Well, 44’s an even number…
…this week’s agenda, down 9 pages from last week’s agenda, is filled with many marvelous wonders of bylaws, legislation and more. Lets get started shall we? I wish I hadn’t eaten all my Panera so fast. *sigh.
Also, for your viewing pleasure (though I know you all would prefer to read my comprehensive notes…) here is the ASM LIVE FEED by the lovely Nneka 🙂 Thanks girl! http://asmlive.weebly.com/
This week’s agenda.
Roll is called. Woo!
- Rep Neibart says the Earth Day celebration that was planned for this week has been postponed. Can you postpone ‘Earth Day’? Isn’t every day a day of the earth?…too philosophical for me.
- Rep Huang: Multicultural Student Center is hiring a director….(more details if you email her.)
- Rep Roberts: LGBT is also hiring a director. (details upon request.)
OPEN FORUM: Rep. Rae Lymer has a letter from Rep Junger (SSFC Legal Council). She reads. Junger is apologetic for not being here today, but in support of the SSFC legislation changes.
- Rep Lymer: Discussion and answer on changes SSFC Eligibility Criteria legislation. A lot was taken into account to create these.
- Lena: Wants to know if Council enjoyed any of the fun activities put on this weekend? Brings up how humiliating and intimidating it is for the students who come forward to speak before Council: they are put down and asked details and questions that put them on the spot. Talks about the disrespect and outright rudeness displayed by some members of Council. Pleased with some of the members who will not be a part ASM or Student Council next session.
- Grad Student Rep to be: Talks about the proposed ‘Administration Liaison’ position. Some concerns: no term limits, no way to hold them accountable. Discusses other legislation aspects.
- Grad Student Rep to be: (Yes, my sincere apologies…I missed her name. I think its Nancy..) Talking with Rep. Leedle about info sessions, reaching out to students, outreach, getting students involved. Talks about her graduate constituents. Strange discussion on strategy ideas for getting people involved next session…
- Chair Manes: Puts things in perspective about going through the process and what it actually takes to get things passed through Student Council meetings…
- GSTB: Actually, starting now and not waiting till Fall…working through summer and getting things started right away. Putting things in place…
- Chair Manes: Can’t exactly hold a lot of forums during the summer, leaves some people out of the process and discussion…
- Continued discussion on appointing people..Noms Board appoints to interim appointments and Shared Gov does other appointments.
- Rep Hanley: Appreciates the enthusiasm of Nancy and asks about other ways she plans to utilize her position in Council.
- Zach: elected grad rep for 18th session: speaking against the Administrative Liaison legislation. It will be a hassle for the 18th session and seems prematurely set up. Finds it curious that the proposed outline for the committee….is what ASM should be doing anywhere. Doesn’t see how a closed committee of 7 people would be more relevant to what Student Council could/should do. Discussion with various leaders about meetings over the summer, giving flexibility to the 18th session to be able to do what they wish to do.
More discussion on letting 18th Session do their thing. Talking about voting down the Administration Liaison committee. Taking the summer to get things ready so a process will be set for Fall. A little bit of a discussion of how hard and political a process it can be to get things passed, have decisions made.
- Nneka A: Hip Hop fliers being passed out. Kick off at Union South! Want to see Council members there! Its a full week of events. Shoutout to those watching from the LIVE Feed! Woo! Also SO to Zach and the discussion about the Administration Liaison legislation. Also, she says she is big with follow through. Talking about those who take initiative and get involved, get things done. Brought a list of concerns before Council: concerns about Operations grants-Nneka was saying that there is a trend that multicultural and greek organizations seemingly get a less percentage of the budgets they ask for—it is a reflection on the criteria. It is discriminatory. Smaller orgs get less funding which is a problem for them trying to grow.
Also talks about how Council does things ‘to me’ not ‘for me’ in regards to students. Council supposed to be supportive. Other issue is outreach-developing relationships and reaching out to make friends. Point out that that doesn’t seem to be happening. Last point, role of the 17th session isn’t supportive of its constituents of a whole, none of the legislation has to do with New Badger Partnership, ASM hasn’t taken an official role on it. Also, Manes’s attitude and overall dealings with students is disrespectful, rude and not appreciated by many students. He has “successfully oppressed students”. Hopes she was able to shed light on what people have been saying about ASM in the 17th session.
- More discussion on 17th session, the Hip Hop events coming up and the upcoming 18th session.
- Rashi:Update on hunger clean up-number one in the country. Dorm storms for education on weatherizing are coming up.
