Attendance:
 Sarah
 Nathan Koffke
 Calvin
 Chris
 Jim
 Reggie
 Joe
 Megan
 Quin
 Thomas
 Kurtis
 Nathan Krueger
Bylaw update
 Committee formed to discuss
 Jim: We need a framework for PPM. Bylaws can wait
o I was under that impression too but Petra said we need them before we can
deliberate
o It was decided to make an adhoc committee
 6 senate, and 3 allocations
 Sarah, Nathan, Joe, alternate Reggie
 Jim: why is this going to an adhoc committee
o Sarah: they think some additional things should be in there
o
 Thomas and Quin enter
 Jim: does OSA approve those bylaws?
o yes
 Sarah: hoping that its just a few changes
 Reggie: ex-officio thing
o Non voting chair and non voting advisor; they want that back in there
because ex-officio doesn’t exactly mean the same thing
Curtis enters
PPM discussion
 Review of what we did last week
 Student Assistants- we may want to add that in Spring instead
o Thomas: the PPM we are writing right now is that what we are using in
deliberations
 yes
o Quin: Then yes I think we should wait on that because a lot of groups
didn’t include job descriptions
o Waiting until Spring to include that
 Travel
o Reggie: I guess it depends on what organization you belong to. I think we
should limit it to two but leave the option for more open
o Kurtis: how did you come up with two
















If a group wants to take more, they can fundraise for it.
Based on one per semester but should be used in same semester
Joe: limiting the benefit per dollar.
Kurtis: Actions represent the school, doing good looks good on the
university
Sarah: one conference is creative and second has some different
things there too.
Jim: limitation previously was more on a dollar amount rather than
number of conferences. They still had to justify the rational for that
travel
Sarah: I think its fine if we want to change it and that’s not a bad
point. A dollar amount gets tricky with the number of members,
there are pros and cons
Dollar amount what do we think?
 Chris: most go to state and national. Budget off these two
conferences
 Nathan: to clarify this is noncompetitive travel
 Thomas: limiting number is an issue because some groups
are asking for different amounts. I think we should try to
combine the two
 Joe: use the two conferences and combine them for larger
conference
 Sarah:…. $5000 limit
 Nathan: the only thing is that if there is a cap then groups
ask for that and go for more expensive things
 Jim: they all seem to figure out how to go to the conference
they want for 2500
Thomas: speaker series 2 students are going for 4000 and another
groups is going to lax with 10 students for 400
Joe: if everyone has the same dollar amount then they figure out
how to go
Chris: the can still ask for one time request
Sarah: groups can redistribute their funds as well, it still needs to
be justified. And the committee needs to approve the
redistribution.
Chris: 2500 is a pretty low number I would be comfortable with
that
Thomas can we say if they exceed that amount can we ask their
advisor to submit reasoning
Sarah: when you grant exceptions you get into trouble
Reggie: do groups need to turn in receipts when they get back
 To get their funds they need to turn in the receipts
 Nathan: this year we will be auditing their numbers
 Sarah: the spring report has provisions but hasn’t been used
in awhile. Starting last year Rae is now helping allocations
so that will be done

Sarah: Do we want to limit amount of times or dollar amount
 Nathan: is it an and or or?
 Chris: if they are asking for more then they would ask for
one conference rather than 5 conferences being under 2500
 Sarah: 2 seems like a good round number
 Nathan: Jim in past it’s been 2500
 Quinn: how long ago was that
o 2 years
 Reggie: I think two is good
 Nathan motion to make two conferences or $2000
 Second by Chris
o Jim: simple is better
o Nathan: two conferences 1000 per conf
o Joe: are…
o Thomas: add you can request more from one time
requests (Nathan supports)
o Kurtis: 2750 because costs have gone up over years
(Nathan does not support)
o Quin: concerned with one time request language
o Nathan: I want it to say justify
o Joe: take out one time request. But its weird to say
2500 but maybe we will give you more in one time
request
o Sarah: remember we are trying to maximize benefit
o Reggie: say two but no dollar amount
o Joe: agree the justification is going to be the same
over number conferences and dollars for
conference
o Chris: should prohibit people from asking for these
large outrageous requests. Groups that are asking
for more just to ask for more should be limited.
Limits with what they ask for
o Tom: agree with Reggie and Joe don’t put a dollar
amount in there. We wont have a platform to justify
that
 If we aren’t doing one time requests then
take out dollar amount
o Cal:
o Sarah: we are looking at noncompetitive travel.
Some people ask for conf and should go but the
more conf they ask for then the smaller benefit they
have. We added four community service because
we thought these had benefit…. Not a lot of benefit
from food for travel. That could stay on students,
their contribution to their trip.


