[67] in UA Senate
Re: Meeting this evening - discuss!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Baranay)
Tue Oct 13 16:26:53 2009
In-Reply-To: <4AD4DCF4.1070003@mit.edu>
From: Paul Baranay <pbaranay@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:26:24 -0400
To: Catherine Olsson <catherio@mit.edu>
Cc: Tim Jenks <trjenks@gmail.com>, ua-senate@mit.edu
--0016e6d784e36014200475d6ddfa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Catherine Olsson <catherio@mit.edu> wrote:
> Tim Jenks wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
> I'm not sure of the restrictions on amending the bylaws, but I imagine
> there may be some. Furthermore, it just semes like an amendment to the
> bylaws is not an appropriate fix for a time-sensitive issue. I think the
> time-sensitive fix should proceed, and I'll propose an amendment to the
> bylaws at the next meeting.
>
That seem like a sound course of action, Catherine.
As a general note: amending the bylaws requires that the bill lie on the
table for a meeting before being voting on. Moreover, the motion cannot be
brought up as new business -- it must appear on the agenda for the meeting
-- so I would urge you to consider resolving this next week (by introducing
the motion in 41 UAS 3, and voting on it in 41 UAS 4).
It does seem reasonable to tweak the bylaws slightly to "build in" this
flexibility in the future. Modifying the "seven calendar days" to "six
calendar days" is certainly an elegant solution.
Best,
Paul
P.S. To quote more fully from the bylaws -- "Except as otherwise specified
herein, these Bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The
motion to amend must lie upon the table for at least one meeting prior to
the vote. The motion must appear on the agenda for the meeting."
It is actually unclear to me whether the text "The motion must appear on the
agenda for the meeting" refers to (a) the initial proposal of the amendment,
(b) the meeting in which the amendment is taken off the table, or (c) both.
In absence of compelling argument, I'm operating under the strictest
interpretation, (c), for now.
--0016e6d784e36014200475d6ddfa
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Catherine Olsso=
n <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:catherio@mit.edu">catherio@mit.ed=
u</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">Tim Jenks wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And I think your #7 is a good idea. =A0(amending bylaws for 6 days between =
meetings) =A0Would an amendment to 41 UAS 1.4 or a new bill proposed next m=
eeting be more appropriate to see this change?<br>
</blockquote></div>
I'm not sure of the restrictions on amending the bylaws, but I imagine =
there may be some. Furthermore, it just semes like an amendment to the byla=
ws is not an appropriate fix for a time-sensitive issue. I think the time-s=
ensitive fix should proceed, and I'll propose an amendment to the bylaw=
s at the next meeting.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><div>That seem like a sound course of action, Cather=
ine.</div><div><br></div><div>As a general note: amending the bylaws requir=
es that the bill lie on the table for a meeting before being voting on. =A0=
Moreover, the motion cannot be brought up as new business -- it must appear=
on the agenda for the meeting -- so I would urge you to consider resolving=
this next week (by introducing the motion in 41 UAS 3, and voting on it in=
41 UAS 4).</div>
<div><br></div><div>It does seem reasonable to tweak the bylaws slightly to=
"build in" this flexibility in the future. =A0Modifying the &quo=
t;seven calendar days" to "six calendar days" is certainly a=
n elegant solution.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div><div>P.S. =A0T=
o quote more fully from the bylaws -- "Except as otherwise specified h=
erein, these Bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the=A0Senate. Th=
e motion to amend must lie upon the table for at least one meeting prior to=
the vote. The=A0motion must appear on the agenda for the meeting."</d=
iv>
<div><br></div><div>It is actually unclear to me whether the text "The=
motion must appear on the agenda for the meeting" refers to (a) the i=
nitial proposal of the amendment, (b) the meeting in which the amendment is=
taken off the table, or (c) both. =A0In absence of compelling argument, I&=
#39;m operating under the strictest interpretation, (c), for now.</div>
--0016e6d784e36014200475d6ddfa--
