[102] in UA Senate
RE: UA budgeting principles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ashwini A Gokhale)
Thu Oct 15 00:31:56 2009
From: Ashwini A Gokhale <agokhale@MIT.EDU>
To: "jascott88@gmail.com" <jascott88@gmail.com>,
"bockelie@mit.edu"
<bockelie@mit.edu>
CC: "jli12@mit.edu" <jli12@mit.edu>, "youchakp@mit.edu" <youchakp@mit.edu>,
"catherio@mit.edu" <catherio@mit.edu>,
"lukymann@mit.edu" <lukymann@mit.edu>,
"alexrs@mit.edu" <alexrs@mit.edu>,
"Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer)"
<ua-treasurer@mit.edu>,
"ua-senate@mit.edu" <ua-senate@mit.edu>,
"ua-discuss@mit.edu" <ua-discuss@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:31:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <77a604f90910142107g132ec156y23a3750140aa131e@mail.gmail.com>
--_000_DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0D46335AEXPO10exchangem_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't think food is the reason people join the UA/committees. Personally,=
I didn't even know food was served at Senate meetings until the first meet=
ing this year. Having food at meetings is quite important; it saves people =
the hassle of figuring where/when to buy food, and find time to eat. Also, =
UA Senators/Exec/Committee people are unpaid officers -- this is volunteeri=
ng, we work for our school -- and having food at our meetings just helps us=
out, as we devote hours to the UA.
And anyways, if there wasn't any food at meetings, half the people would pr=
obably show up without having eaten, and instead of contributing to valuabl=
e discussions, they would simply be thinking of their hungry stomachs.
Ashwini Gokhale
________________________________
From: Jason Scott [jascott88@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:07 PM
To: Adam Bockelie
Cc: Janet Li; Paul Youchak; Catherine Olsson; Andrew Lukmann; Alex Schwendn=
er; Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer); ua-senate@mit.edu; ua-discuss@mit.edu
Subject: Re: UA budgeting principles
I don't generally respond to these threads, but I just feel somewhat strong=
ly against food at meetings.
Not once in our four years has our council sponsored food at our meetings. =
If having food at meetings is so important for efficiency, can people not s=
imply bring their own food to the meeting?
I'm a strong believer in having committee members being rewarded for hardwo=
rk/planning. But I think that 14% of a budget spent on the committee member=
s themselves, is somewhat excessive.
How would people react if last year's senior class council spent over $30K =
on food for only 8 people?
-Jason
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Adam Bockelie <bockelie@mit.edu<mailto:bo=
ckelie@mit.edu>> wrote:
I would disagree. Being part of a committee/senate/anything else in the UA=
is a lot of work, and most people are already busy with other activities. =
Having money to spend on food for a meeting means that people can focus on=
getting work done, not on searching for food between meetings. People on=
committees are dedicated, and I don't think that food is generally an ince=
ntive. But, I do think that food helps make meetings more productive.
Janet Li wrote:
I really like Catherine's idea of the collection jar for food for Senate me=
etings. I also agree with Paul that it doesn't seem all that necessary to h=
ave so much of our budget go towards providing food at committee meetings. =
People on committees should be dedicated enough to not need food as an ince=
ntive to come to meetings, anyway.
---
Janet Li
Baker Senator
MIT Class of 2012
Dept. of Biological Engineering
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu<mailto:you=
chakp@mit.edu> <mailto:youchakp@mit.edu<mailto:youchakp@mit.edu>>> wrote:
A few comments:
A quick calculation for this years budget makes the cost spent on
food for meetings for various committees (and poland spring water)
to be 5675 dollars which is 14% of our budget. This seems to be a
pretty large sum and percentage. Saving this money and giving it to
Finboard would be quite significant.