7:56PM On to approval of the agenda. General discussion on which pieces of legislation can be approved by ‘unanimous consent’ –I, J, K and L were just UNANIMOUSLY CONSENTED.
Some more moving things around, moving chair reports to the end because of all the things being brought up.
So as we sit back and relax while they decide some of the more important aspects for tonight….how’s it going? Cha up to? I’m just sitting here. Multi-tasking actually…watching the LIVE Feed….and also ya know, watching the real thing. Leave me comments! I love responding to comments. Oh! Guess what!?! This is my 2nd to last live blog….its kinda bittersweet. It’s ok, I know you’ll miss me… 😦
8:01PM Agenda approved. Minutes approved.
Agenda item D:
- Chair Manes: says he would like to address Lena’s comments; feels the accusations against him are…incorrect. Someone, please applaud my politically-correct paraphrasing. Manes says they are also looking for alternatives to things in SSFC, several amendments he has proposed, trying to make changes to the system. Will address the pieces of SSFC legislation as they come up.
Agenda item A:
- Talking about the creation of the Sustainability Committee Creation-should ASM really create this committee? Other student orgs have discussed this. Could it be done through University Affairs task force? Why must it be an organized committee?
- Chair Fergus: UA will have way to much to work on. Sustainability Committee will be a sexy way to do things. Will have more people interested in it. Fergus sees it as a coalition.
- Rep Neibart: I see this to be helpful and not just frivolous.
- Chair Fergus: Won’t have enough people/volunteers involved if there isn’t a specific space set aside for it. Its a get way to get people involved.
- Rep Hanley: What research have you done, what committees or groups have you talked to to see what is already out there in terms of sustainability and getting peopel inovolved?
- Rep Neibart: Through me ‘Earth Day’ research I found FH King does sustainability things WISPIRG; there are many outlets and groups we can go to to get advice etc…
- Rep Hanley: Have you found anyone interested in chairing this committee or are we just creating this committee for the 18th session to look for someone to fill?
- Rep Neibart: Yeah there has been some expressed interest.
- Chair Fergus: But know that this will be open to anyone on campus, not just for a member sitting on Council. Also, no money specifically allocated for it. If they want to run events…have to ask for funding.
- Rep Hanley: Sustainability is a good thing, a new fad. But my concern is we’re just creating these committees for the sake of creating a committee…why not make it an intern project? What exactly, can we get a grasp on this before we try to make a whole new committee? We dont necessarily have money for a chair of this committee anyway. If there are people interested and excited to do this, let them do this in other ways rather than institutionaizing it. Do that AFTER you see that its doing something. Let them try it out, test it…then sink ourselves in. I won’t fight it if Council thinks its a good idea…I look forward to hearing what the rest of Council has to say/think as they are on their laptops…
- Secretary Ostenson: We already have a committee that had some flak for not doing what it was supposed to…voting this down won’t decrease the desire of 18th session to work on it.
- Rep Leedle:This is an excuse to get sustainability mentioned, get people involved in ASM and excited to do something…I think any excuse to do that is a good thing. If we want to do something, lets do it! At the end of the day, everyone thinks sustainability is a good thing. If 18th session doesn’t think this will work, let them take it out as easily as we vote it in.
Call to question. 11 in favor. 6 opposed. Role call vote.
11-5-2. That carries. Will see this legislation at next week’s meeting.
Agenda item B: Shared Governance Reform Act
Whew! People passionate about this.
- Rep Hanley very much in support of this, “There is the opportunity to have your voice heard and change things on campus. Here is an opportunity to say ‘YES we believe in 36.09(5)”. We NEED to do this!” Wishes she had done more in Shared Gov than perhaps things in Student Council.
- Discussion on different aspects. This would allow Shared Gov committees to elect their own chairs. Mk, now that are making some amendments and changes. It’d be nice if you all were following the LIVEFeed… 😉
- Call to question: striking lines 5-9 on the 3rd page of the legislation. PASSES
- Call to question…on another specific part of wording. PASSES an official copy of the final, approved legislation will be available…once it’s finalized and approved. For the rest of us lay people, they are clarifying and clearing up various aspects of this Reform Act. Trying to get it ‘just right’. That’s so cute.
- Rep Fergus:Union did bring up some good concerns when they spoke last week in Open Forum. I’d like to hear the opinion of those on Shared Gov who would have some input in this.
- Rep Hanley: A lot of committees do this already where they appoint their own chair or have a rotating chair…I’m open as well to ideas or suggestions. But generally its better than letting an outside source be selecting this. Provides a structure and authority…I’d like to see more of this used next year.
