[217] in UA Senate
Re: The Elephant in the Treasury
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Catherine Olsson)
Thu Oct 29 11:36:44 2009
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:36:32 -0400
From: Catherine Olsson <catherio@MIT.EDU>
To: Richard Dahan <rdahan@mit.edu>
CC: Steve Kelch <phire14@gmail.com>, hwkns@mit.edu,
Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu>, Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>,
UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>, Tim Jenks <tjenks@mit.edu>,
Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <d2c0085f0910290811x6757b146ud41f2c05a4e08ec1@mail.gmail.com>
I'm certainly in favor of option 3. I definitely think no-brainer
reallocations (such as "committee X was able to run event Y more cheaply
then expected, let's give the leftover money to student groups faster")
should happen easily, and if they're definitely no-brainers then a quick
bill in Senate with clear explanations in the whereas clauses should
pass with little fuss. Re-allocation of money unspent for reasonable
reasons was the usage I imagined when I initially supported the bill
that Alex presented.
However, if re-allocations are _not_ no-brainers, such as if a committee
failed to do something Senate expected it to, the incentive to discuss
it in Senate will be a net benefit for the health of the UA as a whole
because it will encourage questioning as to why the committee did not do
what it promised. Thus I now believe that Alex's bill may not be the
best way to ensure that student groups get the money quickly, and that
instead Alex should perform such re-allocations through a Senate bill,
perhaps a bundled one.
Judboard's ruling brings up an important point: when I think about it,
in all cases of current practice that I can come up with where Senate
routinely delegates its financial authority, we have delegated the job
of preparing recommendations and plans, not the actual ultimate decision
authority. Retaining ultimate authority in the form of approving
everything is annoying, but I think it is also the safer way to go from
the point of view of the student body who we ultimately represent, and
who is relying on us to retain control and make responsible decisions
over our finances.
We should definitely continue to delegate the job of preparing
recommendations and doing intensive research for budget decisions to
those who have more context than we do (attempting to constantly do so
ourselves is the kind of "micromanaging" that I think we should avoid)
but there is no harm to making sure we stay in control at the top level
and retain the power to give final approval or disapproval.
Yours respectfully in changing-my-mind-somewhat,
- Catherine
Richard Dahan wrote:
> The primary objection I heard (from Alex the Treasurer and others) to
> this Option 3 of having Senate approve every single change -- instead
> of just having the ability to revoke such reallocations -- is that it
> would be extremely inefficient. Namely, if the treasurer would put in
> intense effort to check in on the committees and propose such
> re-allocations, only to have them shot down or debated for hours in
> Senate, that would be less than ideal. Please correct me if this is
> not your primary objection.
>
> I can definitely understand where this objection is coming from. For
> this semester's budget, for example, we spent <2 hours looking over
> and revising Alex's proposed budget in the Senate Budget Committee to
> get it ready for the Senate. It took far more than 2 hours to approve
> it in the Senate.
>
> That said, I wholeheartedly support Option 3. As far as I see it,
> there are two types of re-allocations: (1) simple, accounting
> reallocations (i.e. the Athletics committee spent less than it was
> expecting on an event), on which I have faith that the Senate won't
> debate for long; and (2) more complex, ambiguous re-allocations, such
> as the Committee on Student Life not spending any money in a semester
> because it didn't do anything (I only use that example because I know
> it would never happen). The second type of reallocations will indeed
> be debated, and they should be debated. It is Senate's job to do this.
>
> Moreover, is there any reason why we wouldn't just present these
> reallocations all at once (ideally sufficiently before the FinBoard
> meets to determine their final budget for the next semester)? If we do
> approve all of them simultaneously, the treasurer wouldn't have to
> bring these up at every single Senate meeting. True, this would be one
> long Senate meeting, but it wouldn't be nearly as long as the meetings
> we already have to approve the budget. Again, please let me know if
> there's any specific reason why you wouldn't want to discuss all of
> these re-allocations at once.
