To openly complain about the funds the Chronicle received from SGA this year would be not be prudent on several levels. Not only did we receive a considerable amount of money, both in terms of sheer numbers and the percentage of what we originally asked, but we were also given even more money. However, what we, as a publication, do have an issue with is the rationale for our funding. Unlike seemingly every other independent publication on campus, we were not granted the full cost of printing for the year. This, we would assume, was because unlike seemingly every other independent publication on campus, we are able to sell ads at such a rate as to cover the cost accrued by printing throughout the year.

We understand this.

What we don’t understand is how we can be expected to sell ads when what should be our primary revenue stream, SGA-sanctioned clubs, is essentially cut off from us because of a part of the SGA Policy Series that requires the Chronicle, and the Chronicle alone, to be subject to the following restriction: “All SGA clubs are allowed any combination up to one-half (1/2) page per academic year.” What this means, essentially, is that the roughly 150 SGA clubs find themselves in possession of what amounts to approximately $34,000 in lost revenue, as each half page ad given for free to the clubs would cost $225 otherwise.

That is $34,000 that could be spent not only on printing, but things like cameras and trips for reporters who are looking to do simple things essential to a properly run newspaper as covering away games for the Sports section. We aren’t necessarily asking for the $34,000 from SGA to replace the lost revenue-although we’d most certainly appreciate it-nor are we asking to toss aside of the sentiment that is the underlying motivation of the SGA Policy. Rather, we propose a plan that would allow the Chronicle to tap into an extremely important market for ad revenues, revenues that allow the paper to be produced every week.

Instead, we feel it would be in the best interest of all involved, that instead of requiring us, the Chronicle, to give away pivotal ad space-it is extremely important to understand how crucial such space is to the Chronicle’s very existence, as without it we could not run the paper-not essentially but literally, for free, it should be the job of the SGA to subsidize such things.

Although there are several ways this could be done, perhaps the easiest and least time-consuming would be to give each group the amount for such ads which are currently being given away for free.

A $225 subsidy put into each club’s budget, with an encumbrance on said funds that requires them to be spent that amount on ads in the Chronicle. This would not only benefit our publication, for obvious reasons, but a reasonable person would assume that if clubs had $225 which they were required to spend on something, they would likely spend it on such a thing as publicity. Although we don’t have the most comprehensive understanding of how money flows from year-to-year at the University, whatever encumbered money would likely be cycled back to the students in one way or another, whether it be incorporated back into an SGA general fund or another program that benefits students on campus.

Essentially, such a program would not only help facilitate the Chronicle meeting our printing costs, but also increase the use of advertising on campus, which would more than likely lead to increased attendance at the many many events that take place on campus every week.

And at the end of the day, is that the goal of the SGA in the first place?

The preceding editorial is unsigned as it represents the views of The Chronicle’s collective editorial staff, not the opinions of any individual author.