AJ Senator

Hm, I may have used incorrect terminology? A senator asked to divide the question (without specifying how) and we voted on whether to divide the question which passed. Then a senator suggested a way to divide the question (which failed) and then another Senator suggested a way to divide the question. Then a senator motioned to lay it on the table which failed and then the meeting was adjourned. I don't remember if the second Senator's suggestion (which is the 7 parts I was referring to) was taken to a vote and passed, however.

Wow, this is pretty much exactly what the idea for the Ad Hoc committee was, in that it would seek to work on hours outside of Senate, with clear rules for the Committee to ensure agreement from all three branches of the organization. Just as you said, the idea was it would allow Senate to continue conducting its business and create a unified package. Part of the issue is that the E-board really wants to force at least part of their package through and some senators have joined with them on that. The other main concern people had with the committee was a general worry that their views would not get represented or that people would not join the committee (as it would require additional time outside of the regular meetings which some senators - who are unpaid students at the end of the day - do not feel is worth it/are not willing to spend that time). And some people believe not all the changes will take that long to discuss and thus they forced a division of the question.

Thanks all, appreciate the help!

Oh and as for the usage of the original motion to Lay on the Table the Constitutional Amendment Package, the intent was to allow some speakers (from Cabinet) who had limited time to be able to make their updates. Unfortunately, Senate decided to adjourn after this instead of bring the Package off the table

Hi everyone! Decided to make an account y'all seem like an awesome community! To clarify some of the points, a Point of Order was called at this past meeting when the attempt to take it off the table was made for this very reason. However, the Senate Chair proceeded anyway with advice from the Judicial Commissioners who made the argument that "so basically the motion died last meeting, cause people voted it down and it didn't get 2/3 when you objected to it. However, if we don't propose "new business" anyone can propose a new motion to take the constitution from the table... And there is new business on the agenda, but until we formally move into it, anyone can make a motion to take the constitution from the table." I understand that there could have probably been an Appeal of the Senate Chair's decision here (?) but that did not happen. We have sessions weekly. As for the strangeness of the situation, the meeting was soon adjourned after these events so it is almost like we stopped mid-meeting Essentially, the motion to divide the question was made and the body voted to move into a division of the question. A senator then proposed a way to divide the question (by splitting the Constitutional Amendment package into 7 parts) and after that the floor was made open to motions, at which point a Senator made a motion to lay on the table the division of the question and move to the next item on the agenda which was voted on and rejected. Then, a Senator motioned to adjourn the meeting which passed. Overall, it seems like there are two competing solutions for addressing the Executive Board'sConstitutional Amendment package - one which aims to divide it into many pieces which would individually be discussed and voted on in Senate, and a proposal for an Ad Hoc Committee which would develop a compromise package outside of Senate and have many rules to try and ensure that a compromise package is developed and can be passed quickly in Senate. Is there any motion which can give both sides the opportunity to discuss/debate why they believe their option is better? I worry that postponing the division of the question would result in a perception of bias against that solution.