- Rep Huang: …my experience is that students merely sit on committees but rarely ever talk..if there were co-chairs and one of the co-chairs needs to be a student, you get that one student actively involved in the agenda and aspects of the committee. Usually I’m the only one who speaks in committees…
- General discussion on the value of co-chairs. More discussion on procedures and institutionalizing.Still on original amendment…which is being called to question…oh hey! They’re amended…cool.
- HUGE SHOUTOUT again to Nneka A and her awesome-ness at setting up the LIVE Feed!!!
- Chair Brandon: I know this is the second to last meeting, but normally I would yell at people for how this process is being handled in amending this legislation…let that be a lesson for the 18th session…hear, hear!
- (Hums ‘Jeopardy’ (C) music….)
Still on Agenda item B: Shared Governance Act
- Thomas Templeton enters the room. Thomas Templeton gets a cup of water. Thomas Templeton sits down….next to me.
- Rep Neibart: I think right now all the items and amendments we needed are good to go.
SHOUTOUT to Guest1717 on the LIVEFeed Chat. It is indeed who you say it is. And it is hard to be as cool as me…but really, the correct terminology is ‘AMAZING’. Its ok though, I give lessons. 😀
9:05PM Call to question and ROLL. Seconded. At least I can get the terminology recorded accurately.
Vote of 12-2-2 that CARRIES. We will see this next week.
Next up: Agenda C Administrative Liaison Committee Bylaws
10 minutes recess. Need sustenance! See ya back here soon!
And we’re back! Motion to table C-H to get to New Business A: SAC Reserve Account Bylaws.
- Chair Ziebell: The SAC is a building that needs extensive upkeep. Currently, the SACGB budget goes back into the ASM reserves at the end of the year. Ziebell proposes a reserve account to put money in to that can be used in the future for unforeseen costs.
- Motion carries. Legislation is introduced and will be seen next meeting for approval
Back to Agenda item C: Administrative Liaison Committee Bylaws.
- Chair Fergus: With the NBP this will ensure students are in on all levels of decision making process.
- Amendment: Changing the term limit to ONE SESSION. Carries.
- Chair Manes: I think this is pretty good as a whole. A good way to appoint a trustee without having to go through elections. They are there to represent the student voice. Don’t want to subject them to the whims and polarizing of Student Council. We need the best person possible. Having a process in place this summer is good. This person will represent our interests. The 18th session can change this in Fall if they really deem this not necessary. But to leave it open to an untested group in this process would be irresponsible…
- Secretary Ostenson: speaking as a member of the soon to be 18th session, this is good to have a solid process for the summer then picking this up in the fall. Good to have the interim set in place.
- Chair Brandon: Im going to speak agst this. The idea is preemptive-CHair Fergus has admitted we don’t have system wide governance with a board yet…if that comes about I think that we can discuss the processes then. But for the Board of Trustees position, I am terribly afraid of the way this committee is going to shape out when they realize the position’s true purpose. Also, elections aren’t a bad idea. …….this is a rushed piece of legislation. 18th session will have to deal with this….my concern is that this is being thrown in there in haste.
- Chair Fergus: This is not a rushed process. This has been in conversation for at least a couple months. Williams is right…I don’t want to see this come to election bc it will come from someone who spends a lot of money on the election or gets all their friends to vote, regardless of if they are good for it or not. This shouldnt go to the best campaigner. This is an interim process till Council sees fit to change it. Makes amendment to advertise this to the entire student body…This is specifically to be sent out to the entire student body. Then the search-and-screen can decide. We really should have pointed in this legislation that it is for everyone.
- Chair Manes: Lets pass this amendment then go back to the main point about whether we should approve this or not.
- Amendment carries.
- Rep Neibart: This should definitely go through an application process. Potentially put in very strict election rules…I am in support of this however…I think in 18th session this should be one of our top priorities. I urge 18th session to examine this. I call to question.
- Grad Rep B-S: Brings up some great points. Causes amendment for ‘interim appointment will be ineligible for permanent appointment’ to be passed.
- Chair Nichols: I understand people view elections as a popularity contest. But if you really care you can hold town hall meetings, hold town hall meetings etc, I don’t necessarily think it means you’re buying into the elections. People say the next session is expected to make changes…let them do it. Don’t push this through…let them figure it out. If this doesn’t get passed that doesn’t mean…well, without another process someone won’t be appointed. But those people who have been speaking about 18th session…I don’t think they;ll let that fall through the cracks. This is a big thing. They should solicit more feedback…
- Chair Fergus: This isn’t just about Board of Trustees…its for anything that comes through the system.