I understand the logic in moving the Senate elections to the fall so
that Freshmen could participate. This being said, I think it would
be worth considering revising this and moving the elections back to
the Spring. We could withhold a few open Freshman seats to be run
with the class council (independent of living group) allowing for
their inclusion in the fall as well. This process should allow
Senators for the coming year to be involved in the budgeting process
and any other events which might be taking place. For instance this
would have allowed for the Senators to help the Exec on the task
force report this year and get involved in other projects as soon as
the school year begin. Returning senators would also feel a greater
obligation to be involved instead of waiting for the fall session to
start.
I, being a new Senator this year, do feel that I have relatively no
idea what is going on for these discussion and because of it do not
feel it is my place to question the judgment of those who know much
more about the topic than I.
back to work,
Paul
Catherine Olsson wrote:
I strongly agree with Alex S's sentiments that we should favor
putting money towards student groups instead of our own
initiatives. I think at the very least, as Andrew brought up, we
should hold ourselves to the same standard as Finboard holds
student groups (which will be easier if Finboard's standards
become more clearly stated and publicized as recommended by the
FPRC). If we don't hold ourselves to the same standards as the
groups we're withholding money from, then it seems clear to me
that the money is not going to its best use.*
Thanks, Andrew, for the relevant history. Would it make sense
for us to extend the period of the summer budget through the
second meeting of the subsequent fall's Senate session? It seems
like this would prevent money from being spent before the fall
budget is approved, as happened with Athletics Weekend and other
expenditures this cycle.
I would also be in favor of putting a collection jar out at
Senate, Exec, and committee meetings so that we can pay for some
of our own food. I greatly appreciate having food at Senate
meetings, as it means I don't need to worry about finding dinner
on an evening which is already very busy. However, paying a few
bucks for the food I eat so that we aren't entirely taxing the
student body for meals most of them don't eat (even though
they're welcome to) seems very reasonable. Other students who
come to meetings would still be able to eat the food and would
be encouraged to chip in, too. Does anyone else agree?
I'm very glad we're discussing this issue. Given that next
term's budgeting is starting soon, I think now is exactly the
right time to pull our thoughts together.
- Catherine Olsson, Random Hall Senator and Senate
Representative to Finboard
*It should be noted that much of the funding denied to student
groups by Finboard is because the groups' proposals seem not
well-planned-out or not worth the money (such as t-shirts), not
_because_ Finboard doesn't have enough money. But if Finboard
had more money, we could relax some of our guidelines, enabling
us to fund more conferences, fund capital such as costumes and
musical instruments more than our current caps, fund more
travel, enable groups that maintain a library (such as MITSFS
and Anime Club) to acquire more new material, and allow groups
who wish to hold a vast number of events to hold all their
events and not just some.
Andrew Lukmann wrote:
If Alex's sentiments are shared by a number of other new
senators... it might be time to re-investigate the timing of
future budget approvals as well.
History:
In the somewhat distant past (6-7+ years ago) Senate was
elected in the Spring with the incoming UA P/VP. As a
result, the incoming Senate and the incoming administration
worked together to compile and approve a budget before the
Summer. However, with a number of changes to the living
group constituencies, most importantly Freshmen on Campus,
the decision was made to move Senate elections to the Fall
to allow freshmen to vote (and run in) the Senate contest.
From what I recall, the first year of this change, the Fall
budget was actually voted upon by the outgoing Senate,
allowing the administration to have a complete and approved
budget to operate on over the summer, during orientation and
during the Fall term. This, however, served to largely
hamstring the newly-elected Senate regarding financial
policy until at least the Spring budget was discussed in
December. As a result, this was altered (about 5 years ago)
to the current arrangement where the outgoing Senate (in the
spring) grants an advance for the administration to utilize
over the Summer/Orientation which is disbursed by the
ExecComm in lieu of Senate. Then the Fall budget is taken up
and approved by the new Senate when it is finally assembled
and called to order by early-mid October.
