[80] in UA Financial Policy Review Committee
Re: Final report of the FPRC?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Dehnert)
Sun Mar 7 14:53:20 2010
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:53:18 -0500
From: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@MIT.EDU>
To: Catherine Olsson <catherio@mit.edu>
CC: "ua-fprc@mit.edu" <ua-fprc@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4B93F495.8010504@mit.edu>
Short form: I'm going to try to make these clarifications in about an
hour. Let me know if you object to any of them. They seem simple and
non-policy-changing enough that I'll assume people's approval stands
with them included unless I hear otherwise Real Soon Now.
I'll also try to clarify the mailing lists segment.
Thanks guys.
~~Alex
On 03/07/2010 01:46 PM, Catherine Olsson wrote:
> Some thoughts:
>
> p.4-5, where do communication expenses fall under this six-category
> schema? "Operations"?
Probably mostly UA-run events, but I'll take a look at the spreadsheet
and try to get back to you.
> 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."
Sure.
> 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 =/
Err, "outside sources" = "companies". Alums are... something else.
> 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.
Yup, I'll try to put something together again.
>
> 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
>>
>
