Internal Affairs Commission

INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMISSION November 9, 2009 Garrison Room, 5:10 pm

[MAX’S PART]

Questions in Text: Mikalonis: Over turn may be a better word than turnover.

Freeman: Shouldn’t it be currently posted fliers?

Hartstein: We use fliers as a verb a lot. I guess that might be better.

Ramachandran: Purchased advertisements in the aggie. Post on campus.

Mikalonis: In the operations f repair. What is Icon?

Hartstein: We’ll go over that in discussion

Mikalonis: Operations z. Its plural. They are in different tenses.

Chen: In the last page. There should be a comma after development.

Martin: Under operations and effort repairs. “Machines are generally repaired. Though one machine much more frequently.” It adds more clarity. Under external relations. There might be a comma between binding and parentheses if I’m correct.

Mikalonis: I think it is one flyer and fliers if it is plural.

Public discussion: Hartstein: How many staff members are there now?

Kauzer: Did you make the adjustments? We have 6, 6 and 5.

Amy: And note takers are still in the range.

Mikalonis: What is icon?

Kauzer : I don’t know what Icon stands for. It’s the company that provides the machine and does repairs.

Manning: How are you trying to get more of the faculty to get out readers? Kauzer: We have tried in the past. There was a letter and a campaign. We emailed the professors. We were a little slow this quarter, but next quarter we are going to appeal to them more and try to have them contest.

Amy: Lets put that in future plans. Publicize ability to use campus mail to send readers to campus copies. And for Icon lets just put in parentheses the machine supplier company.

Navarro: For operations, do you have any specific training in mind?

Kauzer: We would like to make a manual for employees so when they have a problem they can refer to a manual instead of relying on older staff members.

Hartstein: They don’t have a unit director manual.

Cano: Can you explain the machine?

Kauzer: The one machine cannot use 100%. All of our regular paper is 60% recycled.

Hartstein: The Ricoh machine cannot use 100% recycled paper. The other machines use 100% recycled paper. We can change the 60% to 100. Insert 100% recycled paper. “Therefore, 60% recycled paper is used with this machine.”

Mikalonis: Does that mean all the machines can use 100% recycled paper machine?

Hartstein: “The campus company uses 60% with all machines, with the option of 100% recycled paper for an order. The one exception is due to increased malfunction with one machine when it uses 100% recycled paper; therefore, it only ever uses 60% recycled paper.”

Smekalina: I think it sounds really weird. It sounds different from what she was saying. What about something along the lines of “machines can operate using up to 100% recycled paper, but generally use 60% recycled paper. One machine due to increased malfunction cannot print on 100% paper.”

Hartstein: Under future plans. Can we get rid of the ‘of’?

Ho: Why don’t they use 100% recycled paper?

Kauzer: It does cost money. We would have to raise prices so it’s not in the interest of the student body. If they request it we’ll use it.

Ho: So you would have to charge them.

Kauzer: The classical paper uses 60% unless requested. Mikalonis: Unless I’m mistaken, can you print 100% recycled paper anytime?

Kauzer: One printer does not work to well with 100%. Fix broken printer things to do. I think it makes it much more difficult.

Martin: Just because purchasing more energy efficient machines in the future. It’s one of the steps you would take. You could skip a lot of the detail.

Garrett: Purchasing more efficient machines and using more 100% paper could be a future plan.

Mikalonis: Under the future plans. What is the difference between that and current practice.

Kauzer: We generally make announcements in the beginning of the school year, but if we ask the professors to put them on the list serve that would increase publicity.

Mikalonis: What was the approximate cost of the purchase of the copier that isn’t doing very well.

Hartstein: It is probably the most expensive one: Ricoh.

Mikalonis: It probably doesn’t make sense to use all 100% recycled paper. This isn’t a subsidized cost. Every increasing cost will be passed to the students.

Hartstein: The rewriting of the part. I can change this to: “All campus copy machine print on 60% paper, unless otherwise requested. 100% recycled paper can be used at a higher price.” Also, publicize the availability of the option of 100% recycled paper

Kauzer: Right now we don’t have a list online. We do have a list of our archive available at the list if you come in.

Smekalina: Maybe creating a website as future plan. It could post which notes are available online.