Problems:
It seems that in an effort to address problems of the past,
we in past UA administrations (and past sessions of Senate)
have helped to create new problems. It seems that even
though the intent of moving Fall budget approval to the Fall
was to empower new Senators, this has been less than
effective. New senators are just beginning to find their way
and are reticent to question the wisdom of a budget handed
to them by more experienced officers like the President,
Treasurer and (often) Speaker. Situations are also
encountered where the executive assumes that certain
budgetary line items will be approved and preemptively
spends the money (such as Athletics Weekend), effectively
circumventing Senate's oversight responsibility. Not having
an approved budget until mid October also hampers the
ability of the Executive and it's Committees to engage in
activities and programming early in the term.
If other people in the UA agree that this is an important
enough issue, I encourage you to re-investigate the
possibility of making changes in the budget calendar and
taking a closer look at the pros and cons of different
options. In the end, the balance will almost always be
between empowering the current (or most recently) elected
representatives and having an experienced enough group of
Senators calling the shots that they can serve as a
meaningful check against executive overreaching or "mission
creep."
Yours in the UA,
Andrew L.
Alex Schwendner wrote:
I would like to advocate that our budgeting goal should
be to allocate
more money to student groups. Here's why:
Our goal, as the Undergraduate Association, is to make
things better
for undergraduates. When it comes to money, this means
that we should
see that money gets spent on the things which most
benefit MIT
undergraduates. This might mean that we spend the money
ourselves or
this might mean that we give it to student groups who
can use it.
There are plenty of student groups who do wonderful and
amazing
things. All of us can think of student groups which get
much of their
funding from the UA which have made our time at MIT more
worthwhile.
Our goal, as the UA, should not be to do awesome things,
but rather to
see that awesome things get done.
Sometimes, of course, this will mean that we should
spend money on
projects conceived by the UA and sometimes this will
mean that we
should give money to student groups. However, there is a
natural,
institutional bias toward spending the money ourselves.
We need to
fight that bias. Since we, the UA, get first crack at
the money, it's
easy to think of cool things which we can do with the
money while
forgetting about the very real and very cool things
which student
groups will *not* be able to do without that money. We
can see this
"mission creep" in UA funding in the way that the money
allocated to
UA committees has increased in past years. Yes, the UA
does more with
the increased money, but it is not always clear that
it's spent better
than it could be spent by student groups. The standards
which hold for
receiving funding from the UA general budget should be
analogous to
the standards which hold for receiving funding from UA
Finboard. I
will note that while UA committees received basically
everything that
they asked for in the Fall UA budget, student groups
which applied to
UA Finboard received less than 30% of their requests in
the most
recent funding cycle.
Therefore, during the Spring 2010 budgeting process, I
intend to push
for allocating more money for student groups. Projects
which we choose
not to fund from the UA general budget can seek funding
through UA
Finboard, from LEF or ARCADE, from the MIT
Administration, or from
other funding sources.
Please discuss.
Alex Schwendner
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Alex Dehnert (UA
Treasurer)
<ua-treasurer@mit.edu<mailto:ua-treasurer@mit.edu> <mailto:u=
a-treasurer@mit.edu<mailto:ua-treasurer@mit.edu>>> 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
--
Adam Bockelie
801.209.7233
<bockelie@mit.edu<mailto:bockelie@mit.edu>>
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Class of 2011
--
Jason Alexander Scott
Class Council President
MIT Class of 2010
--_000_DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0D46335AEXPO10exchangem_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html dir=3D"ltr"><head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<meta content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6001.18294" name=3D"GENERATOR">
