X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seds-l
Date:         Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:52:39 EST
From:         DJKALMAN@COLOSPGS.BITNET
Subject:      CBL PART 6

SEDS ACTIVITIES LESS THAN ONE YEAR OLD.


1. NOVA.  Although it has been around longer than one year, it has only
reappeared this year.  There are still some bugs to work out with the mailing
list, and a few other problems, but otherwise we have a decent newsletter.

The biggest problem I see is that there is very little chapter news, other than
for chapters with big projects.  I suggest something like Sigma Nu's Delta
magazine:  a set of chapter notes, with maybe one paragraph from any interested
chapter.  Typical Delta stuff is any intermurals events that the house won, or
how many new recruits they got that fall, or a special philanthropy project that
they had undertaken.  I suggest a similar thing for the Nova, so that we
encourage all chapters to be recognized.   Admittedly only about 1/3 of the
chapter write a paragraph for any given Delta, so we could expect the same
thing, but that would still make for a good page of what is going on from
the little guys, and thus make the Nova less imperson.

My biggest gripe with the Nova is the dating of the issues.   The date should
be for when it arrives in the mail, not when the article deadline was.   Yes,
we have extremely slow turn-around times, but that is to be expected with a
student newspaper.  However, it is not hard to date it so that in at least is
dated current.  If it is to arrive mid Feb., date it as the Feb.-March issue.
At least then it looks more professional, and chapter will be inclined to read
it for upcoming events.

A file of 'filler' articles should also be kept to be included at times.  This
can include the SEDS vision statements, a review of parts of our constitution,
a 'missing chapter' of the issue, ideas on different activities that groups can
do.  Editorials by both co-chairs should be required for each issue, and maybe
an off-the-wall column (Dave Barry style) from a guest writer, commenting on
space events worldwide, or on SEDS itself (Titled the column:  Searching For
Intelligent Life on Earth"?).  Again, this is to make it seem less stuffy, and
also to help maintain a constant size of the issues.

Another idea might be to take articles off of the L and republish them.  The
IDM debate would be one good idea, or Irwin's posting on the non-profit status.
All the news does not have to be new, since this goes out to chapters that do
not have email access, and many would like to read about what the national
board discussed anyway.

Another nice thing would to be to notify the senders
if and when their articles arrive, and if the articles have been accepted for
publication.   This good, positive feedback will make people even more eager to
write articles for the Nova.  :)

A final point is about delivery.  Purdue SEDS has not been getting their copy.
We should send complimentary copies to SEDS-Canada and SEDS-UK mail stops, so
they can distribute them.  I also suggest that we send a free copy to any NSS
chapter that is willing to post their entire newsletter to SEDS-L (so each
group know what the other is doing).   That way, everyone on the L will get
more that one newsletter,  and see for themselves what is going on.  I think
this is a very fair trade.

I ask that Jeff, John, and Dennis work with me on maintaining the mailing
lists.  I would like a list of the IDM members as well, if possible.   This
list should correspond closely to the national mailing list as is, so I
don't think this will be an addition hardship on anyone involved.

Has the final cost of each issue been settled?  Do we know how much it costs to
produce, then to mail to UAH, then for UAH to photocopy, and then to mail it to
each chapter?  Can someone post a final accounting on this?  We had a general
accounting for the IDM program, but there was still debate as to how much it
would cost UAH to duplicate it (they were doing the first issue for free).
Finally, I believe Amy mentioned that Spaceport Florida had offered to do it
for us ... any more details, Amy (or am I way off base?).


2.  Treasury Report.  I would like to see a complete semester end treasury
report each semester.  Monthly reports on general expense would also be nice.
Where does our money come from, where does it go ... that is important for
chapters who in the past have sent in $20 and not even received a Nova in
return.  Also, it will allow any SEDS members to question the accounting, and
thus make all the national board more accountable. (I like this accountability
phrase-word).  We have not had one from MIT in quite some time;  now that we
have an official Treasurer there, hopefully these reports will be more
forthcoming to the L, and not just to those present at the tcons.


3.  Refund Policy.  To me, this has been the most distressing this that has
happened to SEDS all semester (other than the communication problems).   The
agreement was to refund Irwin for the costs of going to see the lawyer about
the non-profit status.  Then, this was held up on the question of whether the
costs were justifiable.  Next, it was held up because MIT lost all account of
the bank accounts.  Finally, similar financial trouble occurred with refunding
Mark Fister's conference fee and paying off the scholarship.  What is clearly
needed here is a written out, detailed policy on spending/refunding money.

Dennis objections to the expenses were justifiable, as were his pointing out
the costs of the alternatives.  This tell me one thing:  before approving any
expenses for refunds, the amount to be reimbursed (maximum amount) must be
determined and recorded.   If sudden unexpected events require this to be raised
that can be discussed.  In this manner, any project that is undertaking with a
promise of a refund for personal expense will be GUARANTEED to be covered.
Thus, at any given time, SEDS will know how much is in the bank, how much has
already been assigned to upcoming projects and regular expenses (phone, heat,
etc.), and how much can be spent elsewhere.

