[856] in UA Senate
Re: Tonight's meeting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Jenks)
Tue Oct 19 10:25:43 2010
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimvRMEE=K2Twwx=rjidX21LNhvJ4BHDsAcVpomN@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:25:39 -0400
From: Tim Jenks <tjenks@MIT.EDU>
To: Owen Derby <oderby@mit.edu>
Cc: "ua-senate@mit.edu" <ua-senate@mit.edu>
--001485e8ab84302dee0492f911d0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi guys and gals,
Thanks for the concerns that y'all addressed here. While I think the guest=
s
tonight and at UAS 2 were helpful and provided useful insight to both mysel=
f
and Senate as a whole, it is imperative that we have ample time to freely
discuss all the other things on the agenda. Starting business at 9:30 is
really late, considering that Senate meetings officially start two hour
prior. We don't have a guest speaker currently scheduled for next meeting,
and we're going to try to keep guest speakers/discussion facilitators to on=
e
or an hour or so in the future so we'll be able to get to anything that we
need to. We're also going to try to put space for newer business or
something on the agenda that lets people know if we want to talk about
something that didn't make it in to the agenda a few days prior (see
Hawkins' confirmation or Allan's bill), because its dumb that we have to
suspend the bylaws to consider low-level things that take 3 minutes.
--Tim
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Owen Derby <oderby@mit.edu> wrote:
> *snaps*
>
> Further, it is up to Jonte as speaker to move discussion along, that is w=
hy
> his position exists.
>
> If you want to end discussion, you can always raise a point of informatio=
n
> to find out how many people are left on the queue before moving to call t=
o
> question. Often times if there are <2 people on the queue, it is better t=
o
> just pass and let them speak than trying to prevent them from speaking.
>
> The same also goes for trying to force us to follow an estimated time lin=
e.
> We spent a significant amount of time over the whole ordeal which could h=
ave
> been spent instead on the important business that was on the agenda. That=
is
> not to say one could not have moved to adjourn (as long as it is past the
> time at which Jonte has indicated he will entertain such motions) instead=
.
> However, that get's back to Daniel and Allan's points about following you=
r
> duties. Jonte could ensure that we don't have this issue in the future by
> over-estimating the time for each item instead of attempting to produce a=
n
> accurate estimate.
>
> Finally, I think the reason why meetings feel so long is that we are
> attempting to spend 2/3 of our scheduled time in discussion and only 1/3 =
in
> considering and passing legislation, when it has been a 50-50 split in
> previous years. See http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/agendas/ for last
> years agendas. While I think the increased discussion time is a great thi=
ng,
> it's a tradeoff that senate should address if they think it's an issue.
>
> - Owen
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Full disclosure: I'm one of those "older UA members".
>>
>> NONE of Robert's Rules is insignificant. They all exist to ensure due
>> process. From what I have observed so far, it is ONLY when senators try=
to
>> circumvent due process that we have to wank about the rules for 20 minut=
es
>> to get things straightened out. If you didn't try to cut off discussion
>> before everyone has been heard, and if you didn't try to end the meeting
>> before everything on the agenda has been brought up (including guests wh=
o
>> waited on you patiently with the assumption that you would get to them
>> eventually), you wouldn't have "obscure" rules imposed in an attempt to =
get
>> back on track.
>>
>> Senate meetings are always going to be long. There are important issues
>> to discuss, so if you don't want to discuss them... don't be a senator. =
I
>> agree that the meetings have been too long lately, but the solution to t=
hat
>> problem likely has more to do with guest speakers than it does with
>> parliamentary procedure.
>>
>> Allan's point is that tonight, several of you abandoned your sworn duty,
>> insulting fellow undergraduates who relied on you to take them seriously=
,
>> and that is not okay. I'm inclined to agree with him.
>>
>> -hwkns
>>
>>
>> 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
>>> think about possibly restructuring our meetings in a way that will make
>>> Senate most successful and productive and happy for everyone. The point=
of
>>> Robert's Rules of Order is to give us order at our meetings, but, as yo=
u
>>> guys have already seen at almost every one of our Senate meetings this =
year,
>>> our nitpicking over the more obscure and not as important rules often j=
ust
>>> gets in the way and makes our meetings incredibly inefficient and
>>> dysfunctional. I am fully in support of Will's bill that we "postponed
>>> indefinitely" today (too bad I can't vote).
