SUFAC Minutes
Date: October 10, 2011
Time and Location: 5:30 PM; Student Senate Chambers; Cartwright Center
I. Call to Order
a. 5:32 PM
II. Discussion of Last Week’s Meeting
a. Dr. Ringgenberg: A couple of weeks ago Whitman came into present on scoreboards
and how they could spark an interest and that has since been taken off the table, so
that will not be heavily discussed tonight. Last week we reached a decision in which
things were voted on and then we heard from other students that were here that night
and that they would not have necessarily made that decision if they were put in the
situation again. I would also like to talk about the roles of the advisors and senior
members. I want you to hear that our voices do not have to be followed and you
don’t have to be voting on things because you feel like I want that to happen. We
encourage independent voices and we may at times play devil’s advocate but it is
often so you think of both sides of an issue and how you visualize it. There may be a
motion that is put out there that we do not all believe in but that reason is so that it
can be discussed more deeply. Tell me how you feel about last week.
i. Breunig: I felt comfortable, but I wanted to make a decision in my own mind
that what I was voting on was right. In terms of feeling rushed, I felt like I
had enough information to make a decision.
ii. Holt: I felt comfortable but I felt like I was slowing down discussion by
asking so many questions. I was not completely comfortable with the
decision I made but I will stand by it.
b. Dr. Ringgenberg: Although Reece is a chair he still needs to be able to express his
opinion. We never had a chair that didn’t express him/herself. They need to be able
to be a part of this discussion and you do have the power to turn things over to Hoang
in order to do so. So here is the real issue, how do you feel about the choice we made
regarding the Racquet?
i. Rykal: Overall the Racquet is a student org, not a business and we deemed
that we should erase that debt and rectify it with new ideas.
ii. Kristin: A lot of people are still struggling with the accountability factor and
that many orgs are not respecting this point.
iii. Rykal: They had a solid new business model, but it does seem like we have
fixed any small problems that we saw before.
iv. Murray: They also have been printing less pages in each issue and they didn’t
seem like they wanted to compromise on using black and white instead of
color ink.
v. Rykal: They are now requiring that members of the Racquet write one article
without pay. If anything is funded with student money, it has to be noted that
student money paid for at least part of it. Currently, the Racquet is not doing
this, which I thought was an interesting point. I asked Larry about this and
they are not supposed to be able to advertise drink specials and in just last
week’s paper there were four ads that mentioned drink specials. I think the
Racquet could have these restaurants and bars include food specials instead.
Senate 2011-2012
c. Dr. Ringgenberg: Another thing I like to ask is what is your philosophy on allocating
this money? Last year it seemed to be more catered to erasing small deficits. What
are your thoughts?
i. Nelson: Personally, I believe that if you have a deficit you should be working
harder to erase that deficit. There seems to be no incentive to erase these
deficits. As far as increases, I don’t see the need for it because we don’t have
massive inflation.
ii. Holt: I would say I agree with that statement. I think people should not be
penalized, unless this behavior is repeated. People should be keeping their
deficits but working them off.
iii. Rykal: With the turnover, sometimes you will punish students that had no say
in the current situation that they are in. I think that needs to be taken into
account. It is difficult to inherit a debt, but if there is more debt added to it
that seems to be unacceptable. I am for holding people accountable and not
leaving the next generation of student leaders with a huge problem to fix.
Nickel and diming as a whole becomes a significant amount of money and I
would plan on thinking about that if I was a voting member.
iv. Holt: If you know that your organization is going to be held accountable, it is
more likely you will have student leaders that will watch what they are
spending more.
v. Vo: From a financial point of view, I think people should automatically give
themselves a buffer. It is impossible to have a zero cash balance every year,
but I believe that if you go under you should keep it. These organizations are
being pushed to pay their deficits, but are not able to keep their ending cash.
vi. Nelson: There are procedures in place for those people to come back and get
that money if they need it for, say, a computer. But that is a point we need to
reexamine.
vii. Kristin: The by-law is to scoop up the extra because we need to spread it
about all the student groups and encourage accurate budgeting.
viii. Larry: I am pretty happy with that discussion unless someone else wants to
add something.
1. Rykal: Student Association was billed for the lawyer and we would
like to reset to 5% of what it really should be. As the chair, I would
like everyone to at least state their opinion. I want to make sure
everyone’s voice is heard and so that everyone feels informed. For the
newer members, this is a good chance to practice speaking in front of a
group. Your opinion is valued and that is why you are here.
III. Discussion of the Racquet
a. Dr. Ringgenberg: We really have three options with the Racquet: wipe the $8,130.27
clean, go back to the original deficit, or to deal with/do nothing about it.
b. Holt: I like the idea that they have to deal with their deficit, but I do understand their
need for computers because otherwise their debt would be repeated.
c. Rykal: We can’t expect them to be able to operate a business without the working
technology to do so.
d. Palmer: Last week I played devil’s advocate, but I feel strongly that we need to look
outside of this because the Racquet is a mess and I know we want to run it as a
Senate 2011-2012
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
business but it is a student org and they will always have new students coming into
these roles.
