[212] in UA Senate
Re: The Elephant in the Treasury
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Youchak)
Thu Oct 29 02:11:43 2009
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:07:06 -0400
From: Paul Youchak <youchakp@MIT.EDU>
To: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>
CC: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>, Tim Jenks <tjenks@mit.edu>,
Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4AE91B2D.80006@mit.edu>
Hello Senators,
I agree very much with the statements of Andrew below. I am not very
eager to change our constitution. Taking financial matters
(reallocations and so forth) to senate may be inefficient and more time
consuming than one could hope for, but I still believe it is the most
transparent and safest way of working.
I am not against giving the treasurer the ability to reallocate these
funds. However, I do not believe the proposed method is proper. Any
changes to the constitution need to be well thought out and debated.
I will not support the bill to modify the constitution as is, and
unfortunately it appears the reallocation bill may die because of this.
I have a general question for other senators. How do you believe we
should go about giving the treasurer authority to reallocate these funds?
I think there are ultimately three options,
1. Alter the constitution as currently proposed and authorize the bill
for reallocation.
2. Alter the constitution with direct reference to the reallocation bill
(in other words put constraints on who the senate may give such authority)
3. Have the treasurer present reallocations to senate, for approval, at
an appropriate time during the semester.
Feel free to present other ideas of how this can be done. I strongly
prefer option three, however, this is not ideal for our treasurer as it
consumes a lot of his time.
Best,
Paul
Andrew Lukmann wrote:
> 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
>
