[2169] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Separating threads: Student Committee on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Cloutier)
Sat Jul 15 20:55:04 2006
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:54:26 -0400
To: Chris Rezek <crezek@alum.mit.edu>, Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu>,
Chris Rezek <crezek@alum.mit.edu>
From: John Cloutier <jmhz@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060715110214.08a28470@po10.mit.edu>
Cc: ua-cocomm@mit.edu, ua-exec@mit.edu, ua-scatr@mit.edu, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Chris et al,
I'm glad you see you are working on some UA issues again, I knew you
couldn't stay away now that you don't have to worry about the FCI all the time.
I'd have to agree with Chris that I'm not crazy about the UA paying
officers. That said, there is room for some improvement with the running
of the office. I don't think however that throwing more money at it is the
solution. The office workers we have already are perfectly sufficient, the
only problem is that they tend not to do anything. It's great that we have
someone to direct people to the bathroom or to let them pick up mail (a
problem which could be solved by putting the boxes outside which has been
appropriated for already), but we're wasting too much money to pay people
to do their homework.
I see two problems with the office workers we hire: first, it's hard to
make another student to do what you tell them to since we are all peers
after all and second, the post often falls to someone who is already in the
UA and uses the time to "work on their projects." If we aren't going to
pay officers to do their jobs we shouldn't pay anyone. I'm not sure I have
a good solution for the first part of it. It might help if there were more
clear cut duties that office workers agreed to do, ie. making copies,
scheduling appointments, postering, maintaining office access, cleaning,
bugging officers for their reports, etc. This would really free up the
P/VP to do more important things.
Other groups, the IFC for example, have admin assistants. It's tough to
get people to do bitch work, but maybe it could be a stepping stone position...
-John
PS. And seriously guys, can we rethink the purpose of Senate? There's
gotta be some way to represent each residence without wasting everyone's
time as is so easy to do when 35 MIT students get together to discuss
anything. How's that for a thread starter?
At 11:13 AM 7/15/2006 -0400, Chris Rezek wrote:
>I was just teasing...
>
>I thought that the student allocation from Benedict was now around $500k
>per year, rather than the $200-250k you note below. If it is only half of
>that, then my argument is much weaker. Hrm. Are we looking at a year vs.
>semester, or undergrad-only vs. total-student? In other words, perhaps
>the $500k I am remembering is the total annual *student* allocation - with
>half ($250k, as you mention below) for undergraduates and the same for the
>graduate students? [If that's true, then MIT allocates about
>$50/student/year, still far below our peers.] And then perhaps the UA &
>GSC could split the staff - 10% of the total allowance for 'overhead' - so
>to speak - seems reasonable. Especially if the staff enables student
>leaders to effectively advocate for more total funding. It could pay for
>itself!
>
>Heck - Benedict might be open to the idea of allocating $$ for UA/GSC
>staff directly. If you already have a part-time staff allocation for an
>office manager (say $20k/year) then another $30k/year wouldn't be that
>much. A few years ago I remember MIT admins had a concern about raising
>student funding because the groups weren't spending the money they were
>getting - this would certainly help that.
>
>And the staff wouldn't necessarily be for the UA (or UA/GSC) only. The
>ASA & Finance Boards could definitely use some staff support. And you
>could let activities purchase marginal hours when the gov'ts didn't have
>solid work to be done. This would spread the cost across more groups, and
>reduce the government-centric nature of the position.
>
>Chris
>
>At 02:49 AM 7/15/2006, Jessica H Lowell wrote:
>>I've already commented on this several times, and even emailed you
>>privately. No reason to be snide.
>>
>>I do not know where you have been getting your numbers throughout this
>>discussion, but you seem to believe that the UA has ~$500k at its disposal
>>these days. I keep wondering if there's some source of money that I forgot
>>about, which is why I didn't comment on this before. Maybe you are including
>>the Class Council budgets - I don't now what they are because they come
>>separately from the rest of the UA budget. So leaving them aside for the
>>moment, I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think the UA "semesterly
>>allowance" is between $100k and $120k. We take somewhere between $15k
>>and $25k
>>for our budget, and give the rest to Finboard for allocations. So taking
>>$30k-60k more would be a _lot_.
>>
>>- Jessie
>>
>>Quoting Chris Rezek <crezek@alum.mit.edu>:
>>
>>>Any comments by anyone about the UA spending $30-60k to improve its
>>>ability to influence policy, and more generally get things done at MIT?
>>>
>>>What does it take to start a flam^H^H^H^H discussion thread around here
>>>these days? Re-scheduling Rush? Changing the dorm lottery system?
>>>
>>>I think hiring staff makes sense and I suppose I will have to take the
>>>silence as unanimous agreement.
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>At 09:38 AM 7/12/2006, Chris Rezek wrote:
>>>>Paying elected officials is something I don't think I'd be
>>>>comfortable with. Though I haven't thought about it much, either.
>>>>
>>>>Paying a UA staff person to do office management, paper processing,
>>>>schedule management, etc. would free up time for other things. The
>>>>in-committee publicity chair, and the PR committee as 'free staff',
>>>>have been tried many times and fail to work consistently - there
>>>>aren't always several students willing to do nothing but
>>>>publicize. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. A staff person
>>>>would provide consistency.
