The regular weekly meeting of student senate was held on Tuesday, March 3rd in the Bates meeting room.
Student Senate Agenda
Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009
1:30 Approval of Minutes (2 minutes)
a. Vera: Motion to approve last week’s minutes
b. Michelle: Passes by silent consent
1:32 Chair’s Report (3 minutes)
a. Michelle: I need senators to serve on a committee to help elect the space managers for next year. Also, Karen Lawrence has having open meetings in her office and in Bates.
1:35 Treasurer’s Report (3 minutes)
a. Hayleigh: We didn’t have SAS last night but we’re having it tonight at 5
1:40 Committee Reports (20 minutes)
SSSF
a. Aiden: We’re still contacting people who won items in the auction
General
a. Brian: It’s confidential. We’ve been talking about faculty compensation.
Admissions
a. Angelina: We are meeting this Friday for the second time. We signed confidentiality agreements.
Student Work
a. Lucy: We did not meet because yesterday was a snow day
Curriculum
a. Vera: We did a spring break proposal. We checked with accreditors and we found out a week of registration doesn’t count as a learning week. We’re working on it. We don’t want to reduce spring break and we need to figure it out. We’re still taking about curricular planning affecting the component programs.
Student Life
a. Jasmine: We continued our discussions on first year retention and we came to the conclusion that it’s a combination of many things but we want to look at more date. Orientation leaders are going to be working on an insider’s guide and Issac wants some suggestions on what would be important.
Bylaw
a. Aiden: We didn’t meet.
Publicity
a. I’m planning to do focus groups. I wanted so solicit all of campus and I’d like to put this on the agenda. I think in some ways, it would be shaping the focus on publicity committee a little bit.
Student Union
a. Vera: We had a pretty well-attended presentation. We solicited a lot of questions and feedback.
Spring Formal
a. Amanda: We’re meeting tomorrow at 1
OLD BUSINESS
2:00 Discussion: Parliamentarian
Michelle: We were in the middle of a motion
Vera: My motion was to suspend whatever applicable bylaws and have the parliamentarian be a rotating position within senate for the rest of the school year
Aiden: When were they elected?
Vera: At the end of each meeting
Michelle: Are there any objections to this motion? Objection
Jay: I think the job needs one person to know it very well. I personally don’t have the time to do this. I would like it to be someone from within the body
Myles: I second that exactly
Vera: My only reason for my reason is that we’re all busy. I don’t know if it’s fair to say one person is the least busy of all of us.
Cat: I agree that it should be rotating. Nobody here originally wanted to be neutral. My question is are there enough people that want to do it? Or is it compulsory and everybody has to do it and how do we go about nominating or electing.
Maddie: There are only 7 or 8 meetings left so that’s only about half the body.
Neil: Would anyone be willing to do it for today?
Amanda: Did anyone else run in the last election
Michelle: No
Angelina: I’d be willing to do it today.
Bobby: Jay, is your objection that the parliamentarian would not come from within the body or that you were uncomfortable with the rotating?
Jay: It’s that just being responsible for this for one week, you would not require the capacity you need to do this job correctly.
Vera: We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Angelina: If you have a week in advance, you have the time to get out your binder and look at the bylaws.
Bobby: I would like to add a friendly amendment that the rotating only happen between possibly securing an outside person be parliamentarian.
Michelle: I think this dramatically changes the motion
Vera: I’m going to say no. I just want to see if this would work.
Maddie: Another option is not having a parliamentarian. I don’t think it’s fair to ask people to do this position.
Nellen: What about people sharing this position? People being responsible for different parts of bylaws.
Amanda: Speaking to the issue of not having one, the first meeting that Robert here was akin to that. Keeping each other in order was not an option. I don’t think its a safe work environment for us. I also feel its unfair automatically rule out people from outside our body
Neil: The parliamentarian also needs to enforce Robert’s rules. And this involves neutrality but it’s important. I think we could get by solving disputed with votes. At the same time, I don’t see a problem with extending this election.
