1/25/2012: Housing Budget Proposal

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

Spokes Council
Budget Proposal for Housing Working Group (WG)
   The Housing WG is requesting funds for a two week period (14 days) from the 14.Jan to the 27.Jan inclusively to pay various items to include:
– Utilities reimbursements at West Park Presbyterian                 $1050 /week ($150 /night)
– Utilities reimbursements at Park Slope United Methodist         $490 /week  ($70 /night)
– Pre-paid phone reimbursements for three                                    $75 /week  ($25 /person)
        liaisons/point people (Pk.slp, Wst.Prk, Hsing.Htln)      
– Sanitation, cleaning supplies and various needed hardware      $300 /week
– Miscellaneous items (office supplies, transport, etc.) ​        $85 /week
————————————————————————      ——————————-
​        Total:​      $2000 /week ( x 2 )

100 Occupiers
   The Housing WG is requesting an ongoing recurring budget to cover the costs of the Park Slope housing site beyond the scope of the current two week period with the following stipulations and costs:
–  The community at the Park Slope site abide by all resolutions consensed by the Occupy
                Wall Street community at large (ie. General Assembly, Spokes Council).
–  The recurring budget must be renewed via proposal every four (4) weeks it is effective.
–  The budget only be effective for as long as that community is active and in agreement    
                with the landlord on site (Park Slope United Methodist Church)
–  Utilities reimbursements ​     $490 /week  ($70 /night)
–  Pre-paid phone reimbursements for one site liason and             $50 /week  ($25 /person)
                 one Housing Hotline PP
–  Sanitation, cleaning supplies and various needed hardware     $100 /week
–  Miscellaneous items (office supplies, transport, etc.)​        $60 /week
———————————————————————–      ———————-
​Total:​      $700 /week
30 Occupiers
   The Housing WG is requesting a continuation of funds for $29 weekly unlimited NYC MTA metrocards.  Funds were previously allocated for the purchase of 115 cards per week on a recurring basis, with the accepted amendment to return to this body to reevaluate that request.  We feel with the current spending freeze, and an overall streamlining of the acquistion process through one central body there is a greater need.  Therefore we are requesting an augmentation of 5 cards, for a total 120 cards per week which will require $3480 in funds.  The previously established process for distribution and requirements for access will remain the same.
————————————————————————             ——————-
​Total:​  $3,480 /week
120 Occupiers

5 Responses to “1/25/2012: Housing Budget Proposal”

  1. Sean McKeown

    Just to get this in there “first” before any complications or further issues arise: it was noted as a Friendly Amendment in the Spending Freeze proposal that Housing would be able to issue one further funds proposal, exempted from the spending freeze that was issued.

    Additionally, all recurring budget issues save a few key items were frozen, while all previously-approved non-recurring budget issues were exempted from the freeze – and budget items for housing, metrocards, food, and the website were exempted from budgetary freezing, so that we did not lose NYCGA.net or stop providing food to the Occupation while a budget overhaul was put into place.

  2. Brett Goldberg

    That is actually not accurate Sean. Facilitation and Accounting cleared this up yesterday via the Minutes and audio recording of the General Assembly.

    EVERY previously approved ongoing budget is exempted from the budget freeze. This includes Medical, Kitchen, Tech (for the website), Facilitation (for payment of space for Spokes Council), Outreach (for printing), and any other weekly or monthly budget approved by the GA or Spokes.

    Essentially the budget freeze only effects the ability of these bodies to make FUTURE decisions. All previous commitments (one time or ongoing) will be honored, including per diem receipts dated before the budget freeze.

    • Sean McKeown

      Interesting, that contradicts my understanding from being there and paying attention. Good to know, as I had been trying to prevent the proposal from overwriting too-too many prior GA or SC proposals that achieved valid consensus, and thought I did an okay job… glad to know someone else clarified it, at the time, even better than I had. :)

  3. Frances MA

    So this is confusing. Next to the proposal it states “consensus” but this is the original proposal and not the consented upon draft with the friendly amendments. How does that work? Will somebody be posting the passed proposal to this site?