Changes for dev split ✂️✂️ #59
Conversation
CONSTITUTION.rst
Outdated
| CSESoc Development | ||
| --------- | ||
| #. CSESoc Development (Devsoc) [name pending] will be affilated with CSESoc. | ||
| #. CSESoc is responsible for providing Devsoc with reasonable financial funding annually. This is to be negotiated between the Society's treasurer and the treasurer or equivalent position of Devsoc. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, Devsoc may request an amount of funding not greater, in any year, than 15% of CSESoc's gross income. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Compclub is still in the constitution as a flat dollar amount of funding, and devsoc is a % amount. Ideally they should be standardized. The wording should also be standardized (e.g. the line about negotiating is unneeded)
Additionally a flat % should probably be coupled with an maximum amount, e.g "15% of csesoc gross income or $10000, whichever is smaller"
This prevents the case where devsoc (unnecessarily) asks for 15% of the gross income on a year where the gross income is exceptionally high, and that money might be better used elsewhere or saving for future years. The treasurer may not want to give the full 15% but constitutionally they will have to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@spanishpear Can't the argument of "money might be better used elsewhere or saving for future years" also apply to DevSoc as well? Having it split 85/15 is already extremely skewed towards CSESoc, considering both societies are jointly contributing to the sponsorship drive. Furthermore, it's not a case of the CSESoc treasurer "giving" money to DevSoc - both treasurers would have to agree on the budget.
As a point of clarification, DevSoc is an Arc-affiliated society.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think since the wording states "may request", it gives CSESoc the scope to deny any unreasonable requests that Devsoc could possibly make regarding funding. Devsoc may request 15% of revenue from CSESoc but CSESoc does not have to provide a cent if it doesn't want to.
I think this is also made very clear as @hanyuone says, it is a negotiation between each society.
If the phrase used the term 'shall' instead of 'may' I would have the same concerns as @spanishpear but I believe there is sufficient discretion here to stop anything wacky.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
RE Standardisation - I think that the flat dollar figure for CompClub should be made a percentage of CSESoc revenue (which reflects CompClub's actual need) and the clause regarding negotiation of funding added. At the end of the day this is a grant of CSESoc funds and so the CSESoc committee/exec should have every right to determine how much is given to an affiliate.
Though I think this is best addressed in its own amendment to the CompClub section or a new section that specifically considers funding affiliates.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@calebjwatts Just a clarification on wording, DevSoc would not be an affiliate society of CSESoc, rather they would work jointly in the sponsorship drive.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#. CSESoc Development (Devsoc) [name pending] will be affilated with CSESoc.
@hanyuone Ok, was confused by this is all - in any case my thoughts re funding of third parties still stands.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The whole point of having it constitutionalised was so that regardless what the current exec thought of compclub/devsoc, that they would have to provide funding should compclub/devsoc need - allowing csesoc an opportunity to say "no funding" goes against the spirit of the addition, hence my suggestion of a minimum.
+sorry if this isn't well worded, walking and typing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@spanishpear I think you suggested a maximum rather than a minimum?
No description provided.