Fall 2014 Plenary Minutes

Note from SGA Secretary Charlie Bruce ‘16: The following is the minutes form plenary. Robert’s rules of order were copied and pasted into the plenary minutes. The integrity of the formatting was maintained in order to make the notes readable. If you have any comments or suggestions of how to make the minutes accessible and readeable, contact the secretary at cebruce@brynmawr.edu

 

SGA President Syona Arora ’15 called Fall Plenary 2014 to order at 1:39 PM

 

HISTORY OF PLENARY

In 1892, Bryn Mawr College became the first institution in the U.S. to give students the responsibility to decide on how they should govern themselves. While it was considered a radical experiment, it has become one of the most valued aspects of the Bryn Mawr education. The tradition of student autonomy and responsibility has created a unique campus where students participate in discussion and resolution of the most important issues facing the College.

 

Twice a year, students get the opportunity to present resolutions to the entire student body. The Spirit of Self Governance is a beautiful thing and should make all Mawrters proud.

 

ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER

Plenary uses a form of communication based on Robert’s Rules of Order. They ensure that the will of the majority is done while protecting the voice of the minority. The rule of order may seem awkward and sometimes constraining, but it will limit chaos and personal attack. Please give your attention to the guidelines and follow them. In the long run, they will make Plenary run smoother and faster.

 

Quorum is essential and required. This means that everyone must enter and exit from the side door of Goodhart. Votes are only valid if there is quorum.

 

Order of Business:

Each resolution will be presented as follows:

  • Reading of the resolution by the presenter(s)
  • Explanation of the resolution by the presenter(s) 3 minutes
  • Floor open to questions and Pro/Con statements 12 minutes

(questions are given priority during this time)

(If amendment is presented, it is given an additional 8 minutes)

  • Floor open to Pro/Con statements only 7 minutes
  • Rebuttal period for presenter(s) of the proposal 3 minutes
  • Voting on the resolution

 

If there is discussion occurring at the microphones, then discussion will occur for at least 12 minutes as outlined above, before the question may be called. This is to ensure that a minimum discussion is given to all proposals, as the community has already warranted these resolutions worthy of discussion.

 

If there is no discussion at the microphone, the SGA Executive Board will give a 30 second time limit for those who wish to speak to identify themselves by either approaching the microphone or alerting their section counter. If after the 30 seconds no one has announced that they wish to speak, the amendment or resolution will be voted upon.

 

There will be a member of the SGA Executive Board moderating as well as another member keeping time for each resolution. One minute and 30 second warnings will be given for each timed period.

 

SPEAKING

**If you wish to ask a question, please line up at the middle YELLOW microphone.

**If you wish to make a statement in favor of a proposal, please use the GREEN microphone.

**If you wish to make a statement in opposition to a proposal, please use the RED microphone.

 

There will be a moderator at each microphone who will limit the number of people standing in line. Please keep your statements to one minute, so that everyone may have time to speak. Please listen carefully to the speakers to avoid asking the same question or making the same basic point. If you have already spoken on an issue, you will not be allowed to speak again until everyone else who desires to speak has done so. If you must talk while in your seat, please be considerate of those around you who may be trying to listen to the discussion. Most importantly, please be patient and respectful of all other members. Even though you might not agree with an idea, everyone has the right to speak and be heard.

 

The President will call on microphones alternating Pro/Con. Only the people at microphones who are recognized by the President will be permitted to speak, and again, no one will be allotted more than one minute to the proposal.

 

VOTING

Voting is a right and privilege extended to all members of the Association. The options for exercising this right are pro, con, and abstain (no opinion, or you feel like you don’t have enough information to provide an informed vote). For a motion to pass a majority of members present must vote pro.

 

Please raise hands high, and know who your counter is for your section. The President will ask that everyone return to her proper seat during a vote, as to make sure everyone is counted accurately.

 

All votes will be done visually unless there the majority of the vote is unclear. If you believe you are not being counted, please see a counter or come to the front of the stage.

 

DEFINITIONS

AMENDMENT: An addition or change that is proposed to a resolution which is on the table for discussion. Please try to use language such as “strike,” “add,” and “replace with.” If the amendment strays too much from the original intent of the proposal, the President may declare the amendment to be out of SCOPE, or outside of the resolution’s jurisdiction or purpose.

 

After an amendment is presented, it must be seconded at a microphone by another member of the Association, and is then open for debate. At this time, all discussion regarding the original resolution ceases to allow adequate attention to be given to the amendment. If you are speaking to the main resolution during this time, the President may request you to come back to the microphone when debate on the main resolution resumes.

 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME: This needs a simple majority for approval. When making the motion, please specify a length at which time shall be extended (4 more speakers/5 minutes, etc.). It must be made before time has expired, seconded, and then passed by a simple majority.

 

MOTION TO COMMIT/REFER: If you feel like more research needs to be done in order to support the motion you may move to refer to a committee (I move to refer_____ to a committee/task force). Upon doing so please specify the size, responsibilities and whom will be on the committee.

 

POSTPONE INDEFINITELY: This may be done if you feel like there is inadequate information and you feel like the motion does not warrant discussion. The effect would be to postpone debate entirely and move on to the next order of business. If desired, it could then be brought up at Plenary the following year.

 

CALLING THE QUESTION: A request to stop all discussion IMMEDIATELY and put the resolution to a vote. This MUST be voted upon, and requires 2/3 support. It is basically a vote to vote. The first vote will be to close discussion and move to the final vote. If this fails discussion continues; if this passes then the presenter moves to the rebuttal period and then we vote on whatever debate is currently occurring—i.e. an amendment or the original resolution. If you CALL ALL PREVIOUS QUESTIONS, this would include the same premise as calling the question, only we would proceed to vote systematically on any amendment on the table and the original resolution. This motion may only be made after the original 10 minutes of discussion have elapsed, and must be recognized by the President.

 

POINT OF ORDER: A motion made after an infraction of Robert’s Rules of Order. May be made from any place in the room. The Parliamentarian will confer with the President regarding the error and then will present a method of recovery to regain order.

 

***IMPORTANT***

These motions as well as the amendment process are serious procedures; which can, if abused, hinder the process or render it unfair. Please use them with discretion and allow the existing process to work as efficiently as possible. All motions must be presented at the microphone, and all amendments must be written down in advance of approaching the microphone and presented to the microphone moderator. All amendments must be presented and discussed as written.

 

FOOD

All food must be consumed in the atrium and the lobby. In the case that food is consumed in the Auditorium, SGA will not be allowed to use Goodhart in the future. Please abide and uphold the Social Honor Code by respecting this rule.

 

PLEASE CLEAN UP AFTER YOURSELF AND RECYCLE PLENARY PACKETS/BOOKLETS!

During the reading of the Plenary Packet, Melanie Bahti ’16, Head of the Honor Board, made a note about decorum. She requested students to refrain from clasp/snap/cheer, we want to maintain an atmosphere where everyone has opportunity to speak, but that no one persons opinions are privileged over another.

 

Afterwards, the resolutions were presented. The first was that of Melanie Bahti ’16, Head of the Honor Board.

Resolution 1: Increasing Pool of Faculty Representatives to the Honor Board
Submitted by Melanie Bahti ‘16

Whereas, academic hearings conducted by the Honor Board include both student and faculty representatives;

Whereas, Article I, Section B, Subsection 1 of the Honor Code currently reads:

The Academic Honor Board consists of the Dean of the Undergraduate College, three members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and eight students from the Undergraduate College: three students from the senior class (at the beginning of the fall semester), two students from the junior class (at the beginning of the fall semester), two students from the sophomore class (at the beginning of the fall semester), and one student elected as Head of the Honor Board by members of the Association.

