[71] in UA Senate
Re: Meeting this evening - discuss!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Bockelie)
Tue Oct 13 18:08:20 2009
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:08:09 -0400
From: Adam Bockelie <bockelie@MIT.EDU>
To: Sammi Wyman <swyman@mit.edu>
CC: Paul Baranay <pbaranay@mit.edu>, Catherine A Olsson <catherio@mit.edu>,
Rachel E Meyer <remeyer@mit.edu>, ua-senate@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4B77CC79-0432-48C4-BD29-D6089F89CFC5@mit.edu>
That report is posted on the senate Legislation page, as Supplement - UA
CAR proposal
Sammi Wyman wrote:
> About the Alumni Relations Bill:
>
> I thought Adnan's Report on his vision for the committee was great,
> although that much info obviously can't really be worked into the bill.
> Would anyone object to that going out to senate? I wasn't really sure
> why that was just sent to exec-members.
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Paul Baranay wrote:
>
>> The Finboard Chair and Vice-Chair just sent me the allocations. They
>> are located at
>>
>> 41 UAS 1 - Summer Fall 2009 Finboard Appeals
>> <http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/pending/41%20UAS%201%20-%20Summer%20Fall%202009%20Finboard%20Appeals.xls>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Catherine A Olsson <catherio@mit.edu
>> <mailto:catherio@mit.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Adam Bockelie
801.209.7233
<bockelie@mit.edu>
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Class of 2011
