[266] in UA Senate
Re: FPRC (preliminary) report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer))
Fri Nov 6 16:36:25 2009
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:35:51 -0500
From: "Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer)" <ua-treasurer@MIT.EDU>
To: Ashley Nash <ashnash@mit.edu>
CC: "Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer)" <ua-treasurer@mit.edu>,
UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>, "ua-fprc@mit.edu" <ua-fprc@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <2a9ffd210911061137t5ba25790x9ca65d1966af623e@mail.gmail.com>
Ashley Nash wrote:
> I have some questions about this report.
>
> 1. "The FPRC believes it would be reasonable to add outside groups to
> similar emails to the entire undergraduate population." (page 7)
>
> Does this mean groups outside of the ASA, or groups outside of MIT.
> Students already get more e-mails than they have time to read, and I don't
> see why we should facilitate outside organizations sending e-mails to
> students by using lists that they cannot unsubscribe from. I much prefer
> having opt-in mailing lists for topics that might interest students.
>
This was intended to mean groups like Princeton Review and Kaplan, which
pay the UA money in return for room reservations and some advertising
support. The committee was relatively uncomfortable with the status quo,
in which Princeton Review and Kaplan get dedicated emails, leading it to
write:
"Dedicated emails to all undergraduates The FPRC recommends that the UA
think seriously before providing this service to outside groups."
However, we felt that if the UA was already sending an email with a
number of other announcements, it would be reasonable to add Kaplan et al.:
> Bundled emails to undergraduates Groups such as the ASA occasionally
> send large newsletter-style emails, containing information on a
> variety of topics. The FPRC believes it would be reasonable to add
> outside groups to similar emails to the entire undergraduate
> population.
The advantage of sending these emails is two-fold: we get about
$10K/year for the UA for these one or two emails, and students learn
that they can get (I believe) steeply discounted GRE classes.
> About Senate Discretionary (page 17)
> 2."Unforeseeable events or initiatives run by student groups."
>
> Does this mean events had not been thought of before the Finboard Cycle, or
> unanticipated changes that will change the cost of the event. I was under
> the impression that one of the possible criteria for funding was an event
> that had been planned and budgeted, and at the last minute incurred extra
> costs. E.g. at the last minute, the SAO decides that an event needs a
> police detail that costs $500 that the group doesn't have. Is this what
> that statement is referring to, and if not, is that an appropriate use of
> the Discretionary fund?
From the report:
> • Unforeseeable events or initiatives run by student groups (Note: This does not include any
> events which the group could have handled during a regular Finboard cycle, if the group had
> been better prepared.)
I believe that last year a few groups planned a protest event in
response to the Iranian elections. I believe that the FPRC felt that
funding events such as that --- where there was no way that the group
could have known in November (when Finboard apps are due) it would be
needed --- would be reasonable.
Deciding "oh, it would be cool to have a fourth event this semester"
would not be grounds for Senate Discretionary.
We didn't talk about a situation similar to the police detail one, but I
don't think I'd want to it funded in general. Part of the objective, I
think, was to reduce load on Senate and ensure greater fairness and
equality of allocation results. Accepting that sort of request is, I
think, likely to hamper both of those goals.
Hope that helps.
~~Alex
>
> Ashley,
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Thoughts? It isn't critically important that you have any thoughts on-list
>> before the meeting, but it would be nice if a bunch of you had at least read
>> the report.
>>
>> I'm happy to try to answer questions (and then possibly clarify the report)
>> before the meeting happens.
>>
>>
>> ~~Alex
>>
>> Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Senate,
>>> I've compiled most of the Financial Policy Review Committee's report.
>>> While it isn't yet the formal report of the committee (among other issues, I
>>> haven't given them enough time to confirm that they're all happy with it),
>>> it has only a handful of major changes from the previous draft. This seemed
>>> like a good time for Senate to review the report and give feedback that we
>>> could possibly incorporate into another draft.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry for sending the report so late. I've been distracted by various
>>> things, and preferred to give you something good rather than something
>>> early.
>>>
>>> Anyway, you can download the report from
>>> http://web.mit.edu/ua/committee/fprc/report/3rd/report.pdf.
>>>
>>> I'd like to reiterate the statement on page iii:
>>>
>>>> Note: This document is preliminary and does not necessarily represent the
>>>> views of the Financial
>>>> Policy Review Committee, Senate, Undergraduate Association, or any
>>>> members thereof.
>>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Alex Dehnert
>>> UA Treasurer
>>> Chair, FPRC
>>>
>
