[301] in UA Senate
Re: 41 UAS 6.1 - NomComm applicability
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Hawkins)
Sun Nov 15 15:06:05 2009
Reply-To: hwkns@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0911150909370.6438@dr-wily.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:05:42 -0500
From: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU>
To: Rachel E Meyer <remeyer@mit.edu>
Cc: ua-senate@mit.edu
--0015174bed92e9c8ec04786e6a4e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Here's the bill, in case you don't like switching between threads:
http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/6/1/.pdf
I would change "needs to be approved" in the last sentence to "shall be
approved". And maybe instead of "all representatives" (which includes
senators, technically) it should say "all student representatives to
Institute Committees" or whatever is actually specifically appropriate. I'd
also be in favor of overhauling the entire Section 3 so that it's clear and
concise (for instance, why does the second paragraph start with "That"?),
but I don't want to spend time doing that, so for now I'm content with this
bill.
-hwkns
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Rachel E Meyer <remeyer@mit.edu> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> The applicability of the nominations process is a little vague in the
> bylaws and this is an attempt to clarify it. The current wording* seems
> like it was written directly refer to the presenting of a whole slate at the
> end of spring term and this amendment makes it clear that the established
> process applies to all representatives.
>
> *Article VI, Section 3 of the Senate Bylaws: http://tinyurl.com/y8ly382
>
> It also explicitly specifies what should happen when Senate is not in
> session (mostly over the summer) or in the off-chance that a rep must be
> appointed before the next Senate meeting. This brings up one possible topic
> for discussion. I worded it to require approval of at least 4 (out of 6)
> principal officers in these cases.
>
> One possible alternative is that it need just a majority of voting exec
> (which would also be the default if nothing was specified here). I went
> with the wording I did because it seems like a higher standard to me and I
> think this requires that. This is in part because voting exec is (in
> practice) a fairly weakly defined body at this time (however I think that
> issue is being separately addressed by Constitution Committee's
> recommendations).
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Rachel
>
--0015174bed92e9c8ec04786e6a4e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here's the bill, in case you don't like switching between threads:<=
br><br><a href=3D"http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/6/1/.pdf">http://web.m=
it.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/6/1/.pdf</a><br><br>I would change "needs to be=
approved" in the last sentence to "shall be approved".=A0 A=
nd maybe instead of "all representatives" (which includes senator=
s, technically) it should say "all student representatives to Institut=
e Committees" or whatever is actually specifically appropriate.=A0 I&#=
39;d also be in favor of overhauling the entire Section 3 so that it's =
clear and concise (for instance, why does the second paragraph start with &=
quot;That"?), but I don't want to spend time doing that, so for no=
w I'm content with this bill.<br>
<br>-hwkns<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:27 A=
M, Rachel E Meyer <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:remeyer@mit.edu">=
remeyer@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 0.8=
ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hey,<br>
<br>
The applicability of the nominations process is a little vague in the bylaw=
s and this is an attempt to clarify it. =A0The current wording* seems like =
it was written directly refer to the presenting of a whole slate at the end=
of spring term and this amendment makes it clear that the established proc=
ess applies to all representatives.<br>
<br>
*Article VI, Section 3 of the Senate Bylaws: <a href=3D"http://tinyurl.com/=
y8ly382" target=3D"_blank">http://tinyurl.com/y8ly382</a><br>
<br>
It also explicitly specifies what should happen when Senate is not in sessi=
on (mostly over the summer) or in the off-chance that a rep must be appoint=
ed before the next Senate meeting. =A0This brings up one possible topic for=
discussion. =A0I worded it to require approval of at least 4 (out of 6) pr=
incipal officers in these cases.<br>
<br>
One possible alternative is that it need just a majority of voting exec (wh=
ich would also be the default if nothing was specified here). =A0I went wit=
h the wording I did because it seems like a higher standard to me and I thi=
nk this requires that. =A0This is in part because voting exec is (in practi=
ce) a fairly weakly defined body at this time (however I think that issue i=
s being separately addressed by Constitution Committee's recommendation=
s).<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br><font color=3D"#888888">
-Rachel<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>
--0015174bed92e9c8ec04786e6a4e--
