Sadielou.net
Mary: Joanna Harmonosky left Sadielou.net in mid-October, Nevan asked if they could use her wages to fund the other editors (Rebecca and Emma). Now Nevan has taken a leave, and Rebecca and Emma have come to ask to be recognized as space managers in the Spring. There is usually a process for hiring space managers. Now Rebecca has told Mary she is not able to return in the spring at all. She has not officially resigned but would like to leave. What should we do in this situation? It’s slightly unique. We should probably post it as an open position—but I don’t know that it’s really a space. Should the group flounder/figure it out—is it up to them or Senate to replace the positions?
Michelle: How was the initial hiring done?
Mary: As a space manager position.
Michelle: Should we decide as Senate what they are (space/publication) then decide what to do?
Mary: If this were a club, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. They are funded a significant amount of money.
Michelle: What about the staff?
Mary: Haven’t talked to them yet. If you define it as a space, the position should be opened up to people.
Aiden: We should open it up—if another staff member wants to run for the position, they’d be a good and likely candidate, but it doesn’t put them in a position of feeling pressured to take the job. We should talk w/all of Senate on how to classify Sadielou.net.
Mary: Is it something other than a student org? You’re funding it as a space and that means it gets a lot of funding now. Is a website (putting a lot of time into that) different than putting a lot of time into a fund or publication.
Aiden: I think we should start the hiring process right away so that they can function, 3 out of 4 main staff members are leaving, we’ve already allocated funds and Senate has agreed about that for this year- should be a conversation about future, not present.
Maddie: Who would have the expertise to interview people and determine who would be the best candidate?
Mary: Rebecca would probably be willing. There is a group of people in the bylaws of who is on the committee for space manager hiring. It’s a consistent group. Ultimately the committee put forward the candidates.
Michelle: The hiring process should be started next semester?
Aiden: I think we should start organizing it this semester and hire early next semester.
Mary: I will work on putting together the group. Wanted to see how you wanted to move forward.
Spring retreat.
Mary: I have been thinking over the past 4 years of Senate and its bylaws- every year you tinker to fix something that doesn’t feel right. Especially after 2 years ago’s Senate when bylaws were passed but they never produced a set of bylaws—last year they tried to put something together but I feel like the bylaws don’t fit Senate or the students. What if we said, if there were no bylaws and constitutions, what would our student government be? And see what you created. We could take a group of people away in January and work on creating rules/a structure that support what you do. Maybe some pieces continue and some don’t. You would have to have processes for students to buy into it. Maybe don’t use parliamentary procedure anymore—it’s just a rule that someone put into the bylaws years ago.
Aiden: I’m worried logistically about how it would be executed and who would be there—we’re having trouble making changes to the bylaws in tiny incremental steps, so I can imagine if we drafted something really new/ all new—and having everyone read over it and somehow get it approved would be complicated. Don’t think we’d be able to get a lot of people to go and do it ‘as Senate’. I really like the idea, I’d love to be part of drafting a new constitution and bylaws- having non-Senate students participate would be great.
Maddie: my concern would also be the people who were there- on Senate, not on Senate- how many people attended would shape the conversation when we brought it to Senate to discuss. People have already gotten plane tickets. Maybe the first weekend back from break.
Mary: What if you did it later in the semester. Create a task force to look at how Senate functions. Not that it will definitely be passed- you would create a process for it to take effect. Maybe something to start this semester, the beginning of the process. I haven’t given the logistics a ton of thought, but if this is helpful, we would support by helping fund- what if we brought someone in from the outside who isn’t from the school, or a leader of another student government, to facilitate the conversation. We get so bogged down in rules and limitations that that makes the little tinkering changes hard.
Michelle: Like the idea of coming up with something at retreat, then come back and work on drafts after discussion and brainstorming.
Mary: Many ways to structure, maybe the retreat is a general overarching stuff, but have breakout groups of less people to deal with specific functions of group and how best to accomplish.
Michelle: Like a caucus type situation, different students who identify in different ways- students of color caucus, women’s caucus- creating space for those kinds of conversations around governance.
Mary: We may not change anything, but need to have the conversation- students have said that over the past 4 years. At this point the constitution and bylaws hurt you- from 2 years to now you have talked almost entirely about internal issues. Not dealing with other issues in the school.
Michelle: Right, then Senate has no purpose.
