[215] in UA Senate
Re: The Elephant in the Treasury
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Dahan)
Thu Oct 29 11:12:13 2009
In-Reply-To: <e7b2d5b80910290658n59f4d8b8u8f88aec31ab0b13b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:11:29 -0400
From: Richard Dahan <rdahan@MIT.EDU>
To: Steve Kelch <phire14@gmail.com>
Cc: hwkns@mit.edu, Paul Youchak <youchakp@mit.edu>,
Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>, UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>,
Tim Jenks <tjenks@mit.edu>, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>
--0016e6d5667a854fb00477145364
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
The primary objection I heard (from Alex the Treasurer and others) to this
Option 3 of having Senate approve every single change -- instead of just
having the ability to revoke such reallocations -- is that it would be
extremely inefficient. Namely, if the treasurer would put in intense effort
to check in on the committees and propose such re-allocations, only to have
them shot down or debated for hours in Senate, that would be less than
ideal. Please correct me if this is not your primary objection.
I can definitely understand where this objection is coming from. For this
semester's budget, for example, we spent <2 hours looking over and revising
Alex's proposed budget in the Senate Budget Committee to get it ready for
the Senate. It took far more than 2 hours to approve it in the Senate.
That said, I wholeheartedly support Option 3. As far as I see it, there are
two types of re-allocations: (1) simple, accounting reallocations (i.e. the
Athletics committee spent less than it was expecting on an event), on which
I have faith that the Senate won't debate for long; and (2) more complex,
ambiguous re-allocations, such as the Committee on Student Life not spending
any money in a semester because it didn't do anything (I only use that
example because I know it would never happen). The second type of
reallocations will indeed be debated, and they should be debated. It is
Senate's job to do this.
Moreover, is there any reason why we wouldn't just present these
reallocations all at once (ideally sufficiently before the FinBoard meets to
determine their final budget for the next semester)? If we do approve all of
them simultaneously, the treasurer wouldn't have to bring these up at every
single Senate meeting. True, this would be one long Senate meeting, but it
wouldn't be nearly as long as the meetings we already have to approve the
budget. Again, please let me know if there's any specific reason why you
wouldn't want to discuss all of these re-allocations at once.
In light of this previous point, it seems to me like this is a no-brainer.
If we discuss all of these reallocations in a single meeting, then the only
difference between options 1/2 and 3 is whether we discuss them before or
after Alex makes them. Given that, and given the difficulty of changing the
Constitution to fit options 1/2 (i.e. clear opposition in the Senate), does
it not make sense to just go with Option 3?
- Richard
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Steve Kelch <phire14@gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys don't have to change the Constitution at all, or even pass any
> legislation.
>
> The objection from the Judicial Board was that Senate was making a post
> facto decision about finances, potentially losing its 'final authority'
> especially in cases where the reallocation may get rejected but after the
> money has already been spent. So... if the Treasurer feels that funds need
> to be reallocated, a simple motion within the Senate to approve the
> reallocation before the reallocation takes place is enough to accomplish
> this task, according to JudBoard.
>
> Why even remove the debate from the matter? Just treat it like a regular
> motion. If the Treasurer knows there will be debate on the topic, it is
> within his interest to use these motions sparingly, and to lump as many
> together as possible. It's within the Senate's interest to approve an
> accurate budget at the beginning of the year.
>
> Aren't you all meeting more regularly now? One or two weeks lead time isn't
> enough to plan for a major reallocation? I would reject the notion that it's
> not worth Senate's time to 'micromanage' the budget. It's not really
> micromanaging if you are explicitly recognizing funding shortfalls and
> misallocations for future Senates to note. The Treasurer manages the
> finances, but the Senate manages the budget. That's a large part of your job
> description, and to hand it away because you don't want to take 10 minutes
> at a meeting to talk about 'just a few hundred dollars' seems short sighted
> and lazy.