<style title=3D"owaParaStyle"><!--P {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
--></style>
</head>
<body ocsi=3D"x">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Tahoma" color=3D"#000000" size=3D"2">I don't=
think food is the reason people join the UA/committees. Personally, I=
didn't even know food was served at Senate meetings until the first meetin=
g this year. Having food at meetings is quite
important; it saves people the hassle of figuring where/when to buy food, =
and find time to eat. Also, UA Senators/Exec/Committee people are unpa=
id officers -- this is volunteering, we work for our school -- an=
d having food at our meetings just helps us out,
as we devote hours to the UA. </font></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Tahoma" color=3D"#000000" size=3D"2"></font>=
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Tahoma" color=3D"#000000" size=3D"2"><font f=
ace=3D"tahoma">And anyways, i</font>f there wasn't any food at meetings, ha=
lf the people would probably show up without having eaten, and instead of c=
ontributing to valuable discussions, they
would simply be thinking of their hungry stomachs. </font></div>
<div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Tahoma" color=3D"#000000" size=3D"2"></font>=
</div>
<div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"tahoma" size=3D"2"></font> </div>
<div>
<div><font face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2">Ashwini Gokhale</font></div>
</div>
<div id=3D"divRpF949744" style=3D"DIRECTION: ltr">
<hr tabindex=3D"-1">
<font face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2"><b>From:</b> Jason Scott [jascott88@gmail.=
com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:07 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Adam Bockelie<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Janet Li; Paul Youchak; Catherine Olsson; Andrew Lukmann; Alex S=
chwendner; Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer); ua-senate@mit.edu; ua-discuss@mit.e=
du<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: UA budgeting principles<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>I don't generally respond to these threads, but I just feel somewhat s=
trongly against food at meetings.<br>
<br>
Not once in our four years has our council sponsored food at our meetings. =
If having food at meetings is so important for efficiency, can people not s=
imply bring their own food to the meeting?<br>
<br>
I'm a strong believer in having committee members being rewarded for hardwo=
rk/planning. But I think that 14% of a budget spent on the committee member=
s themselves, is somewhat excessive.<br>
<br>
How would people react if last year's senior class council spent over $30K =
on food for only 8 people?<br>
<br>
-Jason<br>
<br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Adam Bockelie =
<span dir=3D"ltr">
<<a href=3D"mailto:bockelie@mit.edu">bockelie@mit.edu</a>></span> wro=
te:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0=
pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
I would disagree. Being part of a committee/senate/anything else in t=
he UA is a lot of work, and most people are already busy with other activit=
ies. Having money to spend on food for a meeting means that people ca=
n focus on getting work done, not on searching
for food between meetings. People on committees are dedicated,=
and I don't think that food is generally an incentive. But, I do thi=
nk that food helps make meetings more productive.<br>
<br>
Janet Li wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0=
pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<div class=3D"im">I really like Catherine's idea of the collection jar for =
food for Senate meetings. I also agree with Paul that it doesn't seem all t=
hat necessary to have so much of our budget go towards providing food at co=
mmittee meetings. People on committees
should be dedicated enough to not need food as an incentive to come to mee=
tings, anyway.<br>
---<br>
Janet Li<br>
Baker Senator<br>
MIT Class of 2012<br>
Dept. of Biological Engineering<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class=3D"h5">On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Paul Youchak <<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:youchakp@mit.edu">youchakp@mit.edu</a> <mailto:<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:youchakp@mit.edu">youchakp@mit.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
