[93] in UA Senate
Re: UA budgeting principles
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Janet Li)
Wed Oct 14 23:38:55 2009
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: janetli.mit@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4AD691F8.9090000@mit.edu>
From: Janet Li <jli12@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:38:00 -0400
To: Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu>
Cc: Catherine Olsson <catherio@mit.edu>, Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>,
Alex Schwendner <alexrs@mit.edu>,
"Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer)" <ua-treasurer@mit.edu>,
ua-senate@mit.edu, ua-discuss@mit.edu
--0016363b9a8ab935de0475f10241
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I really like Catherine's idea of the collection jar for food for Senate
meetings. I also agree with Paul that it doesn't seem all that necessary to
have so much of our budget go towards providing food at committee meetings.
People on committees should be dedicated enough to not need food as an
incentive to come to meetings, anyway.
---
Janet Li
Baker Senator
MIT Class of 2012
Dept. of Biological Engineering
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu> wrote:
> A few comments:
>
> A quick calculation for this years budget makes the cost spent on food for
> meetings for various committees (and poland spring water) to be 5675 dollars
> which is 14% of our budget. This seems to be a pretty large sum and
> percentage. Saving this money and giving it to Finboard would be quite
> significant.
>
> I understand the logic in moving the Senate elections to the fall so that
> Freshmen could participate. This being said, I think it would be worth
> considering revising this and moving the elections back to the Spring. We
> could withhold a few open Freshman seats to be run with the class council
> (independent of living group) allowing for their inclusion in the fall as
> well. This process should allow Senators for the coming year to be involved
> in the budgeting process and any other events which might be taking place.
> For instance this would have allowed for the Senators to help the Exec on
> the task force report this year and get involved in other projects as soon
> as the school year begin. Returning senators would also feel a greater
> obligation to be involved instead of waiting for the fall session to start.
>
> I, being a new Senator this year, do feel that I have relatively no idea
> what is going on for these discussion and because of it do not feel it is my
> place to question the judgment of those who know much more about the topic
> than I.
>
> back to work,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> Catherine Olsson wrote:
>
>> I strongly agree with Alex S's sentiments that we should favor putting
>> money towards student groups instead of our own initiatives. I think at the
>> very least, as Andrew brought up, we should hold ourselves to the same
>> standard as Finboard holds student groups (which will be easier if
>> Finboard's standards become more clearly stated and publicized as
>> recommended by the FPRC). If we don't hold ourselves to the same standards
>> as the groups we're withholding money from, then it seems clear to me that
>> the money is not going to its best use.*
>>
>> Thanks, Andrew, for the relevant history. Would it make sense for us to
>> extend the period of the summer budget through the second meeting of the
>> subsequent fall's Senate session? It seems like this would prevent money
>> from being spent before the fall budget is approved, as happened with
>> Athletics Weekend and other expenditures this cycle.
>>
>> I would also be in favor of putting a collection jar out at Senate, Exec,
>> and committee meetings so that we can pay for some of our own food. I
>> greatly appreciate having food at Senate meetings, as it means I don't need
>> to worry about finding dinner on an evening which is already very busy.
>> However, paying a few bucks for the food I eat so that we aren't entirely
>> taxing the student body for meals most of them don't eat (even though
>> they're welcome to) seems very reasonable. Other students who come to
>> meetings would still be able to eat the food and would be encouraged to chip
>> in, too. Does anyone else agree?
>>
>> I'm very glad we're discussing this issue. Given that next term's
>> budgeting is starting soon, I think now is exactly the right time to pull
>> our thoughts together.
>>
>> - Catherine Olsson, Random Hall Senator and Senate Representative to
>> Finboard
>>
>>
>> *It should be noted that much of the funding denied to student groups by
>> Finboard is because the groups' proposals seem not well-planned-out or not
>> worth the money (such as t-shirts), not _because_ Finboard doesn't have
>> enough money. But if Finboard had more money, we could relax some of our
>> guidelines, enabling us to fund more conferences, fund capital such as
>> costumes and musical instruments more than our current caps, fund more
>> travel, enable groups that maintain a library (such as MITSFS and Anime
>> Club) to acquire more new material, and allow groups who wish to hold a vast
>> number of events to hold all their events and not just some.
