• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Contact Person: Student Government Office Manager 348 Memorial Union (530) 752 – 3632

ASUCD SENATE AGENDA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 6:10, Mee Room January 17, 2013

I. Call to Order

The meeting is called to order at 6:10 PM.

II. Quorum Roll Call

(Costello absent)

III. Presentations A. Chancellor’s 20/20 Initiative

Karl Mohr: Thank you for the opportunity to come to visit about 20/20. It was formerly launched just over a year ago at the fall convocation by Chancellor Katehi and in that convocation speech, she put a hypothesis and a challenge out to the campus: what should UC Davis do to take a bit more of our destiny into our hands given the ongoing divestment of UC resources? The amount of state support has steadily been declining while your tuition has steadily been increasing. Tuition is a greater share of that core instructional budget than is state support. Looking at that trend and realizing that one option is to wait for the state to come back and while prop 30’s passage helped us dodge a significant bullet, it helped us stabilize funding that is dramatically lower than it has been in the past so chancellor Katehi proposed carefully planned growth that would focus on international students to address the financial stability challenges and other important goals including internationalizing the campus. Two years ago, the total number of international undergraduate students was under 5% but given this day and age, where you all will be graduating into an increasing globalizing society, it is something that society would resonate with. We also want to think of maintaining access to UCD. You have to start with realizing that in the face of declining state investment, if there is not another option, the university will contract. Not only will there be less access to California students, but all students. Another goal is economical development. In order to test that hypothesis, the chancellor and provost charged three tasks forces last fall to answer these questions. If we were to grow, where should we grow in terms of academic disciplines? We could look at differential growth, focus in one area or another. The second task force that Yena served on is the enrollment task force. Once students get here, do they have the proper advising? The third that Rebecca served on is related to facilities and infrastructural needs. If we hire more faculty, we’ll need more research labs and such. They met through the last academic year and last June, they submitted individual reports. Ken really did the majority of the work consolidating the reports. The task forces have met a couple of times and released it in November for campus review and conversation. We’re hoping to wrap up this initial consultation in February so we can report back to the chancellor and provost so some initial decisions can be made. With that overview of the process and where we are, we’re really here to listen. We can highlight some of the findings in the report that we think would be of particular interest to you.

Schaeffer: You have not yet enforced a specific model, is there a specific reason behind that?

Ken Burtis: It was the wish of the three task forces to present a variety of options to the provost and the chancellor and let that be the grounds for the decisions. I think right now the greatest black and white differences between the models is those involving only growth and those involving only substitution, a decline in California students with an increase in international students.

Karl Mohr: The consensus view was pretty strongly against any of the models that would actually decrease California student enrollment shared by your student colleagues, and understandably so. Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Sagala: I read through it a little bit and I was glad there was a mention of specific underrepresented and disadvantaged students so my question is, will it be the same across the board for national and international? I know international that gets a little tricky when it comes to a financial background.

Burtis: The actual process of admissions depends on holistic comparison of students which takes into everything so as you anticipate doing that with an international student, eve with the score part, how do you compare the grades in India that use a ten point scale into a GPA? Admissions have been doing that for a while and do the best they can. It’s a complex process. The impacts on diversity are very complex so you can imagine economic impacts, financial aid, outreach, all sorts of things. The admission of international and national students in place of California students, if the diversity that you’re interested in is California students, if the population of students at the boundary of being admitted is higher up then you can have a disproportionate impact on diversity. They’re complex.

Bottoms: I have a couple questions, if we increase the full 5,000, which facilities will get hit?

Burtis: Immediacy of impact, we face classroom space because that’s already an issue. The large lecture halls are very impacted so that would hit very quick. Even without 20/20, the university is already in talks of building larger classrooms. There is also faculty hiring issues. There’s a lag there, it takes a year to hire, another year to bring them up to speed.

Mohr: There have also been talks of online classes which led to more existential questions of what will the future of higher education look like?

Bottoms: What will the academic growth look like? Are we going to tier majors? Will we have a business major, one that is of great interest to international students?

Burtis: The idea of new majors with academic growth, of course the idea of adding new faculty with new fields could lead to more disciplines, more fields. There are more expensive and less expensive majors to deliver. Studio art and engineer majors are the most expensive while sociology majors are the least expensive. The default assumption of the 20/20 model is that nothing changes. 20% biology now will be 20% biology later. You look at Davis right now, it’s pretty science heavy. UCLA has a richer mix of humanities and social sciences.

Mohr: Again, the assumption is no if we’ll differentially charge for majors.

Bottoms: Are we going to be accepting less people? I know other schools require you choose a major before applying.

Mohr: It’s a very interesting question and there are some universities that make it very difficult to change a major, Cal Poly is an off-set example. I think it’s a benefit to allow flexibility in majors.

Kapur: Have other universities taken similar initiatives?

