Student Assembly Finance Commission
March 30th, 2009
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, Maddie Ehrlich, Elyse Feldman, Charlie Feng, Varun Gehani, Ian Lesyk, Michael McCormick, Yuliya Neverova, Lauren Nicola, Jonathon Raymond, Scott Rog, Benjamin Schreff, Vivien Pillet, Lauren Rosenblum, Cameron Scott, Qing Zhao

III. Business of the Day

Who Isn’t Coming Back?/ Proposed Guideline Changes

V. Gehani asked everyone who was planning to return to SAFC next semester, to estimate a number of commissioners to be recruited.

Y. Neverova asked to start with C. Feng’s group which covered sections 1–6 of the handbook.

C. Feng talked about eligibility section, and whether or not it should even include the number of alumni on the application. He said that it complicates the section about the number of members, and that it does not matter for the commission’s funding purposes.

V. Gehani agreed that the alumni section on the application should be removed.

C. Feng said that even the advisors section in the application was unnecessary, and that the SAFC did not need to know the number of faculty.

Y. Neverova said gave an example of one club, which had many advisors and relatively few student members, that was applying for a high amount of funds. She said that although this faculty-student ratio is rare, it might be best to keep the section about the number of advisors in the application.

After some discussion, the executive board agreed on the prior point of removing the alumni section of the application.

Y. Neverova said that she hoped that the special projects funding policy would be changed for next semester. She said that it is causing problems for the executive board, who are receiving about ten special projects proposals a week, many of which do not qualify. The new information section of previous semester policies was helpful in that it dealt with all of the proposals in one period.

V. Gehani agreed that at this needed to be addressed at some point.

C. Feng continued with his group’s proposals. He said that in terms of revocation of funds, it might be useful to put a clause that the SAFC can revoke funds if the commission realizes after the allocations that they made a mistake according to the bylaws.

V. Gehani said that once the commission submits those allocation results, he does not think that those funds should be taken back.

L. Rosenblum asked if this applies to after the allocations are sent, or when the groups are being conferenced during budget hearings.

B. Schreff said that the status of a group’s budget is not revealed in budget hearings, anyway.

V. Gehani expressed that he does not think it is in the SAFC’s right to revoke funds, since a group may start to spend money that it was initially allocated. He thought this policy would get too controversial.

B. Schreff said that it might not be a bad thing for this clause to be included, although it does not necessarily mean that the commission has to use it.

Y. Neverova said that there are similar clauses in the handbook, which state that if a SAFC commissioner makes a mistake during allocations, the guidelines will override it.

B. Schreff said that this clause could be used as a fail-safe thing.

C. Feng said that in terms of late submissions, his group thought that a late submission policy with deductions would complicate funding policy. This would cause trouble, since the SAFC would have to arbitrarily set dates and percentages of deductions.

B. Schreff agreed. He thought that being lenient with late submissions would only penalize groups that did the budgets correctly.

Y. Neverova asked what everyone’s opinions were for late submissions.

J. Castle stated that he thought there should just be a heavy cut, such as a 30% reduction, for late submissions. He stated an example of a group that could not receive any funding, because they did not submit the online budget on time resulting from a mix-up between changing treasurers. He also brought up the question of why there is a grace period for the paper budget, but not for the online budget.

Y. Neverova said that this policy was eliminated this semester. She said that it now says in the guidelines that the SAFC will not accept late submissions in the beginning of their request for funds, which applies for everything, paper and online budgets included.

L. Rosenblum said possibly what the SAFC could do is a 10% reduction every day that the submission is late, for up to five days so that a group would receive only half their funding.

Y. Neverova thought that this policy might be overwhelming for the Assemblies office.

B. Schreff stated that he was really against funding for late submissions. He said that although it is unfortunate for those late groups, the reality is that the more groups the SAFC funds, the more cuts in budgets they have to make. He asked why groups who have their act together, have read the guidelines and hand in their submission on time, should be penalized.

