AJ Senator

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Division of the question is a single motion, so I don't know what you mean by "the body voted to move into a division of the question." The motion to divide should specify how the question is to be divided before the vote is taken on it. Then, after the motion for Division of a Question is adopted, the chair states the question on the first part, and the body considers and votes on it. Then the chair states the question on the second part, etc.

I also don't understand this part: "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". If the motion to divide was adopted without specifying how, then the chair should have called for suggestions (without any debate) as to how the motion should be divided, although I suppose a motion to Lay on the Table would be in order.

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.

11 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

It sounds as if the executive board has been working on a revision.  While the undertaking is laudatory, the results are problematic because there are additional members with significant interest and divergent views in the matter.  When dealing with a revision to the bylaws, it is almost always helpful to refer the matter to a committee to hash out the substantive disagreements.  Such a committee needs to be representative of the body so that its work has the best chance of being generally accepted.  And it is important that the work be generally accepted, because open debate on more-or-less the entire bylaws is likely to end up with bylaws that conflict.  Leading to conflict.

It sounds as perhaps the frequency of your meetings is working against you in this situation.  It is not unusual in my experience for the work of bylaws revisions to take a significant period of time.  If everyone who is interested in working on the changes is appointed to a committee charged with recommending changes, then the work can be done without overwhelming the society.  The committee can report on progress each week.  If necessary, the assembly can instruct the committee, or even dissolve it.
 

And yes, I set my account as well because folks here are awesome!

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.