[1038] in UA Exec
RE: Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ryan T Normandin)
Mon Oct 17 17:59:19 2011
From: Ryan T Normandin <ryno17@MIT.EDU>
To: Paul M Kominers <pkoms@mit.edu>
CC: Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu>, Trevor J Mulchay <tmulchay@mit.edu>,
"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 17:57:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CA+JQ3KK=21hdP0YJzpF==etUTdnO9xKi6BCwqoaW6rz-H5tJBw@mail.gmail.com>
That sounds reasonable. I would be amenable to that as long as Will continu=
es to be an effective Speaker.=20
Best,
--
Ryan Normandin
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Political Science
UA Senator, MacGregor House
Class of 2013 | ryno17@mit.edu
________________________________________
From: Paul Kominers [pkoms@MIT.EDU]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 5:55 PM
To: Ryan T Normandin
Cc: Paul Baranay; Trevor J Mulchay; ua-senate@mit.edu; ua-exec; macgregor@m=
it.edu
Subject: Re: Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings
I would suggest that this bill be postponed until Restructuring has
succeeded or failed. If Restructuring succeeds, then this should not
be a problem, as Will should continue to be an effective speaker.
(Unless, Ryan, you know of plans to oust Will and replace him with
someone ineffectual before the Restructuring process is completed.)
If Restructuring fails, then it will still inspire serious questions
about the role and format of Senate. At that point, I think it would
be worth exploring various proposals to restrain the length of Senate,
from a bill such as Ryan's to a general sense that the Senate should
select an efficient and business-minded Speaker.
Therefore, if Restructuring succeeds, this bill will not have been
necessary; and if it fails, this bill should be treated as only one of
several feasible options, all of which should be weighed equally and
in more depth.
Ryan, I'm intentionally not removing mcgregor@mit.edu. If you think
the continuing discussion on this bill is valuable enough to warrant
McGregor's being informed such that you don't remove mcgregor@mit.edu
yourself, I will follow your lead.
Best wishes,
Paul Kominers
Chair, UA SCEP
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Ryan T Normandin <ryno17@mit.edu> wrote:
> Yes, it's a symptom of failed leadership. As I've pointed out, the leader=
ship this year is the exception, not the rule. As such, this bill will rect=
ify that and serve as a band-aid until Restructuring creates a more permane=
nt solution.
>
> It is my belief that there is a very high probability that this bill's be=
nefits will outweigh it's costs. We have not felt rushed yet, so I do not b=
elieve it likely that placing a cap on meeting length will lead to "foolish=
" measures. History has shown that Senate is far more likely to do nothing =
than do foolish things.
>
> Extreme times call for extreme measures; if Senate knows I'm going to mot=
ion to adjourn at the hour and a half mark, then it will increase the likel=
ihood that it will become unnecessary for me to do so.
>
> Again, please remove macgregor@mit.edu the next time a response is sent.
>
> --
> Ryan Normandin
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Department of Political Science
> Class of 2013 | ryno17@mit.edu
> ________________________________________
> From: Paul Baranay [pbaranay@MIT.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 5:26 PM
> To: Trevor J Mulchay
> Cc: Ryan T Normandin; ua-senate@mit.edu; ua-exec; macgregor@mit.edu
> Subject: Re: Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings
>
> 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 h=
elp, 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 it=
s 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", "lim=
it debate", or even simply "close debate." I think that judicious use of t=
hese 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<mailt=
o: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 p=
lace a law that we intend to suspend whenever we feel like it. The act of s=
uspending bylaws should be used only in an urgent and important matter that=
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 o=
n 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 fooli=
sh things done (due to a lack of close consideration due to a time pressure=
d 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 =
both keep order and help us, as a legislative body, stay on task. It is par=
t of his/her job.
> Also, the idea of motioning to adjourn when you think it's necessary is f=
airly childish. All you need to do is let know when you feel like we=92re b=
eating 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 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."
>
> 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=
solution can be found.
> 3) It will not unreasonably restrict Senate; only a 2/3 majority is requi=
red 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 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<mailto:ryno17@mit.edu>
>
> Sent from my iPod
>
>
>