- Chair Nichols: I realize this isn’t only for that..but essentially, right now it is. If its for other committees, they can put legislation for it over the summer. This is the time sensitive one, which is why its here before us now.
- Chair Manes: I don’t think this is pre-emptive. You need a process. Without a process, you’re going to stall and get no answer. To get something in place in time, is unrealistic. It takes several months to get it set up. Its going to be next year before you find someone good enough for this role. To say this is next session’s issue and they can figure it out…this is an issue now. We need to decide what is the best process now, possible. I want to look at the composition…find a process that is ideal…at the end of this process, you’ll have hundreds of students weighing in on who should be the best person….requires an orchestration of a lot of people to get the best one…any of the other methods proposed opens itself for more criticism and cronyism. I don’t think this is being put forth in haste. We as a student body need someone put in place…more commentary along the same lines. Motion to limit discussion until 10:45PM…Carries.
- Amendment: All appointments must be approved by a majority of Student Council.
- Chair Williams: Brilliant analogy. Williams just took the Council to town. I hope the Live Feed is being recorded for future reference. Soooo….if you missed it, that’s unfortunate. I was too busy following the analogy to type it. And eating Wheat Thins…mmmm.
- Amendment: Add ‘…that are NOT members of SSFC or Student Council’ Chair Fergus: This clears up that we could potentially just appoint people from this body-makes it so its outside this body and prevents cronyism. I caution any Council going forward that would ‘OK’ an appointment to think how the process went before doing that.
- Chair Manes: I agree.
- Discussion and debate on whatever motion or amendment we are on.
- Chair Manes: It is possible but very very difficult for a group to manage to take over control. We have prevented this. For now, for next session, I think its really important to have a process in place. They can figure out the nuances. I don’t think they will have that control or cronyism over this.
- Rep Neibart: I actually will agree with Chair Williams. I can see this being highly manipulative. When you know a system you can pretty much run it..and I think we’ve seen that in the past. If you want to speak up or have worries about this, speak up! This is very different. This is the best process we have right now, but…we need to do damage control. However, this is coming upon us very quickly. We have one meeting left. I agree with all the amendments made. I think that I would like to see a little more ‘at-large’ appointees. But to this search and screen……I am content with how it is…I think we exhausted most of the worries.
- On to a motion to strike some lines and create a new section that says all appointments must be verified by a majority of Council….Carries
So, hey guys…I’m almost over 200 viewers tonight. That’s peachy…on a good night we have approx 300 or more. I know you all missed me and are slowly coming back to read my witty dialogue about food and snarky comments on Council…feel free to recommend this to your friends! Por favor! K thx.
- Rep Hanley: …I’m going to echo what I said about sustainability committee…I hate making committees. Lets try doing something better than that….next session, session after that, they know how to change the previous years bylaws etc. Im still interested in hearing what other people have to say.
- Grad Rep B-S: I move to amend this to say this process is ONLY to pertain to interim appointees.
- Definition of interim, anyone? PS: 8 minutes left to debate this…
- Grad Rep B-S seems to be suggesting a sunset clause….
More discussion and debate over the same general facts. I’m sure it bears repeating…but I think you get the jist. Oooo great quote! Chair Williams: Its ok! Democracy scares me too!” LOLZ!
Motion to add the process for all interim appointments at the beginning of the amendment CARRIES.
ROLL CALL vote for the MAIN MOTION.
Oh this is going well, first few people ‘Passed’. So far its about even. More ‘passes’. Oh man….this is going to take quite a while. Back to the top…’Pass’.
Drum roll. 6-9-1 Motion FAILS.
Chair Beemsterboer: That motion fails. We’ll move on to more important things. General scoff-age.
On to: Agenda item D: Eligibility Bylaw Changes
For those who don’t understand, this is coming from the Student Services Finance Committee pertaining to how they decide if and how a Registered Student Organization receives funding. Another minor note from the peanut gallery: Council is dropping like flies. 4 people just left. Down to 17 Council members here.
- Motion to add that “University students must be the main receivers of a groups beneficiaries. ” Carries
- Motion to take this up with new amendment that was jut added. Carries
- Rep Neibart: I know its late but this is very important. Please ask questions if you don’t understand something. It will greatly affect the next cycle of eligibility hearings. This has been constructed primarily by Rae and SSFC members. I think most of the concerns have been addressed. This definitely makes definition and language more clear so they know what we’re asking. Rep Plamman made a flow chart…
- Still on debate of whole motion.
