GPSA Appropriations Commitee

Cornell University Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Appropriations Committee Friday, February 4, 2011 — 12:00 — 1:00 PM — The Big Red Barn Meeting Minutes

Attendance: Kyle Albert (Appropriations Chair), Bobby Hartshorn (GPSAFC Chair), Steve An, Evan Cortens, Chris Clarke

Kyle suggested reviewing possible changes to the Finance Commission’s guidelines by section in order. Members of the committee suggested that an issue-by-issue approach to the meeting may be more practical.

As an initial suggestion, Chris questioned the use of Queen’s English in the current document. Members agreed that it would be easy and logical to Americanize spelling in the guidelines.

Evan and Steve discussed the status of a request to Ari for a FAQ section on the Assemblies website targeted at groups applying for funding via Charon. Evan brought the committee’s attention to Section 8 of the guidelines, dealing with special project requests. He proposed a change that would require groups to know dates and times of an event before submitting a SPR. It was suggested that the committee could borrow some of the parameters already laid out for annual budget requests in reforming the SPR procedure.

Bobby mentioned possible modifications to Charon, as discussed with Ari in December, to force groups to provide more detailed requests through the online form. Specifically, this would reiterate the relevant section of the guidelines above the appropriate box on the form.

Evan agreed with the utility of this approach, noting that some groups don’t seem to read the guidelines.

Chris praised Bobby’s work in tracking allocations this year. He suggested that the guidelines could be modified to prompt future chairs to keep and report more meticulous financial records.

Bobby reminded the committee that the duties of the committee chair should go in bylaws, not guidelines.

Evan suggested that reports could take the form of “we’ve awarded $X, and of that $X has been spent.” This would allow the FC to keep good financial records even in the absence of recordkeeping by the Assemblies Office.

Chris and Evan discussed how disbursement data is far more interesting and important for decision-making than allocation data.

Chris indicated that he had learned from Ari that more data is available, but that there could be privacy concerns that would prevent us from getting raw, complete data. The committee’s request for data isn’t about auditing — it’s really just about monitoring its investment. Members agreed that they weren’t interested in what particular groups had spent the money on, but simply how much they had spent per category.

Evan asked if it is possible to streamline and clarify the guidelines, citing how large the document has become. He suggested that instead of allocating category maximums, perhaps groups should receive a lump sum and be given freedom to decide how to spend their allocation, in accordance with the prohibitions already present in Article 5 of the Funding Guidelines. Steve agreed with this suggestion. There was a question as to why Nighthawk had opted to breakdown the guideline categories in the way they are. Chris noted that one of Nighthawk’s major reforms in the last revision of the guidelines was the addition of the field category, and that other categories were simply maintained from the earlier version.

There was some discussion about the feasibility of obtaining a full list of field organizations. Evan maintained that the SAO should be the source of such data, as they have the official forms on file signed by appropriate University officials designating field organizations. He noted further that, on behalf of the Humanities Representatives, he had made such a request in December, but received no response.

Bobby noted that the committee should be able to eliminate the boxes on the application form where fields fill in their membership — should be able to fill in data from the Grad School’s field census.

Evan and Steve discussed the feasibility of ending maximums. Steve suggested per organization, rather than per category, maximums. Evan noted that, from his position as a group officer, merging the production and programming categories would be very helpful.

Bobby said that the FC would exhaust its entire allocation if all groups were granted even the maximum social amount, before even considering other categories. Evan suggested that the $23 per student could be distributed back to the student organizations in relation to their size. He quickly realized, however, that students may be members of more than one organization and thus the number of grad/professional students is not equal to the aggregate membership of student organizations.

Kyle asked if special project requests would be eliminated under such a structure. Steve noted that, again, budgets would tend to expand to the organization maximum.

Bobby brought up the $5 per person norm in how funding is allocated in the social category. This prevents the committee from doing funding in just a “first come, first serve” manner.

Bobby noted that about $40,000 per year goes unspent. However, all of these funds are allocated again the following year, so there’s no surplus. Category maximums apply only to annual budgets, not special project requests.

Evan initiated a discussion of co-sponsorship. The problem is not people cosponsoring multiple events, but rather that it’s too easy of a way to get more money — often the co-sponsorship process just involves sending one email right now. In the end, there’s no obligation for cosponsors to participate in the event at all. Kyle mentioned the possibility of dispersing funds into the cosponsoring groups’ accounts, although other members raised concerns about the practicality of such a requirement.

Chris brought up the issue of how to measure attendance. We would probably have to ask for self-reports because of the logistical difficulty in auditing or buying scanners.

Steve noted that if this is a recurring event, we could ask for past attendance figures on the applications.

Steve and Chris discussed the level of accountability that the committee could reasonably expect from groups.

Evan mentioned that attendance is not the sole metric for the utility of an event. For example, conferences increase the prestige of the university and contribute to the research mission. Steve agreed that there is not one metric, but the committee need to strike a balance between objective and subjective measures. The committee could build attendance figures into its institutional memory as it set priorities for future years. Some events need further justification each year. Perhaps the committee should focus in on the highest-spending events.

Kyle suggested that above a certain threshold, perhaps groups should be required to make an in-person presentation. This would have been helpful for the committee’s deliberation on an ambiguous recent request from the Chinese Students and Scholars Association, for example. Evan suggested the possibility of the FC then taking a formal vote on the proposal.

Evan suggested moving the funding maximums and descriptive criteria together in the document, i.e., consolidate Articles 6 and 10.

Steve suggested moving Article 5 after Article 6, so that what you can’t do is after what you can do. Evan underscored the practical advantages of having descriptions and maximums together in the same part of the document.

Evan noted that the precision of funding maximums constrains organizations in ways the committee cannot anticipate when awarding funds. Steve and Chris seemed to be in agreement that, especially when it comes to funding travel expenses for speakers, flexibility would be a plus. Specifically, there seemed to be agreement that while a maximum of $500 was appropriate for Article 5, Section A(b), it needn’t be broken down, as currently in Section A(b)(i-iv).

Steve suggested that he and Evan do some work independently on changes to the guidelines. Chris suggested that we should all work in one room with a projector to avoid a messy track changes situation. Evan noted that the Appropriations Committee should try to get its proposed changes set in stone before the annual budgets for FY 2012 are submitted in April.

Chris indicated that he would take responsibility for scheduling the next meeting via a Doodle poll.