[124] in UA Senate
Re: UA budgeting principles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Bennie)
Thu Oct 15 02:45:34 2009
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:45:11 -0400
From: Mike Bennie <mbennie@MIT.EDU>
To: Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu>
CC: Alexandra Jordan <amjordan@mit.edu>, Janet Li <jli12@mit.edu>,
Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>, hwkns@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>, ua-senate@mit.edu,
ua-discuss@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4AD6BAD6.7040201@mit.edu>
First, I'm glad to see the return of spirited discussion to my inbox
this fall. It's great to see people ensuring that we spend our money in
the best possible way, but let's remember that we are all here for the
same reason: to serve the students.
That being said, I have a few opinions of my own on this topic and after
serving on Senate for 1.5 years (changed constituencies mid-year and had
to resign), Exec for 1.5 years, and FinBoard for 2 years. I might not
have seen it all, but I have certainly seen a lot.
On the topic of class councils (and I will be brief), I think that the
2010 Class Council is an extraordinary council that has set a positive
example and heavily influenced the class council system. I remember a
couple years ago when the UA office would be littered with Cheesecake
Factory boxes ($10-$15 an entree) from some of the older class councils.
The reforming of the class councils led by the 2010's and SAO has been a
major improvement to the system and has garnered the councils much more
respect from the undergraduates. I agree that there are still a few
issues that need to be resolved such as the 5-course meal that the Ring
Committee enjoys after Ring Delivery, but we have some good momentum
here. It is also unfair in a lot of ways to compare class councils and
the rest of the UA (class councils are technically part of the UA).
Class councils serve to run more of the fun, events based programs on
campus. Therefore they have an easier time recruiting members to plan
Senior Ball than we do trying to convince people to write policy reports.
Although there is still debate about this among the principal officers,
I would argue that the money we collect from Princeton Review and Kaplan
for reserving rooms on campus is not "directly" student money. That is
why I feel more comfortable spending it on items like food and the
Senate retreat. This summer alone we collected $11,200 from those two
companies which pays for our food for the entire year. In addition, we
increased the UA's budget by $35,000 this year, $20,000 of which went
primarily to student groups, however due to the lower overallocation
percentage, the full benefits won't be felt until the economy returns.
The argument can (and has been) made that classrooms rented out to
companies reduce the supply for student groups, but I think that as long
as we are careful to watch over the inventory of available classrooms
this reduction should not be a major issue.
If the argument is that we need to provide student groups more funding,
I would raise two issues. The first is that once we allocate money to
student groups, it tends to stick there. If we give student groups
$110,000 this semester, then it isn't really political to give them
$100,000 next semester. In that way, student group funding (at least
from what I've seen over the past three years) tends to be a relatively
monotonically increasing function. The second argument I would make is
that we spend far less than the average student group on meeting food.
Ask a member of FinBoard how much of the average student group budget is
for food. We provide meeting food for a bunch of the groups that are
FinBoard funded and there are certain guidelines that are followed. If
we follow the logic that the UA needs to follow all FinBoard policies,
than food is the least of our concerns. The Senate retreat is a glaring
violation of FinBoard rules, but one that we have found is essential to
the unity and productivity of the Senate for the year. If we cut our own
food and give that money to student groups, at least a portion of that
money is going to go into food that is almost certainly distributed in a
much less open environment.
The last point I want to make is that although we all have selfless
motives for being here, there are other aspects to the UA that help us
retain members. I like to use the Tech as an example organization
because they require a high time commitment from their members and have
a similar operating budget to the UA (although theirs fluctuates a lot
more). If you were a freshman looking to join a student group and you
had limited time, which one would you pick? The one that takes its staff
on various trips around Boston, provides weekly dinners, has a RockBand
set in the office, and has more free t-shirts than they know what to do
with or the UA? There are several great people each year that truly love
policy, but the other factors do come into play. Recruiting volunteers
into the UA is hard work and we already invest a significant amount of
time in it. I know that if we got rid of food that there wouldn't be a
mass exodus of people from the UA, but it would make recruiting just a
little bit harder.
One last thing: if Senate provides food for themselves, but refuses to
fund food for the rest of the UA, I would personally lose a lot of faith
in Senate. I think it would definitely make a value statement that I am
very uncomfortable with. I would hope that it is all or nothing.
Best,
Mike
Paul Youchak wrote:
> I believe we are having a foolish discussion in comparing what the
> class councils do and what the UA does....
>
> Seriously, it is stupid.
