Oracle Online

Wow. What do I say to all of this. Hmmm. Well, I want to start out by saying that I am really offended.

First: Anne Wetter is sexist.

This is apparent in her remark "Robert’s Rules favors white men, said BER chair Anne Wetter, by demanding participants to interrupt and be forceful." If you don't understand how I came to the conclusion that Wetter is sexist, let me explain. Wetter feels that Robert's Rules favor white men by demanding people to interrupt and be forceful. Now lets take that and form an if/then statement. If white man, then interruptful and forceful. There you have it, Anne Wetter is sexist and oh yes, women can be sexist too don't think that only men can be.

Second: Roberts Rules are not patriarchal.

Congratulations Pesko, you were able to read a piece of 19th Century Literature and only find the pronouns "his" and "him". I am sorry, but every congressional body in the world has already changed that. Pesko- You are not on to anything new. Buy a freaking clue.

Third: It is the responsibility of everyone to know Robert's Rules.

“It is harder to work within a system that only one or two people in the room know,” Anne Wetter. Nowhere in Robert's Rules of Order does it state that "only two people in the room may know Robert's Rules". That would be ridiculous. Here is a clue if you don't know Robert's Rules of Order: GO GET THE BOOK FROM THE LIBRARY AND READ IT. Or hell, come to me some time and I will be more than willing to help you to understand the rules. The knowledge is out there all you have to do is grab it!!!!

Fourth: Robert's Rules of Order have never and should never become the only focus of a meeting.

“It becomes the focus of the meeting.” according to PRIDE BSA representative Angela Robertson. That is ridiculous. I have served in five different organizations that used Robert's Rules of Order. Never in any of those organizations did anyone ever have a problem with Robert's Rules. The organization that stressed Robert's rules the most was Minnesota Youth in Government; if high school students can run a model Minnesota Government according to Robert's Rules and everyone knows what is going on, then surely college students can. On second thought, I have run meetings where third graders used Roberts Rules, maybe it is just too much for Hamline's Prestigious Student Body.

Let me explain why we need Robert's Rules of Order. They are the most effective way of running an organization meeting because they have been updated and revised almost every year since they were first published in 1876. They stop one person from being able to take control of a meeting and make all of the decisions. They take out pointless “peanut gallery” style comments that degrade from meetings. They allow anyone anywhere to be able to walk into a meeting and understand how it is being ran.

Does anyone know where this is all leading us. Someone is just creating an uproar so that that person can change the rules and gain more power. I wonder who that person could be? As for the rest of you that support this action, you are all being had and you are saying some mighty stupid things that ARE going to be used against you in the future.

Maybe I don't know what I am talking about. Maybe I should let this just go through. After all, it is kind-of funny. Not only that, but if it does go through, you are all only hurting yourself and allowing one person to take control of this system. Of course the person won't admit to trying to take power, that would be stupid, much like Hitler telling the Minister Otto von Bismark that he wanted Bismark to die and that he would then take-over Germany and then the World. I know people use the “lets learn from Hitler” thing way too much and that someone won't take-over the world through HUSC, but I just wanted to make my point.

That is probably enough for now. I should probably allow some other students to post some comments. Thank you all for allowing me the gracious opportunity to reply to this article.

-Andrew Thompson

Problem Solving and Proper Implementation by Timothy R. Huber

The model for problem solving is very simple when broken down.

1) Define Problem.

2) Gather Facts.

3) Consider Possibilities.

4) Create and Action Plan.

5) Implement Action Plan.

6) Observe Results. (This is very important.)

7) Repeat as needed.

I feel that Mike Pesko and the other honorable members of HUSC may have skipped some steps and I wish to help them to correct their errors before they appear foolish in the eyes of many. No one would want an elected official that appears foolish and misguided. Here is my interpretation of the current HUSC problem solving strategy.

1) Robert's Rules is racist and sexist

2) Uh...

3) We could get rid of it...

4) Uh...

5) Let's get rid of it!

6) Observe results? That would be foolish. Much like the Pope, we're not capable of error.

This clearly will not do as a strategy. I believe the first error comes from defining the problem. If the problem is not clearly defined, then how can anyone hope to solve it? Foolish HUSCers.

1) Roberts rules is confining and stops [Name of any Friendly Cigar Smoking HUSC Rep] from doing as he/she pleases during a meeting of Hamline University’s governing body that is meant to represent the students.

2) HUSC has already been ignoring and butchering Robert’s Rules due to misunderstanding of how they are to be used in the first place, so any new policy is just going to be more of the same anyway and the unknowing student body will just shut up and take it.

3) HUSC can choose to abolish Robert’s Rules and make the meeting more Chairperson oriented and the meeting more disorganized, modify Robert’s Rules and still make the Chairperson more powerful and the meeting more disorganized, or they can remove their heads from whatever crevice they have them stuck in and take an hour or two to read and understand Robert’s Rules of Order.