Burtis: The difference with us is the degree with planning this time. How much planning for growth initiatives from other campuses, I really don’t know. I tried finding it from other schools but I couldn’t really find it from other universities.

Sterling: No other campus has gone anywhere near where we’ve gone. Every other UC president is very impressed with what we’re doing.

Kapur: As far as facilities go, what’s the plan for dorm facilities?

Mohr: We work very closely with our student housing on campus and they have a plan with the flexibility to accommodate growth within the current parameter. The tradition is you live on campus the first year and scatter around your second year. We’re trying to get a second year guarantee for those who want it. We also did the west Davis housing to provide for more apartment style housing and there is still capacity for that. Housing has not been identified as a constraint yet.

Diaz-Ordaz: Where is the money coming from to fund the construction of the buildings?

Mohr: Capital planning is a very long term process so there’s a building out in the southwest part of Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

campus, which has been in planning for 10 years now. A lot of this are projects that were approved in a prior fiscal climate. The university has a variety of funding sources. The hospital is being paid for by the hospital enterprise. With 20/20, the funding is being predicated by the revenue that will be generated from it.

Diaz-Ordaz: So non-resident students are paying for it?

Mohr: Yes.

Diaz-Ordaz: About online classes, will it be cheaper for us? More expensive?

Burtis: That’s an item of great discussion, if you follow the regents. There’s a lot of faculty that believe if you do it well, online costs just as much as traditional, so in a sense you get what you pay for. I think there’s a lot of differing opinions.

Bottoms: We’re looking to trying to expand our services to international students and they have different experiences, what kind of facilities are being seen to see that their advising are being seen and obviously with language barriers?

Burtis: I think one of the great concerns is advisors for international students. We’re hoping to ramp up our advising budget to better optimally organize advising for not just international students, but everyone. Another one is English as a second language. The issue of our classes and what we offer isn’t completely formed yet. There are many different models out there for opportunities for international students of coming during summer to get up to speed and now it’s a question of do they have to pay to come early? I’m hoping the international students on campus will be good partners with us to help us serve the population.

Kapur: Is the international house run by the university?

Burtis: It’s a volunteer operation and pretty small capacity.

Kapur: are we outreaching to a particular area of the world or broadly across the entire globe?

Burtis: Obviously there’s some low hanging fruit where there’s a lot of demand for international marketing experience so that’s where you want to start but not where you want to finish. I think the goal is to have a student population that represents the diversity of the world.

Kapur: What are the next steps from here on out?

Burtis: We’re taking feedback up til February then we’ll report back to the provost and the chancellor. To the extent of 20/20 being a thousand decisions, those will be incremental decisions made slowly as the process unfolds. If the decision is made to move ahead and we decide to admit more students and decide to build 2 more classrooms and then something happens and it’s not working well, we can say whoa stop readjust change this and that.

Diaz-Ordaz: I’m actually going to e-mail you my questions, they’re really specific.

Sagala: I wanted to make a comment that I’m really appreciative of you coming to talk to us. I’m personally in favor of expanding to international students.

Burtis: The part of internationalization is not about just bringing in students but sending our students out. There was a separate task force on internationalization that’s available online that we’ve referred to and deferred to.

Sagala: Is there a possibility of offering student aid to those in less favorable socioeconomic places?

Burtis: It would be so wonderful to use scholarships as a recruiting tool to say we have a few scholarships, please apply, we’ll put you in the pool if you apply.

Kapur: Are these task forces going to be around after us?

Burtis: The task forces are finished but we did threat them that we might call them back to serve in a Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

year or so. We’ve grown as much in the past ten years as we plan to do in the next ten years.

Bae: I just wanted to let the new table know that this has been an ongoing process since Adam Thongsavat was president. Our campus right now without the growth, we’re lacking a lot of student services so I wanted to make two points. ASUCD is looking in expanding international student services, we’re in the process of forming an international student committee. Rebecca and I met with the director of the International House. Also, regarding how students can engage with this project, Rebecca and I will make sure that if there is anywhere student voices need to be heard, we’ll provide that. Thank you Ken and Karl so much for coming and we really appreciate your time.

B. State of the Association

Sterling: I wanted to talk to you all about the events going on today. Regarding the warnme alerts, there are 5 buildings that have been evacuated but the fire department has worked it out and these families and students have places to stay so hopefully people are fine, but if any issues do come up, feel free to let me know or I can put you in touch with the police chief. I’d like to begin by thanking you all for your investment and dedication to higher education. Although prop 30 passed, the university is still facing great debt so we must not let up. We must work together to ensure the continued success of our units. We’ll still be facing the taxes in this upcoming year. Our challenges are indeed vast and difficult, but I urge you to rise as leaders to challenge them unrelentingly. I also wanted to give you an update of the trip that Melanie and I went on with Brett last week to Southern California for the MU renewal project. Just to look at the different programs on different campuses and how to implement them here, I have a lot to report on what happened but essentially the east wing is not changing so it will be the exact same footprint. One of the things that has been coming out in the talks in ASUCD is more of a student hang out space so that’s what we were looking at. We saw a lot of different models. Davis is pretty unique from the UC’s in southern California considering our proximity to downtown. We’re looking to have pretty specific menu items, hopefully beer, coffee, and wine. We’ll be taking in input and coming back to your side to present the plans. The actual remodel won’t be happening for at least a year so the plans for the architecture will all be set in stone in the next couple of months.