>>
>>
>> Andrew Lukmann wrote:
>>
>>> If Alex's sentiments are shared by a number of other new senators... it
>>> might be time to re-investigate the timing of future budget approvals as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> History:
>>> In the somewhat distant past (6-7+ years ago) Senate was elected in the
>>> Spring with the incoming UA P/VP. As a result, the incoming Senate and the
>>> incoming administration worked together to compile and approve a budget
>>> before the Summer. However, with a number of changes to the living group
>>> constituencies, most importantly Freshmen on Campus, the decision was made
>>> to move Senate elections to the Fall to allow freshmen to vote (and run in)
>>> the Senate contest. From what I recall, the first year of this change, the
>>> Fall budget was actually voted upon by the outgoing Senate, allowing the
>>> administration to have a complete and approved budget to operate on over the
>>> summer, during orientation and during the Fall term. This, however, served
>>> to largely hamstring the newly-elected Senate regarding financial policy
>>> until at least the Spring budget was discussed in December. As a result,
>>> this was altered (about 5 years ago) to the current arrangement where the
>>> outgoing Senate (in the spring) grants an advance for the administration to
>>> utilize over the Summer/Orientation which is disbursed by the ExecComm in
>>> lieu of Senate. Then the Fall budget is taken up and approved by the new
>>> Senate when it is finally assembled and called to order by early-mid
>>> October.
>>>
>>> Problems:
>>> It seems that in an effort to address problems of the past, we in past UA
>>> administrations (and past sessions of Senate) have helped to create new
>>> problems. It seems that even though the intent of moving Fall budget
>>> approval to the Fall was to empower new Senators, this has been less than
>>> effective. New senators are just beginning to find their way and are
>>> reticent to question the wisdom of a budget handed to them by more
>>> experienced officers like the President, Treasurer and (often) Speaker.
>>> Situations are also encountered where the executive assumes that certain
>>> budgetary line items will be approved and preemptively spends the money
>>> (such as Athletics Weekend), effectively circumventing Senate's oversight
>>> responsibility. Not having an approved budget until mid October also hampers
>>> the ability of the Executive and it's Committees to engage in activities and
>>> programming early in the term.
>>>
>>> If other people in the UA agree that this is an important enough issue, I
>>> encourage you to re-investigate the possibility of making changes in the
>>> budget calendar and taking a closer look at the pros and cons of different
>>> options. In the end, the balance will almost always be between empowering
>>> the current (or most recently) elected representatives and having an
>>> experienced enough group of Senators calling the shots that they can serve
>>> as a meaningful check against executive overreaching or "mission creep."
>>>
>>> Yours in the UA,
>>> Andrew L.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex Schwendner wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would like to advocate that our budgeting goal should be to allocate
>>>> more money to student groups. Here's why:
>>>>
>>>> Our goal, as the Undergraduate Association, is to make things better
>>>> for undergraduates. When it comes to money, this means that we should
>>>> see that money gets spent on the things which most benefit MIT
>>>> undergraduates. This might mean that we spend the money ourselves or
>>>> this might mean that we give it to student groups who can use it.
>>>> There are plenty of student groups who do wonderful and amazing
>>>> things. All of us can think of student groups which get much of their
>>>> funding from the UA which have made our time at MIT more worthwhile.
>>>> Our goal, as the UA, should not be to do awesome things, but rather to
>>>> see that awesome things get done.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes, of course, this will mean that we should spend money on
>>>> projects conceived by the UA and sometimes this will mean that we
>>>> should give money to student groups. However, there is a natural,
>>>> institutional bias toward spending the money ourselves. We need to
>>>> fight that bias. Since we, the UA, get first crack at the money, it's
>>>> easy to think of cool things which we can do with the money while
>>>> forgetting about the very real and very cool things which student
>>>> groups will *not* be able to do without that money. We can see this
>>>> "mission creep" in UA funding in the way that the money allocated to
>>>> UA committees has increased in past years. Yes, the UA does more with
>>>> the increased money, but it is not always clear that it's spent better
>>>> than it could be spent by student groups. The standards which hold for
>>>> receiving funding from the UA general budget should be analogous to
>>>> the standards which hold for receiving funding from UA Finboard. I
>>>> will note that while UA committees received basically everything that
>>>> they asked for in the Fall UA budget, student groups which applied to
>>>> UA Finboard received less than 30% of their requests in the most
>>>> recent funding cycle.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, during the Spring 2010 budgeting process, I intend to push
>>>> for allocating more money for student groups. Projects which we choose
>>>> not to fund from the UA general budget can seek funding through UA
>>>> Finboard, from LEF or ARCADE, from the MIT Administration, or from
>>>> other funding sources.
