[62] in UA Senate
Re: Meeting this evening - discuss!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Catherine A Olsson)
Tue Oct 13 15:19:25 2009
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Catherine A Olsson <catherio@MIT.EDU>
To: Rachel E Meyer <remeyer@MIT.EDU>
cc: ua-senate@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0910131452520.18566@dr-wily.mit.edu>
Unfortuantely, I haven't seen any posted proposal yet.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Rachel E Meyer wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
