[305] in UA Senate
Re: 41 UAS 6.2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Baranay)
Sun Nov 15 16:08:51 2009
In-Reply-To: <9d4f87ed0911151236x5f4107f2od96235a424dc6683@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Baranay <pbaranay@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:08:24 -0500
To: hwkns@mit.edu
Cc: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
--0016e6d7e32554144204786f4c31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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)
>
That's almost certainly a relic of when that clause read "the Nominations
Committee brings a formal nomination of the candidate's nomination to the
Senate" (which is a silly wording). I've fixed it.
> 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.
>
I agree with you on this, actually. My original email probably should have
said, for instance, "UA SCEP Chair (or designate)."
> 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.
>
In general, Institute Committee chairs cannot arbitrarily reduce the number
of student reps on committees; these are specified by the faculty bylaws,
the charge of the committee, etc, so I don't think the main part of your
concern will ever come to pass. (The relevant sections of the faculty
bylaws are here: http://web.mit.edu/faculty/governance/rules/1.70.html)
However, many chairs (not necessarily all -- committees vary widely in
openness) do have discretion about inviting standing guests. I think that
we should leverage this discretion when possible, but we should do so in a
controlled fashion, such that the general undergraduate representatives
aren't overshadowed -- hence, the need for a formal process. (This bill /
process is not intended to apply to guests for a single meeting, such as if
the DAPER Advisory Board wants the CSL Chair to show up for a meeting, or
something.)
As to the second part of your comment (the idea that, e.g., the CSL Chair
might not always be the best person to have on the Institute Committee on
Student Life), I actually agree that Senate should think carefully about
whether it ever allows ex officio membership without expiration.
Again, my overall hope is that eventually these relationships can be
formally implemented in the faculty bylaws and overall raise the formal
undergraduate representation on Institute Committees, but that would take a
very long time (and possibly even some degree of interaction with the GSC,
to ensure equity between undergraduate and graduate students).
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
I also welcome additional input on this. :)
>
> -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.)
>>
>
>
--0016e6d7e32554144204786f4c31
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Hawkins <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:hwkns@mit.edu">hwkns@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
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>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's almost certainly a relic of whe=
n that clause read "the Nominations Committee brings a formal nominati=
on of the candidate's nomination to the Senate" (which is a silly =
wording). =A0I've fixed it.</div>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">1. Some chairs are not the po=
int-person on specific topics - for example, I believe SCEP is pretty fragm=
ented and the people who you'd want on an institute committee to talk a=
bout enrollment are maybe not the same people you'd want there to talk =
about violations.=A0 This is not so much an issue with the bill as me nitpi=
cking 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 NomCo=
mm.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with you on this, actually. =A0My =
original email probably should have said, for instance, "UA SCEP Chair=
(or designate)."</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
2. This is my main concern.=A0 If there are more ex-officio positions on in=
stitute committees, chairs may feel the need to reduce the number of other =
student positions.=A0 If we create a spot on Institute CSL for all future U=
A CSL chairs until revoked by senate, and the Institute CSL chair decides t=
hat 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.=A0 I=
think UA CSL has a great chair this year, but I can't say that the cha=
ir 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 not as =
good as getting it right the first time.=A0 If we can somehow make sure thi=
s sort of thing doesn't happen, I think this bill is a great idea.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>In general, Institute Committee chairs can=
not arbitrarily reduce the number of student reps on committees; these are =
specified by the faculty bylaws, the charge of the committee, etc, so I don=
't think the main part of your concern will ever come to pass. =A0(The =
relevant sections of the faculty bylaws are here: <a href=3D"http://web.mit=
.edu/faculty/governance/rules/1.70.html">http://web.mit.edu/faculty/governa=
nce/rules/1.70.html</a>)</div>
<div><br></div><div>However, many chairs (not necessarily all -- committees=
vary widely in openness) do have discretion about inviting standing guests=
. =A0I think that we should leverage this discretion when possible, but we =
should do so in a controlled fashion, such that the general undergraduate r=
epresentatives aren't overshadowed -- hence, the need for a formal proc=
ess. =A0(This bill / process is not intended to apply to guests for a singl=
e meeting, such as if the DAPER Advisory Board wants the CSL Chair to show =
up for a meeting, or something.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>As to the second part of your comment (the idea that, e=
.g., the CSL Chair might not always be the best person to =A0have on the In=
stitute Committee on Student Life), I actually agree that Senate should thi=
nk carefully about whether it ever allows ex officio membership without exp=
iration.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Again, my overall hope is that eventually these relatio=
nships can be formally implemented in the faculty bylaws and overall raise =
the formal undergraduate representation on Institute Committees, but that w=
ould take a very long time (and possibly even some degree of interaction wi=
th the GSC, to ensure equity between undergraduate and graduate students).<=
/div>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Thoughts, anyone?<br></blockq=
uote><div><br></div><div>I also welcome additional input on this. =A0:)</di=
v><div>
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>-hwkns<div><div></div><div cla=
ss=3D"h5"><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:=
56 AM, Paul Baranay <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pbaranay@mit.ed=
u" target=3D"_blank">pbaranay@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 2=
04, 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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--0016e6d7e32554144204786f4c31--
