[77] in UA Discuss
Re: UA budgeting principles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ted Hilk)
Fri Nov 6 13:03:47 2009
In-Reply-To: <4AF455A5.9080006@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:03:37 -0500
From: Ted Hilk <thilk@MIT.EDU>
To: "Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer)" <ua-treasurer@mit.edu>
Cc: ua-senate@mit.edu, ua-discuss@mit.edu
--001485f7c1dcc7cf340477b7a90f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
As I stated earlier, I would be averse to cutting back on events and
projects that benefit many people (e.g. things like what special projects
and sustainability are doing, among *many* others) in favor of more closed
ones (from student groups) that tend to benefit fewer people. I would like
to see costs for athletics weekend reduced substantially, though, as I also
mentioned, because its rather high expenses seem disproportionate to the
degree of benefit that it provides.
Also, I emphatically do not like the idea of requiring individual Senators
to pay for the food at Senate/committee meetings (as would be implied by the
"collection bucket" that you cited above), since Senate meetings are open to
the public and providing food might help draw people in and get them to pay
more attention to UA issues, and because (since they are public), individual
Senators should not have to personally cover costs for everyone wishing to
attend. This problem of a shared commons could conceivably apply within the
UA as well. Anyway, when was the last time student groups as a whole did
this at all of their meetings? Not one or two sporadic cases, but all of
them? It is unreasonable to force us into this when the organizations to
which the surplus funding would be transferred do not and will not do
anything like it.
Regardless, since many committees act primarily on policy matters, the
proportion of their individual budgets spent on food is completely
irrelevant. By your standard, a committee that spent no money on food but
$10,000 on an event would be considered superior to one that spent $150 on
food, no money on anything else, and singlehandedly convinced a key
administrative committee to consider more student input. Obviously, such a
budgetary standard is flawed.
Anyway, if the extra money were allocated to student groups, much of it
would just go toward paying for food at their events, which tend to be much
less public and much less ecumenical. Implementing a standardization system
for Senate/committee meetings would have a lot of pitfalls, from inflation
to the number of meetings per committee to disagreements about what
constitutes sufficient funding per meal to what time of day the meetings are
held. Additionally, I suspect that the person implementing the system would
have a vested interest in decreasing expenditures, which would bias the
process significantly. Lastly, we're not even dealing with particularly
significant amounts of money in the first place here -- why not focus on
bigger, less contentious sources of cost savings?
I am curious about why ASA specifically has such massive food expenses,
though -- I'm not involved enough with it personally to know the answer to
this, but I would like to. Also, if we can't hand off PLUS by next year, I
would like to see its allocations significantly reduced as I said earlier --
it is way too expensive for the number of people participating in it, and I
feel that doing so would be a good example of conceivably significant
benefit to student groups without serious detriment to services rendered to
the student body as a whole by the UA.
As the above would imply, I'm not opposed to increasing student group
allocations when it can be done without causing issues for the UA or forcing
us to cut back on things that benefit everyone, but I am opposed to doing so
when such effects occur as a result. I am also opposed to any attempts to
do so unilaterally -- that is, without the full and well-informed support of
Senate. You asked for guidance. I had already mentioned a number of these
things in previous messages, but since you seem to be implying that I must
not care if I do not restate myself, I have done so.
Ted
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) <
ua-treasurer@mit.edu> wrote:
> I guess nobody cares that much? I don't need guidance, but I think Senate
> giving me guidance soon would be really productive (and would make the
> budgeting meetings less painful). Unfortunately, committee chairs have
> already started giving me budgets (and the budget deadline was supposed to
> be last night and is now Saturday night), so we're already towards the end
> of the useful interval, but some discussion, consensus-building, and maybe
> even a resolution on Monday would still be useful.
>
>
> ~~Alex
>
> Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Spring budgeting will be starting
>> up shortly --- committee chairs just received the budget request, and then
>> I'll assemble a budget in the next week or two.
