![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greybetaLet me attempt to explain how we fund organizations in my student government. At the beginning of next semester, we ask every one of over 150 organizations to submit a so called "allocation packet". What this entails is predicting every event that an organization will do for the entire fiscal year. Hmmm, you might ask? What if organizations add or subtract an event? In this case, we allow some flexibility, but you can't spend the money off campus and you can't spend the money on alcohol or anything that you can keep (just think how much money would be spent if we funded every organizations T-shirts or what not).
There's a lot of other little rules, but the stickler for the "open sunshine" people are my committee's "confidential criteria". My Financial Appropriations Committee, i.e. FAC, uses a standard level of funding on items like food, decorations, and miscellaneous rentals. While FAC is privileged to know that info, none of the organizations are. I understand this causes it to seem that FAC is arbitrary in doling out those amounts to organizations. To some extent it is. But to a greater extent, it undercuts padding. What I'm saying is that if organizations knew that they could get a million dollars for food for an event, then it's in human nature to pad your numbers to get a million.
I know there's argument that you might as well make them open so people know how much they can get. To me, that opens up a problem that I wouldn't want any FAC chair to face. If you tell exactly how much someone get, are they not obligated to spend that money for the exact amount that you gave them? Then we'd have to audit every event, and that's too much work. If you're going to trust organizations, then that isn't any different from the status quo.
Basically, I need some convincing that the confidential criteria is unnecessary. But heck, our tax code is open and it's still confusing enough that people suspect it. I'm just not sure, and in this case I've seen the status quo do its work. I just think we need to educate people on how the system works already.
Allow me to play devil's advocate here.
First, allow me to point out that the confidential criteria was once open knowledge to the entire campus. That begs the question: Why did a previous Senate vote to make them confidential? Perhaps, it was through a misunderstanding. I don't know. But there was cause to make them confidential, and I'm hesitant to change that on a whim.
Second, let me clarify what I was talking about unintended consequences. As it stands, no organization knows how much they were funded for any event. If that is the case, then how can we audit them? We can only audit them for using money on items that we specifically cannot fund (i.e. alcohol).
If we give them specific amounts, isn't that indicating that's all they can spend with SA money for that? To exaggerate, if they go one cent over the amount we give them for an event, then they aren't using the money they were allocated properly. On the other hand, if they are just given a total amount for the year, they can modify budgets as necessary. I do realize that asking organizations to predict their expenses one year ahead of time is kind of harsh. I think the current system gives them flexibility while the new system would necessarily make things less flexible.
Now you could say that under the "open sunshine" that organizations don't have to spend money exactly the way we allocate the money to them. How is that different from the status quo?
Third, at this point FAC already has the discretion to make the guidelines public. Why do we need a bill requiring open sunshine? Because secrecy creates distrust? FAC is arbitrary? Sure, but I think it has more to do with another reason.
Lack of education on the SAB/FAC guidelines. I honestly don't think FAC does a good enough of a job making it simple for everyone to understand how allocations works. If those inside SA are asking questions about how it works, then how can we expect those outside SA to understand? To this end, I think we would be better served by making an executive summary of the SAB/FAC guidelines.
An executive summary would describe how the SAB/FAC guidelines work in plain english, pointing out to the legalistic language in parenthesis. For example, we say that organizations are eligible to be funded for Airfare, Food, Gasoline, Lodging, Miscellaneous Rentals and Registration (Section 5, Subsection 5).
It seems to me that the biggest problem is just making organizations aware what they are funded for. Yes, I have been asked exactly what an organization has been funded for. I have explained that FAC uses confidential criteria and the philosophy behind it. People have seemed satisfied with the answers. If people have questions or complaints, those questions or complaints should be directed to Phil, Andrea, or me.
Fourth, allow me to point out that I'm not against open sunshine if it makes things more efficient. At this point, however, I have not been convinced that James' bill as is will make things better. Oh, there's hope that things will be better, but hope alone won't convince me. Show me how other private universities do it, just something that will alleviate my doubts.
There's a lot of other little rules, but the stickler for the "open sunshine" people are my committee's "confidential criteria". My Financial Appropriations Committee, i.e. FAC, uses a standard level of funding on items like food, decorations, and miscellaneous rentals. While FAC is privileged to know that info, none of the organizations are. I understand this causes it to seem that FAC is arbitrary in doling out those amounts to organizations. To some extent it is. But to a greater extent, it undercuts padding. What I'm saying is that if organizations knew that they could get a million dollars for food for an event, then it's in human nature to pad your numbers to get a million.
I know there's argument that you might as well make them open so people know how much they can get. To me, that opens up a problem that I wouldn't want any FAC chair to face. If you tell exactly how much someone get, are they not obligated to spend that money for the exact amount that you gave them? Then we'd have to audit every event, and that's too much work. If you're going to trust organizations, then that isn't any different from the status quo.
Basically, I need some convincing that the confidential criteria is unnecessary. But heck, our tax code is open and it's still confusing enough that people suspect it. I'm just not sure, and in this case I've seen the status quo do its work. I just think we need to educate people on how the system works already.
Allow me to play devil's advocate here.
First, allow me to point out that the confidential criteria was once open knowledge to the entire campus. That begs the question: Why did a previous Senate vote to make them confidential? Perhaps, it was through a misunderstanding. I don't know. But there was cause to make them confidential, and I'm hesitant to change that on a whim.
Second, let me clarify what I was talking about unintended consequences. As it stands, no organization knows how much they were funded for any event. If that is the case, then how can we audit them? We can only audit them for using money on items that we specifically cannot fund (i.e. alcohol).
If we give them specific amounts, isn't that indicating that's all they can spend with SA money for that? To exaggerate, if they go one cent over the amount we give them for an event, then they aren't using the money they were allocated properly. On the other hand, if they are just given a total amount for the year, they can modify budgets as necessary. I do realize that asking organizations to predict their expenses one year ahead of time is kind of harsh. I think the current system gives them flexibility while the new system would necessarily make things less flexible.
Now you could say that under the "open sunshine" that organizations don't have to spend money exactly the way we allocate the money to them. How is that different from the status quo?
Third, at this point FAC already has the discretion to make the guidelines public. Why do we need a bill requiring open sunshine? Because secrecy creates distrust? FAC is arbitrary? Sure, but I think it has more to do with another reason.
Lack of education on the SAB/FAC guidelines. I honestly don't think FAC does a good enough of a job making it simple for everyone to understand how allocations works. If those inside SA are asking questions about how it works, then how can we expect those outside SA to understand? To this end, I think we would be better served by making an executive summary of the SAB/FAC guidelines.
An executive summary would describe how the SAB/FAC guidelines work in plain english, pointing out to the legalistic language in parenthesis. For example, we say that organizations are eligible to be funded for Airfare, Food, Gasoline, Lodging, Miscellaneous Rentals and Registration (Section 5, Subsection 5).
It seems to me that the biggest problem is just making organizations aware what they are funded for. Yes, I have been asked exactly what an organization has been funded for. I have explained that FAC uses confidential criteria and the philosophy behind it. People have seemed satisfied with the answers. If people have questions or complaints, those questions or complaints should be directed to Phil, Andrea, or me.
Fourth, allow me to point out that I'm not against open sunshine if it makes things more efficient. At this point, however, I have not been convinced that James' bill as is will make things better. Oh, there's hope that things will be better, but hope alone won't convince me. Show me how other private universities do it, just something that will alleviate my doubts.
