Student Assembly Finance Commission
February 21, 2011
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

Shah Ahmad, Calvin Baldwin, Edward Barton, Anna Connors, Charlie Feng, Jacob Frank, Matthew Gruber, Erich Heintzen, Maxine Hepter, Kristen Jenkins, George Kang, Catherine Kim, Charles Kim, David Kim, Lawrence Kogos, Daniel Krenitsyn, Stephanie Lau, Lauren Rosenblum, Robin Shapiro, Diana Simpson, Kevin Song, Margaret Szerbicki, Yong Kai Tan, Andrew Verri, David Wong, and Jessica Zhao.

Non-voting members also present

Vincent Andrews, Adam Nicoletti, Ray Mensa, Roneal Desai

III. Business of the Day

SA ad-hoc recommendations/ Commissioner voting/ Office hours sign-ups

L. Rosenblum started off the meeting by going over the agenda for the day. She introduced Student Assembly members V. Andrews, A. Nicoletti, R. Mensa and R. Desai who were present at the meeting.

V. Andrews explained that he would be going over proposed changes to the Finance Commission. These recommendations are based on a report by the student ad-hoc SAFC review committee. Andrews explained that he was here to present these changes and get feedback from the commissioners.

V. Andrews gave a PowerPoint presentation, which included the following executive summary of the proposed changes to the SAFC:

1. Year long budget period.
2. Second opportunity for initial budget application.
3. Opportunity in the spring to apply for a budget for the next year.
4. Changes to the nature and timing of the allocation hearings.
5. Unlimited special project requests.
6. Reduced supporting documentation requirements submitted online.
7. Brief activity report required to be submitted online after each funded activity completed.

Proposal 1: V. Andrews supported implementing an annual budget period that was mandated by the Assemblies office, in which caps would be formatted to be yearlong. Groups would also have the option of having a semester budget, in which they could spend the entirety of their caps in the fall or spring.

Proposal 2: The Student Assembly pushed for groups to have a second opportunity to submit a budget application, which will likely have the largest effect on the commissioners. If a group did not apply at the initial budget application date, they have the opportunity of applying during the middle of the semester. Benefits of this change, are that groups have more time to plan out budgets more accurately, and perhaps closer to the event. Groups may only apply either beginning or mid-semester, so this would not increase the amount of applications submitted to the SAFC, only the time span between submissions. Compared to having 400 budget applications in the first two weeks, V. Andrews predicted 300 submissions during the initial budget application, and 100 later in the mid-semester.

Proposal 3: Organizations would be able to request a budget for the following academic year during the spring semester of the current academic year.

J. Zhao inquired about what type of documentation could be tailored for this change. She thought it would be difficult to get confirmations for certain rooms so far in advance.

V. Andrews agreed, and said that this point will be covered during the rest of the presentation. He presented a funding flow chart for the first three recommended changes. He thought that these changes would eventually reduce the amount of roll-over every academic semester, which should help increase caps.

Proposal 4: V. Andrews said that he noticed many organizations had applied for budgets, but do not provide proper documentation and thus do not receive funding. Thus, having the Finance Commission review budgets before hearings, and then informing groups whether or not they should request a hearing, will make the funding process run more effectively. This will reduce the number of hearings that need to occur, while making those hearings that do occur a more effective opportunity for organizations to obtain adequate allocations without the need to appeal to the assembly. This would also facilitate communication with student groups, help fulfill complete budgets, while also form a relationship between the groups and the commission. How proposal 4 would be implemented is entirely up to the commission.

V. Andrews said that documentation is still an issue. Ari is in favor of getting rid of all documentation requirements, and instead simply having the commission review receipts. Terry wants to make accurate allocations, and perhaps require a greater amount of documentation. He inquired about the SAFC’s input concerning documentation requirements, and asked if there were any questions.

L. Kogos said that with these procedural changes in budget hearings will likely result in more groups getting funding. He asked how this might affect caps.