Whereas, representatives on hearings have in practice included two student members of the Honor Board drawn from the total number of elected members, the Head of the Honor Board, the Dean of the Undergraduate College, and two Faculty Representatives to the Honor Board;

 

Whereas, in practice five Faculty Representatives to the Honor Board serve at hearings on a rotating basis based on availability and conflicts of interest;

 

Whereas, this practice mirrors the way in which student representatives to the Honor Board rotate to serve on hearings;

 

Whereas, options for scheduling hearings would be constrained by a smaller pool of Faculty Representatives;

 

Whereas, the Honor Board and the Dean’s Office strive to resolve potential breaches of the Honor Code by conducting hearings promptly;

 

Whereas, students have the right to request that a student or faculty representative to the Honor Board not serve on their hearing if they have a conflict of interest;

 

Whereas, a student could have multiple conflicts of interest with the three faculty representatives to the Honor Board, and in practice two faculty representatives are present at each hearing;

 

Whereas, in the event no faculty representatives to the Honor Board are able to serve in a hearing, a member of the faculty who has previously served on the Honor Board has been asked to serve;

 

Whereas, the current practice of having five total faculty representatives has worked well in the current Honor Board’s experience, decreasing the possibility of multiple conflicts of interest and facilitating speedy scheduling of hearings;

 

Be it resolved, that Article I, Section B, Subsection 1 of the Honor Code be modified to read:

The Academic Honor Board consists of the Dean of the Undergraduate College, three to five members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences elected as Faculty Representatives, and eight students from the Undergraduate College: three students from the senior class (at the beginning of the fall semester), two students from the junior class (at the beginning of the fall semester), two students from the sophomore class (at the beginning of the fall semester), and one student elected as Head of the Honor Board by members of the Association.

Be it resolved, that there now be an Article I, Section B, Subsection 1, subsection a that reads:

In the case that most current representatives of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences are compromised because of conflicts of interest or scheduling, the Dean’s Office will request that a faculty member who has previously served on the Honor Board be asked to serve on a hearing.

Be it resolved, that the Honor Code be adjusted on the SGA blog to reflect this modification upon passing of the resolution;

Be it resolved, that the Honor Board send a modified version of the Honor Code to the Dean’s Office to ensure that future student handbooks be printed to include the most recent version of the Honor Code that reflects this change.

 

Melanie Bahti ’16: Basically, this resolution is trying to make the Honor Board hearing scheduling process more flexible. In practice, we have seven members of the Honor Board, not including the head, and five faculty representatives. We chose a rotating schedule of two students and faculty in each hearing. If the student called to the hearing has a significant relationship to student/faculty who may be called on, they can ask that the person not be present. For example, if the faculty advisor is the head of the department of your major or if the member of the honor board is your hall advisor, you may request that they not be present. Since I was on the honor board last year, we’ve had 5 faculty reps even though the honor code only says 3. Five works a lot better to be more accommodating. We’re hoping to increase that number to make it more flexible.

 

Sa: If you would like to make a statement, approach the mike now or make yourself known.

 

Aleja Newman ‘17: I have a question about your section that says the elections are only open to seniors/juniors/sophomores, but this doesn’t allow first years to apply. Does that also not allow first year transfers to apply?

 

Melanie Bahti ‘16: The code makes the elections process sound weird. We hold Honor Board elections in April. Last April, we elected two members of class of 2017, so they were first years when they were elected, but since the elections are in April, their position didn’t begin until the fall. It’s by class year rather than by first year status.

 

SA: Are there any more questions or pro/con statements? If so, please approach the mike.

 

The resolution came to a vote and passed.

Resolution 2: Allowing a Dean’s Designee in Honor Board Hearings
Submitted by Melanie Bahti ‘16

Whereas, Article I, Section B, subsection 1 of the Honor Code reads:

The Academic Honor Board consists of the Dean of the Undergraduate College, three members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and eight students from the Undergraduate College: three students from the senior class (at the beginning of the fall semester), two students from the junior class (at the beginning of the fall semester), two students from the sophomore class (at the beginning of the fall semester), and one student elected as Head of the Honor Board by members of the Association.

Whereas, Article II, Section A, Subsection 1, Subsection d reads:

The Head of the Honor Board and the Dean of the Undergraduate College will read both statements to determine if a hearing is warranted. If it is unclear whether a matter should be addressed by the Academic or Social Honor Board, the Head of the Honor Board in conjunction with the Dean of the Undergraduate College shall decide to whom the matter will be referred.

Whereas, Article II, Section A, Subsection 2, Subsection c reads:

In the hearing, the confronted student has the option to be present for all testimony given. The student’s dean is present during the entire hearing, but does not have a vote in the final decision. The hearing is conducted in an informal manner. As soon as the hearing is over, the student is informed of the Board’s decision by the Head of the Honor Board and the Dean of the Undergraduate College. The Dean of the Undergraduate College informs the professor of the confronting party.

Whereas, the Honor Code requires that the Dean of the Undergraduate College be present at all Academic Honor Board hearings;

Whereas, the Head of the Honor Board is also asked to be present at all Academic and Social Honor Board hearings unless there are conflicts of interest ;

Whereas, Student Representatives to the Honor Board, Faculty Representatives to the Honor Board and members of the Dean’s Office of Bryn Mawr College wish to respect conflicts of interest;

Whereas, all students have the right to have their Dean present at a hearing as stated in Article II, Section A, Subsection 2, Subsection c (recorded above);

Whereas, the Dean of the College may have advisees who find themselves in front of the Honor Board;

Whereas, the current Undergraduate Dean of the College has expressed the importance of having a designee from the Dean’s Office take on her role in hearings so as to respect the rights of the student;

Whereas, this practice has been followed in recent years;

Whereas, the Honor Board would like the Honor Code to properly reflect hearing practices that take into consideration the needs of the student;

Be it resolved, that the Honor Code sections related to hearing procedure be modified so that all mentions of the role of the Dean of the Undergraduate College be followed by “or his/her/their designee from the Dean’s Office”;

Be it resolved, that the Honor Code be adjusted on the SGA blog to reflect this modification upon passing of the resolution;

Be it resolved, that the Honor Board send a modified version of the Honor Code to the Dean’s Office to ensure that future student handbooks be printed to include the most recent version of the Honor Code that reflects this change.

 

Melanie Bahti ’16: This is another change that we’re hoping to make that has been going on for four or five years. I’m going to frame this in terms of Dean Balthazar because she’s the current undergraduate head of deans. When there is an honor board hearing, Dean Balthazar and I co-chair the hearing, but Dean Balthazar is also a personal deal to students. Dean Balthazar can’t co-chair and ask as a dean to a student during a meeting. We’re asking her to appoint someone as co-chair and then she can have space to support her students.

 

SA: The floor is now open to questions for pro/con/question statements. Please approach the mike or make yourself known.

 

The resolution came to a vote and passed.

 

Resolution 3: Increase Books on Reserve in Library
Submitted by Rachel Massey ‘18

 

Whereas; Many Bryn Mawr courses exceed an enrollment number of twenty

 

Whereas; This is particularly true for introductory level courses, and other courses that fulfill distribution requirements

 

Whereas; Bryn Mawr libraries typically have one book or course text on reserve for many of these courses

 

Whereas; Bryn Mawr libraries only allow students to check out books or course texts on reserve for three hours at a time, with the possibility of two renewals

 

Whereas; Students are given assignments to complete within the first week of classes, when they may be unable to obtain a book from the bookstore, or order it in time to complete their coursework without utilizing the books or course texts on reserve

 

Whereas; Students with limited schedules due to other classes, work study, extracurricular activities, other school-sponsored activities or with responsibilities or interest that extend in to the community have difficulty finding a time in which the one book or course text on reserve is available

 

Whereas; Textbook prices have risen dramatically over the past few years without considering the potential financial impact on students and their families

 

Whereas; Much of a college student’s work requires extensive reading for a full and rich understanding of the course material

 

Resolved, the student body recommends that Bryn Mawr libraries will increase the number of books and course texts on reserve so that there is at least one book available for every twenty students enrolled in a course, while acknowledging that modifications to the amount of textbooks or course texts remain amendable depending on the course need, to better provide for the student body’s academic needs.

 

 

 

Rachel Massey ’18: This resolution is trying to allow for there to be more textbooks on reserve on the library. It’s supposed to aide students mitigate the cost of buying books. It’s a more approachable and accessible way to access textbooks. It saves students time and energy rather than scramble for money or time to collect textbooks.

 

SA: the floor is now open to questions. Please alert microphone moderator for questions.

 

Sarah Little ‘17: Have you made a plan to get a budget specifically for textbooks on reserve?

 

RM: I’ve talked to Gina little, and she said that there is a move from faculty to put money available for students to get books on reserve.

