Committee Minutes, Monday, February 21st 2005

Secretary Forrest B. Hinton submitted the following report on Tuesday, February 22nd 2005, on behalf of the Committee on the Budget, and pursuant to its Monday, February 21st 2005 recommendations:

Attendance:

There were seven (7) Members (Cleary, Epps, Fabricius, Hinton, Kim, Mital Patel, Small) present.

There were two (2) Members (James, Moye) absent.

A quorum was present.

The following officials were also present: Summey, Toms, Hyde

Meeting Minutes:

Committee on the Budget
February 21, 2004
9:00 PM

At 9:00 PM the Committee on the Budget was called to order by Chairman Cleary.

Committee Members Present:
Cleary
Small
Hinton
Fabricius
Epps
Patel
Kim

Other SG Officials Present:
Toms
Summey
Hyde

Students Present:
Amanda Lilley

*Amanda Lilley: Homecoming Chair*

-Donations from SG 2003: $15,000 ; SG 2004: $10,000

Fabricius: What happened to the $15,000 given in the fall that was a forward donation?

Lilley: This is what the budget reads.

-SG money explicitly goes to money that involves and targets students such as Wear Red, Get Fed, the Publicity, the Parade, etc.
-71.8% was spent to specific “student-targeted” events, while the Alumni Association pays for the remainder.
-Pack Howl and Fan Zone are not paid for by SG, but still benefit students. The need to charge a concert price is a “necessary evil” that we must keep in order to level the bottom.

Fabricius: I still am trying to figure out what happened to the $15,000 that was donated.

Lilley: I forgot to include Leader of the Pack donations.

Cleary: More was given from IFC and IRC.

Patel: I think the discrepancy was in how they applied it. Was it towards last year’s funding or this year?

Lilley: There was no debt at the end of the 2003 year because the Alumni Association footed the bill. Money was owed last year from SG that never came through, so it was requested from the Senate.

Fabricius: We said that we didn’t owe Homecoming any money; whoever promised that had no authority. It seems we should have $15,000 coming back to us.

Cleary: I don’t think this is productive to this year’s budget.

Fabricius: I agree, we need to find out what happened to this money.

Lilley: I’d like to be more active with keeping in charge of student money (e.g. UAB). Better communication and money pledges are something I plan to implement.

Hinton: Does Homecoming keep a budget each year? Its difficult for SG to make decisions for the future without consulting past monetary issues.

Lilley: Yes, in fact, I can bring that next weekend. I completely understand.

Fabricius: Pledges need to go to the Financial Services Committee so we can know exactly where the money is going before its released.

Lilley: I hope this isn’t an abysmal trend. Do know that a lot of things have changed since a few years ago; Homecoming wants to help things get better as we move ahead.

Patel: This year you all added Kickoff. Do you plan to expand anymore this year?

Lilley: Yes, expansion is the big theme this year. We really see this as an opportunity to celebrate our university and include the football team more, with bonfire/school spirit celebrations. Centennial will be a bigger pool for us this year; we want to bring Wear Red, Get Fed to them as well as increase the blood drive locations. Pack Howl will be the great culmination at the end of the week.

*Drafting of the Budget*

Cleary: The committee has two draft-budgets, mainly one from Treasurer Patel and me, and one from Sen. Fabricius.

Fabricius explains his proposal.

Cleary explains his proposal.

Cleary: The Fabricius proposal increases officer stipends by tiered ranking, whereas mine keeps them the same.

Fabricius: That increase is a minor percentage of the entire budget. The different offices require different time commitments.

Hinton: I support the three-tiered ranking system, but not necessarily increasing the stipends by any additional amounts.

Patel: Mainly, I think the stipends shouldn’t be increased dramatically, and I don’t necessarily disagree with ranking the three positions. The Chief Justice probably doesn’t deserve as much as he [she] is paid.

Summey: Why has the Chief Justice salary decreased so much each year?

