Skip to main content

[READY] New Group Proposal Scoring Sheet

New group proposals must score at least 20/30 points based on this scoring sheet to be approved by SGS staff. Note that the proposals that receive an AUTO-FAIL in any of the applicable categories will be denied even if the score is above threshold. Approval of a new group proposal does not mean that the group has been officially recognized. 

  UNIQUE MANDATE & SCOPE  

"How is your group different from existing clubs and programs?"

(0) | AUTO-FAIL

The proposed student group directly duplicates a pre-existing group on campus and/or campus program. If the student group has an external affiliate, the mandate and scope of the affiliate directly duplicates a pre-existing group on campus and/or campus program.

(2) | FAIR

The proposed student group demonstrates some overlap with pre-existing programs or groups on campus. The value proposed by the group would over-saturate a specific niche on campus.

(4) | GOOD

The proposed student group demonstrates some overlap with pre-existing programs or groups on campus. The value proposed by the group would complement existing efforts to fill a specific niche on campus, but the niche could be addressed by a currently existing organization. 

(6) | GREAT

The proposed student group demonstrates some overlap with pre-existing programs or groups on campus. The value proposed by the group would complement existing efforts to fill a specific niche on campus, and efforts would be enhanced by an additional organization.

(8) | EXCELLENT

The proposed student group demonstrates no overlap with pre-existing programs or groups on campus. The value proposed by the group would completely fill a specific niche not yet addressed on campus.

  CAMPUS & COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS  

"How does your group interact with and contributecreate tovalue for your members, campus, and city?"

(0) | AUTO-FAIL

The proposal does not demonstrate a contribution to or value for the University of Alberta campus or the greater Edmonton community. It only describes value for its individual members.

(2) | FAIR

The proposal demonstrates a contribution to and value for either campus or the greater community, in addition to value for its individual members.

(4) | GOOD

The proposal demonstrates a sufficient contribution to and value for campus and the greater community, in addition to value for its individual members. It describes a group that interacts with the campus community rarely.

(6) | GREAT

The proposal demonstrates a sufficient contribution to and value for campus and the greater community, in addition to value for its individual members. It describes a group that interacts with the campus community on a semi-regular basis.

(8) | EXCELLENT

The proposal demonstrates an excellent contribution to and value for campus and the greater community, in addition to value for its individual members. It describes a group that interacts with the campus community on a regular basis.

  SUSTAINABILITY  

"How will your group continue to operate and meet recognition requirements in future years?"

(0) | INSUFFICIENT

The proposal fails to address all categories, or fails to demonstrate, at minimum, sufficient understanding in all four categories.

(1) | FAIR

The proposal addresses all categories, demonstrating a sufficient understanding: recruiting and retaining members, transitions and executive turnover, resolving conflict, and democratic electoral processes.

(2) | GOOD

The proposal addresses all categories, demonstrating an advanced understanding in two topics: recruiting and retaining members, transitions and executive turnover, resolving conflict, and democratic electoral processes.

(3) | GREAT

The proposal addresses all categories, demonstrating an advanced understanding in three topics: recruiting and retaining members, transitions and executive turnover, resolving conflict, and democratic electoral processes.

(4) | EXCELLENT

The proposal addresses all categories, with an advanced understanding: recruiting and retaining members, transitions and executive turnover, resolving conflict, and democratic electoral processes.

  FINANCES  

"How will your group track and manage finances with integrity?"

(0) | INSUFFICIENT

The proposal fails to address all categories, or fails to demonstrate, at minimum, sufficient understanding in all four categories.

(1) | FAIR

The proposal addresses all categories, demonstrating a sufficient understanding: the duties and responsibilities of officers, responsible and ethical asset management, the maintenance of financial records, and long-term financial welfare.

(2) | GOOD

The proposal addresses all categories, demonstrating an advanced understanding in two topics: the duties and responsibilities of officers, responsible and ethical asset management, the maintenance of financial records, and long-term financial welfare.

(3) | GREAT

The proposal addresses all categories, demonstrating an advanced understanding in three topics: the duties and responsibilities of officers, responsible and ethical asset management, the maintenance of financial records, and long-term financial welfare.

(4) | EXCELLENT

The proposal addresses all categories, with an advanced understanding: the duties and responsibilities of officers, responsible and ethical asset management, the maintenance of financial records, and long-term financial welfare.

  EVENTS & ENGAGEMENT  

"How will your group host events that engages your membership and solidifies your group's campus identity?"

(0) | INSUFFICIENT

The proposal fails to address all categories, or fails to demonstrate, at minimum, sufficient understanding in all four categories.

(1) | FAIR

The proposal addresses all categories, demonstrating a sufficient understanding: annual timeline and event frequencies, promotional strategies, event logistics, and event(s) relation to the group’s mandate.

(2) | GOOD

The proposal addresses all categories, demonstrating an advanced understanding in two topics: annual timeline and event frequencies, promotional strategies, event logistics, and event(s) relation to the group’s mandate.

(3) | GREAT

The proposal addresses all categories, demonstrating an advanced understanding in three topics: annual timeline and event frequencies, promotional strategies, event logistics, and event(s) relation to the group’s mandate.

(4) | EXCELLENT

The proposal addresses all categories, with an advanced understanding: annual timeline and event frequencies, promotional strategies, event logistics, and event(s) relation to the group’s mandate.

  MEMBERSHIP  

"Students groups must be composed of (at least) ten student members"members."

(0) | AUTO-FAIL

The proposal petition fails to achieve the minimum of ten (10) student members, excluding the founder(s).

(1) | FAIR

The proposal petition succeeds in garnering at least ten (10) student members, excluding the founder(s).

  SELF-RELIANCE  

"Student groups are student-led initiatives, toand must be fostereddistinct andfrom gearedany towardsexternal their unique vision.affiliates."
(0) | AUTO-FAIL

The group is tied to an external organization, and is completely reliant in terms of group activities, finances, events, and leadership. The affiliate’s decision may override the group’s autonomy. The affiliate may benefit off the privileges of student groups independent of the club itself.

(1) | FAIR

The group is completely independent and has no reliance on external organizations.

 

Or the group is tied to an external organization, but the group’s relationship with the external organization is in compliance with policies set by Student Group Services.