>>
>> A brief (and rather incomplete) summary of the thread so far:
>> * SBC: Contact Paul (ua-speaker@mit.edu) (and, ideally, me ---
>> ua-treasurer@mit.edu) if you'd like to be especially involved in the
>> spring budget
>> * PLUS was something the UA could get started and then hand off
>> * Focus on student groups: "there is a natural, institutional bias toward
>> spending the money ourselves" that should be counteracted
>> * On the other hand, do special projects like the produce market
>> benefit more people than a BBQ on Kresge or something does?
>> * Move fall budgeting back to the spring?
>> * Move elections to the spring?
>> * Food
>> * Collection jar for Senate food?
>> * 14% of budget?
>> * Necessary incentive for committees?
>> * (Some?) class councils don't do it
>> * A lot of variety on how much committees request --- look at spending
>> this semester and standardize?
>> * Class councils... exist. (Read that thread if you want more...)
>>
>> I have semi-intentionally didn't include names in the above --- if you
>> want more details, I encourage you to find the original messages --- as
>> a bonus, you may see tidbits that your didn't remember.
>>
>> Anyway... if any of those discussions are worth continuing, feel free. I
>> encourage you to change the subject line to reflect the subtopic you're
>> addressing, though.
>>
>> If Senate wishes to provide me with direction, please due so at the next
>> (Nov 2) meeting, or at the latest the Nov 9 meeting. After that, it becomes
>> harder for me to make major changes while still being able to provide a
>> quality, well-reviewed budget to Senate well in advance of the Nov 30
>> non-voting budget meeting.
>>
>> ~~Alex
>>
>> Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:
>>
>>> A few of you have emailed me off-list. While that's great, I'm much more
>>> likely to take action if a consensus seems to be emerging on the list or a
>>> bill/resolution gets passed. When all I get are private emails, I can't as
>>> easily tell the difference between people being mostly one way because the
>>> other side is apathetic (and doesn't realize that their side is "losing"),
>>> or because Senate genuinely prefers that way.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:
>>>
>>>> As several people have pointed out, the UA spends quite a bit of money
>>>> on events (about a third of last semester's budget) and focused projects
>>>> (like PLUS --- about a tenth of last semester's UA budget). As Andrew
>>>> Lukmann pointed out last week, committees are spending almost twice as much
>>>> in Fall 2009's budget as in Spring 2007's budget.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, it is now a little bit late to make major changes to the
>>>> Fall 2009 budget. Last week's meeting was intended to allow that, and we
>>>> spent a great deal of time on it then. I also solicited feedback late Friday
>>>> night (or really Saturday morning), and didn't receive any. Of course, you
>>>> are well within your rights to amend the budget at this point. (Though
>>>> Athletics Weekend has already happened, so I'd rather you didn't amend
>>>> that...)
>>>>
>>>> However, the Spring 2010 budget has not begun being compiled. In
>>>> preparing the the Fall 2009 budget, I (and I believe committee chairs and
>>>> the Special Budgetary Committee) generally followed precedent as to events
>>>> and amounts.
>>>>
>>>> In some sense, there are (at least) two options for guiding principles
>>>> to take in producing the budget:
>>>> (1) Many of the UA-run events are more useful than the events and
>>>> programming (Finboard-funded) student groups would spend the money on
>>>> (2) Alternatively, that events and programs such as Athletics Weekend or
>>>> PLUS aren't worth taking the money away from those student groups
>>>>
>>>> We've recently been defaulting to the former guiding principle. However,
>>>> I would encourage the Senate to seriously consider which is preferable and
>>>> pass appropriate legislation indicating a preference.
