[213] in UA Senate
Re: The Elephant in the Treasury
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Hawkins)
Thu Oct 29 02:22:03 2009
Reply-To: hwkns@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <4AE9310A.7090905@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:21:36 -0400
From: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU>
To: Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu>
Cc: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>, UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>,
Tim Jenks <tjenks@mit.edu>, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>
--0015173fe52a69a39d04770cecbd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Presumably, if option 3 is chosen, senate should approve the reallocations
without debate. This is based on the fact that senate passed a bill giving
Alex and the committee chairs the power to reallocate on their own. If the
only thing wrong with that idea is constitutionality, Alex should be able to
present reallocations to senate, saying "committee chairs approved these",
and senate should vote immediately to approve them. This is not all that
inefficient, and could happen multiple times this semester if needed.
Of course, that isn't a long-term solution... I do agree that
constitutional changes should be carefully thought out. But honestly, I
can't see many senators taking issue with changes that the treasurer and
committee chairs have agreed upon. If it's a controversial change, it
probably would have been brought up, debated, and reversed anyway under the
model described in the "unconstitutional" bill. Thus, it is only marginally
less efficient to have senate approve every reallocation.
-hwkns
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
--0015173fe52a69a39d04770cecbd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Presumably, if option 3 is chosen, senate should approve the reallocations =
without debate.=A0 This is based on the fact that senate passed a bill givi=
ng Alex and the committee chairs the power to reallocate on their own.=A0 I=
f the only thing wrong with that idea is constitutionality, Alex should be =
able to present reallocations to senate, saying "committee chairs appr=
oved these", and senate should vote immediately to approve them.=A0 Th=
is is not all that inefficient, and could happen multiple times this semest=
er if needed.<br>
<br>Of course, that isn't a long-term solution...=A0 I do agree that co=
nstitutional changes should be carefully thought out.=A0 But honestly, I ca=
n't see many senators taking issue with changes that the treasurer and =
committee chairs have agreed upon.=A0 If it's a controversial change, i=
t probably would have been brought up, debated, and reversed anyway under t=
he model described in the "unconstitutional" bill.=A0 Thus, it is=
only marginally less efficient to have senate approve every reallocation.<=
br>
<br>-hwkns<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:=
07 AM, Paul Youchak <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:youchakp@mit.ed=
u">youchakp@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt=
0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello Senators,<br>
<br>
I agree very much with the statements of Andrew below. =A0I am not very eag=
er to change our constitution. =A0Taking financial matters (reallocations a=
nd 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 w=
ay of working.<br>
<br>
I am not against giving the treasurer the ability to reallocate these funds=
. =A0However, I do not believe the proposed method is proper. =A0Any change=
s to the constitution need to be well thought out and debated.<br>
<br>
I will not support the bill to modify the constitution as is, and unfortuna=
tely it appears the reallocation bill may die because of this.<br>
<br>
I have a general question for other senators. =A0How do you believe we shou=
ld go about giving the treasurer authority to reallocate these funds? <br>
I think there are ultimately three options,<br>
1. Alter the constitution as currently proposed and authorize the bill for =
reallocation.<br>
2. Alter the constitution with direct reference to the reallocation bill (i=
n other words put constraints on who the senate may give such authority)<br=
>
3. Have the treasurer present reallocations to senate, for approval, at an =
appropriate time during the semester.<br>
<br>
Feel free to present other ideas of how this can be done. =A0I strongly pre=
fer option three, however, this is not ideal for our treasurer as it consum=
es a lot of his time.<br>
<br>
Best,<br><font color=3D"#888888">
Paul</font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
Andrew Lukmann wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hey Senators!<br>
<br>
I'm just going to throw this out there, so take it or leave it...<br>
<br>
The Senate needs to make sure that it is careful and deliberate in how it d=
