[533] in UA Senate
Re: Agenda
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cinjon Resnick)
Mon Apr 5 01:16:24 2010
In-Reply-To: <4BB96559.7090003@mit.edu>
From: Cinjon Resnick <cinjon@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 01:16:01 -0400
To: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>
Cc: Tim Jenks <trjenks@gmail.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jont=E9_Craighead?= <jontec@mit.edu>,
UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
--0016e6d77ed3f6aa8d0483766d9f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Andrew,
Thanks for the email and of course, as usual, I appreciate your vigilant
eye.
I have been an active member of this committee since its initiation. I have
not had a direct impact on all of the documents, however for the
Constitution itself, I have had a major impact.
I have answered your points individually below. Before speaking to them
though, I would like to mention a couple of (what I hope are) valid points
of practicality.
The first is that, except for a short stint on the DPC, I have been on this
board since my freshman year and have had an unwavering commitment to
providing objective, just, and timely decisions. In delving into the task o=
f
reforming these documents, I believe that I have continued to apply those
same principles and have stalled the committee at times because of that
commitment. I sincerely hope that my integrity on this committee in that
regard is not called into question as, e.g., judboard still will not receiv=
e
funding from finboard for that sweet gavel I have always wanted.
But of course, as my rulings / constitutional guidance have shown in the
past, I understand that perception is important. However, there are few
others at MIT who can lay a similar claim to the judicial arm of the UA and
I think that that is an important consideration when forming such a
committee. It is unfortunate that we do not have constitutional law scholar=
s
at MIT readily available to reformat and update the framework every twenty
years. Instead, I think it is reasonable that those who show the most
interest in the judicial concerns be a part of that reformation. It just so
happens that the current president agreed with that sentiment. I am curious
as to who you would have included in such an undertaking when you were
president.
Re: Article 1, Sect 3, 1a: "...Further, none of the JudBoard members shall
be affiliated with any other Undergraduate Association governmental body."
(A UA Committee is a governmental body)
- I agree. And that is why I had to resign my position on JudBoard for my
brief time with the DPC. However, it should be noted that while the
ConstComm was a UA Committee, it had the following charge:
> "That the UA create an ad-hoc Constitutional Committee, charged with
> reviewing, clarifying, and revising the UA Constitution, UA Senate Bylaws=
,
> and other governing documents, while remaining true to the documents=92
> original spirit; and... (voting / member information)"
>
This charge labels the committee as an advisory board set to revise the
governing documents and submit them for approval. It has no governing power
and in fact is completely at the whims of the Senate who decides if the
changes are a go or not. The ability for dangerous shenanigans is nil as it
has no real power. The only real concern is if there is an argument over th=
e
advice after the fact. I answer this further in my response to your last
point at the end.
Re: Article 1, Sect 4, 4c: "At no time shall an officer of this Association
or the Senate collaborate with a member of this board on business of the
Undergraduate Association. However, officers may seek advice on
constitutional issues from JudBoard members."
- Considering the charge of this committee, I see no reason why I could not
have just been asked at every step whether or not an issue was
constitutional as it was being written into the revised document. This is i=
n
fact largely what happened where I was the voice of the judicial arm on the
committee.
Re: "Doesn't being actively involved in drafting changes to the constitutio=
n
conflict directly with your responsibilities as an impartial and uninvolved
member of JudBoard - and therefore the ability to rule on the
constitutionality of said amendments in the case of any controversy?"
- Continuing on from my discussion of 1.3.1a, I actually agree with this *t=
o
a degree*. My being actively involved in this committee does conflict with
my ability to impartially be in an active participant in a constitutional
dispute about this issue brought before JudBoard. But then again, say a
member of Senate comes and asks me my constitutional interpretation of a
concern they have and I respond with what my view is on that issue as a
JudBoard member. My viewpoint then is publicly known, just as my viewpoint
and the way I argued in all of the ConstComm decisions is known from the
minutes.
Do I have to remain consistent? Do I have to be absolutely set in my
argument? Of course not. As someone who has sworn to be impartial in this
role, I have the right to be convinced, the right to change my mind, and th=
e
right to understand the constitution in my own reading. I am being impartia=
l
to the best of my ability as I do this job, however there is a good reason
that JudBoard does not always agree on a concern and I am not always in the
majority.
But I said I agree with it (to a degree). That is because of the perception
of being too involved. This brings me back to my original points of
practicality and the conclusion that I am *ok* as a 4th year justice with
possibly overstepping that bound in some peoples' eyes in order to improve
the documents for all future generations.
I hope that you understand my reasoning and that I have not been too
verbose. Again, I appreciate your email and giving me the chance to clarify
this before these documents are presented.