o Calvin: favor of two because dollar amounts can
fluctuate, the amount of time gone and distance
differs. Dollar amount may cause more problem in
the end
o Kurtis: agree with no more than two
o Quin: no ideal solution. Concern with limit to two is
why wouldn’t you pick the two most expensive
ones
 Same concern with dollar amount
 Jim: they still have to justify everything

o Thomas: if they pick the most expensive one and
we feel is not justified then that is our role to cut it
down. Dollar amount then we need a provision. I
am in favor of no dollar amount
o Sarah: just the number, just dollar, or combine two
 number 7
 Dollar 0
 combine:2
o Sarah: one time requests will be available for more
to
Community service travel: everyone agrees
Food for travel:
o Nathan: some clubs go every weekend travelling if we pay for food they
are getting free travel.
o Jim: they pay for food if they are here or there
o Reggie: do we reimburse advisors that buy the group food
 This is just for travel, if they decide to take people out then its on
them
o Thomas: going to New York meals are expensive. In Osh you can get a
meal for 6 and in New York its 30. If we restrict that then some people
may not be able to go
o Jim: yes but allocations is already paying for travel, hotels, etc.
o Sarah: sometimes when people go for the day they can pack lunches. I
think there are ways to work around it
o Nathan: I second Sarah. If you are in NY you can go for a nice steak meal,
or macdons, or grocery shopping.
o Kurtis: it seems like a lot of groups are just going to conf and paying
nothing. They can just go and blow conf off. Paying for something makes
them want to be more engaged.
o Reggie: if you were at a conf with a bunch of people they all want to go
out and you are on a budget. If puts people on a budget in a tough place.
Giving a little money to help.
o Thomas: I agree. People are already paying out of pocket to go. We need
to limit food and that’s fine. But a little money should be provided.
o Joe: I think that is what kurtis was saying. If people pay for food then they
are more committed
o Sarah: if they student cant afford to go to a nice meal, neither can
allocations. I recognize people are more financially limited and that’s
where fundraising comes in. there are still ways the club can help people
bridge the gap. I would rather help them get there and then they can
survive on peanut butter or whatever.
o Chris: from a travel stand point… people will say we aren’t asking for any
food money can we go to a third conf. that’s why I think we should set a
cap on travel and they decide where they spend it. We can still limit
certain areas it goes to
o Jim: caps then people can decide hey we are going to a tourney in NY or
where ever
o Chris: yeah its like $50 a day, but that would be the max. you can budget
for. You have to figure it out….
o Kurits: if club decides to go to fancy restaurant and cant afford it then they
just need to stand up for themselves and say I can’t afford it. There are
probably more who cant too
o Sarah: food for travel does it provide benefit. I want people realizing that
when they go for three meals a day its pricey. When people are personally
paying for it they make wiser decision when it is their own money
o Thomas: think it is discriminatory to do that. If you have the financial
means to pay for your food then you get to go and if you cant then you
cant go then that’s not fair
o Joe: we need to get the most benefit for the campus. I think fancy dinners
isn’t benefitting campus
o Quin: I think simplest is no money. But otherwise give some small amount
to cover financially troubled students. We need to figure out if we want to
do that
o Kurtis: my idea is if these people can’t afford to [ay for conf because of
financial means then the club should be fundraising. I worked really hard
so that I could go. I think clubs should fundraise
 Joe I agree that also weeds out the people that really want to go
and those that don’t
o Thomas: can we say we will help groups that fundraise
o Sarah: I think a cup of noodles is 60 cents, macdons has a dollar menu.
There are other areas that we should cover and want to cover. We should
cover plane tickets, not food
o Reggie: 25 per person and limit printing. Why don’t we cut money in
different areas
o Sarah: 25/10 students… times by all the people and etc. gets us a big
number
o Joe: I make a motion to say we do not fund food for travel
o Second by Calvin
o Tom: cut expenses and food is one of them but I still think we need to find
a middle ground


