[63] in UA Senate
Re: Meeting this evening - discuss!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Jenks)
Tue Oct 13 15:44:25 2009
In-Reply-To: <1255458785.31018.20.camel@eestata40.csail.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:43:00 -0400
From: Tim Jenks <trjenks@gmail.com>
To: Catherine A Olsson <catherio@mit.edu>
Cc: ua-senate@mit.edu
--0016361e816e02255c0475d64167
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Thanks for the email Catherine to jump start us for this evening.
I think you raise a valid point with #3 on alumni relations. Perhaps the
bill should suggest the Committee work with the inconsistencies that it
recognizes (although I've not yet been introduced to these inconsistencies),
in addition to giving it authority to probe new ways to connect with
alumni. This might guard against throwing another inconsistent or
inefficient method of communicating with alumni into the mix.
And I think your #7 is a good idea. (amending bylaws for 6 days between
meetings) Would an amendment to 41 UAS 1.4 or a new bill proposed next
meeting be more appropriate to see this change?
--Tim Jenks
Fraternities Senator
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Catherine A Olsson <catherio@mit.edu>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
>
>
--0016361e816e02255c0475d64167
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for the email Catherine to jump start us for this evening.<br>I thin=
k you raise a valid point with #3 on alumni relations.=A0 Perhaps the bill =
should suggest the Committee work with the inconsistencies that it recogniz=
es (although I've not yet been introduced to these inconsistencies), in=
addition to giving it authority to probe new ways to connect with alumni.=
=A0 This might guard against throwing another inconsistent or inefficient m=
ethod of communicating with alumni into the mix.<br>
<br>And I think your #7 is a good idea.=A0 (amending bylaws for 6 days betw=
een meetings)=A0 Would an amendment to 41 UAS 1.4 or a new bill proposed n=
ext meeting be more appropriate to see this change?<br><br><br>--Tim Jenks<=
br>
Fraternities Senator<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 13, 2009=
at 2:33 PM, Catherine A Olsson <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:cat=
herio@mit.edu">catherio@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin=
: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi all,<br>
There's a very long meeting coming up this evening, and I haven't s=
een<br>
any email on the discussion list yet hashing out our opinions on any of<br>
the legislation. This definitely isn't optimal, given how inefficient i=
t<br>
is to try to work out all our opinions in-person at a meeting without<br>
having talked about them at all beforehand, and how easy it is to talk<br>
about things on the mailing list. Personally I don't have anything<br>
particularly controversial to say about this week's agenda, which is wh=
y<br>
I haven't spoken up yet, but that is probably no excuse for me to not<b=
r>
have done so.<br>
<br>
With quite a few hours left before the meeting, I'm sure we can have at=
<br>
least a little productive discussion before then, and make sure the<br>
meeting isn't horrendously long. (also pardon my unprofessional<br>
kibitzing in the parenthetical comments, it's mostly directed at new<br=
>
senators)<br>
<br>
Here's where I stand on a few important points. Let's discuss!<br>
1. The UA planning task force report looks great and we should approve<br>
it without much fuss. (go ahead and disagree with me, it's more<br>
efficient to do so here and now than in person!)<br>
<br>
2. I intend to vote to approve Adam Bockelie as dining chair, SheeShee<br>
Jin as Space Planning chair, and Alexandra Jordan as Sustainability<br>
chair, and don't feel I need more information on them before voting. (i=
f<br>
you want more information, ask someone now!)<br>
2a. I'd like to know a bit more about Aaron Liu's plans as<br>
Communications Chair. I think communications is one area that the UA<br>
could do *much* better at, and in the question phase of his confirmation<br=
>
hearing I hope to convey that to the nominee. Can anyone provide<br>
information about Aaron Liu's history in the UA, or his plans as<br>
communication chair?<br>
<br>
3. To the authors of 41 U.A.S. 1.2, I'd like to see the bill altered to=
<br>
clarify who MIT's alumni base is a strong asset to - students, the<br>
institute, the UA, etc? I'd also like to see some clarification as to<b=
r>
whether the committee will focus on relationships between individual<br>
students and individual alumni, or students as a whole and alumni, or<br>
something else. In short, I support the bill but think its current<br>
phrasing is unclear.<br>
<br>
4. I sat on Finboard during the appeals meeting as Senate's<br>
representative, and will glady defend the allocations if people have any<br=
>
questions.<br>
<br>
5. The UA operating budget should be approved as it stands. Yes, I am<br>
concerned that we are spending so much money on PLUS and Athletics<br>
Weekend, but think that should be a target for future budgets, not the<br>
current budget. I am glad that there are concrete plans to hand off PLUS<br=
>
next year, and would like to see this promise held to. Thus I am<br>
considering authoring a bill requiring the management of PLUS to be<br>
handed over by next year as promised - is there support among other<br>
senators?<br>
<br>
6. The election transparency act is a great bill. I would have written<br>
it myself if it hadn't been done already.<br>
<br>
7. Suspending the minimum meeting interval is a necessary action for<br>
this meeting, and this bill should be passed with no fuss. Perhaps we<br>
should amend the Senate bylaws to allow for six days, not seven, between<br=
>
meetings - is there support?<br>
<br>
Also, please look over the minutes if you haven't already to make sure<=
br>
we can vote on them quickly! We shouldn't need to spend time in meeting=
s<br>
reading over past minutes since they're available beforehand.<br>
<br>
That's all I can think of for now. Here's hoping for only a three-h=
our<br>
meeting tonight (/wishful thinking)...<br>
<br>
Respectfully,<br>
Catherine Olsson, Random Hall Senator<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
--0016361e816e02255c0475d64167--
