Rese Fox 4 MSA

Michigan Daily, Karl Stampfl, 12.30.05: 'U' to suspend Coke contracts in milestone decision

 

Detroit Free Press, 12.30.05: University of Michigan suspends Coca-Cola sales

Hi, all,

So, if you've been reading my blog (1)(2)(3)(4)(5), Arbor Update, the Michigan Review or the Michigan Daily, you know that MSA lost too much money on the Ludacris concert and people are upset about it. This is not to say that we didn't have dedicated people behind the project. MSA Rep Eddie Lee and MSA President Jesse Levine put a lot of hours into this project, and (to state the obvious) they didn't mean for this to happen. Let's not forget that.

Eddie and Jesse put time into this project because they wanted to bring a huge concert to Ann Arbor, and 3,000+ came and enjoyed the concert. Although we didn't have full attendance, we sold 88% of the seats. That's great! I'm not saying that MSA shouldn't be criticized, but I'm saying it's totally worthless for us to solely complain instead of learning from the situation. MSA should sponsor concerts! They're fun! Students are excited about them! But ... if MSA can't handle sponsoring a concert, we shouldn't. It's irresponsible, it degrades MSA's reputation with the students and the Regents, and it takes away money from other worthy causes. Let's try to make sure MSA can handle a concert (and other big projects) in the future.

What needs to happen now that we've discovered and admitted to the problems is that we need to correct them. If we come up with a sort of "check list" for large projects that students want but are financially risky, we can ensure that MSA will be more successful in the future. I'm proposing that MSA put together a group of students at large and MSA members to discuss what we need to keep in mind when MSA invests in a big project.

If you're interested in helping out, please let me know. You can post a comment letting me know you're interested or email me at britfox@umich.edu.

Although there hasn't been a 100% consensus on the root of the MSA finance-related problems, here is a summary:



... AND? I know I haven't gotten everything. If you can think of more problems, please let me know.

Once we have this list generated, I'll set up a meeting in MSA Chambers in January for those interested to come up with solutions to these problems. We can even write an MSA resolution (the equivalent of a bill) if we think that'd be helpful.

Does this seem like the next best step? Do you have a more specific idea? Please let me know!

Thank you,

Rese

Please read Karl Stampfl's article in the Michigan Daily today: MSA lost $15k more than it once planned.

The Diversity of Thought Select Committee was renewed by a vote of 20-12-1 (see how your reps voted on page 6). Watch for an announcement about running for co-chair of DoT if you are interested.

Thanks,

Rese

Hi, all,

Michigan Review's Thoughts on the Ludacris Concert

The Michigan Review posted my blog on their website! In the same post you can read a link to Amanda Nichol's well-written article on the concert. Nichols offers a lot of dead-on observations and thoughts. At one point she asks:

The thing is, though, if you read the resolution and concert organizer statements about our financial obligations in the minutes, you can see that MSA was supposed to break even or lose $5,000 worst-case scenario. A $5,000 loss for a 3,000+ attended concert seems like a worthy risk. One thing I also must point out is that I think it is better for MSA to have more financial risk than student organizations like Hillel. Hillel has a limited constituency, and MSA is supposed to represent campus. For a large, all-campus event, it just seems fair for MSA to shoulder more of the risk. When the assessment of risk changes and the Assembly is not informed, however, is when MSA gets into trouble.

Amanda Nichols also shares that Kayne West could have been a better choice because he is more popular right now. I agree, as well, but in the concert organizers' defense, I believe Kayne West could not fit Ann Arbor into his schedule. This is unfortunate because Kayne West is much more outspoken about social issues and would have better fulfilled MSA President Jesse Levine's goals to promote diversity than Ludacris would have. (Ludacris's most notorious social issue stances have to do with Pepsi's unfair treatment for the right to be lewd ... but in his defense, the criticism was initiated by Bill O'Reilly, who now seems very hypocritical). Overall, I would guess that Kayne West would have sold out, but because he cost more we can only guess that MSA would have done better with financial outcomes. (MSA was supposed to regain $38,417 out of $40,000 at full capacity according to the resolution ... but there are other issues with sponsors listed below that could have decreased MSA's return with a Kayne West Concert). The MSA resolution does show that MSA would only "nearly break even" if we brought Kayne West, which is a greater risk than the Ludacris projection to "break even."

What about the other concert sponsors listed on the resolution besides UAC, Hillel and MSA?

