[73] in UA Financial Policy Review Committee
Re: Final report of the FPRC?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Dehnert)
Fri Mar 5 23:59:15 2010
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:59:13 -0500
From: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@MIT.EDU>
To: Rachel E Meyer <remeyer@mit.edu>
CC: ua-fprc@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1003052326230.2945@dr-wily.mit.edu>
These all make sense to me, and I've made the changes.
Thanks,
Alex
Rachel E Meyer wrote:
> 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
>>