Holt: They also brought up the idea that is the Racquet going to stand the test of time
with how technology is going.
Vo: Can the Racquet be outsourced by the Communication Department?
i. The state wanted to distance itself from liabilities associated with student
newspapers. There was even a question if the Racquet could be in Cartwright
Center and maintain their independence from the University. The University
would not want the liability of having it as part of the Department.
Library Representative: We are asking students to essentially run a business here and
there needs to be more continually learning with that. A funding model would need a
staff member that is more integrated with the Racquet.
Vo: From the Racquet’s point of view, I don’t know how much we can interact with
how they operate. I don’t think they would enjoy having someone always around
keeping an eye on their budget.
Kristin: It seems like they need action on their computers in a short term setting.
Rykal: If we took the other half of their debt that is still standing they could possibly
use that money to pay for those computers. We could also audit them to see where
they stand on their budget.
Nelson: When I look at that deficit I see that it is not because of their computers, it is
due to their sales and ad revenue. Allowing them to have these computers without a
promise of getting their sales together, we could be more in a hole.
Palmer: Have we ever told them that we should make people pay for the ad before it
is printed? There really shouldn’t be money owed if they went about it that way.
i. Rykal: I think they are following a model that the newspaper industry uses.
ii. Dr. Ringgenberg: Part of the problem is that the company likes to see a copy
of the ad before it goes out in a paper.
Nelson: Is their labor fixed because I can see students on campus that would love to
write articles for free even.
Palmer: UW-Oshkosh printed two papers, half the size, instead of one and they were
able to double up on ad revenue.
Murray: We still need to come to a decision on this.
Kristin: What if we help them out with their beginning cash balance?
i. Vo: I think our reserve is like $80,000 or $90,000 and we can wait until
December and see how they are doing. If they are doing well we could give
them the $3,000 in December. If their balance does not improve then I
believe we should do that.
ii. Nelson: I like the idea of waiting to see what happens and really these
computers are more of a contingency request thing. This shouldn’t be just
granted; we need to make it clear.
iii. Motion to force the Racquet to stay with the debt until the end of the fall
semester then bring them up for audit in December and if they make
significant progress in cutting their original debt in half, we will absorb a
portion of the original $8,130.27.
1. Holt/Nelson
2. Discussion:
Senate 2011-2012
a. Palmer: Maybe we should amend it (friendly) and say that we
will cut part of their deficit so that they have an incentive to do
something.
b. Breunig: The amendments make more sense I believe and I am
comfortable with this.
3. Call to Question
a. Holt/Holland
4. Vote:
a. Passed (Yes – 6, No – 0, Abstentions – Vo & Palmer)
q. Motion to approve adjusted carryover for Student Association of $2,758.42 due to
lawyer fees.
i. Holt/Nelson
ii. Call to Question
iii. Vote ( Yes – 7, No – 0, Abstentions – Palmer)
r. Motion to approve the document of year end cash balances as a whole.
i. Nelson/Holt
ii. Discussion:
1. Rykal: Last week we set some of the minimal cash balances to zero.
Does anyone see anything they have questions about the document?
iii. Call to Question
iv. Vote:
1. Passed (Yes – 8, No – 0, Abstentions – None)
IV. Budget Proposal Templates
a. Kristin: This year I tried to condense the material and make it simpler. I have added
the tabs staff, fringe benefits, and supplies and expenses. Hopefully this will help
them breakdown their supplies a bit more clear. I shaded the gray column as that is
for next year.
b. Larry: The question remains with the issue of travel. This template gives you the
total amount and may not break them down as you would like to see it.
c. Vo: We could add an extra column for the subcommittee to write the approved
information in.
d. Dr. Ringgenberg: Maybe add one for Senate’s approval along with a note’s column.
Some things that got cut out were there to have the organization tell us a little about
what they are all about. What do you think about this?
i. Holt: I think it is a good cut because for the most part, the organization’s
visions aren’t changing it seems like year by year.
ii. Vo: Can we ask people to write their other funding sources as well?
1. I would ask them here and not necessarily put it in writing.
iii. Nelson: I agree with the changes and I think the notes column will make up
for anything that was taken out.
iv. Rykal: Do we want them to include their travel in the notes column?
1. Vo: I think that the subcommittees shouldn’t do that because that
would be a lot to go over.
2. Larry: In the notes column they could let us know what events food
will be served at.
Senate 2011-2012
3. Breunig: Where it says committee is that approval by the subcommittee?
a. Yes.
e. Motion to approve the budget proposal template document, have it finalized, and send
out to entities.
i. Holt/Vo
ii. Call to Question
iii. Vote:
1. Passed
V. Adjournment
a. Nelson/Holland
b. 7:20 PM
Senate 2011-2012