Maddie: Even if nothing comes forward, making the space for it will create an ease or maybe have an annual discussion. We shouldn’t expect complete new bylaws/conversation, but it’s a beginning.
Michelle: My worry about taskforces is sometimes no one shows up- thinking about how they are sort of structured but not really formalized.
Mary: What about not doing taskforces ahead of time, doing retreat first, then the group decides whether taskforces need to be formed.
Aiden: I’m not as familiar with the inner workings of Senate as others, but the alcohol and other drugs taskforce has been standing for more than 1 year. Could we set up something that can be carried into the future- create continuity.
Mary: That task force required members that committed to return, a year-long process starting in January- the core members of this group could do that. Could have referendum of students to pass or approve it for 2010-2001. Next year you’d be electing people under the standing bylaws. New constitution/bylaws may have new election process and new representation.
Michelle: Should the task force be formed before or after/through the retreat.
Everyone: after.
Michelle: then we can plan the retreat, and whoever comes we figure out what happens from there.
Mary: You could have a group of interested people start talking about it now, maybe have a retreat over spring break, maybe on campus.
Michelle: Could we have 2 retreats- one a larger group of students, the second a small committed group to really work on it. One when we return from winter break, one over spring break.
Next anti-oppression training.
Michelle: I have heard both sentiments that people want to do it again and people who don’t think we need to. If we do it again, do we bring YK?
Aiden: If people still have concerns, that’s more important to honor than people who don’t think it’s necessary.
Kara: I think we should try a new trainer.
Maddie: I think Senate should decide whether to bring someone new or YK.
Aiden: If we ask Senate to decide, have to put together comprehensive options.
Michelle: There aren’t that many options. I would like to bring her back, she has experience with this group and students have a relationship with her, understand her style.
Maddie: I’m concerned about what students who don’t want to have it again or don’t want her to do it will bring to the dynamic.
Michelle: We could create smaller task force of students really invested in figuring it out.
Maddie: I’m concerned that deciding without having a larger Senate meeting would be a bad plan.
Michelle: I only heard one individual expressing dissent to having a training again.
Maddie: If it’s only one person I think it would be less of an issue.
Aiden: I would like to look for someone who specializes in shorter sessions for the time that we have.
Mary: I felt like YK gave us the impression that she does short trainings often.
Michelle: I think she does, she started off doing shorter trainings, I think she was saying the impact is greater the longer you have. The other problem is being local- don’t want to bring someone really far for a 4-hour session.
Maddie: How much was it to get YK?
Michelle: $1000- includes prep work, reading our forms. A flat rate.
Maddie: What if we wanted to do more shorter trainings throughout the year? My experience of it was that it was helpful to walk away and come back to the different sections of the meetings- had to talk about difficult things- over a longer period of time- 10 hours over the course of the semester might be better.
Michelle: Should we form a group of students to decide?
Aiden: Would like all of Senate to ratify the decision of the committee.
Michelle: Is it fair to expect people to ratify a decision they know nothing about?
Aiden: more segments would be a different time commitment.
Michelle: I think it doesn’t make sense to have Senate ratify it because I think a small group of individuals should do the research and make a decision. This room is controversial.
Mary: On Student Life we empower committees to make decision all the time- the motion to make a subcommittee charges them with doing a task on our behalf, to make a decision in the best interest of Senate.
Aiden: Would like it to be very explicit what they are allowed to decide and what their task is.
Mary: If the job is to find a new trainer, Senate would probably empower a group to do that, but not to change to 10 sessions over the semester- different impact.
Michelle: The other reason I’m frustrated is I think everyone on Senate is very tired of talking about internal issues- getting threats from Senators about quitting, struggle to appease Senators who have a responsibility and signed up for something.
Maddie: I think that’s inappropriate for Senators to do. I think the difference about this committee is that every Senator will be directly affected and participate in the decision made.
Michelle: Could have a brief time in Senate to talk about anti-oppression training, Senate could decide whether to have a task force and what decisions it could make.
Mary: I’m concerned you won’t be able to talk about it until the last meeting of the semester, committee won’t be able to meet until the next semester, it will be at spring break and we won’t have had anti-oppression training. There is no point then.
Aiden: I only feel like Senate needs to talk about it if it’s a big change- if we are just getting YK for another similar session, I would be comfortable with that.
Maddie: It is our responsibility to plan the retreats.
