Attendance

SENIOR SENATORS

Attendance

BC

SP: AK09

WAMH

Rania Arja

X

Y

Y

 

Rob Cobbs

X

Y

Y

Y

Andrew Gehring

X

Y

Y

Y

David Gottlieb

X

Y

N

A

Caitlyn Phan

X

Y

Y

Y

Jessica Rothschild

X

N

N

A

Mira Serrill-Robins

X

Y

Y

Y

Emily Silberstein

X

Y

Y

 

JUNIOR SENATORS

 

 

 

 

Avi Das

T

 

 

A

Janice Djabatey

 

 

 

 

Andrea Gyorody

X

Y

Y

Y

Charmel Maynard

 

 

 

 

Jordan McKay

T

Y

Y

 

Gloria Monfrini

 

 

 

 

Ashley Rose

X

Y

Y

Y

Tim Zeiser

T

Y

Y

Y

SOPHOMORE SENATORS

 

 

 

 

Patrick Benson

X

N

Y

A

Adam Bookman

X

Y

A

Y

Daniel De Zeeuw

X

Y

Y

Y

Michael Donovan

 

 

 

 

Julie Kim

X

Y

Y

Y

Rohit Raj

X

Y

Y

Y

Samantha Siegal

X

Y

Y

Y

Josh Stein

X

Y

Y

Y

FRESHMEN SENATORS

 

 

 

 

Jacqueline De La Fuente

X

Y

Y

Y

Anneliese Koehler

X

Y

A

Y

Paul Nielsen

X

Y

Y

Y

Nicholas Pastan

X

Y

Y

Y

Jelani Lundy-Harris

 

 

 

 

Michele Tran

X

Y

Y

Y

Ayyappan Venkatraman

T

N

A

Y

Shantel Watters

X

Y

Y

Y

EXECUTIVE BOARD

 

 

 

 

Mike Simmons

X

 

 

 

Noah Isserman

X

 

 

 

Richa Bhala

T

 

 

 

Kevin Nattinger

X

 

 

 

Austin Yim

X

 

 

 

 

 

Call to Order: 9:04 pm

 

I.  Officer Reports:

a.  Simmons: I met with President Marx last Wednesday with Emily and other students to talk about opening an office for community activism, but president Marx decided that he did not want to make it easy to do community activism because then you cannot be involved in the activism you are interest in. Marx also said he will not start a speaker fund to make it easier to bring speakers, but he will help with publicity. This is important because next semester there will be a lot more speakers on campus.

b.  Isserman: I will not go over the changes, but you were all sent my report via e-mail and I hope it will make the meetings even better.

c.  Nattinger: The meeting that was to happen last night did not happen because Senator Rothschild withdrew her complaint, but a new club was recognized.

d.  Yim: There is a referendum coming up that has not been approved and there is apparent damage to the AAS van.

II.  Committee Reports:

a.  Benson: CPR met on Wednesday and we discussed the CAP report. The committee on the Athletic Director search will start interviewing candidates on the phone.

b.  Silberstein: The ad hoc focus group committee is trying to write a report on the Career Center with improvements, however the problem is that everyone on the committee is a senior and we are trying to get underclassmen involved from the beginning.

III.  Announcements:

a.  Serrill-Robins: I am making a request that those senators who write on anonymous sites, like the Daily Jolt, write there names on the site.

b.  De Zeeuw: The Bradley Shuttle is going very well. Tell your friends because he spots are filling up.

IV.  Special Reports:

a.  BC Recommendations:

  i.  Bahla: We promised the ACPB a range from $7000-21000 for the Spring Concert depending on who was voted for; Guster won so we are granting them $21000, but that does not cover all there costs. They are hoping to make up the money by selling tickets to the five-colleges. EDUCATE requested money for the Easter egg hunt, we denied all the money. We granted the Bradley Shuttle Committee all the money they requested. Two senators requested money for senate projects. For Hillel requested that food be paid for because the speaker does not ask for an honorarium, but simply for a good meal. A senator requested money for a speaker we partially funded the request.

1.  Arja: Why was the honorarium for the speaker for Hillel cut down by $1000?

a.  Bahla: The comparative value of the speaker did not seem to be valued at $5000.

b.  Stein: We considered how many people would actually go to the event.

c.  De Zeeuw: Also, she is a high school president and we do think that her honorarium is too steep.

Motion: Debate on BC Recommendations

2.  Stein: I call the issue.

a.  Rothschild: I object. I have exhausted all the resources on campus and a group that gave me money in the past was not able to do so this year. There will a large attendance at the Hillel event because ACF cancelled there Friday night service and Gospel choir’s concert is happening after the event.

3.  De Zeeuw: Motion: to add $1000 to the speaker

4.  Arja: Can you speak on the credentials of the speaker.

a.  Rothschild: She is a middle school principle that inspired the paper clip project.

