MEETING START TIME: 4:00 pm

ATTENDANCE:

Committee: Sam King, Eric Wang, Jen Scotti, Natasha Nemeth, Dan Bertel, Austin Cordova, Romanuel Percy, Michael Bachials, Austin Faria

Absent: Andy Donnelly

Non-Committee: Morgan Boutmy

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Stipend Review Feedback

• Groups in attendance
  • Yearbook Renaissance
  • WRIU
  • SEC
  • Good 5 Cent Cigar
• Stipend Requirements
  • Legislation for the annual review of stipended positions was created in 2014.
    • Set the requirements of stipended positions
  • Handed out evaluations (e-value-action) forms for committee and group members to fill out.
    • Expectations going into the process
      • Expected senate members to have a better understanding of what the groups do
      • Expected not to be presenting their case alone before the entire committee
    • What did participants value in the process
      • Valued how WRIU was incredibly prepared for the review
      • Accepted how the process was necessary to ensure that members were doing what they were supposed to
    • What actions could be taken to improve the process
      • Have student senate members reach out to groups
      • Start the process earlier in the year
      • After 3-4 years of the process, make process biannual instead
      • Want more substantial work/evidence that the position performs its duties
      • Make student organizations more involved the process
      • Get more input from the stipended positions
        • Student senate reviews their own stipends
          • Makes student organizations feels that there is an ethical dilemma
          • Senate knows how senate works better that then know how other groups function.
            • Want senators to get a better understanding of how the groups function.
          • Communicate better to the groups what sort or evidence or documentations is expected of from the committee.
          • Groups state that there are some things that go on for the position that cannot be documented
            • Possibly send senators to shadow the stipended members to get a better understanding of how the position works.
          • Better organize committee time to ensure that there are no position members that attend meetings but are not seen due to time constraints
          • Have better scheduling to ensure that the committee can pull up all necessary documentation beforehand
          • Want a better appeals process. Have both sides to present their sides during the appeals process to the executive committee.  Do not want to force group members to go to general senate meetings and wait for hours for the appeal to be voted on.
            • Currently: position appealing writes an appeal and submit it to the Vice President of the Senate. At the executive committee, both sides submit a written statement explaining their decision.  If the executive committee approves the appeal, it moves to the general senate floor for debate and voting.
          • The three semesters of good standing may reflect harshly on current positions because of failings from past members.
            • The position is judged based off the institution, no the person filling it.
          • Want to have more dialogue from the executive committee about their reasons for why they did/didn’t approve an appeal.
          • Committee members and group members want further dialogue to construct the foundation for the next year’s stipend review
            • SOARC chair will reach out to the stipended groups before Re-recognition to create a timeline for the entirety of the stipend review.
              • Maybe plan to reach out in later October to allow time for transitioning group members to adjust to their positions.
              • Won’t start until later in November
            • Want to change the bylaws to ensure that the appeals process is more of a dialogue
          • Any other comments or concerns

 

MEETING ADJOURNMENT TIME:  5:28pm