Talk:2015 Budget Vote

Area hosts versus the membership

I understand that this is still in progress, but I'm concerned that as-written, this budget already apportions nearly a third of our projected excess funds to area host expenditures, and doesn't yet have numbers for five of the areas. I understand the desire for area hosts to have spending power to improve the space, but I generally prefer to err towards having the membership making the bulk of our decisions, through votes. Handing too much financial decision-making power to any individual starts to take the power of decision from the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbever (talk • contribs) 09:04, Dec 18, 2014

You are correct that this is still in progress. This is using the numbers that the area hosts asked for so far, not what they will necessarily get. There are certainly a few things that already need trimmed. Justin (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2014 (CST)

If I’m reading the budget correctly, the reason for the shift in resources from Member votes to Area Hosts is not to enable the Area Hosts to buy more equipment, it’s to enable them to maintain and operate the equipment we already have. As we accumulate more equipment, our ongoing costs to own and operate that equipment goes up as well, consuming a larger portion of our budget. Cumulatively, we only have $3,813.00 allocated for new tools (of which, if you dig into the budget, almost 1/3rd is simply payments on our laser cutter loan), but fully $16,384 for consumable supplies (end mills, 3d printer filament, argon gas, electronics components, etc.) and another $6,082 is simply repairs and maintenance. Assuming people have confidence in the Area Hosts’ ability to correctly forecast the needs of their areas, it seems to me that this budget is appropriate to maintain, not to substantially expand, those areas. If we want more money for member votes and new toys, it sounds like we may want to look at a hike in dues. Kyle (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2015 (CST)

SEM and other projects

I think I'd like to see the SEM (and any other similar projects now or in the future) get funds from a vote seperate from the annual budget. Putting projects that folks might not want to fund under the umbrella of the annual budget makes it difficult for members to actually make choices about how the space spends its money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbever (talk • contribs) 14:28, Dec 21, 2014

The SEM is not a member project

To be clear, the SEM is not a member project. PS:One owns it. The PS:One membership voted to accept it as a donation and pay for its moving costs back in 2013. In this regard, it is no different than any other tool PS:One owns, and supplies for it have just as much right to be in the budget as supplies for any other tool that PS:One owns. --Rdpierce (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2015 (CST)

We need to plan for things we know we'll spend money on

I understand your concerns, but I think it's pretty naive to believe that we aren't going to end up spending money on the SEM. I would much rather spend it on regular maintenance than continue to have to pay for costly repairs (as we're doing now). And if we're expecting to spend money on it anyways, I see no reason not to include it in the plan of money we expect to spend instead of pretending to ignore it. At any rate, the SEM is not actually being considered as its own department in this budget. We only have a separate sheet because we asked Ryan to make one. The SEM falls under the General Area Host budget, and as such I, as the General Area Host, choose to include it in my budget. Justin (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Member Projects Should Standalone

I feel that projects should have to defend themselves, and not be batched as part of a larger vote. The SEM is just so unrelated from everything else on this proposal.

I fully expect that things like the SEM should factor into an estimated cost of being PS:One, but member projects should not get spending authorization bundled with toilet paper and paper towels. It reeks of being a rider on a larger vote.

To the SEM people, please don't take this personally. I also argued to have a new server hardware budget be an independent vote, something I have a vested interest in. I expect the yearly financial planning to take both projects into account when planning the year, but I want spending authorization to remain in the hands of the membership and each subject to gaining general approval independent from the space's necessities. --Hef (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Mixed Messages

Including potentially contentious issues as a part of the larger budget vote makes it impossible for members to discuss those expenses and legitimately consider whether they want the organization to continue spending money on them. Saying "It's just inevitable" is disingenous and not really a valid response to that concern.--Dbever (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2014 (CST)

Discussion still works

Why would it be impossible for members to discuss these expenses? The entire budget will be made available for members to review before the vote, as per the regular vote procedure. --Sylphiae (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (CST)

It is very hard to vote no on the overall budget if you disagree with one point. The discussion of the value of putting money towards the SEM is very overshadowed by discussion over the entire budget. The discussion just won't get the time or energy the membership deserves. --Bry (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Bry, this argument could apply to any line item in the budget. If you don't personally have a use for the ShopBot, and you object to the line item for ShopBot endmills, do you vote no on the whole budget? Does there need to be a discussion on the value of putting money towards the ShopBot? If not, then why should the SEM be treated any differently? Both are tools that PS:One owns. --Rdpierce (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2015 (CST)

$500 cap on Area host purchases

I saw the $500 cap on new equipment was removed, is there an explanation for that?

I'd like to see equipment purchase decisions being made by the membership as a whole, not by individuals.

--Hef (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2014 (CST)

The language in this section was basically lifted from last year's vote, so several sentences were removed until we finalize the area hosts' role in the budget. This section is still very much in progress. --Sylphiae (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2014 (CST)

I'm saying I'd like to see it get put back in. I don't care about the literal text of the language. I'm saying I don't like the idea of taking equipment purchasing decisions from the membership. --Hef (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2014 (CST)

I'm agreeing with Hef. Area hosts are important, but the bulk of the organization's financial decisions need to be getting made by the membership at large. --Dbever (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2014 (CST)

We went with a $750 limit this year, which is what we told to the area hosts when they were making their budgets. If this hasn't already been added back into the language, it will be in just a minute. Justin (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Hassle of a vote

"Provide area hosts with more spending power to provide better service to the membership without the hassle of passing a vote"

