Running head: FUNDS DEBATE PERSPECTIVE

Funds Debate Perspective

Deric Batt
Ball State University

FUNDS DEBATE PERSPECTIVE

Funds Debate Perspective

Sometimes, there are arguments that occur within organizations that can really divide
Board and Committee members. Prior to engaging in the actual debate in the final Social Work
300 class of the semester, the issues of the allocation of funds raised from the fashion show
seemed to be something that was moving in this direction.
The general debate came in the form of a motion to allocate the funds from the fashion
show to the sponsorship committee. The reasoning made sense, as the show was orchestrated by
a Sponsorship member who claims she explicitly told the audience the funds would go towards
that cause. Personally, I do not believe this, but the whole thing is really unprovable due to the
fact that no other HUEF members attended the event (for reasons that should be explained
elsewhere).
Somehow, the funds were allocated to the general fund initially. This, I assume, is due to
the generic origins of the funds and the lack of long term support. The proxy for the Sponsorship
chair made a motion to divert these funds ($40 initially, with $10 added on to create 2
sponsorships) to sponsorships. This motion was seconded by the Vice President, creating
something of an interesting conversation.
I discussed this issue with the Funds chair, and we agreed that we did not like the concept
of sending these funds to sponsorship. The reasoning that we both came up with was that this
seemed to be against the spirit of actual sponsorships. As we understood them, sponsorships are
supposed to be a system of continuous support for AK scholars, giving them year round support
that would increase their academic potential. To our thinking, these funds would create either a
two month sponsorship for one student or two one month sponsorships for two children. The

FUNDS DEBATE PERSPECTIVE

Vice President made a relatively compelling argument that these funds could potentially hold
these children over while permanent sponsorships could be found. While this is a reasonable and
positive outlook, I do not know that that approach would be more productive than buying $50
worth of books or pencils or paper for these students.
The goal, for me, is to always create the maximum impact for the maximum number of
people. At that, I can clearly see how sponsorship can create a very positive impact, as $25
dollars a month (using our sponsorship system, compared to the $20 sponsorships the larger
organization offers) is potentially life changing for children in Hoima. Still, I cannot help but
think that, given only a guaranteed two month commitment, that $50 would be better spent
purchasing lasting tools to create a positive outcome for the whole group.