A few comments:<br>
<br>
A quick calculation for this years budget makes the cost spent=
on<br>
food for meetings for various committees (and poland spring wa=
ter)<br>
to be 5675 dollars which is 14% of our budget. This seem=
s to be a<br>
pretty large sum and percentage. Saving this money and g=
iving it to<br>
Finboard would be quite significant.<br>
<br>
I understand the logic in moving the Senate elections to the f=
all so<br>
that Freshmen could participate. This being said, I thin=
k it would<br>
be worth considering revising this and moving the elections ba=
ck to<br>
the Spring. We could withhold a few open Freshman seats =
to be run<br>
with the class council (independent of living group) allowing =
for<br>
their inclusion in the fall as well. This process should=
allow<br>
Senators for the coming year to be involved in the budgeting p=
rocess<br>
and any other events which might be taking place. For in=
stance this<br>
would have allowed for the Senators to help the Exec on the ta=
sk<br>
force report this year and get involved in other projects as s=
oon as<br>
the school year begin. Returning senators would also fee=
l a greater<br>
obligation to be involved instead of waiting for the fall sess=
ion to<br>
start.<br>
<br>
I, being a new Senator this year, do feel that I have relative=
ly no<br>
idea what is going on for these discussion and because of it d=
o not<br>
feel it is my place to question the judgment of those who know=
much<br>
more about the topic than I.<br>
<br>
back to work,<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Catherine Olsson wrote:<br>
<br>
I strongly agree with Alex S's sentiments that w=
e should favor<br>
putting money towards student groups instead of =
our own<br>
initiatives. I think at the very least, as Andre=
w brought up, we<br>
should hold ourselves to the same standard as Fi=
nboard holds<br>
student groups (which will be easier if Finboard=
's standards<br>
become more clearly stated and publicized as rec=
ommended by the<br>
FPRC). If we don't hold ourselves to the same st=
andards as the<br>
groups we're withholding money from, then it see=
ms clear to me<br>
that the money is not going to its best use.*<br=
>
<br>
Thanks, Andrew, for the relevant history. Would =
it make sense<br>
for us to extend the period of the summer budget=
through the<br>
second meeting of the subsequent fall's Senate s=
ession? It seems<br>
like this would prevent money from being spent b=
efore the fall<br>
budget is approved, as happened with Athletics W=
eekend and other<br>
expenditures this cycle.<br>
<br>
I would also be in favor of putting a collection=
jar out at<br>
Senate, Exec, and committee meetings so that we =
can pay for some<br>
of our own food. I greatly appreciate having foo=
d at Senate<br>
meetings, as it means I don't need to worry abou=
t finding dinner<br>
on an evening which is already very busy. Howeve=
r, paying a few<br>
bucks for the food I eat so that we aren't entir=
ely taxing the<br>
student body for meals most of them don't eat (e=
ven though<br>
they're welcome to) seems very reasonable. Other=
students who<br>
come to meetings would still be able to eat the =
food and would<br>
be encouraged to chip in, too. Does anyone else =
agree?<br>
<br>
I'm very glad we're discussing this issue. Given=
that next<br>
term's budgeting is starting soon, I think now i=
s exactly the<br>
right time to pull our thoughts together.<br>
<br>
- Catherine Olsson, Random Hall Senator and Sena=
te<br>
Representative to Finboard<br>
<br>
<br>
*It should be noted that much of the funding den=
ied to student<br>
groups by Finboard is because the groups' propos=
als seem not<br>
well-planned-out or not worth the money (such as=
t-shirts), not<br>
_because_ Finboard doesn't have enough money. Bu=
t if Finboard<br>
had more money, we could relax some of our guide=
lines, enabling<br>
us to fund more conferences, fund capital such a=
s costumes and<br>
musical instruments more than our current caps, =
fund more<br>
travel, enable groups that maintain a library (s=
uch as MITSFS<br>
and Anime Club) to acquire more new material, an=
d allow groups<br>
who wish to hold a vast number of events to hold=
all their<br>
events and not just some.<br>
<br>
<br>
Andrew Lukmann wrote:<br>
<br>
If Alex's sentiments are shared by=
a number of other new<br>
senators... it might be time to re=
-investigate the timing of<br>
future budget approvals as well.<b=
r>
<br>
History:<br>