Fabricius: The CJ doesn’t have nearly the same amount of time-commitment, authority, or level of responsibility.

Patel: The job of Comptroller is constant, we shouldn’t reward someone by how well he/she does his/her job. We should reward their job as the position.

Fabricius: The Comptroller salary has been decreased because of budget crunches.

Cleary: There have been other cuts as well (e.g. SSPPT). Obviously there is disagreement on this group of line items. On to section two, I believe the salaries should be equal for the “CEO’s” of each department.

Fabricius: I would agree if those positions actually existed. The organizational structure is what should be budgeted, not the preference of the incumbent SBP.

Hyde: If you agree with equal payments, why don’t you pay them all?

Fabricius: I would slash them all if I thought I could. I think the WolfAides Director deserves a line-item as well.

Hinton: So you agree with the tiered system for student body officer stipends, but not for executive officers?

Fabricius: I don’t think that system exists.

Hyde: This Chief of Staff certainly does more, time-wise, but I will agree with Erich that the statutes don’t spell-out that role.

Patel: I think on a campus of this size, we could find someone who really wants to be Director of Community Service without pay.

Fabricius: It depends on whether they are serving the student body or being a managing bureaucrat.

Small: Does the Director of Government Relations deserve to get paid?

Patel: It’s something that we should definitely consider.

Hyde: Personally, I don’t think you should have to pay the Government Operations or Community Service Chairs. This just subsidizes a worker’s time.

Fabricius: At the same point, we could pay the Chief of Staff and that person might not do his job. We couldn’t pay them based on their work ethic. We need to budget based on reality, and based on statutory authority.

Hinton: Would this be viewed as a symbol of depreciation among those executive positions should we cut their stipends down to $0?

Patel and Hyde: No, we don’t think so.

Cleary: Basically, this is a philosophical question that we may never agree on.

Patel: We want to make sure people run knowing what their stipends will be. I would rather keep the stipends the same, and move the remaining money to operational uses.

Fabricius: The marginal effects are felt when we don’t pay our officers. We have to look at the long-term, and remember that we aren’t allowed to make dramatic increases each year. We need to make compensation for our student officers, for the “trickle-down” effect.

Cleary: There are no major disagreements on the Legislative Branch Officer Stipends. Our proposals again are based on different philosophical models. The Pro Tem, the Chief of Staff, etc, should work to improve each branch equally.

Fabricius: And the Executive Assistant to the CJ is nominal to me. I don’t really care whether its $600 or $800. The time commitment and effort they put in, is really nothing remarkable in student government. There are some senators who serve outstandingly, and put in large amounts of time without a particular title.

Cleary: The only difference on line items, part 5 is the extra $500 spent on office supplies.

Fabricius: Yes, we often overspend in this area.

Patel: Its something we need more research on.

Fabricius: I also hope we continue to fund the Revolving Technology Fund.
[Discussion continues on Revolving Technology Fund]

Cleary: Line 6 and 7 differ strongly in the Fabricius and Cleary budgets.

Fabricius: I’m not cutting the money, but the money to fund the executive branch has been titled differently.

Small: I think it’s appropriate to differentiate between the two offices.

Cleary: On lines in Section 8, Fabricius has severely cut the Leader of the Pack Scholarship.

Fabricius: We decided that funding scholarships is not what should be budgeted.

Patel: That money goes straight to CSLEPS.

Cleary: The question is do we fund Leader of the Pack anymore?

Fabricius: Why are we giving $2K to people who serve as figure-heads and do not work in
Student Government? This is just an award.

Hinton: Don’t you think leadership should be based on valued interviews rather than some popular election?

Fabricius: We’re letting this university fool the students.
[Sen. Fabricius continues to explain how Leader of the Pack works.]

Cleary: We’re both in agreement that Homecoming needs to go done.

Fabricius: If they are systematically mis-spending our funds, they should go to $0.

Cleary: Mostly, Erich and I keep the same models on Student Government programming. However, I believe Academic Integrity Week should be decreased by $1,000.

