[484] in UA Senate
Re: Proposed New Business
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Liz A. Denys)
Mon Mar 29 09:42:39 2010
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:42:35 -0400
From: "Liz A. Denys" <lizdenys@MIT.EDU>
To: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>
CC: Sammi Wyman <swyman@mit.edu>, UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4BB041DE.30900@mit.edu>
To clarify, Alex is saying that something like this bill came before
Senate last year AND the year before. We also told them that they needed
to look for other sources of funding in the future because we couldn't
fund such a large event.
lizdenys
Alex Dehnert wrote:
> While considering this bill, I encourage the Senate to consider:
>
> == Discussion of a similar bill last year ==
>
> The discussion we had of a similar bill by the same group last year
> (pages 7--8 of http://web.mit.edu/ua/minutes/UAS40/2009-03-16.pdf). Some
> particularly relevant comments, in my mind, include:
>
> * Keone Hon: Because you got it last year, it’s an indication you likely
> won’t this year because coming to the UA for funding isn’t supposed to
> be recurring.
> * The discussion of alternate funding sources. I will note that MIT-EMS
> applied to LEF and Finboard for this allocation cycle.
> * The request from Senate is identical in amount to the request from
> LEF (though I don't recall what we decided, and I can't seem to find
> records anywhere).
> * The Finboard application didn't really talk about MassCPR much,
> though it was mentioned. All expected expenses should be included in
> Finboard applications. The relevant line item in the Spring allocations
> was "CPR classes $500".
>
> == FPRC report ==
> The Financial Policy Review Committee's report, which Senate approved
> just last meeting
> (http://web.mit.edu/ua/committee/fprc/report/latest/report.pdf,
> especially chapter 3, "Senate-managed funds" --- pages 17--19)
>
> * "As a result, Senate’s discussions of discretionary usage are often
> undirected. Over the past few semesters, many discussions rehashed the
> same sort of philosophical points. Further, the lack of clarity in what
> Senate Discretionary aimed to fund prompted concerns that those coming
> to and receiving money from Senate Discretionary were those who knew
> Senators, rather than those with the best ideas. Clarifying the purpose
> and intended uses should both allow discussions to be shorter
> and less repetitive, and give those uninvolved in the UA greater
> confidence as to when the Senate Discretionary Fund is a good source of
> funding."
> * "In light of the above, the FPRC recommends that Senate Discretionary
> Fund focus on funding the following:
> * Unique requests from students or student groups that do not meet
> Finboard regulations but either:
> 1. Benefit a large portion of the entire undergraduate student body
> [...]
> * 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.)"
>
> == Budget for the event ==
>
> Unfortunately, this seems to be missing from your email. Do you have one
> that you could forward.
>
>
>
>
> I'd encourage you to discuss the bill via email.
>
> I'll be at Senate for any in-person discussion of this proposed bill.
> Should you choose to consider it (which I believe requires 2/3 vote due
> to the late notice), I'd be happy to provide any historical or financial
> perspective I can, especially if you provide an indication of what you'd
> like in advance so I can do any relevant research.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex Dehnert
> UA Treasurer
> Interim Chair, UA History Committee
>
> On 03/29/2010 01:18 AM, Sammi Wyman wrote:
>> Sorry this is late, guys, but I just got the funding request and the
>> event is on April 4th, so I plan to bring up this bill as new business
>> tomorrow.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>
--
Liz A. Denys
lizdenys@mit.edu
