Student Assembly Finance Commission
November 3rd, 2008
5:00 p.m. — 6:00 p.m.
163 Day Hall

I. Call to Order

The Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Commissioners

Lee Blum, Jack Castle, Cailen Casey, David Chu, Celeste Chung, Maddie Ehrlich, Elyse Feldman, Charlie Feng, Benjamin Finkle, Stanley Gartshein, Varun Gehani, Chris Hilbert, Ian Lesyk, Michael McCormick, Shirley McCrohan, Taylor Mulherin, Yuliya Neverova, Benjamin Schreff, Arthi Sridharan, Wai Kin Wong, Cathy You, Huiling Yu, Dan Gusz, Alex James, Lauren Jennings, Vivien Pillet, Lauren Rosenblum, Cameron Scott, Qing Zhao

III. Business of the Day

Elections Nominations/ Handbook Analysis

The duties for each executive board position were reviewed. A list of nominations for these positions were compiled.

Y.Neverova and B.Schreff were nominated for junior Co-chair.

V.Pillet and C.Casey were nominated for VP External Relations.

D.Gusz, B.Finkle, C.Casey and V.Pillet were nominated for VP Internal Operations.

Y.Neverova, C.Scott, L.Blum and C.Casey were nominated for VP Public Relations.

J.Castle asked if the commission could divide into their section teams to discuss their section of the guidelines, so that the team leaders could present to their group discussions to the rest of the commission.

M.Ehrlich said that her group focused on chapters 1–3 of the handbook. She said that her group talked about the justification as to which groups can apply for funds each semester. She said that the guidelines restrict the groups that did not receive funding during a semester so that it could only apply the next semester with a cap of $500. She suggested changing the rule so it should not be should not be whether a group did not receive funding the semester before, but whether they have applied for funding the semester before. She said that her group also had to analyze the 25% reduction rule. She said that her group talked about eliminating the rule, increasing the reduction percentage, or keeping it intact. She said she did not know if the commission wanted to get into it specifically as of now, because there was a lot to talk about it.

The e-board talked whether the 25% penalty rule should be discussed now, but it was agreed that it would be focused upon at another meeting.

J.Castle asked the commission how they felt about changing the rule so that if a group applied the semester before but did not receive funding, they would not be restricted to $500, but rather $1000.

It was asked whether there were records to check on this funding, and J.Castle confirmed there was.

L.Rosenblum said that she had talked to a group that was very aggravated about the penalty in funding because the SAFC had made a mistake in their documentation, not only were they not going to receive funding for this term, but also they were going to be capped at $500 next semester.

J.Castle brought up an idea that each group would only be able to apply for the 25% reduction rule. He said that this idea will probably be discussed in future meetings.

A.Sridharan said that her group was in charge of looking at chapters 11–12 of the handbook, which included negotiated rates, documentation and calendars. She said that the sections involved little details that were probably integrated with other sections of the handbook. She suggested that the negotiated rates page include black and white under the copying, as well as clarify what the limit is on the number of checks. She said that it should be stated that price quotes must be within two years, although this might have already been included in the handbook. She also said that it might be helpful to say that there were caps on international travel. A.Sridharan said that the documentation section should say that the url is not required anymore. She also said that it should be stated exactly when date for letter of intent or proof of contact documentation is required. She said that it should be clarified how the amount of mileage is counted, since she found many groups only listing the amount of miles for one way. She said that she thought it might be worth putting something in the travel distance section whether SAFC were going to fund the lower of the ticket prices or the mileage depending on whether it is overseas travel, and make sure that they have a reference for that as well. She said that it was brought up in her discussion group that some organizations needed a certain level of funding in order to comply with their regulations, and that the handbook should require groups to provide the details and documentation of this. She explained that the Fencing Club needed at least $10,000 worth of equipment or else they would not be able to compete in the tournament. She said that these cases might need to be taken into consideration when allotting how much money they receive.

J.Castle said he thought it might be better if they specify a little more about advisor letters, some people may not realize that they need to include the exact number of people in their organization.

E.Feldman asked why should we ask the groups how much money they needed to compete, because it should not matter based on the way SAFC funds anyway. If they have the documentation, then they receive funding.

