Duke Student Government will vote Wednesday on an amendment that would eliminate the bylaw requiring the Student Organization Funding Committee to fund 100 percent of the Chanticleer's budget. Such an amendment will put the funding of all student groups on a more level playing field, may actually benefit the Chanticleer in the long-run and should be passed.
The Chanticleer claims that cutting its funding--limiting the amount of its budget that DSG can fund to 75 percent and requiring the organization to fund the remaining 25 percent, the way all other student groups' budgets are funded--would severely limit its ability to produce the annual yearbook.
However, by funding 100 percent of the Chanticleer's budget DSG is giving the Chanticleer an unfair advantage over other student organizations that must fundraise to cover a percentage of their costs. The Chanticleer is the only organization with an exception to this rule, and it is unfair and unnecessary.
Eliminating the bylaw would also encourage fiscal responsibility on the Chanticleer's part, and it would give SOFC more money to allocate to other organizations that are currently under-funded. All other student groups must draw their budgets according to their ability to fundraise the unfunded portion while the Chanticleer can submit any budget and receive guaranteed funding.
The burden of cutting the Chanticleer's budget by 25 percent would also not be nearly as substantial as the Chanticleer seems to perceive it to be. The Chanticleer is in a position to easily come up with the remaining 25 percent of its budget without having to resort to the same kind of fundraising other organizations might.
In 2003 SOFC allocated $126,580 to the Chanticleer. Under the new proposal, the Chanticleer could instead receive $94,935. Spreading the loss of $31,645 over the 4,600 copies published annually, the Chanticleer could charge $6.88 per copy and recoup the 25 percent of lost funding.
Although students may not be willing to pay a fee for their yearbook as it is currently produced, the loss of funding could serve as a catalyst for the Chanticleer to reevaluate its product and encourage an improvement in the quality of the publication. If the Chanticleer strove to be what many other college yearbooks are--one with student group photos, coverage of school events and actual information rather than simply a few pictures on a page--than students would be much more willing to pay a small price to own one.
If the Chanticleer does not want to begin charging students for something that has traditionally been free, or if it feels that it will not be able to sell enough to make up the cost, it should seriously consider including advertising.
This could include commercial advertising, but should also focus on student-bought advertisements where parents or groups of friends could run advertisements congratulating graduating seniors.
Advertising space in a quality yearbook can easily raise enough money to fund the remaining 25 percent of their budget.
Other universities use methods such as this to fund their yearbooks, and there is no reason why it could not be successful for the Chanticleer as well.
This way, students can have a high-quality yearbook that they will keep and cherish as a memory of college and DSG will be fairly allocating funding for student groups. Thus, DSG should pass the amendment Wednesday, reevaluate the way the Chanticleer is funded and hopefully encourage an improvement in the quality of the publication.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.