AAS SENATE MINUTES: Monday 4/14/03 9 PM, Converse Hall Cole Assembly Room

25th Meeting of the ’02-’03 AAS Senate – 10th Meeting of Spring 2003


I. Call to Order (9:12 PM)


II. Attendance 9:12


III. Announcements 9:13

Ben entreated the Senate to facilitate discussion so that everything on the agenda could be addressed. The elections will be held on 4/22/03, and the 15th was the speech night. He also announced the ballot will have one bill from MassPirg. Ian announced that the Dining Service Committee met two weeks ago, and he will send the bill to the Senate. Luke briefly mentioned the topics discussed in the Civil Engagement meeting. Mike asked the Senate if they still wanted an AAS t-shirt. The shirts will be about $8-10. He asked for payments in advance for ordering. Ryan announced a kick off event for the Five College Program Board. The meeting will be held at Chapin Hall at Mt. Holyoke on Thursday; a free bus will run. Bob announced that the picture of the Senate should be in the Olio; members should dress nicely. Alex asked the Senate to speak to her about Relay for Life. Bob thanked the Distinguished Teacher Committee for distributing the letters.

IV. Minutes 9:19

Minutes were approved and passed with two corrections. Pride Alliances and Pete Calloway.

V. Report of the Treasurer 9:20

Two requests for funding.

Youth Action returned 2500.

Taiko Drumming, want a coach to come in. 150.

ASA revised and 3240 for peeling the banana.

Total Remaining: 3417.43 for one more week of funding.


VI. Special Orders 9:22

A.  BC Funding Recommendations

Luke called question. Roll call. 9:23 (SEE VOTE 31 BELOW. 31 4/14/03: 22-0-1 BC Recs. (Weekly) PASSES.)

The Senate then addressed appeals. Paris asked about Shabbat, Indicator, and Scrutiny funding. Livia responded that full amount was granted this semester, and that it is unlikely that the clubs will remain the same leadership and club attendance will change. The Indicator was funded for at least three issues, and Scrutiny was advised to go online. The money will be used to pay the staff. John asked about the Riding Team. Livia answered that they received 80% of their request. Since the Riding Team’s membership fluctuates, further funding should be reserved until next semester. Mike called the question, and the question was voted on. SEE VOTE 32 BELOW. 32 4/14/03: 21-0-2 BC Appeals Recs. For Fall 2003. PASSES.)


B.  Constitutional Revisions (Andre Deckrow ’06) 9:29

The Senate went through the Constitution page by page while the Judiciary Chair, Andre, explained each changes. The first major topic discussed was in regards to the number of committees on which a senator can serve. The new limit is three. Some suggested that limits should be removed, but many senators agreed that the limit would promote diversity in committees, and will not impose too many commitments for few selected senators. A motion was brought to the floor, voted by Yay/Nay procedure the three committees cap was preserved. Andre explained that the first years were disallowed to serve on the faculty committees because the faculty committees may decide to meet during the summer. Mike motioned to strike that clause and restore the constitution as it was in regard to that Section 1, Article C3. It was passed. Another vote struck Section 2, Article B3. Section 2 Article H was also stricken. Section 3 Article D2 was also stricken. Original wording for Section 3 Article D3 was restored. Motion to strip Section 3 Article D5 failed. Mihailis motioned that the appeals process for the Budget process be removed and the funds allocated to appeals be split half-and-half and redistributed to initial funding and programming. Livia responded that appeals gives a chance for the clubs who were initially unprepared to make amends and get the necessary funding. The motion failed. Paris, with Livia’s support, motioned to combined programming, discretionary and appeals. Motion passed. Mihailis then questioned the policy for leaving out single sex groups in funding. Livia explained that even if the event is catered to a specific group but open to the entire campus, the event will be funded, whereas if the event isolates a groups, it will not. A discriminatory group can still apply for funding but cannot be recognized as a campus groups, unless it is a sports team. Section 3 Article D3 was made to be once a semester. Section 4 Article D5 was stripped. Paris then suggested that some groups should be allowed to charge extra money for their events. Opposition argues that the clubs then may become profit-making machines. When Paris questioned the necessity of contracts, Livia responded that contracts provide accountability for funding. Mike then motioned to stop the discussions, as the Senate had spent much time discussing very few pages, and continue at a later date, and that the vice president call a special meeting. The motion passed. Luke motioned to add to the end of Section 3 Article D5 “except in situations excepted by the vice president.” It was passed.


