[1260] in UA Senate
Re: RESTRUCTURING
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Geoffrey Thomas)
Wed Apr 13 14:31:21 2011
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:31:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@MIT.EDU>
To: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu>
cc: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimtwcdkDdpOAVdvH6vtu3yk-GtaMw@mail.gmail.com>
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
---804087552-1246070281-1302719477=:31859
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
I agree completely. The very first thing discussed at the first public CFS=
=20
meeting was realizing that everything students wanted to do, they could do=
=20
through legitimate student government if they had enough idea of how=20
student government works. The current situation is so confusing as to do a=
=20
terrible job of representing students. Everything else, about confusing to=
=20
administration or duplicating work or whatever, is also true, but=20
secondary. Anything other than the current situation would be a good idea.=
=20
(And the current proposal, in particular, is actually quite good.)
--=20
Geoffrey Thomas
geofft@mit.edu
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Daniel Hawkins wrote:
> As someone who has been around for a few years, it's my duty to hand out =
unsolicited advice every
> once in a while. =A0So here it is:
> We need to approve the restructuring changes. =A0Why? =A0Because they wil=
l make student government more
> efficient and effective. =A0I'm going to enumerate some of the objections=
I've heard and offer my
> response.
>=20
> 1. This was too fast - we should have set up a committee and given it the=
whole semester (at minimum)
> to review our history, consider the merits of our current structures, and=
decide how to make the UA
> into the best student government possible.
>=20
> My response: =A0No. =A0Besides the fact that the UA has=A0already been do=
ing that for the past decade, the
> argument implies that the proposed changes would preclude such lengthy an=
d thoughtful evaluations
> from happening in the future. =A0The proposed overhaul was not introduced=
as the solution to all the
> UA's problems, or as a student government we'll never have to modify agai=
n; it's simply a better way
> of doing things than what we're doing right now.
>=20
>=20
> 2. Instead of risking everything with sweeping changes, we should conside=
r how we might improve our
> structure incrementally.
>=20
> My response: =A0Hill-climbing algorithms get stuck at local maxima -- the=
re are structures we cannot
> explore through incremental change, and some of those may well be the mos=
t optimal structures.
>=20
>=20
> 3. One major goal of this restructuring is to improve our credibility wit=
h administrators, yet no
> administrators were consulted while formulating the proposal.
>=20
> My response: =A0While administrators may have the "best interest of stude=
nts" in mind, their concept of
> what qualifies as our best interest sometimes differs from our own. =A0Di=
ning is one example of such a
> misalignment. =A0In light of this, it seems reasonable to start the proce=
ss on our own terms, and
> gather input from administrators later (which is exactly what happened).
>=20
> Furthermore, the push to restructure came from the UA Advisory Committee,=
the members of which have
> far more experience in leading successful organizations than MIT administ=
rators.
>=20
>=20
> 4. The proposed structure doesn't include enough checks and balances.
>=20
> My response: =A0This is a very vague argument. =A0If you have specific ex=
amples, propose amendments.
> =A0Don't use this as a reason to vote down the entire proposal.
>=20
> It is my opinion that any legitimate argument against the proposed change=
s is a result of the
> following procedure:
> * Critically evaluate the mission and purpose contained in your bylaws =
and constitution.
> * Decide which elements you believe are necessary, or should be perform=
ed by a student government.
> * Of those elements, identify one that could not be adequately carried =
out under the proposed
> structure.
> * Determine whether that element is being sufficiently performed under =
the current structure.
> * If so, you have an argument.
> A good example is DormCon's funding mechanism; this was identified as som=
ething that could not be
> adequately handled under the original proposal, and that issue has now be=
en resolved with the
> creation of the Dorm Funding Committee.
>=20
>=20
> I want this to be discussed as much as is needed, so I would encourage yo=
u to reply-all and get a
> discussion going before the meeting tomorrow.
>=20
> -hwkns
>=20
>
---804087552-1246070281-1302719477=:31859--
