[129] in UA Senate
Re: UA budgeting principles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Lukmann)
Thu Oct 15 11:33:50 2009
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:33:37 -0400
From: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@MIT.EDU>
To: Alexandra Jordan <amjordan@mit.edu>
CC: Janet Li <jli12@mit.edu>, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>, hwkns@mit.edu,
Jason Scott <jascott88@gmail.com>, Adam Bockelie <bockelie@mit.edu>,
Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu>, Catherine Olsson <catherio@mit.edu>,
Alex Schwendner <alexrs@mit.edu>, ua-senate@mit.edu,
ua-discuss@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <47F8DA17-A8AA-4B93-BAB3-86FEF7B358E0@mit.edu>
Hey Alex,
Using the word "represent" gets you into some sticky ground on this one.
It is the responsibility of each elected senator to "represent" the
interests of their constituencies in the Senate. That is why, for better
or worse, Senate can be considered the "voice of the students" when it
expresses an opinion by passing a resolution. The executive committees,
though the P/VP and the Committee Chairs may strive for balance and
diversity in their composition, are by no means "representative." Nor do
they derive their authority by independent elections - they are
appointed. They are assembled as a group of people united by a common
interest, (be it dining, space planning, etc) to create new policy or
programming on an issue of import to the UA. However, for any of the
committee's actions, such as a report or new initiative, to be "endorsed
by the UA" it must first come before Senate (as a "representative" body)
to be approved, either independently or through the budget process.
-Andrew L.
Alexandra Jordan wrote:
> Just to clarify what I stated:
>
> Individual senators do not represent the entirety of the undergrad
> population, whereas every committee chair and member is, in essence,
> representing all undergrads.
>
> And as for advertising, as I said already, it would be annoying and
> probably counterproductive to email the entire undergrad population
> before every committee meeting (each committee meets about once a
> week, so that would be about 10 meetings a week). Paul's idea has
> potential, though, as long as students are choosing to be on this
> announce list. I dont think that anyone can remove themselves from the
> undergrads list.
>
> Alex
>
> On Oct 15, 2009, at 2:13 AM, Janet Li wrote:
>
>> Do you think that the average undergraduate really checks online to
>> see when UA meetings are? I'm pretty sure that emails reach far more
>> people.
>>
>> Also, what do you mean that "Senators represent far fewer people than
>> executive committee members"? Isn't there specifically one Senator
>> from each dorm and even ones representing fraternities, sororities,
>> and the off-campus population? I thought that the POINT of the Senate
>> was to try to represent the vast majority of the undergrads, in order
>> to have everyone's perspective on each issue.
>> ---
>> Janet Li
>> MIT Class of 2012
>> Dept. of Biological Engineering
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Alexandra Jordan <amjordan@mit.edu
>> <mailto:amjordan@mit.edu>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________
> Alexandra Jordan
>
> MIT 2011
> Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science
> Political Science
>
> amjordan@mit.edu <mailto:amjordan@mit.edu>
> 916.813.7740
>
>
>
>
