[60] in UA Senate
Meeting this evening - discuss!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Catherine A Olsson)
Tue Oct 13 14:33:10 2009
From: Catherine A Olsson <catherio@MIT.EDU>
To: ua-senate@mit.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:33:05 -0400
Hi all,
There's a very long meeting coming up this evening, and I haven't seen
any email on the discussion list yet hashing out our opinions on any of
the legislation. This definitely isn't optimal, given how inefficient it
is to try to work out all our opinions in-person at a meeting without
having talked about them at all beforehand, and how easy it is to talk
about things on the mailing list. Personally I don't have anything
particularly controversial to say about this week's agenda, which is why
I haven't spoken up yet, but that is probably no excuse for me to not
have done so.
With quite a few hours left before the meeting, I'm sure we can have at
least a little productive discussion before then, and make sure the
meeting isn't horrendously long. (also pardon my unprofessional
kibitzing in the parenthetical comments, it's mostly directed at new
senators)
Here's where I stand on a few important points. Let's discuss!
1. The UA planning task force report looks great and we should approve
it without much fuss. (go ahead and disagree with me, it's more
efficient to do so here and now than in person!)
2. I intend to vote to approve Adam Bockelie as dining chair, SheeShee
Jin as Space Planning chair, and Alexandra Jordan as Sustainability
chair, and don't feel I need more information on them before voting. (if
you want more information, ask someone now!)
2a. I'd like to know a bit more about Aaron Liu's plans as
Communications Chair. I think communications is one area that the UA
could do *much* better at, and in the question phase of his confirmation
hearing I hope to convey that to the nominee. Can anyone provide
information about Aaron Liu's history in the UA, or his plans as
communication chair?
3. To the authors of 41 U.A.S. 1.2, I'd like to see the bill altered to
clarify who MIT's alumni base is a strong asset to - students, the
institute, the UA, etc? I'd also like to see some clarification as to
whether the committee will focus on relationships between individual
students and individual alumni, or students as a whole and alumni, or
something else. In short, I support the bill but think its current
phrasing is unclear.
4. I sat on Finboard during the appeals meeting as Senate's
representative, and will glady defend the allocations if people have any
questions.
5. The UA operating budget should be approved as it stands. Yes, I am
concerned that we are spending so much money on PLUS and Athletics
Weekend, but think that should be a target for future budgets, not the
current budget. I am glad that there are concrete plans to hand off PLUS
next year, and would like to see this promise held to. Thus I am
considering authoring a bill requiring the management of PLUS to be
handed over by next year as promised - is there support among other
senators?
6. The election transparency act is a great bill. I would have written
it myself if it hadn't been done already.
7. Suspending the minimum meeting interval is a necessary action for
this meeting, and this bill should be passed with no fuss. Perhaps we
should amend the Senate bylaws to allow for six days, not seven, between
meetings - is there support?
Also, please look over the minutes if you haven't already to make sure
we can vote on them quickly! We shouldn't need to spend time in meetings
reading over past minutes since they're available beforehand.
That's all I can think of for now. Here's hoping for only a three-hour
meeting tonight (/wishful thinking)...
Respectfully,
Catherine Olsson, Random Hall Senator