- Chair Williams: I think there are a lot of positive changes in here. I have some concerns, but I want to talk about the more positive things…first, clarifying member as “active agent” is great. Don’t want a group that has to cater to its members. We want a group whos services benefit all students. Im a little word about the definition change to ‘publication’…it is complex. SSFC has to read and debate that point now. Whenever we find group that is walking the line on a criteria, that’s where they find problems and it takes hours to decide. Make a motion that ‘event’ be removed…and cross that entire portion out and replace it. Just replacing new definition with the old one…I don’t see the rationale with the new one…opens up to what we don’t want to see GSSF do.
- Chair Fergus: murmurs agreeing comments.
- SSFC Rep Rae Lymer: I don’t see this changing much…also doesnt like the motion Williams made about events and specific dates; explains the checks and balances to that system.
- Rep Neibart: Explains they did this bc if a group has a speakers bureau, specific workshops etc; some groups consider those direct services…sometimes having speakers give a wide array of talks…
Honestly not sure what we’re talkingabout currently. But hey guess what!?! It’s 11:11PM! Make a wish!!! <fingers crossed> Say it with me now…*I wish Student Council didn’t go till midnight!*
11:12PM Discussing a few clarifying points. Also talking about how sometimes it’s even hard for SSFC members to understand the criteria.
- Manes brings up contradictions. Speaks forcibly. “Getting to the point of absurdity. Can’t legislate everything. Can’t define every word. Have to be able to use judgement. That is why SSFC exists, to interpret the criteria. Need to have the flexibility to interpret.”
Call to question.
- Event definition changed.
- Chair Manes: Publication definition. Think that a publication that is vital to campus and needs to be done? Then we need to find a different way to do that. GSSF is for students to receive direct services. I’m on the fence with this one…leaning towards no. …..moving on…(different defn) I don’t want to limit SSFC to this certain defn.
- Limit debate to 11:40PM APPROVED.
Move by Chair Williams to strike ‘Publication’ definition.
- Chair Williams: I think the definition of publication…which says a publication could be a publication if it met certain criteria…while I consider a publication a great supplement that can teach me a lot, I don’t consider it a direct service. We never defined publication before, I think it is very simple to understand. I think this definition creates a nuance argument and escapes the rationale behind it.
- Call to question. Fails
- More clarification on “publication”.
- Call to question. Equal division. Passes by vote of Chair.
- Main motion
I feel like this is going in circles…at what point do we all fall down?
- Chair Nichol: Calls out Council.
- Call to question. Fails.
- SSFC Rep Lymer: I’m ok with getting rid of ‘publications’. But I’m not ok with getting rid of events. I work several job and run several organizations to get by…this wouldn’t raise seg fees! This is an improvement and progress; I think we should keep moving forward on this.
- ‘Chairship’ Beemsterboer: And with that the hour to vote is upon us.
- Call to divide the motion. Aye. CARRIES
- For the rest of it, ‘Leadership Opportunities’ et al ROLL CALL
- 6-2-5 CARRIES
Beemsterboer returns the Chairship to Sir Williams. Multiple calls for adjournment. Multiple objections. DIVISION
Ah! Chaos and pandemonium! Snow, sleet, hail and rain!…waiiitttt….
‘Manes Amendments’ tabled. Adios!
Onto Campus Service Fund.
- Chair Manes: Please vote on this tonight so we can bring it up next time!
- Neibart questions his intent in creating the CSF.
- Discussion on…accountability, the process, Rules Committee…move on to debate.
- Rep Neibart: …I am in favor of this. I think that the thing with accountability when it comes to SSFC, when it comes down to it, SSFC members have to be accountable to each other and the Chair has to….ASM is the ones helping the ones. I don’t think we need more accountability measures. ASM is the student voice. We should be able to find services on campus that benefit all students.
- Rep Plamman: This is being rushed. I disagree.
- Call to question. Carries. Roll call.
Agenda item G tabled. On to Agenda item H: SSFC Appeals Reform Acts.
Call to question. Objection. Carries.
- Neibart speaks on allowing GSSF groups being allowed to CHOOSE to appeal to SSFC or SJ.
Main motion. Call to question to amend removing ‘SJ’ from line 16. Carries.
Call to question. No objection. Call for unanimous consent. Objection. 9-1 Carries.
- Beemsterboer: Motion to reconsider Agenda item F: CSF. Carries.
- Call to question.
- Roll call. 7-0-5. Will see this again next week.
12:00AM Motion to adjourn.
Well, that was interesting. Tune in next week for the LAST STUDENT COUNCIL meeting of the 17th Session. I shall be Liveblogging for the last time, dear readers. You’re in for a real treat 😉 Hasta!