>>>
>>> Another reason I feel strongly about this is that we have been trying t=
o
>>> 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 g=
oing,
>>> I wouldn't even *want* undergrads to come and see how ineffectually the=
y
>>> start to run--and that only happens after we start to be under parliame=
ntary
>>> procedure. Have you noticed that? We are all very happy and get along f=
ine
>>> during discussion mode, and later, when we have to follow Robert's Rule=
s,
>>> there is always some controversial rule brought up or motion made, chao=
s
>>> reigns, people snap at each other, and the meeting gets more tedious an=
d
>>> 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 meeti=
ngs.
>>> 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 th=
em,
>>> especially the more obscure and insignificant ones that we fight over a=
nd
>>> 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 =
the
>>> 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
>>>> the 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=92s Ru=
les of
>>>> Order. I know this is challenging to do to make sure that all student=
s will
>>>> have a voice (see the bill that failed today) =96 but at the same time
>>>> Robert=92s rules is an endurance contest, where students who do not en=
dure do
>>>> not get a view. I also understand that Robert=92s Rules were written =
in 1876
>>>> by people who had all the time in the world=85..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (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
>>>> taken by Senate tonight with regards to skipping over scheduled busine=
ss and
>>>> discussion. Thankfully, we found a way to backtrack a bit and have y=
ou
>>>> 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 h=
and.
>>>> 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 =
the
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--001485e8ab84302dee0492f911d0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi guys and gals,<br>Thanks for the concerns that y'all addressed here.=
=A0 While I think the guests tonight and at UAS 2 were helpful and provided=
useful insight to both myself and Senate as a whole, it is imperative that=
we have ample time to freely discuss all the other things on the agenda.=
=A0 Starting business at 9:30 is really late, considering that Senate meeti=
ngs officially start two hour prior.=A0 We don't have a guest speaker c=
urrently scheduled for next meeting, and we're going to try to keep gue=
st speakers/discussion facilitators to one or an hour or so in the future s=
o we'll be able to get to anything that we need to.=A0 We're also g=
oing to try to put space for newer business or something on the agenda that=
lets people know if we want to talk about something that didn't make i=
t in to the agenda a few days prior (see Hawkins' confirmation or Allan=
's bill), because its dumb that we have to suspend the bylaws to consid=
er low-level things that take 3 minutes.<br>
<br>--Tim<br><br><br>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Owen Derby =
<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:oderby@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">o=
derby@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204)=
; padding-left: 1ex;">
*snaps*<br><br>Further, it is up to Jonte as speaker to move discussion alo=
ng, that is why his position exists. <br><br>If you want to end discussion,=
you can always raise a point of information to find out how many people ar=
e left on the queue before moving to call to question. Often times if there=
are <2 people on the queue, it is better to just pass and let them spea=
k than trying to prevent them from speaking.<br>
<br>The same also goes for trying to force us to follow an estimated time l=
ine. We spent a significant amount of time over the whole ordeal which coul=
d have been spent instead on the important business that was on the agenda.=
That is not to say one could not have moved to adjourn (as long as it is p=
ast the time at which Jonte has indicated he will entertain such motions) i=
nstead. However, that get's back to Daniel and Allan's points about=
following your duties. Jonte could ensure that we don't have this issu=
e in the future by over-estimating the time for each item instead of attemp=
ting to produce an accurate estimate.<br>
<br>Finally, I think the reason why meetings feel so long is that we are at=
tempting to spend 2/3 of our scheduled time in discussion and only 1/3 in c=
onsidering and passing legislation, when it has been a 50-50 split in previ=
ous years. See <a href=3D"http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/agendas/" targ=
et=3D"_blank">http://web.mit.edu/ua/senate/UAS41/agendas/</a> for last year=
s agendas. While I think the increased discussion time is a great thing, it=
's a tradeoff that senate should address if they think it's an issu=
e.<br>
<font color=3D"#888888">
<br>- Owen</font><div><div></div><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On=
Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Daniel Hawkins <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:hwkns@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">hwkns@mit.edu</a>></span> wr=
ote:<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;">
Full disclosure:=A0 I'm one of those "older UA members".<br><=
br>NONE of Robert's Rules is insignificant.=A0 They all exist to ensure=
due process.=A0 From what I have observed so far, it is ONLY when senators=
try to circumvent due process that we have to wank about the rules for 20 =
minutes to get things straightened out.=A0 If you didn't try to cut off=
discussion before everyone has been heard, and if you didn't try to en=
d the meeting before everything on the agenda has been brought up (includin=
g guests who waited on you patiently with the assumption that you would get=
to them eventually), you wouldn't have "obscure" rules impos=
ed in an attempt to get back on track.<br>
<br>Senate meetings are always going to be long.=A0 There are important iss=
ues to discuss, so if you don't want to discuss them... don't be a =
senator.=A0 I agree that the meetings have been too long lately, but the so=
lution to that problem likely has more to do with guest speakers than it do=
es with parliamentary procedure.<br>
<br>Allan's point is that tonight, several of you abandoned your sworn =
duty, insulting fellow undergraduates who relied on you to take them seriou=
sly, and that is not okay.=A0 I'm inclined to agree with him.<br><br>
-hwkns<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1=
2:26 AM, Janet Li <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jli12@mit.edu" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">jli12@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: 1ex;">
I agree. I do think that what happened tonight shows that we
need to think about possibly restructuring our meetings in a way that
will make Senate most successful and productive and happy for everyone.