4) Creating an action plan is choosing one of the previous ideas and finalizing the steps that one will take to make it work. Even if one were to pick one of the first two possibilities, one would still require a plan to implement them. Example: “First I’m going to proclaim Robert’s Rules to be racist and sexist. Next I’m going to be quoted many times in the school paper so that uninformed people will side with me because anything that is called racist with such authority must be so. After that I’m going to bring forward a vote that will abolish HUSC and put me in more direct control. Everyone will have to vote for this because if anyone doesn’t side with me they clearly hate minorities and women. Then I’ll be a tiny god on Hamline campus, and I’ll dance and dance and dance.”

5) And dance and dance and dance….

6) Watch as everyone regrets having to give the Student Congress their money to see it thrown at stipends and EOYP.

So what do we do as students of Hamline? We problem solve!

1) Fools are sitting on our money and trying to usurp power from representatives through backhanded politics and scare tactics. This makes us feel uncomfortable about the state of affairs of our Student Congress and desire change.

2) The previous year of “service” provided under the current regime provides plenty of facts in its record.

3) We can let them play their little games and take our money, or we can remove them from office at the next possible opportunity.

4) We can vote out our current reps and vote for people who can understand the need for an organized government that balances itself.

5) WE VOTE THE CURRENT REGIME OUT OF OFFICE.

6) We sit back and see if we have to go through the process again. We hope that we get to see people with some common sense and regard for order get into politics on Hamline campus. We wait for when human nature and greed make it happen all over again.

I will be responding to this in good time. Thank you.

I feel that before HUSC slits its own throat completely, I must step in and say my piece. Hopefully some will hear me and take my words to heart. Many, I expect, will not.

I would first like to say that HUSC is floundering in its own filth. Drowning in a puddle of its own self righteousness. They are so concerned with trying not to offend anybody in some obscure manner, that they don't see that they're standing in their own refuse.

I started out this year hoping to still be part of something that I thought was worthwhile, governing the student body. I was sorely disappointed by the circus atmosphere that I encountered. The new policies and blatant disregard for continuity broke my spirit.

The article that I read in the Oracle this Tuesday, broke my mind. A little part inside of me died when I read it. HUSC has become so decadent that it has sacrificed order and efficiency in favor of Warm Fuzzies.

Miss Malone stated that, “The Rules force HUSC attendees to act forceful and assertive to have their opinions heard.” God forbid that we should have any sort of strong leaders within our government.

“If women act that way, they get labeled a bitch.” Well my dear, it’s all in how you present yourself. One can most certainly get their point across by being assertive without being labeled a bitch/asshole. It’s called manners and maintaining a pleasant demeanor.

“HUSC’s politics are masculine, because HUSC and Robert’s Rules force speakers to be concise, think in points and not show emotion.” Why how terribly astute. I applaud the keen eye and sharp mind that made this observation. We have now uncovered the dirty truth that Robert’s Rules do exactly what they are supposed to do. I’m not sure exactly, but I do believe that meetings are much more efficient and more gets done if people are concise and don’t ramble on. People can also understand you better if you use points. It helps them organize things in their own head and form their own opinion. (That is what we want them to be doing isn’t it?) As for emotion, it has its own place. Marriage proposals, funerals, heck – even a good book, are all places for emotion. Government, however, is not one of them.

Emotion has a tendency to cloud judgment, thereby disabling reason. One cannot be expected to make an informed intelligent decision in such a state. I will grant that emotion can be an effective tool, however it is one that should never be used. Those making a governmental decision based off of emotion are impaired.

“HUSC by-laws require only two HUSC members to know Robert’s Rules.” Well as Timothy stated previously, I think that we need to look at our methodology. Would it not be easier to just make a couple adjustments to the HUSC bylaws which would require ALL representatives to know Robert’s Rules? Educate the people, it’s not that hard, and I think that you will find a few willing students.

I would also like to bring an economics perspective into this. It is all a question of Opportunity Cost, or what is lost by choosing the next best alternative. I’m not talking about money here, I’m talking about time and effort. The opportunity cost is much higher in man-hours (excuse me, “person-hours”) to set up a committee to come up with an alternative “solution” to Robert’s Rules, and then waste time in a HUSC meeting when it could be spent doing other, more useful things. On the other hand, it would take a single person fifteen minutes to a half hour to go through the pertinent parts of the bylaws and make a few changes. It should then, if done well, only take about five minutes of the floor, ten if there is organized discussion, to approve the changes. You then have the monetary cost of printing out copies of the basics of Robert’s Rules so that people have something to refer to.

There is no reason that a meeting should be dominated by a discussion of the mechanics of Robert’s Rules. If there is a question about how things work, merely point at the sheet and say “Oh, here it is.” If you are feeling particularly fussy about it you can have the PAC chair carry a copy of the book along with them to the meetings. They are easy to come by and are relatively cheap.

“Robert’s Rules discourages students from being on HUSC, said Maisue Xiong, the Coalition for Social Change chair.” No Miss Xiong, it is the anti-white, anti-male atmosphere that is keeping a lot of people away. In past years concern has been that minorities were uncomfortable to be in HUSC. Now, many “whites”, males in particular, feel uncomfortable about going to HUSC or expressing their opinions for fear of being burned at the stake or chased out of the room by a lynch mob. The tables have been turned and no I don’t like it. But I ask, why does it have to be so? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Why can’t we just start off on a fresh page and leave the past behind?

