[267] in UA Senate
Re: 41UAS4.1 "Final Authority"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Dahan)
Fri Nov 6 16:42:47 2009
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911061509040.20997@dr-wily.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:42:30 -0500
From: Richard Dahan <rdahan@MIT.EDU>
To: Quentin Smith <quentin@mit.edu>
Cc: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu>, UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
--0016e6d644f58dbbf60477bab8c2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Responding to Quentin: It's a matter of future freedom. In Senate, there's
always a tradeoff wrt budget between efficiency and addressing all the
issues. On the one hand, focusing less on budget issues gives the Senate
more time to discuss other issues. On the other hand, one might contend that
all budget issues should be discussed in the more representative Senate. We
now lie on one end of the spectrum. I did not support Alex's original
amendment because it automatically placed us on the opposite end of the
spectrum. But Alex's revised amendment allows future Senates to determine
where on the spectrum they want to be.
At the heart of the matter is what Senate really should and should not be
doing, and how much we trust future Senates. Senate should discuss
controversial budget changes. Senate should not waste its time with the
mundane ones. And I have faith that future Senates, if given a lot of
freedom that this constitutional amendment would allow, will choose to
address the first types of changes.
Let's face it, if a future, uninterested Senate would not willingly choose
to discuss the controversial budget aspects, would it really put that much
effort into discussing them if it were forced to do so? And in this case of
an uninterested Senate, when discussing it, only a few senators would
actually care, in which case their decision would be no more representative
of the student body than that of the treasurer and committee chairs. The
main point: giving Senate extra freedom is not a bad thing.
- Richard
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Quentin Smith <quentin@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Richard Dahan wrote:
>
> In response to Quentin: I don't think this does in fact remove Senate form
>> 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
>> previous e-mail. This bill allows, perhaps even encourages, that
>> possibility.
>>
>> We could also require it to happen like this (the treasurer bringing
>> proposed 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 is 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
> proposing amending the constitution to allow Senate to leave the loop? It
> sounds to me like it would be perfectly constitutional for Alex to make
> these changes without any changes to the constitution, as long as Senate
> eventually says "We approve" to his final actions.
>
> --Quentin
>
>
>
>> - Richard
>>
>> 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
>> idea. 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
>> would 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
>> meeting the proposed set of transfers and get a simple vote of
>> approval. This doesn't need to take much time at all, and indeed, if
>> it does, it indicates that something 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.
>> 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
>> 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 just
>> 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
>> given 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
>> over 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
>> account 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
>>
>>
>> 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
>> why it is good? Or... anything else?
>>
>> Should I be assuming from the silence that nobody has issues,
>> and it'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
>> doubtful.
>>
>> ~~Alex
>>
>>
>> Alex Dehnert wrote:
>> Sorry about how late this is getting out... As I mentioned in my
>> FPRC 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
>> authority 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
>> actually be very sad (among other reasons, I'm not actually
>> in
>> many student groups that get money from Finboard, so I'm only
>> barely personally affected by this...).
>>
>> Anyway... I've expanded on some of my reasoning in new whereas
>> clauses, 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
>> financial authority in certain matters}
>> \whereas{it is not a productive use of the Senate's time to
>> micromanage 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 the DPC report and
>> the UA ``Response to the Institute-wide Planning Task Force
>> Preliminary Report'',
>> which may impact long-term Institute policy}
>> \whereas{such better things may include examining reports such
>> as the
>> Financial Policy Review Committee's report and the Constitution
>> Committee's report
>> which are likely to impact long-term UA policy}
>> \whereas{such better things may also include proactively setting
>> the UA's policy,
>> including setting broad financial policy or advocacy goals}
>>
>> That clause (slightly modified):
>> ``The Senate shall have final authority over the allocation
>> or 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--0016e6d644f58dbbf60477bab8c2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-weight: bold;">Responding to=
Quentin:</span>=A0It's a matter of future freedom. In Senate, there=
9;s always a tradeoff wrt budget between=A0efficiency=A0and addressing all =
the issues. On the one hand, focusing less on budget issues gives the Senat=
e more time to discuss other issues. On the other hand, one might contend t=
hat all budget issues should be discussed in the more representative Senate=
. We now lie on one end of the spectrum. =A0I did not support Alex's or=
iginal amendment because it automatically placed us on the opposite end of =
the spectrum. But Alex's revised amendment allows future Senates to det=
ermine where on the spectrum they want to be.<div>
<br></div><div>At the heart of the matter is what Senate really should and =
should not be doing, and how much we trust future Senates. Senate <span cla=
ss=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-style: italic;">should</span>=A0discu=
ss controversial budget changes. Senate <span class=3D"Apple-style-span" st=
yle=3D"font-style: italic;">should not</span>=A0waste its time with the mun=
dane ones. And I have faith that future Senates, if given a lot of freedom =
that this constitutional amendment would allow, will choose to address the =
first types of changes.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>Let's face it, if a future, uninterested Senate wou=
ld not willingly choose to discuss the=A0controversial=A0budget aspects, wo=
uld it really put that much effort into discussing them if it were forced t=
o do so? And in this case of an uninterested Senate, when discussing it, on=
ly a few senators would actually care, in which case their decision would b=
e no more representative of the student body than that of the treasurer and=
committee chairs. The main point: giving Senate extra freedom is not a bad=
thing.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Richard<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov=
6, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Quentin Smith <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:=
quentin@mit.edu">quentin@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Richard Dahan wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div class=3D"im"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In response to Quentin:=A0I don't think this does in fact remove Senate=
form the loop. In fact, I would be great opposed to the bill if did. I thi=
nk<br>
I wrote something similar to the second paragraph of your e-mail in a previ=
ous e-mail. This bill allows, perhaps even encourages, that<br>
possibility.<br>
<br>
We could also require it to happen like this (the treasurer bringing propos=
ed transfers to Senate's attention before they are made, and only a few=
<br>
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<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
If that is the system you want to impose this year, then why are you propos=
ing amending the constitution to allow Senate to leave the loop? It sounds =
to me like it would be perfectly constitutional for Alex to make these chan=
ges without any changes to the constitution, as long as Senate eventually s=
ays "We approve" to his final actions.<br>
<font color=3D"#888888">
<br>
--Quentin</font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
- Richard<br>
<br>
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Quentin Smith <<a href=3D"mailto:quentin=
@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">quentin@mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0I very much think the bill, even as amended, is still a terribl=
