[76] in UA Financial Policy Review Committee
Re: Final report of the FPRC?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Catherine Olsson)
Sun Mar 7 13:46:49 2010
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:46:45 -0500
From: Catherine Olsson <catherio@MIT.EDU>
To: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>
CC: "ua-fprc@mit.edu" <ua-fprc@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4B93839F.9010404@mit.edu>
Some thoughts:
p.4-5, where do communication expenses fall under this six-category
schema? "Operations"?
p. 13 This sentence needs some grammar and pronoun help: "The UA
Treasurer may wish to refer larger transfers to the Senate for
notification or approval, even
when he this recommendation would allow him to authorize them himself."
How about: "The UA Treasurer may wish to refer larger transfers to the
Senate for notification or approval, even
when this recommendation would allow him to authorize the transfers
himself."
2.5.3: "Events intended to promote socializing within the UA should not
be funded by the UA operating
budget — including through the use of money raised from outside sources.
" This seems contradictory with the statement in the introduction that
money from alumni donations "could be an excellent source of social and
retainment funding." This needs to be somehow clarified =/
4.: I know that some of these ideas in the Finboard section (such as the
cohesive policy document and the updated website) have already been
implemented, and I'm sure this is the case for other recommendations as
well. It might be nice to present Senate with a partial list of
recommendations from the report that have already been implemented.
The content looks good throughout.
- Catherine
Alex Dehnert wrote:
> I'd still love to hear more replies.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> On 03/05/2010 11:06 PM, 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
>
