[1035] in UA Exec
Re: Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Baranay)
Mon Oct 17 17:26:38 2011
In-Reply-To: <2335D5F0-3965-4E36-9025-E7010D6E0C46@mit.edu>
From: Paul Baranay <pbaranay@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:26:11 -0400
To: Trevor J Mulchay <tmulchay@mit.edu>
Cc: Ryan T Normandin <ryno17@mit.edu>, "ua-senate@mit.edu" <ua-senate@mit.edu>,
ua-exec <ua-exec@mit.edu>, "macgregor@mit.edu" <macgregor@mit.edu>
--0015174bf14ab2da3b04af854219
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Meetings going too long is not a cause of dysfunction; it's a symptom.
Attacking the symptom while the underlying causes remain is unlikely to
help, but rather (as Trevor states) cause its own kind of problems.
If any Senator feels that Senate is straying too far from the topic of its
business during its meetings, or spending too long on a given topic, you
have the ability to make a motion to "call for the orders of the day",
"limit debate", or even simply "close debate." I think that judicious use
of these motions will be more effective than placing a blanket limit on
meeting length.
Cheers,
Paul
(Speaker, Fall '09)
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Trevor J Mulchay <tmulchay@mit.edu> wrote:
> In response to the bill,
>
> I understand I am not the first one to speak up against this and use thes=
e
> points, but I think that the idea of suspending the bylaws by a two-third=
s
> 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
> place a law that we intend to suspend whenever we feel like it. The act o=
f
> suspending bylaws should be used only in an urgent and important matter t=
hat
> we 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
> hard and fast (if we were to appropriately subscribe to the bylaws) timer=
on
> our meetings. This could cause an obscene, unnecessary rush to our meetin=
gs
> that might, in fact, be worse than a drawn-out meeting, as getting foolis=
h
> things done (due to a lack of close consideration due to a time pressured
> environment) is much worse than getting nothing done. Although everyone d=
oes
> 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 ke=
ep a
> quick tempo, I feel as if that is why we elect a good speaker who can bot=
h
> keep order and help us, as a legislative body, stay on task. It is part o=
f
> his/her job.
>
> 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=92r=
e
> beating 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
> Senate meetings at the hour and a half mark is up for a vote tonight. Whe=
n 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."
>
> Is the bill harsh? Yes. But frankly, there is nothing in the
> Senate's structure to ensure that it operates efficiently. I would guess
> that whoever 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 efficient manner. As the past few years have shown us, they
> were wrong. Props to our current Speaker for bucking the trend so far, bu=
t
> we might not always have a Speaker comfortable with being firm when
> necessary and otherwise ensuring meetings run on time.
>
> I recognize that some of you also feel it is pointless because o=
f
> the Restructuring that will likely take place later this year. I disagree=
;
> we know very little about the specifics and structure of the proposal, an=
d
> it would be unfortunate if Restructuring failed and we were back to the s=
ame
> 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
> doesn't, this bill will keep Senate efficient regardless of who the Speak=
er
> 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
> hands": it won't. The bylaws can be suspended with a 2/3 majority of Sena=
te.
> 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 nominati=
ons
> 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 will =
act
> as a sufficient barrier to simply extending the length of every meeting a=
nd
> being as inefficient as usual.
>
> My final point is that, as Allan mentioned last week, the
> undergrads do not have a high opinion of else. Regardless of whether or n=
ot
> Restructuring passes and regardless of how much that improves the UA's
> image, the capping of the length of Senate meetings will signal to studen=
ts
> that we are 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
> solution can be found.
> 3) It will not unreasonably restrict Senate; only a 2/3 majority is
> required to suspend the bylaws and continue the Senate meeting.
> 4) It will signal to the student body that we are serious about fixing th=
e
> UA and have the guts to do actually do it.
>
> I also encourage you to forward this to your constituency and se=
e
> what they think. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the
> students who you represent would be in favor of this bill.
>
> 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 j=
ust
> irritating.