V. Gehani said that this issue can be voted on in next meeting. He said that he had one more thing to add about the eligibility issue. He thought that presidents and treasurers of groups should take the online test to demonstrate familiarity with commission rules by the budget submission deadline, because there is no specific date listed as of now.

Y. Neverova said that she had addressed this issue in the guideline changes, and added that the groups should take the test before the submission deadline of the hardcopy of the budget.

C. Feng continued that he thought that the issue should be addressed whether new first semester or second semester groups should be able to apply for joint funding, such as for co-organized events.

Y. Neverova said that there were no caps for a co-org composed of both a new and old group. But technically if a new group was joined with a new group, she did not know if they would be capped. She thought this was a good thing to be discussed.

V. Gehani said that he thought $1000 sounds reasonable for two new first semester groups doing a co-org event.

Y. Neverova added perhaps $2000 should be the cap for two second semester groups. She said that joint funding between a first semester group and a second semester group should be clarified.

C. Feng continued that in terms of special projects funding, he was wondering whether there should be a clause which stated that that if a group receives its maximum allocation, or up to its cap, it can no longer apply for special projects funding.

L. Rosenblum added that under special projects funding, there should be a clause whether or not a co-org can apply for them. She said that it was not clear to her if co-orgs were eligible to apply for them.

Y. Neverova asked the rest of the commissioners what their opinions were on this issue.

C. Feng said he was also confused about the issue raising appeals, and whether it would be counted as SAFC oversight or new information.

V. Gehani said that this would be voted on next week.

Y. Neverova thought that it was a good idea to include new information under the appeals. She said that many groups seemed to be getting things a week after their deadline, but then have to wait until all the appeals are due in order to apply for special projects funding. This causes unnecessary delay in reviewing budgets and appeals.

C. Feng asked if it would make more sense to move up the date for special projects funding.

V. Gehani said that he would like the re-establish the same date and policy as last semester, but the Student Assembly had taken it out on their own. He said that the commission could propose a policy to the Assembly.

Y. Neverova added that the SAFC starts to look at the special projects funding proposals the Monday after Student Assembly appeals are done, so the date cannot be moved up until they know the final amount of funds left. And, because the deadline is not until April 24th, many groups are not counting on receiving full funding with special projects, because it is so arbitrary on how much money is left over.

V. Pillet said that his group had trouble with the general principles of the section. He said that a clause in the guideline, which states that the “commission funds only for expenses that relate to the purpose of the organization as specified by the administration of the Student Activities Office”, is ambiguous to groups. It is not clear whether the SAFC could allocate money for something it does not normally fund for, if evidence is provided that is necessary for the purpose of the group. This relates to the issue of whether or not to fund for a club’s purchase of SAT books. He also asked if the commission includes the purpose of an organization as written for the SAO in the budget.

Y. Neverova said that groups include the purpose of their group on their budget application, but it is not necessarily what they submit to the SAO.

V. Pillet said that what his group wanted to propose, is that if they were going to request for something that we would not normally fund for, such as SAT books, would they submit something with that application, saying why we need it and why this relates to the purpose of the organization.

Y. Neverova said that she thought the problem with the SAT books, the art supplies and the shuttlecocks of the badminton club is that it exceeds the $200, and their administrative expenses are still capped.

V. Pillet asked what would happen if groups asked for something less that $200.

J. Castle said that the SAFC used to have this policy, but it got dropped out when the handbook was changed. He said that it gave leeway in administrative expenses but paid for overhead expenses such as nondurable goods, like SAT books, shuttlecocks, etc. So groups could decide to forgo administrative costs like copying to buy those nondurable goods. He thought that maybe the commission should propose to change the durable goods section to include a few more things.

V. Gehani said that the qualifications for art supplies can be generalized in that section.

Y. Neverova agreed.

V. Pillet continued and said that his group went over section 9.2, and thought that two clauses were contradictory and could be interpreted as ambiguous by groups. If the commission is funding for things that are meant for basic operations of an organization, then why are they not allowing a group to ask for funding for things that are just internal. He thought that this section needed some clarification.

