(not signed)

The widely used and agreed format is that for any organization listing particularly notable alumni, members, ect. in the article is OK; however, simply listing people for the sake of listing them dosen't add any meaningful content to the article as, unless the person is notable, then why would anyone else care about it.  Wikipedia is not a directly for simply listing information.  "Notable" is quite universally agreed to mean that the individual is important enough to have their own entry in Wikipedia.  So if the person isn't important enough to independently warrant their own biographical page then it's simply irrelevent to list their name in the article as having once been associated with an organization.  

In regards to the above comment attempting to establish 'notability': Being mentioned in a local student run newspaper hardly counts, in its own right, as credible evidence for establishing that someone is notable enough for the rest of the world to know, or even care, who they are.  There is some precedent for establishing a chronological 'list' catagory, separate from the article itself, for long established offices or other leadership positions when that list would contain a number of notable indivduals (see above) with links to their biograpical articiles.  In such cases, there isn't much harm in filling in the list with 'non-notable' individuals for the sake of continuity.  However, in this case as this is still a very new organization and none of the names are, yet, notable it dosen't really make much sense nor does it add any meaningful content.  Perhaps is 30 years when, potentially, some former Berry leaders have gone on to notable careers such a list would be justified, but at the moment it would essentially just consitute pointless self promotion (citing the above previous concerns that this article appears to have been mostly written by those directly associated with the topic of the article).  (R)