[780] in UA Senate
Re: Bill to Save Time
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Timothy Robertson)
Thu Sep 30 00:29:23 2010
In-Reply-To: <4CA410AC.3070800@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:29:20 -0400
From: Timothy Robertson <tim_r@MIT.EDU>
To: William Steadman <willst@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@MIT.EDU>, ua-senate@MIT.EDU
--001485f2d1e49b54120491728553
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Correct me if I am wrong, but is there not a process that we can go through
to temporarily suspend a rule during the discussion?
Tim
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:23 AM, William Steadman <willst@mit.edu> wrote:
> I will strike "he shall provide them to the senate" if you wish. Then it
> reads "Speaker makes rules he wants and if people don't like it they can =
use
> Roberts Rules. He does not need to write any rules. If he wants, he'll ju=
st
> say we're using Roberts Rules as is.
>
> In my view, we can use Roberts Rules as a basis and make modifications. F=
or
> example, every time we "divided the body" Jonte spent a minute to count t=
hat
> an overwhelming majority was for the bill. That will happen every meeting
> and is entirely unnecessary. Perhaps its not in Roberts Rules, but I don'=
t
> know. I don't want to read it all to find out. We can still "divide the
> body"/call for a hand vote, but don't need to count.
>
> Also, we should move straight to voting for bills and skip ending debate,
> unless somebody objects.
>
> Will
>
>
>
> On 09/30/2010 12:07 AM, Alex Dehnert wrote:
>
>> On 09/29/2010 11:16 PM, William Steadman wrote:
>>
>>> Since I felt we spent too much time at the last meeting, this bill
>>> removes us following Roberts Rules of Order and lets the Speaker decide
>>> which parliamentary procedure to follow. If 5 senators object to his
>>> method we return to Roberts Rules of Order.
>>>
>>> It mostly speaks for itself. I like the quote by the GSC.
>>>
>>> Happy to change it,
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>> Bill to Save Time
>>>
>>> Whereas: 15 minutes were wasted in meeting 42 U.A.S 1 on a point of
>>> order, and in general by unessecary parliamentary procedure.
>>>
>>> Whereas: The G.S.C. ammended their consitution via bill 51 G.S.C. 9.2
>>> which specificly states ``The G.S.C. The Bylaws currently state that
>>> Roberts Rules of Order should be used as a means of
>>> maintaining order at Council meetings. However, these rules of order ar=
e
>>> very
>>> complicated, requiring formal motions to be made for even the most mino=
r
>>> of things.
>>> Experience has shown that attempting to follow Roberts Rules leads to
>>> confusion and
>>> inefficiency. This amendment removes the restriction for using Roberts
>>> Rules, and
>>> instead simply states that the =93presiding officer shall follow a
>>> Parliamentary procedure to
>>> be made available to the Council=94.''
>>>
>>> Whereas: The Speaker already interprets Roberts Rules of Order.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is resolved that: Article IV Section B subsection 1 is ammended to
>>> say ``Any aspect of parliamentary procedure or rules not covered by
>>> these Bylaws or the UA Constitution shall be determined by the speaker.
>>> They will make this procedure available to the Senate. If durring a
>>>
>>
>> AIUI, that boils down to "the Speaker should write some rules of order,
>> and give them to the Senate", which seems... excessive. Writing a good s=
et
>> of parliamentary rules seems annoyingly time consuming.
>>
>> RONR has the advantage that it's widely used, so it tends to be the thin=
g
>> people are most likely to know ("most likely" may not mean much,
>> admittedly), you can find good teaching and reference materials, and the
>> details have been looked at enough to be sane.
>>
>> I don't think Monday's incident was typical, and I think that as Jonte
>> grows more used to running meetings, he'll grow better at using RONR in =
a
>> way that moves the meeting forward without being perceived as interferin=
g
>> with anyone's ability to be fairly heard (through speech and/or voting).
>>
>> senate meeting, 5 senators object to the method of parliamentary
>>> procedure, then the Speaker will defer to Roberts Rules of Order (lates=
t
>>> addtion) for the remainder of the meeting.''
