Call to Order: 9:29

Attendance: Blewitt, Evers, Gall, Howard, Kohl, Morabito, Nelson, Sardinha, Straube, Taylor, Wilding (Committee); Senators Bagley, Feeney, Cimbal, Lachance, Houtz (Non-committee)

Absent: McWeeney (Excused)

Voter Turnout [topic]:

Sardinha: Could somebody please explain what happened last week?

Taylor: We have a list of ideas for how to improve voter turnout for our elections that we are working on.

Kohl: It would be worthwhile to make the elections committee early this year.

Howard agrees. Discussion continues, with Nelson, Wilding, Taylor speaking.

Gall: We should look into becoming members of the American Student Government Association (ASGA).

Nelson: We should make transition materials for the Elections Committee.

Taylor: Great idea. We should decide on ASGA membership before Elections Committee. We should also organize transition materials for the Elections Committee in the interim.

Gall: Would that require a bill?

Wilding: Yes, it would require a bill, and I recommend a three-year membership for ASGA.

Taylor: That sounds like a Finance question. If we’re going to organize transition materials, we should figure out who will do it.

Morabito: Whatever happens with transition materials doesn’t need to be perfect.

Wilding: Elections will be only non-returning members of the Senate.

Taylor: I suggest that an even mixture of people who have and haven’t served before, and should be composed of seven people, and that the speaker is a non-voting member.

Howard speaks about the Elections Handbook and the membership of the Elections Committee.

Graduate Student Association (GSA) [topic]:

Wilding: We’re trying to figure out how to work together to accomplish our goals. This is about giving them voice.

Taylor: While I appreciate the sentiment, I, as an American citizen student, believe that both organizations should have strong voices. However, as a member of this Senate, I am concerned because it’s not like they don’t have the power to do things. They are welcome to follow in our tracks, but perhaps we shouldn’t be handing power to them on a silver platter. Most of their work is not focused on any particular issue, and I don’t think that this would have any real benefit. I don’t understand what we would be providing to them. We represent undergraduates. We do not have authority over graduate students, even by the Student Handbook, nor should we. I’d like to see the GSA get out there do things on their own.

Wilding: All students face similar issues. I do not mean to say that there are no differences, but there are some issues that affect us all. The GSA should be at the table, too. We could get farther together.

Bagley: I’ve been working on this for about two weeks, and I have a different vision from President Wilding. I have been discussing this topic with various people, and I’ve been getting ideas. I’d like to hold a meeting to get more ideas. I brought this conversation to the Senate not solely because of the Handbook. If anybody has questions about SS-18/19-31 and SS 18/19-32, please come to me.

Gall: GSA does not have as much formal power as us. They don’t get as much tax as us, nor do they have as much power to spend it. While graduate students lack governance, they do have an actual union. I do agree that we should collaborate. That said, there will be friction between us at times due to competing interests. We should probably also talk to their union.

Morabito: We already do govern over some of the graduate programs because they belong to the colleges that we work with just because of weirdness.

Bagley: Right now, the only position that I know of that gives graduate students tangible power is their seat on Faculty Senate and their union. This information was given to me by the Teachers’ Union, not by any graduate student. This situation is certainly complex, and Johnny is right in saying that we do sort of already cover them.

Wilding: Graduate students do have voting seats on various University committees.

Presidential Agenda [topic]:

Wilding: I forgot to print them out. Let’s do this next week.

New Constitution [topic]:

Howard goes over the changes since last week.

Taylor: How do changes happen?

Howard: Because this is not official, changes occur at my consent when they are well supported.

Taylor: I don’t think that that is good.

Nelson: Term limits are not good. The Justice term of two years really limits who can run. It should be one year instead.

Morabito: I disagree with term limits on Representatives because we are an organization that thrives on institution memory and limiting Representatives to two terms literally caps that.

Gall: I liked the name of Government instead of Senate because it’s more accurate to the ideas on the page. Are justices still popularly elected?

Howard: Yes, but perhaps they should not be. Alternative proposals have been to have them appointed by the President and approved by the Assembly or that the justices should elect their successors.

Taylor: Term limits have been brought up multiple times but have not been adequately addressed. I left instructions on how to organize a constitutional convention in Howard’s mailbox, but they have apparently been ignored.

