[273] in UA Senate
Re: UA budgeting principles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jont=E9_Craighead?=)
Sat Nov 7 22:11:48 2009
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jont=E9_Craighead?= <jontec@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <20091106184927.8rr97ewg840c0wkw@webmail.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:11:35 -0500
Cc: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>, ua-discuss@mit.edu
To: Rachel Meyer <remeyer@mit.edu>
I would be very much for re-framing this discussion by considering the =20=
Senate as a student group. The Senate's schtick is to provide an open =20=
forum for substantial discussions on issues affecting undergraduates =20
on campus. Our open meetings, by extension, are similar to the events =20=
that any other student group would hold for students--they are our =20
activities and again, the reason why we exist. Therefore, if food =20
expenses at these types of events can be covered for other student =20
groups, it should also be covered for the Senate. I draw a distinction =20=
between events and the organizational meetings that I think Rachel =20
indicated were not covered by Finboard. With this said, though, I am =20
not against a donation cup or even doing a few fundraisers.
At one of our meetings the idea of the UA selling donuts was laughed =20
at, but I honestly do not see why it is a necessarily bad idea. At the =20=
very least, it seems like a nice gesture to raise funding to pay for =20
food at Senate meetings. If it could have some unintended negative PR =20=
consequences (e.g. because we already receive student life funding) =20
then I could definitely be convinced otherwise.
In my opinion, a blanket food price per person per meeting for =20
committees would be fairly easy to implement. I would suggest that =20
before setting this price point, however, we first make an attempt to =20=
poll the committees that have asked for food this (Fall) semester. We =20=
should be able to get from each committee both figures on how much was =20=
spent on food and how many people attended each meeting, then simply =20
average to arrive at a good price estimate per person (we could =20
optionally ask what type of food was purchased in order to gage the =20
magnitude of upward correction needed to enable variety?). In the =20
budgeting process, a committee could budget for the number of =20
committee members/visitors they expect to have throughout the =20
semester. If, later in the year, a committee finds that they may need =20=
more due to a substantial increase membership or general attendance, =20
then I am sure this increase would be something the Senate (and, by =20
extension, the student body) would be glad to hear and would be =20
willing to support. By having the metric on the books, these committee =20=
requests would be justified and the amount requested simple to =20
understand.
I could have seen this working this semester, but I am assuming it is =20=
probably too late in the budgeting process to get the data, develop a =20=
consensus, and provide the committee chairs with sufficient =20
directives. If we were to legislate this soon, it would not take =20
effect until the budgeting process for Fall which, currently, takes =20
place next year with new Senators (who might not be onboard with this =20=
proposal). Even if the Fall budgeting process were moved to the end of =20=
the spring semester, there would be issues with attempting to predict =20=
the number of committee members for the next year.
(excerpt-- don't stop reading... unfortunately, this is not EOM)
On Nov 6, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Rachel Meyer wrote:
>> Also, if we can't hand off PLUS by next year, I
>> would like to see its allocations significantly reduced as I said =20
>> earlier --
>> it is way too expensive for the number of people participating in =20
>> it, and I
>> feel that doing so would be a good example of conceivably significant
>> benefit to student groups without serious detriment to services =20
>> rendered to
>> the student body as a whole by the UA.
>
> I agree.
I also agree that PLUS's allocations should be reduced if it cannot be =20=
handed off. However, I want to be clear in saying that I do not want =20
the funds to be cut completely. The UA started this program, and these =20=
type of programs depend on sustained implementation (i.e. churning out =20=
alumni to come back and mentor/provide advice) in order for them to be =20=
helpful for the participants and be of significant value to those =20
alumni (the value of the program to participants does/should not end =20
after they are technically participants). In the event that the =20
program fails to be sponsored, the UA should be actively engaged in =20
attempting to find a sponsor for the program. Being "actively engaged" =20=
could take the form of the Senate specifically directing the Student =20
Life committee to find a sponsor for the program.
I look forward to discussion on these and other points related to the =20=
budget.
Thanks,
Jont=E9 D. Craighead
Next House UA Senator
MIT Class of 2013
(Prospective) Course 1C
On Nov 6, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Rachel Meyer wrote:
> Some responses to various past statements:
>
>> more closed ones (from student groups) that tend to benefit fewer =20
>> people.
