[363] in UA Senate
Re: Agenda for Monday's Meeting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Stumbaugh)
Mon Dec 7 11:58:01 2009
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:57:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Stumbaugh <stum@MIT.EDU>
To: Ashley Nash <ashnash@mit.edu>
cc: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <2a9ffd210912070747y58aecf20j4b20a5a5189e5b51@mail.gmail.com>
nomcomm-subcomm is going to recommend that we postpone 6.2 indefinitely
(i.e. kill it) because it doesn't really address the problems that we're
having in an appropriate manner.
We are going to recommend that the Nominations Committee be re-tooled (so
to speak) to consist of (at minimum) the UA President, Vice-Speaker of the
Senate, 2 Senators and 2 members of Exec. I will expand on this more
tonight during the meeting, but the basic thought is that it's very
difficult to get people to sit on (let alone chair) Nomcomm.
feel free to discuss this
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Ashley Nash wrote:
> This agenda is really long. It would be awesome if it didn't take this
> long. I think it is fair to say that there are some non-controversial
> things that we can pass quickly, like Fresh Fund allocations, but there are
> other items on the agenda that will require more discussion.
>
> I think people should say what they think about stuff, or at least think
> about it before the meeting, so that we can argue, vote and move on, not
> argue, argue, argue, move on, and then somehow come back and argue more,
> just to postpone or table.
>
> Also, if you think information is missing, you should ask for it before the
> meeting, such that the person who could possibly answer it- has time to look
> for the information and have an explanation ready.
>
> I am going to start with what I think about our agenda items:
>
> I think 6.1 should pass. Someone showed reservation that not all of the
> principle officers are elected directly by the public, but it would make
> even less sense to take out secretary and treasurer because with 6 officers,
> it requires 4 people agree and if we cut out two people, then only 3 people
> need to agree. The more people who need to agree to approve someone- to an
> extent- the more likely the approved person is suited for the job, the
> harder it is to game the system. Also, the secretary and treasurer cannot
> approve someone alone, they need the support of two other officers.
>
> 6.2 I don't think should be retroactive, unless we have questionable
> students currently serving on institute committees. I don't, on principle,
> think that retroactive rules are the way to go, and I also don't want to
> suggest that the member is incompetent by subjecting them to approval after
> they started. I am also still not clear on what happens if the student is
> approached with the committee instead of actively pursuing it.
>
> I intend to support 7.1. I will vote for the Finboard, but it would be nice
> to have some assurance that they have gotten their act together since their
> last allocation process: i.e. know which groups are eligible, don't lose
> their appeals, and don't forget that they did the first two mistakes.
>
> 7.2 I think we should support the printer, but I tried reading the bill and
> the link was down, so I probably have some questions for Vrajesh.
>
> 7.3 I vote to approve all reports.
>
> We already argued over the UA operations budget, and I think we should
> approve it, fast.
>
> 7.4 Nice ideas and I will vote on it, but I wouldn't hold my breath that DSL
> will do anything useful.
>
> 7.5 link down, more questions for Vrajesh
>
> I will probably approve of Mary because I don't think chairs should need
> senate approval for vice-chairs. I know nothing about her.
>
> Questions for Vrajesh
> How much does this printer cost?
> What is the UA paying for (I am not asking for line items, just items)?
> When will it happen?
> What does the bill 7.5 encompass?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ashley Nash,
> Senior House Senator
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Dear Senate,
>>
>> The Finboard allocations document is now available:
>> http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/7/finboard
>>
>> Additionally, through my own error, I overlooked a piece of legislation
>> that was sent to me about two weeks ago: "Bill to Extend the Special
>> Projects Committee." This has been added to the agenda as pending
>> legislation: http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/7/5/.pdf I apologize for
>> the miscommunication.
>>
>> The agenda has been updated appropriately.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Senate,
>>>
>>> Please find the agenda for Monday's meeting online at:
>>> http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/agendas/2009-12-07.pdf
>>>
>>> All available legislation has been linked within the agenda. The text for
>>> 7.3 has not yet been submitted to me. Likewise, as already mentioned, the
>>> Finboard allocations document will not be available until Sunday evening,
>>> since Finboard is meeting on Sunday.
>>>
>>> This is likely to be a somewhat lengthy meeting, but each piece of
>>> legislation is quite critical. Please consider preparing comments in
>>> advance, as well as sharing any questions or concerns over the mailing list.
>>>
>>> I look forward to an evening of respectful and robust discussion on Monday
>>> evening.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
-Tim
"There is no ignorance, there is knowledge."
