[107] in UA Senate
Re: UA budgeting principles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Youchak)
Thu Oct 15 00:55:01 2009
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:54:44 -0400
From: Paul Youchak <youchakp@MIT.EDU>
To: hwkns@mit.edu
CC: Janet Li <jli12@mit.edu>, Jason Scott <jascott88@gmail.com>,
Adam Bockelie <bockelie@mit.edu>, Catherine Olsson <catherio@mit.edu>,
Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>, Alex Schwendner <alexrs@mit.edu>,
"Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer)" <ua-treasurer@mit.edu>,
ua-senate@mit.edu, ua-discuss@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9d4f87ed0910142145y692ef6d4j88394d16154ff349@mail.gmail.com>
On the point of commending committees for spending less money on food.
Dining has five members and asks for 50 dollars per meeting. Thats 10
dollars per person.
Student life also has the same number
Special projects has 10 members and asks for 50 dollars per meeting.
Exec asks for around 6 dollars per member at a meeting, alumni relations
asks for 5 per member. History and communications are also at 5 or 6.
Space planning asks for 3!
I give the people who can eat at 6 dollars a meal a pat on the back
(through the email). And space planning must be pretty hungry.
Paul
Daniel Hawkins wrote:
> I'm pretty sure none of our 8-member committees has a budget of
> $215,000. (I'm estimating this amount as the senior class council's
> budget, based on Jason's mention of 30k for 8 people being 14% of
> their budget) And if they did have that huge of a budget, they
> wouldn't be spending 30k of it on food. In fact, I think comparing
> percentage-of-budget-spent-on-food is useless, as some committees list
> food as their only expense. Committee A could spend 1% of its $1,000
> budget on food and do something relatively useless, and Committee B
> could spend 10% of its $100 budget on food and do something awesome,
> we'd be commending Committee A for spending "less" on food.
>
> -hwkns
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Janet Li <jli12@mit.edu
> <mailto:jli12@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> What if you compare the senior class council size & budget to
> those of the committees?
> ---
> Janet Li
>
> MIT Class of 2012
> Dept. of Biological Engineering
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu
> <mailto:hwkns@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> This argument neglects the differences in size between the UA
> and the senior class council, the difference in budget size,
> and the difference in man-hours of work. How often does the
> senior class council meet? How long are the meetings? Surely
> none of them are like the 9.5-hour senate meeting we had at
> the end of last semester... I think you're comparing very
> different things here.
>
> -hwkns
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Jason Scott
> <jascott88@gmail.com <mailto:jascott88@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I don't generally respond to these threads, but I just
> feel somewhat strongly 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 simply bring
> their own food to the meeting?
>
> I'm a strong believer in having committee members being
> rewarded for hardwork/planning. But I think that 14% of a
> budget spent on the committee members 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:bockelie@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 incentive. 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 meetings. I also agree
> with Paul that it doesn't seem all that necessary
> to have 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
> incentive 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:youchakp@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:ua-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
>
>
>
>