>
> Each group may reach less people, but student groups /as a whole/ =20
> reach wider
> and more directly than many, if not all, UA projects.
>
>
>> Anyway, when was the last time student groups as a whole did
>> this at all of their meetings? Not one or two sporadic cases, but =20=
>> all of
>> them? It is unreasonable to force us into this when the =20
>> organizations to
>> which the surplus funding would be transferred do not and will not do
>> anything like it.
>
> I'm not completely sure what you mean by "did this at all of their =20
> meetings,"
> but I think you mean pay for their own food.
> It is Finboard policy that groups do not receive funding for group =20
> meetings.
> I don't have hard/complete data on this, but based on my familiarity =20=
> of
> groups*,
> to pay for food groups either:
> - charge dues
> - have people pay for food at meetings (either by donation or charge)
> - run on campus fundraisers
> - hold potlucks
> - have member(s) personally host and pay for food
> - get outside sponsors
>
> *This is based on both my personal/direct experience with about 15 =20
> groups and
> familiarity with dozens more groups as ASA President. ASA is =20
> planning on
> collecting more specific data on this in the future.
>
>> Anyway, if the extra money were allocated to student groups, much =20
>> of it
>> would just go toward paying for food at their events, which tend to =20=
>> be much
>> less public and much less ecumenical.
>
> Do you have data or other evidence to support this?
> I do not have explicit data, but based on my experience with =20
> Finboard and
> student groups I do not think this is true or it at least not in the =20=
> extreme
> terms you state.
>
>
>> I am curious about why ASA specifically has such massive food =20
>> expenses,
>> though -- I'm not involved enough with it personally to know the =20
>> answer to
>> this, but I would like to.
>
> 1. ASA submitted a budget for the entire fiscal year, not just one =20=
> semester,
> but only requested that half of that money be allocated now.
>
> 2. Our per meeting expense for board meetings may also be higher =20
> than some
> committees. That is due to 2 things:
> - we are a larger committee than most: 10 people on the board, =20
> potentially
> more people attending when we are discussing LEF/ARCADE or other =20
> projects
> - our meetings are longer than most (if not all) committee's: most =20=
> committee
> meetings are an hour or less, our shortest meetings are an hour and =20=
> half and
> meetings have many times (in the last year or two) lasted three or =20
> four hours
> or taken the form of all day work-sessions.
>
> 3. We are trying to make our meetings very explicitly open. We =20
> have been
> announcing meetings regularly on asa-minutes@mit.edu and with some =20
> exceptions
> all of our discussions are open. Because of this I think we have =20
> had more
> non-members attending our meetings than most committees.
>
> 4. The GBM food line item is high, but that is because those are
> meetings that
> every group is required to send a representative to. There are =20
> about 450
> groups and we usually get at least 200 people at these meetings =20
> (people can
> represent multiple groups).
>
>> Also, if we can't hand off PLUS by next year, I
>> would like to see its allocations significantly reduced as I said =20
>> earlier --
>> it is way too expensive for the number of people participating in =20
>> it, and I
>> feel that doing so would be a good example of conceivably significant
>> benefit to student groups without serious detriment to services =20
>> rendered to
>> the student body as a whole by the UA.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>> You asked for guidance. I had already mentioned a number of these
>> things in previous messages, but since you seem to be implying that =20=
>> I must
>> not care if I do not restate myself, I have done so.
>
> 1. Guidance means more than just what individuals say on a mailing =20=
> list. One
> or two people can't speak for Senate - I'm not sure if it needs to be
> an actual
> piece of legislation, but it at least needs to be discussed by more =20=
> people.
>
> 2. Nobody is trying imply that people need to restate themselves in =20=
> email to
> prove that they care. If anything, I would guess that it is more =20
> important to
> Alex and the Special Budgetary Committee to get more new and different
> thoughts
> from more people (if not something officially from Senate) and/or to =20=
> have some
> legislation proposed in Senate.
>
>
>>>> * Move fall budgeting back to the spring?