What makes me say these things? Well for one… the name of Miss Xiong’s committee. Coalition for Social Change sounds fairly militant if you ask me. The mental picture that I get is an inverse version of the Klu Klux Klan.

I would like to reference, now, back to my earlier statement as to my distaste and dissatisfaction with how HUSC is being run. If the American government were run in the same manner, with the same efficiency as HUSC, America would be the laughing stock of the world, and Canada would overthrow our government and divide us up into provinces before we learned how to say “What just happened there, eh?”

Now, I know that many of the words that I have said are caustic and possibly even offensive. For anybody that I truly offended, I wish to express my deepest apologies. I said these things because I could not hide anymore. Call me racist or misogynist if you will. I only ask you to look beyond the sarcasm and scathing remarks.

I believe that it is the responsibility of every person to step back and take a look at that which offends them or angers them and ask themselves why. They need to ask themselves if their offense and anger is of a righteous and justified nature, or is the reason of a petty self-indulgent or self-deceiving nature. I would like to charge you with a task. Take what I have written here with a grain of salt. I have made my own decision already, you need to make yours. The task I give you then is this: Make your own decision given all the knowledge that you have at your disposal. If you find something that offends you, step back and take an emotionless look at it. Is it offensive because it was truly a malevolent attack, or because it hit too close to home and struck a nerve about something that you don’t want to admit to yourself.

I would like to thank those of you who took the time to read this in its entirety. Your perseverance is greatly appreciated and I hope that you do, as I stated at the beginning of this exchange, take some of this to heart.

Adam Larsen

you people are fucking out there.

the world is going to eat you for breakfast.

I want to begin my commending the responses made by people to this article. It is an important issue to discuss.

However, after reading Andrew's response above, I felt some things needed to be clarified to better articulate at least my stance on Robert's Rules.

The difficult thing with journalism is things are often taken out of context. To begin with, it is NOT my view that Robert's Rules should be eliminated from HUSC but rather a relaxed version of the rules be used to better able students and organizations to work within the system. Following Robert's Rules to the T makes this hard on the users and can lead to confusion.

Second, to respond to Andrew's assertion that I am racist. I believe this statement came out of a misunderstanding of my quote, taken out of context. I argued that Robert’s Rules favors the white male NOT because they are white or male per se, but because the communication styles of men and women and white people and people of color has been proven to be significantly different. As a comm. major, I have studied this. I know that men are inherently more assertive in how they speak than women and people of color because they are socially taught to be that way. It doesn’t mean that these students represent their constituents any less, it just means that the system of Robert’s Rules favors the voice of those who interrupt and are more assertive and those tend to be according to research white males. Now, because I believe that men and women communicate differently, if you think that makes me sexist, well, you are welcome to your opinion. But the simple fact is that there is a difference in communication styles and Roberts Rules favors one.

Third, in response to me reading Roberts Rules. This was also out of context. I am quite aware that Roberts rules does not say who should and should not know Roberts Rules. However, in the HUSC bylaws, only the PAC chair and the Vice President are required to know the system well and for those who have read Roberts Rules or at least part of it, know it is not the most exciting thing to read so I doubt people are going to pick it up for light reading.

Andrew, I have read the basics of Roberts Rules and can follow the system, but honestly, how many people on this campus have read it and are going to be able to walk into a HUSC meeting and immediately jump in? This is why I said that only two people really know the system well because there is more to it than the very basics! And if you follow Roberts Rules to a T, it is going to be far more complicated that just the basics.

Remember, every student has a voice and a vote when they come to HUSC meetings, but not every student is going to understand Roberts rules. Yes, Andrew, I agree that the knowledge is out there. But the system needs to be flexible enough to include more than just the few in the room that understand Roberts Rules well. Any student should be able to participate whenever they want.

I hope this clarifies some of the concern on Robert’s Rules. And remember, that journalism tends to streamline things so before people jump to conclusions based on a few hundred word article, get all the facts. After all, most of your responses have been longer than the article itself. Important things were left out of this article that clarify people’s true opinion.
Anne Wetter

you people are fucking out there.

the world is going to eat you for breakfast.

Posted by: un fucking believeable at November 24, 2004 01:12 PM

---------------------------

Thank you sir for your enlightened response. I am sure that we are all better people for having been told this. I will now reform my ways to your picture of how things work so that the world does not eat me for breakfast. I thank you greatly for this advance warning and am forever in your debt. You may now stop reading this post, as the rest of it is unimportant to you.

Thank you Anne for an intelligent coherent response. Unlike my profane friend here you know the value of an exchange of intelligent arguements where emotion does not get in the way of seeing how things are.

I would like to say that I agree with you to a point. Yes, journalism does tend to take things out of context. I myself have been misquoted in the past and know how it feels.

I also agree with your statement that they should be relaxed.... to a point. There are times when you should really be obsessive about how you conduct things. There are also times when you can get away with being a little more lax. However the manner in which meetings have been run this year have been poor.