Marquez: I’m curious, are there going to be gender neutral restrooms in the MU?

Sterling: Can be on the table to be discussed! The space we have now is the space we’ll still have. I’ll bring it up at meetings.

Han: Darin would be in charge of the Pub too?

Sterling: I’d like to make sure it’s an ASUCD run space so we have control over it. I would like that to be CoHo, essentially and lease out the alcohol. I don’t know if that’s a model that will be approved. We’re working it out with Beverage Control to see if it’s even a possible model. That’s what I’ll be putting forward.

Kapur: What’s going on with marketing stuff?

Sterling: There’s a job description being worked on that will be posted and it’s a student position.

Sagala: Is there a possibility of doing what we do for Star Ginger or Halal’s in bringing in private businesses?

Sterling: I really don’t want to do that. I think UC Davis is unique in that we set the hours, we can rent it out to students to have open mics, trivia, etc.

Kapur: What’s going on with the job summit?

Sterling: There’s a date, it’s being set. We’ll be doing it with the ICC, chancellor’s office, student affairs, and the alumni association. The event is not planned, I want the entire table to be a part of this. I want this to be an initiative.

Kapur: Are you all going forward with the adopt-a-student program?

Sterling: we’re working on it, we’ve had a number of hiccups with the city. We’re trying to get the UC police department to be willing to do background checks for us. Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Maemura: I just wanted to follow-up on the comments about URSAC. In two weeks, we’ll be presenting a formal report of our findings and URSAC will discuss it and you’re all welcome to attend.

C. CalPIRG

CalPIRG director: Some stuff we have going on this quarter is we’re in the middle of our recruitment drive. We have about 70 interns. Our main campaign is spreading energy efficiency and to quadruple the amount of solar energy by 2020 and teaching kids about energy efficiency. We want to teach 30,000 Davis kids by the end of this year. We’re still working on banning plastic bags in Davis. We’re really close. We were super close last year but it was just one counselor member that switched his vote. We’ll probably contact you to work with you on these campaigns so look forward to hearing from us.

Han: I was really impressed from January 1st, in Alameda they banned plastic bags in every store. I was wondering if you considering banning plastic bags in all of Yolo County?

CalPIRG director: Maybe, we’re not working as hard on it this year since it was our main campaign last year. We got plastic bags planned in 55 counties.

IV. Status of Legislation Previously Passed

V. Introduction of New Legislation

VI. Public Discussion

Jimmy Fong: I’d just like to state my support of reintroducing SR #2 for more transparency in intercollegiate athletics. Due to the presidential veto, I’d like to state it had very positive points in how athletics are funded by the students, it should be in motion that the students have oversight and are regularly updated on key knowledge within athletics so the athletic administration doesn’t just go about its own decisions without representation from the students. From discussion with various people, I realize there’s concerns with various details in the resolution but that shouldn’t still be discussed of which aspects are acceptable and which are not. The main idea is just to have oversight and more transparency. That should be of main importance and if that’s the only thing that can come from ASUCD, then that should be the minimum. There’s other things such as reinstatement of certain team. I feel like at a minimum, we should set in motion for more transparency for more representation by students to get involved and if there’s more opportunities down the line to reinstate the teams, that will be an opportunity later but for now, I’d just like to state my support for more discussion on the topic.

Kapur: How did you find out about this resolution?

Jimmy: I’ve been in here for a while and I’ve been in contact with some people involved.

Kapur: Are you connected with ICA at all?

Jimmy: I’m a former student athlete.

Kapur: I was planning on reintroducing it next week but I’m having a meeting with the president beforehand on the language so we don’t have to go through a 4 week process then get it vetoed so hopefully we can pass the resolution and get a real discussion. we fund the shit out of them so we should have some oversight because a lot of money goes there. We fund athletics more than most student bodies across the country.

VII. Public Announcements

Anguiano: AAC and SRRC did an amazing job with 39 2.0! it was held in the SCC and the SRRC really brought their game up because a lot of the people there were affiliated with SRRC meaning there were a lot of people of color there which was great because we’re outreaching to more people! Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Figueroa: I wanted to congratulate 39 2.0 again, big ups to AAC. If you’re interested on working on the AB540 handbook, that’s one of my projects that I’m going to spearhead.

Cano: Next Tuesday, nominee positions are available.

Maemura: E-fund applications for the winter quarter round are up, deadline is February 11th.