>
> To bring up another idea... I think this would be a very interesting =20=
> thing to
> try so that committees could have enough time to plan for
> projects/events after
> knowing their approved budget. However, their are some potential =20
> issues (that
> I'm not sure how big of a deal they'd be):
> - lack of time between committee chairs being appointed/approved and =20=
> a budget
> needing to be in
> - not having the full committees together yet to give input to the =20
> budgets
> - having one session of Senate approve the budget to be used for the =20=
> next
> session
>
>
>
> Sorry for the long and choppy email.
>
> -Rachel
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Ted Hilk <thilk@MIT.EDU>:
>
>> As I stated earlier, I would be averse to cutting back on events and
>> projects that benefit many people (e.g. things like what special =20
>> projects
>> and sustainability are doing, among *many* others) in favor of more =20=
>> closed
>> ones (from student groups) that tend to benefit fewer people. I =20
>> would like
>> to see costs for athletics weekend reduced substantially, though, =20
>> as I also
>> mentioned, because its rather high expenses seem disproportionate =20
>> to the
>> degree of benefit that it provides.
>>
>> Also, I emphatically do not like the idea of requiring individual =20
>> Senators
>> to pay for the food at Senate/committee meetings (as would be =20
>> implied by the
>> "collection bucket" that you cited above), since Senate meetings =20
>> are open to
>> the public and providing food might help draw people in and get =20
>> them to pay
>> more attention to UA issues, and because (since they are public), =20
>> individual
>> Senators should not have to personally cover costs for everyone =20
>> wishing to
>> attend. This problem of a shared commons could conceivably apply =20
>> within the
>> UA as well. Anyway, when was the last time student groups as a =20
>> whole did
>> this at all of their meetings? Not one or two sporadic cases, but =20=
>> all of
>> them? It is unreasonable to force us into this when the =20
>> organizations to
>> which the surplus funding would be transferred do not and will not do
>> anything like it.
>>
>> Regardless, since many committees act primarily on policy matters, =20=
>> the
>> proportion of their individual budgets spent on food is completely
>> irrelevant. By your standard, a committee that spent no money on =20
>> food but
>> $10,000 on an event would be considered superior to one that spent =20=
>> $150 on
>> food, no money on anything else, and singlehandedly convinced a key
>> administrative committee to consider more student input. =20
>> Obviously, such a
>> budgetary standard is flawed.
>>
>> Anyway, if the extra money were allocated to student groups, much =20
>> of it
>> would just go toward paying for food at their events, which tend to =20=
>> be much
>> less public and much less ecumenical. Implementing a =20
>> standardization system
>> for Senate/committee meetings would have a lot of pitfalls, from =20
>> inflation
>> to the number of meetings per committee to disagreements about what
>> constitutes sufficient funding per meal to what time of day the =20
>> meetings are
>> held. Additionally, I suspect that the person implementing the =20
>> system would
>> have a vested interest in decreasing expenditures, which would bias =20=
>> the
>> process significantly. Lastly, we're not even dealing with =20
>> particularly
>> significant amounts of money in the first place here -- why not =20
>> focus on
>> bigger, less contentious sources of cost savings?
>>
>> I am curious about why ASA specifically has such massive food =20
>> expenses,
>> though -- I'm not involved enough with it personally to know the =20
>> answer to
>> this, but I would like to. Also, if we can't hand off PLUS by next =20=
>> year, I
>> would like to see its allocations significantly reduced as I said =20
>> earlier --
>> it is way too expensive for the number of people participating in =20
>> it, and I
>> feel that doing so would be a good example of conceivably significant
>> benefit to student groups without serious detriment to services =20
>> rendered to
>> the student body as a whole by the UA.
>>
>> As the above would imply, I'm not opposed to increasing student group
>> allocations when it can be done without causing issues for the UA =20
>> or forcing
>> us to cut back on things that benefit everyone, but I am opposed to =20=
>> doing so
>> when such effects occur as a result. I am also opposed to any =20
>> attempts to
>> do so unilaterally -- that is, without the full and well-informed =20
>> support of
>> Senate. You asked for guidance. I had already mentioned a number =20=
>> of these
>> things in previous messages, but since you seem to be implying that =20=
>> I must
>> not care if I do not restate myself, I have done so.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) <
>> ua-treasurer@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess nobody cares that much? I don't need guidance, but I think =20=
>>> Senate
>>> giving me guidance soon would be really productive (and would make =20=
>>> the
>>> budgeting meetings less painful). Unfortunately, committee chairs =20=
>>> have
>>> already started giving me budgets (and the budget deadline was =20
>>> supposed to
>>> be last night and is now Saturday night), so we're already towards =20=
>>> the end
>>> of the useful interval, but some discussion, consensus-building, =20
>>> and maybe
>>> even a resolution on Monday would still be useful.