Hartstein: Just to reiterate. Operations/future plans: Insert 1,2,7: Post online which courses are available.

Movement to leave to commission discussion– Manning Seconded - Cano

Commission discussion Maxalonis: I was just looking the 2001 of the admin plan and I noticed one point of the news is that during the coho renovation. I wondered if anything significant has happened since 2001, since they have moved to the basement during renovations? Joey: In Article 3, I like number 6. Do you think we can add a little bit in the end about how they could do it. “Such as” something like that.

Kauzer: I don’t know exactly how other than getting into contact with other units.

Amy: Some examples that Jeff, Eli and I were talking about were piggybacking off the success of other units. Mostly entertainment council, Unitrans. Advertising with them. Somehow getting the name with the entertainment council. Does entertainment council create their flyers through Classical Notes?

Kauzer: I’m not sure. I would have to check. We don’t have color printing. Only colored paper.

Hartstein: We’re not going give examples.

Mikalonis: Offer a floppy-to-floppy hard copy service and a color copy service?

Amy: I heard university hair cutters is going out of business. That would be a better location.

Ramachandran: I like the concept of colored copies.

Garrett: We can do it.

Ramachandran: Since I’m doing entertainment council, I can ask them.

Hartstein: Pros and cons of color copies. Pro: A color copy machine. Con: Another copy machine they have to learn. Another machine, another liability. I think campus copies would be fortunate to break even considering the move. I don’t think now is the time to use capital reserves since we are using this on Coho. We can put that in future future future plans. I see other things as more immediate needs.

Garrett: I agree. Future plans?

Hartstein: Perhaps in 2 years. We can put that in here, under finance? #4 purchase color copy after following re-re location, following the renovation.

Mikalonis: One other thing is that what is taking considered. There’s a hella of a lot more colors. We have to worry about different colors. They go like crazy.

Martin: Since you can’t get color copies, where do you go?

Hartstein: Reefer Graphics centers. Is there not advertising space?

Kauzer: We started the program last year, but we haven’t started this year. Motion to be authored - Cano Seconded – Manning Passes without any objections.

ASUCD SENATE BILL #13 Motion to consider ASUCD Senate Bill #13 - Cano Seconded - Chen

Author’s Comments: Garrett: This is basically a bill to prevent ominous expenditures. When this came last year there were a lot of different events on one bill. It really makes senators uncomfortable because when we find one thing wrong, all of them get shut down. This is to prevent this from happening in the future.

Questions in text Amy: Bylaw is capitalized. This will prevent 10 hours (?)

Manning: Section 8. Change amends to enact to hereby enacts. Subsection 5 of the ASUCD as follows. From line 10 to 30, get ride of that.

Ramachandran: There’s a period in Line 33.

Public discussion Freeman: Basically this is saying you need separate bills?

Hartstein: If you have multiple things with projects events. For example, I might want things like water, pizza, etc. If I want money for say safeboats and then I put it on the same bill – they would be different events.

Garrett: This bylaw that allows separate voting. I think it should be this way because if they are non-related they shouldn’t be together.

Chen: I like this. I think it is smart. People do this at national government. People have to veto the entire things at senate. It doesn’t’ take that much effort to make another bill.

Mikalonis: I wanted to bring up something. With all fees we don’t allow bundling. IN the past wasn’t the case. I think for senate this is a good step.

Chen: I agree. I think things should be evaluated on their own merit.

Hartstein: I understand the logic of the voting of each line item. I saw a senate meeting where they passed three different supporting three different types of cancer research. Separating things makes it’s easier to assess them individually. In some cases, some things get bundled. One event or projects merits outweigh the inefficiencies of another.

Smekalina: I think that breaking up makes it easier to assess to the bill and figure out their merits. There is no reason why it should be bundled together. I don’t see any problem with this. It’s something that should be obvious already.

Cano: Three or four senators said they would write. I’m glad its here today.

Motion to public discussion - Mikalonis Second – Chen

Public Discussion: Mikalonis: We’re talking about bundling and expenditure. It’s called a budget. There should be a budget. They already have a way to lump things together.

Manning: If they want to do entirely different events. We did have bills before that did that. One of them was cut out. You can get it amended with just 50% of the senate. I don’t know. For the most part I agree.

