Student Assembly Finance Commission
March 1, 2010
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

Emlyn Diakow, Charlie Feng, Benjamin Finkle, Jacob Frank, Dan Gusz, Kristen Jenkins, George Kang, Charles Kim, Rahul Kishore, Lawrence Kogos, Chris Lee, Jason Marder, Justin Min, Yuliya Neverova, Joseph Nocciolino, Vivien Pillet, Scott Rog, Robin Shapiro, Kevin Song, Mack Wallace, David Wong, Phoebe Yu, and Jessica Zhao

III. Business of the Day

Travel funding/ Consumer electronics/ Multiple-deadlines for funding

D. Gusz said that of the 19 groups that appealed, the SA granted 5 of them. He said that the commission did an overall good job with allocations at the budget hearings, considering the relatively low number of appeals. He wanted to go over what the commission could expect to accomplish for the rest of the semester, such as going through the guidelines to make big improvements on how the SAFC operates. He said that after spring break they will be going forward with nominations and elections for C. Feng’s position as co-chair, as well as recruitment for new commissioners.

C. Feng said he wanted to talk about major issues that people felt worthy of consideration, specifically fundamental changes about the structure of the process of funding.

D. Gusz discussed three issues that he wanted to hear input about. One was the proposal to limit travel. Of the $600,000 that was requested from groups, $186,000, or almost 30% were appealing for travel funding. The second issue is limiting consumer electronics; he said that the SAFC already this semester has funded for expensive cameras and refrigerators. The third issue he thought worthy of discussing is having a multi-deadline, which the SA has been interested in implementing. He discussed the possibility of having a rolling system, as a way of giving groups who received little or no funding to take advantage of special projects money. He asked if the commissioners had any more “big picture” ideas.

J. Min said that he did not believe in the multi-deadline approach, but instead thought of having “special circumstance” deadlines. For example, organizations who have a hard time contacting a venue or performer and did not receive confirmation until the last minute have to go through more work to receive special projects funding.

M. Wallace thought that club sports and other organizations should have greater separation in the whole process.

D. Gusz said that some organizations are “stable” and request similar allocations and receive the same cap every semester. He asked the commissioners if these groups really needed to go through the same process every term.

Y. Neverova said that groups can easily get funding for a publication, and that the SAFC does not judge the need for this funding on any subjective qualities. However, she questioned whether it is worth exploring if the groups need a publication for its purpose, or if it just applying for publication funding because it can. Should there be some sort of standard?

J. Frank said he noticed that publications seem to receive either no funding for publications, or the entire $3,000. He questioned the all-or-nothing patterns of publication funding.

D. Gusz asked if stricter qualifications for publications are what were being contested. He also suggested limiting funding on costs per copy.

Y. Neverova said that one standard could be their longevity or the number of semesters the organization has been on campus. She added that she was glad that the issue of consumer electronics was being discussed.

D. Gusz said that as an objective funding organization, it would be a big shift if we began to cut money for electronics.

J. Frank proposed only allowing $500 to groups in the first couple of years. He said that nothing is stopping organizations from trying to get the most expensive equipment, the cost and quality of which is not necessarily essential.

J. Zhao sad that groups have increasingly been asking for funding for radio shows. She thought that the commission should develop some sort of standard to deal with these requests in the future.

J. Marder discussed the structure of funding in terms of local events. He said that funding was primarily targeting groups that were bringing speakers or performers to campus. He felt that there was no other outlet for funding for groups planning an event that did not involve a speaker.

D. Gusz asked if what was meant is more funding for publicity.

E. Diakow said that administration and publicity expenses could be considered for use for events. She said that there were also free Daily Sun ads for events that were funded by the SAFC, which many groups know little about.

D. Gusz added that administrative funds are not labeled, so groups have sort of a free reign on what to do with that money.

E. Diakow expressed worry of limiting funds too much.

J. Frank said that the reason the commission would limit travel is to encourage more local events. So rather giving money for groups to leave campus, it could be given to bring more things to Cornell.

E. Diakow said that sometimes travel requests like international flights are too expensive, she said that travel funds allow club sports teams and other groups the opportunity to go to tournaments and compete, which reflects well on Cornell.

J. Marder said that he thought the purpose of travel of club sports and other organizations should be differentiated.

E. Diakow said that the purpose of the debate and mock trial clubs is to compete with other schools.

J. Frank said that he thought funding for retreats should be cut down, which he has found do not serve the purpose of the organizations.

D. Gusz said that it is hard to decide on this issue. Should we spend 30% on travel, or is the money better spent on an engagement fee? Not everyone can travel with the team to a sports game, but every student can go see a speaker on campus.

C. Feng said he wanted to hear the opinion of younger commissioners.

R. Shapiro thought that without limiting consumer electronics, groups want to buy things that they actually don’t need, and there is no incentive to save money. Groups might request the most expensive equipment when there are cheaper alternatives. He proposed that groups should show some sort of comparison of prices to get the best deal.

J. Min said that although we are supposed to be subjective, when allocating durable goods it always seems to be a subjective argument between the groups and the commission. How can we be subjective when trying to negotiate expensive electronic goods?

E. Diakow said that when groups ask for a durable good, it always seems to become an appeal.

V. Pillet said that the commission might consider exploring funding for a percentage of electronic goods, which might deter groups going for the most expensive option, since they will have to pay the rest of the percentage with their own funds.

Y. Neverova said that groups can only get so much money from caps for every semester.

J. Marder said that inventory reports for each organization should be visible to everyone on campus. That way two organizations that need the same equipment can share the goods, and the SAFC will not have to fund for multiples of the same thing.

S. Rog agreed with C. Feng that there should be a cap on travel funding. He was also disproving of groups which seemed to ask for the same electronic goods in subsequent semesters, since they often disappeared with graduating club members.

D. Gusz suggested a durability timeline, so that if the SAFC funded for a particular durable good, the group cannot request funding for the same item for a set number of semesters.

V. Pillet thought that the commission should start monitoring inventory report forms when budgeting for organizations.

J. Min agreed that an online form would be much easier. He said that looking back at the previous semester, the commission can check to see what they funded.

S. Rog said that the problem is even if the SAFC allocates money, we do not actually know if a group bought it.

C. Feng said that there are 700 organizations on campus, and that it is physically impossible to police every single group and all their durable goods. He advocated a simple cap on all consumer electronics.

V. Pillet said that it might be reasonable for the SAFC to fund for only one consumer electronic per group. There are alternate sources of funding that the group could seek money elsewhere. This might deter groups from taking the item home.

D. Gusz said that caps are still set per group, no matter what amount of money they request for consumer electronics. Limiting in general might be able to increase those caps per group.

E. Diakow thought that groups should not necessarily only receive enough money for the cheapest item; they should have quality goods as well.

Y. Neverova suggested that groups set up their priority funding.

J. Marder thought that the meetings would be more effective if commissioners had time to solidify their arguments, and then at the next meeting present their proposals.

D. Gusz agreed that next week would be a good time to discuss these changes. He informed the new commissioners about how the process behind guideline amendments.

IV. Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm.

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