Ong: 5k is april 7th

Kapur: I’ve started going to SFAAC so if you want to know where our student money is going, you can go and find out.

Burke: We had a birthday yesterday! Well two, but one is probably sleeping now.

[senate’s messy rendition of happy birthday to Tal Topf and Rebecca Sterling]

VIII. Approval of Past Meeting Minutes

IX. Appointments and Confirmations A. GASC Commissioners

Sagala: I interviewed Alex twice, he was really good because he has a lot of experience in the LGBT community and he’s really fun so I urge for a speedy confirmation.

Anguiano: Do you have any specific projects you want to work on and what way can you get the association more involved with GASC?

Alex Deng: a new project I have in mind for GASC is to do more programming, specifically workshops that allow more members of our community to come and I think by doing the workshops, it allows more opportunities for students to come. The LGBTRC is also a very visible center now, allowing for students to easily come.

Anguiano: Do you think there’s a specific issue we, as students, are not aware of like language and student vocabulary?

Alex: I think there’s a loooot of issues that are important in terms of what our students do not know. Certain phrases do hurt but certain students don’t know so being a part of the education process would be greatly helpful.

Sagala: This is also an opportunity for us to learn more about GASC. Can you explain to the table what intersectionality is?

Alex: From what I know, intersectionality of identities originated from a more political background talking about our gender, sexual orientation, income, status, where we come from, all playing into account of who we are and what’s important of GASC is we deal with gender and sexuality which all of us can identify with. This affects us on a daily and social level which is why it’s important for GASC and ECAC and other commissions to tackle these issues head on and host these workshops to further humanity.

Figueroa: Do you think there’s any political aspects to these marginalized identities?

Alex: Definitely, when we think about gay marriage, that’s a political thing that’s happened in recent years but even birth control and abortion, all of these things are political issues that get into our politics and everyday lives, so yes I do.

B. Entrepreneurship Fund Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Kapur: These were the best applicants that applied, I urge for a speedy passage.

Maemura: In your words, what is social entrepreneurship?

Robert Hsu: it’s a business idea that is socially responsible. A lot of business ideas have confidence as the dirving factor but social entrepreneurship is working towards the future and making a business idea sustainable,

Phi Nguyen: It’s pretty much what he said, it’s benefiting society and bringing in revenue.

Bottoms: Why do you think it’s important to have a student run entrepreneurship?

Robert: Honestly, students are the future.

Schaeffer: What are your two majors and how do you think they’ll help you?

Robert: Man econ, so I study a lot about the economy and opportunity costs so I think a big deal nowadays is being socially responsible.

Phi: Computer science.

D. Experimental College

Sterling: This is Peter and as you all know, we’ve had a little shift in leadership in Experimental College. He’s already shown how passionate he is with Experimental College, his dedication and to fill the position we need him to fill.

Sagala: What do you see as the biggest problem in Experimental College?

Peter Neeley: Accessibility since we’re in the south silo, we’re hard to find. Getting people to know what we do and what we offer, there’s just been ongoing publicity efforts to get people to come.

Sagala: Do you think that will be the new focus for the upcoming year?

Peter: That’s just a constant focus for us. We make registration pushes, work with various senators.

Maemura: What do you think is the mission statement for the unit?

Peter: EC is important in offering a space on campus where it’s learning for the sake of learning which can be lost in terms of academia when it comes to just getting a class over with. Having this space where it’s just for you is important to keep in mind in life when you’re in a university where learning can feel oppressive.

Maemura: I want to urge you all to register for a EC class, I’m taking a hip hop class 

Bottoms: How do you keep classes relevant to students in changing times?

Peter: Some classes, yoga and art, are just offered all the time because we have relationships with instructors. For someone to offer a class, the instructor has to come to us a demonstrate expertise. We keep our price catalog changing and we just started a project called the alternative learning project which function as seminars that meet once a week.

Kapur: Cal has a similar deal but they offer a unit for the student taught class, is that something you’d be interested in pursuing?

Peter: As long as I’ve been there which was Fall 2011, there’s never been discussion but my concern would be how do you quantify the class because we don’t do grades which would make it difficult for grades. I’d be interested with working whoever I would have to but that detracts from the whole purpose of EC, learning for the sake of learning. I know classes at the Arc offer half a unit, dance classes and such.

Figueroa: I was always amazed with EC to really ensure a safe space for all identities. I want to know Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

how you’re going to continue ensuring EC as a safe space.

Peter: Last year, we collaborated with LGBTRC and did mixers, we’re talking about doing a mixer with CCC to do a mixer, workshop about learning outside academia. We’re always looking to collaborate. I think the alternative learning project has a lot of potential for offering cultural education classes and just a variety of discussions and seminars about different issues that come in classes but you don’t have time for. We’re always looking to move forward and work with other centers on campus.

Ong: Campus Rec currently offers a lot of classes that are really popular but students can’t get into them. Do you have plans of directing the traffic in your direction?