>>>>
>>>> I would be *thrilled* to have such guidance, and would happily
>>>> incorporate it into next semester's budget. (I warn you, however, that
>>>> committee chairs will probably be asked to begin budgeting in about two
>>>> weeks.)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alex Dehnert
>>>> UA Treasurer
>>>>
>>>
--001485f7c1dcc7cf340477b7a90f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As I stated earlier, I would be averse to cutting back on events and projec=
ts that benefit many people (e.g. things like what special projects and sus=
tainability are doing, among <i>many</i>=A0others) in favor of more closed =
ones (from student groups) that tend to benefit fewer people. =A0I would li=
ke to see costs for athletics weekend reduced substantially, though, as I a=
lso mentioned, because its rather high expenses seem disproportionate to th=
e degree of benefit that it provides.<div>
<br></div><div>Also, I emphatically do not like the idea of requiring indiv=
idual Senators to pay for the food at Senate/committee meetings (as would b=
e implied by the "collection bucket" that you cited above), since=
Senate meetings are open to the public and providing food might help draw =
people in and get them to pay more attention to UA issues, and because (sin=
ce they are public), individual Senators should not have to personally cove=
r costs for everyone wishing to attend. =A0This problem of a shared commons=
could conceivably apply within the UA as well. =A0Anyway, when was the las=
t time student groups as a whole did this at all of their meetings? =A0Not =
one or two sporadic cases, but all of them? =A0It is unreasonable to force =
us into this when the organizations to which the surplus funding would be t=
ransferred do not and will not do anything like it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regardless, since many committees act primarily on poli=
cy matters, the proportion of their individual budgets spent on food is com=
pletely irrelevant. =A0By your standard, a committee that spent no money on=
food but $10,000 on an event would be considered superior to one that spen=
t $150 on food, no money on anything else, and singlehandedly convinced a k=
ey administrative committee to consider more student input. =A0Obviously, s=
uch a budgetary standard is flawed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Anyway, if the extra money were allocated to student gr=
oups, much of it would just go toward paying for food at their events, whic=
h tend to be much less public and much less ecumenical. =A0Implementing a s=
tandardization system for Senate/committee meetings would have a lot of pit=
falls, from inflation to the number of meetings per committee to disagreeme=
nts about what constitutes sufficient funding per meal to what time of day =
the meetings are held. =A0Additionally, I suspect that the person implement=
ing the system would have a vested interest in decreasing expenditures, whi=
ch would bias the process significantly. =A0Lastly, we're not even deal=
ing with particularly significant amounts of money in the first place here =
-- why not focus on bigger, less contentious sources of cost savings?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I am curious about why ASA specifically has such massiv=
e food expenses, though -- I'm not involved enough with it personally t=
o know the answer to this, but I would like to. =A0Also,=A0if we can't =
hand off PLUS by next year, I would like to see its allocations significant=
ly reduced as I said earlier -- it is way too expensive for the number of p=
eople participating in it, and I feel that doing so would be a good example=
of conceivably significant benefit to student groups without serious detri=
ment to services rendered to the student body as a whole by the UA.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As the above would imply, I'm not opposed to increa=
sing student group allocations when it can be done without causing issues f=
or the UA or forcing us to cut back on things that benefit everyone, but I =
am opposed to doing so when such effects occur as a result. =A0I am also op=
posed to any attempts to do so unilaterally -- that is, without the full an=
d well-informed=A0support of Senate. =A0You asked for guidance. =A0I had al=
ready mentioned a number of these things in previous messages, but since yo=
u seem to be implying that I must not care if I do not restate myself, I ha=
ve done so.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Ted<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 6, 20=
09 at 11:58 AM, Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:ua-treasurer@mit.edu">ua-treasurer@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:=
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">I guess nobody cares that much? I don't=
need guidance, but I think Senate giving me guidance soon would be really =
productive (and would make the budgeting meetings less painful). Unfortunat=
ely, committee chairs have already started giving me budgets (and the budge=
t deadline was supposed to be last night and is now Saturday night), so we&=