The Ludacris resolution lists other concert sponsors on the last page. Their expected contributions total $20,000. Perhaps some of these sponsors dropped out once MSA put forth funding, or the concert sponsors were never confirmed. A absence of these sponsorships could have caused the concert organizer doublespeak from $5,000 loss worst-case scenario to $16,000 best-case scenario. Since MSA voted on the resolution that had these concert sponsors listed, it would have been most honest and MSA code-compliant for the resolution sponsors to re-introduce the resolution if we lost these sponsors. Furthermore, MSA would have been able to more fully understand financial risks, so if the amended resolution passed the Assembly would have had a better idea about what involvement was needed to break even.

That's all for now. As always, please post comments, concerns or tips.

Thanks,

Rese

Hi, all,

Here are some interesting excerpts from last night's meeting minutes. Some comments do not add up with the concert resolution passed in September or other meeting minutes. My comments are in red:

Constituents' Time, page two:

Zack [Yost, Engin Rep]: even if we had sold out the seats, we still would have lost money, how much? Eddie [Lee, LSA Rep, concert resolution sponsor/concert planner]: it would have been $16,000.

(vs. $5,000 worst-case scenario from Sept 6 meeting minutes)

Treasurer's Report (Devesh Senapati), pages 3-4:

The Ludacris concert was not a financial scandal in any sense. The Budget passed unanimously at the beginning of the semester clearly showed that the Ludacris concert would be an expense. The original resolution, also passed unanimously, showed the potential revenues would vary depending on mix of ticket sales and price points.

(BUT price points were changed without notifying the Assembly, changing revenue projections)

^{Rese: with the projections, I was under the assumption we could have broken even. Devesh: I would argue that that was never argued to the assembly. The resolution if you want to go back it clearly showed varying levels of revenue we could expect. Students more than any other body bought tickets and since we discounted tickets for students we took a loss. This event was unanimously voted on. Hindsight is 20/20, but we learned a lot. I would love to argue with you about this if you want to.}

^{(BUT the last page of the resolution suggests that MSA could break even)}

Hi, all,

Ahh! There are new major issues with Ludacris that fox4msa readers get to see FIRST!

Problem 1: Concert-Supporters Assert that MSA Knew There Would be A Loss on the Concert, but Documentation Proves Otherwise

MSA Treasurer Devesh Senapati argued that the Assembly knew that MSA had no chance to break even and LSA Rep / Concert Planner Eddie Lee stated that MSA at best would lose $16,000. I will provide excerpts of the minutes of his statements when the minutes are sent out to the Assembly. This will likely happen tomorrow.

However, MSA did NOT pass a resolution supporting a $16,000 loss at best if the concert sold out. In fact, you can read the resolution here (http://www.msa.umich.edu/resolutions/msa_fall_concert_resolution.doc). If you scroll down to the very last page (13) you can see the proposed budget. NOTICE IN THE TEXT BOX THAT UNDER MSA'S FINANCIAL NOTES READS: "Break even at full capacity."

Furthermore, here are some MSA minute excerpts on the concert resolution:

September 6 Minutes (page 6)

i. Resolution to Support a Kanye West or Ludacris Concert at Hill Auditorium (E. Lee, J. Levine). (f2005-009)

 

 

 

We’ve gone through a lot of people in Student Affairs. We raised a lot of money and basically we need a lot of support to make it happen. I can address any questions once we adjourn. Russ: what’s the max we could lose if everything went wrong? Eddie: $5000 loss at the end of the day, worst case scenario. Mcfo: is Kanye still in the running? Eddie: I can’t address that. Devesh: can we make money. Eddie: we can make money if we charge high prices. We could break a profit if we raise our average ticket price from $25 to $35-$40 but if we do that we run the risk of not selling out. We want it to be accessible. Nicole: do we have a venue larger than Hill to put it in. Jesse: we’ve explored plenty of options but at this point it seems that Hill is the best option. Dan: how many tickets can you sell maximum? Eddie: 3500 in that range. The artist typically requires we reserve some seats for their entourage. Major Events saves some seats also. We’re looking at about 3400.

September 13 Minutes (page 5)

Old Business

 

Resolution to Support a Kanye West or Ludacris Concert at Hill Auditorium (E. Lee, J. Levine)(f2005-009)

 

 

 

Moved by Eddie Lee. Seconded. James has a friendly amendment, there is a 0% expected return. Accepted by sponsor. Consent. Motion carries.

