Student Assembly Finance Commission
October 25, 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

Edward Barton, Calvin Baldwin, Lee Blum, Anna Connors, Jacob Frank, Charlie Feng, Matthew Gruber, Dan Gusz, Kristen Jenkins, George Kang, Catherine Kim, Chan Young Kim, Sang Kim, Rahul Kishore, Daniel Krenitsyn, Laurence Kogos, Stephanie Lau, Chris Lee, Brandon Levitan, Lauren Rosenblum, Robin Shapiro, Diana Simpson, Kevin Song, Holden Steinhauer, Andrew Verri, Mack Wallace, Samantha Weiner, David Wong, Jessica Zhao

III. Business of the Day

Group guidelines proposals/ Ad-hoc committee updates/ Elections and recruitment information

The commissioners met in their groups to prepare what changes they were going to present to the rest of the commission.

L. Kogos presented his team’s part of the guidelines. Group 1 did not find any need to make changes in chapters 1 and 2. He said that section 9.1, which stated that the SAFC funds for expenses that relate to the purpose of the organization, might be too broad. Although some groups have requested funds under admin that do not directly relate to this definition, his group decided to keep this clause liberal. Kogos talked about whether in section 9.2 there should be other outlets for advertising other than The Daily Sun. His group addressed the issue that funding for advertising in Slope Media may present a conflict of interest, since the SAFC funds that organization. Nonetheless, it is something to consider.

R. Shapiro asked about the possibility of providing online advertising.

L. Kogos said that his group mentioned a site called flyboard.com, which allows users to put up their ad for a week for ten dollars.

L. Rosenblum suggested funding Facebook ads, which the commission also uses to publicize SAFC elections.

L. Kogos said he was not opposed to giving groups a certain amount of advertising money, from which they could decide to do whatever they want.

C. Feng stressed the importance of funding for advertising in outlets independent of the university, such as The Daily Sun, Ithaca Journal or Facebook, to eliminate conflict of interest.

D. Gusz thought the commission should factor the audience of the publication, and whom the groups are advertising to. Some mediums may not be Cornell students or may not reach as many students. He added that Terry would have to work with and pay for these publications, and that she already has relations with The Sun. Gusz thought that it was necessary to establish where the organizations can spend their advertising funds.

H. Steinhauer suggested extending funding for advertising on the Daily Sun website.

R. Kishore said that the SAFC’s current policy is to fund for a specific space or form of advertising, such as 1/8 of a page on the Daily Sun. He thought that the commission should take a step back on the restrictions, so as to only specify the amount of money allocated for funding in the Daily Sun, or even a certain amount allowed for a Cornell-affiliated publication or advertising source. He thought that if it is up for the organization to choose where they spend their advertising funding, which is open to all Cornell outlets, this removes the conflict of interest on behalf of the commission. Although a conflict of interest among the student organizations may occur, such as clubs paying for advertising on their friends’ organizations, the commission has to judge whether it is worth it or if it poses that big of a problem.

L. Kogos asked if applicants can only use advertising funds for recruitment.

L. Rosenblum said that under local events, groups can receive two complementary Sun ads. Under admin, groups can only use those advertising funds for recruitment.

J. Zhao presented Group 2’s proposals. For chapter 3, she suggested having early fall and spring events funding. Some groups have been unable to have events earlier in the semester before budget hearing sessions because they have not yet been allocated funds. She also brought up the issue of permitted expenses, since many groups request for funds that do not go under bigger umbrella categories such as administration, local events and travel. She also suggested that the guidelines further specify the documentation needed to get special projects funding. In Chapter 4, the guidelines should stress that the SAFC will not be taking further documentation after budget hearings, and that it specify what is “late” when turning in the application.

D. Wong added that he did not think that ten dollars per extra person was reasonable to cover lodging. Funding for lodging is unfavorable for a groups over a certain amount of people.

J. Zhao said that a lot of groups are confused about the 20 dollars that they receive for publicizing local events under administrative expenses, and thought it would be useful to clarify that on the guidelines. She said it might be helpful for groups if the electronic forms were directly linked to the application website.

D. Gusz asked if the commission could discuss Group 2’s previous point about the various requested expenses that do not fit under the major funding categories.

H. Steinhauer asked if it would be feasible to make a general funding category for things that are directly related to the purpose of the group, rather than making arguments about whether a good is durable or not, if it can be considered an administrative expense, etc.

J. Frank agreed with D. Gusz’s previous point that it was difficult and unnecessary to change the categories, and that there will always be a few items that do not fit exactly.

K. Song found that a lot groups requested funds to rent items, which do not exactly fit under durable goods. He then spoke about Group 3’s proposals: 1) in section 9.4 under travel events, having groups indicate the least expensive way they can travel; 2) make a “no retreat policy”, with a retreat defined as an “off-campus social function that is not specifically approved or aligned with the group’s mission”; 3) include an explicit statement that the SAFC will not fund for parking; and 4) a statement that the commission will not fund for internal travel such as subways or taxis. He opened up the discussion to the rest of the commissioners about whether the SAFC should not international travel.

L. Rosenblum said that she was ok with the current $1500 cap on international travel. While the cap is necessary, she thought it is valuable for students to go outside the U.S. to represent Cornell University as well as bring back new experiences.

H. Steinhauer suggested lowering the cap, since international travel is still a tremendous amount of money.

K. Song suggested delineating between the types of valid reasons for going abroad, such as groups representing Cornell University to attend international competitions, as opposed to going overseas for social events or conferences.

J. Min felt that the SAFC should not fund for groups to travel internationally at all. He thought the purpose of the SAFC is to make the experience at Cornell more enjoyable to students, and that there are other funding sources that support students to go abroad.

R. Kishore thought that the requests to travel internationally are too rare to warrant restrictions on international travel. During his time on the commission, he has seen about three cases where groups ask for funds to travel abroad.

B. Levitan felt that the commission should only place a monetary cap on travel, and that there was no need to differentiate between domestic versus international travel.

K. Jenkins discussed Group 4’s proposal: 1) cap or penalize groups that do not spend 50% or more of the money they were allocated as a way to discourage budget padding, which results in a lowered cap for all organizations although almost $200,000 funds were left over from the previous semester; 2) make a more subjective, concrete definition of a durable good in section 9.5; 3) create a bus expense category for student travel as an alternative option for groups that do not have cars; 4) educating both groups and new commissioners how reimbursement works after money has been allocated.

L. Rosenblum asked for opinions on how to better define durable goods.

J. Frank said the commission should make greater use of their inventory report.

A. Verri and H. Steinhauer both expressed doubts in making the definition of a durable good any stricter. There will always be a few disputable cases every semester.

D. Gusz thought that budget allocations should factor the group’s purpose and need of the item in question when determining what should be funded under a durable good. A sport like badminton should not be penalized for requiring shuttlecocks, which do not last as long as a football.

H. Steinhauer suggested a “could last” clause, accounting for normal wear-and-tear of the durable good.

K. Jenkins said that the problem with the inventory report form is that the commission cannot always tell if a group is asking for the same items year after year because members took them for their own personal uses.

A. Verri asked how the guidelines incorporate funding for the repair of an item or equipment.

L. Rosenblum said that the guidelines currently include a section for repair under administrative expenses, but could possibly move it to the durable goods section.

J. Frank suggested that commissioners should have the right to validate the average prices for the base model of the good requested, to check against groups asking for unnecessary costs.

L. Rosenblum brought up Group 4’s suggestion, which was to fund for groups to travel on buses when they do not have a car. She asked what might be a reasonable way to make sure that groups do not suffer disadvantage by not having access to a car.

J. Marder thought the same policy about airplane mileage should be applied to funding for buses.

C. Baldwin spoke of Group 5’s guideline proposals: 1) establish a minimum number of publications copies to be distributed as well as a maximum price per copy; 2) create a questionnaire for new groups applying for publication funding to determine whether such requests are necessary; 3) enforce stricter rules for providing documentation; 4) clarifying under maximum allocation that groups can use their funds for more than one issue or publication; 5) listing appropriate places of where and how many publications will be distributed.

D. Gusz agreed that the guidelines should be more explicit about where the copies will be distributed.

R. Kishore thought that adding in a requirement for groups to fill in a questionnaire to determine whether or not they need funding for the publication just adds another layer of subjectivity.

J. Min thought it would be helpful to compile an archive of budget changes suggestions, which seem to be repeated year after year.

D. Gusz said that the commission would be voting on these proposals next week.

L. Rosenblum discussed the recruitment schedule, as well as elections for executive board positions.

K. Song informed the commission about what changes were proposed from the ad-hoc committee.

IV. Meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm.

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