Monday, July 11, 2011

Law of the Academy #8675309

For any meeting agenda (no matter how short), A, and any period of time allotted for the department meeting (no matter how long), T, the time it takes to reach the end of A will be T+ 40 minutes.

24 comments:

PA said...

T + 40 minutes? Dream on. In my department that's how long it takes to approve A.

Anonymous said...

Proposed amendment:

"... the time it takes to reach the end of A will be T+ 40 minutes *at least*."

Anonymous said...

Would someone like to second the proposed amendment at 3:31pm?

Anonymous said...

I second it

Anonymous said...

Wait, the ellipses should be made explicit before I'm able to vote on the amendment.

Anonymous said...

Are we voting on the amendment to a motion, or on the amended motion? Because my vote wouldn't necessarily be the same.

Anonymous said...

I move to close debate on the amendment.

Anonymous said...

Meetings are not over when everything has been said, but only, at the earliest, when everything has been said by everyone.

Justin Kalef said...

Wait: before we go onto that, aren't we still considering the motion to close debate on the amendment? If not, then we should formally vote on that motion.

Roberts said...

Exactly, Justin. No other business can be conducted while there is a motion to close debate on the floor. Or table, for Americans.

Anonymous said...

(Supreme Court Justice) Roberts' Rules of Disorder:

"Corporate entity votes shall be recorded as univocal but counted as 2/3rds of a majority weighed against any given collective of adversarial individual citizen's votes (known as the Dreaded Scot's decision), unless that entity earns more than 10 billion dollars per annum, in which case such an entity's vote counts as 2/3rds multiplied by a factor of 2 commensurate with per annum earnings of every additional 10 billion dollars."

Freedom of speech has a price after all, right? It's just that the Founders didn't know about "The Price Is Right" as a legal principle.

Ok--I know I'm off-script on this thread. Only because (i) I'm an academic in fucking Teapublican Wisconsin and (ii) I'm on a summer committee dealing endlessly in meetings with repercussions from our insane governor's actions. So not only is my brain fried from Spiros' law, but I'm like that guy in "Network" too.

Anonymous said...

Did we even have an original motion? If not, we need to make that clear before amending it, let alone before ending debate about the amendment of it or about it as amended.

Justin Kalef said...

Good point. We'll have to vote on that after we've voted on the present motion.

And after both those votes, I suggest we have a further vote on whether all these 'Anonymous' posters should be counted as distinct persons for the sake of quorum. If not, then all three (or more) of the votes currently under discussion must retroactively be considered null and void.

Or so I would vote, anyway. Perhaps we should have a fourth vote on that matter after the other votes have taken place. Or, perhaps not. Let's vote on that fifth afterward, though. Otherwise, it'll get too confusing and we'll end up wasting everyone's time.

729 said...

***Arrives late***
You're all voting on something? Can someone fill me in? I propose we table all motions until all members voting members are fully informed.

Anonymous said...

We need to vote now. When I talked to someone high in the administration, that person said that if the department doesn't [vote my way], there would be serious consequences.

Justin Kalef said...

Serious consequences? How serious? Is there no way to avoid them? I'd like to hear more about it. No, better yet, since this meeting is already behind schedule, let's put together an ad hoc committee to look into that question and report back to us at our next meeting.

Is everyone in agreement that we should open the floor to nominations of committee members? Or should we vote on my suggestion first?

729 said...

***Takes out and opens Contract Document***
Wait a second...

***Flips through pages, searching***

It seems that any ad hoc committees must contain only tenured faculty members--unless there's a vote on changing our governing document to amend that provision, or, in case that non-tenured TT faculty outnumber tenured faculty, then any ad hoc committee may be constituted from non-tenured TT and tenured faculty *after* a set of tenured faculty from the Humanities has declined to substitute for such non-tenured TT faculty. Oh--and in such case the Humanities Council Chair must be contacted to set up a secret ballot in no less than two weeks following the department request.
Okay?

Frank O'File said...

The only thing worse than having departmental meetings is not having departmental meetings. Srsly.

Justin Kalef said...

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, 729.

However, as representative on Senate, I should note that those conditions may change. In the last round of contract negotiations, it was decided on both sides that the language of the Contract Document surrounding restrictions on non-tenured committee membership, etc. need to be revised.

At next month's Senate meeting, we are to vote on sweeping changes related to those parts of the Contract Document. If the vote goes the way it seems certain to, and all relevant pending decisions at the various faculty councils will become null and void insofar as they depend on the language of the old Contract Document language.

So before wasting our time approaching the Chair of Humanities Council, I submit that we be patient and wait for the Senate vote. If it goes as expected, then it will only be a matter of time before we have a new Contract Document to work with.

Anonymous said...

OK now this thread is all too much like real work!

Anonymous said...

Now who is it I call for a good time?

wv: plene. enough already

disfrutar del sexo said...

Oh my god, there's so much useful material in this post!

Билеты Формула 1 Валенсия said...

Oh my god, there's so much helpful info here!

muebles en madrid said...

Quite worthwhile info, thank you for the article.