[364] in UA Senate
Re: Agenda for Monday's Meeting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Stumbaugh)
Mon Dec 7 12:08:51 2009
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:08:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Stumbaugh <stum@MIT.EDU>
To: Ashley Nash <ashnash@mit.edu>
cc: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0912071149560.5994@dr-wily.mit.edu>
And by President, I mean Vice President.
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Tim Stumbaugh wrote:
> 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."
