[304] in UA Senate
Re: 41 UAS 6.2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Hawkins)
Sun Nov 15 15:36:57 2009
Reply-To: hwkns@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <71c951390911150656s6f47b388l9ee908785a00c7a4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:36:40 -0500
From: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@MIT.EDU>
To: Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu>
Cc: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
--00151747596cacec1e04786ed941
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I really like the spirit of this bill, but I have a couple reservations
about it.
0. In the first That clause, point 3, the word "candidate's" should not
contain an apostrophe (nor should it be plural, probably)
1. Some chairs are not the point-person on specific topics - for example, I
believe SCEP is pretty fragmented and the people who you'd want on an
institute committee to talk about enrollment are maybe not the same people
you'd want there to talk about violations. This is not so much an issue
with the bill as me nitpicking about the examples you gave, and the way the
bill is written, this is a non-issue because nothing is automatic and
everything is vetted by NomComm.
2. This is my main concern. If there are more ex-officio positions on
institute committees, chairs may feel the need to reduce the number of other
student positions. If we create a spot on Institute CSL for all future UA
CSL chairs until revoked by senate, and the Institute CSL chair decides that
counts as a student rep and only gives us three spots (instead of four) for
placing people through the normal NomComm process, I will be sad. I think
UA CSL has a great chair this year, but I can't say that the chair will
always be one of the best four people to have on Institute CSL. Sure we
could remove them if they do a horrible job, but that's not as good as
getting it right the first time. If we can somehow make sure this sort of
thing doesn't happen, I think this bill is a great idea.
Thoughts, anyone?
-hwkns
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu> wrote:
> Hi Senate,
>
> I wanted to call your attention to a bill I wrote in the past few days
> about the Nominations Committee, of which I am currently Vice-Chair. I have
> a few comments on the bill in general (at the beginning of the email) and
> two thoughts on possible amendments (at the end of the email).
>
> The bill, 6.2 (http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/6/2/.pdf), seeks to
> establish a specific process for "ex officio" members of Institute
> Committees -- that is, students not specifically chosen by the Nominations
> Committee, but who gain access to a committee by virtue of a particular UA
> position or office.
>
> In general, one of my goals as NomComm Vice-Chair over the coming month or
> two is to work on expanding the number of *ex officio* representatives on
> Institute Committees. The work of UA committees often overlaps and
> intersects with Institute Committees, and it would be helpful if some UA
> committee members had formal access to Institute Committees. For example:
>
> - UA Committee on Student Life Chair on Institute Committee on Student
> Life
> - UA SCEP Chair on academic committees, such as the Committee on
> Curricula or the Committee on the Undergraduate Program
> - UA Space Planning Chair on the Campus Activities Complex Advisory
> Board
> - UA Athletics Chair on the DAPER Advisory Board
> - etc.
>
> Currently, UA committees tend to have an informal relationship with the
> Institute Committees that are relevant to them -- for instance, NomComm
> recently recommended SheeShee Jin (and one other student) for the Campus
> Activities Complex Advisory Board due to her role as UA Space Planning
> Chair; members of SCEP already serve on various academic committees; and the
> Athletics Chair is part of the DAPER Advisory Board. However, in some sense
> this ends up "taking away" a seat from the student body at large. It would
> more ideal if the Space Planning Chair can serve on the CAC Advisory Board
> *as well as* two other students, overall raising student representation on
> the committee. This bill is a step on the road towards formalizing those
> sorts of *ex officio *relationships. If this bill passes, I will feel
> more confident going to the chairs of the Institute Committees and the Chair
> of the Faculty to advocate for more student representation on Institute
> Committees.
>
> The overall process is virtually identical to the process used for the
> "normal" undergraduate representatives selected in the spring, but instead
> of the Nominations Committee initiating the process, it starts with the UA
> member contacting the Nominations Committee on his/her own prerogative. As
> usual, both NomComm *and* Senate have to approve this nomination for it to
> become effective. Also, Senate would presumably set limits on how long such
> approval lasts (i.e. for the 2009-2010 CSL Chair, for all future CSL chairs
> until revoked, etc.) -- this is not explicitly mentioned in the bill,
> because I didn't think it was necessary, but I can offer an amendment to
> make this explicit.
>
> I also plan on offering an amendment that adds, after the clause reading
> "Any such ex officio representatives shall be held to the same standards of
> communication as other
> Institute Committee representatives," "Such ex officio representatives will
> also be required to regularly communicate about the Institute Committee's
> business to the Undergraduate Association body which they represent." I
> meant to write this into the bill originally, but forgot; and it's well past
> the legislation deadline, so I will simply bring this amendment up for
> consideration during the meeting instead.
>
> Sincerely,
> Paul
>
> (Disclaimer: This email is written entirely in the context of myself as
> Vice-Chair of the Nominations Committee. As you can see in the agenda, I
> intend to remove myself from the chair during this portion of the meeting,
> so that I will be available to answer questions.)