27 mintes

 

Aleja Newman ‘18: This is a pretty relevant resolution because a lot of students feel that they don’t have access to textbooks, and it will really help a lot of students who come to Bryn Mawr. I really appreciate your resolution.

 

Heidi Gay ‘15: How do you plan to pay books for classes that aren’t offered regularly?

 

Rachel Massey ’18: For classes that aren’t offered very often, we are looking to work with faculty in the library to have a book on reserve for that semester. This is going to take a lot of interaction between Gina (head of libraries) Mary Osirim (provost) and us to voice concern about lack of books that are on reserve. We are working to get books in and out of circulation for when they’re needed. When it comes to more specific questions, I would be open to amendment resolution that if books are need, we can talk to student/professor.

 

Shakari Badgett ‘17: What about digital course texts?

 

Rachel Massey ’18: Do you mean texts on moodle?

 

Shakari Badgett ‘17: No, just books that are online?

 

Rachel Massey ’18: We’re in the beginning planning stages of getting books that are only available digitally.

 

The resolution came to a vote and passed.

 

 

Resolution 4: Updating the General Language of the SGA Constitution

Submitted by Madelaine Dubin ‘16 and Brenna Levitin ‘16

 

Whereas, the Constitution of the Self-Government Association does not accurately describe the ways in which the Self-Government Association currently operates,

 

Whereas, the Self-Government Association Constitution has not been maintained in a way which promotes consistency and usability,

 

Whereas, the Constitution has several grammatical and spelling errors,

 

Whereas, consistency in articles should be improved,

 

Whereas, repetition of Representative Council responsibilities under each position is unnecessary,

 

Whereas, the descriptions of the Off-Campus Representative and Haverford Representative positions can be restructured to promote clarity,

 

Whereas, the Treasurer’s task of keeping time at Self-Government Association meetings is not assigned in the Constitution,

 

Whereas, the Secretary does not preside over the Members-at-Large,

 

Whereas, the Office of Intercultural Affairs now falls under the Pensby Center,

 

Be it resolved, that the changes listed in Appendix A be made to the Constitution.

 

Appendix A:

 

Changes will be as follows:

 

That the use of any form of “Association” when referring to the Self-Government Association in Article I, Section I, Subsections A, C, and D; Article I, Section II, Subsection A, D, E, and F; Article II, Section I, Subsection A; Article II, Section II, Subsection A; Article III, Section I, Subsection B, Points 2 and 6; Article III, Section I, Subsection D, Points 2 and 6; Article III, Section I, Subsection E, Point 9; Article III, Section I, Subsection F, Point 5; Article III, Section II; Article IV, Section I, Subsection A; Article IV, Section I, Subsection D, Point 4; Article IV, Section I, Subsection E, Points 2 and 3; Article IV, Section I, Subsection F, Point 3; Article IV, Section I, Subsection H, Point 2; Article IV, Section I, Subsection I, Point 7; Article IV, Section II, Subsections A and B; Article IV, Section III, Subsections A and R; Article VIII, Section I, Subsection A; Article VIII, Section II, Subsection A; Article IX, Section I; and Article X, Section I, Subsection A shall be changed to “SGA,”

 

That the use of “the entire Association” shall be changed to “all members of SGA,”

 

That the use of “Amendment” in Article I, Section II, Subsection F shall be changed to “amendment,”

 

That the use of “Faculty and Administration and Students” in Article III, Section I, Subsection B, Line 5 shall be changed to “faculty, administration, and students,”

 

That the use of “assembly” in Article II, Section I, Subsection E shall be changed to “Assembly,”

 

That the use of “office” in Article III, Section I, Subsection C, Line 1 shall be changed to “Office,”

That the line “If there are two people holding office, only one Representative is required to be present at meetings of the Representative Council.” shall be added to Articles IV, Section I, Subsections D and E,

 

That the phrase “Committee on Public Safety” in Article II, Section I, Subsection C; Article IV, Section I, Subsection N, Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8; Article VI, Section VIII; Article VI, Section VIII, Subsection A; Article VI, Section XI, Subsection B; Article VII, Section II, Subsections I, J, and K shall be changed to “Campus Safety Committee,”

 

That the phrase “Public Safety” in Article IV, Section I, Subsection N, Points 3 and 4 shall be changed to “Campus Safety,”

 

That Article IV, Section I, Subsection A read as:

Subsection A: The Representative Council shall act as the Voting Body of the Assembly and SGA.

Representatives shall attend and participate in the Representative Council meetings.

Representatives will vote on behalf of the representative’s constituents in Representative Council meetings.

Representatives may serve on committees formed by the Representative Council.

Representatives shall participate in achieving the Representative Council’s long and short term goals.

 

That all remaining Sections be numerically adjusted,

 

That the following lines be removed as they are now satisfied by Article IV, Section I, Subsection A: Article IV, Section I, Subsection B, Points 2, 3, 5, and 6; Article IV, Section I, Subsection C, Points 2, 3, 4, and 5; Article IV, Section I, Subsection D, Points 7, 8, 9, and 11; Article IV, Section I, Subsection E, Points 4, 5, 6, and 7; Article IV, Section I, Subsection F, Points 5, 6, 7, and 8; Article IV, Section I, Subsection G, Points 4 and 5; Article IV, Section I, Subsection H, Points 5 and 6; Article IV, Section I, Subsection I, Points 11 and 12; Article IV, Section I, Subsection J, Points 7 and 8; Article IV, Section I, Subsection K, Points 9 and 10; Article IV, Section I, Subsection L, Points 4 and 5; Article IV, Section I, Subsection M, Points 5 and 7; Article IV, Section I, Subsection N, Points 7 and 9; Article IV, Section I, Subsection O, Points 3 and 4; Article IV, Section I, Subsection P, Point 4; Article IV, Section I, Subsection Q, Point 3,

 

That Article IV, Section I, Subsection D, Point 1 should be changed from “The Haverford Representative, which shall represent the Association Members Residing at Haverford College, may be held by two people.” to “The Haverford Representative(s) may be held by two people,”

 

That the phrase “Office of Intercultural Affairs” in Article II, Section I, Subsection C and Article IV, Section I, Subsection Q shall be changed to “Pensby Center,”

 

That the statement “The Treasurer shall keep time at all meetings of SGA.” be added to Article III, Section I, Subsection D as Point 9,

 

That the statement “The Secretary shall call and preside over meetings of the Members-at-Large.” be removed from Article III, Section I, Subsection E, Point 3 and that subsequent lines be renumbered accordingly,

 

That the words “Web site” in Article III, Section I, Subsection E, Point 10 shall be changed to “website.”

 

 

Madelaine Dubin ‘16: This resolution is just updating outdated information in the constitution. Like Office of Intercultural Affairs, which is know called the Pensby Center, or changing The Committee on Public Safety to Campus Safety, since the office title has also changed. We just want to change these to reflect current titles and trends. Also cleaning up the language like changing words like “website” or incorrect capitalization.

 

Kate Hinchey ‘16: I have a question: Doesn’t changing the office of Intercultural Affairs to Pensby Center make it less accessible?

 

Madelaine Dubin ‘16: The office of intercultural affairs no longer exists. they felt that OIG did not accurately describe everything Pensby offers. Though the title Pensby Center is descriptive, it’s more accurate of how the Pensby Center and office functions.

 

 

Resolution 5: Extending the Resignation Period for Assembly Members to Align with Elections By-Laws

Submitted by Molly Mac Dougal ‘16

 

Whereas, Article VIII, Section 1, Subsection E of the Constitution states that “Any member desiring to resign from the SGA Assembly shall submit a written resignation, no less than two weeks prior to official resignation, to the Secretary of SGA who shall present it to the Assembly for action,”

 

Whereas, the Elections By-Laws dictate an elections cycle to take three weeks, as exhibited in Appendix A, including: Nominations that “begin two weeks before the election and run for one week” (Article I, Section 1, Subsection A), a Candidates Forum that is held the week before the election (Article III, Section 1, Subsection A), Campaigning that begins the morning after Candidates’ Forum (Article VI, Section 1), voting, which is to be held on a Monday and Tuesday (Article VIII, Section 1), and run-offs, which are to be held on a Thursday and Friday (Article VIII, Section 2),

 

Whereas, rushing an elections round to have a replacement for a resigning Assembly Member violates these by-laws,

 

Whereas, rushing a process does not necessarily allow for proper information dissemination or identification of all interested candidates,

 

Whereas, the length of the resignation period has previously presented problems for running an emergency election (March 2014 Emergency Election), preventing interested voters from voting,

 

Be it resolved that, Article VIII, Section 1, Subsection E of the Constitution be amended to read “Any member desiring to resign from the SGA Assembly shall submit a written resignation, no less than three weeks prior to official resignation, to the Secretary of SGA who shall present it to the Assembly for action.”