I have to take care of a few things for right now but I will write more later.

Adam Larsen

Anne, when did you lose your concept of reality?

If RR of O get tossed, the only thing that will be accomplished is the certain inability of our active student body members to gain the skills needed to operate in the world.

HUSC will still be "imperfect," because it can never be PERFECT. Students still won't care, because they never will. Decisions are made by those who show up. Why do we pander to those who don't?

The real world will eat you guys alive if you continue to make these "cop out" changes.

Grow up, challenge yourselves and the student body and maybe some of you will be able to survive in a real life situation in which the systems are much more complex.

Robert's Rules is patriarchal? Fine. Who cares? Suggest an alternative if it's a problem. What would be an un-patriarchal system to use? Perhaps people should sit around in a circle and discuss their feelings with one another? I mean, how would things work if we didn't have motions and tabling and votes and everything? You need a system, might as well use the one we've been using for, like, forever, and just try to fix the small problems with it.

Now, I decided to quit HUSC a while back because of matters pretty unrelated to Robert's Rules, but I remember being disappointed with how VP Pesko was latching onto Robert's Rules so strongly and trying to change traditional HUSC procedure to more accurately line up with RR. Why, for the love of God did he try to do that? Each organization that uses RR in some form has their own variation on the theme. For instance, in RR you're *supposed* to ask permission from the chair if you want to enter or leave chambers--even for a bathroom break! Now, with the culture of HUSC and Hamline, that would be a ridiculous thing to implement, wouldn't it? Think of how tied up a meeting would get if all those people who leave early or come in late have to ask permission to do so? That would raise hell, believe you me!

The most reasonable approach to all this is to just drive ahead and get some things accomplished instead of just talking and worrying about procedure all the time.

About Larsen's comments that white males feel unwelcome in HUSC: whaaaaa? Who cares. White males could use a few feelings of intimidation once in a while to learn what it feels like to be in someone else's shoes for a bit. Also, white males are already over-represented on campus (not as much as white females, thank God), so we don't need any more in HUSC, in my opinion.

As for the women/minority students offeneded by RR in some way: whaaaaa? Being 'strong' and forceful and interrupting, etc. is the way that things get done in governmental type forums. RR might allow this to happen in some ways, but it severely limits it in other ways. In HUSC tradition, speakers can't be interrupted except by some point of order or clarification or something like that. People don't get interrupted, and if they do get interrupted, the chair should step in and keep order. In all other instances when the process gets murky, the chair should step in and keep order. If the chair can't do that either a) defer to the PAC chair or b) get a new chair.

It all comes down to this: if the chair is unwilling to exercise his own power to keep the meetings running smoothly and feels that he is restrained by some biased set of rules, then he's sadly not much of a chair. The chair's job is to make sure that what needs to get done gets done with a minimum of fuss. If the chair (and the PAC chair) allow such a fuss to happen, whether it's racist, sexist, ageist or God know what other -ist in nature doesn't matter, then he's not doing his job and he is not serving the student body.

If you're not serving HUSC and the student body--what are you serving? A book of rules written by some dead guy a hundred years ago or more? What's the point of that? Use Robert's Rules as a guideline, and break out from it when you need to. It's called using discretion, making decisions, bending the rules--that's what leadership is all about. If our current leaders aren't willing to do that, then they should step down and let someone else give it a try.

By reading the comments posted, it just occured to me how shallow people's knowledge of Robert's Rules really is, and reaffirmed my belief all the more that creating some flexibility and education within the system is best for HUSC. And, to add some spice to this dialouge and entice people to read further, I'll even personally offer $100 to anybody that can back up the claims that I attack, of which alleged "experts" of Robert's Rules made. That's right, a fresh $100 bill... and handed to you during my report, with a "congratulations for beating me at my own bet," and with a handshake.

Graham, for heavens sake, there is absolutely nothing about having to ask for permission to be excused to go to the bathroom. I'm sorry, dude, but people can leave whenever they want and there is absolutely nothing the Chair can do about it unless the bylaws authorize him to issue a "Call of the House". (Won't get into it too much... think the Dems running away from Texas to Oklahoma a few years ago to break a quorum... yeah, HUSC doesn't have those bylaws).... Yeah, so, I invite people to come into HUSC meetings and leave whenever they want and for whatever reason they want, as there is absolutely nothing in Robert's Rules that would prevent them from doing that and me from stopping them.

Somebody also made a comment that Robert's Rules is revised every year or so. Sorry, ya'all, but the official print revisions to Rob's Rules have been copyrighted in 1970, 1981, 1990, and 2000 respectively. This brings me to a couple points; firstly, there is an official Robert's Rules document. It's about a 650-page book right now, on the bottom of the title it says "the only current and authorized edition of the classic work on parliamentary procedure"... at least my print does. It's also called "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th Edition." So, people should really buy that book and know it inside and out if they claim to be experts. But, again, few people know this, as I heard at a meeting I was at a couple days ago "there are about twenty different versions of Robert's Rules". That may be true, but only one official version, and that's what we use in HUSC GA meetings in accordance with our Constitution. DON'T try to use that blue Robert's Rules book... it's a piece of crap to be honest with you.

