[1034] in UA Exec
RE: Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ryan T Normandin)
Mon Oct 17 17:22:38 2011
Resent-From: ua-exec@MIT.EDU
From: Ryan T Normandin <ryno17@MIT.EDU>
To: Trevor J Mulchay <tmulchay@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 17:22:34 -0400
In-Reply-To: <2335D5F0-3965-4E36-9025-E7010D6E0C46@mit.edu>
Hi Trevor,
I agree with your first point completely. Should the bill pass, S=
enate should definitely not suspend the bylaws "whenver it approaches the h=
our and a half mark." Rather, it should *only* be done if there is a legiti=
mate reason, such as urgency (like last week's Restructuring presentation) =
or because it is a nominations meeting with too many nominations to fit int=
o an hour and a half. So yes, the act of suspending the bylaws, and thereby=
the bill, should absolutely be used onlin in an urgent and important matte=
r that we deem must be done and can't be done otherwise.
All meetings so far this year have been under an hour and a half.=
Have you noticed a "rushed" feeling? No. This is because Senate never actu=
ally needs to exceed the hour and a half; when they do, it is because they =
are not using time well. I disagree that this bill would create a "time-pre=
ssured" environment, just one in which things actually get done in a prompt=
manner and where Senators come to meetings prepared.
In regards to your final point, this is the first year in *years*=
that a Speaker has kept meetings short. Will is an outlier, not the trend.=
Senate has done an exceedingly poor job in the past of electing a Speaker =
to carry out this particular duty, and there is no reason to believe it wou=
ld do a better job in the future. This bill will guard against the inevitab=
le relapse into long Senate meetings.
Finally, the reason for my future motions to adjourn after an hou=
r and a half (not "whenever I think it's necessary") is because even with t=
he Speaker trying to keep meetings under an hour and a half, if this bill d=
oesn't pass, he cannot truly enforce it by simply adjourning meetings. A Se=
nator would have to actually step up and take the initiative to end meeting=
s when they become hopelessly inefficient, and, going off past years, that =
rarely if ever happens. So I'd argue it's the opposite of childish, I'd be =
doing what needs to be done and HAS been needed to be done in years past.
Also, the reply-all has been going to MacGregor. For discussion, =
please take them off of future reply-all's. Thanks.
Best,
--
Ryan Normandin
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Political Science
UA Senator, MacGregor
Class of 2013 | ryno17@mit.edu
________________________________________
From: Trevor J Mulchay
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 4:50 PM
To: Ryan T Normandin
Cc: ua-senate@mit.edu; ua-exec; macgregor@mit.edu
Subject: Re: Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings
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
