[150] in UA Senate
Re: Resolution to Continue Transparency and Representation throughout
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Youchak)
Sun Oct 18 17:59:13 2009
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:58:58 -0400
From: Paul Youchak <youchakp@MIT.EDU>
To: "Liz A. Denys" <lizdenys@mit.edu>
CC: Sammi Wyman <swyman@mit.edu>, Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu>,
ua-senate@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4ADB87E8.70108@mit.edu>
I have some questions or remarks on the project teams.
I was reading the draft and was trying to find out what it says about
the project teams.
They recommend the formation of four project teams. The project teams
would be used for ideas which are "sufficiently mature, but their
implementation cuts across many units of groups of stakeholders." Later
it remarks, "these project teams should consult with the existing
faculty committees and other standing councils, presidential committees
and working groups that have advisory or governance responsibility in
the relevant areas."
It is my understanding these project teams are for ideas which do not
need further development because they are sufficiently developed. The
teams are created because their implementation will cut across many
different groups/units. They will essentially be working with varying
units to come to decisions. So essentially, I believe these working
teams are essentially no different than the nominal units. The units
are going to be formed for ideas with sufficient maturity and they have
on task. The units will "recommend the next steps [either implement the
idea or respond as to why implementation should not be pursued].
So in essence i do not believe this bill is addressing the issues
properly. It is unclear what these units will be composed of, but I
believe it is going to mainly of administrative/staff composition which
will ultimately work to actually implement the ideas deemed sufficiently
developed so student representation in the units may not be possible.
Secondly, the project teams are just special units which which are being
formed because the ideas cut across boundaries, if you want to be
included in this stuff I believe it be better to be included in the
units not project teams. Lastly, units are suggested "that they
contact or include working working group members as necessary and they
they also take into account community feedback."
I suggest we change our resolution for being included in the project
teams. We can resolve that we want the UA to be included in this
feedback (mentioned above) account for this feedback and that UA
committees and senate be contacted by the units as ideas progress.
If anyone has more information about this than me, which might prove me
wrong let me know, I am just going off what is written in the report.
Best,
Paul Youchak
Paul
> ot going to do either of these because:
>
> 1. They are about two separate thoughts. One is general--we like that
> we are getting more involvement overall, and we would like this trend
> to continue--while the other is specific--the involvement in the
> process so far was good, and we would like this specific process to
> continue to be good.
>
> 2. That the MIT senior leadership provide the MIT community with
> explanations of the reasoning
> behind the cuts ultimately selected for implementation: refers to all
> cuts that will be implemented, not just those in this report.
>
> -Liz
>
> Sammi Wyman wrote:
>> I have two thoughts on this bill. This are more stylistic/ message
>> thoughts than big changes, so I don't think I would propose them as
>> amendments, but you could consider doing so, Liz.
>>
>> 1. I think it would read better if the second and third whereas
>> clauses were somehow combined.
>>
>> 2. I think adding a that clause to address the cuts not coming from
>> proposals in the report might be a nice touch.
>>
>> The idea is great, Thanks for writing this bill.
>>
>> -Sammi (BC)
>> On Oct 18, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Paul Baranay wrote:
>>
>>> http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/2/2.pdf also works :)
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Liz A. Denys <lizdenys@mit.edu
>>> <mailto:lizdenys@mit.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> For those of you who don't like how long the locker's formatting
>>> makes my url:
>>>
>>> http://bit.ly/yFl2L :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Liz A. Denys wrote:
>>>
>>> I wrote a resolution which is available at
>>>
>>> http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/pending/41%20UAS%202.2%20Resolution%20to%20Continue%20Transparency%20and%20Representation%20throughout%20the%20Institute-wide%20Planning%20Process.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For new senators, recall that resolutions are for legislation
>>> where the Senate does not have direct power over seeing it
>>> through, but still strongly believes the proposal put forward
>>> should happen.
>>>
>>> The piece itself is fairly straightforward, but I did want to
>>> clarify a couple of things now and also make myself available
>>> for questions regarding my resolution before Senate.
>>>
>>> Clarification 1: The Project Teams mentioned in the second
>>> "that" statement refers to the Project Teams mentioned in the
>>> Institute-wide Planning Task Force's Preliminary Report.
>>> According to that report, these teams will be formed to
>>> investigate the feasibility of recommendations, and each team
>>> will cover an overarching area of work. Even though Project
>>> Teams may seem vague at first glance (if you did not read that
>>> report), it is referring to something very specific.
>>>
>>> Clarification 2: The third "that" clause points to MIT senior
>>> leadership because they will ultimately make decisions,
>>> whereas the Planning Task Force Coordinators will be giving
>>> forth "final recommendations." These recommendations will have
>>> to be approved by the senior leadership before being
>>> implemented.
>>>
>>> Again, if you have any questions, I'd love to answer them.
>>>
>>> -Liz Denys, UA Secretary General
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Elizabeth A. Denys
>>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Class of 2011
>>> Department of Electrical Engineering
>>> Department of Mathematics
>>> 630.730.1136 | lizdenys@mit.edu <mailto:lizdenys@mit.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
