[61] in UA Senate
Re: Meeting this evening - discuss!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rachel E Meyer)
Tue Oct 13 14:58:58 2009
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:58:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rachel E Meyer <remeyer@MIT.EDU>
To: Catherine A Olsson <catherio@mit.edu>
cc: ua-senate@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <1255458785.31018.20.camel@eestata40.csail.mit.edu>
One thing really quickly... for #4, is there a posted proposal yet? Or
even just a total amount being additionally allocated during appeals, or a
list a groups receiving money? Something? I don't think Senate needs to
go through this very carefully, but individuals should have the
opportunity to do so and I think those 2 things (total $ amount and list
of groups) are important top-level issues for Senate to know/consider.
-Rachel
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Catherine A Olsson wrote:
> 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
>
>
