[1039] in UA Exec
Re: Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Baranay)
Mon Oct 17 18:03:31 2011
In-Reply-To: <B3065FEE5AE5954988B116B6DD608EA30419FE42@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu>
From: Paul Baranay <pbaranay@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:03:02 -0400
To: Ryan T Normandin <ryno17@mit.edu>
Cc: 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>
--0015175cac4680e7d104af85c625
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I sent my reply before I saw yours, so I didn't notice the injunction to
remove macgregor@; but I did cancel my posting after it was sent, so no har=
m
done there.
I am pleased to hear that Will has been leading the Senate well. Being
Speaker has a number of challenges, not the least of which is balancing the
demands of open and frank discussion with not taking up too much time. I
will also note that opinions on what the primary role of the Speaker should
be, and what his or her mandate should be, have varied widely over time.
I don't particularly agree with your assessment of past administrations, bu=
t
overall I think such claims are a distraction from the issue at hand. Even
if your assertions were accurate, I think it's rather paternalistic to thin=
k
that you know not only what it is best for the current Senate but also for
future Senate sessions. The present members of the UA have a responsibilit=
y
to enable its future leaders, not tie their hands. I think that pkoms'
suggestions about more clearly defining the purpose and role of the Speaker=
,
combined with unwritten precedent regarding meeting duration, would be a
more effective method than a time limit.
As for threatening to motion to adjourn at the 1.5 hour mark...while it's
within your right to do so, I would like to think that senators would be
above such things.
I'm unlikely to respond to future messages on this topic, as I've made the
points I wished to, and the bill seems likely to be taken off the table
anyhow. While it was once common for alumni to be vocal participants in UA
email discussions, that era seems to have passed. I wish you all the best.
Cheers,
Paul
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
> leadership this year is the exception, not the rule. As such, this bill w=
ill
> rectify that and serve as a band-aid until Restructuring creates a more
> permanent solution.
>
> It is my belief that there is a very high probability that this bill's
> benefits will outweigh it's costs. We have not felt rushed yet, so I do n=
ot
> believe it likely that placing a cap on meeting length will lead to
> "foolish" measures. History has shown that Senate is far more likely to d=
o
> nothing than do foolish things.
>
> Extreme times call for extreme measures; if Senate knows I'm going to
> motion to adjourn at the hour and a half mark, then it will increase the
> likelihood 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
> 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 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",
> "limit debate", or even simply "close debate." I think that judicious us=
e
> 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
> <mailto: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 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, 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 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 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 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
>
>
>
--0015175cac4680e7d104af85c625
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I sent my reply before I saw yours, so I didn't notice the injunction t=
o remove macgregor@; but I did cancel my posting after it was sent, so no h=
arm done there.<br><br>I am pleased to hear that Will has been leading the =
Senate well.=A0 Being Speaker has a number of challenges, not the least of =
which is balancing the demands of open and frank discussion with not taking=
up too much time.=A0 I will also note that opinions on what the primary ro=
le of the Speaker should be, and what his or her mandate should be, have va=
ried widely over time.<br>
<br>I don't particularly agree with your assessment of past administrat=
ions, but overall I think such claims are a distraction from the issue at h=
and.=A0 Even if your assertions were accurate, I think it's rather pate=
rnalistic to think that you know not only what it is best for the current S=
enate but also for future Senate sessions.=A0 The present members of the UA=
have a responsibility to enable its future leaders, not tie their hands.=
=A0 I think that pkoms' suggestions about more clearly defining the pur=
pose and role of the Speaker, combined with unwritten precedent regarding m=
eeting duration, would be a more effective method than a time limit.<br>
<br>As for threatening to motion to adjourn at the 1.5 hour mark...while it=
's within your right to do so, I would like to think that senators woul=
d be above such things.<br><br>I'm unlikely to respond to future messag=
es on this topic, as I've made the points I wished to, and the bill see=
ms likely to be taken off the table anyhow.=A0 While it was once common for=
alumni to be vocal participants in UA email discussions, that era seems to=
have passed.=A0 I wish you all the best.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Paul<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 =
at 5:36 PM, Ryan T Normandin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:ryno17=
@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">ryno17@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc =
solid;padding-left:1ex">
Yes, it's a symptom of failed leadership. As I've pointed out, the =
leadership this year is the exception, not the rule. As such, this bill wil=
l rectify that and serve as a band-aid until Restructuring creates a more p=
ermanent solution.<br>
<br>
It is my belief that there is a very high probability that this bill's =
benefits will outweigh it's costs. We have not felt rushed yet, so I do=
not believe it likely that placing a cap on meeting length will lead to &q=
uot;foolish" measures. History has shown that Senate is far more likel=
