Student Assembly Finance Commission
April 6th, 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, Jonathon Raymond, Scott Rog, Cathy You, Dan Gusz, Vivien Pillet, Lauren Rosenblum, Cameron Scott, Qing Zhao

III. Business of the Day

SA Resolution — Club Sports/ Nominations next week/ Vote on Guideline Changes

Y. Neverova informed the commissioners about changes that were proposed in the Task-Force. She said that the registration for new groups is being changed, and process of student group caps. She said that the Task-Force has addressed the issues with funding for club sports. She said that it was proposed that the budget issues would be resolved with the representatives of club sports, and that an individual would represent club sports as a sports council liaison to establish a relationship with the SAFC.

I. Lesyk asked if this would shaft other clubs who also require funds.

Y. Neverova said that club sports has unique needs which have posed a problem for budget hearings and appeals in the past. Club sports alone account for 25% of SAFC funds. She said that the task force hopes to establish a stronger governing body within club sports that could perhaps pre-approve budgets before actual SAFC hearings, with its own set of deadlines and checks system. She said that the SAFC cannot provide the subjective outlook that these clubs require when approving their budgets. She said that in the future, a similar system could be set up for other groups, like an Arts Council or Political Council.

J. Raymond asked whether this club sports representative would be a voting member. He added that it might be helpful if this representative would also attend eboard meetings.

Y. Neverova said that this was definitely something that would be discussed.

V. Gehani said that the SA would ultimately decide this.

Y. Neverova said that the liaison maybe should just be a commissioner, who does not have to attend eboard meetings.

I. Lesyk asked the purpose of the liaison being a member, since his or her position is only within the realm of club sports.

Y. Neverova said the purpose of this representative would act as a liaison. As a commissioner, he or she would be more aware of the system.

L. Blum thought that this liaison would have special interests being tied to club sports, and would essentially act as a lobbying group. He stated that he did not think that club sports representative should be a voting member.

D. Gusz wanted to distinguish the difference between an advisory role versus an active role, and did not want the liaison’s position to be taken out of context to put other clubs at a disadvantage.

J. Castle that generally the SA liaison took a very active role within the SAFC. He thought that the club sports representative should also be a commissioner. This was a good idea, being that there are almost 50 club sports. He thought that part of the job should look into the histories of each sport.

Y. Neverova said that the SAFC often cannot represent the views and needs of the clubs. She thought that the budget application process could be easier, maybe even the club sports would have its own deadline.

M. Ehrlich thought that the representative should be a commissioner, and thought that it was the best way to be involved as a liaison. As a former liaison, she shared that she would not have understood the SAFC system is she had not been a commissioner. She also thought that the club sports representative should attend eboard meetings. She said that a few years ago, a club sports council was proposed so that in the future it would eventually be funded separately from the SAFC.

E. Diakow proposed that maybe there should be an SAFC liaison as well as a club sports liaison that would attend the sports council meetings.

J. Raymond asked what was the point of this liaison system? The liaison is primarily concerned with the funding of club sports, not with the budgets of other clubs.

Y. Neverova said the problem in the past with club sports is that they had over-padded their budgets, causing funding issues. The finance commission tries to fund objectively as possible, but cannot account for

J. Castle thought that E. Diakow had a good point. He thought that the SAFC should send someone like a liaison to help the club sports with their budgets over the course of the semester so eventually they can do it themselves.

Y. Neverova said that the problem with doing it that way is that if this system is not formalized now, it might not ever happen.

J. Raymond said that what if club sports must fulfill certain requirements in order to receive funding.

C. Casey added that if there is no structured board, the sports council will just approve all budgets.

Y. Neverova agreed, saying that an unofficial council will not meet as there is no motivation.

C. Feng said that the problem with club sports is the issue of overpadding budgets. He said the liaison could be used to correct flow of information during budget hearings.

Y. Neverova said that the liaison would ultimately help the club sports as a whole to understand the SAFC voting more. If the commission helps organize club sports by spring, they could establish the pre-approval process. She clarified that the person representing the clubs would not be part of the budget approval process.

V. Gehani said that obviously the club sports issue needs to be discussed. He wanted to move the meeting forward by starting voting on funding guideline changes. He also reminded everyone that next week the commission will be voting for 1 co-chair and a VP.

C. Casey announced that he will be stepping down from the e-board next semester, which will open the VP position, but he will stay on the commission.

V. Gehani explained the overlapping terms of the co-chairs, so that the VP will only have the position for one more semester, but the new co-chair will be serving two semesters.

J. Castle said that maybe this should be officialized as a bylaw change.

V. Gehani said that nominations will be next week, and voting will be the following week.

Y. Neverova moved the meeting forward by starting voting on guideline changes.

M. Ehrlich asked if the commission could unanimously approve all grammar corrections in the guidelines.

The rest of the commission unanimously agreed.

Y. Neverova proposed the following changes to the commission in the SAFC guidelines regarding applicant eligibility, Sections 2.1.1–2.1.4.

VOTE: Sect. 2.1.1 - Eliminate “alumni” from total membership numbers in budget application — 18

VOTE: Sect. 2.1.2 - The President and Treasurer’s test must be taken before the deadline for submitting the hard copy of the budget

VOTE: Sect. 2.1.3 — Add “Note: The advisor’s signature on the budget packet does not automatically transfer as endorsement for other forms where the signature is required.