V. Gehani said that he would be up for potentially voting on whether the commission should even keep that second bullet point, because groups should still be capped at $30 for costs such as copying.

V. Pillet said that it could also be clarified that administrative costs are only for recruiting, which is stated in another section. He mentioned a grammatical error. He also said that the bullet about the Cornell Daily Sun could be further delineated as groups utilizing it for advertising purposes, so that the sole advertising that they can get funded for is through the Daily Sun.

L. Rosenblum proposed including advertising on facebook, since it is being used more often is much cheaper than other alternatives.

V. Pillet asked if there is a proof of purchase.

E. Feldman said that it would be hard to show that it was limited to only Cornell students.

S. Rog said that it could cause further trouble in advertising. People have come to ask if they can advertise on radio stations like WBBR. If commission wants to limit advertising funding for the Cornell community, it should just be through the Daily Sun.

L. Blum said that the funding for nonperishable reusable items in a local event needed to be clarified in the guidelines.

Y. Neverova said that if the materials are essential, but perishable, the commission will fund for it.

L. Blum referenced funding for glowsticks for the Glowsticking Club.

J. Castle stated that he does not see why the commission would not fund for materials that are essential, making things more difficult for groups.

L. Blum said that Glowsticking Club requested funding in festival where they handed out glowsticks, which was rejected. He also thought that a clause, which asked for an explanation of funds over $500, was unnecessary. He also thought that there needs to be clarification of the use Cornell property form, such as different parameters met to determine its use.

V. Gehani agreed.

L. Blum talked about having the letterhead and mileage included with the airfare.

C. Scott thought that the purpose of her group’s section needed to be reworded.

J. Castle added that in the natural bias form it should be included that funded items are typically used over a period of years and are able to exist without significant deterioration, or are necessary for the groups purpose as defined by the commission.

V. Gehani said that the qualifications could be eliminated.

J. Castle said that even instead of putting such a clause in the purpose, it can be included in the qualifications section, so funding could cover items like SAT books, book clubs, glowsticks, shuttlecocks, etc.

C. Scott said that there was always an issue of groups not understanding why they need to bring documentation for various publications like books, periodicals, magazines, videos, DVDs etc. She thought that maybe this needed to be clarified.

Y. Neverova suggested saying that documentation is required so that the commission does not duplicate resources.

J. Castle said that some groups re-use their posters and banners multiple times for several semesters, such as sports team banners. He thought that maybe these items could be added under durable goods.

C. Scott said that there is no specified documentation for price quoting for publications. She thought that that this section needed to be more specific, or that it needed a separate section.

D. Gusz that his group covered Chapter 11, and that they wanted to go over the letter and pen form with the commission.

C. You said that the letter and pen form section should be more clear, stating that some clubs go to that section do not know which one to use. She added that under plane mileage, it should be included whether the commission requires plane tickets or google maps documentation.

D. Gusz asked if price quotes and other documentation needed to have a letterhead, and whether a advisor signature could be counted as a handwritten note. Also, he asked if an advertisement for an event can be counted as documentation, or does it have to be an official, direct form of proof.

Y. Neverova said that documentation of an advertisement could even be a website printout of an event.

D. Chu asked if the commission ever settled the issue about funding for weapons.

Y. Neverova said that as long as they clear it with the Cornell police, then it can be funded.

C. You said that she also had an issue with the uniforms policy.

V. Gehani said that as long as groups plan on using the items within the group year after year, and not for personal use, then it is eligible for funding.

V. Gehani said that the commission will be voting on changes at the next meeting. They will also be going over applications for new commissioners, and that weekend will be commissioner interviews.

Y. Neverova asked commissioners to tell people to apply.

V. Gehani said that the deadline for applications is April 9th.

IV. Meeting was adjourned at 6:10 pm.

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