[1261] in UA Senate
Re: RESTRUCTURING
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Timothy Robertson)
Wed Apr 13 18:48:05 2011
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104131429290.31859@lunatique.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:48:02 -0500
From: Timothy Robertson <tim_r@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu>, UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
--0015174757d2ea922d04a0d4997c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I believe that most of the arguments presented against the proposed plan in
the recent days have been formulated out of fear. Fear both for rapid
changes that may reveal previously unheard of structural issues, and at
potentially disrupting the flow of student government as it has been for
over a decade. I trust that it is this bodies job to see beyond what
*could*go wrong, and focus on the great aim of the proposal:
*a unified student voice.*
> <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. So here it is:
>> We need to approve the restructuring changes. Why? Because they will
>> make student government more
>> efficient and effective. I'm going to enumerate some of the objections
>> I've heard and offer my
>> response.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> My response: No. Besides the fact that the UA has already been doing
>> that for the past decade, the
>> argument implies that the proposed changes would preclude such lengthy and
>> thoughtful evaluations
>> from happening in the future. The 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
>> again; it's simply a better way
>> of doing things than what we're doing right now.
>>
>>
>> 2. Instead of risking everything with sweeping changes, we should consider
>> how we might improve our
>> structure incrementally.
>>
>> My response: Hill-climbing algorithms get stuck at local maxima -- there
>> are structures we cannot
>> explore through incremental change, and some of those may well be the most
>> optimal structures.
>>
>>
>> 3. One major goal of this restructuring is to improve our credibility with
>> administrators, yet no
>> administrators were consulted while formulating the proposal.
>>
>> My response: While administrators may have the "best interest of
>> students" in mind, their concept of
>> what qualifies as our best interest sometimes differs from our own.
>> Dining is one example of such a
>> misalignment. In light of this, it seems reasonable to start the process
>> on our own terms, and
>> gather input from administrators later (which is exactly what happened).
>>
>> 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
>> administrators.
>>
>>
>> 4. The proposed structure doesn't include enough checks and balances.
>>
>> My response: This is a very vague argument. If you have specific
>> examples, propose amendments.
>> Don't use this as a reason to vote down the entire proposal.
>>
>> It is my opinion that any legitimate argument against the proposed changes
>> 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
>> performed 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
>> something that could not be
>> adequately handled under the original proposal, and that issue has now
>> been resolved with the
>> creation of the Dorm Funding Committee.
>>
>>
>> I want this to be discussed as much as is needed, so I would encourage you
>> to reply-all and get a
>> discussion going before the meeting tomorrow.
>>
>> -hwkns
>>
>>
--
Tim Robertson II
MIT 2011
Mechanical Engineering
UA Senate Office Hours:
EC-B515 Sunday 5-8pm
--0015174757d2ea922d04a0d4997c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I believe that most of the arguments presented against the proposed plan in=
the recent days have been formulated out of fear. Fear both for rapid chan=
ges that may reveal previously unheard of structural issues, and at potenti=
ally disrupting the flow of student government as it has been for over a de=
cade. I trust that it is this bodies job to see beyond what <i>could</i> go=
wrong, and focus on the great aim of the proposal: <u>a unified student vo=
ice.</u> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><font color=3D"#888888"><a href=3D"mailto:g=
eofft@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank"></a></font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h=
5"><br>
<br>
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Daniel Hawkins wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As someone who has been around for a few years, it's my duty to hand ou=
t unsolicited advice every<br>
once in a while. =A0So here it is:<br>
We need to approve the restructuring changes. =A0Why? =A0Because they will =
make student government more<br>
efficient and effective. =A0I'm going to enumerate some of the objectio=
ns I've heard and offer my<br>
response.<br>
<br>
1. This was too fast - we should have set up a committee and given it the w=
hole semester (at minimum)<br>
to review our history, consider the merits of our current structures, and d=
ecide how to make the UA<br>
into the best student government possible.<br>
<br>
My response: =A0No. =A0Besides the fact that the UA has=A0already been doin=
g that for the past decade, the<br>
argument implies that the proposed changes would preclude such lengthy and =
thoughtful evaluations<br>
from happening in the future. =A0The proposed overhaul was not introduced a=
s the solution to all the<br>
UA's problems, or as a student government we'll never have to modif=
y again; it's simply a better way<br>
of doing things than what we're doing right now.<br>
<br>
<br>
2. Instead of risking everything with sweeping changes, we should consider =
how we might improve our<br>
structure incrementally.<br>
<br>
My response: =A0Hill-climbing algorithms get stuck at local maxima -- there=
are structures we cannot<br>
explore through incremental change, and some of those may well be the most =
optimal structures.<br>
<br>
<br>
3. One major goal of this restructuring is to improve our credibility with =
administrators, yet no<br>
administrators were consulted while formulating the proposal.<br>
<br>
My response: =A0While administrators may have the "best interest of st=
udents" in mind, their concept of<br>
what qualifies as our best interest sometimes differs from our own. =A0Dini=
ng is one example of such a<br>
misalignment. =A0In light of this, it seems reasonable to start the process=
on our own terms, and<br>
gather input from administrators later (which is exactly what happened).<br=
>
<br>
Furthermore, the push to restructure came from the UA Advisory Committee, t=
he members of which have<br>
far more experience in leading successful organizations than MIT administra=
tors.<br>
<br>
<br>
4. The proposed structure doesn't include enough checks and balances.<b=
r>
<br>
My response: =A0This is a very vague argument. =A0If you have specific exam=
ples, propose amendments.<br>
=A0Don't use this as a reason to vote down the entire proposal.<br>
<br>
It is my opinion that any legitimate argument against the proposed changes =
is a result of the<br>
following procedure:<br>
=A0* =A0Critically evaluate the mission and purpose contained in your bylaw=
s and constitution.<br>
=A0* =A0Decide which elements you believe are necessary, or should be perfo=
rmed by a student government.<br>
=A0* =A0Of those elements, identify one that could not be adequately carrie=
d out under the proposed<br>
=A0 =A0structure.<br>
=A0* =A0Determine whether that element is being sufficiently performed unde=
r the current structure.<br>
=A0* =A0If so, you have an argument.<br>
A good example is DormCon's funding mechanism; this was identified as s=
omething that could not be<br>
adequately handled under the original proposal, and that issue has now been=
resolved with the<br>
creation of the Dorm Funding Committee.<br>
<br>
<br>
I want this to be discussed as much as is needed, so I would encourage you =
to reply-all and get a<br>
discussion going before the meeting tomorrow.<br>
<br>
-hwkns<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Tim Robertson I=
I<br>MIT 2011<br>Mechanical Engineering<br>UA Senate Office Hours:<br>EC-B5=
15 Sunday 5-8pm<br><br>
<div style=3D"visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-inde=
x: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden;=
word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; li=
ne-height: 130%;" id=3D"avg_ls_inline_popup">
</div>
--0015174757d2ea922d04a0d4997c--