 

Be it resolved, that the amended clause in the Constitution is sent to the Dean’s Office to be updated in the Handbook and the Webmistress/master/mistex to be updated on the blog.

 

 

Week Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 Nominations Begin! Nominations Nominations Nominations Nominations Nominations Nominations
2 Nominations Nominations & Info Sessions Info Sessions Info Sessions Candidates Forum Campaigning Campaigning
3 Campaigning Voting Voting Result Tabulation Run-Offs Run-Offs Result Tabulation

Appendix A

 

 

I want to change the resignation period from two weeks to three weeks to fit the election cycle and give more options to people who want to run for positions.

 

The resolution came to a vote and passed.

 

 

Resolution 6: Halal Meal Options for Muslim Students

Submitted by Alizeh Amer ‘16

 

Whereas, it is mandatory for all students living on campus to enroll in the unlimited meal plan;

 

Whereas, lack of protein in diet may lead to adverse physical and mental effects, such as arthritis, muscle deterioration, heart problems and severe depression, anxiety and fatigue;

 

Whereas, many Muslim students observe the religious practice of only eating meat that is Halal – pertaining to certain meats that cannot be eaten such as pork and for permissible meat such as chicken to be slaughtered in a specific way;

 

Whereas, lack of halal meat options effectively limits some students to vegetarian and vegan options;

 

Whereas, lack of halal meat options may create a spiritual dilemma for students choosing between their physical needs and religious practices;

 

Be it resolved, the student body recommends Dining Services to provide more halal options for Muslim students in the Dining Halls.

 

Be it resolved, Executive Director of Dining Services Bryn Mawr/Haverford and Associate Director of Dining Services will continue to take steps to provide pre-prepared microwavable halal meals for students on an individual basis.

 

Alizeh Amer ’16: So this resolution means that Halal options would be accessible to students. Halal is a type of restriction on meats that Muslims can eat. Muslims believe that Halal meat is cleaner and it’s healthier, so that’s the only meat a lot of Muslims eat. It can cause a lot of distress for Muslim students who don’t want to do eat non-Halal meat that isn’t available. I’ve spoken to Dining Services about expanding options, and they’re really receptive. They’re willing to increase more options for statements.

 

Brenna Levitin ‘16: Can you explain how is this different from the current procedure?

 

Alizeh Amer ‘16: As of last week, there was no procedure. The step they took immediately was to provide microwaveable meals, and that’s a short-term solution. Depending on the interest in this, they’re willing to include more options. Before this resolution was created, there were no options. This resolution brought them to change some options this shows that they’re continuing to change and improve options available to students.

 

Brenna Levitin ‘16: So they don’t buy Halal meat for students? How is the resolution than what they do now?

 

Alizeh Amer ‘16: This is putting it into institutional memory that it is provided and will continue to be provided, and that better options should be sought. provided.

 

BL: it just says that it’s pre-prepared meat.

 

Alizeh Amer ’16: This resolution puts it into memory to put forward a policy that the dining services will provide more options for Muslim students.

 

Sarah Powell ’15: We have a proposed amendment. Our amendment, as the same challenge face Jewish students, we propose to add “and/or Jewish students” after Jewish “and or kosher” to the amendment.

 

SA: Is this a friendly or unfriendly amendment?

 

Sarah Powell ’15: It’s a friendly

 

SA: please give amendment to Alizeh and Charlie. We will now have a discussion about the proposed amendment.

 

Alison Robbins ‘17: I’m in favor of this amendment, because it has to do with nutrition, in that a lack of protein in a diet can lead to adverse affects. Speaking from personal experience of having a restrictive diet, I’ve celebrated traditions here and been malnourished for several days.

 

SA: questions

 

Hannah Rifkin: I was wondering if Halal is always kosher meat, or if kosher is always halal.

 

Alizeh Amer ‘16: I don’t know! Right now the meals that are being prepared, the boxes that are being prepared say both Halal and kosher, so the way that eating are prepared to accommodate both.

 

Stacy Horesh ’15: All kosher meat is halal, but halal is not up to same standards as halal.

 

Point of order: isn’t questions supposed to go between questions/pro mike

 

Sa: all mikes alternate.

 

It says questions are given priority.

 

SA: if we are two more minutes left, then questions are prioritized

 

Faatimah Jafiq’15: I have a point of information and question: in regards to kosher and halal meat, many halal students can’t eat kosher meat, people have religious preferences and those differ. The people who proposed the friendly amendment: I know there are different rules/regulations about keeping halal and kosher kitchen in the same kitchen. For halal meat, you need to separate it from just regular meat, whereas with kosher you have to keep it from everything. How do you think that this will impact the way this amendment is executed?

 

SP: The reasons we used the phrase “and/or kosher” is to acknowledge that not all Muslims can eat kosher. If there were kosher meals were available, kosher meals would be available to Jewish students. The entire thing is a recommendation.

 

Eliana Chavkin ’17: Recognizing the rules Passover meals are very complicated, would it be possible to explain kosher regulations to the dining halls?

 

SP: the dining hall provides certain options during Passover. I would recommend it under that first be it resolved a list of specific requirements.

 

**’16: I’m a kosher food service professional. If dining hall is working to find stuff, I can provide advice on how to negotatiate this in an industrial kitchen.

 

SA: are there any questions/statements regarding

 

Madelaine Dubin ‘16: I have a parliamentary of inquiry about the use of point of information vs. point of clarification.

 

Syona Arora ’15: Point of information is a question and point of clarification is for giving information.

 

Madelaine Dubin ’16 made a motion to extend time until the end of speaking order of the amendment, three people.

 

Faatimah Jafiq ’15: For the kosher prepared meals, do they have halal meal? (yes) kosher meat can be eaten by halal students. How can you assure that Muslims will not be forced to eat josher meat?

 

Alizeh Amer ’17: everyone has individual beliefs about whether they can eat kosher and halal. All of the options will be clear and distinct. They may overlap; students will know when something is kosher or halal.

 

Sarah Powell: this is why and/or will be added to resolution.

 

Rachel Feynman ‘15: I have been organizing the Passover food for the past three years, dining services gives us most of our food, and we just prepare it kosher during Passover. People who are part of dining plan, can come to Aelwyd and get food.

 

Stephanie Feldman ’15: Could the students possibly utilize gluten free room with separate fridges to prevent cross contamination? Could they just cook it in the dining halls?

 

Aa: one of the biggest challenges that dining services does not have the capacity to cook these foods. They cant provide kosher food if they don’t have facilities. I don’t see in foreseeable future to have them cook something in dining hall.

 

Stephanie Feldman’15: Do you just want microwaveable things? Will there be hot food

 

Aa: They will not be prepared in the dining hall, but maybe brought in from outside company.

 

SA: We will now move to vote on this amendment.

 

The amendment moved to a vote and was passed, meaning it was added to the resolution.

 

SA: we have 8 minutes left for this discussion.

 

Aleja Newman ‘17: I have two questions: one, if we are having these separate meals, a lot of students wont feel comfortable using this microwave, could you provide a separate microwave?

 

AA: I haven’t asked about that, I haven’t had a need for that, but if another one of the students wants to take that, they could do that.

 

Cat long ’15: Should your resolution be passed, have you had discussions with dining services about the budget

 

AA: Right now, the microwaveable meals are being offered because it is within the budget, and it is their responsibility to do that. In terms of catering, that’s a long-term solution that needs to be negotiated.

 

Aleja Newman ‘17: second question, would it be 100% sure that students wouldn’t have to pay extra for Halal/kosher?

 

Aa: students would not have to pay extra

 

Faatimah Jafiq ’15: In regards to the amount of food people would be able to get, how can dining services there is enough meat being provided?

