[24] in UA Senate
Re: Summer Update: Constitution Committee
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Kelch)
Sun Aug 16 08:13:10 2009
In-Reply-To: <4A8739D6.2090807@mit.edu>
From: Steve Kelch <steve.kelch@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:12:42 -0400
To: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>
Cc: Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu>, ua-senate@mit.edu
--000e0cd23f36fa20a30471413478
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I agree with almost all of Andrew's points in essentially the same way he
said them.
The only one that I would disagree with is S/VS non-representation. I don't
think that the Speaker should ever be representing a constituency (I
disagree with even the US Senate in this provision) but should still retain
a tie-breaking vote - thus, in the end, an impartial juror decides when the
body cannot.
The Vice-Speaker is trickier... if he is not representing a constituency AND
he participates in the debates then you've reached a non-elected partial
voice with influence in the Senate. But if he doesn't participate in the
debate then he just becomes an administrator until the Speaker is sick. I
would say that it is wise to allow the Vice-Speaker to be a representative.
In the event the VS has to take over for the Speaker, the constituency loses
a voice in the debate but still retains the tie-breaking (or tie-making,
don't forget) vote. Include a provision allowing the Vice to appoint a proxy
on the spot if one is available to help mitigate the loss.
My two cents.
Steve
Also UA Cruft
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu> wrote:
> Hey Paul,
>
> These look like some pretty good ideas that tend to address peculiar
> inconsistencies that are largely artifacts from old operating procedures in
> the UA (e.g. Senate rep to Exec only exists because it replaced the Senate
> Rep to the Coordinating Committee). That said, I think that there are a
> couple of changes that I think might prove unwise and should be
> reconsidered:
>
> 1) *Changes to the budget review committee*.
> This committee was originally intended to be an expressly legislative
> (Senate-side) body operating under the Senate's "power of the purse" purview
> to control and oversee the UA's finances. In a similar way to the U.S.
> Government, in which the Executive (through the OMB) crafts and submits a
> budget to the legislature for review, revision and approval, in the UA, the
> President and the Treasurer craft and propose a budget for review and
> approval by the Senate. In the same way that congress has committee on
> appropriations, we added a budget review committee to take a fine-toothed
> comb to the proposed budget and make recommendations to the broader Senate.
> This committee was never intended to "represent Senate and Exec equally" -
> the Exec has the opportunity to make its statement in the budget itself.
> Changing the dynamics of this committee to include fewer senators and making
> the Treasurer the chair of this committee would amount to making the head of
> the OMB the ex-officio chairman of the appropriations committees and would
> eliminate a meaningful check on executive power. It is already far too easy
> for the Senate to simply rubber stamp the (often wafteful) proposed budgets
> - why would you want to make this easier?
>
> 2) *Changes to the qualifications for Speaker/Vice Speaker*
> It's a fairly well-established practice that the incoming key officers of
> the Speaker must be veterans of that institution, and as a former Speaker, I
> can say that there are important reasons for keeping this unchanged. Members
> of the body learn much about the common practices and traditions of the body
> that carry on from year to year. They understand proper procedure and the
> dynamics of running an often unwieldy body in meetings that can carry on as
> long as six or seven hours. The senate, more than other bodies in the UA has
> remained fairly consistent in its practices (despite high levels of
> turnover) largely because there has always been some consistency and overlap
> in its leadership. Earlier in your document you propose (probably correctly)
> removing the requirement that ex-officio non voting members attend regular
> meetings. As such, by then making them eligible for the Speakership, you
> open up the potential of electing a Speaker that has never attended a Senate
> meeting. This will have important long term ramification on the character of
> the body that should be considered more closely.
>
> Other thoughts:
> Suspending the Bylaws (broadly) is in there largely to be consistent with
> common practice and with Robert's Rules.
> Also, having the Speaker and Vice Chairs be elected Senators is also
> consistent with common practice (e.g. the Speaker of the U.S. House is
> chosen from the elected membership). As a result, in the past, Speakers that
> were elected during the previous session that either chose not to run in
> their constituencies or lost the election still stood as Speaker, but
> refrained from exercising their ability to break ties in that circumstance.