VII. Unfinished Business 10:58

A.  Proposed Referendum: Annual Student Activities Fee Poll (Paris Wallace ’04)

Mike supported the referendum and explained that it would give the student body a chance to express what they want in funding. The motion needed 2/3rd vote to pass. Bob suggested that the “non-binding” nature may be problematic in its wording because the students may not fully understand its intentions. Paris argued that sicne the students were upset with this year’s fuding, this referendumw ould be a good way to appease them. Mike further argued that non-binding is self-explanatory, and the referendum would provide a helpful tool for the BC. A roll call vote was held at 11:03 (SEE VOTE 33 BELOW. 33 4/14/03: 10-7-1 Survey re: where students want $ to go (2/3 req.) FAILS.)


VIII. New Business

A.  Special Interest Fund: Proposal from the President's Office, Advancement Office, & Friends of the Library (Ben Baum '03)

Ben held a straw poll in regards to the senior gift a cane, to restore the long tradition brought to attention by the Friends of the Library Committee. It will be a ceremony inviting the graduating seniors to the association of the alumni. The administration wished to know if the senate would be willing to fund a part of the cost in the future; they wanted all different segments of Amherst to contribute. The poll gave favorable results.


IX. Adjournment 11:11


AAS SENATE MINUTES: Monday 4/14/03 9 PM, Converse Hall Cole Assembly Room

25th Meeting of the ’02-’03 AAS Senate – 10th Meeting of Spring 2003


I. Call to Order (9:12 PM)


II. Attendance 9:12


III. Announcements 9:13

Ben: Everything on this agenda must be completed so everyone should facilitate that. The Elections are 22nd, and tomorrow is the speech night. We have one bill from MassPirg.

Ian: The dining service committee met two weeks ago, and I will send you the bill.

Luke: It could be done next week because Matt Gordon can put on survey questions very quickly. And previous four months of engagement, the president Wesleyan said getting support from the administration is key.

Mike: AAS t-shirts. The thing is we have to pay for them ourselves. I don’t want to make them if we don’t want them. If it is $8-10, who will buy them? You need to give me the money before I order. I will send an email and designs.

Ryan: Next Thursday there will be a kick off event for Five College Program board. TI will be a t Mt. Holyoke Chapin Hall. There will be three free buses that run to Holyoke.

Bob: Last semester we gave 3000. And only a part of that will be used, and it will roll over. I have announcement. The picture of the government should be in the Olio.

Alex: If you are involved in the relay, come see me after the meeting. I need to go over procedure.

Bob: Thanks to distinguished teacher committee for putting out the letter.


IV. Minutes 9:19

Pride Alliance, and Pete Calloway. Approved and passed.


V. Report of the Treasurer 9:20

Two requests for funding.

Youth Action returned 2500.

Taiko Drumming, want a coach to come in. 150.

ASA revised and 3240 for peeling the banana. We will recommend 3240

Total Remaining: 3417.43 for one more week of funding.


VI. Special Orders 9:22

C.  BC Funding Recommendations

Luke called question. Roll call. 9:23 22-0-1 passed

Paris: I have a couple questions on the appeals. Why weren’t the Shabbat or the Indicator funded? What about Scrutiny?

Livia: We gave them full amount for this semester. I don’t think in three months, its fair to assume that the turn out will be the same. Besides the leadership will change. The Indicator, we funded either the first three issues. The Scrutiny, we recommended that they go on line. They explained how the money would be spent in paying the staff.

John: The riding team?

Livia: the riding team fluctuates. They received nearly 80% of what they asked for. Based on their jumping attendance and other issues we should wait till the fall.

Mike: Call the question. 21-0-2 passed


D.  Constitutional Revisions (Andre Deckrow ’06) 9:29

Andre: Everyone got attachments of the Constitutional revisions. I envision how this will work is that, the e-branch decided to default to class standing. Would it be fair to go through section by section, and discuss.

Elan: E-board made changes regarding the E graduates.

Andre: Section 8, article B. The new wording is Students who are between years shall vote with current class standing. If you are 07E then you are basically 07. Section 3 Article d. If you are running for a committee you submit your name to the president.

Luke: he president has no real role in the senate. I’d prefer the vice to run the election.

Andre: Can we go through the changes first?

Ben: Do you want us to make amendments?

Andre: If they are friendly?

Ben: I have motion to pass all?

Andre: No changes in the preamble.

Elan: You crossed out 11.

Andre: We brought all the adoption back in. Problem with composition? 3?

