[792] in UA Senate
Re: Bill to Amend the Bylaws on Parliamentary Procedure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Krishna Esteva)
Sat Oct 2 19:15:32 2010
Reply-To: kesteva@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik0vjE7Uim5s1YB3sjqWiWfidV7KDtOWKWKD3C4@mail.gmail.com>
From: Krishna Esteva <kesteva@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 19:15:09 -0400
To: hwkns@mit.edu
Cc: William Steadman <willst@mit.edu>, ua-senate-officers@mit.edu,
ua-senate@mit.edu
--001636283fd0b366710491aa7c2a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I think the intention of this bill is suspension of rules that are becoming
burdensome or unnecessary. That's the point of having just five senators
object to overturn the speakers decision.
Most of the meeting dividing the body, or at least physically counting the
number of hands was entirely unnecessary but it was done because one or two
people requested it. This would be an excellent example of where this bill
would be useful. A second example is when there were unnecessary questions
of procedure that were bogging down senate (for example the need to vote
before actually having the vote for issues where there was already a clear
majority for one side).
The intention isn't arbitrary suspension of the rules at the
speakers discretion. We want a Senate the functions fluidly and there are
occasional instances where Robert's rules are a hindrance simply because
minority is using them to hold up senate. For these specific instances it
would be useful for the Speaker to quickly amend procedure so that we can
move forward. The five senator threshold is incredibly small, if there's
ever a time when the speaker is unreasonably suspending rules his decision
will be very quickly overturned.
Krishna
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu> wrote:
> While it is true that smoothly-run meetings will allow the senate to get
> through discussion and votes more quickly, it is entirely possible to have a
> smoothly-run meeting that follows Robert's Rules. And when you start trying
> to make things run faster by making up your own rules, you usually just end
> up shutting someone out who should have had the right to speak. We could
> make Senate run much faster if we just let the Speaker decide the outcome of
> each vote instead of actually talking about issues, but I'm guessing you're
> opposed to that because you want your voice to be heard.
>
> I'm not saying Senate shouldn't run faster - I'm with you on that point.
> But I don't think the answer is allowing on-the-fly informal rule changing.
> (do you really think that will /reduce/ confusion?) I do have a couple
> ideas:
>
> 1. Senators should stop moving previous question for every single vote.
> This motion should be used when discussion is going in circles, there are
> dissenting opinions that will not be convinced by further argument, and
> someone just wants to end it and take a vote. It was used several times at
> the last meeting when everyone was on the same page and there was no one on
> the queue. That's a complete waste of time. Let the speaker do his job
> (which is the spirit of your bill anyway).
>
> 2. The Speaker should appoint a parliamentarian. A big part of the
> time-wasting at the last meeting was confusion about the correct procedure.
> Whatever set of rules we decide to follow, there will be confusion about
> them among senators and the Speaker, and that will burn time. We need a
> parliamentarian to set things straight before that happens.
>
> 3. Senators (and other interested parties) should discuss things off-line
> (e.g., what's happening right now), and snap for agreement in meetings
> instead of getting on the queue to repeat the same thing someone else just
> said. I think people have been doing a pretty good job of this so far, so
> I'll leave it at that.
>
> I'm fairly certain this bill will simply waste more of Senate's time. Feel
> free to ignore my comments (after all, I'm not even a Senator this year),
> but please consider that there is already an established method for
> departing from Robert's Rules (writing more procedure into the bylaws). If
> the speaker would like to try out new forms of procedure, I would suggest
> that this be done with fake legislation during discussion time, instead of
> spontaneously applying new rules (which may not be well-thought-out and have
> not been vetted by the Senate) to legislation that matters.
>
> -hwkns
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:56 PM, William Steadman <willst@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Taking in some suggestions I altered the bill to what it appears in the
>> attachment.
>>
>> This bill acknowledges Roberts Rules of Order as the accepted base of
>> procedure of the Senate. I believe that adhearing strictly to Roberts Rules
>> is unessecary for the UA Senate. However, an established method for
>> departing from Roberts Rules is nessecary.
>>
>> Therefore, this bill lets the Speaker and Vice Speaker together ammend
>> Roberts Rules as necessary. This will be in addition to "suspend the rules"
>> At any time, 5 members of the Senate (which includes the members of UA Exec)
>> may cancel the Speakers decision.
>>
>> This bill will make the UA more efficent.
>>
>> 1. The more smoothly we move through the meeting, the more we can adress
>> and the less time each of us has to spend at meetings that go overtime.
>>
>> 2. This bill allows an easy way to try new rules. We can permanently adopt
>> them and slowly implement a better procedure.
>>
>> 3. It makes the UA more relevant. Few if any, constituents attend Senate
>> meetings. The minutes are enormously long. Constituents are more likely to
>> take part in the UA if our discussion is more straightforward.