>>>>
>>>> Please discuss.
>>>>
>>>> Alex Schwendner
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer)
>>>> <ua-treasurer@mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As several people have pointed out, the UA spends quite a bit of money
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> events (about a third of last semester's budget) and focused projects
>>>>>> (like
>>>>>> PLUS --- about a tenth of last semester's UA budget). As 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 changes to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Fall 2009 budget. Last week's meeting was intended to allow 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. (Though
>>>>>> Athletics Weekend has already happened, so I'd rather you 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 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 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 money on
>>>>>> (2) Alternatively, that events and programs such as Athletics Weekend
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> PLUS aren't worth taking the money away from those student groups
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've recently been defaulting to the former guiding principle.
>>>>>> 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, however, that committee
>>>>>> chairs
>>>>>> will probably be asked to begin budgeting in about two weeks.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alex Dehnert
>>>>>> UA Treasurer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
--0016363b9a8ab935de0475f10241
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I really like Catherine's idea of the collection jar for food for Senat=
e meetings. I also agree with Paul that it doesn't seem all that necess=
ary to have so much of our budget go towards providing food at committee me=
etings. People on committees should be dedicated enough to not need food as=
an incentive to come to meetings, anyway. <br clear=3D"all">
---<br>Janet Li<br>Baker Senator<br>MIT Class of 2012<br>Dept. of Biologica=
l Engineering<br>
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Paul Y=
ouchak <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:youchakp@mit.edu">youchakp@m=
it.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddi=
ng-left: 1ex;">
A few comments:<br>
<br>
A quick calculation for this years budget makes the cost spent on food for =
meetings for various committees (and poland spring water) to be 5675 dollar=
s which is 14% of our budget. =A0This seems to be a pretty large sum and pe=
rcentage. =A0Saving this money and giving it to Finboard would be quite sig=
nificant.<br>
<br>
I understand the logic in moving the Senate elections to the fall so that F=
reshmen could participate. =A0This being said, I think it would be worth co=
nsidering revising this and moving the elections back to the Spring. =A0We =
could withhold a few open Freshman seats to be run with the class council (=
independent of living group) allowing for their inclusion in the fall as we=
ll. =A0This process should allow Senators for the coming year to be involve=
d in the budgeting process and any other events which might be taking place=
. =A0For instance this would have allowed for the Senators to help the Exec=
on the task force report this year and get involved in other projects as s=
oon as the school year begin. =A0Returning senators would also feel a great=
er obligation to be involved instead of waiting for the fall session to sta=
rt.<br>
<br>
I, being a new Senator this year, do feel that I have relatively no idea wh=
at is going on for these discussion and because of it do not feel it is my =
place to question the judgment of those who know much more about the topic =
than I.<br>
<br>
back to work,<br><font color=3D"#888888">
<br>
Paul</font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Catherine Olsson wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I strongly agree with Alex S's sentiments that we should favor putting =
money towards student groups instead of our own initiatives. I think at the=
very least, as Andrew brought up, we should hold ourselves to the same sta=
ndard as Finboard holds student groups (which will be easier if Finboard=
9;s standards become more clearly stated and publicized as recommended by t=
he FPRC). If we don't hold ourselves to the same standards as the group=
s we're withholding money from, then it seems clear to me that the mone=
y is not going to its best use.*<br>
<br>
Thanks, Andrew, for the relevant history. Would it make sense for us to ext=
end the period of the summer budget through the second meeting of the subse=
quent fall's Senate session? It seems like this would prevent money fro=
m being spent before the fall budget is approved, as happened with Athletic=
s Weekend and other expenditures this cycle.<br>
