OCTOBER 22, 2001

 

Excused: Jun Matsui, Brad Coffey

 

Absent: James OT (play) Marisol Thomer, Jake Kaufman, Hallison Putnam, Eric Osborne

Anne Warren, left at 10pm.

 

 

Letter to Chief of Police

Sam: student security denied access to residents who lived in the dorms where parties were happening, suggestions: student security carry lists of residents

Blake: proposal is ridiculous, security can’t be held accountable for such huge crowds and knowing who belongs where.

Sam: I should be able to get into my own room at any time period

Blake: talk to your RC so that those parties aren’t held in your residence

Amy: Sam’s proposal has its merit, people should be able to go to bed, there is no party space, so students are doing the school a service in living in spaces where TAP is held.

Alex: designated entrance for residents, so that one security monitor has to have a list of residents

 

Vote passed to send the letter, with the amendment that there should be a designated entrance for residents.

 

Security

Ben: hasn’t student security become more strict, is there a policy change?

Blake: everything is pretty much the same

 

Housing

Jesse: met with the trustees (trustee committee), Neuroscience, Sept 11, location of the new swing dorm…they will be revamping Millikan and it will hold 100 residents.

 

Honors Policies

Julie: reworking the honor system, will be 3 phases, get more information when we meet again in the future.

Update on the Library Bunker

Ben: Going to be tours in the Bunker, Nov.2 at 1pm, 2 vans going, each van holds 22 people, will send out an email.

 

Crew team vs SFC

Baker Franke: co-captain of men’s crew team, upset about SFC policy.

SFC sent an email saying email was sent that budget from last spring wasn’t sent in.

Crew team sent in a budget 3 times, $2500 was budgeted, needed for vans. SFC didn’t allocate money for vans.

Crew team feels SFC rejected their funds because

a)  They charge dues

b)  Alumni

 

 

SFC isn’t providing info about where the student activities money goes, there also isn’t a sports sub-committee on the SFC and there should be a higher authority that appeals can be made to above the SFC.

 

 

George Alves: dues was not a reason for not giving them funding, we asked about alumni to get an understanding of what other sources of funding the club has access to. We allocated 64% of the funds this semester, which is the same amount that was allocated in Fall of 2000. SFC budgets are completely accessible upon request. The Student recently gained access to all the budgets, so if the request is there it is possible. This year more money has been allocated to clubs that any other year.

 

 

Michelle: There is a request being made for the SGO to review the SFC, the committee will include the members of the e-board (minus Will due to conflict of interest), and Sam Haynes the advisor to the SGO.

 

Baker: please expedite the procedure because we need money.

 

Michelle: cool, SFC does there own financial appeals, SGO can address the notion of SFC not following policy, procedure. we will do that via the committee and Sam Haynes, we will then discuss it, and provide a recommendation to the senate.

 

Catie: would the crew team drop their charge against SFC upon getting their money on appeal

 

Baker: no, we are coming to the SGO as concerned students.

 

Michelle: Not fair that SFC must be supporting teams such as crew and ski team, when these teams are varsity sports at other schools, crew has done an amazing job finding funds.

 

The whole point of this tiered process in SFC is to make sure that money is flowing, this is because the worst thing is having money sitting around when other clubs could need it.

 

The committee will meet sometime next week to discuss SFC policies and procedures and give a recommendation to the senate.