Ben: I think it is necessary that we no longer limit to two committees per person. I think the senate can regulate ourselves.

Andre: Well three committees were decided by the E-branch and Dean Haynes.

Lincoln: Three sounds fine.

Maria: I don’t understand your logic. Why regulate at all?

Lincoln: Three sounds like a good number and you don’t want people in too many committees.

Matt: I don’t think it’s rational to limit to three. There is no point.

Luke: The rational reason other wise, I think there are too few people involved in committees there may be lack of diversity. There is an inclination to just vote people on for expediency.

Julie: POI, why what we are doing is necessary?

Andre: The Constitution is not perfect. The revisions are the process to make it better.

Julie: My worry is that we are doing something now that we are setting a precedent to have this every year.

Bob: I mean these were precedents already set. For example, a lot of committees came up, and needed to be filled.

Mike: I motion to put a cap.

Elan: I currently sit on four committees, it is taxing. I think three committee limit is a good idea. It would be a guide to new senators, to limit those who are ignorant of the actual responsibilities involved.

Ethan: I think it creates diversity of opinion.

Mike: I think it will be good.

Luke: Could we do the thing, where we do pro/con? Call.

Ben: We are amending the recommendation to a document we will later vote on, which will be put to referendum.

Bob: yay nay for caps. Fails to get rid of three-committee limit.

Mike: The changes the e-board made be brought up as we go along?

Élan: Three here, there is a trustee advisory committee which requires senators from each class.

Maria: What is the rationale for not having first years on faculty committees?

Andre: They want the students to be elected in the Spring.

Mike: The faculty don’t meet in the Fall anyway. I think the first year students should be able to serve. I motion to strike the sentence.

Élan: The Faculty handbook takes precedent over out Constitution.

Bob: I will run the votes.

Mike: My motion is to strike the sentence in Section 1, Article C3. The last sentence.

Matt: It is in favor of the amendment, because vacancies arise.

Luke: The beginning of the year all the committees should be filled. Call the question.

Bob: Motion is to strike I.C3, the final sentence.

Andre: Strike everything?

Ben: We want to restore the Constitution to as it was, except for the first sentence.

Bob: We are striking, the new parts that were added. Anything in bold. We are restoring the crossed out section. We will vote on this. Yay nay. Passes.

Maria: Can I limit the speaker time to 30 seconds?

Bob: say yay if in favor of limit. Passes, and need a timekeeper.

Andre: 4,5,6,7? D? 5? E? 1? 2? The e-branch made the change. The chair must be announced first meeting. 3-6? 7. Only members of the certain members and administration can be at the meeting.

Maria: Can we say at least one eligible member?

Andre: Sounds good. We will do affirmations. II.

Ben: The wording is odd. I think while I hate email votes, I don’t think we should not have them. I make an amendment to allow it.

Bob: Motion to II.B3. No vote out side of senate meeting.

Andre: Any member of the AAS is allowed to be here. Through email votes, there would be no real transparency. If you want to change that, it’s fine.

Ryan: I have a concern about our ability to maintain a quorum?

Bob: It’s a Robert’s Rule thing. The idea of this is that you can’t decide on a voice of the body unless you have 2/3rds.

Ryan: When important things come up, it should be allowed.

Bob: no.

Matt: Strike this. Call the question.

Bob: Vote to II.B3. To strike this. Stricken.

Andre: C?

Paris: POI, we’ll stop you if there is a question.

Maria: What is participate?

Andre: Speak.

Christian: There are 26 pages.

Andre: Any problems through senate committee?

Elan: For C, I would like to add that every member of Amherst College is part of the AAS.

Andre: The whole thing. Look it over.

Elan: Problem with II. I don’t like the non-substantive changes part.

Livia: there were grammatical changes. Its simple grammatical non-substantive changes.

Andre: There are lots of grammatical problems. That’s why we call for 3/4th majority. This is consistent with ¾ being able to overturn JC decisions.

Luke: I say strike it, because it was an issue. My motion is to strike H.

Bob: we’ll vote to get rid of II.H. Passes.

Andre: Look over Section III.

Bob: Article III.

Elan: Two standing committees to four?

Ben: I will say that we don’t need the change, because these are only the ones we have to have. I have a whole series of thing. In d, 23567. D2, taken from the bylaw, it is in the bylaw to prevent voting on this all the time. I would make an amendment to strike D2. It allows to modify through bylaws.

Bob: Passes. Stripped IIID2.

