[798] in UA Senate
Re: Bill to Amend the Bylaws on Parliamentary Procedure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Jenks)
Sun Oct 3 16:50:06 2010
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin91LV11dGyOknPDDxPT849kT8-_XVsJ5CZoUEk@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 16:50:02 -0400
From: Tim Jenks <tjenks@MIT.EDU>
To: hwkns <hwkns@mit.edu>
Cc: kesteva <kesteva@gmail.com>, William Steadman <willst@mit.edu>,
ua-senate-officers <ua-senate-officers@mit.edu>,
ua-senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
--00163630f475666a380491bc9243
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I'm seconding pretty much everything Hawkins said. He hit all the key
points. Yes, last Monday's meeting was unnecessarily long. And yes, it
could have gone faster. But this bill isn't the solution. What would work
much better is for everyone to understand when they should use parliamentary
procedure as strategy, and when they're just tying up Senate by being a
stickler about rules. There are some changes that can and will be made to
how meetings are run which will shore up some of the time that we wasted
last meeting. I'd encourage Senate, especially the new senators, to give it
another week, and then go on the retreat (you do actually have time to come,
its why we put it on a 3-day weekend, and its not too late to let me know
you're coming), and then if we're still wasting time after a few weeks, pass
the bill.
I don't think this is the solution we need, especially when y'all are basing
the premises of this bill on one data point. I intend on motioning to
postpone this bill until 42 UAS 3, and if that fails, I intend to vote
against it, which I believe is the correct course of action.
--Tim
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu> wrote:
> I get the /point/ of the legislation, I just think it's a bad idea.
> Trusting Jonte's judgement is one thing. Giving power to The Speaker by
> amending The Bylaws is a BFD.
>
> If the minority is hijacking discussion, someone moves previous question,
> 2/3 of people vote to end discussion, and the problem is solved. This can
> take less than 30 seconds if there is no confusion. The problem is not with
> Robert's Rules, it's that this version of Senate hasn't yet learned to use
> them effectively.
>
> I agree with you that last Monday's meeting was unnecessarily long, and
> that things did not go smoothly, and that there was a vocal minority, and
> that there was confusion over procedure that wasted everyone's time. I do
> not agree that this bill will fix things like that.
>
> Here's a question: What rule should Jonte have suspended to in order to
> prevent the time-wasting that occurred one week ago?
>
> -hwkns
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Krishna Esteva <kesteva@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you're missing the point of the legislation. It simply gives the
>> speaker somewhat more discretionary power. I trust Jonte's judgement when it
>> comes to determining whether debate is actually being productive. Hearing
>> the minority is an important principle, allowing the minority to hijack
>> discussion is absolutely not. I think it would be fairly obvious if power
>> was being abused and in that case I'm sure there are plenty of people who
>> would step forward to prevent that from happening.
>>
>> Robert's Rules are in place to facilitate the process of discussion, I
>> think our experience from last Monday very clearly showed that there were
>> situations in which it was doing the exact opposite. In case you didn't
>> notice we spent 10 minutes discussing $150 for a scanner on Monday and
>> completely skipped discussing the fact that we were taking $30 thousand out
>> of our reserves. We spent another 15 minutes discussing whether or not a
>> vote to take a vote was in order despite the fact that the overwhelming
>> majority who voted to pass the motion would just as readily voted to end
>> debate. This wastes everybody's time and only gives the illusion of
>> providing the minority a voice because it would have been overruled either
>> way.
>>
>> A motion to suspend the rules requires another vote (and inevitably a
>> motion to divide the body). This enables Jonte to do the same thing by
>> simply stating that he is suspending a particular rule and asking for any
>> objections. You get the same result and spend a tenth of the time doing it.
>>
>> Krishna
>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> The minority has the right to be heard. People also change their minds
>>> (turning a clear majority completely around in some cases); this is why
>>> debate is important, it's why a 2/3 vote is required to end discussion, and
>>> it's why RONR doesn't allow suspension of the rules that require that the
>>> minority be heard.
>>>
>>> If you want to approve this bill so the Senate can half-ass discussions
>>> and push out legislation like an assembly line, you don't understand why
>>> Senate exists and you should consider resigning. If, on the other hand, you
>>> want to approve this bill so the Senate can suspend annoying procedural
>>> rules when at most 4 people are against it, you don't understand that the
>>> Motion to Suspend the Rules already does that, and the Speaker can call for
>>> that motion if he thinks it would be useful.
>>>
>>> -hwkns
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Krishna Esteva <kesteva@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Krishna Esteva
>> 415 E. McCormick Ave.
