[307] in UA Senate
Re: 41 UAS 6.2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Baranay)
Sun Nov 15 16:50:41 2009
In-Reply-To: <9d4f87ed0911151322w2d513e63l97e718112f3e2814@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Baranay <pbaranay@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:50:09 -0500
To: hwkns@mit.edu
Cc: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
--0016e6d9a027a3443204786fe158
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
It's impossible for me to predict what would happen; I think each case would
have to be evaluated individually. Some committees have no practical
difference between guests and members; others care about it deeply; and
these trends are likely to change over time. Overall, I truly believe that
more student reps is a good thing -- but, to return to the cited example of
CACAB/Space Planning, our Space Planning Chair is currently a full member of
CACAB, along with one other student. For that committee, I feel that the
ideal goal would be to have two student reps *plus* the Space Planning
Chair, all as full members.
The current language of the bill actually oscillates between specifying
"Committee guest" and "Committee member." I think it's best for this bill
to cover any member of a committee, regardless of whether they end up with a
vote or not. Perhaps clauses could be added to the bill clarifying that,
when considering a candidate's nomination, Senate should specify whether an
approved candidate should serve solely as a guest or seek a vote...?
- Paul
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu> wrote:
> I think we should talk about the difference between "ex-officio member" and
> "guest". Guests, if I'm not mistaken, cannot vote. If we're talking about
> making UA people into regular guests of institute committee meetings, I
> agree that there's no way for chairs to reduce the number of student reps,
> but I don't think that's what we're going for here.
>
> If we make people "ex-officio members", my assumption is that they would
> have voting privileges (is that right?). That would make them a student
> representative, and it wouldn't be "reducing the number of student reps" for
> the chair to say "okay, that's one - who are your other three?"
>
> -hwkns
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--0016e6d9a027a3443204786fe158
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>It's impossible for me to predict what would happen; I think each =
case would have to be evaluated individually. =A0Some committees have no pr=
actical difference between guests and members; others care about it deeply;=
and these trends are likely to change over time. =A0Overall, I truly belie=
ve that more student reps is a good thing -- but, to return to the cited ex=
ample of CACAB/Space Planning, our Space Planning Chair is currently a full=
member of CACAB, along with one other student. =A0For that committee, I fe=
el that the ideal goal would be to have two student reps <i>plus</i>=A0the =
Space Planning Chair, all as full members.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The current language of the bill actually oscillates be=
tween specifying "Committee guest" and "Committee member.&qu=
ot; =A0I think it's best for this bill to cover any member of a committ=
ee, regardless of whether they end up with a vote or not. =A0Perhaps clause=
s could be added to the bill clarifying that, when considering a candidate&=
#39;s nomination, Senate should specify whether an approved candidate shoul=
d serve solely as a guest or seek a vote...?</div>
<div><br></div>- Paul<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 15, 200=
9 at 4:22 PM, Daniel Hawkins <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:hwkns@=
mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">hwkns@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think we should talk about the difference =
between "ex-officio member" and "guest".=A0 Guests, if =
I'm not mistaken, cannot vote.=A0 If we're talking about making UA =
people into regular guests of institute committee meetings, I agree that th=
ere's no way for chairs to reduce the number of student reps, but I don=
't think that's what we're going for here.<br>
<br>If we make people "ex-officio members", my assumption is that=
they would have voting privileges (is that right?).=A0 That would make the=
m a student representative, and it wouldn't be "reducing the numbe=
r of student reps" for the chair to say "okay, that's one - w=
ho are your other three?"<br>
<br>-hwkns<div><div></div><div><br><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">O=
n Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Paul Baranay <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:pbaranay@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">pbaranay@mit.edu</a>></sp=
an> 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>On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Hawkins <span dir=3D"ltr"><=
<a href=3D"mailto:hwkns@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">hwkns@mit.edu</a>></s=
pan> wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0p=
t 0pt 0.8ex;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><div>That's almost certainly a relic =
of when that clause read "the Nominations Committee brings a formal no=
mination of the candidate's nomination to the Senate" (which is a =
silly wording). =A0I've fixed it.</div>
<div>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left:1px so=
lid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">1. Some c=
hairs 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.=A0 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 everythin=
g is vetted by NomComm.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div></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><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0p=
t 0pt 0.8ex;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><div>In general, Institute Committee chai=
rs cannot arbitrarily reduce the number of student reps on committees; thes=
e 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" target=3D"_blank">http://w=
eb.mit.edu/faculty/governance/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"border-left:1px so=
lid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">Thoughts,=
anyone?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I also welcome additional inpu=
t on this. =A0:)</div>
<div><div>
=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left:1px solid r=
gb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"><br>-hwkns<div=
><div></div><div><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 15, 200=
9 at 9:56 AM, Paul Baranay <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pbaranay=
@mit.edu" 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></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--0016e6d9a027a3443204786fe158--
