[71] in UA Financial Policy Review Committee
Re: Final report of the FPRC?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rachel E Meyer)
Fri Mar 5 23:53:59 2010
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:53:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Rachel E Meyer <remeyer@MIT.EDU>
To: ua-fprc@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4B91D4C6.9040208@mit.edu>
disclaimer:
I probably don't really "count" since I'm not a registered student, etc
etc.
comments:
(1-4 are basically semantics, 5 is slightly more)
1. little thing: Bush Fund description says both SAO approval and then
later repeats saying authorization. Are those the same thing (and then
the last sentence could be cut) or am I missing something? Either way...
this doesn't really matter...
2. alumni donations: I would say "actively solicit" instead of just
"solicit" - again, not really a big deal at all...
3. 2.3.2: by "include both budgeted and actual amounts" I think it should
be clarified actual amounts _spent_ (or at least that's the info that I
would want and what I think it's trying to say).
4. 3.2: I'd change "currently underutilized" to "historically
underutilized" - it's been a problem since the fund was started a few
years ago and it's gotten somewhat better since that section was
originally drafted, fortunately :)
5. 4.2 / pg 22, providing additional details: I would say "preferably at
least a few days to a week" I'd be hesitant to ask for a week, especially
with the increased possibility of Senate meetings consecutive weeks, since
it's likely more important for funding to be presented/approved than for
Senators to have a week+ with information (at least for appeals). But
it's not that big of a deal as is since it's "just" a "preferably"...
I scanned the later chapters, so I might have more little/picky things
later. Generally/content-wise I approve.
-Rachel
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alex Dehnert wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've (finally) performed what I hope is the final editing pass of the FPRC
> report. It's online at
> http://web.mit.edu/ua/committee/fprc/report/4th/report.pdf. I'll be sending
> it out to the Senate in about an hour, and I think they'll want to approve it
> at the Monday meeting. If you have final comments before either of those, I'd
> be open to hearing them.
>
> It would be nice if what Senate approved was formally the report of the FPRC,
> but I don't feel comfortable saying that without something resembling a vote.
> There are few changes (some stuff from SAO, some proofreading, not much else,
> I think --- you can check the git repo for details) since the drafts were
> approved way back in ~August, so hopefully this won't be a problem.
>
> Anyway, I'd appreciate hearing back by Sunday at 1PM with one of:
> 1) "Approve" (hopefully I'll get a lot of these...)
> 2) "Reject"
> 3) "I need more time" ("I'm hosed right now, but I'd like to take a closer
> look" --- please indicate when you can take such a closer look)
> 4) "Abstain" (roughly "I don't care anymore")
>
> You can also recommend changes --- if you do, please send them to the whole
> list, not just me, so that others can object.
>
> However, I'm not really open to major changes --- as I wrote in
> http://diswww.mit.edu/charon/ua-fprc/55:
>> If we get out of the meeting without any controversial changes to a
>> document, that document will be closed and will not be reopened at a
>> meeting without a very good reason and several people indicating their
>> support (via email, personal discussion with me, etc.).
>
> I'm also not going to worry about "quorum" --- if somebody can't give one of
> the four responses listed above by Sunday at 1PM, I'm going to interpret that
> as not wanting to be on the committee any more or something.
>
> ~~Alex
>