>>>
>>>
>>> ~~Alex
>>>
>>> Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi again,
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to follow up on this thread. Spring budgeting will be =20
>>>> starting
>>>> up shortly --- committee chairs just received the budget request, =20=
>>>> and then
>>>> I'll assemble a budget in the next week or two.
>>>>
>>>> A brief (and rather incomplete) summary of the thread so far:
>>>> * SBC: Contact Paul (ua-speaker@mit.edu) (and, ideally, me ---
>>>> ua-treasurer@mit.edu) if you'd like to be especially involved in =20=
>>>> the
>>>> spring budget
>>>> * PLUS was something the UA could get started and then hand off
>>>> * Focus on student groups: "there is a natural, institutional =20
>>>> bias toward
>>>> spending the money ourselves" that should be counteracted
>>>> * On the other hand, do special projects like the produce market
>>>> benefit more people than a BBQ on Kresge or something does?
>>>> * Move fall budgeting back to the spring?
>>>> * Move elections to the spring?
>>>> * Food
>>>> * Collection jar for Senate food?
>>>> * 14% of budget?
>>>> * Necessary incentive for committees?
>>>> * (Some?) class councils don't do it
>>>> * A lot of variety on how much committees request --- look at =20
>>>> spending
>>>> this semester and standardize?
>>>> * Class councils... exist. (Read that thread if you want more...)
>>>>
>>>> I have semi-intentionally didn't include names in the above --- =20
>>>> if you
>>>> want more details, I encourage you to find the original messages =20=
>>>> --- as
>>>> a bonus, you may see tidbits that your didn't remember.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway... if any of those discussions are worth continuing, feel =20=
>>>> free. I
>>>> encourage you to change the subject line to reflect the subtopic =20=
>>>> you're
>>>> addressing, though.
>>>>
>>>> If Senate wishes to provide me with direction, please due so at =20
>>>> the next
>>>> (Nov 2) meeting, or at the latest the Nov 9 meeting. After that, =20=
>>>> it becomes
>>>> harder for me to make major changes while still being able to =20
>>>> provide a
>>>> quality, well-reviewed budget to Senate well in advance of the =20
>>>> Nov 30
>>>> non-voting budget meeting.
>>>>
>>>> ~~Alex
>>>>
>>>> Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A few of you have emailed me off-list. While that's great, I'm =20
>>>>> much more
>>>>> likely to take action if a consensus seems to be emerging on the =20=
>>>>> list or a
>>>>> bill/resolution gets passed. When all I get are private emails, =20=
>>>>> I can't as
>>>>> easily tell the difference between people being mostly one way =20
>>>>> because the
>>>>> other side is apathetic (and doesn't realize that their side is =20=
>>>>> "losing"),
>>>>> or because Senate genuinely prefers that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As several people have pointed out, the UA spends quite a bit =20
>>>>>> of money
>>>>>> on events (about a third of last semester's budget) and focused =20=
>>>>>> projects
>>>>>> (like PLUS --- about a tenth of last semester's UA budget). As =20=
>>>>>> 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 =20
>>>>>> changes to the
>>>>>> Fall 2009 budget. Last week's meeting was intended to allow =20
>>>>>> 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. =20=
>>>>>> (Though
>>>>>> Athletics Weekend has already happened, so I'd rather you =20
>>>>>> 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 =20=
>>>>>> 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 =20
>>>>>> 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 =20
>>>>>> money on
>>>>>> (2) Alternatively, that events and programs such as Athletics =20
>>>>>> Weekend or
>>>>>> PLUS aren't worth taking the money away from those student groups
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've recently been defaulting to the former guiding principle. =20=
>>>>>> 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, =20
>>>>>> however, that
>>>>>> committee chairs will probably be asked to begin budgeting in =20
>>>>>> about two
>>>>>> weeks.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alex Dehnert
>>>>>> UA Treasurer
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>
>
