[207] in UA Senate
Re: The Elephant in the Treasury
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Dehnert)
Wed Oct 28 23:45:10 2009
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:44:49 -0400
From: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@MIT.EDU>
To: Tim Jenks <tjenks@mit.edu>
CC: ua-senate@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <a0c7d52e0910282034h27e0d35aw546ab3ad8e3ca9f8@mail.gmail.com>
Tim Jenks wrote:
> Hey Senate,
> As far as I'm aware, 41 U.A.S
> 2.3<http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/pending/41%20UAS%202.3%20Bill%20to%20Authorize%20the%20Treasurer%20to%20Reallocate%20Money%20to%20Student%20Groups.pdf>is
> either postponed or tabled, and last meeting we chose not to discuss
> the
> bill to amend the constitution because it was such a sudden and significant
> proposition. I assumed we shot that down so we could discuss the best way
> to go about passing this bill, but there seems to be an elephant in
> the way<http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/377437969_d0f88c6342.jpg>of
> discussion. We should save some precious Monday night time by
> debating
> what we should do about this bill now, so no more bills come as a surprise
> during the meeting.
I certainly agree with this sentiment...
> If even possible, I would like to see this reallocation
> bill get passed without amending the constitution, but from what Liz tells
> me this probably isn't possible. Thus, 41 U.A.S.
> 4.1<http://web.mit.edu/ua/officers/treasurer/Public/FY10/2009-10-moving-money/constitution.pdf>seems
> to be a starting point. I agree with Hawkins that the Whereas clause
> is a bit harsh,
I, uh, wrote it somewhat quickly. Ryan's replacement:
> Whereas it is far more efficient for Senate to delegate its financial authority in certain matters; and
> Whereas it is not a productive use of the Senate's time to micromanage and debate certain matters
seems pretty good.
> and personally I would like to see restraints on who Senate
> can delegate its power of financial authority to, although I'm not sure if
> this is getting too specific within the Constitution itself.
I think it is too specific for the constitution. I think if Senate
decides to delegate some financial policy to... I dunno, the Dormcon
housing chair, to pick something fairly wild... it shouldn't require
another amendment. Majority vote (or, if the policy is something like a
reserve allocation that requires a supermajority, that supermajority)
seems plenty. "Trust your future selves," as somebody in another group
I'm in put it in discussions of *their* constitution. The Constitution
"should" be able to stay static for years.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Tim Jenks
> Fraternities Representative
>
Thanks for bringing this up again.
~~Alex