>
--00151747596cacec1e04786ed941
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I really like the spirit of this bill, but I have a couple reservations abo=
ut it.<br><br>0. In the first That clause, point 3, the word "candidat=
e's" should not contain an apostrophe (nor should it be plural, pr=
obably)<br>
<br>1. Some chairs are not the point-person on specific topics - for exampl=
e, I believe SCEP is pretty fragmented and the people who you'd want on=
an institute committee to talk about enrollment are maybe not the same peo=
ple you'd want there to talk about violations.=A0 This is not so much a=
n issue with the bill as me nitpicking about the examples you gave, and the=
way the bill is written, this is a non-issue because nothing is automatic =
and everything is vetted by NomComm.<br>
<br>2. This is my main concern.=A0 If there are more ex-officio positions o=
n institute committees, chairs may feel the need to reduce the number of ot=
her student positions.=A0 If we create a spot on Institute CSL for all futu=
re UA CSL chairs until revoked by senate, and the Institute CSL chair decid=
es that counts as a student rep and only gives us three spots (instead of f=
our) for placing people through the normal NomComm process, I will be sad.=
=A0 I think UA CSL has a great chair this year, but I can't say that th=
e chair will always be one of the best four people to have on Institute CSL=
.=A0 Sure we could remove them if they do a horrible job, but that's no=
t as good as getting it right the first time.=A0 If we can somehow make sur=
e this sort of thing doesn't happen, I think this bill is a great idea.=
<br>
<br>Thoughts, anyone?<br><br>-hwkns<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">O=
n Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Paul Baranay <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:pbaranay@mit.edu">pbaranay@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,=
204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">Hi Senate,<br><br>I wanted to call your attentio=
n to a bill I wrote in the past few days about the Nominations Committee, o=
f which I am currently Vice-Chair.=A0 I have a few comments on the bill in =
general (at the beginning of the email) and two thoughts on possible amendm=
ents (at the end of the email).<br>
<br>The bill, 6.2 (<a href=3D"http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/6/2/.pdf" =
target=3D"_blank">http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/6/2/.pdf</a>), seeks t=
o establish a specific process for "ex officio" members of Instit=
ute Committees -- that is, students not specifically chosen by the Nominati=
ons Committee, but who gain access to a committee by virtue of a particular=
UA position or office.<br>
<br>In general, one of my goals as NomComm Vice-Chair over the coming month=
or two is to work on expanding the number of <i>ex officio</i> representat=
ives on Institute Committees.=A0 The work of UA committees often overlaps a=
nd intersects with Institute Committees, and it would be helpful if some UA=
committee members had formal access to Institute Committees.=A0 For exampl=
e:<br>
<ul><li>UA Committee on Student Life Chair on Institute Committee on Studen=
t Life</li><li>UA SCEP Chair on academic committees, such as the Committee =
on Curricula or the Committee on the Undergraduate Program</li><li>UA Space=
Planning Chair on the Campus Activities Complex Advisory Board<br>
</li><li>UA Athletics Chair on the DAPER Advisory Board<br></li><li>etc.<br=
></li></ul>Currently, UA committees tend to have an informal relationship w=
ith the Institute Committees that are relevant to them -- for instance, Nom=
Comm recently recommended SheeShee Jin (and one other student) for the Camp=
us Activities Complex Advisory Board due to her role as UA Space Planning C=
hair; members of SCEP already serve on various academic committees; and the=
Athletics Chair is part of the DAPER Advisory Board.=A0 However, in some s=
ense this ends up "taking away" a seat from the student body at l=
arge.=A0 It would more ideal if the Space Planning Chair can serve on the C=
AC Advisory Board <i>as well as</i> two other students, overall raising stu=
dent representation on the committee.=A0 This bill is a step on the road to=
wards formalizing those sorts of <i>ex officio </i>relationships.=A0 If thi=
s bill passes, I will feel more confident going to the chairs of the Instit=
ute Committees and the Chair of the Faculty to advocate for more student re=
presentation on Institute Committees.<br>
<br>The overall process is virtually identical to the process used for the =
"normal" undergraduate representatives selected in the spring, bu=
t instead of the Nominations Committee initiating the process, it starts wi=
th the UA member contacting the Nominations Committee on his/her own prerog=
ative.=A0 As usual, both NomComm <i>and</i> Senate have to approve this nom=
ination for it to become effective.=A0 Also, Senate would presumably set li=
mits on how long such approval lasts (i.e. for the 2009-2010 CSL Chair, for=
all future CSL chairs until revoked, etc.) -- this is not explicitly menti=
oned in the bill, because I didn't think it was necessary, but I can of=
fer an amendment to make this explicit.<br>
<br>I also plan on offering an amendment that adds, after the clause readin=
g "Any such ex officio representatives shall be held to the same stand=
ards of communication as other<br>Institute Committee representatives,"=
; "Such ex officio representatives will also be required to regularly =
communicate about the Institute Committee's business to the Undergradua=
te Association body which they represent."=A0 I meant to write this in=
to the bill originally, but forgot; and it's well past the legislation =
deadline, so I will simply bring this amendment up for consideration during=
the meeting instead.<br>
<br>Sincerely,<br>Paul<br><font color=3D"#888888">
</font></div><br>(Disclaimer:=A0 This email is written entirely in the cont=
ext of myself
as Vice-Chair of the Nominations Committee.=A0 As you can see in the agenda=
, I intend to remove myself from the chair during this portion of the meeti=
ng, so that I will be available to answer questions.)<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
--00151747596cacec1e04786ed941--