Lucy: I think we had one meeting when there was no parliamentarian at all and I just wanted to bring up that it went fairly well. With the issue of personal vendettas, people already believe that this is happening and I don’t see how this issue will be affected by this.
Amanda: How many people voted in the first election?
Michelle: 2
Bobby: Point of order, this is not about the motion
Angelina: Can I take an informal poll of people who would be willing to learn a portion of the bylaws. The majority of people
Vera: I dont know what to do because that would mean everybody would have to be neutral or nobody would.
Hayleigh: Can i call the question
Michelle: We’re going to vote on voting. I’m going to do a roll-call vote. Say yes if you would like to end this discussion (15 yes 3 no)
So now we’re going to vote on Vera’s motion. does not pass (9 yes 7 no 2 abstentions)
Neil: If nobody is going to want to do it then it’s pointless to bring up the idea of a rotation. We should just put it in the daily email.
Amanda: I don’t think it’s fair for us to make this decision. If we aren’t going to bring it to the community, then I’ll do it.
Nadia: I agree with Neil and Amanda
Bobby: I’d like to make a new motion to rotate within the body until we secure from the outside community. Seconded. Objection
Durga: I had a motion which i think is better. I want to motion that we have a lottery. I really don’t think anyone from the community is going to do it. The point about having activists is that activists don’t want to be a parliamentarian.
Michelle: Let’s finish this discussion
Brian: If my name was called, I’m not going to be able to do it and I’ll come here and I’ll not say anything because I won’t know
Aiden: One thing we talked about earlier was having it be a hired and paid position. I think we could get someone to do this.
Amanda: Could we create a paid position right now?
Michelle: It would be a bylaw change
Vera: I support Durga’s motion but i think we should put it in the daily email because it’s not skin off of anyone’s back
Myles: I would like to call the question
Bobby: So we’re going to vote on the motion to rotate the parliamentarian within the body until we secure from the outside community. <16 yes 2 no>
Michelle: So we’re going to vote on the motion. <12 yes 4 no 2 abstain> this motion passes
Cat: I move to extend the time by 5 minutes. <5 yes 11 no>
Michelle: We’re going to move on
Discussion: Senate and the SLC community
Bobby: I sent out an email about ways we’re not acting in accordance with the bylaws. Not to pit it against the Student Union, but to make ourselves accessible to the SLC community. I want to put us in people’s faces so everybody is accountable. I was wondering if you guys would be interested in sitting with me at a pub table once or twice a week and talking to some students.
Amanda: I did this the other day in the pub for first years for three hours and nobody came to talk to me
Jay: in terms of efficacy, things take times. We need to redefine what success means. Enough people may look at the sign next time and decide that they have something to say. We have to try new things and if they don’t work then we regroup. I don’t see how it hurts us to try.
Cat: I like this idea. I think we should have food to engage people and reel them in
Neil: I’m glad this happening. I’ll help out. I’ll make signs or something. Having a consistent presence will be beneficial. If we are going to make a motion, I motion to support this as a senate outreach kind of thing and also to hear any of the results of having them out there in the weekly committee reports and to allot money from our operating budget. Seconded. Objection
Jasmine: I think we need to hash this out a bit more
Neil: I think we should leave logistics to outside meetings. I think we can trust our senate body to do this.
Vera: The logistics are to be determined. I call the question
Michelle: All those in favor of voting <18 yes>
So we’re going to vote on the motion with the stipulation that the money from our operating budget is $200 <17 yes 1 abstention> Passes
Bobby: I’m really excited about this. I’ll get an email out. There are some other ideas that I had. Thanks, I’m done.
Discussion: Student Senate Solidarity with NYU Students
Brian: I’m curious why this is being brought here and what we’re supposed to do with this as a body
Neil: We should look at these demands and see if these issues are things SLC wants to address We’ve delt with a lot of these issues this year. We should use that as a starting point. We should recognize that we’re dealing with the same problems.