Contrary to the article, the PAC Chair isn't the only one that can overrule the Chair. Anybody can. Raise an "Appeal of the Chair" at anytime you wish, after first raising a "Point of Order." It's the assembly's check on the Chair, and a good one at that.

And as a final statement but with no money attached because I'm only 99.9% sure, and don't have a problem admitting what I'm not absoutely certain on, "she" and "her" is STILL not there. I don't know how governments could really change that to begin with unless they had some kind of aloofy bylaw that read "half of "hes" and "his'" in Robert's Rules will be changed to "shes" and "hers""... Anyway, it goes to show the masculine nature of the document.

Now, what does this all mean. Firstly, nobody, not even myself, knows Robert's Rules as well as we probably all believe that we do. Granted, I believe it to be my job to know it better than anybody else in the GA room for purposes of defending the rights of the minority while paving the way for the accomplishment of the majority, but there is a lot of confusion due to the mistaken ways in which HUSC has done things in the past and the attitude that too many people have of knowing Robert's Rules. What can we do about it? Well, we can educate people. The bylaw proposal that is on the table mandates in similar language to this that the Chair provides documentation online, does 4 "How to do HUSC" Seminars (I've done these this year), and is always available for answering questions. It also specifies that he/she knows Robert's Rules so that we don't have a clueless Chair like we did last year. With that education, it's my hope that more people will take advantage of the system, and it's also my hope that more people will be able to defend themselves when people who know the system try to abuse it, chiefly the Chair and other Exec. members.

So, the educational component is one of the answers. The second lies in the following statement that in my opinion has been blown out of proportion. "The Chair shall be allowed to make minor deviations from Robert’s Rules, provided there is no objection from a member of the assembly." Now, if the assembly, or at least several individuals, are educated about Robert's Rules, then how could the Chair dominate the meetings? If the Chair overstepped his/her bounds, then one of our many excellent Robert's Rules scholars makes an objection and it's done business. And, of course, if the Chair refuses, then they can "Appeal the Decision of the Chair," a great option that is always available and of which I'm surprised that nobody has used yet this year.

The "minor deviations" stuff is supposed to allow the Chair the flexibility to run meetings the way that the assembly feels most comfortable with and in the most efficient manner. For example, there is no reason why the Chair should have to ask the assembly for permission to let Kelly Krebs give a report. There is no reason the Chair should have to ask the assembly for permission to let Garvin speak in debate if it's warrented. There's no reason why Graham Lampa should not have his report bumped up if he has to skip out of HUSC early. All of this simple stuff is what makes HUSC a more welcoming environment for everybody, white males to females of color. And while environment isn't everything, I do believe that it's worth debate time!

Now, as Graham Lampa suggests, why don't I do the little shit anyway? Well, the answer is that when the Chair has totally disregarded the Constitution and bylaws in the past, it's led to disasterous results that has given HUSC its bad reputation. Two examples always spring to mind, that being the way in which abstentions votes were miscounted last year when PRIDE was trying to overturn EAC to receive money for Black History Month. Something as simple as how abstentions were counted cost them that extra money and rightfully so enraged many people. And, finally, during the whole MPIRG debate, a dozen or so mistakes in procedure in my opinion at best cost MPIRG a fair proceding, and at worst cost MPIRG from getting their contract renewed. And, of course, gave HUSC the reputation that I so elequently remember Kari Rudd saying and spreading, "HUSC doesn't know its own bylaws."

Upon learning of these mistakes as I read RR this summer, I told myself that I would make sure that everybody had a fair proceding. And as many other posters have said, a fair proceding can only be done by following our Constitution, bylaws, and Robert's Rules. The document in my opinion is a good document, but there are some small things that can happen that will make it all the more better for our purposes, and make it more user-friendly for everybody, Theta Chi to MPIRG.

And, finally, the fundemental arguement entered into my head of how can we expect organizations to attend the Fall and Spring caucus, how can we ask them to submit their budgets on time, and how can we mandate their attendance at SOC meetings, if HUSC doesn't follow the same bylaws that tell them what to do. Graham, now I could be wrong, but didn't you make the same arguement last year when the Oracle was put on probationary charter and Exec. didn't release it's Summer Contingency Budget? There really is no difference here, only you seem to be on the opposite side of the arguement.

The bylaw proposal on the table to the best of my opinion, forumulated from a combination of experiance, education, and foresight, best graples with the many, many things that we are facing. But, again, that's just me, my thoughts, my beliefs. As Chair, I'm just there to listen and make sure that everybody else has the fairest opportunity possible to talk about this bylaw proposal, whether they believe it to be a piece of shit or a work of art. I really look forward to seeing all of you fine posters at that GA meeting voicing your opinion, hopefully tossing forth a few amendments and a few motions. In the end it goes to prove that it's not the Chair that runs HUSC meetings, it's the assembly, and they have probably not been in recent history given as great an opportunity as this to decide how they want things to function.