- Cinjon,
Chief, UA Judicial Board
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu> wrote:
> Cinjon...
>
> Who exactly is "we?" Are you a member of this constitution committee?
> Doesn't being actively involved in drafting changes to the constitution
> conflict directly with your responsibilities as an impartial and uninvolv=
ed
> member of JudBoard - and therefore the ability to rule on the
> constitutionality of said amendments in the case of any controversy?
>
> It seems that the constitution itself is pretty clear in this regard:
> Article 1, Sect. 3, 1a: "Further, none of the JudBoard members shall be
> affiliated with any other Undergraduate Association governmental body." (=
A
> UA Committee is a governmental body)
> Article 1, Sect. 4, 4c: "At no time shall an officer of this Association =
or
> the Senate collaborate with a member of this board on business of the
> Undergraduate Association. However, officers may seek advice on
> constitutional
> issues from JudBoard members."
>
> $.02 from old crust...
> -Andrew L.
>
>
> Cinjon Resnick wrote:
>
>> The plan was never to say that "you must approve these now." The idea is
>> that we are presenting the documents at this meeting with the intention =
of
>> having them sit for a week and open to discussion. Due process will of
>> course be followed, especially for something as serious as changing the
>> governing documents.
>>
>> And a side note is that at least for the constitution, unfinished is
>> mostly a misnomer. It is still a bit more unclear than we would like it
>> (even to release to the Senate) in one section and we are currently
>> adjusting that.
>>
>> - Cinjon,
>> Judicial Board Chief
>>
>> 2010/4/5 Tim Jenks <trjenks@gmail.com <mailto:trjenks@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>> Words of Wisdom from Jonte. I think its kind of irresponsible to
>> approve reports when we haven't had them in our hands for at least
>> 24 hours. I mean, we should be reading these reports (like the
>> dining report, hint hint) before we approve them, right?
>>
>> 2010/4/4 Jont=E9 Craighead <jontec@mit.edu <mailto:jontec@mit.edu>>
>>
>>
>> I expect we will hear from the interested parties why "we must
>> approve them now" despite their unfinished state? Not shooting
>> the messenger... I am just stating that I anticipate a
>> discussion on this.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jont=E9 D. Craighead
>>
>> UA Senator from Next House
>> MIT Class of 2013
>> Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:43 PM, Tim Stumbaugh wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not sure they're ready. I think I've heard that the
>> Executive Committee Bylaws will probably not
>> > be ready by tomorrow, and I've seen indication that the
>> Constitution is not quite finalized.
>> >
>> > On 4 Apr 2010 23.35, Andrew Lukmann wrote:
>> >> Can somebody forward the new Constitution and Executive
>> Committee Bylaws
>> >> to the list? I'm just curious what the changes are...
>> >>
>> >> -ATL
>> >>
>> >> Tim Stumbaugh wrote:
>> >>> Hey guys,
>> >>> I'm really sorry to do this so late, but I actually forgot
>> (just due
>> >>> to general incompetence on my part) a couple of agenda items.
>> >>> We will be confirming Grant Robinson as UA representative
>> to ASA at
>> >>> the beginning of the meeting and be presented with the new
>> >>> Constitution and Executive Committee Bylaws for us to
>> approve (these
>> >>> are the reports of the Constitution Committee). I do not
>> have the
>> >>> reports right now, unfortunately.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, I've updated my bylaws-maintenance bill. I am going
>> to send out
>> >>> a bit of explanation about each clause.
>> >>>
>> >>> Again, I'm sorry for the delay in this. If you notice any
>> other
>> >>> errors, please let me know.
>> >>>
>> >>> On 4 Apr 2010 18.16, Tim Stumbaugh wrote:
>> >>>> Hey guys,
>> >>>> I have been working on a couple of bills, so I'm sorry
>> this took so
>> >>>> long.
>> >>>> The agenda is at
>> >>>> http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/agendas/2010-04-05.pdf.
