[152] in UA Senate
Re: Resolution to Continue Transparency and Representation throughout
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Liz A. Denys)
Mon Oct 19 14:55:03 2009
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:54:42 -0400
From: "Liz A. Denys" <lizdenys@MIT.EDU>
To: Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu>
CC: Sammi Wyman <swyman@mit.edu>, Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu>,
ua-senate@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4ADB8FA2.1080604@mit.edu>
The reason I included the Project Teams portion in the resolution is due
to the following:
While the ideas in their recommendations are very mature, the
/implementations/ of these ideas are not. Their implementatiosn will cut
across many "units"/groups, and as such, the report recommends their
implementations to be carefully thought out by these project groups.
We cannot forcefully put students on the project teams; hence, this is a
resolution. However, through this resolution, we create leverage for
talking to the administration about the ongoing budgeting process
because a representative body agrees this is the ideal course of action.
As such, there is no reason we should not request student members on the
project teams because we want as much involvement as possible so as to
ensure undergraduate concerns are addressed as completely as possible.
Forums to gather feedback are already asked for in the resolution for
all cuts, not just for those with Project Teams... we need not mention
that subset explicitly on its own since it's covered under the umbrella
"cuts." Also, just because they are mentioned /as a recommendation/ in
the preliminary report does not mean we should not demand them, as
because the Task Force report itself is just a large /recommendation/.
-Liz Denys, UASG
Paul Youchak wrote:
> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
--
Elizabeth A. Denys
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Class of 2011
Department of Electrical Engineering
Department of Mathematics
630.730.1136 | lizdenys@mit.edu