J. Raymond suggested to clarify the statement by changing “transfer” to “qualify”

V. Gehani agreed and noted this suggestion.

VOTE: Sect. 2.1.4 — Changing “received” to “applied for funding”

Y. Neverova said that this change was discussed in the Task-Force, although it is subject to change by the SA. She then proposed the following changes in Sect. 3, Request for Funds.

VOTE: Sect. 3.1 — The commission will not accept late submissions

VOTE: Sect. 3.3.4 — defining the limitation caps for co-organized events

Y. Neverova said that these defined caps are more appropriate for new group policies.

V. Gehani thought that this could create a lot of complications.

J. Raymond thought that this seems logical, now that there are more co-orgs than ever.

M. Ehrlich thought that if one group in a co-org is established, the event funding should not be capped based on the status of a newer group. She believed this would foster less cooperation between groups.

L. Rosenblum thought maybe it should be clarified that the caps should be limited at $1000 for two new groups, $2000 for two old groups, and $1500 for one old group and one new group.

Y. Neverova agreed and noted this suggestion.

VOTE: Sect. 3.4.2 — clarifying under limitations that the total amount of funding each group received cannot exceed the cap set for the semester

VOTE: Sect. 4.1 — clarifying under budget hearings that any applicant requesting $500 or more may schedule a hearing

VOTE: Sect. 6.1.1 — groups must submit their initial appeal by the calendar deadline set by the commission

VOTE: Sect. 6.3.1.2 — the SA will reject an appeal unless the organization attends its Appropriations Committee appeal hearing

I. Lesyk questioned whether an action by the SA was within SAFC jurisdiction.

V. Gehani agreed, and did not believe that this clause was appropriate.

Y. Neverova also agreed, and removed this from the list of proposed changes.

Y. Neverova proposed the following changes in Section 9 regarding Supported Expenses,

VOTE: Sect. 9.2.1 — Eliminate clause.

VOTE: Sect. 9.3.3.2 — groups must include Proof of Distance in documentation of airfare costs

VOTE: Sect. 9.3.6 — The commission funds non-perishable, re-usable items “and” materials essential to the success of a program

VOTE: Sect. 9.3.7 — remove clause

VOTE: Sect. 9.3.3.5 — remove clause

L. Rosenblum said that the clause’s original purpose was to prevent infringement of Cornell cinemas.

J. Castle said that most people do not do public showings. Cornell University requires approval from Cornell cinema, anyway.

C. Casey thought that the first part of the clause should be kept.

Y. Neverova said that she would ask Ari about the purpose behind the clause.

VOTE: Sect. 9.4.3.1 — Requires an official letterhead from an advisor included in travel documentation

J. Raymond thought that a letterhead could be anything, and instead should be clarified that it is specific to Cornell.

M. Ehrlich thought that this added documentation makes everything harder for groups.

S. Rog said that a letterhead will not necessarily officialize everything. Groups could make their own letterhead.

Y. Neverova agreed, adding that sometimes advisors let their groups sign for them.

J. Raymond proposed instead a typed and signed letter, instead of a letterhead.

C. Feng thought the whole process could be formalized, so that there was a specific form in the advisor letter.

V. Gehani and Y. Neverova agreed, and these suggestions instead will be voted on.

VOTE: 9.4.3.1 — Transportation within Tompkins County will not be funded

J. Castle said that he does not think the SAFC is allowed to fund for transportation within a certain radius of Cornell University.

VOTE: Sect. 9.5.1 — The SAFC funds for durable and re-usable goods, as well as goods that are necessary for a group’s purpose as deemed by the commission.

S. Rog thought that this clause is against objectivity of the SAFC.

Y. Neverova asked what everyone thought about removing “as deemed the commission” in the statement.

V. Gehani said that this phrase did not warrant elimination, as it meant that the commissioners could interpret the rules of the guidelines.

VOTE: Sect. 9.5.3 — The SAFC does not fund for any item considered a weapon unless the Cornell police gives its approval for storage

J. Raymond said that there is no set definition for what constitutes a weapon.

J. Castle asked if it could be included that the SAFC does not fund for smoking instruments, and referenced a group that requested this as part of a traditional event.

M. Ehrlich said that this could create cultural backlash.

L. Rosenblum suggested that maybe it could be stated more clearly that firearms will not be funded.

J. Raymond said that the SAFC could talk to the Cornell police about what can be defined as a weapon.

Y. Neverova asked what everyone thought about tabling this for next semester, and not including it within the guideline changes proposal.

The commissioners agreed unanimously.

VOTE: Sect. 9.5.3.1 — Eliminate clause

VOTE: Sect. 9.6.3 Eligibility — add that publications that must be published and distributed within the semester in which funding has been allocated

VOTE: Sect. 10.1 Negotiated rates — Applicants may use alternative vendors but will be subject to reimbursement limits based on the defined negotiated rates

VOTE: Sect. 11.3 Proof of Travel Distance — Applicant must include an official document showing mileage to be traveled during the trip even if requesting reimbursement for airfare.

IV. Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm.

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