#39;re already towards the end of the useful interval, but some discussion,=
consensus-building, and maybe even a resolution on Monday would still be u=
seful.<div>
<div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
~~Alex<br>
<br>
Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi again,<br>
<br>
I wanted to follow up on this thread. Spring budgeting will be starting<br>
up shortly --- committee chairs just received the budget request, and then =
I'll assemble a budget in the next week or two.<br>
<br>
A brief (and rather incomplete) summary of the thread so far:<br>
* SBC: Contact Paul (<a href=3D"mailto:ua-speaker@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank=
">ua-speaker@mit.edu</a>) (and, ideally, me ---<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:ua-treasurer@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">ua-treasurer@mit.=
edu</a>) if you'd like to be especially involved in the<br>
spring budget<br>
* PLUS was something the UA could get started and then hand off<br>
* Focus on student groups: "there is a natural, institutional bias tow=
ard spending the money ourselves" that should be counteracted<br>
=A0 =A0* On the other hand, do special projects like the produce market<br=
>
benefit more people than a BBQ on Kresge or something does?<br>
* Move fall budgeting back to the spring?<br>
=A0 =A0* Move elections to the spring?<br>
* Food<br>
=A0 =A0* Collection jar for Senate food?<br>
=A0 =A0* 14% of budget?<br>
=A0 =A0* Necessary incentive for committees?<br>
=A0 =A0* (Some?) class councils don't do it<br>
=A0 =A0* A lot of variety on how much committees request --- look at spend=
ing this semester and standardize?<br>
* Class councils... exist. (Read that thread if you want more...)<br>
<br>
I have semi-intentionally didn't include names in the above --- if you<=
br>
want more details, I encourage you to find the original messages --- as<br>
a bonus, you may see tidbits that your didn't remember.<br>
<br>
Anyway... if any of those discussions are worth continuing, feel free. I en=
courage you to change the subject line to reflect the subtopic you're a=
ddressing, though.<br>
<br>
If Senate wishes to provide me with direction, please due so at the next (N=
ov 2) meeting, or at the latest the Nov 9 meeting. After that, it becomes h=
arder for me to make major changes while still being able to provide a qual=
ity, well-reviewed budget to Senate well in advance of the Nov 30 non-votin=
g budget meeting.<br>
<br>
~~Alex<br>
<br>
Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
A few of you have emailed me off-list. While that's great, I'm much=
more likely to take action if a consensus seems to be emerging on the list=
or a bill/resolution gets passed. When all I get are private emails, I can=
't as easily tell the difference between people being mostly one way be=
cause the other side is apathetic (and doesn't realize that their side =
is "losing"), or because Senate genuinely prefers that way.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As several people have pointed out, the UA spends quite a bit of money on e=
vents (about a third of last semester's budget) and focused projects (l=
ike PLUS --- about a tenth of last semester's UA budget). As Andrew Luk=
mann pointed out last week, committees are spending almost twice as much in=
Fall 2009's budget as in Spring 2007's budget.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, it is now a little bit late to make major changes to the Fal=
l 2009 budget. Last week's meeting was intended to allow that, and we s=
pent a great deal of time on it then. I also solicited feedback late Friday=
night (or really Saturday morning), and didn't receive any. Of course,=
you are well within your rights to amend the budget at this point. (Though=
Athletics Weekend has already happened, so I'd rather you didn't a=
mend that...)<br>
<br>
However, the Spring 2010 budget has not begun being compiled. In preparing =
the the Fall 2009 budget, I (and I believe committee chairs and the Special=
Budgetary Committee) generally followed precedent as to events and amounts=
.<br>
<br>
In some sense, there are (at least) two options for guiding principles to t=
ake in producing the budget:<br>
(1) Many of the UA-run events are more useful than the events and programmi=
ng (Finboard-funded) student groups would spend the money on<br>
(2) Alternatively, that events and programs such as Athletics Weekend or PL=
US aren't worth taking the money away from those student groups<br>
<br>
We've recently been defaulting to the former guiding principle. However=
, I would encourage the Senate to seriously consider which is preferable an=
d pass appropriate legislation indicating a preference.<br>
<br>
I would be *thrilled* to have such guidance, and would happily incorporate =
it into next semester's budget. (I warn you, however, that committee ch=
airs will probably be asked to begin budgeting in about two weeks.)<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Alex Dehnert<br>
UA Treasurer<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001485f7c1dcc7cf340477b7a90f--