In the somewhat distant past (6-7&=
#43; years ago) Senate was<br>
elected in the Spring with the inc=
oming UA P/VP. As a<br>
result, the incoming Senate and th=
e incoming administration<br>
worked together to compile and app=
rove a budget before the<br>
Summer. However, with a number of =
changes to the living<br>
group constituencies, most importa=
ntly Freshmen on Campus,<br>
the decision was made to move Sena=
te elections to the Fall<br>
to allow freshmen to vote (and run=
in) the Senate contest.<br>
From what I recall, the first yea=
r of this change, the Fall<br>
budget was actually voted upon by =
the outgoing Senate,<br>
allowing the administration to hav=
e a complete and approved<br>
budget to operate on over the summ=
er, during orientation and<br>
during the Fall term. This, howeve=
r, served to largely<br>
hamstring the newly-elected Senate=
regarding financial<br>
policy until at least the Spring b=
udget was discussed in<br>
December. As a result, this was al=
tered (about 5 years ago)<br>
to the current arrangement where t=
he outgoing Senate (in the<br>
spring) grants an advance for the =
administration to utilize<br>
over the Summer/Orientation which =
is disbursed by the<br>
ExecComm in lieu of Senate. Then t=
he Fall budget is taken up<br>
and approved by the new Senate whe=
n it is finally assembled<br>
and called to order by early-mid O=
ctober.<br>
<br>
Problems:<br>
It seems that in an effort to addr=
ess problems of the past,<br>
we in past UA administrations (and=
past sessions of Senate)<br>
have helped to create new problems=
. It seems that even<br>
though the intent of moving Fall b=
udget approval to the Fall<br>
was to empower new Senators, this =
has been less than<br>
effective. New senators are just b=
eginning to find their way<br>
and are reticent to question the w=
isdom of a budget handed<br>
to them by more experienced office=
rs like the President,<br>
Treasurer and (often) Speaker. Sit=
uations are also<br>
encountered where the executive as=
sumes that certain<br>
budgetary line items will be appro=
ved and preemptively<br>
spends the money (such as Athletic=
s Weekend), effectively<br>
circumventing Senate's oversight r=
esponsibility. Not having<br>
an approved budget until mid Octob=
er also hampers the<br>
ability of the Executive and it's =
Committees to engage in<br>
activities and programming early i=
n the term.<br>
<br>
If other people in the UA agree th=
at this is an important<br>
enough issue, I encourage you to r=
e-investigate the<br>
possibility of making changes in t=
he budget calendar and<br>
taking a closer look at the pros a=
nd cons of different<br>
options. In the end, the balance w=
ill almost always be<br>
between empowering the current (or=
most recently) elected<br>
representatives and having an expe=
rienced enough group of<br>
Senators calling the shots that th=
ey can serve as a<br>
meaningful check against executive=
overreaching or "mission<br>
creep."<br>
<br>
Yours in the UA,<br>
Andrew L.<br>
<br>
<br>
Alex Schwendner wrote:<br>
<br>
I would like to advo=
cate that our budgeting goal should<br>
be to allocate<br>
more money to studen=
t groups. Here's why:<br>
<br>
Our goal, as the Und=
ergraduate Association, is to make<br>
things better<br>
for undergraduates. =
When it comes to money, this means<br>
that we should<br>
see that money gets =
spent on the things which most<br>
benefit MIT<br>
undergraduates. This=
might mean that we spend the money<br>
ourselves or<br>
this might mean that=
we give it to student groups who<br>
can use it.<br>
There are plenty of =
student groups who do wonderful and<br>
amazing<br>
things. All of us ca=
n think of student groups which get<br>
much of their<br>
funding from the UA =
which have made our time at MIT more<br>
worthwhile.<br>
Our goal, as the UA,=
should not be to do awesome things,<br>
but rather to<br>
see that awesome thi=
ngs get done.<br>
<br>
Sometimes, of course=
, this will mean that we should<br>
spend money on<br>
projects conceived b=
y the UA and sometimes this will<br>
mean that we<br>
should give money to=
student groups. However, there is a<br>
natural,<br>
institutional bias t=
oward spending the money ourselves.<br>
We need to<br>
fight that bias. Sin=
ce we, the UA, get first crack at<br>
the money, it's<br>
easy to think of coo=
l things which we can do with the<br>
money while<br>
forgetting about the=
very real and very cool things<br>
which student<br>
groups will *not* be=