Patel: Sean had an awesome Academic Integrity Week compared to this year. How much should we allow this line-item to be based on the Chief Justice’s passion? They should have what they need to run the program, and not make it flashy.

Fabricius: Let me speak a few minutes. What is the difference in SG projects and SG activities? In my submitted budget, I spell out initiatives specifically. They are grouped by their purposes.

Patel: Some things could be placed in either category.

Cleary: In 10 [section 10] we’re pretty much into agreement.

Hyde: What’s to say the next SBP won’t abolish some of these Commissions?

Fabricius: Most of them can’t be because they are spelled out by statute.

Patel: I’m not sure we should spell out how much we want each Commission to have. Let the SBP have the freedom to spend that money on his own.

Fabricius: Its fair for commissions to be lumped together with one sum, but I think some of these service projects need to be allocated specifically.

Cleary: Moving along, 11 is where we’re going to have more arguments. WolfAides, LeaderShape, and Retreats are highly contested. I think we’re all in agreement that WolfAides needs to be cut.

Patel: We’re supporting the ideals of LeaderShape by budgeting money for it. We get reserved positions in the program. Instead of flying our leaders around the nation, we like to support more of our students.

Kim: I think its amazing to keep 60 people going to this outstanding program, rather than paying for 4 to travel.

Cleary: Dealing with the Fall Retreat, I think we all agree the retreat has failed year after year. We all agree that the branches need to have retreats separately so that they can set up stuff, and have committee chairmen meet with their respective members.

Cleary: In [section] 12 we have appropriations. I put an extra $5,000 for appropriations. Student Body Elections- mine is $100 cheaper because I don’t think they ever spend all of their money.

Fabricius: I separated out student body initiatives from organized programming. What I’ve proposed, is limiting the amount of money the SBT can spend on whatever the [heck] he wants to. [further explanations of 1401]

Patel: We need to have useful money to spend throughout the year. If a student group comes to us, we need to be able to fund useful projects.

Fabricius: In section 15, I think we need to take steps to formalize the budget line items. There should be limited change on administrative support salaries and benefits.

Cleary: The big philosophical differences come from Student Body Officer Stipends, programming, appropriations, and the Treasurer’s Fund. Those will be our focuses.
[brief discussion of appropriations]

*Three Individual Issues of Budgetary Concern*

Small: Executive Branch Officer Stipends (Chief of Staff specifically), delineating SBP’s executive budget from his personal initiatives, and LeaderShape funding.

Fabricius: LeaderShape funding

Hinton: Judicial spending needs to be in-check with student benefits, Commissions need to be less restricted, and we need to clean up the budget to provide for more money in appropriations.

Epps: I agree that more information needs to be put in appropriations. May I ask what Feed Raleigh is? [explained]

Patel: My three concerns are appropriations, previously articulated well, stipends need to be in-check, and continuing to support LeaderShape.

Cleary: I think we should expand our ideas on how to give officers stipends, continue to support Leader of the Pack symbolically, and third with appropriations is that- we should be able to tell students we support interests that are best for the student body.

Fabricius: We need to make sure that we don’t get so particular on putting money in slots to be executed out, but instead leave room for innovation for the betterment of the student body.

Hyde: No stipend for Director of Community Service or Government Relations and keep officer stipends the same, Commissions need to be budgeted broadly with a discretionary fund, and appropriations should be increased.

Toms: Increase for Executive Officer Stipends so that we can assure all students can run without having to maintain another job, we need to gauge how effective the Academic Integrity events are, and commission maintenance.

Summey: I question cutting the Chief Justice’s salary as much as Sen. Fabricius has proposed, continue maintaining a strong appropriations, and giving flexibility to commissions.

Epps: Increase the fall appropriations; I like the rewording of the some of the headings (done by Sen. Fabricius); also, LeaderShape is an amazing program that we should continue to support

Motion to Adjourn by Senator Fabricius, properly seconded by Senator Hinton at 10:58 PM