To conclude with a few loose-end things, let me just say that HUSC, in accordance with past perfectly-formated-according-to-RR minutes and a perfect-RR-motions page that I found in the file cabinet, has followed Robert's Rules near-flawlessly in the past. Let me also say that I'd love to talk to any of you any time about all of this, and I'd be glad to share with you my knowledge of Rob's Rules. Thirdly, Graham, I disagree with you that I'm not much of a Chair. I believe the principle of leadership to be prudence and fairness, not bending the rules to silence voices and push my own agenda, and perhaps that's why it's my opinion that this year, 75% of regular HUSC attendees believe the meetings to be much better than they were last year. This year we're discussing how we can make it even better, last year we were licking our wounds, which throughout the year forced a VP and EAC Chair to resign.

sorry about the leaving to go to the bathroom thing, mike. that's just how we worked it in northern lights student congress in high school, and i assumed it was just RR.

mike, i also understand your principles in being prudent and fair. those are good values, and i think you should continue to uphold them. it's just my belief that sometimes the rules can get in the way of being prudent and fair. and if that's the case, then it would be a damn shame if you were to not bend the rules to get something done, and to set things right and make things fair.

you're a fine chair, mike, if you feel that everything is running smoothly in chambers. but if you don't feel that way, and everyone else feels that things aren't very good (even though better than last year), then maybe you should reconsider your approach to the organization and the importance of the rules over the importance of getting stuff done and making people feel comfortable.

While I don't like the terminology, there's a right way to bend the rules and a wrong way to bend the rules.

We started a new system this year, the correct way to run RR, and there's been many, many pluses to it, including how debate is much better dispersed amongst the students, the ease that orgs have in bringing their resolutions to the floor, and the variety of things that we are able to discuss and cover with resolutions and such. And, of course, as is always the case with trying something new, there's going to be some drawbacks.

The wrong way to deal with these drawbacks would be for me to unilaterally make decisions that the rest of the assembly might not agree with and that only solve the problem on a short-run basis, plus leaving HUSC unaccountable to our own bylaws and Constitution.

The right way "to bend the rules" is to look at this problem from a long-term basis. Working on our bylaws "bends the rules," but gives the act the ligitimacy that I believe the student body will appreciate and the accountability that will keep a balance of power in place.

And also, it gives the students the choice, not me, and that's the way it should be.

As always, Graham, I appreciate your debate contributions.

Oooh! I hope to see all of you at the HUSC General Assembly meeting since I haven't at all this year ('cept Graham) and you seem to know exactly how HUSC is and should be run - just the sorta' people we need in the room. It'd be great to have people speaking up again, instead of just writing their opinions! :)
You see, all we want this year is to have our constituencies heard and if it means changing something to make it easier for them to voice their concerns, so be it. Mike held 3 RR educational sessions at 3 different times and days, and yet he had only meager attendance altogether, so we have been looking at other ways of making meetings more accessible.
As you all have eloquently stated, HUSC is ruled by the majority, and only hears those who speak up, and since those who have spoken up are the ones who feel uncomfortable in HUSC, so we have tried to pander to their requests. We do hear you and we will hear you - just come into that room and tell us!! There's a session specially formulated for folks like you who have issues with HUSC - though we can't solve them unless you tell US instead of your friends.

Thanks and see you Tuesday!

pesko--you're a douche, seriously. and shona--grow up. your sarcasm is sad and methods laughable.

Beware--

The revolution is coming--soon those of us made disaffected, frustrated, ignorant, savvy, confused, hungry, and tired by HUSC are going to gather and form a new, alternative form of student government. That's right, you heard it here first: HUSS, Hamline University Student Senate. A model of its functioning may be the following:

Students are nominated by their peers once a semester.

The body will choose whether or not to appoint said nominees.

Old members have the option of returning upon the dismissal or resignation of sitting members without peer nomination (if approved by the body).

The size of Senate can be anywhere between 6 and 30 in size at any time.

Debate cannot be ended, but must continue until such a time that all agree a vote can be called.

Votes can be changed within 12 hours of the initial vote.

Student votes matter not.

This is just the beginning. I want to form a cabal of fat-cat student politicians that spend most of their time wrapped up in intrigue, back-scratching, pandering, gerentocracy, elitism, needless dissent, and shifting sentiments.

Come on, if we really want to prepare our future Pat Buchanans, Strom Thurmonds, Zell Millers, and Karl Roves we need to offer an alternative to those students who are not content with the more docile, tepid, and irresolute carrying-on of, ahem, "traditional" campus politics.

And an added bonus for membership in HUSS: as many Bic pens as you can pilfer and the much, much better nickname than "HUSCers": HUSSies.

Signed the new commander of the provisional Hamline University Student Senate, the Right Honorable Generalissimo Leslie Rogne Schumacher, 1st Viscount de Mundalbundy (the First of His Name) J.P., Q.C., K.G.C. of B., B.A. of H.U.(pending graduation '05).

students shouldn't have to go to husc, try representing them for ONCE shona. good god.

One question, Leslie — where do I sign up?

Okay. I have to admit, Pesko, I really don't know Robert's Rules that well, and I really don't have much ground to stand on arguing about all this high minded rascism and sexism and whatnot. What I do have is a brief annecdote that more or less sums up my concerns with HUSC.

