Executive Committee
Kara: Kara: We are talking about me. Awful and stressful to be topic of conversation. Hard last meeting. The issue is that the position I ran for basically does not exist. Senate should have the option to change position immediately to a neutral position and I can choose whether I can or cannot do it. Felt at last meeting by proposal there was a lack of acknowledgement of my unwillingness to be neutral.Aiden: I disagree. I don’t feel the necessity of neutrality. Do not need whole person to do tiny specialized role. If that’s their only role then they aren’t doing anything.
Kara: All the points of order were not points of order at the last meeting.
Maddie: People were saying tangential things. Kara was called out when she was trying to defend herself.
Michelle: It was a power play.
Kara: I don’t feel like I spoke in that meeting.
Michelle: The call list kept changing. That’s disempowering
Maddie: Our power is visible. Power dynamics playing out along gender lines and lines of age. (snaps from everyone) Not being as challenged as much. People are feeling less inhibited.
Michelle: What is our next step? We have a bylaw that is based on a nondemocratic movement. There was never a vote.
Maddie: because it was never implemented we have a problem. it is problematic to institute a bylaw that was passed two years ago but never activated. never even discussed.
Michelle: let’s talk about it in an ideological and philosophical approach.
Kara: People are not content with how I am doing my job. The reason we are talking about this because of that reason.
Michelle: I’m trying to depersonalize it as much as possible.
Aiden: Neil’s proposal only addresses one portion of the bylaws surrounding exec. Bylaw was only changed in one place and not the other. We need to handle it in a procedurally sound way.
Maddie: I feel uncomfortable with accepting Neil’s bylaw because it was never active and the current Parliamentarian was not elected under these conditions. We should not be able to change the position that the parliamentarian was elected for. Treating it as though it is a huge discovery is dangerous, there are other inconsistencies. I think we should make an institutional change that will be enacted next year.
Maddie: Bylaw was instituted at the moment Ben and Kara were elected in those voting positions.
Aiden: I also think that the statue of limitations is up. This evidence can be used as persuasion in the vote, but not the place from where we will vote.
Michelle: How do we reconcile these two situations?
Maddie: I couldn’t deal with this for a month.
Michelle: I don’t feel like this is about you, Kara.
Kara: Maybe at this point there is too much…I feel like it has been really difficult to do my job. I don’t feel like the body has legitimated me.
Maddie: I would suggest that what if we took it off the agenda and you just abstain.
Kara: Doesn’t deal with neutrality, which Senators have made clear they want to discuss.
Aiden: Debate has solid consensus on voting issue not on immediacy or neutrality.
Michelle: We still have this problem. The bylaw is ultimately moot.
Kara: When someone is systematically taking away your voice, it is a very powerful thing. If Senate believes that the Parliamentarian role should be different than the role I ran for, than that’s a valid choice. But, it’s not a role I’m willing to fill. A proposal that says you can’t speak is very threatening. I want to honor a commitment that I made to Senate, but I can’t if the Parliamentarian’s role becomes very different from the role I ran for.
Michelle: let’s go around and say our ideal plans
Aiden: I don’t think we should take executive action. Last year’s senate is accountable for last year’s bylaws. We cannot put into place these bylaws.
Maddie: Wants Senate to move on to new topic. Not getting anywhere because of question of immediacy. I would support pushing this discussion to several weeks before election packets due. The way we have handled this has not been the most productive.
Kara: To be told midyear that my position is invalid is really problematic. The way I was spoken to and spoken about was very personal. I agree with the bylaws as we got them. This is what we have to follow. I don’t know if I can do the job I set out to do this year. The conversations feel circular and unnecessarily contentious. People aren’t respecting each other’s voices.Michelle: I feel that we have to honor Neil’s bylaw proposal because it was democratically decide by Senate, and we can’t honor a bylaw change that was made without the consent of Senate. Respect for the process—difficult to follow the process of Neil’s year, last year, and the bylaws as they stand. We can’t pretend Neil’s bylaw proposal didn’t pass. We can’t just say that the bylaws we have are what we have because that’s what somebody wrote.
Aiden: The appeal regarding bylaws does not go through the appeals committee, it goes to Al Green and then Karen Lawrence—I just read this in the bylaws.
Maddie: I am uncomfortable from where this conversation came from. Initially I think this was something personal.
Kara: In the way that the conversation began was about my particular conversation.
Aiden: We have to get specific.
Maddie: I think we have created bureaucratic disaster. Trying to think about where this came out of. There is a lot of frustration here. Everyone gets involved after three weeks of discussion.
Aiden: Many people feel like Kara’s vote is irrelevant to the process.