>>
>
>
--
Krishna Esteva
415 E. McCormick Ave.
State College, PA 16801
(814)-321-2133
--001636283fd0b366710491aa7c2a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think the intention of this bill is suspension of rules that are becoming=
burdensome or=A0unnecessary. That's the point of having just five sena=
tors object to overturn the speakers decision.<div><br></div><div>Most of t=
he meeting dividing the body, or at least physically counting the number of=
hands was entirely=A0unnecessary=A0but it was done because one or two peop=
le requested it. This would be an excellent example of where this bill woul=
d be useful. A second example is when there were=A0unnecessary=A0questions =
of procedure that were bogging down senate (for example the need to vote be=
fore actually having the vote for issues where there was already a clear ma=
jority for one side).</div>
<div><br></div><div>The intention isn't arbitrary suspension of the rul=
es at the speakers=A0discretion. We want a Senate the functions fluidly and=
there are occasional instances where Robert's rules are a hindrance si=
mply because minority is using them to hold up senate. For these specific i=
nstances it would be useful for the Speaker to quickly amend procedure so t=
hat we can move forward. The five senator threshold is incredibly small, if=
there's ever a time when the speaker is unreasonably suspending rules =
his decision will be very quickly overturned.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Krishna<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 2=
, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Daniel Hawkins <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:h=
wkns@mit.edu">hwkns@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex;">
While it is true that smoothly-run meetings will allow the senate to get
through discussion and votes more quickly, it is entirely possible to=20
have a smoothly-run meeting that follows Robert's Rules.=A0 And when yo=
u=20
start trying to make things run faster by making up your own rules, you=20
usually just end up shutting someone out who should have had the right=20
to speak.=A0 We could make Senate run much faster if we just let the=20
Speaker decide the outcome of each vote instead of actually talking=20
about issues, but I'm guessing you're opposed to that because you w=
ant=20
your voice to be heard.<br>
<br>I'm not saying Senate shouldn't run faster - I'm with you o=
n that=20
point.=A0 But I don't think the answer is allowing on-the-fly informal=
=20
rule changing. (do you really think that will /reduce/ confusion?)=A0 I do
have a couple ideas:<br><br>1. Senators should stop moving previous=20
question for every single vote.=A0 This motion should be used when=20
discussion is going in circles, there are dissenting opinions that will=20
not be convinced by further argument, and someone just wants to end it=20
and take a vote.=A0 It was used several times at the last meeting when=20
everyone was on the same page and there was no one on the queue.=A0 That=
9;s
a complete waste of time.=A0 Let the speaker do his job (which is the=20
spirit of your bill anyway).<br>
<br>2. The Speaker should appoint a parliamentarian.=A0 A big part of the=
=20
time-wasting at the last meeting was confusion about the correct=20
procedure.=A0 Whatever set of rules we decide to follow, there will be=20
confusion about them among senators and the Speaker, and that will burn=20
time.=A0 We need a parliamentarian to set things straight before that=20
happens.<br>
<br>
3. Senators (and other interested parties) should discuss things=20
off-line (e.g., what's happening right now), and snap for agreement in=
=20
meetings instead of getting on the queue to repeat the same thing=20
someone else just said.=A0 I think people have been doing a pretty good=20
job of this so far, so I'll leave it at that.<br>
<br>
I'm fairly certain this bill will simply waste more of Senate's tim=
e.=A0=20
Feel free to ignore my comments (after all, I'm not even a Senator this=
=20
year), but please consider that there is already an established method=20
for departing from Robert's Rules (writing more procedure into the=20
bylaws).=A0 If the speaker would like to try out new forms of procedure, I
would suggest that this be done with fake legislation during discussion
time, instead of spontaneously applying new rules (which may not be=20
well-thought-out and have not been vetted by the Senate) to legislation=20
that matters.<br>
<br>-hwkns<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div class=3D"im">On Fri, Oct =
1, 2010 at 11:56 PM, William Steadman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mail=
to:willst@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">willst@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<b=
r></div>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);paddi=
ng-left:1ex">
=A0Taking in some suggestions I altered the bill to what it appears in the =
attachment.<br>
<br>
This bill acknowledges Roberts Rules of Order as the accepted base of proce=
dure of the Senate. I believe that adhearing strictly to Roberts Rules is u=
nessecary for the UA Senate. However, an established method for departing f=
rom Roberts Rules is nessecary.<br>
<br>
Therefore, this bill lets the Speaker and Vice Speaker together ammend Robe=
rts Rules as necessary. This will be in addition to "suspend the rules=
" At any time, 5 members of the Senate (which includes the members of =
UA Exec) may cancel the Speakers decision.<br>
<br>
This bill will make the UA more efficent.<br>
<br>
1. The more smoothly we move through the meeting, the more we can adress an=
d the less time each of us has to spend at meetings that go overtime.<br>
<br>
2. This bill allows an easy way to try new rules. We can permanently adopt =
them and slowly implement a better procedure.<br>
<br>
3. It makes the UA more relevant. Few if any, constituents attend Senate me=
etings. The minutes are enormously long. Constituents are more likely to ta=
ke part in the UA if our discussion is more straightforward.<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div><br><div style=3D"display:inline"></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Krishna Esteva<br>415 E=
. McCormick Ave.<br>State College, PA 16801<br>(814)-321-2133<br>
</div>
--001636283fd0b366710491aa7c2a--