5.  David: There were two main issues we had about paying for the event (1) this speaker’s credentials do not seem to merit her honorarium (2) Also we always try to bring down the price of speakers, especially when the price is so high.

6.  Gyorody: Also, the attendance of this event last year was very low.

7.  De Zeeuw: You said that there would be an increase in attendance?

8.  Rothschild: Yes, I expect at least 100 people.

 

Hand Vote: Increasing the amount from $1500 to $2500: 8 For 12 Opposed: Failed

 

9.  Benson: I would like to reconsider the Educate request. It is a fundraiser and that is why they are requiring that people pay.

10.  Venkatraman: Motion to increase funding for Educate from 0 to $300.

11.  Raj: I agree with Benson that this will be an enjoyable event for the whole community.

12.  Kohler: Educate said that if requiring people to pay was a problem they could just have a donation jar.

13.  Stein: Call

Voice Vote: To grant Educate $300: Division

Hand Vote: 12 For 13 Opposed: Failed

 

14.  Stein: Call BC Recommendations

 

Roll Call: To Approve BC Recommendations: Approved

 

  ii.  Bookman: My senate project, along with Anneliese and Pan, is to create and post posters about storage spaces for students. We are requesting $70 for the project from the Senate fund.

1.  De Zeeuw: Why do you need three people for this project?

2.  Bookman: There is a lot of work to be done, including making phone calls and creating a website.

3.  Serril-Robins: Are you stuffing mailboxes?

4.  Bookman: Yes

5.  Gottlieb: Isn’t making flyers superfluous if you have a website?

6.  Bookman: We are assuming that a lot people will not know about the website.

7.  Arja: This is very important and we need as many avenues as possible.

8.  Raj: Can’t you just send an e-mail to the entire school?

9.  Bookman: I don’t think that is a good idea.

10.  Serril-Robins: This project was done before does anyone know who did that, so you can get there information?

11.  Isserman: The Residential life department sends mailing home to all first years. You might want to consider that option.

12.  Stein: Call

Roll Call: Approve money for senators’ project: Approved.

  iii.  Bahla: There was tons of roll over money. We are trying to do our jobs and spend to zero, but a lot of clubs are not using all there allocated money. We have a lot of roll over in hard money and percentages.

1.  Silberstein: I liked the suggestion to decrease the money for club budgets. You said that would hurt affinity groups, but could we ever get down far enough to hurt club sports.

a.  Bahla: I don’t think we will ever get that low. Doing that is very biased because this type of allocations are for fixed costs and club sports have established fixed costs as opposed to affinity groups fixed costs.

2.  De Zeeuw: Can’t we make clubs responsible for their money usage?

3.  Bahla: Not really because the club heads change every year, but everybody in a club should try to hold the club responsible for the money allocated.

4.  Serril-Robins: But you can usually tell when budget requests are of high quality and when they have their acts together. So, we can recognize this and allocate along the lines of the most impressive budget requests.

5.  Bookman: The senate fund has a lot of roll over, but it seems that the senate fund is used more in the second semester. So, can’t we allocate to the senate fund less in the fall.

6.  Bahla: The money is meant to spread over the year not to be lumped into spring versus fall.

V.  New Business:

a.  President’s veto:

  i.  Simmons: After last Mondays meeting I think there was a lot of pros for the amendment, but a lot of the discussion surrounded how tall the order should be of the standards for making amendments to the constitution. I went to the cafeteria the next day and a lot of people thought that the senate should give the student body more credit; they are more mature than to put forth immature amendments. I think that the amendment should only be used when something is fundamentally broken; there were too many pros in the discussion and not enough cons. I decided not to wait till Sunday because I wanted to give you enough time to speak to your constituents. I was not making a power play. Yield to Russell.

1.  Russell: I think that it was in bad taste to pass an amendment not to be able to railroad amendments in the middle of the night when no one could discuss it. Also, the referendum is one of the greatest examples of democracy and should be thought about carefully and not in the middle of the night. This would give the senate a lot of power and gives the perception that the senate is a tight knit organization, which thinks that student body is not capable of making mature decisions about our constitution.

  ii.  David: This referendum would have gone to the student body to be voted on if Mike had not vetoed it, therefore, the argument that it was voted on in secrecy is trivial.

  iii.  Silberstein: This amendment was not looking to subtract from the power of the student body, but in fact to empower them by engaging them in conversation about issues.

  iv.  Benson: What do you purport to do to engage the student body in more discussion rather than us handling our business late at night and then e-mailing them a vote?