Aiden: Why don’t we do another 5 hour retreat with YK next semester, and also have a committee to talk about what anti-oppression training should be next year. (consensus)
Michelle: I will contact YK.
Parliamentarian.
Kara: I’ve been feeling there’s a real difference between a by-law change I’ve brought forth willingly and someone saying the position I ran for is not valid and there is no space available for the position for which you ran and to have no discussion about it. It’s difficult because I don’t know if it’s me keeping this conversation from moving forward. What we’re talking about is going to directly affect my experience on Senate. If the decision that’s made is that the Parliamentarian’s position is one radically different from the one I ran for, then I would be comfortable stepping down and letting someone else fill that position.
Mary: What do you see as radically different?
Kara: I feel that people have been talking about voting and neutrality in the same space and I consider those very different. I think that neutrality would radically change my experience of Senate. This conversation has made me feel that I can’t maintain order because Senate hasn’t vested me with that power.
Mary: How do you see voting and neutrality as interfering with parliamentary procedure.
Kara: It’s a question of being a parliamentarian and a senator or being just parliamentarian.
Mary: The question is what is the best thing for Senate. As student leaders you have to step back from the issue and think of what’s best for Senate and then consider how that affects you individually.
Kara: If the role needs to be different, then maybe the best solution is for somebody else to do that job.
Michelle: And I think that’s fine. If you think that’s best for Senate that someone else step up to do that. I’d like to focus one the question of the by-laws and the conflict surrounding which by-laws are valid. Half of senate thinks the bylaws are moot and the other half believe that we have to stand by the current bylaws.
Maddie: I think more people are confused than anything else. I really do think that even though it was passed, if we do go through last year and Neil’s year we’re going to find a lot of inconsistencies. I think that when the student body voted on Kara’s position they were validated.
Michelle: I think that argument fails because we change Senators’ duties all the time.
Maddie: I don’t think changing blogging or attendance is the same as taking away someone’s voice. I think we should be talking about changes that should be made for spring senate.
Mary: We need to decide
Michelle: We need to decide whether to proceed from Neil’s bylaws or our bylaws. Someone can make a motion and vote, and that can conclude the issue.
Mary: The issue of voting on a person because that ratifies that. No member of the student body ever got to see the bylaw changes to agree or censure and ask for referendum votes; none of that has happened in the past two years. Neither sets of bylaws went before the student body. Then we would have to go back to 05-06’s bylaws.
Michelle: What if we work from a blank slate?
Kara: Just for that particular bylaw.
Mary: That’s the only bylaw that can be challenged. We now have an elected Parliamentarian and we need to decide what other privileges the position has.
Michelle: We would only need a majority to create a new bylaw.
Aiden: Creating a bylaw does require 2/3. We could present is as, here are Neil’s bylaws, here are the ones we were given, and have Senate vote with a simple majority to choose which bylaw is our valid starting point.
Mary: 2006-2007 or 2007-2008, we could pick one by 51%. Going into 2006-2007 year, we had a Parliamentarian elected from within the seated Senate that held another position—that year it was a senior class president. They changed it that year to be elected from the student body as a separate position.
Michelle: In the beginning of 2007-2008, Ben created bylaws that didn’t include those changes.
Mary: At the end of Neil’s year, I told Neil and Davin I needed the changed constitution. Some things were changed that weren’t formally written, I didn’t have a record of what was passed and what wasn’t. We never got a final constitution. When Ben was elected, I sent him what I started and the folder of notes and minutes, and told him to go through and figure out what was passed- Lauren told Senate they didn’t have a formal set of constitution and bylaws, and said
Maddie: I have a problem with Neil bringing forward one bylaw—the conversation in 2006-2007 was focused on the Chair. I think whatever decision we come to should be independent of 2 years ago.
Mary: I think you should go in tomorrow with the history and talk about what the Parliamentarian’s role should be going forward, then talk about immediacy. The immediacy vote is 50%. This history is important for people to understand- but because there is so much water under the bridge, we need to say now what we think the parliamentarian should be.
Michelle: But we have to pick a place to start from.
Mary: We acknowledge that all of this happened, but we need to
Michelle: Before you said we should go back to what was democratically decided on. I can’t have half the senators thinking that we’re honoring bylaws that haven’t been voted on.