A friend of mine, a Freshman, came up to me the first few weeks of school, fresh from his first HUSC meeting, and asked a simple bold faced question. "Is HUSC a joke?"

My friend was concerned about the apparent lack of organization, and the violations of procedure that were evident to him although he'd only ever attended highschool student government meetings before. I shouldn't have had to tell him that yes, HUSC is a joke. The student body regards their representative elected body as an idle curiosity at best and a cumbersome waste of twohundred dollars at worst. I'm quite convinced that the majority of students have no conscious conception of HUSC's organization, procedures, or purpose.

How can an organization which seems like a joke to a freshman and largely fails to communicate with the greater student body effectively represent its constituents?

Shona, don't worry. This rediculousness will push me into more partisipation. I had hoped that HUSC was a well-minded body of mature people, this has proven me wrong. See you soon.

Frank, if students have no conseption of HUSC's organisation or procedures, it's because they hardly exist. And aparently, HUSC is willing to abandon the most widely accepted guide for beurocratic organization in the country. Your friend's question was well founded.

oh, one more thing, if HUSC was really effective Brian should not have to ask "where do I sign up."

Damn Toby, ya gotta read the posts before responding. Brian was looking to become one of the HUSSies or a least one of their supporters, although I suspect he is shooting for a land grant and a title of at least Duke.

Frank,

Your question is a great one. Indeed, there are a lot of people that might wonder what HUSC does and think that it is a joke (I oftentimes feel the same way), but I think a lot of that might be due to the general structure of democracy in general, in which things don't always get done as quickly or efficiently as say a dictatorship or whatever. Now, that could be a blessing in disguise, as I've heard many times before "no government is the best government". But, another aspect of HUSC's apperance as a joke, I think, is due to the fact that at GA, not a lot really happens. It's at the committee and individual level that most of the work gets done. I'll use the example of myself last year. I did put a few resolutions through HUSC and such, but the biggest thing I was able to do was my research into the food program at Hamline, in which I at worst only really pissed off Sherry Crahen and at best provided the exact dollar figures that students could save by switching meal plans and exposed what I feel was and continues to be an extremely overpriced system. Then, we as HUSC set up a committee, which has been doing its job in working with Patti Klein and Sharon Tracy to keep costs down, improve quality, and provide other tangible things like the recent test-run breakfast at the HUB. Now, that's tangible stuff, but we're not going to hear about it at general assmebly. Throughout this year, for example, EAC will have set-up budgets for every organization on campus for next year and have been responsible for the allocating of what may ammount to over $300,000. The treasurer is the one responsible for getting all the checks to the right people (a big job when you think about it). As VP, one of my roles is to serve on the Academic Affairs Committee, in which right now we're dealing with important issues to the students such as what to do about the ACTC system, how we should handle credit transfers, et cetera. On the same note, the Board of Elected Representatives has about a dozen or so ideas twirling around regarding what physical improvements need to be made on campus.

So, my point is there are a lot of things happening, a lot of things that students don't neccessarily realize are in the works. That's what HUSC is mostly about, not the 11:15 meeting every Tuesday.

But as for your first-year friend, it's my assumption that, again, he/she grew accostomed to what he/she was certain was the correct ways of Robert's Rules, and instead of questioning their understanding immediately jumped to the conclusion that we are running things wrong. Hell, I do the same thing all the time, as just today I was complaining about the Registrar's Office when in fact it was the teacher I was complaining to that created the mandatory signature to take the class :o .

So, in summary, HUSC gets the vast majority of its work done outside of GA, and the first-year is confused about how Robert's Rules is supposed to function. Also, during my report tomorrow, I'll highlight what we have done in GA, as it's not a shabby ammount of stuff, either.

Pesko just stop!! Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about! "It might be due to the general structure of a democracy?" "I often feel the same way?"

Do you know that we are in a REPUBLIC, which is different from a democracy. Also, way to say HUSC is a joke...did you hear that everyone, the VP says HUSC is a joke, so it MUST be!

PS..Will you quite explaining all the bullshit rhetoric and just get something done. We don't care about the pointless committee meetings or the time you spend trying to fix a food service that inevitably has a bottom line--just get it done. Period. Then things will start to turn around.

My movement is taking hold,

Gather people, gather. There is much work to be done. Already the establishment is quaking from the might of HUSS's initially humble beginnings. My logical arrangement has confused their tender sensibilities and given them cause to question their own right to govern.

So, the next step must be taken. I will hereby bestow titles to the first 6 members of the provisional HUSS, with all the privileges such ranks entail. Brian shall hence forth be Grand Duke Brian of Hamline, the 1st of his name, and is granted a seat in HUSS with the designation of "old member."

Further, as a compassionate leader, current members of the ponderous and oligarchical HUSC will be allowed immediate appointment in HUSS, but without rank and to a limit of the first 15 open seats.

Former HUSC members may take part in debate, but Robert's Rules will only be enforced in the case of outright anarchy, and then only in a limited format based on the grace of the commander of HUSS, i.e. me.