 

Aa: Right now there is a survey that will go around, which I will try to make more largely available, which has a question saying would you like halal meat and how many times a week would you like it? There’s a limited budget, but we’re doing this to gauge number of students interested.

 

Stacy Horesh ’15: would it be possible at the beginning of the year that you write what you want for dining services options. We can option signing up students for this specific plan so students can have access to this plan without having to have a survey.

 

Aa: That’s a great idea. The survey is going around to provide for the immediate needs. Thank you for your suggestion, we’ll employ that in future years.

 

The resolution with the amendment came to a vote and passed

 

 

Resolution 7: College participation in SEPTA’s University Pass Program: 10% Discount SEPTA TrailPasses
Submitted by Rae Hamilton ’15 and Jacqueline Slaby ‘15

Whereas, the Bryn Mawr Community is aware of the growing transportation costs to get into Philadelphia and surrounding areas;

Whereas, there are bodies of people on campus who would benefit from having a discount pass program- such as but not limited to McBride Scholars, faculty, and staff;

Whereas, students and employees would be able to opt-in to the program at the beginning of each semester;

Whereas, students and employees who choose to participate in the University Pass Program will have unlimited rides on SETPA’s trolley, bus, subway and Regional Rail services for the duration of that month/semester the pass stipulates;

Whereas, this will encourage students to seek opportunities off campus and explore the communities around, thus enriching their academic, social, and civic activities;

Whereas, other institutions of higher education in Philadelphia have been successful in implementing a SEPTA university pass program;

Whereas, this program would be a separate initiative and would not affect the ‘Five Complementary’ SEPTA tickets Student Activities offer to students on a semester basis;

Whereas, a survey conducted by two current Bryn Mawr students who serve on SEPTA’s Youth Advisory Council, Rae Hamilton ‘15 and Jacqueline Slaby ‘15 reveals 96% of surveyors indicated that if they were to participate in the University Pass Program they would be more likely to use SEPTA and seek opportunities off campus. if the student body would be in favor of Bryn Mawr’s participation in SEPTA’s University Pass Program (under Appendix A);

Whereas, in the same survey 97% of surveyors expressed their support of Bryn Mawr College’s participation in the University Pass Program (under Appendix B);

Be it resolved, the student body recommends Bryn Mawr College to match SEPTA’s 5% discount to provide a 10% discount on TrailPasses for students and employees as a participant in SEPTA’s University Pass Program by Spring 2015.


Appendix

 

  1. SEPTA’s University Pass Program Survey: Future Discount Options – Students

Prepared by Rae Hamilton ‘15 and Jacqueline Slaby ‘15

 

  1. SEPTA’s University Pass Program Survey: Fall 2014 Plenary Resolution – Petition

Prepared by Rae Hamilton ‘15 and Jacqueline Slaby ‘15

 

Jaqueline Slaby ’15: To make sure everyone understands: you are able to opt into the pass program, if Bryn Mawr signs up for pass program, it does not mean that you are obligated to sign up for program. Bryn Mawr would sign up for zone three, because that’s where it is on the regional rail. That means you would be able to use the r5 regional rail, the high-speed line, any trolley services, subway for unlimited. As long as services are available during the day. Once Bryn Mawr signs up for the program, students will chose whether or not to opt in for a month basis or semester basis.

 

Pamudu Tennakoon ‘15: The cost to get a semester pass is 585$ without the discount, that would result in three round trips into the city every week. Is this feasible for the majority of the student body?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ’15: it would help to commuters. It would also be offered to employees, a lot of staff, especially dining services would be helped through this. Based on survey results, out of 168 responses, 161 said they would, if they decided to opt into program, they would take advantage of stuff off campus. I think this program would encourage people to seek internships or jobs or entertainment off campus. If Bryn Mawr wants to sign up, not everyone would want to do it.

 

Shakari Badgett: Will this affect the complimentary SEPTA passes?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ‘15: As we said in the whereas clause, it would not effect free septa passes that student activities provides. If Student Activities wants to continue that, it’s unrelated to this resolution. We would be in favor of complementary tickets to be ongoing for students who don’t use pass.

 

Kelechi ’15: I’m in support for this resolution, as a student its difficult to go into Philadelphia, and having this program makes it convenient for all students to have access. I feel like that’s something that, as a senior, I would’ve appreciated, because I didn’t have funds/opportunities to do that before. I feel like having this program would provide more opportunities at Bryn Mawr.

 

Stacy Horseh ’15: Would Bryn Mawr being paying for it? Would this increase tuition?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ’15: Septa sells those passes to Bryn Mawr at five percent discount, and Bryn Mawr matches that 5%, so students and employmees get 10% discount. So yes, Bryn Mawr invests in this. Students have to sign up for it though. Students would sign up a month in advance. Bryn Mawr collects fee from student and pays the 10% discount.

 

Elizabeth Anne Newberry ’16: Would be applicable to take classes at Penn. For students taking class there, they have to pay for money up front, which is difficult.

 

Jaqueline Slaby ‘15: This program is open to all students and employees. We want students to feel comfortable to take classes in the city.

 

Jenn Thoman ’15: Most of the McBrides spends 163$ on septa passes per month. I as a McBride am in favor of this resolution. This program would make it easier for us to be here.

 

Prerana Vaddi ’16: My first question is, do you know what the numbers are for monthly pass. In terms of frequency and numbers, is it cheaper to get a monthly pass than it is through the semester, and are students who live off campus are compensated?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ‘15: Only students who live in Overbrook are compensated, no one else is. Monthly passes or semester passes would be very good for students who see themselves going on a regular basis into the city. For example, for a Penn class or an internship. If you see yourself going into city once a month, it would be better to opt in for five complementary round trip tickets students from student activities. This program is to give students the option to have a discount as opposed to just a complimentary pass. (Secretary note: there are only three complimentary round trip tickets from Student Activities per semester per student)

 

Prerana Vaddi: How much does each plan cost?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ‘15: It would cost 580 a semester, and 150 per month. I will double check and publish that later on.

 

Juliett Jeb ’17: You said Bryn Mawr would match the price, where is money coming from?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ‘15: Once Bryn Mawr signs up, their match is based off of how many people would opt into the program, If they chose to sign up, we would have further discusions on how where the money would come from.

 

Juliet Jeb ’17: Would it affect students who do not want the tickets?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ’15: It would be part of discussion.

 

Aleja Newman ‘17: I think that this is helpful for professors who live on campus; it would allow students to suggest classes off campus. It would allow classes to be more interactive. Having a monthly pass will encourage people to get out.

 

Hannah Rifkin ‘16: Point of clarification: student activities provides three septa passes, however they don’t purchase enough for the whole student body. Last semester, they actually ran out. Who have you talked to about financing this? And what have you learned about where this will come from?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ‘15: We have had discussions with Mary Beth Horvath, and we will have more discussions about how to implement this.

 

Kate Hinchey ’16: I think that there’s a misconception that McBrides are subsidized. I pay 2100 $ a year to septa transportation, so even a 10 percent discount would bring it down a lot. There’s a lot of contention speaking about where this funding will come from for students who don’t pay for this. It’s also important to think that my student activities fees go to dorm parties that I don’t participate in.

 

There was a motion to extend time until the end of the speaking order.

 

Libby Wilson ’16: I’m in a praxis class; theoretically the college pays for travel. However, we’re not always reimbursed. Could you discuss this with a praxis coordinator to figure out how to include this pass into the program?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ‘15: We have not had discussions with Nell Anderson, the praxis coordinator. This program is open to all Bryn Mawr students, so you are welcome to opt in, but we can have further discussion with Nell.

 

Shakari Badgett ‘17: Would it also be possible to charge to students account so they wouldn’t have to put the money up front?

 

Jaqueline Slaby ‘15: I have a survey that went out. we had a survey that had different choices for how to opt out. People could choose to opt in on a monthly basis, a semester basis, or have it billed as part of your tuition. It would not be charged to all students. We would need to discuss it further with Bryn Mawr if we use this option.

 

Angel Suero ‘16: I have a proposed amendment: Be it resolved the student body recommends Bryn Mawr college provides options for independent state passes in addition to ticket price decrease.

 

Jaqueline Slaby ‘15: The resolution would not affect tickets at all. That’s a separate project that student activities does. That’s for people who use septa once.

 

Faatimah Jafiq ‘15: Is she proposing to introduce independence passes in lieu of tickets that student activities provides?

 

Angel Suero ‘16: The amendment is to have the option of independence passes in lieu of tickets.

 

Faatimah Jafiq ‘15: The budget would decrease because tickets are not available for students, because independence day passes cost more. We could still provide it, but it would come on a first come first serve basis, I don’t know how favorable student activities is for this change of amendment students.

 

Brenna Levitin ‘16: I don’t believe this amendment is relevant to the septa. This resolution is about the university pass program and your amendment is relevant to student activities. I would suggest that you bring this up as a separate plenary resolution.

 

(Student did not say their name or class year, or write down their name) I don’t know what an independent state pass is.

 

Syona Arora ‘15: They are day passes for unlimited use of SEPTA.

 

Dixie Oulette ‘15: Point of clarification: independence passes are 12$.

 

Angel Suero ‘16: We decided to table this amendment for a later plenary.

 

Syona Arora ‘15: We finished the discussion for the resolution. The amendment is tabled. We will now go on to a vote.

 

The amendment went to a vote and the resolution was passed

 

Resolution 8: Reflecting the integration of Civic Engagement and Career and Professional Development into LILAC through SGA Representative Council
Submitted by Swetha Narasimhan ‘15

 

Whereas, in the Self-Government Association Constitution, in Article IV, Section I, Subsection P, it states that “The Civic Engagement Representative shall attend meetings of the CEO and serve as a liaison between CEO and the Assembly.”

 

Whereas, the formerly known Civic Engagement Office, abbreviated CEO, has changed its name to Civic Engagement, abbreviated CE,

 

Whereas, Civic Engagement and Career and Professional Development, abbreviated CPD, have joined forces to form Leadership Innovation Liberal Arts Center, abbreviated LILAC,

 

Whereas, LILAC aims to promote interaction with students as much as possible,

 

Whereas, the Representative Council should include a liaison from the whole office of LILAC, not just the CE branch,

 

Whereas, a student representative to the CPD would widen the staff of campus represented in the Representative Council,

Whereas, CPD and CE will remain distinct offices with distinct purposes under the umbrella of LILAC,

 

Whereas, the Self-Government Association should strive to support the changes implemented by offices on campus that act as student resources,

 

Whereas, student representation from a variety of offices and resources on campus is important,

 

Be it resolved, that there be created LILAC representatives to the SGA Representative Council consisting of two positions entitled “LILAC: Civic Engagement Representative” and “LILAC: Career and Professional Development Representative”

 

Be it resolved, that Article IV, Section I, Subsection P, be changed to read “The Civic Engagement Representative shall attend meetings of the CE staff and serve as a liaison between CE and the Assembly.”

 

Be it resolved, that in Article II, Section I, Subsection C, the position of “Civic Engagement Representative” be changed to read “LILAC: Civic Engagement Representative.”

 

Be it resolved, that there be added in Article II, Section I, Subsection C, a position of “LILAC: Career and Professional Development (CPD) Representative.”

 

Be it resolved, that Article IV, Section I, Subsection P be changed to read “LILAC: Civic Engagement Representative”

 

Be it resolved, that Article IV, Section I, Subsection P, #4 be changed to read “The Civic Engagement Representative will consult with the CPD Representative to share one vote representing LILAC in the Self-Government Association Representative Council”

 

Be it resolved, that there be added in Article IV, Section I, a Subsection R: LILAC: CPD Representative, reading:

  1. The CPD Representative shall be held by only one person at any one time.
  2. The CPD Representative shall attend meetings of the CPD and serve as a liaison between CPD and the Assembly.
  3. The CPD Representative may serve as a liaison to SGA-funded groups who might benefit from CPD resources.
  4. The CPD Representative will consult with the Civic Engagement Representative to share one vote representing LILAC in the Self-Government Association Representative Council.

Be it resolved, that the LILAC: Career and Professional Development position be elected through the process of a Special Election to be held soon after Fall Break 2014, and in the future through one of the normal elections rounds.

 

The resolution went to a vote and passed.

 

Resolution 9: Increasing the Number of Nonwhite Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty at Bryn Mawr College

Submitted by Kristian Sumner ‘17

 

Whereas, 15%[1] is the current percentage of nonwhite tenured faculty at Bryn Mawr College,

 

Whereas, there is currently no transparency between Bryn Mawr faculty and students involving attempts to increase the diversity of tenured/tenured-track faculty,

 

Whereas, the entire student body would benefit from more nonwhite tenured faculty at Bryn Mawr College,

 

Whereas, having more nonwhite tenured faculty will help increase the diversity on campus,

 

Whereas, increasing the number of tenured/tenure-track faculty would send the message that the current faculty care about helping diversify the campus,

 

Whereas, the small percentage of nonwhite faculty alienates both the faculty of color and the students of color,

 

Whereas, this percentage is so small the faculty/students of color are often the only person of color in a class or department meeting causing them to be seen as the representative of their race,

 

Whereas, this feeling of having to represent a race leads to students of color not participating in class for fear of having their words judged solely based on their skin color,

 

Whereas, with more tenured/tenure-track faculty of color these students who feel silenced in their classes will have more professors they can identify with and who can help the other professors who are not of color to understand how certain classroom environments can ostracize students of color,

 

Whereas, having more tenured faculty of color will help enact necessary change in the administration involving racial issues that occur on campus,

 

Whereas, these racial quagmires involving faculty and students of color would be handled better if there were more people of color involved in the decision-making process due to the fact that they have personal experience dealing with issues involving race,

 

Whereas, Bryn Mawr College lacks the significant number of tenured/tenure-track faculty of color to create an irrefutable presence on campus,

 

Whereas, this low number of tenured/tenure-track faculty of color inhibits the growth of all students, especially the students of color who do not see themselves sufficiently reflected in the tenured/tenure-track faculty,

 

Whereas, the longer it takes to implement new strategies in hiring more tenured/tenure-track faculty of color, the longer this institution fails to provide an array of successful and professional role models for students of color; “robbing them of material to fuel their aspirations and undermining the sense of hope that they should be able to expect as brilliant and hardworking students”[2]

 

Whereas, it is not the job of current faculty of color or current students of color to educate their colleagues, comrades, and classmates, on the history of race in America and the cultural differences and racial issues still present today, at Bryn Mawr and the rest of America

 

Be it resolved, the faculty of Bryn Mawr College will acknowledge the abysmally low number of faculty of color and the implicit (and explicit) biases at work that prevent them from increasing the number of tenured/tenure-track faculty of color

 

Be it resolved, the current committee(s) whose job it is to seek, to hire, and to appoint tenured/tenure-track faculty will make it their mission to obtain more nonwhite faculty

 

Be it resolved, the committee(s) responsible for hiring tenured/tenure-track faculty will make these decisions with the help of a newly appointed diverse committee of Bryn Mawr students

 

Be it resolved, the faculty diversity representative in each faculty search will be able to have an equal vote

 

Be it resolved, more tenured/tenure-track faculty of color will be hired not just out of necessity (not just to fill a position that was vacated) but because of how awesome they are (as a person and in their research)

 

Be it resolved, the Bryn Mawr College Administration will work with UPENN to open up more of their “Cultural Diversity in the U.S” classes to Bryn Mawr students, or simply hiring more faculty of color to teach many of the same courses, including but not limited to, “Blacks in American Film/TV”, “Homelessness and Urban Inequality”, “South Asians in the U.S”, “Latinos in United States”, and “Race and Ethnic Relations”

 

Appendix

 

Figure 1.

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: So, the part about hiring more faculty of color isn’t just a necessity. Currently, the appointment process is geared towards hiring faculty who fill the need of a specific area of teaching. What I am proposing is to expand the hiring process to include Faculty of color who are doing interesting research that is not necessarily what the college is looking for but innovative nonetheless. Also, about the faculty diversity representative, previously there was someone who was in that spot who was a representative to the hiring committee, but in recent years, that person has become just the faculty representative to the committee. I’d like those positions to be separate, and I would like this position to have a voting as opposed to advisory role in the committee.

 

During the reading of the resolution, quorum was lost. After waiting for 30 minutes, quorum was regained, and we resumed conversation.

 

Sarah Powell ‘15: could you explain how that is different from current policy outlined by Bryn Mawr’s Provost.

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: Are you talking about Target Opportunity hire? Through this process, a committee selects faculty of color known by the members of the committee. This process is flawed; because often what happens with the hiring committee is that they don’t know people of color.

 

Georgina Johnson ’18: By specifically hiring people of color, we would be taking the opportunity away from someone more qualified.

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: There are people implicit and explicit biases that prevent people of color from being hired. This resolution does not enforce that only people of color will be hired. What I hope is that, through this resolution, more people of color will be hired.

 

Annie Morgan ’15: Could you explain why this resolution specifies the hiring of tenure and non-tenure track faculty? Tenure track and non-tenure track are two completely different hiring processes.

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: Before you can become a tenured professor, you need to be in the tenure track project. In the tenure track process, after three years, you go up for review, and then appointed to assisted professor, and then wait another three years to become tenured faculty. Because people of color tend to go straight to tenure, I would like to start with tenured track, but I also wanted to include more faculty who could be non-tenure track to be included.

 

Annie Morgan ’15: Appointing someone to a tenure track position is a process that is completely separate from hiring someone for a position.

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: In order to be tenured, you need to be on the tenure track.

 

Annie Morgan ’15: Yes, I understand that. The review for the promotion to tenure is a process that is completely separate from being appointed as a tenure track.

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: I’m confused by your question.

 

Annie Morgan ’15: Why did you both name both processes?

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: Because they both involve people of color going up for review. The committee that choses these tenure track or up for tenure to faculty both looks over the work of the candidate. This resolution is to make the committee members keep that in mind.

 

Annie Morgan ’15: They’re not always the same committee. These are separate processes and separate committees.

 

Karishma Mansukanhi ’17: Thank you for proposing this resolution. My question is, is there any way to improve current reporting methods? In the documents, it only lists African America, Asian, and Latino as racial identities. It doesn’t distinguish groups. Certain groups are underrepresented.

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: I totally agree, I got these statistics to Bryn Mawr College institutional research. There is something that I found for Race in America that includes more stastics. I could bring this up with the provost.

 

Jessie N ’15: I have a point of information: the language in this resolution uses words like will and implies will, do we have as community the authority to put this kind of language in a resolution. Instead shouldn’t it be “the student body recommends”?

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: this resolution is recommendation itself. The language of the resolution doesn’t change the fact that the resolution itself is recommendation.

 

Aleja Newman ‘15: Two statements: I think Kristian’s point that faculty and students have to speak for their race and people don’t realize how significant that is. Also, to go on the point that Krisitan said that this would give faculty with more opportunity.

 

Makala Forster ’15: I have issue with the statements. “Be it resolved, the current committee(s) whose job it is to seek, to hire, and to appoint tenured/tenure-track faculty will make it their mission to obtain more nonwhite faculty” and “Be it resolved, more tenured/tenure-track faculty of color will be hired not just out of necessity (not just to fill a position that was vacated)”. I find these clauses slightly contradictory,.I hope that the hiring process seeks candidates who are well qualified and people of color.

 

Sarah Powell ‘15: In your explanation that you wanted to create new people of color on campus. Where do you propose the money for these programs will come from? Would there need to be a raise in tuition?

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: I don’t know what this would cause a raise in tuition, what I have heard that the school how it doesn’t have money for things. I think that if school wanted the money, they could find it.

 

Sarah Powell ’15: Do you have any plan to look for recommended source of planning?

 

Kristian Sumner ’17: I haven’t thought about that.

 

Ann Tran ’18: What is a tangible way to see the committee’s recognition of this resolution?

 

There was a motion to extend time until the end of speaking order.

 

Anna Kalinsky ’15: I’m afraid if we continue the discussion, there will be a mass exodus for dinner.

 

Motion to call to question. (This request stops discussion to call resolution to vote, if a vote is called to question, discussion will cease, and the resolution will go to a vote. The motion was passed, and the resolution went to a vote and was passed.

 

Resolution 10: Establishing a Time Limit for Reaching Quorum and Digital Reaffirmation

Submitted by Nora Scheland ’15 and Rebecca Cook ‘15

 

Whereas, Article I, Section II, Subsection C reads that “Plenary shall be held twice during each academic year (once each semester) in accordance with Article VI, Section X. Plenary quorum shall be one-third of the undergraduate student body. At Plenary, a simple majority of those present is required to pass all proposals, amendments to the SGA Constitution, and resolutions.”

 

Whereas, it has been difficult to reach and maintain quorum in recent years (specifically, Fall 2013, where quorum was not reached and Spring 2014, where quorum was reached and then lost),

 

Whereas, it is imperative to maintain self-governance at Bryn Mawr College by holding Plenary,

 

Whereas, it is important that Plenary be held once a semester at Bryn Mawr College due to time sensitive changes and to spread decision making across the academic year as some students are abroad each semester,

 

Whereas, Plenary brings about important changes on campus while allowing students’ voices to be heard,

 

Whereas, the Reaffirmation of the SGA Constitution is essential to the daily operations of the campus and community, allowing for activities like self-scheduled exams and SGA sponsored clubs and events,

 

Whereas, a majority of the student body has expressed a need for a time limit through surveys and Self-Government Association (SGA)-led discussions,

 

Whereas, the SGA Representative Council voted in favor of having a time limit on Sunday, January 26, 2014,

 

Whereas, it is necessary to set down a procedure in the event that the time limit to quorum is reached before quorum has been established and plenary proceedings need to be tabled,

 

Be it resolved, Article I, Section II, Subsection G of the Constitution of SGA of the Undergraduate School of Bryn Mawr College (henceforth known as the SGA Constitution) read, “A time limit of 3 hours will be maintained for reaching quorum at every Plenary. If quorum is attained and later lost, a time limit of 30 minutes will be established to regain quorum. After these 30 minutes have elapsed the waiting period will cease. If quorum has not been reached the attendees will be dismissed. If quorum has been reached plenary will proceed. If quorum is lost again, plenary must end. There will be no subsequent waiting period”

 

Be it resolved, Article I, Section II, Subsection H of the SGA Constitution read, “If quorum is not reached at the Fall Plenary, then resolutions will be tabled until the next Plenary occurs to be brought forth again at the resolution writers’ discretion. Plenary will not have been held that Fall semester.”

 

Be it resolved, Article I, Section II, Subsection I of the SGA Constitution read, “If, before quorum is lost, any resolutions have been presented and voted upon, the results of those votes stand. All other resolutions may be tabled until the next Plenary occurs to be brought forth again at the resolution writers’ discretion. Plenary will have been held at that time.”

 

Be it resolved, Article I, Section II, Subsection J of the SGA Constitution read, “If quorum is reached at the Spring Plenary, the Constitution is reaffirmed, and then quorum is lost, Plenary has been held. All remaining resolutions will be tabled until the next Plenary occurs to be brought forth again at the resolution writers’ discretion.”

 

Be it resolved, Article I, Section II, Subsection K of the SGA Constitution read, “If quorum is not reached at the Spring Plenary, then a Digital Reaffirmation will be held to reaffirm the SGA Constitution. A Digital Reaffirmation will have a quorum of one-half the association. The time limit for quorum will be 48 hours. The Head of the Elections Board and Head of the Honor Board will oversee the vote for the Reaffirmation of the SGA Constitution. All remaining resolutions will be tabled until the next Plenary occurs to be brought forth again at the resolution writers’ discretion.”

 

Be it resolved, Article I, Section II, Subsection L of the SGA Constitution read, “If quorum is not reached for Spring Plenary or the Digital Reaffirmation, then the newly elected SGA Executive Board, SGA Executive Board Emeritae/i/a, Plenary Committee and Representative Council will decide how to proceed. Consequences, which are up to the discretion of these parties as well as the Dean of the Undergraduate College, may include but are not limited to the following: all SGA reimbursements and payments for purchases after the Digital Reaffirmation will not occur, the dissolution of academic and social practices as described in the Bryn Mawr College Honor Code, and the disbandment of the SGA Representative Council.”

 

Nora Scheland ’15: This resolution came out of frustration with not reaching quorum in a short time, or getting quorum and then losing it in plenaries pas. We want to set out a time limit for regaining quorum so that there would be procedures to deal with the worst case scenario: we can’t reaffirm the constitution.