The executive board agreed that this was a good point.

Y.Neverova said that her group went over chapters 4–6 of the handbook, which included hearings. She said that one of the issues in the handbook that her group had focused on was whether applicants could not request a hearing if they had requested less than $500. She said that this policy may not be fair, and explained that during hearings the commission has the chance to tell applicants if they have a correctable mistake, so they will have an extra week to fix their application and hand in documentation. If a group does not have a hearing, and they learn about their mistake in allocation and are disadvantaged in that they have less time to make corrections. Y.Neverova said that it makes a difference whether or not groups have a hearing in the appeals process, and this policy needs to be fixed.

J.Castle said one thing they are going to try and make happen this year is that if a group has a correctable mistake and applies for it under the appeals application, it will all be due at a specific deadline. He said that a group will may not be able to find out if it has a correctable mistake at the hearing, so that it will be more highly processed for correctable mistakes.

Y.Neverova said that her group also talked about keeping minutes during hearings, and perhaps getting more computers for that, so that it will be easier to document and keep suggestions for what could be done better next time. She also suggested that the commissioners have wear nametags during hearings. She said that D.Gusz had brought up in discussion about keeping minutes during help sessions. This could create more incentive and accountability for the commissioners to find out the most accurate information. She the groups as well as their questions should be documented. Y.Neverova said that the handbook never specifies in chapter 6 whether hearings for appeals are mandatory, so maybe it should be included in the section.

T.Mulherin commented that making hearings mandatory for appeals could be a good idea.

J.Castle said he was not sure if the SAFC had the capacity to do that.

B.Schreff said that his group had analyzed chapters 7–9. He said that a clause in section 7.1.1 under “Advantages” could be interpreted as that a group can be reimbursed for anything that SAFC did not approve, which is not its purpose and needs to be reworded. He said that his group was not sure of what to recommend for section 9.3.2, and that it merits a discussion among the commission of whether or not the SAFC should fund for charity events. He added that under travel events in section 9.4.3, it should be included that groups must provide a proof of travel distance. Also, it should be clarified whether funding is still provided on a per mile basis, or the cheaper of the plane ticket or the mile. He said that some groups may receive funding for a more expensive travel option, or be allotted more money than the transportation had actually cost.

J.Castle said that groups do not usually purchase a ticket before they received funding. If they had, he said the policy was the same and that SAFC would fund for the cheaper of the two.

B.Schreff added that if a group had already purchased a ticket it should be included in their application.

A.Sridharan said that her group had gone over chapter 9, and that in the administrative section it might be important for people to detail what they are going to be using, and what they are going to be using them for - especially for copies. She said that she saw groups who had applied for copies under administrative section, and then asked for more copies for things such as events publicity. She said that it should be clarified that there is a cap on the number of copies, and that it would be helpful to itemize within the administrative section so that the group does not repeat a request and expect to get more money for it. She said that in order for the SAFC to grant funding to purchase books, groups needed to provide a printout of an email from the library staff indicating that the library will not purchase the item itself. However, most groups did not follow this, or had just turned in printout that the item is not available. A.Sridharan said that the SAFC needs to either enforce this rule or do away with it, because it is not doing anything. She suggested including a line under durable goods about whether or not the commission funds for buying or renting costumes.

J.Castle asked if there were any general comments.

B.Schreff said that the policy of funding for parking permits should be addressed in the handbook.

T.Mulherin added that they will be adding a line in the handbook stating that what a commissioner says to a group is non-binding.

V.Gehani said this basically meant that the guidelines take precedence over what a commissioner might say.

B.Schreff said that the Cornell Store banner needs to be taken off the website, because people keep on applying for it and the SAFC does not fund it anymore.

M.Ehrlich said that it might be helpful if there is a sheet keeping a record of the groups and commissioners who were present at the help sessions. This may facilitate in making the commissioners more accountable, as well as prevent groups from falsely claiming that they were given misleading information.

J.Castle asked if anyone had any more comments regarding the guidelines.

IV. Meeting was adjourned at 5:50 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,
Valerie Pocus
SAFC Clerk, Office of the Assemblies