>
> In light of this previous point, it seems to me like this is a
> no-brainer. If we discuss all of these reallocations in a single
> meeting, then the only difference between options 1/2 and 3 is whether
> we discuss them before or after Alex makes them. Given that, and given
> the difficulty of changing the Constitution to fit options 1/2 (i.e.
> clear opposition in the Senate), does it not make sense to just go
> with Option 3?
>
> - Richard
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Steve Kelch <phire14@gmail.com
> <mailto:phire14@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> You guys don't have to change the Constitution at all, or even
> pass any legislation.
>
> The objection from the Judicial Board was that Senate was making a
> post facto decision about finances, potentially losing its 'final
> authority' especially in cases where the reallocation may get
> rejected but after the money has already been spent. So... if the
> Treasurer feels that funds need to be reallocated, a simple motion
> within the Senate to approve the reallocation before the
> reallocation takes place is enough to accomplish this task,
> according to JudBoard.
>
> Why even remove the debate from the matter? Just treat it like a
> regular motion. If the Treasurer knows there will be debate on the
> topic, it is within his interest to use these motions sparingly,
> and to lump as many together as possible. It's within the Senate's
> interest to approve an accurate budget at the beginning of the year.
>
> Aren't you all meeting more regularly now? One or two weeks lead
> time isn't enough to plan for a major reallocation? I would reject
> the notion that it's not worth Senate's time to 'micromanage' the
> budget. It's not really micromanaging if you are explicitly
> recognizing funding shortfalls and misallocations for future
> Senates to note. The Treasurer manages the finances, but the
> Senate manages the budget. That's a large part of your job
> description, and to hand it away because you don't want to take 10
> minutes at a meeting to talk about 'just a few hundred dollars'
> seems short sighted and lazy.
>
> From my perspective, you all are trying to *amend the
> Constitution* to fix a problem that doesn't exist. You already
> have every tool and every check and balance already in place.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu
> <mailto:hwkns@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> Presumably, if option 3 is chosen, senate should approve the
> reallocations without debate. This is based on the fact that
> senate passed a bill giving Alex and the committee chairs the
> power to reallocate on their own. If the only thing wrong
> with that idea is constitutionality, Alex should be able to
> present reallocations to senate, saying "committee chairs
> approved these", and senate should vote immediately to approve
> them. This is not all that inefficient, and could happen
> multiple times this semester if needed.
>
> Of course, that isn't a long-term solution... I do agree that
> constitutional changes should be carefully thought out. But
> honestly, I can't see many senators taking issue with changes
> that the treasurer and committee chairs have agreed upon. If
> it's a controversial change, it probably would have been
> brought up, debated, and reversed anyway under the model
> described in the "unconstitutional" bill. Thus, it is only
> marginally less efficient to have senate approve every
> reallocation.
>
> -hwkns
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Paul Youchak
> <youchakp@mit.edu <mailto:youchakp@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hello Senators,
>
> I agree very much with the statements of Andrew below. I
> am not very eager to change our constitution. Taking
> financial matters (reallocations and so forth) to senate
> may be inefficient and more time consuming than one could
> hope for, but I still believe it is the most transparent
> and safest way of working.
>
> I am not against giving the treasurer the ability to
> reallocate these funds. However, I do not believe the
> proposed method is proper. Any changes to the
> constitution need to be well thought out and debated.
>
> I will not support the bill to modify the constitution as
> is, and unfortunately it appears the reallocation bill may
> die because of this.
>
> I have a general question for other senators. How do you
> believe we should go about giving the treasurer authority
> to reallocate these funds?
> I think there are ultimately three options,
> 1. Alter the constitution as currently proposed and
> authorize the bill for reallocation.
> 2. Alter the constitution with direct reference to the
> reallocation bill (in other words put constraints on who
> the senate may give such authority)
> 3. Have the treasurer present reallocations to senate, for
> approval, at an appropriate time during the semester.
>
> Feel free to present other ideas of how this can be done.
> I strongly prefer option three, however, this is not
> ideal for our treasurer as it consumes a lot of his time.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
> Andrew Lukmann wrote:
>
> Hey Senators!