>>>
>>
>> ~~Alex
>>
>
>
--=20
Tim Robertson II
MIT 2010
Mechanical Engineering
602-738-1196
UA Senate Office Hours:
B515 Sunday 5-8pm
--001485f2d1e49b54120491728553
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Correct me if I am wrong, but is there not a process that we can go through=
to temporarily suspend a rule during the discussion? <br><br>Tim <br><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:23 AM, William Steadma=
n <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:willst@mit.edu">willst@mit.edu</a=
>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">=A0I will strike =
"he shall provide them to the senate" if you wish. Then it reads =
"Speaker makes rules he wants and if people don't like it they can=
use Roberts Rules. He does not need to write any rules. If he wants, he=
9;ll just say we're using Roberts Rules as is.<br>
<br>
In my view, we can use Roberts Rules as a basis and make modifications. For=
example, every time we "divided the body" Jonte spent a minute t=
o count that an overwhelming majority was for the bill. That will happen ev=
ery meeting and is entirely unnecessary. Perhaps its not in Roberts Rules, =
but I don't know. I don't want to read it all to find out. We can s=
till "divide the body"/call for a hand vote, but don't need t=
o count.<br>
<br>
Also, we should move straight to voting for bills and skip ending debate, u=
nless somebody objects.<br>
<br>
Will<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 09/30/2010 12:07 AM, Alex Dehnert wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
On 09/29/2010 11:16 PM, William Steadman wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Since I felt we spent too much time at the last meeting, this bill<br>
removes us following Roberts Rules of Order and lets the Speaker decide<br>
which parliamentary procedure to follow. If 5 senators object to his<br>
method we return to Roberts Rules of Order.<br>
<br>
It mostly speaks for itself. I like the quote by the GSC.<br>
<br>
Happy to change it,<br>
<br>
Will<br>
<br>
Bill to Save Time<br>
<br>
Whereas: 15 minutes were wasted in meeting 42 U.A.S 1 on a point of<br>
order, and in general by unessecary parliamentary procedure.<br>
<br>
Whereas: The G.S.C. ammended their consitution via bill 51 G.S.C. 9.2<br>
which specificly states ``The G.S.C. The Bylaws currently state that<br>
Roberts Rules of Order should be used as a means of<br>
maintaining order at Council meetings. However, these rules of order are<br=
>
very<br>
complicated, requiring formal motions to be made for even the most minor<br=
>
of things.<br>
Experience has shown that attempting to follow Roberts Rules leads to<br>
confusion and<br>
inefficiency. This amendment removes the restriction for using Roberts<br>
Rules, and<br>
instead simply states that the =93presiding officer shall follow a<br>
Parliamentary procedure to<br>
be made available to the Council=94.''<br>
<br>
Whereas: The Speaker already interprets Roberts Rules of Order.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is resolved that: Article IV Section B subsection 1 is ammended to<br>
say ``Any aspect of parliamentary procedure or rules not covered by<br>
these Bylaws or the UA Constitution shall be determined by the speaker.<br>
They will make this procedure available to the Senate. If durring a<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
AIUI, that boils down to "the Speaker should write some rules of order=
, and give them to the Senate", which seems... excessive. Writing a go=
od set of parliamentary rules seems annoyingly time consuming.<br>
<br>
RONR has the advantage that it's widely used, so it tends to be the thi=
ng people are most likely to know ("most likely" may not mean muc=
h, admittedly), you can find good teaching and reference materials, and the=
details have been looked at enough to be sane.<br>
<br>
I don't think Monday's incident was typical, and I think that as Jo=
nte grows more used to running meetings, he'll grow better at using RON=
R in a way that moves the meeting forward without being perceived as interf=
ering with anyone's ability to be fairly heard (through speech and/or v=
oting).<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
senate meeting, 5 senators object to the method of parliamentary<br>
procedure, then the Speaker will defer to Roberts Rules of Order (latest<br=
>
addtion) for the remainder of the meeting.''<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
~~Alex<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Tim Roberts=
on II<br>MIT 2010<br>Mechanical Engineering<br>602-738-1196<br>UA Senate Of=
fice Hours:<br>B515 Sunday 5-8pm<br><br>
--001485f2d1e49b54120491728553--