> That said, I don't think that it's necessarily a bad idea to exempt the
> speaker and the vice-chair from the elected/voting body but you will have to
> decide whether the Speaker will retain the ability to break tie votes even
> if they were not popularly elected.
>
> Please write back with any thoughts...
>
> Yours,
> Andrew L.
> UA Cruft
>
>
>
> Paul Baranay wrote:
>
>> Hey Senate,
>>
>> I hope you are all having a great summer. The Constitution Committee has
>> been hard at work reviewing and revising the UA's governing documents, and I
>> wanted to take a moment to update you on some of the most important changes
>> to the Senate Bylaws. (As a reminder, none of these recommendations are
>> binding on the UA; the Senate must still vote on all changes for them to
>> have effect.)
>>
>> * Changed the name of the Senate Vice-Chair to Senate Vice-Speaker.
>> Reasoning: Aesthetics, consistency.
>>
>> * Explicitly added that the Speaker and Vice-Speaker shall not be
>> Senators.
>> Reasoning: The Speaker is supposed to be impartial, and so cannot
>> adequately represent a constituency's interests and also chair a Senate
>> meeting. Similarly, if the Vice-Speaker is also a living group's Senator,
>> but needs to take over for the Speaker and chair the meeting, that living
>> group would effectively lose a vote.
>>
>> * Chairman of all UA committees (including ad hoc committees) are ex
>> officio, non-voting members of Senate. They can sponsor legislation.
>> Moreover, ex officio members are no longer required to attend Senate, but
>> can be compelled to attend a Senate meeting given 48 hours notice (in order
>> for Senate to ask their opinion on a bill, for instance).
>> Reasoning:
>> * We are discussing consolidating the structure of the Executive
>> Committees; you can read about this in our minutes. Bennie will be emailing
>> the committee chairs to get their feedback shortly; likewise, a report with
>> more details will also be coming out soon.
>>
>> * UA Treasurer shall "oversee" Finboard (but not chair it), much like the
>> Secretary General currently oversees the Communications Committee and the
>> History Committee.
>> Reasoning:
>> * We are considering removing Senate Representative to Exec, but not this
>> hasn't actually been implemented. What do you all think?
>> Reasoning: The Senate Rep to Exec's function is basically performed by the
>> Speaker and Vice-Speaker.
>>
>> * The Special Senate Budgetary Committee, which is charged with reviewing
>> the UA Operating Budget, will now be chaired by the Treasurer and will
>> consist of the Treasurer, the Speaker, and the President, plus one Senator
>> and one member of Senate (who could be a Senator or an ex officio member)
>> chosen by the Speaker. (Previously the committee was chaired by the Speaker
>> and consisted of the President, Vice President, Speaker, Treasurer, and
>> three Senators chosen by the Speaker.)
>> Reasoning: Changing the committee chair made since from a financial
>> perspective. Likewise, having a smaller committee that still adequately
>> represented Senate and Exec equally seemed more ideal for getting things
>> done.
>>
>> * The candidates for Speaker and Vice Speaker elections must be current or
>> past members of Senate. Prior, the candidates for Speaker had to be current
>> or past voting members (i.e. a Senator) and the candidates for Vice Speaker
>> had to be current voting members.
>> Reasoning: First, having identical requirements for Speaker and Vice
>> Speaker seemed sensible. Second, we wanted the requirements to be more
>> open. If Senate feels that candidates are not experienced enough, they can
>> indicate that during the discussion and the voting; a provision in the
>> bylaws forbidding this did not seem necessary.
>>
>> * Suspension of bylaws
>> We're talking about removing the suspension provisions in the bylaws, and
>> instead allowing only individual clauses to be suspended. Which sections do
>> you believe should be suspendable? Being able to suspend the agenda seems
>> obvious - but what else?
>>
>> Please feel free to reply-all to this email with your thoughts.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Paul
>> ---
>> Speaker of the UA Senate
>> Co-Chair, Constitutional Committee
>>
>
>
--000e0cd23f36fa20a30471413478
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree with almost all of Andrew's points in essentially the same way =
he said them. <br><br>The only one that I would disagree with is S/VS non-r=
epresentation. I don't think that the Speaker should ever be representi=
ng a constituency (I disagree with even the US Senate in this provision) bu=
t should still retain a tie-breaking vote - thus, in the end, an impartial =
juror decides when the body cannot. <br>
<br>The Vice-Speaker is trickier... if he is not representing a constituenc=
y AND he participates in the debates then you've reached a non-elected =
partial voice with influence in the Senate. But if he doesn't participa=
te in the debate then he just becomes an administrator until the Speaker is=
sick. I would say that it is wise to allow the Vice-Speaker to be a repres=
entative. In the event the VS has to take over for the Speaker, the constit=
uency loses a voice in the debate but still retains the tie-breaking (or ti=
e-making, don't forget) vote. Include a provision allowing the Vice to =
appoint a proxy on the spot if one is available to help mitigate the loss.<=
br>
<br>My two cents.<br> Steve<br>Also UA Cruft<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Andrew Lukmann <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lukymann@mit.edu">lukymann@mit.edu</a>></span> wrot=
e:<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 Paul,<br>
<br>
These look like some pretty good ideas that tend to address peculiar incons=
istencies that are largely artifacts from old operating procedures in the U=
A (e.g. Senate rep to Exec only exists because it replaced the Senate Rep t=
o the Coordinating Committee). That said, I think that there are a couple o=
f changes that I think might prove unwise and should be reconsidered:<br>
<br>
1) *Changes to the budget review committee*.<br>
This committee was originally intended to be an expressly legislative (Sena=
te-side) body operating under the Senate's "power of the purse&quo=
t; purview to control and oversee the UA's finances. In a similar way t=
o the U.S. Government, in which the Executive (through the OMB) crafts and =
submits a budget to the legislature for review, revision and approval, in t=
he UA, the President and the Treasurer craft and propose a budget for revie=
w and approval by the Senate. In the same way that congress has committee o=
n appropriations, we added a budget review committee to take a fine-toothed=
comb to the proposed budget and make recommendations to the broader Senate=
. This committee was never intended to "represent Senate and Exec equa=
lly" - the Exec has the opportunity to make its statement in the budge=
t itself. Changing the dynamics of this committee to include fewer senators=
and making the Treasurer the chair of this committee would amount to makin=
g the head of the OMB the ex-officio chairman of the appropriations committ=
ees and would eliminate a meaningful check on executive power. It is alread=
y far too easy for the Senate to simply rubber stamp the (often wafteful) p=
roposed budgets - why would you want to make this easier?<br>
<br>
2) *Changes to the qualifications for Speaker/Vice Speaker*<br>
It's a fairly well-established practice that the incoming key officers =
of the Speaker must be veterans of that institution, and as a former Speake=
r, I can say that there are important reasons for keeping this unchanged. M=
embers of the body learn much about the common practices and traditions of =
the body that carry on from year to year. They understand proper procedure =
and the dynamics of running an often unwieldy body in meetings that can car=
ry on as long as six or seven hours. The senate, more than other bodies in =
the UA has remained fairly consistent in its practices (despite high levels=
of turnover) largely because there has always been some consistency and ov=
erlap in its leadership. Earlier in your document you propose (probably cor=
rectly) removing the requirement that ex-officio non voting members attend =
regular meetings. As such, by then making them eligible for the Speakership=
, you open up the potential of electing a Speaker that has never attended a=
Senate meeting. This will have important long term ramification on the cha=
racter of the body that should be considered more closely.<br>
<br>
Other thoughts:<br>
Suspending the Bylaws (broadly) is in there largely to be consistent with c=
ommon practice and with Robert's Rules.<br>
Also, having the Speaker and Vice Chairs be elected Senators is also consis=