The point of Robert's Rules of Order is to give us order at our
meetings, but, as you guys have already seen at almost every one of our Sen=
ate meetings this year, our nitpicking over the more obscure and not as imp=
ortant rules often just gets in the way and makes our meetings incredibly i=
nefficient and dysfunctional. I am
fully in support of Will's bill that we "postponed indefinitely&qu=
ot; today (too bad I can't vote).<br>
<br>
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 going, I wouldn't even <i>want</i> undergrads to come and see how =
ineffectually they start to run--and that only happens after we start to be=
under
parliamentary procedure. Have you noticed that? We are all very happy
and get along fine 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.<br>
<br>
We will turn people off if we keep sticking to these rules. I remember thin=
king they were intimidating and strange when I first joined Senate. I don&#=
39;t
understand why Senate has to be so formal anyway. <font style=3D"font-famil=
y: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;" size=3D"1"><font style=3D"font-family: time=
s new roman,serif;" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"font-family: arial,helvetica,=
sans-serif;"></span></font></font>I don't want to continue this traditi=
on of having long and exhausting and vicious meetings. I want people to act=
ually <i>want</i> to come to Senate, and not have it be a mind-numbing, tim=
e-wasting chore. <br>
<br>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 enj=
oy them, especially the more obscure and insignificant ones that we fight o=
ver and 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 proce=
ed more efficiently and happily if we didn't nitpick over some of the m=
inor ones.<div>
<div></div><div><br>
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Michae=
l E Plasmeier <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:theplaz@mit.edu" targ=
et=3D"_blank">theplaz@mit.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0=
pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-US"><div><p class=3D"MsoNorm=
al"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Thanks.=A0 I =
understand that many of the Senators wished to adjourn for the night becaus=
e they have other personal issues to attend to tonight which may be more im=
portant than changes to Athena/printing.=A0 =A0=A0However, as an outsider I=
would suggest that Senate meetings would be more successful if they discus=
sed actual issues facing students rather than Robert=92s Rules of Order.=A0=
I know this is challenging to do to make sure that all students will have =
a voice (see the bill that failed today) =96 but at the same time Robert=92=
s rules is an endurance contest, where students who do not endure do not ge=
t a view.=A0 I also understand that Robert=92s Rules were written in 1876 b=
y people who had all the time in the world=85..</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">=A0</span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; =
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">(I just shudder about sitting there for another f=
ew hours next Monday.=A0 I have a deep, deep respect for the senators who d=
o this every Monday.)</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">=A0</span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; =
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Thank you for your time</span></p><p class=3D"Mso=
Normal">
<span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">=A0</span></p><p =
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125)=
;">-Michael</span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt=
; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">=A0</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt;">From:</span></b>=
<span style=3D"font-size: 10pt;"> <a href=3D"mailto:thebigal1@gmail.com" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">thebigal1@gmail.com</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:thebigal1=
@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">thebigal1@gmail.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>=
Allan Miramonti<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 18, 2010 11:54 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mai=
lto:ua-senate@mit.edu" target=3D"_blank">ua-senate@mit.edu</a><br><b>Subjec=
t:</b> Tonight's meeting</span></p><div><div></div><div><p class=3D"Mso=
Normal">
=A0</p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hello,<br><br>I am writing to let Senate know=
that I am not okay with the actions taken by Senate tonight with regards t=
o skipping over scheduled business and discussion.=A0=A0 Thankfully, we fou=
nd a way to backtrack a bit and have you guys do your jobs.=A0 I would like=
to remind my fellow senators that you took an oath to do your jobs, and th=
at means attending to the business at hand.=A0 I do not care that it is pas=
t your bedtime, nor do I care about your personal opinion on an agenda item=
.=A0 If you are too lazy to represent the student body, I recommend you res=
ign immediately. <br>
<br>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.=
<br><br>Respectfully,<br>Allan Miramonti<br>Random Senator </p></div></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br><div style=3D"display: inlin=
e;"></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
--001485e8ab84302dee0492f911d0--
