The report addressed six complaints and allegations against the SFC and also made other findings about SFC operations not based on prior complaints.
Generally, the report concluded that in the situation with the crew team, both sides did not act professionally, which exacerbated the issue. Furthermore, the E-Board concluded that the SFC is not currently acting as their constitution dictates and suggests that efforts be made to remedy this.
Though the E-Board's report made several suggestions for improvement of the SFC, they made few firm conclusions or binding policy changes.
The inquiry and resulting report were commissioned in response to the crew team's allegations of SFC impropriety. The team "felt singled out and attacked" and "that the SFC was biased," according to SGO President Michelle Oliveros-Larsen '02.
The report's findings and recommendations were contested by several SFC members present, including Blake Sparrow '04. "The report is garbage, because it's extremely ambiguously written," he said.
Sparrow's motion to strike the report in its entirety was seconded but not voted upon, as the Senate instead chose to appoint an ad hoc committee to further review the SFC's functioning and make its own recommendations on the contents of the report.
"[The initial report] is supposed to start a conversation," said Oliveros-Larsen, encouraging the institution of the committee.
Vice President Amy Summerville '02 echoed Oliveros-Larsen's sentiments about the draft nature of the report. "It is not supposed to be a finished document," said Summerville. "There was no formal consensus on the committee, nor should there have been."
Senate member Mike Flood '03 next raised the issue of the SFC's constitutionality.
"The SFC can't ignore [their constitution] because it thinks it should be different," responded Oliveros-Larsen. "[I am unsure of] how you go about getting in line with the constitution."
SFC Chairman Will Johnson '03 declared that "there is flat-out not enough time" for the SFC to comply with the constitution in time for next semester's allocations.
The crew team's initial complaint arose out of the SFC's repeated refusal to fund $2,500 in van rentals that the team deemed vital for its ability to compete. According to Summerville, the crew team was funded prior to the completion of the investigation. "Crew was given [SGO] discretionary funding to get them through the semester," said Summerville. It was basically a decision of Michelle [Oliveros-Larsen] and Will [Johnson]."
"[I did this to take] the pressure off of the SFC, so that they wouldn't have to make a last-minute decision going into the SGO review," said Oliveros-Larsen.
As a result of the crew team allocation, the SGO is now in $300 worth of debt, according to Summerville.
In response to inquiries by senators, Oliveros-Larsen said that it would be impossible to get the athletic department to "take crew back" as a varsity team. She suggested that such an action could result in a dissolution of the team. Oliveros-Larsen stressed that the "scope of this investigation" focused on how the SFC could better handle their current operations.
The E-Board report listed six "allegations/points at issue" that they investigated, including charges of "unprofessional behavior." Though the report made extensive suggestions for the improvement and clarification of the SFC's responsibilities, it declared most of its fact-findings inconclusive.
"[I] didn't have any past records to reference ... [I] gave each club an average percentage of their request," said Irvin Rahklin '04, the SFC subcommittee chair in charge of the allocations that resulted in a cut of the crew budget and increased ski and sailing funding.
"Frankly, there was a mistake," said Johnson about the failure of the SFC to look at past allocations.
"[It is] not appropriate to look at percentages to decide what clubs need; it doesn't tell you anything," said Flood.