[265] in UA Senate
Re: 41UAS4.1 "Final Authority"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Quentin Smith)
Fri Nov 6 15:10:17 2009
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:10:10 -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: <d2c0085f0911061122m488ebe9fif2570db366f374b2@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.
---1257051904-1373624282-1257538210=:20997
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Richard Dahan wrote:
> In response to Quentin:=A0I don't think this does in fact remove Senate f=
orm the loop. In fact, I would be great opposed to the bill if did. I think
> I wrote something similar to the second paragraph of your e-mail in a pre=
vious e-mail. This bill allows, perhaps even encourages, that
> possibility.
>=20
> We could also require it to happen like this (the treasurer bringing prop=
osed transfers to Senate's attention before they are made, and only a few
> times per year), to which I am not at all opposed. In fact, I think such =
a system should definitely be enacted for this year. The advantage of
> requiring this for all years=A0is that it requires Senate to be involved =
no matter what; the disadvantage is that it reduces Senate's freedom.
If that is the system you want to impose this year, then why are you=20
proposing amending the constitution to allow Senate to leave the loop? It=
=20
sounds to me like it would be perfectly constitutional for Alex to make=20
these changes without any changes to the constitution, as long as Senate=20
eventually says "We approve" to his final actions.
--Quentin
>=20
> - Richard
>=20
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Quentin Smith <quentin@mit.edu> wrote:
> I very much think the bill, even as amended, is still a terrible id=
ea. I think the only reason to remove the Senate from the loop is
> if something needs to happen with more urgency than the Senate can =
provide. If Senate is meeting every week this year, that's a pretty
> high bar, and I don't see how a few hundred dollars here or there w=
ould make a difference if transferred a few days early.
>
> How often are we expecting these transfers to need to occur, anyway=
? I can't really imagine that happening more than a few times per
> semester. I think Alex should just briefly announce at a Senate mee=
ting the proposed set of transfers and get a simple vote of
> approval. This doesn't need to take much time at all, and indeed, i=
f it does, it indicates that something is contentious and shouldn't
> have skipped Senate anyway.
>
> --Quentin
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Richard Dahan wrote:
>
> I personally hope that it does sail through Senate on Monday. I'm n=
ot 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 t=
o delegate 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 ju=
st emplace the appropriate "limitations," probably a
> combination notifications
> and waiting periods.
>
> The only situation for which this bill would be unwise is if in a g=
iven year, 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.
>
> Kudos to Alex for overcoming opposition in Senate and persevering o=
ver a dragging-out of the issue to produce what I consider a
> fine piece of
> legislation. Great job indeed.
>
> I hope the senators reading this will take these arguments into acc=
ount when 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.
>
> - RIchard
>=20
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu> wr=
ote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0Did anyone have any thoughts about this bill? Or questio=
ns about why it is good? Or... anything else?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Should I be assuming from the silence that nobody has is=
sues, and it'll sail through Senate on Monday (once it (hopefully)
> gets off
> =A0 =A0 =A0the table)? I mean, I wouldn't mind that... I'm just a l=
ittle doubtful.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0~~Alex
>=20
>
> Alex Dehnert wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0Sorry about how late this is getting out... As I mention=
ed in my FPRC email, I've been distracted by various things
> (including
> =A0 =A0 =A0by the FPRC, at least from cleaning up 4.1...).
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Fundamentally, I believe that Senate should be able to d=
elegate authority in general, not just because of the reallocation
> bill.
> =A0 =A0 =A0The reallocation bill is itself a fairly minor thing ---=
it'd sway a couple thousand dollars (out of about a hundred
> thousand
> =A0 =A0 =A0dollars) to student groups. If the bill doesn't pass, I =
won't actually be very sad (among other reasons, I'm not actually
> in
> =A0 =A0 =A0many student groups that get money from Finboard, so I'm=
only barely personally affected by this...).
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Anyway... I've expanded on some of my reasoning in new w=
hereas clauses, at
> =A0 =A0 =A0http://web.mit.edu/ua/officers/treasurer/Public/FY10/200=
9-10-moving-money/constitution.pdf.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0New clauses:
> =A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{it may be more productive for Senate to delegat=
e its financial authority in certain matters}
> =A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{it is not a productive use of the Senate's time=
to micromanage and debate certain matters}
> =A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{Senate may have better things to do than carefu=
lly examine small allocations and reallocations}
> =A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{such better things may include examining report=
s such as the DPC report and
> =A0 =A0 =A0the UA ``Response to the Institute-wide Planning Task Fo=
rce Preliminary Report'',
> =A0 =A0 =A0which may impact long-term Institute policy}
> =A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{such better things may include examining report=
s such as the
> =A0 =A0 =A0Financial Policy Review Committee's report and the Const=
itution Committee's report
> =A0 =A0 =A0which are likely to impact long-term UA policy}
> =A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{such better things may also include proactively=
setting the UA's policy,
> =A0 =A0 =A0including setting broad financial policy or advocacy goa=
ls}
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0That clause (slightly modified):
> =A0 =A0 =A0``The Senate shall have final authority over the allocat=
ion
> =A0 =A0 =A0=A0or reallocation of the financial resources of
> =A0 =A0 =A0this Association and its subsidiary organizations.
> =A0 =A0 =A0\textbf{Senate shall have the power to delegate, or revo=
ke
> =A0 =A0 =A0the delegation of, its financial authority, but it may,
> =A0 =A0 =A0in a timely fashion, overrule any decision of its delega=
te.
> =A0 =A0 =A0Senate may emplace such limitations, including notificat=
ion
> =A0 =A0 =A0or waiting requirements, on the exercise of such delegat=
ed
> =A0 =A0 =A0power as it sees fit.}
> =A0 =A0 =A0In addition, it shall require a two- thirds vote of the
> =A0 =A0 =A0Senate to authorize the release of funds for expenditure
> =A0 =A0 =A0from the Undergraduate Dues Reserve and
> =A0 =A0 =A0Contingent (invested reserve).''
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0~~Alex
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>
---1257051904-1373624282-1257538210=:20997--