Ben: D3, there is a problem here. The reality is that faculty handbook has a lot of stuff. For the past 10 years we have been violating the Faculty Handbook. If you are elected to a committee that requires two year sitting, they are required to be there. There are many. My amendment is to keep III.D3 as it was.

Bob: Reverting to old III.D3. Passed. No more 30 sec limit.

Ryan: For the E’s…

Andre: Either language serves the purpose.

Ben: 5. You can’t resign from a committee without resigning from the Senate.

Andre: The Faculty wants some continuity.

Bob: We don’t want people hop scotching.

Élan: Can we add “the”. As for the appointed students, I don’t understand how you will enforce that clause? They wont be senators.

Andre: well you wont be on the committee anymore.

Luke: If there were attendance set on anyone, it would be subject to the committee attendance rule.

Ben: D6. The juniors abroad, that recess for the summer may be problematic.

Andre: I really don’t see the problem with the juniors abroad. They can elect a proxy.

Ben: D7. It should be in the bylaws.

Andre: Would it be ok to move these to the bylaws.

Bob: Anything else?

Jesse: Motion to strike III.D5.

Mike: I think if we will cap committees, we shouldn’t let people switch around.

Bob: I think it is very important not to get rid of this. The motion is to strip D5. Fails.

Luke: Can we add the language that says “no student who resign from a committee and be elected to another in the same year”?

Mike: That doesn’t capture what you are saying.

Bob: IV.

Mihailis: To lump appeals and initial allocations. And lump discretionary and programming.

Livia: Lumping appeals and initial allocations would be a disaster.

Bob: Motion to get rid of appeals.

Mike: Basically, we have budgets. It is a waste of time to do appeals.

Livia: The reason you don’t like appeals. We have a budgeting process that happens too early. All events that require contracts do it at the specific time.

Maria: POI. 30 sec overturned?

Matt: I amend to put appeals money to programming.

Mihailis: Can we make it 50/50? I will take it as friendly. 50% of current will go into initial allocation and the other 50% of appeals money to go into programming.

Livia: Appeals are when clubs don’t have contracts come back later. It is to make up the fact that clubs didn’t have their acts together. What it should be is that club should come fighting for that initial 60%. It should only be 60%. It should be initial budgeting and the rest should be rolled over to programming. Uniformly speaking, one club has gotten in their contracts in during initial practice. It makes people get their act together.

Bob: A motion has to be made to adjourn.

Ben: I am uncomfortable. I wonder if 50/50 would be enough. I can’t do it without numbers.

Livia: Numbers fluctuate.

Paris: If the budget process doesn’t work, we should only have discretionary. I don’t think contracts are fair.

Bob: To change appeals, to split fund 50/50 to give to initial budget and programming. Fails.

Paris: Motion to combine programming, discretionary and appeals.

Livia: Its brilliant.

Bob: Motion passes to combine all three.

Mihailis: Why are club sports the only exception to single sex group.

Andre: it came up during review and recognition. For women’s groups and men’s groups it is necessary. I think for sports, it is necessary.

Maria: What about like Black Men’s group.

Christian: As a person who has attended Black Men’s Group, women do attend.

Andre: Most groups on campus don’t mind having members of the opposite sex.

Mihailis: I think a single sex environment is pertinent. I think it is because single sex groups are discouraged. Such as Men’s Christian group.

Livia: This is specific about funding. The events although sometimes catered to specific groups but open to the entire campus. Its specific to the events being funded isolates itself.

Luke: We are not saying there can’t be groups. You can still apply for funding as a discriminatory group, but cannot be recognized as a group. They could still get funding. Since the issue has not come up in actuality…

Bob: I will only take amendments.

Élan: Listening to our bodies have female only workshops.

Livia: we don’t pay for them.

Mike: I don’t have problem funding women’s only or men’s only. I don’t have a motion.

Paris: D.3. Can we say how often that is required?

Bob: Motion to make D.3 once a semester. Passes.

Paris: I motion to get rid of D4. “Collectively allocate student activity fund: period.

Livia: Allocate means budgets, and its only to AAS recognized groups.

Paris: Withdrawn. I motion to get rid of whole line of D5.

Livia: That just means budgets change semester after semester.

Bob: Stripping IV.D5. Passes.

Paris: D7. I think the treasurer should select the one to take minutes. Motion to change.

Luke: Change IV.D7 to IV.C10.

Paris: E4. Program Board is funded through Mass General fund.

Livia: You will be explained later.