Peter: I’d like to see more floor presentations and during the floor meetings in dorms, hopefully getting the Experimental College’s name pushed into it.

X. Unit Director Reports

X. Ex-Officio Reports A. Commissioner Chairs

Marquez: went to ECAC meeting, held first GASC meeting of quarter yay! Having a GASC summit this coming Monday, my mailbox doesn’t open  a few people have tried it. Help? Went to REACh retreat, was awesome! I sent out email about safezone trainings. Go!!

Gerhart: EAC meeting, held OH, EAC bro tanks completed, EAC staff development potluck this weekend! Met with SHAWC chair, joined a gospel choir!

Schaeffer: held OH, short B&F meeting

Cano:

B. Outreach Assembly Speaker

Calderazzo: town hall meeting on Wednesday (not very high attendance), meetings with club presidents, winter clothing drive is next week, possible winter quarter dorm fair, met with Heather from CSI about the student advisory council

Jackson: gonna go dumpster diving for recycleables towards the scholarship fund

C. ASUCD Controller

Maemura: traveled to SoCal for official business on Thursday and Friday; meetings with the Aggie, Cal Aggie Camp, Entertainment Council, initiated intern project, bike barn capital research report, INC tomorrow at 2 PM, planning single awareness night

XI. Elected Officer Reports A. President B. Vice President

Bae: happy birthday Rebecca Sterling! Had a meeting with campus climate work group, had a meeting with Brett, became a U.S. citizen!! Meeting with interns, had a meeting with 20/20

C. ASUCD Senators

Bottoms: blumpkin

Kappes: humans vs. zombies, went to 5 commissions, let the daviswiki show that I am disaffiliating with SLATE and am now a proud member of Friends Urging Campus Kindness, held OH, said hella 3 times, had my dreams of a larger, more disagreeable senate crushed 

Figueroa: saw my first bill get shot down like a bird, went to RROC, went to MEChA, held OH, started gathering Ab540 handbook committee members Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Anguiano: AAC 39 2.0, B&F, EPPC, Chicana Conference planning meeting

Ong: held OH MW 12-2, went to ECAC to talk about scholarship, met with lobby corp director Karan, went to lobby corp, went to OA’s town hall, met with Darin from CoHo about scholarship, went to 5k planning board meeting and secured tons of more sponsors

Topf: held OH, met with an individual about ASUCD video, meeting with Darin Schluep tomorrow, went to IAC, introduced new senate bill, met for aggie pride 5k

Min: held OH pizza, attended and EAC briefly, adopted post office, INC tomorrow

Gilbert: held Oh, met with Yena, officially accepted TFA, attended IAC, attended Town Hall, met with Amy Kautzma

XII. New Student Court Cases/Prior Weeks Verdicts/ASUCD Court Announcements

Jefferson: We have two deliberations today, number 4 and number 2. They are essentially legal advice asked by the senate and we will return the opinion back from the court. They are non-binding so they are just an opinion.

Jason: I’m going to be presenting the second deliberation which was accepted n November 13, 2012. The petitioner was Justin Goss. The Chief Justice was present as well as the other justices with the exception of Johnson. Senator Justin Goss had 3 questions presented to the bench. Question 2 reads: is it constitutional for a currently seated senator to graduate and begin to continue law school while currently holding that position? The bench acknowledges that there is a conditional of having graduated from UC Davis so it’s taken as fact that once a student has graduated from UC Davis and has not pursued steps to remain a student, they are no longer regularly enrolled in UC Davis. In short, the bench took it that the question implies the current student is not a grad student so as a result of membership, said persons no longer may keep the rights or the privileges. The bench holds the opinion that the graduate student does not hold the rights to hold a position in ASUCD. The bench voted 8-0-0 that it is unconstitutional for the senator to hold a position in ASUCD once in graduate school.

Jefferson: I’ll be presenting the opinion for deliberation 4. This is a court memorandum for the question whether or not a unit director supporting a candidate constitutes an endorsement and whether or not a unit director may maintain a stance on the candidate while using their title.

Bae: What happened was the person who asked was not a senator and since it wasn’t a senator, the case because null and voided.

Maemura: It was me who directly approached the court and I presented this question to them: as a student within the association, am I allowed to ask this question? This is the first time I heard that the question was null and void, I asked the chief justice and she said the court would deliver an opinion. It would not be binding. I would still like to hear the opinion since this is a very important issue right now.

Min: Your honor, if I ask a question right now will the court deliberate?

Jefferson: If the majority of senators agree, yes.

Jason: The court must go into deliberation so you wouldn’t receive an answer now.

Bae: Before we ask this question again with the ability of a senator asking the question, I’m still confused if any student could ask a question to the court. I believe it is, it never has to be filtered through a senator.

Jefferson: There is a process for that, it’s called a complaint. They would have to file a case.