>>>>
>>>>But the need for staffing isn't just about postering - that was just
>>>>an example. A consistent and competent full-time assistant could
>>>>improve UA effectiveness across the board. Minutes would be taken
>>>>and posted in a timely manner. The web page would stay
>>>>current. Applications would be processed faster and with fewer errors,
>>>>etc.
>>>>
>>>>As Anderson no doubt remembers, it was a revolution in 1998-1999 when
>>>>the UA (& the Finance Board) started allowing budgets to include
>>>>food. This was in part because with such a small total budget ($50k)
>>>>food was considered extravagant. With ten times that amount (does
>>>>someone have the exact figure for this year?) perhaps staffing is
>>>>something to consider. That person could help reduce the
>>>>administrative burden of the ASA and Finance Board as well, of
>>>>course, as well as other UA committees. Perhaps the UA could
>>>>share/partner with the GSC to share the funding load and staffing benefits.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously the UA could be better at recruiting and organizing its
>>>>volunteers. But staff could help. An MIT alumni group (the AILG
>>>>www.mitailg.org) I am on the Board of is currently considering hiring
>>>>its first staff person ever to solve a similar
>>>>volunteer-gap-effectiveness issue. That's what sparked my thinking
>>>>about a UA staff person.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 06:59 AM 7/11/2006, Victoria K. Anderson wrote:
>>>> >I don't think paying for students to do things like poster would be a
>>>> >huge deal,
>>>> >as long as they weren't involved as committee chairs or whatnot. I
>>>> believe the
>>>> >GSC pays somebody do to their postering for them, or at least they
>>>> did 4-5
>>>> >years ago. It's fairly inexpensive (about $10/hour) and would free up
>>>> the UA
>>>> >folk to do some substantive work.
>>>> >
>>>> >Quoting Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@MIT.EDU>:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Quoting Jacob Faber <faber@alum.mit.edu>:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> Chris brings up a great point. There is a lot of work that can (and
>>>> > >> probably should) be paid for, such as postering, running websites,
>>>> > >> administrative work, etc. It is not unusual for student government
>>>> > >> officials to be paid at other universities. I completely understand
>>>> > >> the backlash from student groups who say the UA gets too much money,
>>>> > >> but the level of attack received (I understand your pain Jessica) is
>>>> > >> unnecessary. The fact of the matter is (or at least was a couple
>>>> > >> years ago) that most groups are given much more money than they
>>>> > >> actually end up spending.
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > It is not unusual, or at least not _too_ unusual, at other
>>>> > > universities, for the
>>>> > > student government president to take the year that they are
>>>> president off,
>>>> > > academically speaking, and to receive a salary. However, I suspect
>>>> > > that people
>>>> > > would not want to implement that at MIT. I wouldn't.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Chris' original point (that it's more useful for UA workers to spend
>>>> > > their time
>>>> > > on policy than on publicity and administrivia) is a valid one, but
>>>> I don't
>>>> > > think his solution is either politically feasible or desirable. One
>>>> > > could call
>>>> > > on the PR committee to do such work, but personally I'd rather see PR
>>>> > > working to
>>>> > > inform the student body on the issues and what the UA is doing about
>>>> > > them, than
>>>> > > postering. Maybe each committee should designate a member to do its
>>>> > > publicity
>>>> > > work, and then the rest wouldn't have to bother. Or maybe the UA
>>>> > > should keep a
>>>> > > list of volunteers for publicity work, and call upon the list
>>>> > when it needs.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > - Jessie
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > MIT-talk mailing list
>>>> > > MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>>> > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >--
>>>> >Victoria K. Anderson
>>>> >218 Whittier St. NW
>>>> >Washington, DC 20012
>>>> >857-998-1987
>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>> >MIT-talk mailing list
>>>> >MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>>> >http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>2006.07.10 4:10pm
>>>>
>>>>If policy work takes time (it does) and if the time of students is
>>>>limited (it is) and if some work can be done by staff and not by
>>>>elected officials (it can) then it seems that the overall
>>>>effectiveness of the UA (and the grades of its officials) would be
>>>>improved by greater staff support.
>>>>
>>>>For example, I would rather the nominations committee spend its time
>>>>interviewing students, rather than splashing posters all over
>>>>campus. The former must be done by students. The second can be done
>>>>by paid labor. Another NomComm example - processing and organizing
>>>>applications can be done by staff, while designing the application
>>>>should be done by students.
>>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>>
>>>>2006.07.10 3:25pm
>>>>
>>>>Somewhat on topic - what is the current state of UA staffing/admin support?
>>>>
>>>>The effectiveness of the UA [and student gov't generally] often
>>>>depends on how much its students are willing to put aside their class
>>>>work for the greater good. With strong paid support some of that
>>>>effort can shift away from volunteers. This can be some combination
>>>>of MIT-paid and UA-paid staffing. I know the UA's budget has gone up
>>>>significantly in the last 10 years and I believe its staff support
>>>>has declined, but I admit that I don't know the current state.
>>>>
>>>>Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>MIT-talk mailing list
>>>>MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>>>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
