[485] in UA Senate
Re: Proposed New Business
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Catherine Olsson)
Mon Mar 29 11:27:28 2010
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:27:22 -0400
From: Catherine Olsson <catherio@MIT.EDU>
To: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
CC: Sammi Wyman <swyman@mit.edu>, Tim Jenks <tjenks@mit.edu>,
Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <542355FF-075E-496B-8A2C-6125339FBE84@mit.edu>
As a concerned constituent, I have some thoughts if you'd consider
entertaining them:
The group wrote in their request, "We are requesting money from
LEF/ARCADE funding as well as from PSC. We have not heard from either
organization yet." Why haven't they heard from LEF/ARCADE? If they
really haven't, perhaps Senate should put pressure on LEF/ARCADE to give
them an answer before Senate considers this bill.
It seems to me like this bill should not be approved, since we have
clearly told them that they can't keep expecting Senate to be their
funding source on a recurring basis. Also, I believe that Senate
discretionary should not be used to fund events that could/should go
through funding boards, and certainly should not fund events rejected by
funding boards, since the funding boards have way more of the big
picture of funding requests, and more experience.
If Senate is finding it too hard to spend our discretionary money on
worthwhile things, I think more of it should get budgeted to Finboard.
- the peanut gallery
Sammi Wyman wrote:
> Here is the funding request- Thanks for your patience everyone.
>
> If there are specific line items you disagree with or you think the
> request is for too much money, I encourage you to propose an amendment
> to eliminate certain line items, rather than just voting to give them
> no funding. I've presented the funding request exactly as it was
> submitted to me.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Tim Jenks wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the insight Alex.
>> Sammi, do you have a budget for this event, so we can see a breakdown
>> of what the money would be spent on?
>>
>> My initial impressions are that this is a *lot* of money, especially
>> to be recurring by precedent, when there are other channels through
>> which funding can or should be obtained.
>>
>> --Tim
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu
>> <mailto:adehnert@mit.edu>> 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!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> =