Jason: Deliberation is very specific and as it’s read, it doesn’t deny students’ access to the court should they have a complaint but they’d have to go through a different means. There are two separate things here. Following the procedure, there are outlines in the bylaws.

Sagala: Again, I have the same request to hear the final opinion in layman terms. Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Jason: Basically, if you’ve graduated from UC Davis, you cannot sit on the table for any other office.

Sagala: Can the honorable Jefferson explain what verdict they would have come to?

Jason: We haven’t given it much thought if we’re legally allowed to share the opinion considering it did not go through the legal processes. To protect the court and to protect the bylaws, it’s best to just keep it out now until it goes through the proper channels.

Cano: at least for the fourth question, I see that it’s very specific. Any student can propose a complaint and senate has the ability to ask any question to the court, I think senate should just motion to see those questions if they’re so important so the court can see the questions. You’re null and void would be pointless if you shared that information so I think you shouldn’t share it. I would recommend the next senator to just write the questions down and submit it to the court.

Bae: Why were the judicial codes not there at the court meeting?

Jefferson: As you know, the judicial codes and the bylaws are as malleable as desirable, so they were never updated. They were there, it was just a numbering problem.

Maemura: I’m really confused right now. I’ve heard from various people that the opinion was circulating around, I don’t understand what’s going on and I’m surprised I had to hear the void decision now when I was expecting to hear an opinion. I personally wanted to write a policy bill to implement for the upcoming elections but I didn’t want to infringe upon the unit directors’ rights. I was hoping to get the opinion last week but unfortunately, the timing was off so hopefully it can be resolved spring quarter for the next fall quarter.

Bottoms: You mentioned our bylaws in the answering of the questions, where in the codes are they?

Jefferson: The table of contents says 107 but it’s actually 108.

Min: You said the judicial codes aren’t updated so you don’t know what they are?

Jefferson: The way it works is that over the years, like the bylaws, the judicial codes do change and the numbers change. When it changes, the bylaws and the judicial codes didn’t talk to each other and they do reference each other.

XIII. Consideration of Old Legislation A. SB #35 McManus

McManus: This is really tame, this is really tame. All this bill does besides some grammar stuff is define what a reapplicant is but the big one is in section 7. I encourage you to think about the word “encourage.” I really don’t think this is controversial.

Bae: IAC’s recommendation and I want a candy cane.

Cano: IAC came to a reasonable compromise because if you’re reapplying, you put your experience and say you already served with IAC. We’re encouraging the behavior to ask better questions. As it currently stands, we already have this ability. We’re just adding a section that is better to us.

Bottoms: Honestly, I don’t love sitting on reapplicant interviews and I don’t think it’s fair to ask them about their experience. We could have issues asking, what did you think about this and that bill?

McManus: I understand where you’re coming from, I guess I just don’t agree. Asking a reapplicant what they’ve done should be a central component of their interview. This doesn’t change any practice, it just encourages better questions.

Gerhart: The way I see it, if they did the interview right once, they’ll do it right again. We do have a really high turnover in ASUCD. One year seems to be a standard term. You don’t have to interview them again but if you have a solid, productive commission, you want to see how they can build and grow from it. Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Bottoms: It’s the issue of putting them on a different level. We should be asking them the same questions but if they answer them better, then yes they should continue being on the commission.

Cano: So yes, this was a big issue for me because I’ve sat on the most interviews EVER in ASUCD! This is why we have interviewing committees. Senators’ terms are one year so it’s a new interviewing panel each year. I think senate has already the ability to check the interviewing committee. While they don’t have the permission to pick the dynamic of the committee, that’s up the chair.

Anguiano: I really like this because I feel that if you’re reapplying, you already have the advantage over the questions asked. Like Gerhart said, she doesn’t change the questions much, so they should have tougher questions. Yeah you don’t get paid but taking it seriously is important in these positions.

Calderazzo: I wanted to address the unevenness in interviews but all reapplicants already have an unfair advantage because we’ve already seen them perform. It just gives the interviewing committee to readdress what they’ve done in the commission or the assembly so it just gives us the opportunity to go back to what they’ve done already.

Jackson: It’s better to ask better questions to better understand them. Other people in the room don’t know how hard of a worker that person is so I want this person to talk about what they’ve done to share it with the interviewing committee rather than be asked “oh what do you think about the environment?” I’m mocking myself. Also, if you don’t hire them, it’s kinda like firing them. If you’re up for a promotion, your boss asks you how you’ve done. It’s how life works.

Schaeffer: If this bill fails, I want to point out what will happen: chairs are still allowed to ask these questions so literally all this does says, you have this ability to ask questions and you should do it.

McManus: The first sentence in section 7C, I literally copied and pasted from somewhere else. This ability is already there. It’s just encouraging people to do it

10-2 (Ong and Bottoms)-0 pass

B. SB #38 Hsu

Aaron: This bill is fairly simple but running last elections, we found some problems we fixed to make elections run more smoothly.

