Intellectual Destitution

[aggienaut]

   The Model United Nations club at UC Davis (MUN) recently received $750 from Club Finance Council (CFC) to partially subsidize the upcoming UC Berkeley MUN Conference (UCBMUNC '05). In order to qualify for this money, MUN officers had to convince SPAC that they needed the money.

   During this conference, the MUN officers have planned a "team dinner" whereupon the 37 participants from Davis will eat at a $40 per person restaurant, and it will be subsidized by MUN club money down to $20 a plate (a $740 total subsidation).
   Club officers emphasize that this money is not the CFC money. I stated that the argument that there is no relationship between the two sources of money is the kind of financial knavery I'd expect to only hear only during an ASUCD Senate meeting.

[Poll #438856]

   When it was discussed at the meeting I grilled the officers but they were recalcitrant on the subject. Shortly thereafter we were served up the topic of "sovreignty" to practice debating. After numerous people loudly grumbled that it was a boring topic, I suggested that maybe we practice debating by using the "Team Dinner" as a topic. Secretary General Myung pointedly ignored the suggestion. I found it quite distinctly shady.

   In addition to it being in all likelihood grave misuse of CFC funds (in that we obviously didn't need the CFC money), I object to this because the dinner is STILL way out of my price range.
   I have an appointment with the Club Finance Council Program Director tomorrow morning at 9am, at which point I shall probably file a formal complaint and the SPAC people will contact the MUN officers to establish a hearing.

Comments

The Model U.N. team did nothing wrong

[(Anonymous)]

Believe me, I know that Model UN can get political and personal. As SecGen for 3 years, I saw 3 different USGs quit for various reasons. But from what limited information I have, in regards to the CFC monies and the expensive dinner, I honestly don't think that the Secretariat did anything unethical, immoral, or illegal. If the team has had a successful year of fundraising, that success should be APPLAUDED AND AWARDED. The Secretariat was awarding the team for its hard efforts both in fundraising and in conference preparation/performance with a very nice, partially subsidized dinner. Furthermore, the team dinner helps create a sense of family and togetherness necessary for team spirit and efficacy. A dinner is also customary, and has been for years. The dinner was not financed by CFC monies. From what I understand, CFC money would have been used for subsidizing students' delegate dues, and a receipt was to be furnished to CFC for this payment. As far as CFC is concerned, not "all money is green." If a student group has other means to afford nicer amenities, why shouldn't they enjoy them?

The contrary view would create a situation where the first $750 that the club generated through fundraising would REDUCE dollar-for-dollar the monies that the club was eligible for from CFC. This logic and its creation of disincentives to fundraise is totally ludicrous!!

If CFC felt that the functions of the Model U.N. team were unimportant to the University, or that the Student Programs and Activities Center did not want to support the Model U.N. team, then they could not fund the team because it was a bad Student Program/Activity that did not warrant any funding (and CFC would be hard-pressed to make that argument).

If CFC felt that Model U.N. was simply too flush with money to give it any, then they should have WRITTEN STANDARDS that lay out the financial strata at which organizations are simply "too rich" to be eligible for funding.

CFC's demand to have the full payment returned and the subsequent resignation of the ELECTED (and from what I understand, superb) Secretary-General of the UCD Model United Nations team is overaggressive, unfair, and bad policy.

If students did not want "their" money (i.e. team money) being spent on the subsidized dinner, then perhaps they should have either convinced the team leadership it was a bad idea, or convinced the general membership it was a bad idea, or attempted to negotiate with the Secretariat that the member's ($30) share of the subsidy be used for some other item. Even if the member lost in all of these attempts, sometimes your idea is not the winning one, and when votes are taken, sometimes your side loses. Deal.

All of that said, I appreciate Kris' true zeal for honesty and integrity in the organization and his enthusiasm to see the team grow to new heights and capabilities. I think his intentions may have been good, but the means by which he attempted to secure his goals was premature and directly contradictory to those goals. In the end, MUN is PERCEIVED as publicly disgraced and PERCEIVED as having defrauded CFC, which I do not believe to be the case.

I urge CFC to give BACK to money to the team. I also urge Catharine Myung to reassume her position. Furthermore, I implore CFC to do a self analysis about its bullying tactics, threats, and the effects that they have on disempowered students.

I would appreciate your further comment and criticism of my ideas, and if I have ANY facts wrong, I urge the reader to please let me know.

Together in MUN,

David J. Simon

Re: The Model U.N. team did nothing wrong

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

I think a crucial aspect of the situation is that it was never discussed with the body, and attempts to bring it to such a discussion were pointedly shot down (I suggested during the meeting that we discuss the issue, and even my own concerns with summarily shot down in discussion with Catherine). While yes the Secretariat is an elected representation of the body, they were elected for their administrative skills, and in certain other areas their interests my differ strongly from the body. In particular, for the past several years a $20 "team dinner" has been on the official agenda for the AMWEST conference. Usually of the twenty or so people we bring to AMWEST, only about five go to the dinner, of whom nearly all are secretariat members. Its not subsidized by the club so I have no reason to object, but the point is that the secretariat for some reason seems to represent people with more money than the rest of the club; and spending club money on a dinner that in all likelihood only the secretariat and a small number of others would attend (vis-a-vis AMWEST attendance) at the very very least should be approved by the club, and in the absense of that it smacks of advantaging the secretariat members at the expense of the membership.

Re: The Model U.N. team did something wrong

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

A more specific response you your arguments:

"Full payment returned" might be either erronious or misleadingly stated. To my knowledge MUN had to give nothing back to CFC.

To my knowledge CFC did not demand Catherine's resignation. I doubt they even suggested it, though they were very irritated at specifically the fact that she was still not listed as an officer.

The important thing, as I mentioned in another comment, is that SPAC simply did not have the authority to demand anything. The only threat they could make was to do a formal audit of MUN. It is my understanding that they did say if the dinner situation wasn't rectified by the following Tuesday they would conduct a formal audit. Even this though should not be an excessive inconvenience at best, and only truly "harmful" to MUN if there really is something to hide.

So again, CFC did not reclaim any money from MUN, I don't believe they asked for Catherine's resignation, and the only thing they had the authority to do was do a financial audit of MUN; and for any ramifications of that the burden of proof would be on them to prove there was wrongdoing.

Re: The Model U.N. team did something wrong

[thiswallflower.livejournal.com]

Catharine chose to resign herself. CFC requested that Catharine list herself as the CEO of the club, but she refused to do so, choosing instead to resign. I do not see it as unreasonable for CFC to request that the person controlling the club be listed as CEO with the school. Regardless of Catharine's status as a "non-voting member" of Secretariat, I think it's clear to everyone who controls Model UN and I see no logical explanation for why Catharine should not have listed herself as CEO Winter Quarter.

And there you go.