SENIOR SENATORS

Attendance

+110 (HBC)

+110->300 (+hotel)

BC

+1015 (T-shirts)

+15 (food)

Rania Arja

T

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Rob Cobbs

T

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Andrew Gehring

T

Y

N

Y

N

N

David Gottlieb

E

 

 

 

 

 

Caitlyn Phan

X

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Jessica Rothschild

X

Y

N

N

Y

N

Mira Serrill-Robins

X

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Emily Silberstein

X

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

JUNIOR SENATORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avi Das

U

 

 

 

 

 

Janice Djabatey

U

 

 

 

 

 

Andrea Gyorody

T

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Charmel Maynard

T

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Jordan McKay

X

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Gloria Monfrini

E

 

 

 

 

 

Ashley Rose

T

Y

N

Y

N

N

Tim Zeiser

T

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

SOPHOMORE SENATORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patrick Benson

X

Y

N

Y

N

N

Adam Bookman

X

Y

A

N

Y

Y

Daniel De Zeeuw

T

Y

Y

Y

A

Y

Michael Donovan

X

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Julie Kim

T

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Rohit Raj

X

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Samantha Siegal

X

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Josh Stein

T

Y

N

Y

N

Y

FRESHMEN SENATORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jacqueline De La Fuente

X

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Anneliese Koehler

X

Y

N

Y

N

N

Paul Nielsen

X

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Nicholas Pastan

X

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Jelani Lundy-Harris

X

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Michele Tran

X

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Ayyappan Venkatraman

T

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Shantel Watters

X

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

EXECUTIVE BOARD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike Simmons

T

 

 

 

 

 

Noah Isserman

X

 

 

 

 

 

Richa Bhala

T

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin Nattinger

X

 

 

 

 

 

Austin Yim

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Call to Order 9:02

 

I.  Officer Reports

a.  Bahla: The club heads meeting was successful

II.  Committee Reports

a.  Benson: Athletics and Physical administrations heads met to

b.  Silberstein: The report to come up with students perspective on the CAP reports is coming out this

c.  Rose: The College Council had a field trip to the Social dorms and we discussed the future of the social dorms

III.  Announcements

a.  Simmons: The Sudanese escaped slave will be coming to talk about his life this week

b.  Mascarenhas The Bradley Shuttle committee should meet to talk about whether they will offer shuttle

IV.  Special Orders;

a.  Swearing in of new JC Committee member, Kate

b.  Rothschild: Presenting senate project. Proposing to cut the number of senators by . She seeks to make faculty handbook and senate practices agree.

  i.  Serrill-Robins: What are we voting on?

  ii.  Yim: Do we need faculty approval?

  iii.  Rothschild: No

  iv.  Silberstein: The history of the senators’ places on the trustees committee is to give the senators more authority.

  v.  Nielson: I would like to see this broken up into more pieces and would like to see more reasoning present on the page. Sees a separation between the committee plans and changing the amount of senators in Senate. He will like to see them broken up.

  vi.  Yim: For student life will there be senators from every year?

  vii.  Rothschild: yes

  viii.  Silberstein: We have been breaking the rules of the Faculty handbook a lot. We have been running this illegally by appointing people to certain committees not adhering to the faculty handbook.

  ix.  Venkatraman: What are your main reasons for changing these committees?

  x.  Rothschild: The senate is dominating all these committees unnecessarily and compared to our student body we have too many senators.

  xi.  Bahla: I was under the conception that the faculty handbook should be made to align with the constitution of the student government. The faculty handbook is not the end all and be all.

  xii.  Silberstein: Dean Lieber strongly discouraged the editing of the faculty handbook.

  xiii.  De la Fuente: When will these changes take effect?

  xiv.  Rothschild: before the Spring elections

  xv.  Cobbs: What do you envision as the role of the senate?

  xvi.  Rothschild: The senate’s power is not being diminished.

  xvii.  Cobbs: I would be cautious before trying to diminish our standing with the faculty

  xviii.  Rothschild: Why do you see this as diminishing our standings?

  xix.  Cobbs: Because we will have a lesser presence.

  xx.  Venkatraman: How would elections work for these at-large members?

  xxi.  Rothschild: There will be a separate election for each.

  xxii.  Bahla: Why were these changes made?

  xxiii.  Silberstein: The senate used to have no power other than the BC.

  xxiv.  Cobbs: The senate having more power doesn’t mean that individuals have more power, but giving the students a voice.

  xxv.  Stein: Do you believe the senate is not working well or are you trying to get more people involved?

  xxvi.  Rothschild: Both.

  xxvii.  Benson: This would bring more competition to the senate?

  xxviii.  Rothschild: Well, isn’t that a good thing? Hopefully, we will get people who really want to be on the committee.

  xxix.  Bahla: What did the faculty think about the uncontested JC spots?

  xxx.  Stein: That was brought up, but it was because it was not publicized.

  xxxi.  Silberstein: With uncontested elections there is no competition. It becomes open to anyone who wants to put it on their resume.