Taylor moves that the President and Vice President organize a Constitutional Convention per the provisions of Robert’s Rules of Order. The motion is seconded by Kohl.

Nelson: What is a constitutional convention?

Taylor: It is an opportunity to send specific people to one area to consider the implementation of a constitution. Groups from around the “republic” send delegates to debate whether a new constitution would be a good idea, and then, if they want one, they make one. Their proposal would go to the Student Body as a referendum.

Debate continues. Taylor, Nelson, Howard, Gall, Wilding, speak, though debate is only nominally related to the motion. Much discussion is dedicated to how a proposed constitution would be approved.

Taylor moves to amend the motion such that the President and Vice President would have to get the provisions of the Convention approved by the Senate. Seconded by Morabito. The motion passes (9-0-1), and debate returns to the main motion.

The motion passes (9-0-1).

Topics Not Listed on Agenda:

Sardinha: I’m back. Thanks for your patience. Ombuds will be coming to a Public Forum in early November. They expressed interest in meeting with just the Chairs, so we’ll be working on a time for that, preferably also in early November. They’re working on getting better connected with student services on campus.

Kohl: Carl has been pushing me to try to figure out how to make Bystander Awareness mandatory for senators. We can make a special meeting, which would require an agenda and approval from the President. I think it’s worth it.

Blewitt: I’ve taken this training before and think that we should be aiming for maximum participation.

Nelson: If it’s mandatory, can we please poll availability?

Kohl: He’s got really limited availability, and the time has already been publicized to clubs.

Feeney, Cimbal, Howard, Blewitt, Nelson, Evers, Taylor speak, and the discussion evolves to attendance policies.

Debate moves away from Bystander Awareness

Gall: I think that the Chair should pay more attention to which motions may be considered dilatory. The absolute disorder at tonight’s regular meeting was a complete mess.

Lachance: Contrarily, order was maintained despite whatever happened. Whether the motions and such should have passed is another question entirely, but the blame for chaos in this case does not lie with the Chair.

Kohl: We can’t see each other how the room is set up. I don’t like it.

Nelson: I agree. I can’t even hope that people are fully hearing me. Things get aggressive faster simply because we can’t see each other’s faces.

Blewitt: I don’t care how it’s set up, but make sure the room goes back to normal after the meeting.

Feeney: We could go back to the rectangle, but with the Podium on the long face?

Howard: If the podium is on the long face than I can only see the backs of people’s heads for about half of the room. We elect twelve new members in two weeks, and the rectangle simply cannot support our full membership.

Taylor: Could we try assigned seating?

Nelson: [to Howard] The current setup seems to only be benefitting you. Please return to the original setup. This is anxiety-inducing.

Cimbal: Try a horseshoe shape?

Taylor: Several senators have approached me about Exec’s activities. They are not satisfied with this Committee’s work. The work of its membership, on an individual basis, is considerably lacking. I have heard that multiple members have ignored the requests of various constituents, both within and without the Senate. These transgressions are so severe that serious action is being considered. Rules do need to be followed, and to that I say: We need to understand the rules relevant to our positions as set forth by our Constitution and Bylaws.

Kohl: I recommend that you talk to individual people, one on one, to make sure that they are aware.

Taylor: I’d like to, but I wanted to voice this to the committee as a whole first because the matter concerns so many members of the committee. Please read your Bylaws.

Evers: Marino is stepping down as Vice-Chair. Nobody else on my Committee is in a position to assume the Vice-Chair. May I opt to not appoint a vice-chair?

Nelson: The interim chair thing only happens if the actual chair is somehow removed or resigns. It is a temporary appointment.

Taylor: Each chair is absolutely responsible for appointing somebody to the vice chair. This is a scenario where we simply have to choose the most responsible person and make them do it.

Morabito: I disagree, on the grounds that we are paid to be here, and they are not. We cannot reasonably force them to do anything that they don’t want to because they are volunteers.

Howard speaks in opposition of forcible appointments.

Evers moves to close debate. The motion is seconded and passes.

[10:41] Morabito moves to adjourn, seconded by Taylor. The motion passes (7-0-1).