At any time, the body can call for the commander's resignation, and once a month can take a vote for dismissal. Otherwise, the commander has no set term.

The commander's vote is worth the same as a sitting member's vote, and he/she is obligated to cast the deciding vote should a tie result in any decision.

Commander's cannot change their vote after it has been cast (as can the regular members).

The provisional HUSS will live on, but expect a hearty battle with the HUSC--for even in its decline, the behemoth's teeth are sharp and, though enfeebled, it may strike without warning and with utter impunity. Be brave brothers and sisters. We will prevail.

Signed,

The commander of the provisional Hamline University Student Senate, the Right Honorable Generalissimo Leslie Rogne Schumacher, 1st Viscount de Mundalbundy (the First of His Name) J.P., Q.C., K.G.C. of B., B.A. of H.U.(pending graduation '05).

Well, while I am hesitant about posting here, due to the amount of posts themselves and the lateness of the whole thing.
To bring it back to the article I disagree that R.R are sexist, and racist. I just cant see it the argument as being valid other than it was written by a white guy oh so long ago. I do agree with fact that they do push people to speak up, and be assertive. I wonder why this is a bad thing. I want my elected representatives to be assertive and fight for what we want, whether that’s HUSC or the federal government. If you want to believe in something powerfully but when it comes to GA your being the one in the corner who wont stick their neck out for something they want, well then your a coward and shouldn’t be there. Democracy works on the a principle that if you believe in something or are deathly apposed to something, talk about it, rally the people behind you and get win the vote.
I once read a fortune cookie in Sorin that said, "A committee of one gets things done." and while I hesitate in listening to advice I get from food, the statement is true. A dictator gets a lot more done than a democracy, but then again, in a dictatorship the minorities rights will get stepped on again and again. That’s why in Democracy we put faith in the wisdom of the majority to hear the case of the minority and the result may be the political weight is shifted. If the minority group doesn’t put its faith in the majority to hear there case fairly, VIVA REVOLUTION!
Shona was right though, people who disagree with what is going on really should show up to HUSC GA, because otherwise your no better than the people on Crossfire who talk a lot of shit but don’t have the guts to do anything about it.
So, I guess my point is, if you feel that your voice isn’t being heard in HUSC, show up, if you want to see things change be assertive, plead your case, rally the reps and win. If you don’t win, too bad that’s democracy, and hey at least you can say you did your best. If that’s not enough for you... move.
For my own view, I don’t agree with Pesko, not even a little. Does it get me mad that I believe he is leading HUSC down a very bad road, by filling a very good system of government full of nonsense? Yup. Thats why if it comes up again, First I will attened GA, Second I will vote against it, and finally if that’s not enough I might get so impassioned that I run to be a rep next year. I WILL TRY!

Pesko,
Some of us have read the entire document of Roberts Rules, it like most other documents of its time makes no mention to women. Yes this is wrong and yes it needs to change. But look at the simple fact of when the document was written. Not exactly a time when women were concidered equal.
That is truthfully not the real issue at hand because simple the rules themselves are not sexist or racist. How can i say this when they clearly favor the outspoke and alpha type personalities? Quite simple actually-you could train a computer to run a meeting according to Roberts Rules. The sexism occures in the representatives that persieve an outspoke and opiniated women as being a "bitch".
There is a lot of talk of revolution on this board and if i was government at this point i would be worried. The poor showing at HUSC during what should have been a relatively heated debate on the suspension of Roberts’s rules turned into a joke. Granted an hour and a half joke but a joke none the less.
If you want people to attend meetings give them some reason to be there and i am not talking about free coffee or candy if we know the rules. If you treat people like 5 year olds they will usually act like them! Besides that it is degrading and pretentious of you to think you are better than everyone else because of your position. YOUR NOT BETTER THAN ANY ONE ELSE ON THIS CAMPUS!!!!!!

Yawn,

This thread is has produced more bullshit than HUSC has in the last 3 year...ok clearly that's not true, but come on people this lame.

Roberts Rules: HUSC uses them and until somebody takes the time to create a better system lets stop bitching about it. Those that are against it, go make up your list of rules and besure to account for all sorts of possibilities and random crap that happens at meetings. You'll need to produce some sort of booklet that should be at least 50 pages, but if you do I for one will read it over and decide whether or not it's better than RR.
for now maybe things would be less confusing if people didn't act like fools are the time and just got shit done. If a meeting is actually progressing in an effecient manner it should be pretty easy for anybody with the most basic knowledge of RR to follow it. But because so much time is wasted with endless bylaw changes that have absolutely 0 effect on students people get confused about what is happening. If husc stop wasting everybody's time with 15 mintue chair reports and letting some professor ramble about online prof evaluations for an hour people would be able to understand how it should function.

get back to basics people, pass some capital improvements that improve something, no more of this I wand DVD's bullshit. Give orgs their money with out making them jump through hoops to amuse you and just do you job.

Whoa! Posts being removed. Don't you folks trust the ability of your internet readers and posters to sort through the words that get posted on here and decide what is intelligent and useful to the discussion?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: