[117] in UA Senate
Re: UA budgeting principles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Jenks)
Thu Oct 15 01:23:47 2009
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: trjenks@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4AD691F8.9090000@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:23:20 -0400
From: Tim Jenks <trjenks@gmail.com>
To: Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu>, ua-senate@mit.edu, ua-discuss@mit.edu
--0016e641dcbc47f8160475f27a86
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
$5675 is 14% of the UA's operating expenses, not 14% of the UA's budget.
Just under 74% of the UA's budget is passed on to student groups through
Finboard. All the food for the hungry volunteers and everyone else at all
the UA's meetings is 3.7% of our budget. No longer does it seem like such a
large drain of money, considering the hard work that many of the members do
for all the undergrads.
On a "spending money for food" note, Finboard allocated $1400 to mitBEEF for
this fall. That's only $175 less than Senate budgeted for food this
semester. Granted the comparison isn't exactly apples-to-apples because
mitBEEF probably won't use all that money directly for food consumption, its
still an ironic point.
And I personally come to UA meetings almost directly from a varsity sports
practice. Having food at meetings is just one less thing I have to worry
about before meetings.
I think this thread would be more productive discussing one of the original
points that Alex our Treasurer introduced:
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
</twocents>
--Tim Jenks
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Paul Youchak <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> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
--0016e641dcbc47f8160475f27a86
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
$5675 is 14% of the UA's operating expenses, not 14% of the UA's bu=
dget. =A0=A0 Just under 74% of the UA's budget is passed on to student =
groups through Finboard.=A0 All the food for the hungry volunteers and ever=
yone else at all the UA's meetings is 3.7% of our budget.=A0 No longer =
does it seem like such a large drain of money, considering the hard work th=
at many of the members do for all the undergrads.<br>
<br>On a "spending money for food" note, Finboard allocated $1400=
to mitBEEF for this fall.=A0 That's only $175 less than Senate budgete=
d for food this semester.=A0 Granted the comparison isn't exactly apple=
s-to-apples because mitBEEF probably won't use all that money directly =
for food consumption, its still an ironic point.<br>
<br>And I personally come to UA meetings almost directly from a varsity spo=
rts practice.=A0 Having food at meetings is just one less thing I have to w=
orry about before meetings.<br><br>I think this thread would be more produc=
tive discussing one of the original points that Alex our Treasurer introduc=
ed:<br>
<div style=3D"margin-left: 40px;">In some sense, there are (at least) two o=
ptions for guiding principles to take in producing the budget:<br>
(1) Many of the UA-run events are more useful than the events and
programming (Finboard-funded) student groups would spend the money on<br>
(2) Alternatively, that events and programs such as Athletics Weekend
or PLUS aren't worth taking the money away from those student groups<br=
><br></div></twocents><br><br>--Tim Jenks<br><br>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Paul Youch=
ak <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:youchakp@mit.edu" target=3D"_bla=
nk">youchakp@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0p=
t 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
A few comments:<br>
<br>
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 dollar=
s which is 14% of our budget. =A0This seems to be a pretty large sum and pe=
rcentage. =A0Saving this money and giving it to Finboard would be quite sig=
nificant.<br>
<br>
I understand the logic in moving the Senate elections to the fall so that F=
reshmen could participate. =A0This being said, I think it would be worth co=
nsidering revising this and moving the elections back to the Spring. =A0We =
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 we=
ll. =A0This process should allow Senators for the coming year to be involve=
d in the budgeting process and any other events which might be taking place=
. =A0For 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 s=
oon as the school year begin. =A0Returning senators would also feel a great=
er obligation to be involved instead of waiting for the fall session to sta=
rt.<br>
<br>
I, being a new Senator this year, do feel that I have relatively no idea wh=
at 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.<br>
<br>
back to work,<br><font color=3D"#888888">
<br>