1.  Russell: I think that you should have told the student body about the vote on the constitutional amendment so that people, who cared about the issue, could have come to a meeting to discuss the issue.

  v.  Serril-Robins; motions to extend discussion by 5 minutes

Voice vote: Approved

  vi.  Cobbs: Russell, I think that a lot of your concerns were addressed. The initial amendment was a lot stricter that the language that was to be proposed to the student body. Also, we sought to pass the amendment because we as senate tend to waiver. We want to make our constitution more constant.

  vii.  Serril- Robins: I support the veto because there were a lot of holes in it (the amendment) that none of the senators present found. The fact that this was passed in ten minutes with all these holes shows the low quality of this amendment. Also, the irony that Russell pointed out, passing this amendment with the student body’s input is important.

  viii.  Stein: I will pass a motion to reconsider this amendment. I think that it is a good thing that we got both Mike’s and Russell’s input.

b.  Senate Restructuring

  i.  Stein: As most of you know Jesse proposed an amendment to the constitution. I think that the amendment had a lot of good points, but there were a lot of problem. I think that we should talk about this to get the senate input on the amendment.

1.  Cobbs: I think the best ting to do is to create an ad hoc committee on senate restructuring.

2.  Stein: Although, I agree with the sentiment of that, I think this should be brought to the senate floor.

3.  Serril- Robins: You are not trying to add anything to the senator’s previous amendment?

4.  Stein: No

5.  Silberstein: Can I call a straw poll for senators in favor of opening committees on this issue.

6.  Yim: I think that all of these ideas are being rushed, especially since elections are happening in less than a month. I think that committees should be formed after this year’s elections so that they can have next year to discuss this issue publicly.

7.  Bahla: I think this debate has been focused on a very small minutia instead of larger issues, more important issues.

8.  Simmons: What exactly is this discussion about?

9.  Stein: This discussion is to see if we can bridge a gap between the sentiments expressed in AAS.

10.  Arja: I think the issue is that Jesse was trying to open committees to students interested in very specific issue but who do not want to be in the AAS.

11.  De Zeeuw: Motion to extend discussion by 5 minutes.

Voice Vote: To extend discussion: Passed

12.  De Zeeuw: This has been presented to us last semester and for the past few weeks. I think we need to move on.

13.  Benson: I would much rather be talking about future programming.

14.  Cobbs: There is nothing wrong with having a senate that sits on committees. It is completely constitutional, having students sit on committee would be more democratic but it might not work. I think we need to be talking about more important issues like the fact that the senate can override the constitution by a 50/50 vote.

15.  Simmons: I think that shrinking the senate is a very bad idea.

16.  Yim: A lot of the amendment is based on one line in the constitution. If it was removed the argument would be a non-issue.

17.  Bookman: Motion to extend debate by 5 minutes

Voice Vote: Opposed

 

c.  Stein: Motion to reconsider the vote on the amendment proposed by Stein and Silberstein

  i.  Simmons: The only thing that still bothers me about this amendment is the sentiment that there will be a lot of rogue motions put forth by the student body. I think this sentiment is not valid, nobody will actually do this.

  ii.  De Zeeuw: I think a lot of the senate knows where they stand on this. I like this amendment because it presents the student body with a lot more information. A lot of students do not vote now because they are unaware of what is going on. I think more signatures forces more publicity. I think this amendment does not make it that much harder to make a referendum. I don’t think that it should go to vote tomorrow because Mira was able to show so many holes in 30 seconds. I think this should go back to the JC and looked over.

  iii.  McKay: It seems that this amendment is supposed to increase student awareness but the passing of this amendment seems very underhanded. We should discuss this in an open meeting.

  iv.  Serril- Robins: I think we need a lot more discussion on this issue

  v.  Bookman: All of my constituents liked this idea.

  vi.  Serril-Robins: Move

Voice vote: to go directly to a vote: Approved

Hand Vote: to reconsider the amendment: Opposed

d.  Stein: A 2/3 vote is needed to put this amendment on the referendum.

e.  Nattinger: The amendment was passed with the original language we need a vote that approves that the amendment with this language to put it to referendum.

f.  Simmons: When we bring changes to the constitution isn’t there usually the old language above the new language.

g.  Stein: As election chair, I approve

  i.  De la Fuente: I see there is no reason not to put this up for referendum tonight. We approved the old language and this is the same amendment.

  ii.  Benson: Assuming that we pass this, will be no other amendments on the ballot tonight?

  iii.  Stein: There might be another amendment on the ballot dependent on the vote on the next issue.

  iv.  Silberstein: An amendment like this is already on the ballot, so we should pass this one that has the correct language.

  v.  Rothschild: Motion to postpone this vote. Russell made some excellent points that we are making an amendment to the constitution to make making an amendment to the constitutional better known amongst the student body.

  vi.  De Zeeuw: There is not point in postponing this amendment if nothing happens in between postponing and the next vote.