>
> From my perspective, you all are trying to *amend the Constitution* to fix
> a problem that doesn't exist. You already have every tool and every check
> and balance already in place.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
--0016e6d5667a854fb00477145364
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The primary objection I heard (from Alex the Treasurer and others) to this =
Option 3 of having Senate approve every single change -- instead of just ha=
ving the ability to revoke such reallocations -- is that it would be extrem=
ely inefficient. Namely, if the treasurer would put in intense effort to ch=
eck in on the committees and propose such re-allocations, only to have them=
shot down or debated for hours in Senate, that would be less than ideal. P=
lease correct me if this is not your primary objection.<div>
<br></div><div>I can definitely understand where this objection is coming f=
rom. For this semester's budget, for example, we spent <2 hours look=
ing over and revising Alex's proposed budget in the Senate Budget Commi=
ttee to get it ready for the Senate. It took far more than 2 hours to appro=
ve it in the Senate.</div>
<div><br></div><div>That said, I wholeheartedly support Option 3. As far as=
I see it, there are two types of re-allocations: (1) simple, accounting re=
allocations (i.e. the Athletics committee spent less than it was expecting =
on an event), on which I have faith that the Senate won't debate for lo=
ng; and (2) more complex, ambiguous re-allocations, such as the Committee o=
n Student Life not spending any money in a semester because it didn't d=
o anything (I only use that example because I know it would never happen). =
The second type of reallocations will indeed be debated, and they <span cla=
ss=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-style: italic;">should</span>=A0be de=
bated. It is Senate's job to do this.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Moreover, is there any reason why we wouldn't just =
present these reallocations all at once (ideally sufficiently before the Fi=
nBoard meets to determine their final budget for the next semester)? If we =
do approve all of them simultaneously, the treasurer wouldn't have to b=
ring these up at every single Senate meeting. True, this would be one long =
Senate meeting, but it wouldn't be nearly as long as the meetings we al=
ready have to approve the budget. Again, please let me know if there's =
any specific reason why you wouldn't want to discuss all of these re-al=
locations at once.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In light of this previous point, it seems to me like th=
is is a no-brainer. If we discuss all of these reallocations in a single me=
eting, then the only difference between options 1/2 and 3 is whether we dis=
cuss them before or after Alex makes them. Given that, and given the diffic=
ulty of changing the Constitution to fit options 1/2 (i.e. clear opposition=
in the Senate), does it not make sense to just go with Option 3?</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Richard</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Steve Kelch <span dir=3D"=
ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:phire14@gmail.com">phire14@gmail.com</a>></sp=
an> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">You guys don't have to change the Const=
itution at all, or even pass any legislation. <br><br>The objection from th=
e Judicial Board was that Senate was making a post facto decision about fin=
ances, potentially losing its 'final authority' especially in cases=
where the reallocation may get rejected but after the money has already be=
en spent. So... if the Treasurer feels that funds need to be reallocated, a=
simple motion within the Senate to approve the reallocation before the rea=
llocation takes place is enough to accomplish this task, according to JudBo=
ard.<br>
<br>Why even remove the debate from the matter? Just treat it like a
regular motion. If the Treasurer knows there will be debate on the
topic, it is within his interest to use these motions sparingly, and to
lump as many together as possible. It's within the Senate's interes=
t to
approve an accurate budget at the beginning of the year.<br><br>Aren't =
you all meeting more regularly now? One or two weeks lead time isn't en=
ough to plan for a major reallocation? I would reject the notion that it=
9;s not worth Senate's time to 'micromanage' the budget. It'=
;s not really micromanaging if you are explicitly recognizing funding short=
falls and misallocations for future Senates to note. The Treasurer manages =
the finances, but the Senate manages the budget. That's a large part of=
your job description, and to hand it away because you don't want to ta=
ke 10 minutes at a meeting to talk about 'just a few hundred dollars=
9; seems short sighted and lazy.<br>
<br>From my perspective, you all are trying to *amend the Constitution* to =
fix a problem that doesn't exist. You already have every tool and every=
check and balance already in place.<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Daniel Hawkins <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:hwkns@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">hwkns@mit.edu</a>></span> =
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">
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<div><div></div><div><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Th=
u, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Paul Youchak <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:youchakp@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">youchakp@mit.edu</a>></span> w=
rote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 2=
04, 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><br>
<br>
Andrew Lukmann wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 2=
04, 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, 2=
04, 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, 2=
04, 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, 2=
04, 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, 2=
04, 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, 2=
04, 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, 2=
04, 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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--0016e6d5667a854fb00477145364--