e idea. I think the only reason to remove the Senate from the loop is<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0if something needs to happen with more urgency than the Senate =
can provide. If Senate is meeting every week this year, that's a pretty=
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0high bar, and I don't see how a few hundred dollars here or=
there would make a difference if transferred a few days early.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0How often are we expecting these transfers to need to occur, an=
yway? I can't really imagine that happening more than a few times per<b=
r>
=A0 =A0 =A0semester. I think Alex should just briefly announce at a Senate=
meeting the proposed set of transfers and get a simple vote of<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0approval. This doesn't need to take much time at all, and i=
ndeed, if it does, it indicates that something is contentious and shouldn&#=
39;t<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0have skipped Senate anyway.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0--Quentin<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Richard Dahan wrote:<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0I personally hope that it does sail through Senate on Monday. I=
'm not 100% sure I like the whereas clauses, but I do indeed<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0support the That<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0clause, which I will focus on in this e-mail.=A0<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0This essentially gives the Senate more freedom without taking a=
way power. It addresses all of the concerns I initially had with<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0the bill. In a<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0year when we have a great treasurer (like now), Senate can choo=
se to delegate power; but when we don't, we're not forced to do<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0anything. If we're<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0worried about individual committees not doing their jobs, we ca=
n just emplace the appropriate "limitations," probably a<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0combination notifications<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0and waiting periods.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0The only situation for which this bill would be unwise is if in=
a given year, the Senate is lazy and delegates this<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0responsibility to the<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0treasurer 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<=
br>
=A0 =A0 =A0have faith in the UA<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0that this will never happen, and even if it does, the UA will h=
ave bigger problems than this bill.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0Kudos to Alex for overcoming opposition in Senate and perseveri=
ng over a dragging-out of the issue to produce what I consider a<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0fine piece of<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0legislation. Great job indeed.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0I hope the senators reading this will take these arguments into=
account when deciding whether or not to vote for this on Monday,<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0or how long to<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0debate before voting. I personally see nothing wrong with this,=
but I of course would love to hear your reasoning if you<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0disagree.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0- RIchard<br>
<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Alex Dehnert <<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:adehnert@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">adehnert@mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br=
>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0Did anyone have any thoughts about this bill? Or que=
stions about why it is good? Or... anything else?<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0Should I be assuming from the silence that nobody ha=
s issues, and it'll sail through Senate on Monday (once it (hopefully)<=
br>
=A0 =A0 =A0gets off<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0the table)? I mean, I wouldn't mind that... I=
9;m just a little doubtful.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0~~Alex<br>
<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0Alex Dehnert wrote:<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0Sorry about how late this is getting out... As I men=
tioned in my FPRC email, I've been distracted by various things<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0(including<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0by the FPRC, at least from cleaning up 4.1...).<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0Fundamentally, I believe that Senate should be able =
to delegate authority in general, not just because of the reallocation<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0bill.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0The reallocation bill is itself a fairly minor thing=
--- it'd sway a couple thousand dollars (out of about a hundred<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0thousand<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=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 ac=
tually<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0in<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0many student groups that get money from Finboard, so=
I'm only barely personally affected by this...).<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0Anyway... I've expanded on some of my reasoning =
in new whereas clauses, at<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0<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/constit=
ution.pdf</a>.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0New clauses:<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{it may be more productive for Senate to del=
egate its financial authority in certain matters}<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{it is not a productive use of the Senate=
9;s time to micromanage and debate certain matters}<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{Senate may have better things to do than ca=
refully examine small allocations and reallocations}<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{such better things may include examining re=
ports such as the DPC report and<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0the UA ``Response to the Institute-wide Planning Tas=
k Force Preliminary Report'',<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0which may impact long-term Institute policy}<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{such better things may include examining re=
ports such as the<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0Financial Policy Review Committee's report and t=
he Constitution Committee's report<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0which are likely to impact long-term UA policy}<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0\whereas{such better things may also include proacti=
vely setting the UA's policy,<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0including setting broad financial policy or advocacy=
goals}<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0That clause (slightly modified):<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0``The Senate shall have final authority over the all=
ocation<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0=A0or reallocation of the financial resources of<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0this Association and its subsidiary organizations.<b=
r>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0\textbf{Senate shall have the power to delegate, or =
revoke<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0the delegation of, its financial authority, but it m=
ay,<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0in a timely fashion, overrule any decision of its de=
legate.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0Senate may emplace such limitations, including notif=
ication<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0or waiting requirements, on the exercise of such del=
egated<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0power as it sees fit.}<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0In addition, it shall require a two- thirds vote of =
the<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0Senate to authorize the release of funds for expendi=
ture<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0from the Undergraduate Dues Reserve and<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0Contingent (invested reserve).''<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 =A0 =A0~~Alex<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--0016e6d644f58dbbf60477bab8c2--