  vii.  Simmons: I thought that my point of order was sustained and the veto stands.

  viii.  Isserman: It does not

  ix.  Simmons: I trust that senators who put forth this amendment will go out and engage the student body, so I think we should give postponement, adding to the ballot so that the student body can be talk about this.

  x.  Arja: I think that student body should be consulted and we need to hold off on putting this on the ballot.

  xi.  Cobbs: Move

Voice Vote: to go directly to a vote: Passed

Hand Vote: in favor of postponing: 10 For 14 Opposed: Failed

h.  Cobbs: Move

Hand Vote: to go directly to a vote: Passed

Hand vote: In favor of putting this on the referendum: 9 for 15 opposed: Failed

i.  Rothschild: Motion to remove the amendment from the constitution.

  i.  Cobbs: The constitution already has mistakes we should just leave it.

  ii.  Serril- Robins: This is too embarrassing, we need to take it down and revise it.

  iii.  McKay: Move

Hand Vote: to go directly to a vote: Approved

Hand Vote: in favor of removing this amendment from the ballot: Passed

j.  Stein: Motion to place the senate reconstructing motion on the ballot with a 2/3 vote from the senate. Jesse got back to me in time. If we do not pass this motion, Rothschild’s motion, it will not go on the ballot until the spring election.

  i.  Rothschild: This amendment has been well publicized. I don’t think that the senate should be able to vote on if it goes on the referendum because they cannot be impartial.

  ii.  McKay: I think our voting on this unimportant.

  iii.  David: I think this debate is not important because it will go on to vote anyways.

  iv.  Cobbs: The senate is the only body that can only put this on the ballot.

  v.  Kohler: Should this be on the ballot?

  vi.  Nattinger: I saw the constitution saying that the referendum should be put on the next election.

  vii.  Arja: Does the constitution say that it has to be an election or special vote.

  viii.  Gyorody: The JC should have decided if this was a special vote or an election. If they had done this, this would have been a mew point. In my opinion this is a special vote and the amendment should be posed on the next election in April.

  ix.  Nattinger: The constitution says this can be put on a special vote with 2/3 vote from the senate. I include the special vote with in the word election, but for clarity I suggest that you vote to put this on the ballot. If we do not put it up now there will be 8 senators from the upper classes and only 6 from the freshman class.

  x.  Arja: I think that senator Stein is right to come for a vote because this is clearly a special vote not an election. However, it is important that this is out on the ballot now because it will be in contradiction to the amendment to put up in the April election.

  xi.  Bhala: Point of information: How long does the language need to be previewed before a special vote.

  xii.  Nattinger: There is no language in the constitution mandating any time period to preview the language for a special vote.

  xiii.  Rothschild: The special vote was passed in the last election so this is an election.

  xiv.  Pastan; Point of information: If this is an election didn’t this language have to be proposed three days in advance.

  xv.  Rothschild: The language was proposed a long time ago.

  xvi.  Das: Josh has the prerogative to put what ever he wants on the ballot.

  xvii.  Stein: I did not want the prerogative to put what I want on the ballot. I asked the senate for their 2/3 vote.

  xviii.  Serril-Robins: I agree with Nattinger’s reading of the constitution. We Googled the word election and it is defined as a decision on someone or something. This point has been publicized and it will give a bad impression to the student body if the senate does not put it on the ballot tomorrow. Also, there could be a constitutionality issue if the senate does not put it on the ballot.

  xix.  Nielson: What is the motion on the floor?

  xx.  Isserman: The motion on the floor is to put this senate restructuring issue on the ballot tomorrow.

Hand Vote: to go directly to a vote: 14 for 6 opposed: Passed

Das: Do we have quorum?

Isserman; Yes, we have 25 senators present.

Hand Vote: to put the restructuring proposal on the ballot tonight: 11 for 13 opposed: Failed

k.  Isserman: Senator McKay is resigning his position on a committee contingent on the fact that a first year takes his position

l.  Benson: I am motioning to approve $490 to sponsor the WAMH broadcasting of the Men’s basketball team’s game in the NCAA final four.

  i.  WAMH representative: This was an unexpected expense. The Athletic department normally pays for this, but this morning they told us they would not pay.

  ii.  Serril-Robins: Is it necessary for you to have funding for all three nights.

1.  WAMH representative: the hotel has to be paid for by tomorrow

2.  Benson: Even if the team does not make it to the finals there is still a consolation game.

  iii.  Simmons: I suggest that the next senator that speaks moves

  iv.  Pastan: Move

Roll Call: To fund WAMH: Passed

m.  Stein: Motion to add Guster recommendation to the referendum.

n.  Tram: Call

Hand Vote: to add Guster recommendation: Passed

 

Adjourn: 11:55