Maddie: Most of our bylaws haven’t been correctly voted on by this argument…tomorrow in terms of framing the discussion, when you frame it, I’m concerned that it will be biased. To some extent, we are privileging something that happened two years ago. I am more in favor of going by our current bylaws and giving the detailed history of what happened.
Michelle: If someone is to say that exec made the decision to honor the bylaws that weren’t democratically voted on, I can’t defend that decision.
Aiden: This is giving option A and option B and letting the majority decide. If I were in charge of how it was set up, I wouldn’t have a motion- one person present and explain option A, one option B, then take a hand vote.
Mary: I think that to alleviate the problem of defining a valid or invalid bylaw- we could say, we have problematic bylaws for this reason- give the history- we have to decide where to start, have a democratic process now. We have the opportunity to decide this conversation as a starting point to the conversation we will have in the future. There’s the opportunity to still change whatever is the starting point.
Michelle: So we would need 51% to choose.
Mary: I think people will fight you with that, it can be seen as a bylaw change. But otherwise you’ll never get there.
Michelle: Do you feel uncomfortable using 51% to change?
Maddie: This wouldn’t have come forward if it weren’t for Neil on Senate this year, we talk a lot about power dynamics and privilege, he didn’t ever bring forward a functioning set of bylaws, we need to honor also the bylaws we were given.
Michelle: Other issues get brought forward because Senators are club chairs, have the privilege of being on Senate, all kinds of privilege and power- Neil gets targeted because
Maddie: I never felt that exec as a body has directly privileged any of those people before.
Mary: Are you privileging him or saying, someone has raised an inconsistency?
Maddie: I have difficulty saying that it gets changed to needing only a majority vote, I see that as privileging. I prefer a 2/3 majority.
Aiden: If it’s 2/3, we are considering a bylaw change rather than a starting point.
Mary: By making it 2/3 we are saying that we recognize one bylaw as the valid one. Do you decide the starting point or do you let Senate decide it?
Maddie: Practically, the only way we will move forward is with 51%. What do other people think?
Aiden: I think 51%. There are a lot of complaints about exec exercising power, bringing this before Senate as a whole is a way of empowering Senate.
Maddie: The fact that we’ve consistently failed to get 2/3 on anything…
Michelle: There has only been one motion the whole conversation. Uncovering history took up 45% of last meeting.
Mary: What do you feel most comfortable with right now to help Senate move forward on the issue. I’m not comfortable with any of it, you’re in an untenable situation.
Michelle: Madison, do you still feel comfortable with a 2/3 vote?
Kara: I’m comfortable with a 51% vote.
Maddie: The reason I have trouble with it is that it’ll go in that direction and it won’t just be the place we start from, going in there as an executive team and saying that only 51%
Mary: If you do 2/3, you’re choosing your starting point and your bylaw. There may be people who are willing to start in one place and then develop from there.
Maddie: Being 50% instead of 2/3 is saying the old bylaw from 2 years ago is valid.
Mary: You have to say that you’re not deciding whether the person will be voting or non-voting, just deciding where to start from.
Aiden: One got a 2/3 vote, one was recorded and implemented.
Maddie: I’m not going to change my position, but I respect that this is the most practical way.
Michelle: I will frame it that these are 2 options, both are valid in different ways, one is not more logical or concrete or correct than the other, just need to start somewhere. Picking an option doesn’t mean picking the bylaw.
Maddie: Will we have a discussion?
Michelle: Yes. We also have to separate out voting and neutrality.
Mary: If you’re willing to open it up, you’re willing to let the group decide.
Maddie: We need to keep close order of the meeting
Mary: Michelle should clarify what is a point of order. I think people have been using it to be able to say something. Remind that it’s about reminding people about parliamentary procedure- just for enforcing parliamentary rules. “you weren’t called on”, not “please don’t use kara’s name.”
Aiden: questions are only for clarification, not for attacking other senators.
Mary: A question that you need answered in order to continue discussion.
Maddie: snapping should never be used negatively or aggressively.
Michelle: I think we’ve come to a conclusion. Tomorrow I will frame things neutrally to the best of my ability.
Maddie: As long as you’re comfortable with having a dissenting opinion and not being able to talk.
Mary: Have people submit written committee reports for the minutes- to give us more time.
(consensus)
Maddie: Can we all hang out outside of this room once this semester?
(consensus)
Adjourned.