Cano: IAC talked about this bill. We were confused about line 53, I’ll get to it. Allowing the candidates to do it for them is responsible so we’re like cool.

Topf: With the whole withdrawing thing, when is the withdrawal date and are you saying that regardless of the deadline?

Aaron: It’s normally one week after petitions are due, the following Tuesday. The problem is if they withdraw after that, it’s to prevent people from abusing it. It might be possible, longevity of bylaws. In case it becomes technically infeasible last minute, it’s at the discretion of the elections committee.

Topf: It’s just saying if the candidate isn’t running anymore, you can take them off the ballot.

Ong: If we had this withdrawal deadline, I don’t see why we’d still allow them to withdraw after the deadline? And section 2 about the sample ballot, is that the newspaper or online?

Aaron: Potential for abuse, I don’t know how people would abuse it. If elections committee does think something is going on, we could just leave it on the ballot or there could be the deterrence factor because if you really don’t want to be on the ballot then hey you shouldn’t be on the ballot. The longer something is, the less likely people are to do something. As I read it, the sample ballot is online. There’s what you see online and what we print in the Aggie that costs some 800 dollars to do. This allows us to, for the official sample ballot, have the 50 word summary statements and a link to the actual 500 word statements. I don’t think it would really change what we could or could not do in campus media as long as the website is the sample ballot.

Ong: I think we need to take into consideration what a withdrawal deadline should be. Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Aaron: What do you mean when the withdrawal deadline is? I’m not advocating deleting 417A completely, just saying I won’t amend it.

McManus: The full statement must remain available with campus media and I wanted to remind everyone that the elections calendar just came out so if you decide to change some dates, it might complicate things. It’s a little fishy to me.

Sagala: I think it’s important to have the website because I know a lot of people refer to the website to find out about the candidates. Some people don’t read the aggie. Some people. Lame people.

Ong: Melanie brought up a good point. Have you been in contact with Alex Park at all? She mentioned we should at least consider what he has to do. But basically he has a lot of tech-y stuff he needs to do.

Maemura: From what I recall years ago when we discussed this in IAC, Alex Park was really paranoid about the site crashing right before elections if you tinkered at all with it. That’s the reason why that section exists. Amy Martin also proposed there should be a disclaimer saying: the students you see here may or may not be a candidate.

Aaron: From my understanding with Alex Park, it is not too difficult. In the past elections, one withdrew before the deadline and the other withdrew after the deadline. I talked to Alex and he said, that’s no problem but he just couldn’t have done it without the official letter of withdrawal. The different between what we do in the Aggie and what we do on the website, I think the website should be the primary way people get information. While the sample ballot is good, it’s only there for one day, which is why I saved a bunch of copies for the following two days. And to me, it’s not choosing between getting students to read either 50 words per candidate or 500, but it’s 50 words per candidate or the first 5 words of one candidate. When I titled the aggie thing “sample ballot,” I just wanted to get people’s attention but in my mind, the sample ballot is online.

Topf: You’re saying that when they go to vote, what will they see?

Aaron: My idea is that they will initially see 50 words, if they want to see more then they’ll see the full 500.

Sagala: I just have a little confusion with last elections, did Gloria Chen ever formally withdraw?

Aaron: yes, after the deadline though so we couldn’t take her off the ballot.

Kapur: I just wanted to say on the record that I voted for Gloria Chen.

Miles: As a recommendation, I suggest a “read more” after the 50 words so people realize there is more to read from their phones and what not without the most advanced technology.

Sagala: I didn’t get to ask this question also so if someone were to turn in their petition and never turn in a withdrawal, would they never turn in anything after that?

Miles: There are only 8,000 copies of the Aggie on campus which is less than the number of students we want to vote so it cannot be an exhaustive resource.

Aaron: Students are more likely to read 14 fifty word statements than 14 five hundred word statements.

Cano: I like this idea and I wish I had it when I was chair. I thank Aaron for coming up with this innovative idea.

Robin: I really like this idea because when you see social media today like facebook and tumblr, the “read more” is applicable to all people that use social media. A shorter 50 word statement also helps candidates convey to their constituency their main points and it’s up to them to make it as appealing as possible.

Sagala: I have to address the concern of what’s the point of having a withdrawal deadline when they can still withdraw after the deadline? The deadline is February 5th. Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Bae: There are 3 options on the table for section 5: one, insert the discretion of creative media so there is the flexibility of working the system or not, Aaron is saying when you put multiple people in power, it makes it more complicated so another option is to drop section 5 entirely. Those are the two main points on the table right now. This conversation, we’ve literally went around in 4 circles.

Maemura: Does the student have the option of reading the full length?

Aaron: Right now they have the full statement a click away.

6-7 (Bae, Topf, Sagala, Ong, Aguiano, Han Bottoms)-0 fail

C. SB #41 McManus

McManus: As a member of the public that came to my first meeting last year, I was confused with what was going on and never knew where you all were. I also added committee reports.

