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)

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

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)

$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)

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)

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.

Expenses

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

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

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

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.

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)