>> State College, PA 16801
>> (814)-321-2133
>>
>
>
--00163630f475666a380491bc9243
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm seconding pretty much everything Hawkins said.=A0 He hit all the ke=
y points.=A0 Yes, last Monday's meeting was unnecessarily long.=A0 And =
yes, it could have gone faster.=A0 But this bill isn't the solution.=A0=
What would work much better is for everyone to understand when they should=
use parliamentary procedure as strategy, and when they're just tying u=
p Senate by being a stickler about rules.=A0 There are some changes that ca=
n and will be made to how meetings are run which will shore up some of the =
time that we wasted last meeting.=A0 I'd encourage Senate, especially t=
he new senators, to give it another week, and then go on the retreat (you d=
o actually have time to come, its why we put it on a 3-day weekend, and its=
not too late to let me know you're coming), and then if we're stil=
l wasting time after a few weeks, pass the bill.<br>
<br>I don't think this is the solution we need, especially when y'a=
ll are basing the premises of this bill on one data point.=A0 I intend on m=
otioning to postpone this bill until 42 UAS 3, and if that fails, I intend =
to vote against it, which I believe is the correct course of action.<br>
<br>--Tim<br><br>
<br><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM, =
Daniel Hawkins <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:hwkns@mit.edu" targe=
t=3D"_blank">hwkns@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;">I get the /point/=
of the legislation, I just think it's a bad idea.=A0 Trusting Jonte=
9;s judgement is one thing.=A0 Giving power to The Speaker by amending The =
Bylaws is a BFD.<br>
<br>If the minority is hijacking discussion, someone moves previous questio=
n, 2/3 of people vote to end discussion, and the problem is solved.=A0 This=
can take less than 30 seconds if there is no confusion.=A0 The problem is =
not with Robert's Rules, it's that this version of Senate hasn'=
t yet learned to use them effectively.<br>
<br>I agree with you that last Monday's meeting was unnecessarily long,=
and that things did not go smoothly, and that there was a vocal minority, =
and that there was confusion over procedure that wasted everyone's time=
.=A0 I do not agree that this bill will fix things like that.<br>
<br>Here's a question:=A0 What rule should Jonte have suspended to in o=
rder to prevent the time-wasting that occurred one week ago?<br><br>-hwkns<=
div><div></div><div><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 3, 2=
010 at 2:24 PM, Krishna Esteva <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:kest=
eva@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">kesteva@gmail.com</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;">I think you'r=
e missing the point of the legislation. It simply gives the speaker somewha=
t more discretionary power. I trust Jonte's judgement when it comes to =
determining whether debate is actually being productive. Hearing the minori=
ty is an important principle, allowing the minority to hijack discussion is=
absolutely not. I think it would be fairly obvious if power was being abus=
ed and in that case I'm sure there are plenty of people who would step =
forward to prevent that from happening.=A0<div>
<br></div><div>Robert's Rules are in place to facilitate the process of=
discussion, I think our experience from last Monday very clearly showed th=
at there were situations in which it was doing the exact opposite. In case =
you didn't notice we spent 10 minutes discussing $150 for a scanner on =
Monday and completely skipped discussing the fact that we were taking $30 t=
housand out of our reserves. We spent another 15 minutes discussing whether=
or not a vote to take a vote was in order despite the fact that the overwh=
elming majority who voted to pass the motion would just as readily voted to=
end debate. This wastes everybody's time and only gives the illusion o=
f providing the minority a voice because it would have been overruled eithe=
r way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>A motion to suspend the rules requires another vote (an=
d inevitably a motion to divide the body). This enables Jonte to do the sam=
e thing by simply stating that he is suspending a particular rule and askin=
g for any objections. You get the same result and spend a tenth of the time=
doing it.</div>
<div><br></div><font color=3D"#888888"><div>Krishna</div></font><div><div><=
/div><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:22 AM, =
Daniel Hawkins <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:hwkns@mit.edu" targe=
t=3D"_blank">hwkns@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;">
The minority has the right to be heard.=A0 People also change their minds (=
turning a clear majority completely around in some cases); this is why deba=
te is important, it's why a 2/3 vote is required to end discussion, and=
it's why RONR doesn't allow suspension of the rules that require t=
hat the minority be heard.<br>
<br>If you want to approve this bill so the Senate can half-ass discussions=
and push out legislation like an assembly line, you don't understand w=
hy Senate exists and you should consider resigning.=A0 If, on the other han=
d, you want to approve this bill so the Senate can suspend annoying procedu=
ral rules when at most 4 people are against it, you don't understand th=
at the Motion to Suspend the Rules already does that, and the Speaker can c=
all for that motion if he thinks it would be useful.<br>
<br>-hwkns<div><div></div><div><br>
<br><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 7:15 PM, =
Krishna Esteva <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:kesteva@gmail.com" t=
arget=3D"_blank">kesteva@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px sol=
id rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
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<div><div></div><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Daniel Hawkins <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:hwkns@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">hwkns@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;">
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>On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11=
:56 PM, William Steadman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:willst@mit=
.edu" target=3D"_blank">willst@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br></div>
<div><div></div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt=
0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1e=
x;">
=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></div></div>-- <br>Krishna Est=
eva<br>415 E. McCormick Ave.<br>State College, PA 16801<br>(814)-321-2133<b=
r>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><div style=3D"display: inline;"></div>
<div style=3D"display: inline;"></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Krishna Est=
eva<br>415 E. McCormick Ave.<br>State College, PA 16801<br>(814)-321-2133<b=
r>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><div style=3D"display: inline;"></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--00163630f475666a380491bc9243--