o Voting:
 Favor: 7
 Opposed: 2
 Abstentions 0
Joe: what are we planning, meeting again in the future? I think we need more than
one meeting a week
No individual registration fees or dues.
o Chris: wont most conf have an individual fee
o Kurtis: any con five gone to is individual fee
o Jim: its usually a pretty low fee
o Chris: last week I went to one it was 30 with a lunch for two days
o Thomas: aren’t most registration fees individual.
o Chris: for what we have voted for previously, then you are really only
paying for the vehicle. If you put a dollar amount on something then the
group can decide where they want to spend it. If they have 2000 for 2
conf. then the group can decide how they are going to pay for it
o Sarah: what if we say we will cover registration fees for up to 20
o Calvin: I think you should think about what you need first rather than the
dollar amt. I don’t know many instances other than competitive that there
is a group fee, I don’t think it should be not covered at all…. If individual
fees are involved then maybe setting a cap of paying for fees for three
people
o Joe: Its almost like they can pay for they cheaper ones. Maybe we can pay
if its over 20 or something
o Sarah: we don’t want to weed people out, I agree but word it differently
o Reggie: if we aren’t paying for food then we shouldn’t pay for them to get
in. keep it consistent
o Thomas: it’s the committee members responsibility to decide if it’s a
worthy conf. I think we should let the group present on that conf. and then
determine if its what we should cover
o Sarah: what if we said we limit it at 10 and if they have high registration
fees then say they each get250 and have to come up with the rest. The
reason this came up is because its easier to justify the competitive travel.
o No individual reg, put a cap, or get rid of it
o Joe: groups may miss out on greater conf. because of price…
o Sarah: Jim can we say that reg fees over 50 will be considered by
committee
 Unless there is a way to verify, and check it. Its tricky.
 Jim: I don’t have a problem with conf fees but more with like
museum admin

o Kurtis: … if we contribute 20 for reg fee and they can go to two and one
id 10 and 60…..
o Joe: you could give them a base
o Sarah: put a dollar amount on it?
o Not cover individual fees, cap on it, or remove it and have no restrictions
























 Not fund at all: 4
 Cap on it: 4
 Remover completely 1

Sarah: revote on first two options
o Not fund 4
o Cap 5
Thomas: limit on museums etc.
o Covered on top
Cal: in favor of per person cap….
Joe: you can find cheaper food but the conf price is a set price. More benefit to get
them into conf.
Sarah: two options: limit based on amount of people we cover, or the amount we
give, or only give a certain amount for each person
Joe: leaning toward cap per amount per person.
Sarah: dollar amount in mind? If we say we fund up to twenty members
Megan what is the most expensive a conf could be
o A five 5 could be 1000
o 200
Chris: for professionals its 500 and students its 50 for five days
Quin: looking back on budgets the leadership seemed to be more expensive at
about 200.
Chris: it makes sense if we don’t fund food we shouldn’t fund entrance fee
Joe: more benefit to get into conf than to get into red Robin”
Thomas: we need to keep in mind we are saying if you have money you get to go
and if you don’t you cant’ go.
Quin: what if we say rather than a dollar amt we say we will cover a percentage
like 50%
o Jim: you need a way to track it
Sarah: okay that’s another option
Joe well how do we monitor the money we give out
Sarah: … people are generally honest with what they need
Quin: they have this in receipts they turn in don’t they
o They follow state policy not ours.
Quin: unless they are flat out lying I don’t see how a percentage wont work
o Sarah: I think what Jim is saying is its tricky
Nathan Krueger enters
Quin: motion to fund per person up to 50% of red fee per conf
Kurtis seconds
Reggie: I abstain if you aren’t going to feed them then you shouldn’t cover fees
Calvin: with 50% what is the reason for 50% cap. Why % cap
o Tom: Because some conf are more expensive than others
o Joe: its related to how much the student will need to cover
o Calvin: I feel like having any kind of cap is already weeding people out