>> >>>> The relevant legislation should be linked correctly. If I
>> messed it up,
>> >>>> please let me know.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My bills are sort of done. I'll continue to be updating
>> them before the
>> >>>> meeting tomorrow.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> See you tomorrow-
>> >>
>> > --
>> > -Tim
>> > "There is no ignorance, there is knowledge."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--0016e6d77ed3f6aa8d0483766d9f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Andrew,<br><br>Thanks for the email and of course, as usual, I appreciate y=
our vigilant eye.<br><br>I have been an active member of this committee sin=
ce its initiation. I have not had a direct impact on all of the documents, =
however for the Constitution itself, I have had a major impact. <br>
<br>I have answered your points individually below. Before speaking to them=
though, I would like to mention a couple of (what I hope are) valid points=
of practicality. <br>The first is that, except for a short stint on the DP=
C, I have been on this board since my freshman year and have had an unwaver=
ing commitment to providing objective, just, and timely decisions. In delvi=
ng into the task of reforming these documents, I believe that I have contin=
ued to apply those same principles and have stalled the committee at times =
because of that commitment. I sincerely hope that my integrity on this comm=
ittee in that regard is not called into question as, e.g., judboard still w=
ill not receive funding from finboard for that sweet gavel I have always wa=
nted. <br>
But of course, as my rulings / constitutional guidance have shown in the pa=
st, I understand that perception is important. However, there are few other=
s at MIT who can lay a similar claim to the judicial arm of the UA and I th=
ink that that is an important consideration when forming such a committee. =
It is unfortunate that we do not have constitutional law scholars at MIT re=
adily available to reformat and update the framework every twenty years. In=
stead, I think it is reasonable that those who show the most interest in th=
e judicial concerns be a part of that reformation. It just so happens that =
the current president agreed with that sentiment. I am curious as to who yo=
u would have included in such an undertaking when you were president. <br>
<br>Re: Article 1, Sect 3, 1a: "...Further, none of the JudBoard membe=
rs shall be affiliated with any=20
other Undergraduate Association governmental body." (A UA Committee is=
a
governmental body)<br>- I agree. And that is why I had to resign my positi=
on on JudBoard for my brief time with the DPC. However, it should be noted =
that while the ConstComm was a UA Committee, it had the following charge:<b=
r>
<blockquote style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(=
204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class=3D"gmail_quote">"That the UA=
create an ad-hoc Constitutional Committee, charged with reviewing, clarify=
ing, and revising the UA Constitution, UA Senate Bylaws, and other governin=
g documents, while remaining true to the documents=92 original spirit; and.=
.. (voting / member information)"<br>
</blockquote>This charge labels the committee as an advisory board set to r=
evise the governing documents and submit them for approval. It has no gover=
ning power and in fact is completely at the whims of the Senate who decides=
if the changes are a go or not. The ability for dangerous shenanigans is n=
il as it has no real power. The only real concern is if there is an argumen=
t over the advice after the fact. I answer this further in my response to y=
our last point at the end. <br>
<br>Re: Article 1, Sect 4, 4c: "At no time shall an officer of this=20
Association or the Senate=20
collaborate with a member of this board on business of the Undergraduate
Association. However, officers may seek advice on constitutional issues
from JudBoard members."<br>
- Considering the charge of this committee, I see no reason why I could=20
not have just been asked at every step whether or not an issue was=20
constitutional as it was being written into the revised document. This=20
is in fact largely what happened where I was the voice of the judicial=20
arm on the committee.=A0 <br><br>Re: "Doesn't being actively invol=
ved in drafting changes to the constitution=20
conflict directly with your responsibilities as an impartial and=20
uninvolved member of JudBoard - and therefore the ability to rule on the
constitutionality of said amendments in the case of any controversy?"=
<br>- Continuing on from my discussion of 1.3.1a, I actually agree with thi=
s <b>to a degree</b>. My being actively involved in this committee does con=
flict with my ability to impartially be in an active participant in a const=
itutional dispute about this issue brought before JudBoard. But then again,=
say a member of Senate comes and asks me my constitutional interpretation =
of a concern they have and I respond with what my view is on that issue as =
a JudBoard member. My viewpoint then is publicly known, just as my viewpoin=
t and the way I argued in all of the ConstComm decisions is known from the =
minutes. <br>
Do I have to remain consistent? Do I have to be absolutely set in my argume=
nt? Of course not. As someone who has sworn to be impartial in this role, I=
have the right to be convinced, the right to change my mind, and the right=
to understand the constitution in my own reading. I am being impartial to =
the best of my ability as I do this job, however there is a good reason tha=
t JudBoard does not always agree on a concern and I am not always in the ma=
jority. <br>
But I said I agree with it (to a degree). That is because of the perception=
of being too involved. This brings me back to my original points of practi=
cality and the conclusion that I am <b>ok</b> as a 4th year justice with po=
ssibly overstepping that bound in some peoples' eyes in order to improv=
e the documents for all future generations. <br>
<br>I hope that you understand my reasoning and that I have not been too ve=
rbose. Again, I appreciate your email and giving me the chance to clarify t=
his before these documents are presented. <br><br>- Cinjon,<br>Chief, UA Ju=
dicial Board<br>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Andrew Lukm=
ann <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:lukymann@mit.edu" target=3D"_bl=
ank">lukymann@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Cinjon...<br>
<br>
Who exactly is "we?" Are you a member of this constitution commit=
tee?<br>
Doesn't being actively involved in drafting changes to the constitution=
conflict directly with your responsibilities as an impartial and uninvolve=
d member of JudBoard - and therefore the ability to rule on the constitutio=
nality of said amendments in the case of any controversy?<br>
<br>
It seems that the constitution itself is pretty clear in this regard:<br>
Article 1, Sect. 3, 1a: "Further, none of the JudBoard members shall b=
e affiliated with any other Undergraduate Association governmental body.&qu=
ot; (A UA Committee is a governmental body)<br>
Article 1, Sect. 4, 4c: "At no time shall an officer of this Associati=
on or the Senate collaborate with a member of this board on business of the=
