[169] in UA Senate
Re: 41UAS2.3: Bill to Authorize the Treasurer to Reallocate Money
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Dehnert)
Tue Oct 20 02:13:16 2009
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:12:45 -0400
From: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@MIT.EDU>
To: Ted Hilk <thilk@mit.edu>
CC: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <6ed15f040910191937y859615dhdc3de04dcaffd709@mail.gmail.com>
Ted Hilk wrote:
> Agreed -- when planning budgets in subsequent years, it is important to know
> what the original line item was, in addition to the reallocated one.
> Otherwise, the bill risks deceiving later Senate members.
I was never planning to change the original budget.
>
> The bill should include specific language stipulating that the original line
> item remain on record in the budget for that year. If the bill's purpose is
> to simply recycle leftover money (which I wholly support), rather than
> forcing committees to progressively decrease their spending (which I
> emphatically do not, at least not on such a broad level),
There was never an intent to do reduce committee budgets on a
term-over-term basis. How did you conclude I was trying to do that? And
why didn't you bring up that concern today?
I could see a future treasurer using spending information to decide, for
example, how much money a committee needed to feed $n$ people for $m$
meetings, but I can't imagine it being used to, say, monotonically
decrease Athletics Weekend's funding by repeated claims of "but you did
it for less last year".
Also, the UA, so far as I can tell, generally puts very little stock in
precedent in the budgeting process...
> then I see no
> reason why such language should not be included. Why is it not?
Because good language doesn't put itself in bills, and I don't believe
anybody proposed any such language. Since it seems reasonable, I'm
adding something:
\that{that the original budget must remain available for the
historical record}
Let me know if you have language that you'd prefer.
I'm maintaining various revisions in a Git repo now --- you can get the
latest version of the bill as I'd like to see it amended to at
http://web.mit.edu/ua/officers/treasurer/Public/FY10/2009-10-moving-money/moving-money.pdf.
I guess at this point the bill is technically no longer mine, so I hope
that next week Paul will permit me to propose a series of amendments in
rapid succession.
>
> Ted
>
> P.S. Meant to hit 'reply to all' -- sorry if Maggie got two copies of this.
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Maggie Delano <maggied@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> To address Alex's second point: I think it would be useful to see how much
>> money a committee actually spent *along with* what they were allocated. I
>> don't think this will explicitly set a precedent for lower budgets, as we
>> would still like to overallocate slightly on line items.
>>
>> -Maggie
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Alexandra Jordan <amjordan@mit.edu>wrote:
>>
>>> Response to Paul:
>>>
>>> I agree that committees could find that a project can't be implemented, or
>>> that they no longer want to implement it, but since Senate budgeted money
>>> for said project, Senate should be informed and able to approve the
>>> reallocation of these funds. I don't want to take the right of Committee
>>> Chairs to use their discretion on projects, but rather I don't want to
>>> formally exclude Senate from deciding to change project funding.
>>>
>>> I'm not worried about the Treasurer unilaterally changing committee
>>> budgets mid-semester. I'm worried about putting a piece of legislation in
>>> place that practically guarantees that next year's chairs will have a
>>> precedent of lower budgets and will thus have to work much harder to ask for
>>> increased allocations. As I said before, Senate usually relies on precedent
>>> when approving allocations, so this would almost ensure a more difficult
>>> budget approval for many committees.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 19, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Paul Youchak wrote:
>>>
>>> I am responding to both Alex and Ted here...
>>>> Committees may fund for a project and later find out is is either not
>>>> possible or not desirable. Committees may think a project is a good idea
>>>> but they will not really know, for whatever reason, that their idea should
>>>> be implemented until they have tried. Committee's can make mistakes about
>>>> what they want to do in the upcoming semester, especially since they are
>>>> budgeted for so far in advance. If a committee cannot fulfill their
>>>> obligation for the project then it is acceptable to remove the line. In my
>>>> mind there are not separate issues.
>>>>
>>>> Having the reallocation of money be reversible makes no sense. The
>>>> committee leader should not release the money unless they are 100% sure they
>>>> wont need it. Secondly, if they find they have changed their mind it is
>>>> always possible to ask for more money from discretionary. I don't think
>>>> this will ever happen, so its not a very strong objection to the bill.
>>>>
>>>> The treasurer does by no means have the right to reduce a committees
>>>> budget mid semester. If you are afraid of the committee being overruled by
>>>> the committee chair then we can say the committee must unanimously (2/3,
>>>> whatever) approve of the reallocation of funds. I however, think you are
>>>> more concerned with the power in the treasurer. Remember, the Senate still
>>>> has ultimate control because we do now have the right reverse his decision.
>>>>
>>>> Note, this bill will only last for this year unless we decide to renew
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ted Hilk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That the Treasurer may reallocate funds from one part of the UA
>>>>> budget to the pool of funds that
>>>>> the Finance Board helps allocate to student groups for the next
>>>>> funding period;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding this pool: if the applicable committee chair later decides
>>>>> that this decision was made in error, is there any way for it to be
>>>>> reversed? Given that the money is allocated to a "pool of funds" rather
>>>>> than directly to the groups (hence implying some time delay before the money
>>>>> is actually out of UA's control), shouldn't such reversal be an option? If
>>>>> not, why not?
>>>>>
>>>>> That such reallocations must be approved by the committee chair or
>>>>> other officer in charge of the
>>>>> budget area losing said funds;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be possible to clarify, in the text of the bill, which specific
>>>>> positions are allowed to do this for which specific budget areas? I feel
>>>>> that the existing wording is a bit vague, given the powers involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> That the Senate, Finance Board, and [a]affected Chair must be
>>>>> informed of each such reallocation;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a reason why this line does not say "by the next meeting of the
>>>>> Senate"? While understanding the importance of delegation, I believe that
>>>>> timely information is necessary to allow for review of the decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I would like to note that I'm not by any means opposed to the
>>>>> principle of this bill. I agree that leftover money from our operations
>>>>> should go to student groups. I just want to make sure that Senate exercises
>>>>> caution in doing so, and more time for discussion was necessary to meet this
>>>>> aim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Ted Hilk
>>>>> EC Senator
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu<mailto:
>>>>> adehnert@mit.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we postponed this a week...
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have questions: Please ask them explicitly. Otherwise, no
>>>>> guarantee that you'll get an answer... I'm not psychic.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll probably put together some more information shortly, but I
>>>>> encourage some discussion to happen here besides that.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~~Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Dehnert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wrote a bill which is available at
>>>>>
>>>>> http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/2/moving-money/moving-money.pdf.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bill authorizes the treasurer to:
>>>>> * reallocate funds from a committee to the pool of funds that
>>>>> the Finance Board helps allocate to student groups for the
>>>>> next funding period; and
>>>>> * Requires that such reallocations be approved by the
>>>>> committee chair losing said funds; and
>>>>> * That the Senate, Finance Board, and affected Chair must be
>>>>> informed of each such reallocation; and
>>>>> * That such authorization shall expire at the end of the
>>>>> 2009–2010 fiscal year unless renewed by Senate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. It would be
>>>>> awesome if we can get most questions out *before* Senate, so
>>>>> that Senate can be short without being much less effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~~Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Alexandra Jordan
>>>
>>> MIT 2011
>>> Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science
>>> Political Science
>>>
>>> amjordan@mit.edu
>>> 916.813.7740
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