<br>
I would also be in favor of putting a collection jar out at Senate, Exec, a=
nd committee meetings so that we can pay for some of our own food. I greatl=
y appreciate having food at Senate meetings, as it means I don't need t=
o worry about finding dinner on an evening which is already very busy. Howe=
ver, paying a few bucks for the food I eat so that we aren't entirely t=
axing the student body for meals most of them don't eat (even though th=
ey're welcome to) seems very reasonable. Other students who come to mee=
tings would still be able to eat the food and would be encouraged to chip i=
n, too. Does anyone else agree?<br>
<br>
I'm very glad we're discussing this issue. Given that next term'=
;s budgeting is starting soon, I think now is exactly the right time to pul=
l our thoughts together.<br>
<br>
- Catherine Olsson, Random Hall Senator and Senate Representative to Finboa=
rd<br>
<br>
<br>
*It should be noted that much of the funding denied to student groups by Fi=
nboard is because the groups' proposals seem not well-planned-out or no=
t worth the money (such as t-shirts), not _because_ Finboard doesn't ha=
ve enough money. But if Finboard had more money, we could relax some of our=
guidelines, enabling us to fund more conferences, fund capital such as cos=
tumes and musical instruments more than our current caps, fund more travel,=
enable groups that maintain a library (such as MITSFS and Anime Club) to a=
cquire more new material, and allow groups who wish to hold a vast number o=
f events to hold all their events and not just some.<br>
<br>
<br>
Andrew Lukmann wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
If Alex's sentiments are shared by a number of other new senators... it=
might be time to re-investigate the timing of future budget approvals as w=
ell.<br>
<br>
History:<br>
In the somewhat distant past (6-7+ years ago) Senate was elected in the Spr=
ing with the incoming UA P/VP. As a result, the incoming Senate and the inc=
oming administration worked together to compile and approve a budget before=
the Summer. However, with a number of changes to the living group constitu=
encies, most importantly Freshmen on Campus, the decision was made to move =
Senate elections to the Fall to allow freshmen to vote (and run in) the Sen=
ate contest. From what I recall, the first year of this change, the Fall bu=
dget was actually voted upon by the outgoing Senate, allowing the administr=
ation to have a complete and approved budget to operate on over the summer,=
during orientation and during the Fall term. This, however, served to larg=
ely hamstring the newly-elected Senate regarding financial policy until at =
least the Spring budget was discussed in December. As a result, this was al=
tered (about 5 years ago) to the current arrangement where the outgoing Sen=
ate (in the spring) grants an advance for the administration to utilize ove=
r the Summer/Orientation which is disbursed by the ExecComm in lieu of Sena=
te. Then the Fall budget is taken up and approved by the new Senate when it=
is finally assembled and called to order by early-mid October.<br>
<br>
Problems:<br>
It seems that in an effort to address problems of the past, we in past UA a=
dministrations (and past sessions of Senate) have helped to create new prob=
lems. It seems that even though the intent of moving Fall budget approval t=
o the Fall was to empower new Senators, this has been less than effective. =
New senators are just beginning to find their way and are reticent to quest=
ion the wisdom of a budget handed to them by more experienced officers like=
the President, Treasurer and (often) Speaker. Situations are also encounte=
red where the executive assumes that certain budgetary line items will be a=
pproved and preemptively spends the money (such as Athletics Weekend), effe=
ctively circumventing Senate's oversight responsibility. Not having an =
approved budget until mid October also hampers the ability of the Executive=
and it's Committees to engage in activities and programming early in t=
he term.<br>
<br>
If other people in the UA agree that this is an important enough issue, I e=
ncourage you to re-investigate the possibility of making changes in the bud=
get calendar and taking a closer look at the pros and cons of different opt=
ions. In the end, the balance will almost always be between empowering the =
current (or most recently) elected representatives and having an experience=
d enough group of Senators calling the shots that they can serve as a meani=
ngful check against executive overreaching or "mission creep."<br=
>
<br>
Yours in the UA,<br>
Andrew L.<br>
<br>
<br>
Alex Schwendner wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I would like to advocate that our budgeting goal should be to allocate<br>
more money to student groups. Here's why:<br>