Maddie: I have a lot of different feelings. One thing I do know is that the pressure from other colleges helped the students not to get suspended.
Angelina: So what’s happening right now in the situation? I dont know if i support their methods, but their list of demands is interesting
Lucy: We need to distinguish between the methods and what they’re asking for this to be a productive conversation
Vera: I think a statement of solidarity is a really strong one. We need to think about both elements, but I think it’s an important message to send. People think these things are important. Maybe we can utilize this for how we are going to move forward on our own campus but we also need to understand that we are fundamentally different institutions.
Jay: I would not want to write a letter which says we are okay will all of this.
Bobby: I think the strongest form of solidarity is to bring specific points which we do think are pertinent on this campus. With number 6, it isn’t relevant regarding Flik workers because they’re employed by Flik and not the college
Brian: I think there’s a few things on here which perhaps we should go through in a discussion.
Jasmine: I don’t think we’ll be able to agree as a body on the nature of their protest so we should not focus on that.
Neil: I motion for us to recognize that it’s importance of the Board of Trustees to implement a socially acceptable investment policy. Seconded. Objection.
Myles: I don’t think there’s enough evidence on the table to say SLC is not investing in a socially responsible way.
Brian: It’s an important discussion to have. I recognize the importance of this. It’s a little difficult to talk about this right now when we don’t have money to invest when we’re concerned with finding money to run next year. The NYU action was very aggressive and was directed at the school as though they were the bad guys. But how do we think of Westlands? We’re having all of these meetings with Karen. We should be mindful that this administration is open to having conversations with us and we should start here.
Bobby: I object to the motion because I was going to propose a similar motion and this requires a lengthier conversation.
Cat: If people have the energy and the time to stand behind this, we should have a stronger stance
Neil: I’d like to amend it to say, “by the next Board of Trustees meeting, Durga and I will present this issue to them”
Cat: it’s always a decision where we put our money and just because we’re in a compromised position ,we still need to think about this.
Vera: I want to say that this is the right place and the right time to be having this conversation. I dont think we need to get hung up on this language.
Jasmine: We have a better position to adapt to what we’re going through than other college. I think it makes sense to invest in socially responsible countries. I think it’s plausible and is a smart economic move. I think it’s a good idea to make a commitee to continue this discussion.
Durga: I call the question
Neil: My motion was for senate to recognize a socially responsible investment committee to encourage the Board of Trustees to do the same.
Michelle: We’re going to vote on voting <18 yes> We’re going to vote on this motion <16 yes 2 no> This motion passes.
Jay: I want to make sure this action is different from the solidarity issue. Or is it? I’d like to talk about this.
Bobby: Can you put me at the end of the call list?
Vera: What is implicit solidarity? We took a list of demands and it inspired us to make a decision for our school. Supporting someone in solidarity is an acknowledgement that persons demonstrations needed to happen. It doesn’t condone anything, but rather it supports student voices. I would like to encourage people to think this way. Our alternative is to take no action. The motion just passed is not implicit solidarity.
Cat: I agree with that.
Easton: If student government makes a statement about this, it speaks for the whole school. To make a statement of solidarity could rub a lot of people the wrong way. I think to draw inspiration from this document is great and to form this committee is wonderful but statements of solidarity shouldn’t be a student government’s statement.
Durga: I disagree with that. I encourage people to remember that this meeting is open. 6% of the school might vote but we have open meetings that nobody comes to so we are concerned and vocal voices right now.
Jay: Are we making the decision to write a letter or not?
Michelle: Nobody’s made the motion
Jay: I motion to stand in solidarity with the ideas brought forth in take back NYU in a letter. Seconded. Objections.
Michelle: We’re out of time. Let’s state objections and table it
Lucy: Would this be signed by SLC or senate? Who would write this? Would we specify ideas we agreed with.
Angelina: We need to discuss this way more before we decide this.
Cat: More discussion about Easton’s concern.
3:10 Announcements (5 minutes)
Michelle: next week is the confab. We have to move the meeting again.
3:15 Adjourn