Student Assembly Finance Commission
March 15, 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

Publication proposals/ Travel changes/ Durable goods

D. Gusz went over certain percentages of the total allocations this semester. Durable goods were 6.68% of the budget, publications were 14.5%, local events were 38.6%, and travel was 37.4%.

C. Feng asked the commission to start off with the publications issue.

J. Zhao gave a brief overview of the potential changes that were discussed last week. Many groups, whose purposes did not seem necessary to create a publication, were coming in asking for funding for a publication without giving any background or information. She proposed that for the first two semesters, new groups have a cap of $500 per semester, for three issues, and afterwards can receive a full allocation. She added that new groups should also provide an outline or prototype of their requested publication. Lastly, she said that groups should indicate where the copies will be distributed and an idea of how many in each location.

J. Min added that there should be a cap on the cost for a single copy of an issue, set at $25, which is still very high.

J. Zhao said she was not sure how to limit the caps. Should there be just a cap on publications in general, or a cap on the cost for each issue?

E. Diakow was not sure how the caps for newly publishing clubs would be fair to new groups whose sole purpose is to create a publication.

D. Gusz said that a cap on the amount per copy is effective. He thought that a lower cap on the price per copy means that a group would be able to create a lot more copies with their allocated budget, allowing the publication to reach a greater number of people at Cornell.

R. Shapiro asked if D. Gusz meant that if a group makes three issues per semester, than the total cost would be divided by three, and that amount is how much is allocated per publication.

C. Feng said that the cost does not necessarily have to be divided by three, but the cap would be on the cost per copy.

D. Gusz asked if anyone had an idea of a fair amount of money per copy, keeping in mind both quality and quantity.

C. Feng thought that a good amount is $10 per copy, that way if a group hits a cap of $2500, then 250 copies can be distributed.

B. Schreff countered that he saw a lot of groups applying for $2 or $3 per copy.

V. Pillet said that a lot groups rely on glossy print for their publications. He said that the commission needed to look at the budgets for an idea of the cost.

The commission went into a discussion about the costs per copy for student organizations.

C. Feng reminded the commissioners that they do not necessarily need to continually create new rules and warned against unnecessary cluttering of the guidelines.

J. Min suggested creating a minimum amount of copies instead of a dollar cap. He thought it was so easy for organizations to apply for and receive the full $2500 without adding to the purpose of the group. He thought the SAFC should be more stringent.

J. Zhao said that another problem is that many groups apply for publication funding superfluously, when their purpose is not necessarily to do that. She added that she was worried that groups would just print out 100 copies, and give the rest to the members and their friends, without truly being distributed to the Cornell community.

J. Min. J. Zhao and R. Shapiro discussed various ways that might control caps on publications as well as ensuring adequate distribution throughout campus, such as mandating a list of where the publication will be distributed, or creating a minimum on the number of copies per issue.

C. Feng played the devil’s advocate; what is wrong about a group creating a small publication? They might not need 200 or more copies.

J. Min and D. Gusz disagreed. They did not think the commission should fund for a publication that would not be accessible to the Cornell community, and chances are would only be given within the organization and friends.

R. Shapiro proposed differentiating between clubs that applied solely for publication funding, versus those that applied for other things in addition to their publication.

E. Diakow suggested that groups will be required to make the publications available at set documented places around campus, which will not add difficulty for the groups to receive funding yet will enforce distribution.

J. Min agreed that part of the purpose of the publication is access to the entire Cornell community, which he did not think was a huge thing to ask.

R. Desai proposed only capping groups who were applying for publications for the first time, with the rationale that groups who are trying something new should have a much smaller budget to work with.

D. Gusz thought that groups should be able to start a publication, and should not necessarily have to wait a semester or have to pay out-of-pocket.

K. Song asked if anyone else thought that $2500 is an excessive amount of money for a publication.

V. Pillet said that he has heard feedback from groups that $2500 is not enough.

C. Feng asked the commission what the definitive issues are in publications, and if these are being addressed in the guidelines right now.

The commission voted on the following proposals:

-Minimum of 250 copies per issue. Did not pass.

-Groups must include in the budget application a copy of a previous issue, or for new groups an outline for their proposed publication. Passed.

-Groups must include a list of places where the publication will be distributed. Did not pass.

D. Gusz transitioned the discussion into possible rule changes for travel.

B. Schreff said that something his group discussed is that if a club is traveling a long distance, mileage is sometimes much more costly than what a plane ticket would cost. He said that if a group is traveling over a certain amount of miles, they must provide a price quote of a plane ticket.

D. Gusz added that something that was discussed in e-board was possibly setting a maximum dollar figure per person per event, still allowing groups to travel but not allocating too much money for individuals to travel far distances.

J. Min expressed his opinion against this proposal, stating that it disadvantages organizations who desire to travel internationally. The purposes of travel is not only for the sake of it or to have fun, but to go to key conferences or competitions that represent the club.

J. Marder said that the percentage of groups that rely on international travel is very small. Clubs can travel to areas that are less far away and still fulfill the purposes of the group.

E. Diakow disagreed. She stated the disparities between groups who have one or two big trips, versus those that travel more often but only go short distances.

R. Kishore thought that the commission is providing a pretty big radius for groups to travel within. For those that want to go farther, like California, the commission would still be subsidizing half of the cost of travel, which he thought was reasonable.