Maddie: Maybe it will help to step back. We need to all calm down. Why don’t we talk about the Vice-Chair as a neutral person.
Kara: I agree ideologically with a neutral and non-voting Parliamentarian but it can’t be me. That’s not what I signed up for.
Michelle: We have to differentiate between the role of the parliamentarian and how the parliamentarian is doing their job.
Maddie: I don’t think everyone is that passionate about changing it this year.
Michelle: So what are our options now with these two bylaws.
Kara: We could make a motion and vote right here in exec. But that is not really productive.
Michelle: Let’s go through our options:
Aiden: Executively change the bylaw and have it be ratified by Student Senate. We could keep talking about it and just use proposals put forward. We could make no recommendation. We could make a recommendation. We could talk to Mary about appealing the bylaw to Al and Karen.
Maddie: I want to problematize the proposal Neil put forward. I disagree that it is any more legitimate than the bylaws we already run on, especially given his access. These bylaws were initiated when we were elected. We are privileging his proposal.
Aiden: This is not the same as a proposal put forth to be moved on. These transitions between year to year are important. Neil’s evidence, which is not a proposal, is different. We should look at last year’s work, not the year before that. Too late to have them change or fix their actions. Those are the reasons I disagree with adopting Neil’s bylaw. It has to do with a chain of command and a chain of responsibility. We can’t go back to murky history. We have to deal with what we were handed. That is what should shape our action.
Maddie: I shouldn’t use the word proposal. I am concerned with making a decision. If we made a decision, it would be ratified. So we are talking about how to frame the discussion.
Kara: I see a difference between being told that I can’t vote and bringing forward the proposal myself—actively changing my current role vs. being told the role I ran for is irrelevant. It’s a different principle. It’s a different ideology.
Michelle: We aren’t going to come to consensus as Exec. We need to figure out how to frame this during our meeting so that when it gets chaotic, we can bring it back in.
Maddie: Neil could present the evidence and then say we need 2/3 vote to over turn this.
Kara: Suspend Parliamentarian procedure and have consensus!
ENTER NEIL
Michelle: I just want to catch you up. I feel that we need to honor your bylaws. Everyone else does not, but for different reasons.
Aiden: We need to work from last year’s Senate forward.
Kara: I don’t feel comfortable in a position that will change mid-year.
Maddie: As soon as we were elected we legitimated the bylaws we currently have.
Neil: That’s interesting.
Kara: Now the position is different and not open to everyone.
Neil: When someone changes something in between years and then it is automatically legitimated if it stays? That doesn’t make sense.
Aiden: If a change did come over the summer, we can appeal. The statue of limitations has expired.
Neil: there is a difference between making a bylaw and writing something.
Kara: We ran for these positions as they were elected.
Maddie: The time that has passed is problematic.
Neil: It doesn’t make sense to go by a bylaw that was never decided upon. If someone just writes in a random law, it doesn’t make sense to just go with it.
Neil: They just ignored the rule.
Maddie: If this is just something that was changed this last summer it would be different. Aiden: I didn’t get to sit in on all the meetings, I wasn’t given a copy of the bylaws. I can’t answer that and only someone who was on Senate last year could answer. This is the problem with going back.
Neil: It is the parliamentarian who put those bylaws in two years ago. Over the course of last year, the old parliamentarian gave them self a vote. Do you think the student body had any idea about the voting?
Michelle: Our constituents are dramatically different. ¼ of those who elected us are no longer here, and ¼ did not elect us, as they are first years.
Maddie: I don’t think we can make any executive decisions about this.
Neil: It was one year that one Parliamentarian that made a change to the bylaws. It was one year ago. It’s just common sense to have a non-voting Parliamentarian.
Kara: We need to respect that I ran for a certain position.
Maddie: I think if we can’t come to consensus then it needs to be 2/3 like any other motion.
Neil: So anything that is in the Senate packet, whether it is wrong or right, goes as bylaw?
Maddie: But its in the bylaws and it was voted on during the election.
Michelle: But students did not vote on the issue of the Parliamentarian’s vote.
Neil: I sent the bylaw changes when I was asked to.
Michelle: We are sending a strong message to this community that we only honor democratic decisions and decisions that were made with the consensus of Senate.
Neil: Maybe if there were other things on the ballot it would be relevant. Don’t you think this reflects itself as a power issue in exec?
Maddie: We have talked about our power and our decisions in this meeting tonight already.
Kara: I need to go.
Michelle: Ok. We have another meeting next week before Tuesday. Let’s all take the time to think about these issues and consider the opinions you don’t share. Happy Thanksgiving!