[262] in UA Senate
Re: 41UAS4.1 "Final Authority"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Quentin Smith)
Fri Nov 6 13:55:40 2009
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:55:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Quentin Smith <quentin@MIT.EDU>
To: Richard Dahan <rdahan@mit.edu>
cc: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>, UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <d2c0085f0911061008jffa857budd5ea36bc144735d@mail.gmail.com>
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
---1257051904-101545347-1257533727=:20997
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
I very much think the bill, even as amended, is still a terrible idea. I=20
think the only reason to remove the Senate from the loop is if something=20
needs to happen with more urgency than the Senate can provide. If Senate=20
is meeting every week this year, that's a pretty high bar, and I don't see=
=20
how a few hundred dollars here or there would make a difference if=20
transferred a few days early.
How often are we expecting these transfers to need to occur, anyway? I=20
can't really imagine that happening more than a few times per semester. I=
=20
think Alex should just briefly announce at a Senate meeting the proposed=20
set of transfers and get a simple vote of approval. This doesn't need to=20
take much time at all, and indeed, if it does, it indicates that something=
=20
is contentious and shouldn't have skipped Senate anyway.
--Quentin
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Richard Dahan wrote:
> I personally hope that it does sail through Senate on Monday. I'm not 100=
% sure I like the whereas clauses, but I do indeed support the That
> clause, which I will focus on in this e-mail.=A0
> This essentially gives the Senate more freedom without taking away power.=
It addresses all of the concerns I initially had with the bill. In a
> year when we have a great treasurer (like now), Senate can choose to dele=
gate power; but when we don't, we're not forced to do anything. If we're
> worried about individual committees not doing their jobs, we can just emp=
lace the appropriate "limitations," probably a combination notifications
> and waiting periods.
>=20
> The only situation for which this bill would be unwise is if in a given y=
ear, the Senate is lazy and delegates this responsibility to the
> treasurer and doesn't follow up, and the treasurer isn't on top of things=
, and the committees don't do their jobs. I chose to have faith in the UA
> that this will never happen, and even if it does, the UA will have bigger=
problems than this bill.
>=20
> Kudos to Alex for overcoming opposition in Senate and persevering over a =
dragging-out of the issue to produce what I consider a fine piece of
> legislation. Great job indeed.
>=20
> I hope the senators reading this will take these arguments into account w=
hen deciding whether or not to vote for this on Monday, or how long to
> debate before voting. I personally see nothing wrong with this, but I of =
course would love to hear your reasoning if you disagree.
>=20
> - RIchard
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu> wrote:
> Did anyone have any thoughts about this bill? Or questions about wh=
y it is good? Or... anything else?
>
> Should I be assuming from the silence that nobody has issues, and i=
t'll sail through Senate on Monday (once it (hopefully) gets off
> the table)? I mean, I wouldn't mind that... I'm just a little doubt=
ful.
>
> ~~Alex
>=20
>=20
> Alex Dehnert wrote:
> Sorry about how late this is getting out... As I mentioned in my FP=
RC email, I've been distracted by various things (including
> by the FPRC, at least from cleaning up 4.1...).
>
> Fundamentally, I believe that Senate should be able to delegate aut=
hority in general, not just because of the reallocation bill.
> The reallocation bill is itself a fairly minor thing --- it'd sway =
a couple thousand dollars (out of about a hundred thousand
> dollars) to student groups. If the bill doesn't pass, I won't actua=
lly be very sad (among other reasons, I'm not actually in
> many student groups that get money from Finboard, so I'm only barel=
y personally affected by this...).
>
> Anyway... I've expanded on some of my reasoning in new whereas clau=
ses, at
> http://web.mit.edu/ua/officers/treasurer/Public/FY10/2009-10-moving=
-money/constitution.pdf.
>
> New clauses:
> \whereas{it may be more productive for Senate to delegate its finan=
cial authority in certain matters}
> \whereas{it is not a productive use of the Senate's time to microma=
nage and debate certain matters}
> \whereas{Senate may have better things to do than carefully examine=
small allocations and reallocations}
> \whereas{such better things may include examining reports such as t=
he DPC report and
> the UA ``Response to the Institute-wide Planning Task Force Prelimi=
nary Report'',
> which may impact long-term Institute policy}
> \whereas{such better things may include examining reports such as t=
he
> Financial Policy Review Committee's report and the Constitution Com=
mittee's report
> which are likely to impact long-term UA policy}
> \whereas{such better things may also include proactively setting th=
e UA's policy,
> including setting broad financial policy or advocacy goals}
>
> That clause (slightly modified):
> ``The Senate shall have final authority over the allocation
> =A0or reallocation of the financial resources of
> this Association and its subsidiary organizations.
> \textbf{Senate shall have the power to delegate, or revoke
> the delegation of, its financial authority, but it may,
> in a timely fashion, overrule any decision of its delegate.
> Senate may emplace such limitations, including notification
> or waiting requirements, on the exercise of such delegated
> power as it sees fit.}
> In addition, it shall require a two- thirds vote of the
> Senate to authorize the release of funds for expenditure
> from the Undergraduate Dues Reserve and
> Contingent (invested reserve).''
>
> ~~Alex
>=20
>=20
>=20
>
---1257051904-101545347-1257533727=:20997--