 

 

Problem 2: There were Inconsistencies between the Voted-Upon and Actual Budget

Further, notice something else disturbing:

Page 11 of the resolution lists the ticket prices of the concert. Ticket costs are broken down as follows:

Gold Circle/VIP: $40.00

Reserved: $32.00

First Balc/Stu: $28

Top Balc: $22

Tickets were actually sold at the following breakdown:

STUDENT TICKETS:
$25 (balcony level)
$30 (floor & mezzanine levels)

PUBLIC TICKETS (available October 25th on Ticketmaster and at MUTO):
$30 (balcony level)
$35 (floor & mezzanine levels)

Therefore, resolution sponsors should have re-submitted the resolution to the Assembly when ticket prices were changed so that the Assembly could re-assess and re-vote on the budget. It was suggested that the actual ticket prices had an average cost that was the same as the proposed ticket price. I haven't calculated out the projected revenue in both the real and actual budgets and compared them yet ... if anyone is interested, you have all of the info available in the resolution by using the above ticket prices.

I know everyone wanted answers ... so I found some. Unfortunately, I think we're just left with more questions.

-Rese

Hi, all,

Today I plan to speak during the MSA meeting to ask those involved in planning the Ludacris concert why MSA and Big Ticket Productions incured a $45,000 loss. I also plan to talk about using a large portion of fees to subsidize misogyny and framing the concert as a way to bring diverse groups together when it really did not actively complete that goal. If you are interested in speaking on this issue, as well, you can sign up for constituents time at the front desk of the MSA office (3rd floor of the Union) before the meeting at 7:30. If there is no sign up sheet, ask a member of the Assembly to put you on the constituents list or just jump in and ask Jesse to speak before he closes constituents time (he usually asks if any remaining constituents are in the room before we move on through the agenda).

Thanks,

Rese

Hi, all,

Russ Garber, Student General Counsel and sponsor of the resolution to renew the Diversity of Thought Commission, announced that he's going to let Diversity of Thought be voted on this Tuesday.

Reasons I'm Voting No:

a) I voted no in Winter 2005 because I disagree that the Assembly should devote an entire commission to a specific style of thought. Although the commission is supposed to support bipartisanism, all committees and commissions should support bipartisanism. By using a specific commission to support diversity of thought, MSA is almost saying that other committees and commissions don't have to use diversity of thought because another commission is already dedicated entirely to that purpose.

b) By voting yes to Diversity of Thought due to the leadership's supposed or real lack of enthusiasm, I would have to ignore that I disagree with the main premise of Diversity of Thought. However, regardless of the performance of the co-chairs, I still disagree that the commission should exist.

I'll still listen to comments on the issue, but right now I'd need a pretty incredible argument to vote yes. I'll still entertain your thoughts with all seriousness, though. Even if I don't adopt your point of view, this is still a forum for others to see your points, as well, so post away.

Remember, we'll be voting at the MSA meeting on Tuesday in MSA Chambers. It starts at 7:30 PM, and you can sign up for 2 minutes (I think?) of consituents time to voice your opinions and answer questions.

Thanks,

Rese

http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/12/01/438eac37ae7a9

The founding members of the progressive parties had observations that hit the nail on the head: in the March election I argued for S4M to have a consistent message by having a descriptive mission statement and unified platform ... but no one else felt the same. I'm really excited that a group of students with common goals are coming together. I also hope the progressive parties unite so that they don't split their consituency and fail to garner enough votes to succeed.

The YAF-related party has a noble goal but the completely wrong means. Yes, MSA spending is not always reasonable, but that means we need to revise the system. Frankly, after thinking more and more about the $45,000 Ludacris loss, I'm not happy, either. MSA should have been able to ensure that off-campus advertisements were released so we didn't incur such a substantial loss. But taking away funding from MSA would de-centralize so many wonderful activities, services and events students enjoy: AirBus, Earth Week, Gayz Craze, bus trips to DC, speakers, etc, etc. Because MSA has experience planning these events and the legitimacy to run them, we can offer large-scale opportunities at a lower price. We also are a central organization for coalitions via our committees and commissions, and without the funding incentives student orgs might not come together and chat. Without weekly dialog that happens via commisssions, there is a definite potential for student orgs to repeat and overlap projects: a huge waste of fees.

If these new guys want to have legitimate parties, they need to get more involved in MSA right now by participating in committees and commissions. I haven't heard of them if they are involved in MSA committees and commissions, so they should start coming to Assembly meetings to learn the politics and procedure of it all. A lot of their ideas (ie: working on Advice Online to make it better) can be addressed now through the appropriate commissions (ie, respectively, the Academic Affairs Commission). If members of the new parties are elected and take over the leadership, they need to know how the Assembly works or they will be totally ineffective.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Rese