Paul</font><div><div></div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Catherine Olsson wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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 sta=
ndard as Finboard holds student groups (which will be easier if Finboard=
9;s standards become more clearly stated and publicized as recommended by t=
he FPRC). If we don't hold ourselves to the same standards as the group=
s we're withholding money from, then it seems clear to me that the mone=
y is not going to its best use.*<br>
<br>
Thanks, Andrew, for the relevant history. Would it make sense for us to ext=
end the period of the summer budget through the second meeting of the subse=
quent fall's Senate session? It seems like this would prevent money fro=
m being spent before the fall budget is approved, as happened with Athletic=
s Weekend and other expenditures this cycle.<br>
<br>
I would also be in favor of putting a collection jar out at Senate, Exec, a=
nd committee meetings so that we can pay for some of our own food. I greatl=
y appreciate having food at Senate meetings, as it means I don't need t=
o worry about finding dinner on an evening which is already very busy. Howe=
ver, paying a few bucks for the food I eat so that we aren't entirely t=
axing the student body for meals most of them don't eat (even though th=
ey're welcome to) seems very reasonable. Other students who come to mee=
tings would still be able to eat the food and would be encouraged to chip i=
n, too. Does anyone else agree?<br>
<br>
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 pul=
l our thoughts together.<br>
<br>
- Catherine Olsson, Random Hall Senator and Senate Representative to Finboa=
rd<br>
<br>
<br>
*It should be noted that much of the funding denied to student groups by Fi=
nboard is because the groups' proposals seem not well-planned-out or no=
t worth the money (such as t-shirts), not _because_ Finboard doesn't ha=
ve 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 cos=
tumes and musical instruments more than our current caps, fund more travel,=
enable groups that maintain a library (such as MITSFS and Anime Club) to a=
cquire more new material, and allow groups who wish to hold a vast number o=
f events to hold all their events and not just some.<br>
<br>
<br>
Andrew Lukmann wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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 w=
ell.<br>
<br>
History:<br>
In the somewhat distant past (6-7+ years ago) Senate was elected in the Spr=
ing with the incoming UA P/VP. As a result, the incoming Senate and the inc=
oming administration worked together to compile and approve a budget before=
the Summer. However, with a number of changes to the living group constitu=
encies, 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 Sen=
ate contest. From what I recall, the first year of this change, the Fall bu=
dget was actually voted upon by the outgoing Senate, allowing the administr=
ation to have a complete and approved budget to operate on over the summer,=
during orientation and during the Fall term. This, however, served to larg=
ely hamstring the newly-elected Senate regarding financial policy until at =
least the Spring budget was discussed in December. As a result, this was al=
tered (about 5 years ago) to the current arrangement where the outgoing Sen=
ate (in the spring) grants an advance for the administration to utilize ove=
r the Summer/Orientation which is disbursed by the ExecComm in lieu of Sena=
te. 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.<br>
<br>
Problems:<br>
It seems that in an effort to address problems of the past, we in past UA a=
dministrations (and past sessions of Senate) have helped to create new prob=
lems. It seems that even though the intent of moving Fall budget approval t=
o 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 quest=
ion the wisdom of a budget handed to them by more experienced officers like=
the President, Treasurer and (often) Speaker. Situations are also encounte=
red where the executive assumes that certain budgetary line items will be a=
pproved and preemptively spends the money (such as Athletics Weekend), effe=
ctively 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 t=
he term.<br>
<br>
If other people in the UA agree that this is an important enough issue, I e=
ncourage you to re-investigate the possibility of making changes in the bud=
get calendar and taking a closer look at the pros and cons of different opt=
ions. In the end, the balance will almost always be between empowering the =
current (or most recently) elected representatives and having an experience=
d enough group of Senators calling the shots that they can serve as a meani=
ngful check against executive overreaching or "mission creep."<br=
>
<br>
Yours in the UA,<br>
Andrew L.<br>
<br>
<br>
Alex Schwendner wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I would like to advocate that our budgeting goal should be to allocate<br>
more money to student groups. Here's why:<br>
<br>
Our goal, as the Undergraduate Association, is to make things better<br>
for undergraduates. When it comes to money, this means that we should<br>
see that money gets spent on the things which most benefit MIT<br>
undergraduates. This might mean that we spend the money ourselves or<br>
this might mean that we give it to student groups who can use it.<br>
There are plenty of student groups who do wonderful and amazing<br>
things. All of us can think of student groups which get much of their<br>
funding from the UA which have made our time at MIT more worthwhile.<br>
Our goal, as the UA, should not be to do awesome things, but rather to<br>
see that awesome things get done.<br>
<br>
Sometimes, of course, this will mean that we should spend money on<br>
projects conceived by the UA and sometimes this will mean that we<br>
should give money to student groups. However, there is a natural,<br>
institutional bias toward spending the money ourselves. We need to<br>
fight that bias. Since we, the UA, get first crack at the money, it's<b=
r>
easy to think of cool things which we can do with the money while<br>
forgetting about the very real and very cool things which student<br>
groups will *not* be able to do without that money. We can see this<br>
"mission creep" in UA funding in the way that the money allocated=
to<br>
UA committees has increased in past years. Yes, the UA does more with<br>
the increased money, but it is not always clear that it's spent better<=
br>
than it could be spent by student groups. The standards which hold for<br>
receiving funding from the UA general budget should be analogous to<br>
the standards which hold for receiving funding from UA Finboard. I<br>
will note that while UA committees received basically everything that<br>
they asked for in the Fall UA budget, student groups which applied to<br>
UA Finboard received less than 30% of their requests in the most<br>
recent funding cycle.<br>
<br>
Therefore, during the Spring 2010 budgeting process, I intend to push<br>
for allocating more money for student groups. Projects which we choose<br>
not to fund from the UA general budget can seek funding through UA<br>
Finboard, from LEF or ARCADE, from the MIT Administration, or from<br>
other funding sources.<br>
<br>
Please discuss.<br>
<br>
Alex Schwendner<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer)<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:ua-treasurer@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">ua-treasurer@=
mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
=A0<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin=
: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
As several people have pointed out, the UA spends quite a bit of money on<b=
r>
events (about a third of last semester's budget) and focused projects (=
like<br>
PLUS --- about a tenth of last semester's UA budget). As Andrew Lukmann=
<br>
pointed out last week, committees are spending 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 make major changes to the<br>
Fall 2009 budget. Last week's meeting was intended to allow that, and w=
e<br>
spent a great deal of time on it then. I also solicited feedback late Frida=
y<br>
night (or really Saturday morning), and didn't receive any. Of course, =
you<br>
are well within your rights to amend the budget at this point. (Though<br>
Athletics Weekend has already happened, so I'd rather you didn't am=
end<br>
that...)<br>
<br>
However, the Spring 2010 budget has not begun being compiled. In preparing<=
br>
the the Fall 2009 budget, I (and I believe committee chairs and the Special=
<br>
Budgetary Committee) generally followed precedent as to events and amounts.=
<br>
<br>
In some sense, there are (at least) two options for guiding principles to<b=
r>
take in producing the budget:<br>
(1) Many of the UA-run events are more useful than the events and<br>
programming (Finboard-funded) student groups would spend the money on<br>
(2) Alternatively, that events and programs such as Athletics Weekend or<br=
>
PLUS aren't worth taking the money away from those student groups<br>
<br>
We've recently been defaulting to the former guiding principle. However=
, I<br>
would encourage the Senate to seriously consider which is preferable and<br=
>
pass appropriate legislation indicating a preference.<br>
<br>
I would be *thrilled* to have such guidance, and would happily incorporate<=
br>
it into next semester's budget. (I warn you, however, that committee ch=
airs<br>
will probably be asked to begin budgeting in about two weeks.)<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Alex Dehnert<br>
UA Treasurer<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--0016e641dcbc47f8160475f27a86--
