[1031] in UA Exec
Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ryan T Normandin)
Mon Oct 17 14:39:27 2011
Resent-From: ua-exec@MIT.EDU
From: Ryan T Normandin <ryno17@MIT.EDU>
To: "ua-senate@mit.edu" <ua-senate@mit.edu>, ua-exec <ua-exec@mit.edu>
CC: "macgregor@mit.edu" <macgregor@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:42:01 -0400
Hey Senate
As you know, my bill to amend the bylaws and cap the length of Se=
nate meetings at the hour and a half mark is up for a vote tonight. When I =
presented the bill at the last meeting, many individuals felt that it was "=
too harsh" and that Senate should not "tie it's own hands."=20
Is the bill harsh? Yes. But frankly, there is nothing in the Sena=
te's structure to ensure that it operates efficiently. I would guess that w=
hoever wrote the bylaws did so under the assumption that the leadership of =
Senate, along with Senate itself, would be able to conduct itself in an eff=
icient manner. As the past few years have shown us, they were wrong. Props =
to our current Speaker for bucking the trend so far, but we might not alway=
s have a Speaker comfortable with being firm when necessary and otherwise e=
nsuring meetings run on time.
I recognize that some of you also feel it is pointless because of=
the Restructuring that will likely take place later this year. I disagree;=
we know very little about the specifics and structure of the proposal, and=
it would be unfortunate if Restructuring failed and we were back to the sa=
me old inefficient Senate. Passing this bill is a win-win; if Restructuring=
passes, this bill will likely vanish with the rest of Senate, and if it do=
esn't, this bill will keep Senate efficient regardless of who the Speaker i=
s, and act as a band-aid until a new solution can be found.
To those who dislike the bill because it would "tie Senate's own =
hands": it won't. The bylaws can be suspended with a 2/3 majority of Senate=
. If there is a pressing issue that Senate does not have time to address in=
an hour and a half, or there are too many items (such as during the nomina=
tions meeting), I have no doubt that Senate would vote to suspend the bylaw=
s in order to conclude it's business. At the same time, the 2/3 majority wi=
ll act as a sufficient barrier to simply extending the length of every meet=
ing and being as inefficient as usual.
My final point is that, as Allan mentioned last week, the undergr=
ads do not have a high opinion of else. Regardless of whether or not Restru=
cturing passes and regardless of how much that improves the UA's image, the=
capping of the length of Senate meetings will signal to students that we a=
re serious about becoming more efficient and that we are capable of doing s=
o.
In conclusion, I urge you to vote for this bill because:
1) It will guarantee a more efficient Senate regardless of leadership.
2) If Restructuring fails, this will be a sufficient band-aid until a new s=
olution can be found.
3) It will not unreasonably restrict Senate; only a 2/3 majority is require=
d to suspend the bylaws and continue the Senate meeting.
4) It will signal to the student body that we are serious about fixing the =
UA and have the guts to do actually do it.
I also encourage you to forward this to your constituency and see=
what they think. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the stude=
nts who you represent would be in favor of this bill.
As a side note, if this bill is not passed, I will motion to adjo=
urn at every meeting if we hit the hour and a half mark, and that's just ir=
ritating.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free t=
o direct them here and I will to my best to address them.
Best,
--
Ryan Normandin
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Political Science
UA Senator, MacGregor House
Class of 2013 | ryno17@mit.edu
Sent from my iPod=