Cano: IAC LOVED this bill. We were just like omg this bill is awesome senate’s gonna get out on time.

Gerhart: On line 49, THERE’S A PERIOD!

Bottoms: I just wanted to clarify on line 87 that’s it’s what we currently do?

Cano: I run a different parli pro type of style, I follow Robert’s Rules of Order but that’s my preference. If you want to remove it, it doesn’t really matter.

12-0-0 pass!

D. SB #42 Renslo

Eric: Hi everybody, my name is Eric Renslo. I’ve been on IAC since freshman year and I’m a junior now. This is the first bill I’ve written, besides LRPs, because I think this is a necessary change. The problem right now is you also need a 2/3rd majority vote for a spending bill so the same people can vote to restrict the spending bill so that doesn’t seem like a lot to me. Being on IAC, I think senators should work with Sergio and with the bylaws to craft a bill that fits within it rather than just have a majority of people that can support any bylaw. I think this mechanism was made because there are clear instances of when they should be suspended. It should be when there’s a clear consensus. I do think that it will help with the overall preservation of the bylaws that the senators before you created, you senators created, and the future senators will create.

Cano: IAC had an interesting discussion. it started with we love the bylaws, we all held hands, no. we discussed the significance of 2/3rds briefly and the consensus is it’s an issue of what senate wants to do with the bylaws. It’s a general understanding that we need to have some flexibility to suspend them at some time. 2/3rd 3/4th, the number can be viewed as arbitrary. 9/12 seemed like a responsible number since the average tends to be less than that.

Bottoms: I do have problems with this bill. I think the 2/3rd number is there for a reason, it’s the number we need to override a veto from the president. It’s a more unilateral action made by the senate which is why that number is there. I also don’t see it as a huge problem in suspending bylaws especially since we rewrite them constantly.

Miles: I was at the IAC meeting and I heard all of Renslo’s comments. I find the bill to be refreshing. I see senate suspend bylaws constantly for Bottoms’ exact reason. This is a much more significant action than adding a bylaw because you’d be undoing previous work.

Bottoms: It’s not adding a bylaw, it’s amending so when we suspend a bylaw, it’s like amending it for the meeting.

Miles: Usually when a bylaw is created or amended, there’s an incredible amount of discussion but when a bylaw is suspended, it is done very quickly. Senate Meeting January 17, 2013

Bottoms: Usually when we suspend a bylaw, it’s for a clear cut reason as to why we’re doing it which is why it’s not as critical to put an extra person when it’s usually not even an issue.

Sagala: I wanted to know why you abstained, Sergio?

Cano: I think senate does need the discussion of suspending the bylaw. I would prefer 2/3rd which is why I abstained.

Eric: When I introduced this to IAC, most commissioners were very excited, I think Sergio left that out. The mechanism is still there with 3/4th. What I’m worried about is using the 2/3rd for political reasons. For example, the Kid Cudi bill, the concert that never happened, 2/3rd people suspended bylaw after bylaw to get a concert and it never happened. The bylaws are in place for a reason. If they really need to be changed, they can go through the formal senate bill process. If the number of senators change, it would also affect it. It’s also for the long term. Other schools have much higher numbers. IAC is very behind this bill, Sergio is mostly neutral. Every senator here, your bill is in threat of being suspended in a year! Do you want yours to be so easily suspended? I feel strongly about this bill.

Ong: From my experience and prior knowledge of ASUCD, we’ve only suspended bylaws for important not ridiculous reasons. If a slate does work hard to get to the table though, we shouldn’t question their intentions.

Kapur: it’s not to protect the majority but the minority. They worked hard to get there too.

McManus: This bill isn’t related to peoples’ dedication. It’s related to passing policy so say a group of 8 can be dedicated and have the best intentions but bylaws need to be respected and this one extra person isn’t much to ask. You guys suspend bylaws 12-0-0 all the time. When you suspend a bylaw, you’re deleting it for this specific instance but amending, you’re changing it and there’s a process. It’s not the same at all. I don’t see any problems with this. It’s one more person as protection.

Kapur: This bill is different from others because we can’t really compromise, there’s really only 2 numbers to choose from 2/3rd or 3/4th.

Bae: Decimals is not an option!!

Figueroa: I’d just like a little bit more elaboration of examples. I’m worried of when there might be a minority and for some fucking reason they’re trying to pass it, but they’re the minority anyway so it wouldn’t pass anyway so yeah actually.

Eric: We’re trying to make bylaws that will last a long time. I think the 2/3rds is too similar to the amount needed to pass a spending bill. There are examples from the past and there will be examples in the future.

7-5 (Gilbert, Topf, Burke, Ong, Bottoms)-0 pass

XIV. Other Business

XV. Public Discussion

XVI. Any Other Business

XVII. Adjournment

Meeting is adjourned at 11:05 PM.

Load more

  14

Copy Link