Student Assembly Finance Commission
March 29, 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 proposal concerns/ New special projects guideline change/ Recruitment details

D. Gusz said that plan for this meeting is to briefly discuss the guideline changes, as well as the preparation for recruitment and what to expect for the following weeks.

C. Feng recapped from last week the two changes that the commission had voted in at the last meeting. He said that he talked with Ari about the travel proposal that was passed, and expressed concern of the additional burden of a new piece of documentation. Gas mileage and plane ticket costs are not significantly disparate enough, and if a group forgets to include a price quote of a plane ticket with their mileage, they could potentially lose travel funding all together. He also discussed a special projects guideline change, which proposes that a group which did not receive funding (other than administrative expenses) could apply to one special project in one category. He asked if the commissions had any concerns about this clause.

D. Gusz added that because there is only $50,000 for special projects and appeals, there would not be that much money taken away overall from groups.

Y. Neverova thought that this gave too much leeway to groups who forgot to submit their budget or did everything incorrectly, while it punishes groups who did their budgets but may have forgotten one piece of documentation. She thought that this rule should be extended to all groups who have forgotten any amount of documentation.

D. Gusz said that there are not many requests from groups who forgot everything.

C. Feng was worried that by extending the rule to all groups, the guidelines would be moving back to last year’s 25% reduction rule, which caused many problems. He thought that this special projects guideline change would address concerns to the number of groups each semester who forget to submit everything. He noted instances in which a new treasurer is unfamiliar with the budget process and forgot to submit an application, thus penalizing the whole group. He asked if anyone had concerns.

J. Min agreed that a smaller pool of money available within special projects would be incentive enough for groups to follow the budget process.

R. Desai thought that this rule penalizes groups or club sports on a regular or yearly basis.

C. Feng clarified that organizations that did their budgets correctly can apply for multiple special projects requests, but those that applicants who were zero-funded could apply for one special request under one category.

R. Desai thought that the wording in proposal was a bit unclear. He questioned it’s equity, and where the line should be drawn.

C. Feng said that considering each group’s individual circumstances would in some ways revert back to the 25% rule, which did not work anyway while causing continuous ongoing budget hearings.

J. Min said that even of the groups that do not get funded at all, only a small portion which understand the necessity of funding to their group appeal to the Student Assembly. He thought that this clause would reward clubs who did not do anything right, while punishing groups who did it partially right.

C. Feng asked the commission if they felt it was fair to add this clause. Should this policy be applied across the board, including groups who did their applications partially right?

Y. Neverova said that this proposal could protect groups from nonexistence on campus, and perhaps appease zero-funded clubs that complain to the SAFC and the SA.

M. Wallace thought that some of the wording needed to be changed.

C. Feng said that he would work with Ari on clarifying the wording.

L. Kogos asked why administrative expenses were excluded from the other categories.

C. Feng explained that a group did not need documentation to get administrative funding.

J. Marder went over the schedule for new commissioner recruitment. April 8th would be the submission deadline for new applicants. The commission will review candidates on April 12th, and hold interviews on April 17th. He asked everyone to send out emails and publicize recruitment to potential candidates.

C. Scott asked how many new members the commission would be accepting.

C. Feng estimated between 10 and 15 candidates.

D. Gusz said that next week the commission would be going over changes to the guidelines. He asked the commission to divide up by guideline sections to present proposed changes next week.

IV. Meeting was adjourned at 5:40 pm.

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