tent with common practice (e.g. the Speaker of the U.S. House is chosen fro=
m the elected membership). As a result, in the past, Speakers that were ele=
cted during the previous session that either chose not to run in their cons=
tituencies or lost the election still stood as Speaker, but refrained from =
exercising their ability to break ties in that circumstance. That said, I d=
on't think that it's necessarily a bad idea to exempt the speaker a=
nd the vice-chair from the elected/voting body but you will have to decide =
whether the Speaker will retain the ability to break tie votes even if they=
were not popularly elected.<br>
<br>
Please write back with any thoughts...<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
Andrew L.<br>
UA Cruft<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
Paul Baranay 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>
<br>
I hope you are all having a great summer. =A0The Constitution Committee has=
been hard at work reviewing and revising the UA's governing documents,=
and I wanted to take a moment to update you on some of the most important =
changes to the Senate Bylaws. =A0(As a reminder, none of these recommendati=
ons are binding on the UA; the Senate must still vote on all changes for th=
em to have effect.)<br>
<br>
* Changed the name of the Senate Vice-Chair to Senate Vice-Speaker.<br>
Reasoning: Aesthetics, consistency.<br>
<br>
* Explicitly added that the Speaker and Vice-Speaker shall not be Senators.=
<br>
Reasoning: The Speaker is supposed to be impartial, and so cannot adequatel=
y represent a constituency's interests and also chair a Senate meeting.=
Similarly, if the Vice-Speaker is also a living group's Senator, but n=
eeds to take over for the Speaker and chair the meeting, that living group =
would effectively lose a vote.<br>
<br>
* Chairman of all UA committees (including ad hoc committees) are ex offici=
o, non-voting members of Senate. =A0They can sponsor legislation. =A0Moreov=
er, ex officio members are no longer required to attend Senate, but can be =
compelled to attend a Senate meeting given 48 hours notice (in order for Se=
nate to ask their opinion on a bill, for instance).<br>
Reasoning: <br>
* We are discussing consolidating the structure of the Executive Committees=
; you can read about this in our minutes. =A0Bennie will be emailing the co=
mmittee chairs to get their feedback shortly; likewise, a report with more =
details will also be coming out soon.<br>
<br>
* UA Treasurer shall "oversee" Finboard (but not chair it), much =
like the Secretary General currently oversees the Communications Committee =
and the History Committee.<br>
Reasoning: <br>
* We are considering removing Senate Representative to Exec, but not this h=
asn't actually been implemented. =A0What do you all think?<br>
Reasoning: The Senate Rep to Exec's function is basically performed by =
the Speaker and Vice-Speaker.<br>
<br>
* The Special Senate Budgetary Committee, which is charged with reviewing t=
he UA Operating Budget, will now be chaired by the Treasurer and will consi=
st of the Treasurer, the Speaker, and the President, plus one Senator and o=
ne member of Senate (who could be a Senator or an ex officio member) chosen=
by the Speaker. =A0(Previously the committee was chaired by the Speaker an=
d consisted of the President, Vice President, Speaker, Treasurer, and three=
Senators chosen by the Speaker.)<br>
Reasoning: Changing the committee chair made since from a financial perspec=
tive. Likewise, having a smaller committee that still adequately represente=
d Senate and Exec equally seemed more ideal for getting things done.<br>
<br>
* The candidates for Speaker and Vice Speaker elections must be current or =
past members of Senate. =A0Prior, the candidates for Speaker had to be curr=
ent or past voting members (i.e. a Senator) and the candidates for Vice Spe=
aker had to be current voting members.<br>
Reasoning: First, having identical requirements for Speaker and Vice Speake=
r seemed sensible. =A0Second, we wanted the requirements to be more open. =
=A0If Senate feels that candidates are not experienced enough, they can ind=
icate that during the discussion and the voting; a provision in the bylaws =
forbidding this did not seem necessary.<br>
<br>
* Suspension of bylaws<br>
=A0We're talking about removing the suspension provisions in the bylaws=
, and instead allowing only individual clauses to be suspended. Which secti=
ons do you believe should be suspendable? Being able to suspend the agenda =
seems obvious - but what else?<br>
<br>
Please feel free to reply-all to this email with your thoughts.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
Paul<br>
---<br>
Speaker of the UA Senate<br>
Co-Chair, Constitutional Committee<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--000e0cd23f36fa20a30471413478--
