[211] in UA Senate
Re: The Elephant in the Treasury
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Lukmann)
Thu Oct 29 00:34:07 2009
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:33:49 -0400
From: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@MIT.EDU>
To: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
CC: Tim Jenks <tjenks@mit.edu>, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4AE90FB1.9090001@mit.edu>
Hey Senators!
I'm just going to throw this out there, so take it or leave it...
The Senate needs to make sure that it is careful and deliberate in how
it delegates its authority, particularly with regards to funding. In the
eyes of the administration, the student body and the rest of the MIT
community, the Senate has the power of the purse within the UA.
Therefore if anyone (now or in the future) is irresponsible, lax or
abusive with their delegated authority, in the end, Senate will get
tagged for it.
In addition... never make the assumption that future students picking up
core documents like the UA Constitution will have any accurate
information regarding the circumstances under which a change was made.
The UA, like most student groups, has extremely rapid turnover and such
institutional knowledge is often lost or ignored. A change made as a one
time exception today could quickly turn into standard operating
procedure in just a few short years. Alex's amusing example of giving
funding authority over UA funds to a DormCon officer is really not so
far fetched.
In the end, I would advise you guys to keep Senate involved as closely
as possible in the approval and disapproval of budget elements as
possible. In the end, couldn't Alex's proposal of endowing the Treasurer
with these new powers be accomplished just as easily by having the
Treasurer submit to Senate amendments to the budget partway through the
term as information about spending needs and trends become known? This
would preserve the Senate's constitutional responsibility to have power
over the budget while providing additional flexibility to react to the
changing needs of the committees (and the balance of the executive).
Be thoughtful and well reasoned in your actions.
Yours in the UA,
-Andrew L.
Alex Dehnert wrote:
> 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