>
> 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
>
> Sent from my iPod
>
>
>
--0015174bf14ab2da3b04af854219
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Meetings going too long is not a cause of dysfunction; it's a symptom.<=
div><br></div><div>Attacking the symptom while the underlying causes remain=
is unlikely to help, but rather (as Trevor states) cause its own kind of p=
roblems.<div>
<br></div><div>If any Senator feels that Senate is straying too far from th=
e topic of its business during its meetings, or spending too long on a give=
n topic, you have the ability to make a motion to "call for the orders=
of the day", "limit debate", or even simply "close deb=
ate." =A0I think that judicious use of these motions will be more effe=
ctive than placing a blanket limit on meeting length.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Paul</div><div>(Speaker, Fall '09=
)</div><div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:5=
0 PM, Trevor J Mulchay <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:tmulchay@mit=
.edu">tmulchay@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>In=
response to the bill,</div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"whit=
e-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I understand I am not the first one to speak up a=
gainst this and use these points, but I think that the idea of suspending t=
he bylaws by a two-thirds vote every time we approach the hour and a half m=
ark in a meeting is not a legitimate consideration for a legislative body. =
We should not put into place a law that we intend to suspend whenever we fe=
el like it. The act of suspending bylaws should be used only in an urgent a=
nd important matter that we deem must be done and can=92t be done otherwise=
.</p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>=A0Seco=
ndly, we must also consider the idea of the bill, which is to put a hard an=
d fast (if we were to appropriately subscribe to the bylaws) timer on our m=
eetings. This could cause an obscene, unnecessary rush to our meetings that=
might, in fact, be worse than a drawn-out meeting, as getting foolish thin=
gs done (due to a lack of close consideration due to a time pressured envir=
onment) is much worse than getting nothing done. Although everyone does hat=
e the slow processes of government, there is a purpose to them that we must=
remember.=A0</p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>If you =
wish to defend this with the idea that we wouldn=92t rush, just keep a quic=
k tempo, I feel as if that is why we elect a good speaker who can both keep=
order and help us, as a legislative body, stay on task. It is part of his/=
her job.</p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Also, t=
he 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 beatin=
g a dead horse during the meeting. I think that would be sufficient.<u></u>=
<u></u></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thanks,</p><div>Trevor Mulchay</div></div><div><div>=
</div><div class=3D"h5"><br><div><div>On Oct 17, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Ryan T N=
ormandin wrote:</div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>Hey Senate<br><br> =
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0As 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. When I presented the bill at the last meeting, many individuals f=
elt that it was "too harsh" and that Senate should not "tie =
it's own hands." <br>
<br> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Is the bill harsh? Yes. But frankly, there =
is nothing in the Senate's structure to ensure that it operates efficie=
ntly. I would guess that whoever wrote the bylaws did so under the assumpti=
on that the leadership of Senate, along with Senate itself, would be able t=
o conduct itself in an efficient manner. As the past few years have shown u=
s, they were wrong. Props to our current Speaker for bucking the trend so f=
ar, but we might not always have a Speaker comfortable with being firm when=
necessary and otherwise ensuring meetings run on time.<br>
<br> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I recognize that some of you also feel it i=
s pointless because of the Restructuring that will likely take place later =
this year. I disagree; we know very little about the specifics and structur=
e of the proposal, and it would be unfortunate if Restructuring failed and =
we were back to the same old inefficient Senate. Passing this bill is a win=
-win; if Restructuring passes, this bill will likely vanish with the rest o=
f Senate, and if it doesn't, this bill will keep Senate efficient regar=
dless of who the Speaker is, and act as a band-aid until a new solution can=
be found.<br>
<br> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0To those who dislike the bill because it wo=
uld "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 t=
oo many items (such as during the nominations meeting), I have no doubt tha=
t Senate would vote to suspend the bylaws in order to conclude it's bus=
iness. 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> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0My final point is that, as Allan mentioned =
last week, the undergrads do not have a high opinion of else. Regardless of=
whether or not Restructuring passes and regardless of how much that improv=
es the UA's image, the capping of the length of Senate meetings will si=
gnal to students that we are serious about becoming more efficient and that=
we are capable of doing so.<br>
<br> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0In conclusion, I urge you to vote for this =
bill because:<br><br>1) It will guarantee a more efficient Senate regardles=
s of leadership.<br>2) If Restructuring fails, this will be a sufficient ba=
nd-aid until a new solution can be found.<br>
3) It will not unreasonably restrict Senate; only a 2/3 majority is require=
d to suspend the bylaws and continue the Senate meeting.<br>4) It will sign=
al to the student body that we are serious about fixing the UA and have the=
guts to do actually do it.<br>
<br> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I also encourage you to forward this to you=
r constituency and see what they think. I'd be willing to bet that the =
vast majority of the students who you represent would be in favor of this b=
ill.<br><br> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0As 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 irritating.<br>
<br> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0If you have any further questions or concer=
ns, please feel free to direct them here and I will to my best to address t=
hem.<br><br><br>Best,<br><br>--<br>Ryan Normandin<br>Massachusetts Institut=
e of Technology<br>
Department of Political Science<br>UA Senator, MacGregor House<br>Class of =
2013 | <a href=3D"mailto:ryno17@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">ryno17@mit.edu</=
a><br><br>Sent from my iPod</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote>
</div><br></div></div></div>
--0015174bf14ab2da3b04af854219--
