Student Assembly

Attendance

Greg Mezey, VP Finance, Tony Miller, Catherine Holmes, Yuliya Neverova, Jonathan Raymond, Ryan Lavin, Kate Dutch, Ari Epstein, Vincent Andrews, Emlyn Diakow

G. Mezey brought out resolution 21. R. Lavin talked about the explosion of student groups who end up suffering from the competition for space, funds, etc.

Layers of analysis:

• Registration process: look at the Student Activities Office (requirements to be a group, etc.)
• Finance process: changes in the SAFC

C. Holmes talked about groups self-selecting categories. There are honorary groups, publications, social/political action, college affiliated. There are not many expectations. She sees the frustration within groups who are unable to receive space and funding first-hand. There is no minimum number to form a group.

T. Miller talked about setting up various ranges for groups for space requests and funding based on membership numbers. Ex: # members > x number, you can apply for space, etc.

C. Holmes talked about mandating training for the officers. Currently, there is no deadline for registration.

A. Epstein brought up the possibility that the mandatory training and other restraints might encourage groups to be ‘hidden’ and then SAO will lose track of a lot of groups.

C. Holmes talked about how in the past, there was a difference between ‘recognition’ and ‘registration’ but that didn’t stick because groups were not able to see the difference.

V. Andrews voted against Resolution #21, brought up concerns about group consolidation.

R. Lavin said that probably groups would not be forced to consolidate.

T. Miller brought up keeping track of inventory, etc. and encouraging groups to sharing resources.

Y. Neverova brought up why sharing resources would be difficult.

J. Raymond said that it is easy to alter the records.

G. Mezey talked about keeping historical records for the groups.

R. Lavin talked about how athletics should take care of club sports but perhaps this might not be possible.

A. Epstein talked about how a lot of the money which is reverted back is from the club sports.

R. Lavin asked why club sports teams would not use up all the money.

Y. Neverova explained that it could be because of cancellations, etc. but also because of not having enough money in the first place.

V. Andrews, as a club sports team member talked about what the possibilities could be.

T.Miller talked about using patterns of spending histories to allocate in the future.

Y. Neverova talked about the possibility of having an abbreviated meeting process to talk about reverted funds.

G. Mezey asked what the group thought about annual budgets. A. Epstein is for it, says it will be easier for the office.

A. Epstein talked about how before, the SAFC used historical info to allocate. Instead of cuts and caps, they would cut the organization’s least favored priority.

J. Raymond talked about how this would not work.

V. Andrews asked if fall funding cut into spring funding.

A. Epstein talked about how the 25% rule caused that dipping into the spring semester but funds were also reverted back.

G. Mezey recapped the problems:

• # of student groups
• issue of space
• registration process
• finance process
• lack of finance issues�

He wants the group to be more in focus.

K. Dutch requested the overview.

C. Holmes began the overview. Groups get frustrated about registering again in August. They have to provide with bylines, 4 student officer contact info, advisor, any additional info like meeting times, etc.

Documentation:

1. If University: Advisor Verification Form in hard copy (chair of department signs)
2. If Independent: IO form; “I understand what is expected of me�. I will file a UUP.. If we are a publication we will include this..”

G. Mezey and K. Dutch requested to se the form. Roxanne reads all 900 forms and keeps track of all the documentations. Graduate and Professional groups are allowed to have 3 officers. For SAO, it is all about self-reporting.

A. Epstein is wondering where SAO or SAFC is in charge. SAFC v. GPSAFC. Officers are supposed to be students but staff and faculty members were listed. He is also wondering if there are 50 undergrad groups.

K. Dutch wanted to see allocation per student.

G. Mezey wants to see funding based on membership numbers as well so that 4 people with a flawless budget are not taking a disproportionate amount of funds.

T. Miller thought about ways to sign the membership form and evade the restriction.

Y. Neverova brought up how perhaps funding could be allocated based on membership #s of people participating in the events.

G. Mezey brought up the idea of including annual reports from groups, which can be used for allocations.

C. Holmes brought up creating an advisory committee that oversees the registration process.

R. Lavin would be interested to see a ‘recognition’ v. ‘registration’ status.

G. Mezey does not want to deny groups the right to organize and the right to be recognized but rather wants to make the experience better.

Vincent ****last name?**** talked about bringing up constant monitoring by encouraging counterparty interaction.

V. Andrews talked about the interprogramming that goes along between different resources., inquired about co-organized.

Emlyn brought up a potpourri of ideas at the end of the meeting like allocating based on the wishes of the students whose fee it is.

C. Holmes talked about the legal issues involved with such policies.

A. Epstein wanted to know about how other sources of funding are considered on the budget application.

K. Dutch wants to look at membership data.

C. Holmes talked how about CUTonight looks at the membership numbers and at the spending per person.

R. Lavin brought the discussion back to byline funding, etc. and how to incorporate more of the subjective guidelines.

G.Mezey gave the assignment: build a recommendation for the assembly beginning with the registration process.