Ho: With my past experience and BF, it’s easier to read bills like this. You don’t feel stuck on one part of the bill. Definitely from experience I like this.

Mikalonis: I understand what you are saying. I see that it’s easier. There are so many situations where you are just stuck on one part of the bill and it has nothing to do with the other part of the bill. You could easily break one part send one on its merry way. I think it’s easier to analyze and work on one bill.

Manning: If you have a problem, just come back to another bill.

Garrett: If they split it up into two bills. We could have in senate discussion or public discussion instead of creating a whole confusion. My next bill talks about what came up in the student relations committee. I think this is a good bill.

Sergio: Motion to call senate 13 into question. Withdraw draw to Joey Joey: I think its smart to have this. We can still see the next part.

Passes without objection

Motion to consider ASUCD Senate bill #15 - Manning Seconded - Cano

ASUCD SENATE BILL #15

Author’s Comments: Garrett: I’m going to fix line 8 to enact. This is basically to put in bylaws that are already in practice to most commissions Most require that there be a detailed budget. This just puts it in the bylaws, which standardizes practice. It tells you where they are getting the money and what they are spending it one. You should know where it’s coming from and where it’s being spent. If it’s an urgent senate bill, it may not have an itemized senate and that’s at Senate’s discretion.

Questions in text Martin: Line 8 Enacts.

Julia: Line 82, comma after spending bill

Freeman: I don’t think there should be a comma. Never mind.

Mikalonis: Line 4. I don’t think table shouldn’t be capitalized.

Hartstein: We can just say Senate. That’s more official.

Mikalonis: I guess commissions should be capitalized throughout this then.

Public Discussion: Hartstein: I see how it’s important, but the fact it’s only required for commissions makes it seem like people would just skip commission. I don’t want to negate the impact of the BF.

Cano: I’ve seen it so many times where the author didn’t even know thing during commission, but they say we’ll bring it to Senate.

Garrett: The reason why I asked for this is so that everything is itemized and so the commission basically can assess the spending bill before it goes to senate. If you think the language is not appropriate we should change it to make it apparent. I wrote this in mind thinking of the senate bills. I just want to make it easier to look at senate expenditures.

Cano: This gives flexibility to the author. Outsiders to the ASUCD they won’t know this rule because of this. I would say you have to update the online template and Kai’s online writing bill. I want to hear more about this.

Smekalina: I don’t think we should include the best of the ability just because it leaves room for when it comes to commission. When we ask they and they don’t have the receipts, they could say that was the best of my ability. Maybe extending the list of things they can include that way, so its not limited to what they have to have in the bill. By leaving it to the discretion of the author it basically makes no sense to us at all because there’s no force behind it. Manning: I haven’t see a lot of groups where the author doesn’t know they should come back with more information the next week. I’m perfectly fine with having the budget, quotes and receipts.

Garrett: With the best of there ability, they say this is what we have. ‘We can’t have a receipt because of this reason.’ That’s because of their best of their ability. It doesn’t say that all receipts, it said appropriate receipts. As far as I can tell, that’s how I interpret it as the best to the human ability. I don’t want to put it there, because then it would be abused. I’ve seen so many bills when we ask a billion questions in senate and the author is put in the spot.

Freeman: You said it’s implicit. What does difference. You might as well say the best of the ability.

Garrett: The best of the ability is vague and leaves a lot for interpretation this says a lot of the quote receipt or any type of expenditure anything should be included. TO the best of the ability I don’t want to say this as cynical but people can just say that and use it as an excuse. I honestly want this to be stronger.

Manning: I understand what they are saying. If you’re already saying that you’re allowing it though.

Garrett: Variations are welcome.

Chen: I agree with Danny I think it softens it. When I write bylaws I like it when they don’t sound weak. I also agree with Julia. It might open up some leeway with authors. We wouldn’t necessarily be able to confirm if it was to the best of their ability.

Hartstein: Picture yourself as a business and finance officer and having someone come to your commission. Someone comes to you, but you say you can’t see it because of this bylaw and they just go around to Senate. This is creating a bypass around the business and finance committee. But in terms of quotes receipts and other sources of funding it’s generally not set until they spend the money.