y to do nothing than do foolish things.<br>
<br>
Extreme times call for extreme measures; if Senate knows I'm going to m=
otion to adjourn at the hour and a half mark, then it will increase the lik=
elihood that it will become unnecessary for me to do so.<br>
<br>
Again, please remove <a href=3D"mailto:macgregor@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank"=
>macgregor@mit.edu</a> the next time a response is sent.<br>
<div><br>
--<br>
Ryan Normandin<br>
Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>
Department of Political Science<br>
</div><div>Class of 2013 | <a href=3D"mailto:ryno17@mit.edu" target=3D"_bla=
nk">ryno17@mit.edu</a><br>
________________________________________<br>
</div>From: Paul Baranay [<a href=3D"mailto:pbaranay@MIT.EDU" target=3D"_bl=
ank">pbaranay@MIT.EDU</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 5:26 PM<br>
To: Trevor J Mulchay<br>
Cc: Ryan T Normandin; <a href=3D"mailto:ua-senate@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank=
">ua-senate@mit.edu</a>; ua-exec; <a href=3D"mailto:macgregor@mit.edu" targ=
et=3D"_blank">macgregor@mit.edu</a><br>
<div>Subject: Re: Bill to Cap Length of Senate Meetings<br>
<br>
</div><div>Meetings going too long is not a cause of dysfunction; it's =
a symptom.<br>
<br>
Attacking the symptom while the underlying causes remain is unlikely to hel=
p, but rather (as Trevor states) cause its own kind of problems.<br>
<br>
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 ha=
ve the ability to make a motion to "call for the orders of the day&quo=
t;, "limit debate", or even simply "close debate." =A0I=
think that judicious use of these motions will be more effective than plac=
ing a blanket limit on meeting length.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Paul<br>
(Speaker, Fall '09)<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div>On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Trevor J Mulcha=
y <<a href=3D"mailto:tmulchay@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">tmulchay@mit.ed=
u</a><mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:tmulchay@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">tmulc=
hay@mit.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
In response to the bill,<br>
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.<br>
=A0Secondly, 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.<br>
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.<br>
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 would be sufficient.=
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Trevor Mulchay<br>
<br>
On Oct 17, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Ryan T Normandin wrote:<br>
<br>
Hey Senate<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 As you know, my bill to amend the bylaws and cap the lengt=
h 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 felt that i=
t was "too harsh" and that Senate should not "tie it's o=
wn hands."<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Is the bill harsh? Yes. But frankly, there is nothing in t=
he Senate's structure to ensure that it operates efficiently. I would g=
uess that whoever wrote the bylaws did so under the assumption that the lea=
dership of Senate, along with Senate itself, would be able to conduct itsel=
f in an efficient manner. As the past few years have shown us, they were wr=
ong. Props to our current Speaker for bucking the trend so far, but we migh=
t not always have a Speaker comfortable with being firm when necessary and =
otherwise ensuring meetings run on time.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I recognize that some of you also feel it is pointless bec=
ause of the Restructuring that will likely take place later this year. I di=
sagree; we know very little about the specifics and structure of the propos=
al, 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 Restru=
cturing passes, this bill will likely vanish with the rest of Senate, and i=
f it doesn't, this bill will keep Senate efficient regardless of who th=
e Speaker is, and act as a band-aid until a new solution can be found.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 To those who dislike the bill because it would "tie S=
enate'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 no=
t have time to address in an hour and a half, or there are too many items (=
such as during the nominations meeting), I have no doubt that Senate would =
vote to suspend the bylaws in order to conclude it's business. At the s=
ame time, the 2/3 majority will act as a sufficient barrier to simply exten=
ding the length of every meeting and being as inefficient as usual.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 My 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 improves the UA's=
image, the capping of the length of Senate meetings will signal to student=
s that we are serious about becoming more efficient and that we are capable=
of doing so.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In conclusion, I urge you to vote for this bill because:<b=
r>
<br>
1) It will guarantee a more efficient Senate regardless of leadership.<br>
2) If Restructuring fails, this will be a sufficient band-aid until a new s=
olution 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 signal 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 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 o=
f the students who you represent would be in favor of this bill.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 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=
9;s just irritating.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel=
free to direct them here and I will to my best to address them.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
--<br>
Ryan Normandin<br>
Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>
Department of Political Science<br>
UA Senator, MacGregor House<br>
</div></div>Class of 2013 | <a href=3D"mailto:ryno17@mit.edu" target=3D"_bl=
ank">ryno17@mit.edu</a><mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:ryno17@mit.edu" target=
=3D"_blank">ryno17@mit.edu</a>><br>
<br>
Sent from my iPod<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
--0015175cac4680e7d104af85c625--