  xxxii.  Simmons: It might be taken badly because the senate might become a popularity contest. If we take away all these part of the senate then will just become a BC committee.

  xxxiii.  Rothschild: I will be opening opportunities for others outside of the senate.

  xxxiv.  Zeiser: You will be cutting off the interests of the unpopular people, who won’t win the senate seats in the younger grades. It will just be the people out there meeting more people.

  xxxv.  Serrill- Robins: If senators don’t know what there jobs are do you think that the general student body will.

  xxxvi.  Rothschild: We will make sure that every body will have all the information they need.

  xxxvii.  Serrill-Robins: Is it necessarily a bad thing for the senate to have more power.

  xxxviii.  Isserman: Can we move this conversation to another time.

  xxxix.  Yim: I have a copy of the old SGO constitution and I will put on the website.

  xl.  Stein: can we simply get a summary

  xli.  Isserman: we will put the relevant passages in bold

  xlii.  Simmons: I would like to see much more research to see how the SGO functioned, how we function, and how it will function if we go back to the SGO format.

  xliii.  Silberstein: These changes are not that big. Jesse could do this without the senate so we should deal with this problem here.

  xliv.  Nattinger: We are reducing the number of senators to 75% and are only closing the senate positions on the senate by 80% still giving the senate too much presence.

  xlv.  Arja: We are not decreasing senate power. It is about the 14 at-large positions opening the floor up to other non-senator students to serve on committees the care about.

  xlvi.  Benson: The referendum is a good idea to poll the students’ concern. If we kept the number of senators the same but reduced the number of committees they sit on it would allow senators to do more for what they are concerned about.

  xlvii.  Rothschild: when I brought this up last meeting I asked people to talk to their constituents and I didn’t find anyone who was opposed to it. Asked for a straw poll

  xlviii.  Nielson: can we separate the proposals.

  xlix.  Rothschild: 3 straw votes. Whole, senate, committee

Straw vote: Whole: Majority against Senate: Majority for Committee: Majority for

V.  BC Recommendations

a.  Bahla: defers to Maynard

b.  Maynard: Two more people would like to go to the Harvard business conference. The event is this weekend so we decided to come to the meeting to directly ask the senate for the funds. This would only be two registrations and one hotel room.

  i.  Rose: Motion to fund $250 for the Harvard business conference.

  ii.  Maynard: We wanted more people to go and two more people want to go.

  iii.  Stein: I want to fund this. But usually we put our people in a room and to purchase an extra room is extra.

  iv.  Rothschild: Motion to not pay for hotel room.

  v.  Maynard: Takes the motion as unfriendly. We use president when we want to.

  vi.  Cobbs: What is the gender breakdown?

  vii.  Bahla: Unsure but between many females or even.

  viii.  Silberstein: We will be opening up a can of worms to talk about president.

  ix.  Isserman: Does everyone take adding tax as friendly.

Voice vote: yes

  x.  Silberstein: How many people do we normally put in a room?

  xi.  Bahla: We normally fund 4 to a room

  xii.  Maynard: The senate made a promise to fund more people if they wanted to go. To go back on that promise is a bad stand for the senate to take.

  xiii.  Arja: Isn’t the president that because some groups go repeatedly to hotels that is why we don’t fund them?

  xiv.  Bahla: Before we never funded hotels and then we started funding hotels when the clubs died.

  xv.  Arja: This event is only happening once so the president doesn’t apply.

  xvi.  Serrill- Robins: We shouldn’t give money to clubs just because they don’t use it? We are giving them money to register and stay. This event is for personal gain only.

  xvii.  Simmons: Is the only issue gender separation.

  xviii.  Isserman: We don’t know.

  xix.  Stein: Call

Voice Vote: To diminish Maynard’s motion to $110 division

Hand Vote: To diminish: Opposed

  xx.  Silberstein: If the gender split is a big issue it can be brought to the BC this week.

  xxi.  Gyorody: call

Roll call: In favor of paying for two more people: Approved

c.  Bahla: AFA proposed their semester budget. Film society came for money for table tents. WAMH came for money for kick off party. Teresa Anderson from Hampshire came for the money for her cause. Hillel came for money for dating extravaganza.

d.  Debate

  i.  Pastan: What was the thought process for the money for Anderson?

  ii.  Stein: We wanted to support this event and get five-college backing by giving money.

  iii.  Anderson: She will not get five-college funding because other schools only gave moral backing. This is a community event, it just being held at Hampshire.

  iv.  Benson: Why can’t you get the money from Hampshire?

  v.  Anderson: They are refunding us $1500.

  vi.  Kohler: I though we didn’t fund honorariums in full.

  vii.  Stein: We did not fund the event in full.

  viii.  Bookman: Makes motion to increase the money given to Anderson (Hampshire) to $300.

  ix.  Donovan: To get Five College Inc. funding you need three college’s support. Did you approach Smith?

  x.  Anderson: No

  xi.  Silberstein: Are we constitutionally sound by giving money to a non-Amherst student.

  xii.  Bahla: She has followed the process.

  xiii.  Serrill-Robins: Have you made an effort to make sure Amherst students will be there.

