[153] in UA Senate
Re: Resolution to Continue Transparency and Representation throughout
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Youchak)
Mon Oct 19 15:13:14 2009
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:13:08 -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: <4ADCB5F2.9070706@mit.edu>
Thanks for the response, I see where you guys are coming from now.
Paul
Liz A. Denys wrote:
> 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>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
