An effort by the Colorado College Student Government Association to supplement event funding in response to controversy about $12,322 awarded to PlayHard Productions for their Ice Age event has gone mostly un-utilized.


“In response to concerns regarding large event funding, we are launching a campaign called ‘12,322,’” the student government said in a Nov. 19 email to campus. “CCSGA has pledged to award a total of $12,322 to help student organizations throw various great events in the coming months. We encourage all student groups to submit proposals for this initiative.”


So far, only two groups have applied for funding under the initiative.


Since the recent announcement of the $12,322 grant to PlayHard Productions, students have flooded CC Confessions with enraged posts fueling the campus-wide controversy and attack on CCSGA.


Now, though, the CCSGA has every reason to write up their own complaints against their critics who fell silent after the their all-campus email addressing the previous coverage of the PlayHard budget grant.


Instead of plugging their ears to complaints, the CCSGA responded in two ways, mainly by funding outreach groups that are generally underfunded because their special events do not directly deal with campus life, and thus cannot appeal to the CCSGA for money.


The Nov. 19 email — which CCSGA said was  ‘in response to the recent Catalyst article regarding the CCSGA approval of $12,322 for PlayHard’s ICE AGE’ — included a detailed description of why PlayHard received the money that they did.


In response to the funding controversy, Student Body President Isaac Green and Vice President of Finance Alejandro Salazar contacted the Collaborative for Community Engagement office, which oversees these outreach groups, and learned which of the outreach groups needed funding.


BreakOut, a subsidiary of the ORC, for example, was awarded $4,000 to increase the number of trips they send out.


The other means by which the CCSGA addressed student concerns was the creation of “The $12,322 Initiative,” which serves as an effort to address the concerns of other student groups and, more importantly, promote more student group-run special events on campus.


“We realize that several groups were saying that the money could be used differently, and that they could use the $12,000 we gave to PlayHard to do x, y, and z,” said Salazar. “The idea of the Initiative is to allow student groups to propose and execute those event ideas.”


The money for this will — like the $12,322 given to PlayHard — come from the Special Events Funding account of CCSGA’s budget, which was recently increased with the discovery of an additional $400,000.


Unlike the regular application, which clubs must submit to be considered for a special events grant, clubs only have to submit an event proposal rather than what is required for yearly club funding proposals. The CCSGA will then work with the group to make sure that idea is successfully brought to life in a cost-efficient manner.


At its core, the Initiative should make access to special events funding more accessible and appealing to clubs, CCSGA leaders hope. It would make sense, then, that the CCSGA would be overwhelmed with applications after sending out the email explaining this Initiative.


However, that has not been the case.


In fact, only two clubs so far have applied for special events funding under the Initiative, one of which will not receive funding because their request does not fall under special events.


“So far, the Initiative has not promoted any ideas despite all the controversy,” Salazar said. “It’s quite frustrating because we gave a venue to apply for money, but no one took it.”

The only increase Salazar noted in the single application up for consideration was an increase in the amount of money a club had already asked for.






Elizabeth Forster

Staff Writer



Leave a Reply