Undergraduate Association. However, officers may seek advice on constituti=
onal<br>
issues from JudBoard members."<br>
<br>
$.02 from old crust...<br>
-Andrew L.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cinjon Resnick wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div>
The plan was never to say that "you must approve these now." The =
idea is that we are presenting the documents at this meeting with the inten=
tion of having them sit for a week and open to discussion. Due process will=
of course be followed, especially for something as serious as changing the=
governing documents.<br>
<br>
And a side note is that at least for the constitution, unfinished is mostly=
a misnomer. It is still a bit more unclear than we would like it (even to =
release to the Senate) in one section and we are currently adjusting that.<=
br>
<br>
- Cinjon,<br>
Judicial Board Chief<br>
<br></div>
2010/4/5 Tim Jenks <<a href=3D"mailto:trjenks@gmail.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">trjenks@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:trjenks@gmail.com" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">trjenks@gmail.com</a>>><div><br>
<br>
=A0 =A0Words of Wisdom from Jonte. =A0I think its kind of irresponsible to=
<br>
=A0 =A0approve reports when we haven't had them in our hands for at le=
ast<br>
=A0 =A024 hours. =A0I mean, we should be reading these reports (like the<b=
r>
=A0 =A0dining report, hint hint) before we approve them, right?<br>
<br></div>
=A0 =A02010/4/4 Jont=E9 Craighead <<a href=3D"mailto:jontec@mit.edu" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">jontec@mit.edu</a> <mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:jontec@mit.=
edu" target=3D"_blank">jontec@mit.edu</a>>><div><div></div><div><br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I expect we will hear from the interested parties why "=
;we must<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0approve them now" despite their unfinished state? Not =
shooting<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0the messenger... I am just stating that I anticipate a<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0discussion on this.<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Thanks,<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Jont=E9 D. Craighead<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0UA Senator from Next House<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0MIT Class of 2013<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:43 PM, Tim Stumbaugh wrote:<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> I'm not sure they're ready. I think I've h=
eard that the<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Executive Committee Bylaws will probably not<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> be ready by tomorrow, and I've seen indication tha=
t the<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Constitution is not quite finalized.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0><br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> On 4 Apr 2010 23.35, Andrew Lukmann wrote:<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>> Can somebody forward the new Constitution and Exec=
utive<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Committee Bylaws<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>> to the list? I'm just curious what the changes=
are...<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>><br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>> -ATL<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>><br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>> Tim Stumbaugh wrote:<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> Hey guys,<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> I'm really sorry to do this so late, but I=
actually forgot<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0(just due<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> to general incompetence on my part) a couple o=
f agenda items.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> We will be confirming Grant Robinson as UA rep=
resentative<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0to ASA at<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> the beginning of the meeting and be presented =
with the new<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> Constitution and Executive Committee Bylaws fo=
r us to<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0approve (these<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> are the reports of the Constitution Committee)=
. I do not<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0have the<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> reports right now, unfortunately.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>><br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> Also, I've updated my bylaws-maintenance b=
ill. I am going<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0to send out<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> a bit of explanation about each clause.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>><br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> Again, I'm sorry for the delay in this. If=
you notice any<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0other<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> errors, please let me know.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>><br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>> On 4 Apr 2010 18.16, Tim Stumbaugh wrote:<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> Hey guys,<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> I have been working on a couple of bills, =
so I'm sorry<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0this took so<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> long.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> The agenda is at<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> <a href=3D"http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UA=
S41/agendas/2010-04-05.pdf" target=3D"_blank">http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/=
UAS41/agendas/2010-04-05.pdf</a>.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> The relevant legislation should be linked =
correctly. If I<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0messed it up,<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> please let me know.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>><br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> My bills are sort of done. I'll contin=
ue to be updating<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0them before the<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> meeting tomorrow.<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>><br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>>>> See you tomorrow-<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0>><br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> --<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> -Tim<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0> "There is no ignorance, there is knowledge."=
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
--0016e6d77ed3f6aa8d0483766d9f--