  xiv.  Anderson: We have posted messages on the Daily Jolts at all five colleges and posters on all the campuses.

  xv.  Nielson: It is unfair to think that people won’t go just because it is about war.

  xvi.  Rothschild: Motions to reduce funding to zero. It is a bad president to give money to something that does not benefit Amherst College.

  xvii.  Cobbs: Amherst students do go to five-college events.

  xviii.  Gyorody: We want to validate the event, but not give an excessive amount.

  xix.  Stein: $100 is a good amount

  xx.  Venkatraman: Call.

  xxi.  Serrill-Robins: Objects. The only people who know about this event are the senators.

  xxii.  Julie: Call

Voice Vote: Motion to make amount 0 is denied

  xxiii.  Venkatraman: A hundred dollars is a good amount.

  xxiv.  Donovan: If Anderson put in a little more effort at other schools she could get five-college support.

  xxv.  Cobbs: The people in this room, who agreed to go, are sufficient to give $300.

  xxvi.  Benson: This is Amherst giving there money to another school.

  xxvii.  Arja: yields to Anderson.

  xxviii.  Anderson: This event isn’t divorced from Amherst and it fosters five-college unity.

  xxix.  Arja: Call

Voice Vote: To increase amount to $300 Division

Hand Vote: Division

Roll Call: Failed

e.  We should furnish wings to Film society meeting. As a president to encourage membership in new clubs.

f.  Cobbs: We should take five-college allotments down.

Hand Vote: To approve to move directly to BC Recommendations Approved

Roll Call: To pass BC Recommendations Passed

VI.  New Business

a.   

  i.  Silberstein: It would be prudent if the senate asked Dean Haynes and Dean Lieber to talk about how the senate was run in the past. Yields to Simmons

  ii.  Simmons: Do you think Dean Lieber would come to the senate.

  iii.  Silberstein: We can get an e-mail from the deans showing their comments.

  iv.  De la Fuente: Motion to invite Dean Haynes to next meeting.

  v.  Serrill-Robins: Dean Lieber would be better.

  vi.  McKay: Dean Haynes was one of the primary advisors and the author of the constitution.

  vii.  Serrill-Robins: Motion to add Lieber to invitation.

  viii.  Silberstein: Motion to charge Isserman to talk to the administration and see if they will come to the meeting. They have very busy schedules. Lieber is important because he sits on half the senate committees.

  ix.  Nielson: These are huge changes being made and we should be more cautious.

Voice Vote: To extend invitation Approved

b.  Simmons: Discouraged that we won’t fund food for the struggling organizations.

  i.  Maynard: Worried about bias for allocating money for food. It is easier to say no rather than favoring certain people.

  ii.  Stein: The BC allotted zero because it was our general policy in the hopes that we would discuss it in the general meeting.

  iii.  Simmons: It is easier but that is not a good enough reason.

  iv.  Serrill- Robins: If the event was that crucial people would go, food or not.

  v.  Zeiser: Mira is right we should only ask for money for the first meeting. Food is not a good way to get legitimate members.

  vi.  Stein: If people hear that the senate is giving money for food the problem will snowball

  vii.  De la Fuente: We should only give money for food when it is integral.

  viii.  Gyorody: We should do this for un-established clubs not well established clubs.

  ix.  Bahla: Money for food is not that bad. It is a good way to get people out to the first meeting. We would put a limit on the amount allocated. Also, clubs should talk to theme house, which have a lot of money for food.

  x.  Simmons: By giving money to the club we could at least encourage there prosperity.

  xi.  Serrill-Robins: The clubs should be accountable to where the wings and the money for the wings go.

  xii.  Arja: Money for food just brings people who want food and don’t care about the club. For the initial meeting I’m okay with food.

c.  Serrill- Robins: Wants to give commemorative commencement apparel to class of 2006.

  i.  Rothschild: The total amount for the t-shirts is $1615

  ii.  Serrill-Robins: The shirts will be personalized. Motion to fund $1015 for the t-shirts.

  iii.  McKay: What are the purposes of this senate project?

  iv.  Serrill- Robins: This used to be tradition to provide a project for a specific class. There is no language prohibiting this.

  v.  De Zeeuw: Will the alumni office fund this?

  vi.  Serrill- Robins: They didn’t respond to our e-mails.

  vii.  Bookman: Why can’t the seniors pay for their own shirts?

  viii.  Serrill- Robins: It is too hard a task.

  ix.  Nielson: call

Voice Vote: Going to directly to a vote Approved

Roll Call: To approve $1015 Approved

d.  Bookman: Student forum next Sunday on choosing new Athletic Department head

e.  Simmons: CAP meeting next week.

f.  Venkatraman: Motion to give Film club $15 for wings

g.  Pastan: Do we have enough knowledge to decide how much money to give for wings? How many people go?

h.  Serrill-Robins: 5

i.  McKay: 20

j.  Cobbs: call

Voice Vote: to go directly to vote on allocating money Approved

Roll Call: To give food money Failed

Bookman: Resigns from Bradley shuttle Committee

Adjourns: 11:31