>
> I'm just going to throw this out there, so take it or
> leave it...
>
> The Senate needs to make sure that it is careful and
> deliberate in how it delegates its authority,
> particularly with regards to funding. In the eyes of
> the administration, the student body and the rest of
> the MIT community, the Senate has the power of the
> purse within the UA. Therefore if anyone (now or in
> the future) is irresponsible, lax or abusive with
> their delegated authority, in the end, Senate will get
> tagged for it.
>
> In addition... never make the assumption that future
> students picking up core documents like the UA
> Constitution will have any accurate information
> regarding the circumstances under which a change was
> made. The UA, like most student groups, has extremely
> rapid turnover and such institutional knowledge is
> often lost or ignored. A change made as a one time
> exception today could quickly turn into standard
> operating procedure in just a few short years. Alex's
> amusing example of giving funding authority over UA
> funds to a DormCon officer is really not so far fetched.
>
> In the end, I would advise you guys to keep Senate
> involved as closely as possible in the approval and
> disapproval of budget elements as possible. In the
> end, couldn't Alex's proposal of endowing the
> Treasurer with these new powers be accomplished just
> as easily by having the Treasurer submit to Senate
> amendments to the budget partway through the term as
> information about spending needs and trends become
> known? This would preserve the Senate's constitutional
> responsibility to have power over the budget while
> providing additional flexibility to react to the
> changing needs of the committees (and the balance of
> the executive).
>
> Be thoughtful and well reasoned in your actions.
>
> Yours in the UA,
> -Andrew L.
>
>
> Alex Dehnert wrote:
>
> Tim Jenks wrote:
>
> Hey Senate,
> As far as I'm aware, 41 U.A.S
> 2.3<http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/pending/41%20UAS%202.3%20Bill%20to%20Authorize%20the%20Treasurer%20to%20Reallocate%20Money%20to%20Student%20Groups.pdf>is
>
> either postponed or tabled, and last meeting
> we chose not to discuss
> the
> bill to amend the constitution because it was
> such a sudden and significant
> proposition. I assumed we shot that down so
> we could discuss the best way
> to go about passing this bill, but there seems
> to be an elephant in
> the
> way<http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/377437969_d0f88c6342.jpg>of
> discussion. We should save some precious
> Monday night time by
> debating
> what we should do about this bill now, so no
> more bills come as a surprise
> during the meeting.
>
> I certainly agree with this sentiment...
>
> If even possible, I would like to see this
> reallocation
> bill get passed without amending the
> constitution, but from what Liz tells
> me this probably isn't possible. Thus, 41 U.A.S.
> 4.1<http://web.mit.edu/ua/officers/treasurer/Public/FY10/2009-10-moving-money/constitution.pdf>seems
>
> to be a starting point. I agree with Hawkins
> that the Whereas clause
> is a bit harsh,
>
>
> I, uh, wrote it somewhat quickly. Ryan's replacement:
>
> Whereas it is far more efficient for Senate to
> delegate its financial authority in certain
> matters; and Whereas it is not a productive
> use of the Senate's time to micromanage and
> debate certain matters
>
> seems pretty good.
>
> > and personally I would like to see restraints on
> who Senate
>
> can delegate its power of financial authority
> to, although I'm not sure if
> this is getting too specific within the
> Constitution itself.
>
>
> I think it is too specific for the constitution. I
> think if Senate decides to delegate some financial
> policy to... I dunno, the Dormcon housing chair,
> to pick something fairly wild... it shouldn't
> require another amendment. Majority vote (or, if
> the policy is something like a reserve allocation
> that requires a supermajority, that supermajority)
> seems plenty. "Trust your future selves," as
> somebody in another group I'm in put it in
> discussions of *their* constitution. The
> Constitution "should" be able to stay static for
> years.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Tim Jenks
> Fraternities Representative
>
>
> Thanks for bringing this up again.
>
> ~~Alex
>
>
>
>
>