What I propose is that a committee be formed to document, as part of the
bylaws, the rules regarding a payment policy (for ALL PAYMENTS!!).  This
document should include when to present proposals for projects that will
require refunds, cost breakdowns (what type of price quotes, how many, etc.), a
quick analysis by the proposer of the alternatives and their costs,  a time
frame for debating the proposals and checking the facts (and offering
alternative proposals), and finally the voting percentage needed to approve
such a request.

I further propose the following: I say 60% of the board needs to be
present for a vote, and either 40% of total board votes, or 60% of those
present, is required for approval of a refund).  I also
suggest that no back-refund be allowed (except in obvious cases, such as Mark
being unable to attend the conference, thus his fee should be returned).  IF it
cannot receive prior approval by SEDS, then it was an individual project, and
not in SEDS best interests (because SEDS couldn't afford it, or the majority
didn't think it was a good idea).   Finally, if a board member is asking for a
refund for a project that he will be heading, he is not allowed to vote on the
refund approval.

I would also like to suggest the committee to be in charge of this:  I think
Irwin, since he is extremely familiar with SEDS accounting, and has been our
treasurer this year, be in charge of the committee.  I suggest that the
treasurer from the MIT HQ also be on the committee.  I would ask Drew
Nelles to be on the committee, since he is doing the Business plan, and these
two events go hand in hand.   Finally, I suggest two more people, each from
schools that have only one member on the national board, so the other chapter
have a say.   I suggest one from a small school (under 7,500 people) and one
from large school.

These are just recommendations right now, but hopefully this will start the
ball rolling.  Board of Advisors people, or Bob Summergill, or Steve Abrams,
all would be good ideas.  Maybe even Merrick Burkhardt (on how not to do
things :).  Irwin should be in charge of this committee if he agrees to it.
Email is the key here, and people should remember that this is a lasting
document, for use for at least five more years before an overhaul is needed.

A final note on this committee:  the SEDS Haven is almost never used except for
the tcons.  The committee could hold their meeting here.  I will ask Mark if
there is a way to make a file copy of the proceedings so they chairman can
refer to them as he writes up the document.  At least this is a cheap way of
doing necessary SEDS work!


4.  Business Plan.  Continuing on with the theme of $$$, I would like to
thank Drew Nelles for all of his hard efforts on the plan.  He has worked long
and hard on this, without much help in getting information from local chapters
(shame on us local chapters, shame shame :).  From what I have seen proposed at
the last tcon, this will be a high-class, quality document.   I look forward to
seeing some details on it.  This is the only part that is lacking, and I am
sure that the details will be just as good and insightful as the proposal areas
themselves.


5.  MAILING COSTS.   My final money gripe is this one.   Who is in charge of
mailings for SEDS USA, and who has funds to cover them?  It took MIT over a
year the first time to send CSM SEDS a billing statement, despite repeated
requests for one), and UCCS SEDS was left off of the original billing list this
time (although it was on the list ...  I have some sneaky suspicions on this
one as well).  Then, CalSEDS had to mail me the registration form, and a copy
of Lisa's letter to the chapters.

In the Spring, when I needed starter kits, I asked MIT many times, and never
got one.  Finally, Caltech sent me a few copies.  This fall, I hear that
nationals (or was it MIT?) could not afford to send out starter kits to those
people on the lists that Amy provided.  Why is this, and who is exactly in
charge of the mailings?  As the "official mail stop", MIT agreed to handle this
type of task, but it has been shown that this is not occurring.   Why not?  MIT
also did not respond to Michele Vanin's request for info, and who know how much
other mail and email has arrived at MIT and not been seen to.

A set amount of funds should be set aside each year for precisely these types
of requests.  furthermore, followup letters should be sent after the starter
kits (we want them ... they shouldn't have to come begging to us).  A copy of
the starter kit, list of national board members (w/ addresses), and other
commonly asked for documents should be kept on hand, ready for a quick
photocopying, and be sent back out in the next day's mail.   To me, this is
not unreasonable ...  does any one else think so?

Finally, it should be recorded in the bylaws the responsibilities of the mail
stop, and who is in charge of mailing, and the funding that will be provided to
them.   I also think that the official SEDS US mail stop should be moved from
it's current position at MIT to the floating HQ.   MIT has shown its lack of
manpower / responsibility by not doing the tasks they said they would, and I
know CalSEDS gets their mail out within a week of most of my requests.  The
SEDS International mail stop should stay at MIT, for convenience and a
consistent point of contact, but the US one can move (since WE WILL BE keeping
better track of our chapters).   Any mail that should go to the floating HQ can
be forwarded by MIT SEDS.  Maybe this will cut down on MIT SEDS workload, and
make it possible for them to do the work they so need to do.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU