[852] in UA Senate
Re: Tonight's meeting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (willst)
Tue Oct 19 01:23:26 2010
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:23:22 -0400
From: willst <willst@MIT.EDU>
To: ua-senate@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikqod-AcgYWOMzgXLq1J8d_bSMODaKCSLr_112H@mail.gmail.com>
In my understanding,
A bill postponed indefinitely can be reconsidered only at the same meeting =
it
was postponed. If that does not happen, then it must be brought up as a new
bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpone_indefinitely
However, one can rescind the motion to postpone the bill indefinitely. This
requires two thirds, or a simple majority given prior notice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescind_or_amend_something_previously_adopted
I will note you used the phrase "tabled." To table a bill, is different
than to
postpone the bill. The motion to table a bill is not debatable, but require=
s
2/3 majority. If the bill had been tabled, then it can be taken up at the n=
ext
meeting. This requires a majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure)
I hope that helps.
Will
Quoting Shuang Chen <shuang61@MIT.EDU>:
> Point of parliamentary inquiry: What does one need to do to bring a bill
> that was "tabled indefinitely" off said table?
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Janet Li <jli12@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> I agree. I do think that what happened tonight shows that we need to thi=
nk
>> about possibly restructuring our meetings in a way that will make Senate
>> most successful and productive and happy for everyone. The point of Robe=
rt's
>> Rules of Order is to give us order at our meetings, but, as you guys hav=
e
>> already seen at almost every one of our Senate meetings this year, our
>> nitpicking over the more obscure and not as important rules often just g=
ets
>> in the way and makes our meetings incredibly inefficient and dysfunction=
al.
>> I am fully in support of Will's bill that we "postponed indefinitely" to=
day
>> (too bad I can't vote).
>>
>> Another reason I feel strongly about this is that we have been trying to
>> increase UA communication with students this year, and one of our goals =
was
>> to get more students to come to Senate meetings. The way they've been go=
ing,
>> I wouldn't even *want* undergrads to come and see how ineffectually they
>> start to run--and that only happens after we start to be under parliamen=
tary
>> procedure. Have you noticed that? We are all very happy and get along fi=
ne
>> during discussion mode, and later, when we have to follow Robert's Rules=
,
>> there is always some controversial rule brought up or motion made, chaos
>> reigns, people snap at each other, and the meeting gets more tedious and
>> even longer.
>>
>> We will turn people off if we keep sticking to these rules. I remember
>> thinking they were intimidating and strange when I first joined Senate. =
I
>> don't understand why Senate has to be so formal anyway. I don't want to
>> continue this tradition of having long and exhausting and vicious meetin=
gs.
>> I want people to actually *want* to come to Senate, and not have it be a
>> mind-numbing, time-wasting chore.
>>
>> Older UA members are probably used to Robert's Rules, because it is the
>> status quo, but let's see if ANY of the new Senators seriously enjoy the=
m,
>> especially the more obscure and insignificant ones that we fight over an=
d
>> make us waste even more of our evenings. Some of the main ones are
>> definitely useful for keeping order, but I really think that we would
>> proceed more efficiently and happily if we didn't nitpick over some of t=
he
>> minor ones.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Michael E Plasmeier
>> <theplaz@mit.edu>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks. I understand that many of the Senators wished to adjourn for t=
he
>>> night because they have other personal issues to attend to tonight
>>> which may
>>> be more important than changes to Athena/printing. However, as an
>>> outsider I would suggest that Senate meetings would be more successful =
if
>>> they discussed actual issues facing students rather than Robert=E2=80=
=99s Rules of
>>> Order. I know this is challenging to do to make sure that all
>>> students will
>>> have a voice (see the bill that failed today) =E2=80=93 but at the same=
time
>>> Robert=E2=80=99s rules is an endurance contest, where students who do n=
ot endure do
>>> not get a view. I also understand that Robert=E2=80=99s Rules were wri=
tten in 1876
>>> by people who had all the time in the world=E2=80=A6..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (I just shudder about sitting there for another few hours next Monday. =
I
>>> have a deep, deep respect for the senators who do this every Monday.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* thebigal1@gmail.com [mailto:thebigal1@gmail.com] *On Behalf
>>> Of *Allan
>>> Miramonti
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 18, 2010 11:54 PM
>>> *To:* ua-senate@mit.edu
>>> *Subject:* Tonight's meeting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am writing to let Senate know that I am not okay with the actions tak=
en
>>> by Senate tonight with regards to skipping over scheduled business and
>>> discussion. Thankfully, we found a way to backtrack a bit and have yo=
u
>>> guys do your jobs. I would like to remind my fellow senators that you =
took
>>> an oath to do your jobs, and that means attending to the business at ha=
nd.
>>> I do not care that it is past your bedtime, nor do I care about your
>>> personal opinion on an agenda item. If you are too lazy to represent t=
he
>>> student body, I recommend you resign immediately.
>>>
>>> I don't fault those who make motions that are within everyone's rights =
to
>>> make, but I do demand that our senators care about their office.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>> Allan Miramonti
>>> Random Senator
>>>
>>
>>
>
