[55] in UA Financial Policy Review Committee
Drafts tonight; meeting tomorrow
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Dehnert)
Sat Aug 15 14:50:47 2009
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: adehnert@mit.edu
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:50:34 -0400
From: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: UA Treasurer <ua-treasurer@MIT.EDU>
To: ua-fprc@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4A836DCE.8070504@mit.edu>
Meeting tomorrow @ 3PM in the office.
Make sure to send Rachel (and ideally me) an email with new drafts by
early tonight, so she can read them, print them, and the like.
Also, if your draft has associated bylaws changes or seem particularly
critical, write appropriate legislation. (For example, I think we
concluded that the ASA President should be able to draft Fresh Fund
bills, so the appropriate section of the Senate bylaws needs to expand
who can write that type of funding bills.)
~~Alex
Alex Dehnert wrote:
> Hi folks,
> After the meeting today, I talked with some of the members about
> structurally how to finish up the FPRC. Here's the plan:
>
> We'll meet at 3PM on Sunday in the UA office. The meeting will start
> with a document review phase --- Rachel will provide copies of each
> document to be marked up.
>
> We'll all go through the documents IN SILENCE in the same order[1]. If
> any questions arise, I'll be available to provide background
> information. Similarly, other committee members with particular
> expertise (eg, historical, ASA, etc.) can also be asked. All questions
> should either be made silently, or outside the office.
>
> We'll be marking up:
> 1) Minor changes --- spelling, grammar, phrasing
> 2) Major changes --- points of likely controversy
>
> As we finish each document, Rachel will apply the minor changes, and
> mark points of controversy for later discussion. This distinction will
> be made at her discretion; however, after the meeting, the diffs will be
> provided in case people wish to check the distinctions.
>
> After all the documents are done, we'll go over the points of
> contention. I'll be keeping track of time, warning after five minutes
> (and giving an opportunity to motion to close discussion) and bringing
> the discussion to a vote at the end of ten minutes (unless we vote to
> extend it). Depending on how confused the discussion is, I may attempt
> to summarize the discussion (for the minutes and for our own benefit).
> If we haven't reached a consensus at the end of the discussion, we'll vote.
>
> If you will be unable to arrive for the session at 3PM, feel free to
> send Rachel and/or I your comments, and we'll make sure to bring them
> up. However, I do believe that the concentrated study is valuable, so if
> you arrive at the meeting well after 3PM without comments already
> prepared, your input may be significantly disadvantaged.
>
> If we get out of the meeting without any controversial changes to a
> document, that document will be closed and will not be reopened at a
> meeting without a very good reason and several people indicating their
> support (via email, personal discussion with me, etc.).
>
> Sincerely,
> Alex Dehnert
> UA Treasurer
>
> [1] I'll try to come up with an order from least to most controversial.
> I'm not sure what that order will be at the moment, but I'll send
> something out shortly. If you have preferences, let me know.
