[1032] in UA Exec
Re: Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Trevor J Mulchay)
Mon Oct 17 16:50:45 2011
Resent-From: ua-exec@MIT.EDU
From: Trevor J Mulchay <tmulchay@MIT.EDU>
To: Ryan T Normandin <ryno17@mit.edu>
CC: "ua-senate@mit.edu" <ua-senate@mit.edu>, ua-exec <ua-exec@mit.edu>,
"macgregor@mit.edu" <macgregor@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:50:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <DAFE6539-00DB-416A-835F-F0C65AACEB7F@mit.edu>
--_000_2335D5F039654E369025E7010D6E0C46mitedu_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In response to the bill,
I understand I am not the first one to speak up against this and use these =
points, but I think that the idea of suspending the bylaws by a two-thirds =
vote every time we approach the hour and a half mark in a meeting is not a =
legitimate consideration for a legislative body. We should not put into pla=
ce a law that we intend to suspend whenever we feel like it. The act of sus=
pending bylaws should be used only in an urgent and important matter that w=
e deem must be done and can=92t be done otherwise.
Secondly, we must also consider the idea of the bill, which is to put a ha=
rd and fast (if we were to appropriately subscribe to the bylaws) timer on =
our meetings. This could cause an obscene, unnecessary rush to our meetings=
that might, in fact, be worse than a drawn-out meeting, as getting foolish=
things done (due to a lack of close consideration due to a time pressured =
environment) is much worse than getting nothing done. Although everyone doe=
s hate the slow processes of government, there is a purpose to them that we=
must remember.
If you wish to defend this with the idea that we wouldn=92t rush, just keep=
a quick tempo, I feel as if that is why we elect a good speaker who can bo=
th keep order and help us, as a legislative body, stay on task. It is part =
of his/her job.
Also, the idea of motioning to adjourn when you think it's necessary is fai=
rly childish. All you need to do is let know when you feel like we=92re bea=
ting a dead horse during the meeting. I think that would be sufficient.
Thanks,
Trevor Mulchay
On Oct 17, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Ryan T Normandin wrote:
Hey Senate
As you know, my bill to amend the bylaws and cap the length of Sen=
ate meetings at the hour and a half mark is up for a vote tonight. When I p=
resented the bill at the last meeting, many individuals felt that it was "t=
oo harsh" and that Senate should not "tie it's own hands."
Is the bill harsh? Yes. But frankly, there is nothing in the Senat=
e's structure to ensure that it operates efficiently. I would guess that wh=
oever wrote the bylaws did so under the assumption that the leadership of S=
enate, along with Senate itself, would be able to conduct itself in an effi=
cient manner. As the past few years have shown us, they were wrong. Props t=
o our current Speaker for bucking the trend so far, but we might not always=
have a Speaker comfortable with being firm when necessary and otherwise en=
suring 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 sam=
e 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 doe=
sn't, this bill will keep Senate efficient regardless of who the Speaker is=
, 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 h=
ands": 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 nominat=
ions meeting), I have no doubt that Senate would vote to suspend the bylaws=
in order to conclude it's business. At the same time, the 2/3 majority wil=
l act as a sufficient barrier to simply extending the length of every meeti=
ng and being as inefficient as usual.
My final point is that, as Allan mentioned last week, the undergra=
ds do not have a high opinion of else. Regardless of whether or not Restruc=
turing 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 ar=
e serious about becoming more efficient and that we are capable of doing so=
.
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 studen=
ts who you represent would be in favor of this bill.
