On 29th September, 2024, the SLC organised a meeting to finalise and put this semester’s budgets to vote. The collision of big ideas and not-so-accommodating wallets can get pretty heated, and this time was no different. Spoiler alert: refreshments are always necessary.
The SLC Speaker commenced the budget session by stating that despite a series of discussions spanning multiple meetings, including Standing Committee meetings and Executive Council (EC) meetings, there remained several unresolved issues related to budget approval, resulting in a large gap between the funds requested and those available.
Several hostel representatives had earlier raised concerns about budgeting procedures at the hostel level, as many hostels reported not having received their budgets. To address this, the Speaker called for a delegation to visit the CCW office to investigate the delay. After some discussion about the proposed Hostel Code of Conduct (according to which Hostel Legislators must organise their respective hostels’ budget sessions within the first three weeks of the semester), the budget session commenced. The SLC, T5E and SECC Budgets were passed unanimously after a few clarifications.
Sports
A discussion highlighted the need to distinguish between Gymkhana activities and student programs. It was suggested that the Sportsfest budget be shifted to the institute’s budget from the students’ budget since it involved calling external participants, as opposed to events like Schroeter’s and Dean’s Trophy that involve only IITM students and are hence funded via STACT money. The budget was approved unanimously.
Culturals
The parliamentary debate (PD) budget quickly became a point of contention. To run the PD, a budget of Rs. 7.5 lakh had been requested. This included inviting and hosting judges, putting up external students in rooms in Ginger at Rs. 4000/room for three people, and the actual running of the event, including cash prizes. A valid question was raised: Ginger is a rather high-class hotel; is it really justified to put student money toward hosting external students in such a place when cheaper options such as hostels are available? The PD representative tried to justify this by stating that registration fees cover a majority of the hosting fee as well as the prize pool and that the current requested amount was to cover the advance reservation and booking costs; this, in turn, led to a discussion about accounting concerns and how these differences would be reflected in the budget for the even semester (Jan-May 2025). A common issue seen in budgets across various Sangam clubs was the formatting of the budget; for example, simply mentioning ‘pens and paper’ with no further mention of the breakdown (number of units and cost per unit) isn’t indicative of the exact amount purchased and is difficult to verify.
Most of the Writing Club’s budget appeared to be directed towards their workshops, where they invite outside instructors. A suggestion to remove this cost by bringing in in-house instructors, such as winners of the Isaac-Asimov competition, was raised.
Concerns were raised regarding the lack of a clear timeline and event-wise breakdown of the Culturals budget, which the Cultural Affairs Secretary attempted to justify by claiming that providing an event-wise budget is challenging due to the variable number of events per semester per club. Due to this lack of clarity, more than half of the legislators abstained from voting when the Culturals budget was put to vote; the motion failed.
Academic Affairs
Along with the other teams, AAS was also asked to complete their manifesto review by the 15th of October. With no further queries raised, the budget was passed unanimously.
International & Alumni Relations
I&AR requested a part of their budget to be put towards LinkedIn premium – on being questioned about this, the heads claimed that it was vital for the next two months in order to reach out to various alumni. After a few more clarifications were made, the budget was passed unanimously.
Hostel Affairs
The HAS budget was already in session when the Secretary made it in and gave “miscommunication with my standing committee” as the reason for the delay. With discussions ranging from mess issues and kitchen hygiene to lack of basic furniture in some students’ hostels due to deficiency of funds from OHM, the Council agreed on the fact that the student body needed quicker solutions than events. The discussions on the budget for scouting stretched due to the number of queries on how the money was allocated for transport, the number of coordinators going, the type and quantity of food tasted, and so on. New infrastructure under the HAS is in the works, including occupation of the space above CCD (previously Higginbothams), a tentative juice and chat shop and a Nestle outlet in the new HDFC complex, a dosa truck, and a new Sports store in the old Gymkhana building.
The discussions on the inspections and protocols revealed the processes undertaken to ensure food safety. The team checked for fresh produce, the labels on pre-processed food, and more. The core presented the Zaitoon inspection report from September 25 which mentioned unhygienic thawing, unsatisfactory cooling and reheating, poor oil quality, and unhygienic maintenance of cutlery. The Core also described how veg and non-veg cooking at Zaitoon has been segregated and how preventive maintenance (like outing cooking oil every six hours) and record-keeping have improved. Warnings are issued for major shortcomings (like high volume of carcinogenic particles in food or cooking medium), and the restaurant’s tenders would be revoked after 5 warnings. With the discussion circling back to the scouting budget of around Rs. 3000 per person for 4 people, some members jovially suggested SLC delegates for the food-tasting process.
Putting mess inspections into context, the first question was whether the visits were actually ‘surprise’ visits. The Core went on to explain how each mess has 2 coordinators allotted who go regularly to inspect. The most contested points in the MMCC budget were the new notice boards and the budget for printouts of info posters. The legislators cited how it would be more effective to call mess managers and make things known rather than spending time, money, and effort on circulating printouts. Almost 18 members of SLC wanted the notice board budget out.