elegates its authority, particularly with regards to funding. In the eyes o=
f the administration, the student body and the rest of the MIT community, t=
he Senate has the power of the purse within the UA. Therefore if anyone (no=
w or in the future) is irresponsible, lax or abusive with their delegated a=
uthority, in the end, Senate will get tagged for it.<br>
<br>
In addition... never make the assumption that future students picking up co=
re documents like the UA Constitution will have any accurate information re=
garding the circumstances under which a change was made. The UA, like most =
student groups, has extremely rapid turnover and such institutional knowled=
ge is often lost or ignored. A change made as a one time exception today co=
uld quickly turn into standard operating procedure in just a few short year=
s. Alex's amusing example of giving funding authority over UA funds to =
a DormCon officer is really not so far fetched.<br>
<br>
In the end, I would advise you guys to keep Senate involved as closely as p=
ossible in the approval and disapproval of budget elements as possible. In =
the end, couldn't Alex's proposal of endowing the Treasurer with th=
ese new powers be accomplished just as easily by having the Treasurer submi=
t to Senate amendments to the budget partway through the term as informatio=
n about spending needs and trends become known? This would preserve the Sen=
ate's constitutional responsibility to have power over the budget while=
providing additional flexibility to react to the changing needs of the com=
mittees (and the balance of the executive).<br>
<br>
Be thoughtful and well reasoned in your actions.<br>
<br>
Yours in the UA,<br>
-Andrew L.<br>
<br>
<br>
Alex Dehnert wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Tim Jenks wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hey Senate,<br>
As far as I'm aware, 41 U.A.S<br>
2.3<<a href=3D"http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/pending/41%20UAS%202.3=
%20Bill%20to%20Authorize%20the%20Treasurer%20to%20Reallocate%20Money%20to%2=
0Student%20Groups.pdf" target=3D"_blank">http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41=
/pending/41%20UAS%202.3%20Bill%20to%20Authorize%20the%20Treasurer%20to%20Re=
allocate%20Money%20to%20Student%20Groups.pdf</a>>is <br>
either postponed or tabled, and last meeting we chose not to discuss<br>
the<br>
bill to amend the constitution because it was such a sudden and significant=
<br>
proposition. =A0I assumed we shot that down so we could discuss the best wa=
y<br>
to go about passing this bill, but there seems to be an elephant in<br>
the way<<a href=3D"http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/377437969_d0f88c63=
42.jpg" target=3D"_blank">http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/377437969_d0f8=
8c6342.jpg</a>>of<br>
discussion. =A0 We should save some precious Monday night time by<br>
debating<br>
what we should do about this bill now, so no more bills come as a surprise<=
br>
during the meeting.<br>
</blockquote>
I certainly agree with this sentiment...<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
If even possible, I would like to see this reallocation<br>
bill get passed without amending the constitution, but from what Liz tells<=
br>
me this probably isn't possible. =A0Thus, 41 U.A.S.<br>
4.1<<a href=3D"http://web.mit.edu/ua/officers/treasurer/Public/FY10/2009=
-10-moving-money/constitution.pdf" target=3D"_blank">http://web.mit.edu/ua/=
officers/treasurer/Public/FY10/2009-10-moving-money/constitution.pdf</a>>=
;seems <br>
to be a starting point. =A0I agree with Hawkins that the Whereas clause<br>
is a bit harsh,<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I, uh, wrote it somewhat quickly. Ryan's replacement:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Whereas it is far more efficient for Senate to delegate its financial autho=
rity in certain matters; and Whereas it is not a productive use of the Sena=
te's time to micromanage and debate certain matters<br>
</blockquote>
seems pretty good.<br>
<br>
> and personally I would like to see restraints on who Senate<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
can delegate its power of financial authority to, although I'm not sure=
if<br>
this is getting too specific within the Constitution itself.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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 amendmen=
t. Majority vote (or, if the policy is something like a reserve allocation =
that requires a supermajority, that supermajority) seems plenty. "Trus=
t 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.<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
--Tim Jenks<br>
Fraternities Representative<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for bringing this up again.<br>
<br>
~~Alex<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--0015173fe52a69a39d04770cecbd--