As a side note, if this bill is not passed, I will motion to adjou=
rn at every meeting if we hit the hour and a half mark, and that's just irr=
itating.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to=
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<mailto:ryno17@mit.edu>
Sent from my iPod
--_000_2335D5F039654E369025E7010D6E0C46mitedu_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:=
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>In response to the bi=
ll,</div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"Apple-tab-span" style=
=3D"white-space:pre"> </span>I understand I am not the first one to speak u=
p against this and use these points, but I think that the idea of suspendin=
g the bylaws by a two-thirds vote every time we approach the hour and a hal=
f mark in a meeting is not a legitimate consideration for a legislative bod=
y. We should not put into place a law that we intend to suspend whenever we=
feel like it. The act of suspending bylaws should be used only in an urgen=
t and important matter that we deem must be done and can=92t be done otherw=
ise.</p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"Apple-tab-span" style=3D"whit=
e-space:pre"> </span> Secondly, we must also consider the idea of the =
bill, which is to put a hard and fast (if we were to appropriately subscrib=
e to the bylaws) timer on our meetings. This could cause an obscene, unnece=
ssary rush to our meetings that might, in fact, be worse than a drawn-out m=
eeting, as getting foolish things done (due to a lack of close consideratio=
n due to a time pressured environment) is much worse than getting nothing d=
one. Although everyone does hate the slow processes of government, there is=
a purpose to them that we must remember. </p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><=
span class=3D"Apple-tab-span" style=3D"white-space:pre"> </span>If you wish=
to defend this with the idea that we wouldn=92t rush, just keep a quick te=
mpo, I feel as if that is why we elect a good speaker who can both keep ord=
er and help us, as a legislative body, stay on task. It is part of his/her =
job.</p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"Apple-tab-span" style=3D"whit=
e-space:pre"> </span>Also, the idea of motioning to adjourn when you think =
it's necessary is fairly childish. All you need to do is let know when you =
feel like we=92re beating a dead horse during the meeting. I think that wou=
ld be sufficient.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thanks,</p><div>T=
revor Mulchay</div></div><br><div><div>On Oct 17, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Ryan T =
Normandin wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote t=
ype=3D"cite"><div>Hey Senate<br><br> &n=
bsp; As you know, my bill to amend the bylaws and cap the length=
of Senate meetings at the hour and a half mark is up for a vote tonight. W=
hen 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." <br><br> =
Is the bill harsh? Ye=
s. But frankly, there is nothing in the Senate's structure to ensure that i=
t operates efficiently. I would guess that whoever wrote the bylaws did so =
under the assumption that the leadership of Senate, along with Senate itsel=
f, would be able to conduct itself in an efficient manner. As the past few =
years have shown us, they were wrong. Props to our current Speaker for buck=
ing the trend so far, but we might not always have a Speaker comfortable wi=
th being firm when necessary and otherwise ensuring meetings run on time.<b=
r><br> I recognize th=
at 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 abo=
ut the specifics and structure of the proposal, and it would be unfortunate=
if Restructuring failed and we were back to the same old inefficient Senat=
e. Passing this bill is a win-win; if Restructuring passes, this bill will =
likely vanish with the rest of Senate, and if it doesn't, this bill will ke=
ep Senate efficient regardless of who the Speaker is, and act as a band-aid=
until a new solution can be found.<br><br> &=
nbsp; 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 major=
ity 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 duri=
ng the nominations meeting), I have no doubt that Senate would vote to susp=
end the bylaws in order to conclude it's business. At the same time, the 2/=
3 majority will act as a sufficient barrier to simply extending the length =
of every meeting and being as inefficient as usual.<br><br> &nb=
sp; My final point is that, as Allan men=
tioned last week, the undergrads do not have a high opinion of else. Regard=
less of whether or not Restructuring 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 are serious about becoming more efficient and t=
hat we are capable of doing so.<br><br>  =
; In conclusion, I urge you to vote for this bill because:=
<br><br>1) It will guarantee a more efficient Senate regardless of leadersh=
ip.<br>2) If Restructuring fails, this will be a sufficient band-aid until =
a new solution can be found.<br>3) It will not unreasonably restrict Senate=
; only a 2/3 majority is required to suspend the bylaws and continue the Se=
nate meeting.<br>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.<br><br> &=
nbsp; I also encourage you to forw=
ard this to your constituency and see what they think. I'd be willing to be=
t that the vast majority of the students who you represent would be in favo=
r of this bill.<br><br> &nb=
sp;As a side note, if this bill is not passed, I will motion to adjourn at =
every meeting if we hit the hour and a half mark, and that's just irritatin=
g.<br><br> If you hav=
e any further questions or concerns, please feel free to direct them here a=
nd I will to my best to address them.<br><br><br>Best,<br><br>--<br>Ryan No=
rmandin<br>Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>Department of Political=
Science<br>UA Senator, MacGregor House<br>Class of 2013 | <a href=3D"mailt=
o:ryno17@mit.edu">ryno17@mit.edu</a><br><br>Sent from my iPod</div></blockq=
uote></div><br></body></html>=
--_000_2335D5F039654E369025E7010D6E0C46mitedu_--
