For the first time in 10 years, the Student Government Association’s Court of Review evaluated all 130 student organizations this semester. To do this, the court drafted a review process that included a questionnaire that each organization’s leaders had to complete and return by Nov. 6.

Everyone from the Beggars fraternity to the Croquet Society was required to fill out the same seven-page questionnaire.

The questionnaire asked specific questions like the name of each member, and more general questions like the organization’s “purpose” and “How does the organization commit itself to this ideal?’

According to Donald D’Aunoy Jr., a political science senior and member of the nine-person court, the review process is designed to assess what each organization is doing so that it can accomplish what is stated in the organization’s constitution.

The Court of Review said the overall goal of the review process is to make each organization stronger. D’Aunoy said this review “contributes positively to campus life because the process makes sure that organizations are acting in a way conducive to Loyola’s goals and values.”

Failing the review does not mean that the organization can no longer exist.

The court simply makes recommendations to the organization and to congress, and only congress can revoke a charter, D’Aunoy said.

However, D’Aunoy was pleased with the results of the evaluation.

“Overall, all of the organizations do a good job at setting forth with what they set out to do,” said D’Aunoy.

But the process has received criticism from some of the organizations.

Trevor Kidd, history junior and president of Loyola’s chapter of Amnesty International, questioned how the court can posses the expertise to evaluate an organization that they are not part of.

Although his group was approved, Kidd said that he still does not feel that the process was worth the time and effort student leaders were asked to put into it.

“Charter review gave no insights into how my group could be improved and proved to be a waste of the group’s time,” Kidd said.

Drama communications senior and chief justice Coby Nathanson concedes that, since this is the first year in a while that the review process has been undertaken, the questionnaire may not be perfect and may not apply specifically to each organization.

“It [the questionnaire] is consistently being revamped,” Nathanson said.

The Standard of Expectation for Charter Review which will be renamed the “Golden Standard” establishes review criteria that each organization should provide to the court.

For example, each organization must provide a list of its executive board, and the group must make positive, concrete contributions to Loyola.

The review also requires that groups meet regarly according to the type of organization. For example, an honor society would not be expected to meet as often as a service society.

Also, at least 40 percent of the organization’s members “must be considered active.”

And though any organization is free to establish the criteria on which to select membership, the recruiting procedure should be free of malicious discrimination, such as excluding people based on race or ethnicity, the court’s rules say.

Admittedly, some of the organizations failed their review over requirements as simple as not providing a member list, D’Aunoy said.

Patrick McDermott, communications junior and Art and Sciences representative, said that all but one of his constituent groups turned in their applications.

“I don’t know what that’s about,” McDermott said.

The court also encountered problems with campus groups not filling out the questionaire completely.

“A lot of people don’t want to do it because they see it as extra work,” D’Aunoy commented.