D. Gusz said that there are not a lot of groups which request that large a distance of travel, but given the distance and the number of people traveling, they still take a large chunk of funds.

S. Rog proposed the per car funding which had been the current SAFC policy when he had first come on to the commission.

C. Feng that this policy would be problematic for organizations when only one person qualified for a competition, or any group not traveling in multiples of four.

D. Gusz agreed that this rule would probably not cut down the cost of travel that much, but will still add a lot more work.

R. Kishore discussed that it was unfair for groups whose individuals “get more than they put in”, concerning the student activity fee. Groups should be able to get back what they collectively contributed to the funds — any more, then other students become disadvantaged.

C. Feng agreed. He was troubled with the idea of how many students’ activity fees would be used to fund one students’ expensive travel to one single event. He thought that this was different from durable goods, in that they are accessible and able to be used over a period of time, whereas funding for travel benefits only a very small percentage of the Cornell population.

B. Finkel suggested that the SAFC should just fund a maximum of 30% of total allocations to travel events. Picking out a travel radius was arbitrary and unfair, and he thought the best approach was to cut out a specific percentage of travel from everyone’s budget.

J. Min said that this ultimately hurts organizations whose sole purpose is to travel.

B. Finkel said a group’s travel budget would be cut by a certain percentage, and while it would be difficult, he thought it would be the most equitable way.

C. Feng said the reason the SAFC had done away with percentage caps in the past, is that groups had incentive to pad their budget since they knew that a percentage would be cut.

R. Shapiro asked why the commission was seeking to cut travel. He wanted to know where the funding would go instead.

D. Gusz and J. Min said there would be more funds for more events on campus that would be open to everyone, or even towards durable goods that have more lasting effects and are available for more students to use.

R. Desai pointed out that if groups require international travel they can get funding from other sources. He said that he also agreed with the flat cap idea, which can also be adjusted year to year.

J. Min expressed disagreement with the dollar cap idea. He thought that this would harm the couple of groups who travel long distances or internationally, while other groups who have smaller travel needs will not hit the cap, and have no effect at all.

E. Diakow proposed voting whether the SAFC will only fund international travel when if the circumstance or event being sought out cannot take place in America.

R. Kishore said that after a certain mileage, a plane ticket is less expensive than gas mileage. He thought that travel requests beyond this mileage point should show plane ticket costs, so groups are looking for the cheapest rate.

J. Min reiterated that these policies would only affect those couple of organizations that are going international or unusually far distances.

R. Kishore said if the goal that the commission is trying to make is to support more local events that will benefit the entire community, then we should limit travel funding so that it is only 30% of SAFC funds. Reducing the percent of money spent on travel will extend caps for other groups. This would limit people who make one big trip, versus making many small trips.

E. Diakow did not think there should be a limit on travel. She said that many of the local events have multiple other sources of funding and many were non-SAFC funded anyway, and did not think that taking away travel from groups would necessarily benefit the campus.

S. Rog said he did not think there should be anything done to change travel. With the limited amount of funds that the commission has to work with, there will always be groups that are unhappy.

C. Feng and D. Gusz said that they understood the point that R. Kishore was making, but they thought it could be unfair to those few groups who request more funding for one big travel event that they might have. Looking at the allocation numbers this semester, they did not recommend making a change limiting travel at this time. C. Feng asked if the commissioners wanted to vote on the two proposals brought up earlier, or if they had any additional changes.

E. Diakow proposed including documentation of a plane ticket over a certain amount of miles.

The commission voted on the proposals to change travel. The majority of the commission supported a requirement of documentation of a plane ticket over a certain amount of miles, but did not support an overall percent cap on travel.

L. Kogos began the discussion on durable goods. His concerns were the viability of checking on inventory, as well as groups that requested unnecessary luxury electronic goods.

R. Shapiro suggested that groups have an inventory list as part of their application process.

C. Feng said that he could make that suggestion to Ari, and maybe implement it in the database system. B. Schreff said he liked the idea of checking on groups, but the issue is that there are system limitations. He questioned whether the SAO even has a record of previous years, or if a system is capable of seeing what durable goods a group has purchased over the last few years.

C. Feng said that a new system can potential be capable of accounting for groups past purchases. He thought that we should make a recommendation to the Student Assembly to create an independent body, which checks the inventory of any ten random organizations.

R. Desai suggested expanding the Student Assembly Organization Review Committee so they have access to the inventory, and can inspect whether groups are following the guidelines. He also supported requiring an inventory list of all goods purchased by SAFC money in order for groups to apply for money. He also recommended that the commission clarify the definition of a durable good so it includes how long it will be in use before a group can request funding for that item again, unless they have proof of wear-and-tear, or that the group is expanding.

E. Diakow proposed that if a group applies for a durable good over a certain amount of money, they must also provide a longevity agreement to receive funding.

V. Pillet added that the review committee which will do a checking system on group’s inventory should be closer to the SAFC rather than the SA.

J. Min said that some items are available on campus for rental, like cameras for example.

R. Kishore thought it was necessary to define what is a luxury good.

C. Feng said that the e-board will start writing these proposals up into official changes. He thought that the commission made good progress assessing these three issues.

IV. Meeting was adjourned at 7:00 pm.

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