<br>
Our goal, as the Undergraduate Association, is to make things better<br>
for undergraduates. When it comes to money, this means that we should<br>
see that money gets spent on the things which most benefit MIT<br>
undergraduates. This might mean that we spend the money ourselves or<br>
this might mean that we give it to student groups who can use it.<br>
There are plenty of student groups who do wonderful and amazing<br>
things. All of us can think of student groups which get much of their<br>
funding from the UA which have made our time at MIT more worthwhile.<br>
Our goal, as the UA, should not be to do awesome things, but rather to<br>
see that awesome things get done.<br>
<br>
Sometimes, of course, this will mean that we should spend money on<br>
projects conceived by the UA and sometimes this will mean that we<br>
should give money to student groups. However, there is a natural,<br>
institutional bias toward spending the money ourselves. We need to<br>
fight that bias. Since we, the UA, get first crack at the money, it's<b=
r>
easy to think of cool things which we can do with the money while<br>
forgetting about the very real and very cool things which student<br>
groups will *not* be able to do without that money. We can see this<br>
"mission creep" in UA funding in the way that the money allocated=
to<br>
UA committees has increased in past years. Yes, the UA does more with<br>
the increased money, but it is not always clear that it's spent better<=
br>
than it could be spent by student groups. The standards which hold for<br>
receiving funding from the UA general budget should be analogous to<br>
the standards which hold for receiving funding from UA Finboard. I<br>
will note that while UA committees received basically everything that<br>
they asked for in the Fall UA budget, student groups which applied to<br>
UA Finboard received less than 30% of their requests in the most<br>
recent funding cycle.<br>
<br>
Therefore, during the Spring 2010 budgeting process, I intend to push<br>
for allocating more money for student groups. Projects which we choose<br>
not to fund from the UA general budget can seek funding through UA<br>
Finboard, from LEF or ARCADE, from the MIT Administration, or from<br>
other funding sources.<br>
<br>
Please discuss.<br>
<br>
Alex Schwendner<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Alex Dehnert (UA Treasurer)<br>
<<a href=3D"mailto:ua-treasurer@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">ua-treasurer@=
mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
=A0<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin=
: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
As several people have pointed out, the UA spends quite a bit of money on<b=
r>
events (about a third of last semester's budget) and focused projects (=
like<br>
PLUS --- about a tenth of last semester's UA budget). As Andrew Lukmann=
<br>
pointed out last week, committees are spending almost twice as much in Fall=
<br>
2009's budget as in Spring 2007's budget.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately, it is now a little bit late to make major changes to the<br>
Fall 2009 budget. Last week's meeting was intended to allow that, and w=
e<br>
spent a great deal of time on it then. I also solicited feedback late Frida=
y<br>
night (or really Saturday morning), and didn't receive any. Of course, =
you<br>
are well within your rights to amend the budget at this point. (Though<br>
Athletics Weekend has already happened, so I'd rather you didn't am=
end<br>
that...)<br>
<br>
However, the Spring 2010 budget has not begun being compiled. In preparing<=
br>
the the Fall 2009 budget, I (and I believe committee chairs and the Special=
<br>
Budgetary Committee) generally followed precedent as to events and amounts.=
<br>
<br>
In some sense, there are (at least) two options for guiding principles to<b=
r>
take in producing the budget:<br>
(1) Many of the UA-run events are more useful than the events and<br>
programming (Finboard-funded) student groups would spend the money on<br>
(2) Alternatively, that events and programs such as Athletics Weekend or<br=
>
PLUS aren't worth taking the money away from those student groups<br>
<br>
We've recently been defaulting to the former guiding principle. However=
, I<br>
would encourage the Senate to seriously consider which is preferable and<br=
>
pass appropriate legislation indicating a preference.<br>
<br>
I would be *thrilled* to have such guidance, and would happily incorporate<=
br>
it into next semester's budget. (I warn you, however, that committee ch=
airs<br>
will probably be asked to begin budgeting in about two weeks.)<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Alex Dehnert<br>
UA Treasurer<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--0016363b9a8ab935de0475f10241--