Chen: Can you elaborate on the bypassing commission

Hartstein: Senate can still see the bill. People would just go to senate first.

Chen: I don’t know. I think people can bypass commission anyways. “Our event is tomorrow.” I’m not certain if it says just commission and senate. And senate is not listed, I think it should say senate. Senate will not see it without the appropriate documentation.

Garrett: I’m not actually opposed to that amendment. Julia: I don’t like it because I don’t see a difference between the two. By including at the author’s discretion, it’s going at the discretion of what the to the persons who writing as opposed to the commission examining the merit. Maybe we can just list more things by saying “any more appropriate information.” If the author can explain why it’s missing and if there is a substantial explanation behind it. But if they don’t have any, the commission doesn’t have to look at it. I don’t feel it comfortable being the discretion of the author. “I’m not including that because I couldn’t find it and have it.” When in fact they didn’t take the time to itemize it.

Garrett: I don’t mind putting the period. I like it as it is, but if you feel that’s the only reason why. I don’t mind because you all can decide what’s the best. In terms of senate, I can see your concern. More times than not if the Senate bill hasn’t been approved, we ask them why hasn’t this been seen a commission. I feel that bypassing commissions is a very dumb thing for any author can do. The only exception as the spending bill…this event will not go on until we go to senate… whether that is not the case…I thought this would empower the commission and see the bill as is and instead of passing because that happened last year.

Maxalonis: I think that if we go and say “to the best of ability” we’re discounting a major portion of the major process of commission members. To the best of the author’s ability - it’s also up in the air. Regarding the bypassing, all that has to do with is who has the political power. I remember a hella of time when they pace ICAC and be called urgent. It has happened with ten and thousands of dollars. It might not happen now because the tides are different. I have seen this many times.

Garrett: Would you be more comfortable if I added a separate bill. In order to be considered by Senate there needs to be itemized budget. I think that everything should be included: as much as the author knows, as much as anyone knows. I think this should be standard practice.

Hartstein: It might pass IAC. There’s no way the Senate is going to forfeit their right to see urgent senate bill. That would be giving up power and they wouldn’t do that. In terms of seeing an urgent bill, I have never not seen an urgent spending bill. Whether they pass them depends on the make up of the table and how they are affiliated with the project. Assuming someone goes around, Senate would have to give it a look that limits Epic, gas and other commissions in terms of their judgment. If they have an itemized budget they should have proof. They should have at least estimates of what things cost. I think those are more things to think about.

Freeman: I think that the period allows people to skip commissions. I think that’s equal to say to the best of the ability. I think adding senate to the line would have huge implications and definitely can’t be discussed at this meeting. Forcing them to get receipts. How do we know if they pulled it out of air?

Ramachandran: I completely agree. I think that it should be stronger. I think that to the best of the author’s ability really weakens it. Hartstein: I see the desire to create a strong law. But writing laws that will be broken is a round about way of writing laws.

Ramachandran: Adding more than an itemized budget will be appropriate. I think that seeing if you have a receipt, if you’re spending something in the future, you have a quote is necessary.

Freeman: I think that it leaves a leeway for a combination of different things. It leaves the discretion of the committee to be considered at the what they consider appropriate. We could add a list of things.

Ramachandran: The bill could say “this can include a combination of.....”

Hartstein: “This must include specific costs for specific items, sources of funding….”

Motion to end commission discussion - Manning Seconded

Motion to make the amendment – Manning Passes.

Motion to call into question - Manning Seconded - Cano 5-4 fails.

Martin: Could you clarify the second part again?

Hartstein: “This must include specific costs for specific items, and should include an appropriate quotes receipts.”

Mikalonis: Quotes received and other sources of funding is not required but should be. How is that different from an itemized budget is different?

Hartstein: Specific costs for specific items if there’s not a quote.

Cano: I hope BF refers authors to the guide. I doubt that they’ll look up in the bylaws. I think that they should modify the template.

Garrett: Thanks for your time.

Cano - Motion to call into question #15 Ramachandran: Seconded

Passing bill 15 passes unanimously ASUCD SENATE BILL #14 Motion to table #14 – Cano Seconded – Manning

Commissioner Reports

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:23 PM