Paris: I just think that for some things, some should be able to charge some extra money.

Andre: Clubs may become profit-making machine.

Livia: the difference is saying that…

Ryan: I think your concern is taken care of in the extra charge.

Paris: We should reconsider the budget process requiring contracts.

Livia: The reason that contracts are necessary. Deficits were racked up because money became allocated to things that were unaccounted for. The problem is that there is no accountability.

Paris: I think the only people who have contracts are sports teams.

Maria: We can’t go at this rate.

Mike: Every club has a different nature.

Luke: We should just deal with the realization that we will not to finish this tonight. We should just set up a goal.

Mike: We don’t have to do it all now.

Ben: We need to focus on the changes that the JC has made.

Bob: We will only take stuff on the bold.

Mike: I would like to motion IV. The senate and the BC.

Andre: Everything has to go on.

Bob: We have motion on the floor to only include what has been here. Basically, we can go through and finish. It may come down to calling a special meeting.

Andre: Its gotta be before Wednesday.

Luke: I motion to call a special meeting for sometime before next weekend.

Julie: POI. How many senate meetings left? Just one?

Mike: My motion is still on the floor. I also motion that the vice president to call the special meeting. I motion we finish this now after this section. I call.

Élan: We are postponing the rest of this discussion to another meeting.

Bob: motion passes.

Luke: III.D5. Adding to the end of 3.D5, except in situations excepted by the vice president. It’s a motion.

Bob: Vote on motion. Passes.


VII. Unfinished Business 10:58

B.  Proposed Referendum: Annual Student Activities Fee Poll (Paris Wallace ’04)

Mike: Basically we are asking the student body to tell us what they like. This would give them a chance to express their feelings.

Bob: Needs two thirds to pass. Non-binding survey seems problematic. There is no way to implement non-binding things. You create an expectation within the student. I’d say that we gather input in a different manner.

Livia: Could we change “non-binding, it would” to semi colon.

Paris: People were pretty upset, and I think it is just a good idea to appease that.

Stacy: I think it’s a bad idea. It sets up expectations that are uncalled for.

Mike: I went to public high school, but non-binding means to me, non-binding. This is a helpful tool. I don’t think there is any reason to vote against this.

Matt: The language is quite clear. I call the question.

Bob: We will vote. It will be roll call. 11:03 10-7-1. It fails.

Mike: I would like to motion to put this as a survey question.

Bob: We agreed that it would still require 2/3rd.

Mike: If I get 170 signatures, will the senate allow on it to go on the ballot.

Ben: The deadline was earlier. The issue is if I should allow them to submit this past the deadline.

Bob: As far as I am concerned it failed.


VIII. New Business

B.  Special Interest Fund: Proposal from the President's Office, Advancement Office, & Friends of the Library (Ben Baum '03)

Ben: This is a cane. It was a tradition that lasted for a while, and died out. It was brought on by the Friends of the Library Committee; it will be a ceremony that will be inviting the graduating class into the association of the alumni. This is an example of the cane. The administration wants to know if the Senate will be willing to fund such a money. They want all different segments of Amherst to contribute.

Bob: This is a straw poll. Ok.


IX. Adjournment 11:11



Vote Description:

31 4/14/03: 22-0-1 BC Recs. (Weekly)

32 4/14/03: 21-0-2 BC Appeals Recs. for Fall 2003

33 4/14/03: 10-7-1 Survey re: where students want $ to go (2/3 req.)









Julie Babayan




Ben Baum




Dan Berch




Rocio Digon




Mike Flood




Jesse Freedman




Will Johnson




Stacey Kennard








Kay Bradley




Mihailis Diamantis




AJ Korytoski




Lincoln Mayer




Luke Swarthout




Paris Wallace




Geoff Walter








Ethan Davis




Elan Ghazal




Angie Han




Maria Jones




Christian Sanchez




Paige Wallace








Rania Arja




Caleb Deats




John Lian




Ian Shin




Matt Vanneman







Bob Razavi ’03


Congratulations to the ’03-’04 E-Branch officers-elect Ryan, Elan, Paris, Andre, and Alex who will take over later this month. And good luck to those of you running in the April 22 Senate and JC election!


Please read the Constitutional revision suggestions (sent via e-mail last weekend) before Monday night. Thanks go out to the JC for all their time and effort preparing these suggestions based on recommendations from many of us, as well as the student body at large. What the students vote on come April 22 will reflect our yearlong test drive of this still new and developing document.