>
> Alexandra Jordan wrote:
>> I would say that meetings for Senate and committees are equally
>> advertised online (committees have public google calendars announcing
>> all meeting dates on each web page), with the only difference in
>> advertising coming from emails from Senators to constituents, which
>> varies on a case-by-case basis. It would be impractical for every
>> committee to email the undergrads list before each meeting.
>> I also think it's important to note that Senators represent far fewer
>> people than executive committee members, who essentially represent
>> the entire student body.
>> Additionally, I'd argue that committees tend to deliver tangible
>> results to the student body (look at any of the active committees
>> like DPC, Athletics, Special Projects, etc., who have all completed
>> large projects recently that benefit the entire undergraduate
>> population) that more than encompass the value of food and office
>> resources utilized by said committees.
>> I agree that standardizing funds for food per person is reasonable.
>> Alex Jordan
>> Panhel Senator
>> Chair, Committee on Sustainability
>> Member, Committee on Dining
>>
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Janet Li wrote:
>>
>>> Senate meetings are more broadcast to undergrads than committee
>>> meetings are, at least in my experience. As an example, last year,
>>> when I wasn't on the UA, the food did actually provide me with an
>>> incentive to come to some of the Senate meetings and listen to the
>>> guest speakers, etc.
>>>
>>> Anyway, to complement Paul's numbers, there are indeed serious
>>> discrepancies in how much committees budget for food, from $400
>>> total for 5-person meetings (Dining), to $135 total for 5-person
>>> meetings (Space Planning). At least we could standardize how much
>>> money we spend on food across all committees.
>>> ---
>>> Janet Li
>>> MIT Class of 2012
>>> Dept. of Biological Engineering
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu
>>> <mailto:adehnert@mit.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If Senate chooses to ask that I do that, I'd ask that you either:
>>> (1) Also ask me to remove food from Senate budget (I'm not sure
>>> if you were counting Senate as a committee)
>>> (2) Come up with a *really good* justification for why Senate
>>> deserves it more.
>>>
>>> ~~Alex
>>>
>>> Janet Li wrote:
>>>
>>> I know I'm new, but I just think that committee meetings are
>>> generally short
>>> enough that no one should go too hungry during them... it
>>> does seem a little
>>> absurd to me that 14% of our budget goes to food to feed
>>> OURSELVES. Sure,
>>> the UA works hard and all, but we do it because we WANT to
>>> help the
>>> undergrads. And I just don't see how we're helping and
>>> serving them by using
>>> 14% of our enormous budget to pay for our own food. I would
>>> like to suggest
>>> that we remove food from all of the committees' budgets in
>>> the future...
>>> does anyone else agree at all?
>>> ---
>>> Janet Li
>>> Baker Senator
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Alexandra Jordan
>>> <amjordan@mit.edu <mailto:amjordan@mit.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Hawkins. The UA is a large organization,
>>> that cumulatively
>>> puts in hundreds of hours for the undergrads per week,
>>> with some individuals
>>> putting in well over even a normal 40 hour work week
>>> during the more
>>> stressful periods (example: Exec officers and the Budget
>>> Task Force position
>>> pieces, example: DPC report compilation). Providing
>>> basics (like food, a
>>> productive meeting space, etc.) for people to perform
>>> work on behalf of
>>> 4,000 students is completely within reason. If you're
>>> looking to cut fat out
>>> of the budget, it shouldn't be at the expense of the
>>> quality of working
>>> conditions for the people who are representing
>>> undergraduates to the
>>> administration to make life better at MIT. I also would
>>> agree with Ashley's
>>> assessment that student groups probably should fund
>>> certain events or
>>> capital expenditures from other means, not only to ensure
>>> sustainability and
>>> longevity of the group, but also because many small
>>> student group expenses
>>> benefit even fewer people than the UA food expenditures
>>> we're discussing.
>>> I also think it's relevant to recognize that the work of
>>> the UA is on
>>> behalf of all undergrads, whereas many of the groups we
>>> fund benefit and
>>> represent extremely small segments of the population.
>>>
>>> Alex Jordan
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Alexandra Jordan
>>>
>>> MIT 2011
>>> Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science
>>> Political Science
>>>
>>> amjordan@mit.edu <mailto:amjordan@mit.edu>
>>> 916.813.7740
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________
>> Alexandra Jordan
>>
>> MIT 2011
>> Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science
>> Political Science
>>
>> amjordan@mit.edu <mailto:amjordan@mit.edu>
>> 916.813.7740
>>
>>
>>
>>