able to do without that money. We<br>
can see this<br>
"mission creep&=
quot; in UA funding in the way that the money<br>
allocated to<br>
UA committees has in=
creased in past years. Yes, the UA<br>
does more with<br>
the increased money,=
but it is not always clear that<br>
it's spent better<br=
>
than it could be spe=
nt by student groups. The standards<br>
which hold for<br>
receiving funding fr=
om the UA general budget should be<br>
analogous to<br>
the standards which =
hold for receiving funding from UA<br>
Finboard. I<br>
will note that while=
UA committees received basically<br>
everything that<br>
they asked for in th=
e Fall UA budget, student groups<br>
which applied to<br>
UA Finboard received=
less than 30% of their requests in<br>
the most<br>
recent funding cycle=
.<br>
<br>
Therefore, during th=
e Spring 2010 budgeting process, I<br>
intend to push<br>
for allocating more =
money for student groups. Projects<br>
which we choose<br>
not to fund from the=
UA general budget can seek funding<br>
through UA<br>
Finboard, from LEF o=
r ARCADE, from the MIT<br>
Administration, or f=
rom<br>
other funding source=
s.<br>
<br>
Please discuss.<br>
<br>
Alex Schwendner<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009=
at 12:52 AM, Alex Dehnert (UA<br>
Treasurer)<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class=3D"h5"> &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:ua-treasurer@mit.edu">ua-treasurer@mit.edu</a> <mail=
to:<a href=3D"mailto:ua-treasurer@mit.edu">ua-treasurer@mit.edu</a>>>=
wrote:<br>
<br>
 =
; As several people have pointed out, the UA<br>
 =
; spends quite a bit of money on<br>
 =
; events (about a third of last semester's budget)<br>
 =
; and focused projects (like<br>
 =
; PLUS --- about a tenth of last semester's UA<br>
 =
; budget). As Andrew Lukmann<br>
 =
; pointed out last week, committees are spending<br>
 =
; almost twice as much in Fall<br>
 =
; 2009's budget as in Spring 2007's budget.<br>
<br>
 =
; Unfortunately, it is now a little bit late to<br>
 =
; make major changes to the<br>
 =
; Fall 2009 budget. Last week's meeting was<br>
 =
; intended to allow that, and we<br>
 =
; spent a great deal of time on it then. I also<br>
 =
; solicited feedback late Friday<br>
 =
; night (or really Saturday morning), and didn't<br>
 =
; receive any. Of course, you<br>
 =
; are well within your rights to amend the budget<br>
 =
; at this point. (Though<br>
 =
; Athletics Weekend has already happened, so I'd<br>
 =
; rather you didn't amend<br>
 =
; that...)<br>
<br>
 =
; However, the Spring 2010 budget has not begun<br>
 =
; being compiled. In preparing<br>
 =
; the the Fall 2009 budget, I (and I believe<br>
 =
; committee chairs and the Special<br>
 =
; Budgetary Committee) generally followed<br>
 =
; precedent as to events and amounts.<br>
<br>
 =
; In some sense, there are (at least) two options<br>
 =
; for guiding principles to<br>
 =
; take in producing the budget:<br>
 =
; (1) Many of the UA-run events are more useful<br>
 =
; than the events and<br>
 =
; programming (Finboard-funded) student groups<br>
 =
; would spend the money on<br>
 =
; (2) Alternatively, that events and programs such<br>
 =
; as Athletics Weekend or<br>
 =
; PLUS aren't worth taking the money away from<br>
 =
; those student groups<br>
<br>
 =
; We've recently been defaulting to the former<br>
 =
; guiding principle. However, I<br>
 =
; would encourage the Senate to seriously consider<br>
 =
; which is preferable and<br>
 =
; pass appropriate legislation indicating a<br>
 =
; preference.<br>
<br>
 =
; I would be *thrilled* to have such guidance, and<br>
 =
; would happily incorporate<br>
 =
; it into next semester's budget. (I warn you,<br>
 =
; however, that committee chairs<br>
 =
; will probably be asked to begin budgeting in<br>
 =
; about two weeks.)<br>
<br>
 =
; Thanks,<br>
 =
; Alex Dehnert<br>
 =
; UA Treasurer<br>
 =
; <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
-- <br>
Adam Bockelie<br>
801.209.7233<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:bockelie@mit.edu">bockelie@mit.edu</a>><br>
<br>
Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering<br>
Class of 2011<br>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear=3D"all">
<br>
-- <br>
Jason Alexander Scott<br>
Class Council President<br>
MIT Class of 2010<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>
--_000_DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0D46335AEXPO10exchangem_--