V. Andrews said that he had looked at previous funding cycles, and saw the same consistent organizations applying. Past consistencies could mean that the caps will not likely be heavily affected.

L. Rosenblum predicted that caps would become substantially lower. The $170,000 that was reverted from the current semester’s budgets would not be reverted with this proposed plan.

V. Andrews agreed that this would be a trial and error process. He reminded the commissioners that next year is a byline funding year, and that it is possible to have the SAFC increase their byline funding.

R. Kishore expressed concern about the caps being much lower. The vast majority of 300 groups rely entirely on SAFC funding.

R. Desai advocated the proposed plan, noting that it would reduce roll-over and unspent funds. V. Andrews suggested creating a brief activity report. That way, the SAFC could recognize and perhaps penalize those groups that do not spend all of their allocated money, leading to unspent funds and reduced caps. Groups will have greater incentive to make their budgets more accurate.

L. Rosenblum asked if the ex-officio members if they could continue their presentation at the meeting next week.

V. Andrews agreed, and thanked the commission for their time. He said he would e-mail the PowerPoint of the proposals to the co-chairs, and asked the commission to send him any comments.

K. Song said that he thought that the SA was presenting too many requests all at once. He said these changes would also cause caps to be significantly lower, which would become a big problem.

L. Rosenblum commented that she thought year-long caps would make it less confusing and complicated for the groups as well as the office. A downside is that there would be four budget hearings each year instead of two. She asked for the commissioners to give them any feedback, which they could use to make adjustments to the proposals to present to the Student Assembly.

R. Shapiro said he liked the idea of checking the budgets beforehand to see which groups have missing documents, and then having hearings for those groups alone. He agreed with K. Song that it did seem there were many recommendations being made all at once.

D. Simpson agreed, and asked if it was possible to incorporate these changes gradually, and not all in one semester.

L. Rosenblum thought this was definitely a possibility, and agreed that perhaps a step-by-step implementation plan should be written into a resolution.

J. Frank said he was worried about the idea of groups submitting documents during the budget hearings, which might turn into help sessions. Only a small percentage of groups submit their budgets correctly, and did not think this new system would be more time efficient. He thought that the way budget hearings were done now allows more flexibility and leeway to benefit a group’s allocation.

L. Rosenblum added that the new rules would make it difficult for the SAFC to effectively to groups that are already confused by the current system.

S. Ahmad asked what exactly the SA wanted by doing this presentation.

L. Rosenblum said they were trying to get feedback, or whether these proposals would be accepted at face value. Rosenblum reminded the commissioners that office hours for budget appeals would be this Wednesday and Thursday, from 4:30 to 5:30 at B12 Day Hall. She then moved the meeting towards voting on whether J. Zhao, D. Simpson and R. Kishore should remain on the commission due to the accumulation of attendance points.

J. Zhao had 8 attendance points. She explained her reasons for missing budget hearings and help sessions due to DSP recruitment and job interviews.

The commission voted: J. Zhao remains on the commission.

D. Simpson had 10 attendance points. She explained that she accumulated points very rapidly due to a difficult week and heavy workload.

The commission voted: D. Simpson remains on the commission.

R. Kishore had 13 attendance points, and therefore was under review for his status as a commissioner and an executive board member. He explained that his points added up very quickly during the week of budget hearings when he had to go out of town for interviews. He acknowledged that the expectations on e-board were much higher, and said he was trying to make up the time he missed.

The commission voted: R. Kishore remains on the commission as well as the executive board.

D. Wong commented that he felt it strange that members were being voted on, when the commission had never discussed the formal voting policy before.

L. Rosenblum agreed that these particular cases were unprecedented, since the attendance points so quickly in such a short period of time. In the guidelines, commissioners are voted on when they have accumulated 7 points, and then are formally removed from the commission when they have 11 points.

IV. Meeting was adjourned at 6:20 pm.

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