Voting's not a hassle - it's how the membership decides how to spend funds. Investing spending power in a tiny portion of our membership is something that needs to be done with care. --Dbever (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Voting is a hassle - there are too many fingers in the pot at vote time and everyone and their aunt has something to say about the vote. By pre-approving certain expenditure via a vote we are removing the onus of creating another vote on the area host. There is no difference on the membership voting to approve a $1000 expense now or via a vote in the future especially when the expense is known about, it makes financial sense to plan for it. Votes are unplanned ad hoc expenditure which is hard to budget for! --Amishhammer (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Everyone should have something to say - that's the point of an organization run by the members. If you want to discourage discussion of the organization's expenditures, then say that. --Dbever (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Adding large expenditures in the general budget vote also means that you are tying the fate of the general budget to the fate of the individual large expenditure. If people do not agree with the specific item, they are forced to vote no on the general budget. We need a general budget more than that specific item. --Bry (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2015 (CST)

I'm in agreement with Bry and Derek on this. Voting is not a hassle to be avoided. Writing votes is not that hard. The area hosts answer to the stakeholder of the organization, which are the members. Justin (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2015 (CST)

Spelling Errors

The pdf has spelling errors. These really should be fixed. --Hef (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I've just fixed as many of these as I could find just now. If you know of others, please make specific references so I can find them. Justin (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2015 (CST)

No PDF

I don't like the idea of not being able to reference a section, and having to just say "the pdf" that is 90 pages. There is no practical way to reference section. --Hef (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I agree with hef that the 90 page, worst-possible-formate PDF is egregious. --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I've replaced the single PDF with a zip containing a PDF for each document included with the budget. The filenames are numbered, there are page numbers inside each document, and the top of every page has the Document Name and Sheet Name on it. Justin (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2015 (CST)

Office of the CTO

The CTO shouldn't get an equipment budget. That should be done via vote. The membership has a lot to contribute when it comes to computer hardware. --Hef (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2015 (CST)

Hardware upgrades should absolutely be a member vote. --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

This is the line item I am least comfortable with. It’s not clear who decides what the money is spent on, when it is spent and where the oversight is. Is this subject to area host spending limits and reporting? I’d like to see this scrapped or reworked into G&A with regular board oversight. Michael Skilton, from the mailing list.

The Office of the CTO budget is part of G&A. I will try to update the background and the language where necessary to make this more clear. That would mean that this is money that would be spent by the board. Justin (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2015 (CST)

We've updated the Background section with a note about this. No change to the language needed, IMHO. Justin (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2015 (CST)

Expenses

Zoho is included in this budget - a service we no longer use. --Dbever (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2015 (CST)

Zoho is not part of this budget, but I see that we forgot to remove it from the "Minimal Operating Expenses Plan" I will remove it from that before the language lock in. Justin (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (CST)

This has been removed now. Justin (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2015 (CST)

The creative cloud subscription should be apportioned by Arts and CNC and come from their budgets, preferably right down the middle. --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

We moved all software subscriptions and the like to the CTO Budget (which is part of G&A) since we expect that the CTO/Board of Directors will be the ones to actually spend the money and maintain the software installations. Justin (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (CST)

What is 'Concur' ? --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

An addon to quickbooks to enable expense reporting from the area hosts. This is mentioned in the language which says that "Pumping Station One will adopt an expense reporting tool for area hosts and board members to use for reporting on spending." Justin (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I've used Concur very extensively and, as an end user, appreciate its interface and mobile capability. I think this will significantly help with tracking and reporting expenses.--Bioguy (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2015 (CST)

Wood Shop

The budget currently authorizes a purchase exceeding the area hosts' capital expenditure limit. This should be pulled out and voted on as a distinct issue - the membership should have input. --Dbever (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (CST)

I believe you are referring to the 18" bandsaw, correct? I talked to Triano about that, and he said that it is indeed intended as a replacement for https://wiki.pumpingstationone.org/Rockwell_14_inch_bandsaw so that the old one can be returned to Ed Bennett, the owner of said bandsaw. Justin (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2015 (CST)

Cash on Hand

The requirements for cash on hand have gone from $30,072 in 2014 to $76,211 for 2015. That’s a lot of money to be sitting unused. I personally like the idea of a long term capital fund but I question the necessity of that large of an amount without long term plans. Does long term planning fit our mission statement? Do we have one? -- Michael Skilton, on the mailing list

I agree that $76,211 sitting idle is probably doing the membership a disservice. I can understand increasing the $30,000 minimum we've had this year, but nearly doubling it seems wasteful. --Dbever (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2015 (CST)

All I can really say about that is we have better information about our actual operating expenses this year than we did last year. The people who made the budget didn't have access to very much information about previous expenses since it just wasn't being tracked very well before 2014 (a big thank you to the people who got that in order this year. It made completing the budget a lot easier on us). As such, a comparison to last year's cash on hand requirements isn't really all that useful. Justin (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2015 (CST)

In 2014 the members approved approximately $52,900 in spending by member vote (excluding the 2014 budget vote). This budget lists an estimated $27,900 available for spending by member vote in 2015. I’d prefer less cash on hand and more available for member votes. -- Michael Skilton, on the mailing list.

The main differences here come from a few of things:

• As mentioned above, we have a better idea of our actual operating expenses, so we are planning better for those now.
• Taxes. We do not know how much money we might owe for back taxes/penalties, and the Board of Directors was advised by legal counsel not to discuss this, so we set aside a hopefully larger than needed amount of money to cover these difficult to plan for expenses (That covers about 40% of the difference mentioned above already).
• In this budget, we are also setting a long term savings goal to cover potential future moving expenses.

There are a few other things that contribute to that number, but these are the main points. Justin (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2015 (CST)