The Sustainability Committee budget was perhaps the most questioned one, with calls to reconsider the budget for some aspect of almost every initiative, starting with the beach cleaning drive. The Core explained how one of the events was not as successful as planned since the money for providing lunch to collaborating NGOs was not approved. The money for transport was borne by the NGOs from their side, and he expressed his discontent with an ironic “Thanks to you guys for not passing the budget,” referring to the SLC. To this, the Speaker explained that EC members could sort money for TAs or reimbursements as long it was a working day for STACT and that it was not the SLC. Many legislators were clearly ruffled by the Core’s remarks. New initiatives proposed under SusCom included an internal sustainability research group, an All Head Meeting with heads from all spheres to make events more sustainable via a system of ranking, projects for the student community in collaboration with ESG factions of corporates, and a conference on Wetland conservation with an expert. There was a proposal for a Model Campus visit to Zanzibar for selected students, with the institute sponsoring one-way travel. Almost every initiative had a significant amount allocated to refreshments; many SLC members questioned it, and the SusCom Core stated that refreshments were necessary since the participants were ”building for Insti” to which some legislators said that even the “rocket team” at CFI did not provide such quantities of refreshments or lunch. The refreshments’ budget was to be re-evaluated.
To sum up the HAS budget, the CMGFS and MMCC budgets were passed unanimously, and the Sustainability Committee budget was conditionally passed with suggested revisions and one legislator against the motion.
SGS
The SGS Executive Committee, EML, CFMC, and Insti WebOps budgets were passed unanimously. Discussions about the upcoming Pragati Café, whose venue is to be finalised this month, began with concerns about resource limitations if visitor turnout exceeded expectations, and it was acknowledged that the café might not meet all learners’ needs. The café is aimed at serving the CAT and UPSC clubs, with a budget buffer of Rs. 20,000.
A number of concerns were raised on the budget proposed by Sajag, formerly Disaster Management Committee, starting with the questioning of the need for mementoes and t-shirts for ERTS (emergency response training services) volunteers. It was clarified that ERTS consists of volunteers from within the institute, not external individuals, and it was deemed unnecessary to provide t-shirts for all 60 volunteers. Mementoes were initially budgeted, but the Speaker requested their removal and asked the team to reevaluate the provision of t-shirts. Questions about a gaming event revealed the concept was still undeveloped. The Speaker requested the removal of goodies from the budget and confirmed that the CSO would oversee mandatory safety workshops. Due to significant budget changes, the revised budget was not put to a vote and was requested for a later resubmission. Sajag was followed by IViL, whose budget was approved after a few clarifications.
Research Affairs
The RAS budget presentation covered various subcommittees and adjustments. For the Placement & Internship (P&I) budget, concerns were raised about collecting registration fees alongside STACT funding, but the team clarified the fees were needed for organizing mock exams, accommodations, and interview logistics. With no further objections, the budget was unanimously approved.
The PSC-R team was advised to gather feedback from research scholars before proposing workshops. In the CDC-R section, discrepancies in speaker travel expenses were corrected, and the team was asked to revise event titles based on feasibility. It was suggested to reduce the number of workshops, trim meal costs, and remove certain sessions, including the talent show.
The R Club’s intra-department event structure and three-minute thesis competition were discussed, with recommendations to hold the competition monthly and involve undergraduate students. The team was also advised to conduct more groundwork on the Buildschool initiative.
For the RSD section, refreshments for the Mandala art event were scaled down, and the contingency fund for the Researcher’s Ravel was removed. The RAS team was instructed to revise and resubmit the budget, with the final approval to be conducted through an online vote, excluding the P&I budget.
Co-curricular Affairs
The co-curricular budget presentation addressed concerns across multiple teams:
For CFI, the team emphasized that the budget was optimized for essential equipment and reflected a worst-case estimate. Legislators raised concerns about managing the increasing number of teams, which complicates budget approval. Suggestions were made to limit projects to the most feasible ones and encourage postgraduate involvement. The CFI budget was unanimously passed.
Regarding TechSoc, the Speaker requested the removal of an additional Canva subscription from the branding section, allowing only one per sphere. Despite initial resistance from TechSoc, the overwhelming opposition from legislators resulted in the removal of the subscription after a vote, and the revised budget was passed.
The E-Cell budget led to extended discussions on the use of Canva Pro subscriptions and STACT funds. E-Cell representatives explained that the subscription was necessary for managing sponsor information. However, legislators questioned whether the E-Cell should use STACT money to attract sponsors and highlighted overlaps with optional funds allocated for festivals like Saarang and Shaastra. Concerns were raised that if E-Cell received STACT funding, other fests might also request similar support. E-Cell defended its budget, arguing that their events are free to attend, unlike other fests that charge registration fees. Some members expressed concerns over high cab fare expenses and recommended reductions. The Speaker advised referring these concerns to the Standing Committee due to time limitations. After debate, the E-Cell budget was approved with 21 votes in favor, 12 abstaining, and none against.
