Student Assembly Finance Commission
March 14, 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, Matthew Gruber, Erich Heintzen, Maxine Hepfer, Kristen Jenkins, George Kang, Catherine Kim, Charles Kim, David Dim, Rahul Kishore, Lawrence Kogos, Daniel Krenitsyn, Stephanie Lau, Chris Lee, Robin Shapiro, Diana Simpson, Kevin Song, Holden Steinhauer, Margaret Szerbicki, Yong Kai Tan, Andrew Verri, David Wong, and Jessica Zhao.

III. Business of the Day

Guidelines proposals/ Attendance policy

K. Song asked the commissioners to get into groups discussing travel events, co-orgs, durable goods, and administrative expenses. He said that the proposed changes from last week were not put into official wording yet.

L. Rosenblum asked the groups to put the changes into official wording, and then email them to her or K. Song. She said that the commissioners would also further discuss the attendance policy this week.

For several minutes, the commissioners split up into their groups.

K. Song said that the co-org group had a valid point, and asked them to share it with the rest of the commissioners.

D. Krenitsyn said that there was a loop-hole in co-org funding. It is possible for the same people to make up the majority of two similar organizations, which could co-organize an event to get more funding than they would if they were only members of a single group.

C. Baldwin said that in the extreme case, the same members are in both groups of the co-organized event.

D. Krenitsyn suggested that two groups applying for co-organized funding are required to have at least 50% individual members, in order to avoid double-dipping.

D. Gusz noted that the groups would only be able to get additional money for the co-org event, but not for their individual allocations. To regulate this loop-hole, each group would have to include a list of all their members in their budget application.

K. Jenkins said that if there are two organizations requesting co-org funding should have slightly different purposes. If they want separate funding, that should be allowed.

L. Rosenblum did not think that this potential loop-hole was problematic.

D. Wong agreed, and added that it was hard to regulate, especially since membership between groups is so fluid.

K. Song asked the commissioners to discuss a little more about the attendance policy. The topics brought up last week included how to count points from excused absences, ways to make up absences, enforcing a maximum number of excused absences, and voting policy.

L. Rosenblum said that a procedure for voting on executive board members should definitely be discussed, especially since it was an issue a few weeks ago.

D. Wong did not think that commissioners should get kicked off for any number of excused absences.

J. Zhao thought that excused absences should still be kept track of, such as constituting half a point instead of a full point for an unexcused absence.

K. Song said that current policy for an excused absence is half of a point. He agreed that excused absences should have some sort of penalty, otherwise a commissioner could excuse his or her way out of meetings through an entire semester.

D. Simpson said that there should be concrete ways of making up a specific number of points.

R. Kishore noted that there are currently very few ways to make up points, especially for those not on e-board. Although he is able to make up points doing special projects, other commissioners might find themselves going to the office to sit for an hour. He thought it was necessary to figure out productive ways to make up points.

D. Wong asked that if the ad-hoc proposals are adopted to make changes to the commission, if there would be more work to be done and more ways to make up points.

K. Song said that this was possible. With the commission’s current schedule, the work is centered around a few days, in just a few weeks during the semester. During this time the office needs a tremendous amount of help, but other than that, there are few opportunities.

L. Rosenblum suggested that commissioners attend the Student Assembly meetings to show some solidarity as a part of the commission. She thought learning about the assemblies process and representing the SAFC at these meetings is a potential valid way to make up points. Attendance would be especially important at this time, in order to speak up about the ad-hoc proposals. She asked how the commissioners felt about the attendance voting procedure.

J. Zhao suggested clarifying what should be discussed before voting. For example, the types of rationale and defense that commissioners are able to give for their absences.

L. Rosenblum asked how the commission felt about having the same procedure as elections, as far as the subject leaving the room, or having a question and answer session.

C. Baldwin inquired about the purpose of having two different voting periods when a commission acquires 7, and then 9, points.

L. Rosenblum said that this was mostly to make the commissioner in question more aware of the points he or she accumulated. She asked if the commissioners thought they should streamline the process, so there was only one voting period.

D. Wong thought there should only be one voting period.

L. Rosenblum thanked everyone for their input, and said that the commission would vote on the changes with their official wording after spring break. She also brought up the possibility of starting a recruitment committee.

IV. Meeting was adjourned at 6:00pm.

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