will improve collaboration, communication and fiscal efficiencies for all clubs.
In your editorial, you presented a number of questions that must be answered before any new plan is voted. We understand that these questions are ones that are a concern to many club leaders, including ourselves. As we mentioned in the presentation to the Senate, this proposal is still a work in progress and we appreciate the input we have received.

Prior to answering your questions, we want to reiterate that the primary objective of this proposal is not to save money and cut wasteful spending; rather, the ultimate goal is to create a culture of collaboration, communication, shared ideas and organization. The fact that money will be saved and used more efficiently is a mere by-product of the proposal. Therefore, even if no money is saved, the execution of the plan will be successful given that it creates a new culture on campus of communication and organization among clubs. This clarification of the overarching goal also leads to a greater understanding of the role of the Council members: while there is a financial aspect to their job descriptions, their main roles will be to foster a community of clubs with similar interests and needs through programming, advice and dialogue.

In response to your concern of how "it is unclear how this plan actually remedies the current situation," it must be noted that by having 275 independent and disconnected clubs, there is no structure ensuring that clubs communicate with each other and share ideas and resources. By grouping them in associations, a system that promotes a norm of communication and collaboration will be created, thereby improving the overall student life. This is our goal.

You also note: "If the council deems these requests illegitimate, the club, according to the plan, can still go directly to the F-Board and request the funds they seek. In theory, all that is being accomplished is adding an extra layer of decision-making and approval seeking." This is a misunderstanding. Early and regular marathon requests will always go through the council. However, in the event that a club feels that it was misrepresented or mistreated by the council, they will be able to appeal the decision directly to the F-Board. This direct request will only be available during appeals. This is an extra layer of protection of the proper treatment of the autonomous clubs within an association.

In your editorial, you present a number of questions regarding the makeup of the councils and how the council members are elected. This process needs clarification.

The council will be comprised of seven individuals. Two seats will be reserved: one for someone representing a secured club and another for a representative of an unchartered club. The other five seats are available to anyone who can run as individuals, not representatives of the clubs to which they belong. Each club within an Association will have one vote per seat-seven votes in total. By nature of the fact that they run as individuals (and not club members), the Council members will serve as a representative of the clubs within the association, not merely the club to which they belong. Regarding the concern of a Council member having his or her own club interests at heart: during allocations meetings with the clubs, if a council member feels that there is a conflict of interest, then that person can remove himself or herself. This same process is done by the current F-Board with great success and honesty; consequently, we anticipate similar results with the councils.

The discretionary/emergency funds will be made available for use within certain guidelines established by the association. Additionally, in the event that these funds run out, the Council can request additional funding from Finance Board. F-Board's decision of whether or not to allocate additional discretionary/emergency funds to a council will be based on a review of the worthiness, efficiency and effectiveness of the council's prior spending.

Another concern raised is the feasibility of dividing every club into 12 associations. We, the planning committee, were able to successfully (and tentatively) place every club into an appropriate and fitting association. While many clubs have broad scopes, we anticipate that every club will be able to fit into one group. In this plan, if a club does not feel they belong to a specific one, they can petition to switch associations. Similarly, this plan does not prohibit clubs from cosponsoring events with clubs in other associations. For instance, TAMID: Israel Investment Group would be placed in the Pre-Professional/Academic Association but will be free to work closely with not only the clubs in its Association with which it shares similar goals and missions, but also with the culture clubs as well.

We, in conversations that we have had with various members of staff and administration, believe that there is significant interest from current staff and faculty members to serve as association advisers. Such positions could also be offered to graduate students as well.

These advisers will by no means threaten the autonomy of the individual clubs or the associations. This was made very clear in the proposal's text. The role of an adviser is to provide professional and expert input to the club leaders and Councils. However, it must be stressed that the clubs will never be required to adhere to the advice of the adviser. This dynamic is in place with the current F-Board, which has Stephanie Grimes present at all allocations meetings. While she is able to provide professional input, the F-Board is by no means required to follow it. And it doesn't always. But it must be noted that with her insight and guidance, F-Board allocations have never been this efficient. Therefore, while the adviser can serve as a great asset to the association and its clubs, the position will not threaten the autonomy of the student-run clubs.

We believe that this adequately answers your questions and provides you with a great understanding of the proposal's goals of creating a culture of collaboration, communication and organization that will be able to sustain the number and quality of clubs we have at Brandeis.

In the next couple weeks, we will be releasing the finalized version of the proposal to the student body and will be hosting a forum for any comments and concerns.

We look forward to continuing this conversation further.

David Clements '14 is the treasurer of the Student Union and one of the architects of the new club proposal.