o Sarah: my concern is (opposed speaking) then someone can ask for a conf
for 100 and we cover 50 and another one asks for 200 and we cover 100.
And even if they are the same benefit conf, it doesn’t seem fair. A group
could choose how they distribute the money
o Joe: in favor of that
o Quin: agrees
o Quin: retracts motion
Nathan: motion to limit the number of people covered to 10
o Seconded Joe
Calvin: amend motion to 5
Sarah: what if we went with 20
Chris: if we aren’t paying for food then we shouldn’t pay for reg fees
Sarah: I do not understand that logic can you explain it…
Joe: go back to benefit. That’s what this group is about. The reason people are
going to this conf. there is more benefit.
Calvin: I say break it down by competitive and noncompetitive
Motion by Calvin for 5 for noncompetitive and 20 for comp
o Second by Nathan Koffke
Nathan Krueger: …
o National dues for group would not be affected but individual dues
wouldn’t be covered
Kurtis: would like to amend non comp for 10
Cal: why 10
Kurtis allow more members to get the benefit of going. And bring benefit back
Joe: we aren’t saying only 5 can go they can take as many as they want we are
only paying fees for 5. The money can go to the people that can’t cover it
Kurtis: I am good with 5
Chris why 20 for competitive. I would abstain either way because of not paying
for food. If you say you fund for 20 people can just go.
Joe: comp you would pay for the team
Chris: if you can bring extra people they will
Jim: it will still be the limit of 2000
Chris: we didn’t include the limit but I’m in favor of the limit. Its hard to
micromanage everything. Sometimes going out to eat is part of it. Includes
networking and building relationships. They need to figure out where the money
goes to.
Thomas: I think we need to micromanage because its how we as a committee
figure out where the money is going to go….
Sarah: what would you rather see this at
o Tom: I would let the committee pay for reg fees regardless of competitive
or noncompetitive
o The committee needs to decide where the money is going
Sarah: if you could see it restricted how would you
o Tom: 20 seems like a lot
Cal Can I change my 20 to however are necessary to compete



Chris: …
Joe: we can just say 5 noncompetitive
Jim: consider a dollar amount on competitive. I am not a fan of arbitrary numbers
put on things… I am less concerned with numbers of people than I am with dollar
amounts. Here is 2500 and you figure out how to take as many people as you can,
but we aren’t paying for food….
 Cal: the only problem with setting a dollar amount is how do we do that
 Jim: most noncompetitive travel was historically able by most groups to go under
that 2500 cap..
 Sarah: we used to talk about dollar caps on things, but the controller from last
year always talked about wading… if we put a dollar amount then people ask for
the cap.
 Jim: but if it’s a 20 conference in Eau Claire then they should be able to take
more. But there are outliers…
 Quin: no matter what we pick someone will get screwed
 Sarah: I like the number of people going and having flexibility with how they use
the fee money among the group
 Joe: …Either way someone will get screwed
 Back to original motion: individual or entrance fees or dues 5-noncompetitive and
competitive as needed
o In favor 6
o Opposed 1
o Abstention 1
 Phones
 Calvin: Motion to adjourn by 6:00
 Joe: can we schedule when we will meet again first
 Sarah: how are we going to approach next few weeks and getting PPM done and
onto deliberations
o Next wed at 4, do we want to go past 4?
o Wed 4-6 and then evaluate if we need more between that
 Timeline: usually only a few orgs need budget before spring semester, but we cant
give them just theirs. So we need to get all budgets in. one thing we discussed was
using interim. Just throwing it out there do we want to meet or not.
 Joe: shoot for end of Dec. and if we don’t we can use interim.
 Nathan: not during finals
 Quin: semesters are tough and spacing it out over interim would be better. But if
we want to plan before that we can.
 Nathan Krueger I can do interim but it will be harder
 Joe no problem with interim but we shouldn’t bank for that.
 Sarah: we will start deliberations and not do them during finals or week before
Motion to adjourn by Kurtis and seconded by Thomas