The ASCMC website lists $7500 approved for Madrigals, of which $175 was spent, for "consulting services for canceled holiday party." It was filed earlier yesterday at around midnight by Emily Meinhardt. (You might remember that Madrigals, a 29 year old tradition, has now been canceled after Ms. Snortum decided she had had enough of it.)
Maybe, at tonight's Senate meeting, there could be a debate for how this money, hitherto allocated, can now be spent. Or maybe there can be a debate about the fact that this money appears to have been allocated for a party that we've known for sometime was canceled and just what $175.00 bought?
Monday, December 7, 2009
Now That Madrigals Is Canceled, Can We Get Back Our Money?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
is it cj policy to write all your posts on ascmc without asking anyone for the facts?
How do you think I got the facts? Someone within leaked it to me.
Please. Nobody "within" "leaked" anything to you.
Earlier today I sent out an e-mail to the student body with a link to a site that lists ASCMC's expenditures, including the item you mention in this post.
It's public information.
To Josh Siegel,
On the contrary, someone who watches these things told me to look at it. He's a senator, but given how you have so lowered the bar on that position -- you just show up three times and get to vote money out of others' pocketbooks -- I grant that it isn't saying much.
But hey, thanks for the sort of transparency months into your administration. It's only, you know, six months later than you promised.
The budget and expenditures have been public since before the beginning of this school year. Johnny Ko started working on ASCMC's online system as soon as our term started because we all thought it was a good idea. He finished it over the summer.
That was about six months ago.
I'll leak you a personal invitation next time.
"He's a senator, but given how you have so lowered the bar on that position -- you just show up three times and get to vote money out of others' pocketbooks -- I grant that it isn't saying much."
"But hey, thanks for the sort of transparency months into your administration. It's only, you know, six months later than you promised."
So... is transparency and direct democracy a good thing or a bad thing?
Charles just got owned.
Apparently I have to teach people a civics lesson. It's not direct democracy when someone appoints himself to vote other people's money. It's called mob rule.
And on the point about transparency, ASCMC is less than transparent about the funds, who pays what, etc. Shouldn't they need a vote to spend the money that was earmarked for Madrigals on a "consultant"?
Post a Comment