 

Maddie Dubbin ’16: I would like to prose an amendment. By Robert’s rules of order, many of these statements have already been addressed within Robert’s rules of order.

 

Syona Arora ’15: point of information: SGA procedure is loosely based off of Roberts rules of order. By referring to tradition, we have picked and chosen out of Roberts’s rules of order what is appropriate, and that has become procedure. If it’s stated in Roberts’s rules of order, that doesn’t necessarily mean we follow it.

 

Madeline Dubbin ’16: The rule I’m referring to is a rule the notion of a meeting being met or not. So in Roberts rules of order it states that if a meeting occurs, even if the quorum isn’t reached, the meeting has still occurred legally so that if people are interested in changing that, it could be written into the constitution, the meeting happened. So I want to propose to strike several sentences from this resolution, if quorum is not yet reached, the attendees will be dismissed, plenary will proceed, right now I know that we strictly follow Roberts rules of order, Roberts rules of order allows for a motion to take a recess, which means a next meeting time; motion to adjourn, which must be voted on by whole association. Under the second Be it resolved, from spring plenary, we didn’t table them, we had the students rewrite the resolutions, they were technically having to go to writing process again. This is important because, if it is tabled, it is brought up immediately at the beginning of the next meeting. I suggest we strike the second Be It Resolved. For similar reasons I’d like to remove the third and fourth be it resolved statements. All resolutions will be tabled until the next plenary, I feel that this is repetitive

 

Syona Arora ‘15: Is this friendly or unfriendly?

 

Nora Scheland ‘15: It’s unfriendly.

 

Rebecca: The system for plenary is based off of Roberts rules of order, and we incorporate what works for us. Considering past experiences, rescheduling plenary is very difficult.

 

Nora Scheland ‘15: robert’s rules of order is how we conduct meetings. What we’re trying to do is change the constitution, which is how we run SGA and how the constitution is affirmed. We want to change the structure in the constitution. We want to take precedent over Roberts’s rules of order. The constitution doesn’t have sufficient recommendations of what to do when we’ve lost quorum.

 

Madelaine Dubin ’16: It does make sense, but I would like to clarify that Roberts’s rules of order outlines how to conduct business meetings. This will override Roberts’s rules of order.

 

Syona Arora ‘15: Because this is an unfriendly amendment, what I have perceive as happening, that this amendment can be perceived as a separate plenary resolution.

 

Aleja Newman ‘17: It states that the first be it resolved, is there no way for member to suggest motion to extend time?

 

Nora Scheland ‘15: Originally this resolution had said if had lost quorum three times, there would be thirty minutes of waiting. I don’t see why we couldn’t add that, based off of my experiences.

 

Aleja Newman ‘17: the reason why I would ask that, I wanted to ask is because today we needed only three people and that is a situation.

 

Syona Arora ‘15: Are you are proposing an amendment?

 

Aleja Newman ’17: I’m just suggesting that a motion to extend time could be a thing.

 

Syona Arora ‘15: I think that the EBoard and resolution writers have come to the resolution time that the ability to extend time is an implicit extension of the resolution.

 

The resolution went to a vote and was passed.

 

Resolution 11: Inserting Content Warnings in Syllabi
Submitted by Brenna Levitin ‘16 and Emmett Binkowski ‘16

Whereas, the backgrounds and personal histories of the Student Body are diverse,

Whereas, in the spirit of the Honor Code diversity should be recognized,

Whereas, the mental health of the Student Body is an important concern that should be given due consideration,

Whereas, some classes deal with material that could be detrimental to the mental health of the Student Body,

Whereas, the Student Body has the right to emotional security in their classes,

Whereas, the Student Body has the right to know ahead of time the content of class material,

Whereas, students should not need to make themselves vulnerable by communicating triggers with individual professors personally,

Whereas, Content Warnings are defined as, for the purposes of this Resolution,

Notes used to alert people when the content of an internet post, book, article, picture, video, audio clip, or some other media could potentially trigger harmful reactions, such as post-traumatic flashbacks or self-harm,

Be it resolved, that anyone responsible for creating a class syllabus is highly recommended to include Content Warnings for potential triggers in class materials where necessary,

Be it resolved, that recommended Content Warnings include, but are not limited to: sexual assault, domestic violence, abuse (specify one or more of: physical, mental, emotional, verbal, sexual, child abuse), pedophilia, racism, homophobia, transphobia, suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, abortion, gore, drug addiction, and alcohol addiction.

Be it resolved, that a committee be formed to discuss the introduction of content warnings in syllabi, consisting of four students to be appointed by the SGA Appointments Committee, two faculty and/or staff members, one faculty or staff member of the Curriculum Committee, and one representative of Access Services.

Brenna Levitin ’16: So we had a couple of classes together last fall where the professor didn’t given warning so that we could have prepared and taken care of our mental health. This resolution was born out of that conversation. There is a lot of student support for putting content warnings in syllabi.

 

Quorum was lost again. After 30 minutes, it was regained.

 

Katie Guye ’15: Because this is the second time this resolution has been presented, I’d like to call to question, ( call to question is a request to cease all discussion­, it requires the discussion to have lasted for at least 10 minutes)

 

There was a vote to call to question

 

Madelaine Dubin ‘16: How do we determine what warrants a content warning?

 

Emmett Binkowski ‘16: I would like to reiterate, we can’t make the professors do anything. We would leave it up to them, we think that the professor knows the course content ahead of time, that they should make the judgment to warn their students.

 

Tahlisa Brogham ‘15: I have a problem with this resolution that will stop people who its not aimed at that, it will seem sacry, and therefore they will be discouraged from these conversations. These topics are essential to education.

 

Briannah Alterman ’15: While I really approve the resolution, I’m concerned that given Oberlin’s change of policy had caused a lot of stir. How does this differ from Oberlin’s policy differ, and how can it benefit? How will it effect the curriculum?

 

Emmett Binkowski ‘16: We’ve spoken to the curriculum committee, so there’s been discussion. We don’t know Oberlin’s policy, so we can’t speak to that.

 

Syona Arora ‘15: If you want to do a point of clarification you have to reenter the mike.

 

Emily Ludwig ’17: I think its really important to open communication between professors and students, and I think that this is another channel to do this. I think that including these trigger warnings would be another way to care for students that need to taken care of

 

Claire Romaine ’17: I have a question. Some history courses deal with these triggers are implicitly, but these things are mentioned are explicit. How do you dear with things that are implicit?

 

Brenna Levitin ‘16: We’d recommend that the professors would work with departments and the committee to discuss the content of courses about the level of implicit and explicit triggers and be in dialogue with committee

 

Makala Forster ‘15: Unfortunately life doesn’t have a content warning or trigger warning, and theseif there are students who have specific .. Problems they should be able to discuss it with professors.

 

Michaela Olson ‘15: you mentioned that you spoke to curriculum committee, what was the response?

 

Brenna Levitin ‘16: They asked to meet with us again, but we couldn’t do it soon. We’re going to have a longer conversation with them soon.

 

Jo Du Tilleul ’17: In response to concerns about these warnings discouraging people to take these classes. I’ve found teachers say that the subject will be hard. In my experience the teachers will likely communicate if the subject has harmful content.

 

Rochelle Waite ‘16: I think that this resolution plays into the collected held belief that people should be comfortable, which is different of feeling safe. Content warnings are different form trigger warnings, because it creates comfort. I don’t think comfort is a productive state of being, especially if you’re trying to do something that is productive in a classroom. There are avenues that students can take to address those issues specifically. If we feel unsafe, we can’t learn, but if we’re too comfortable, we don’t learn.

 

Hannah Rifkin ‘17: last year the curriculum representative said the faculty felt confronted by this resolution, have you felt that you’ve talked to the faculty more about this?

 

Emmett Binkowski ‘16: We didn’t talk about the committee last semester to ensure more dialogue would ensure. I think including faculty on the committee would ensure more dialogue.

 

Brenna Levitin ‘16: In the months since we brought since spring plenary that there’s been increased dialogue, from what I’ve heard the fact that this resolution exists has raised awareness about the resolution should exist.

 

The resolution was set to a vote and passed.

 

Plenary ended at approximately 4:30pm.

 

 

 

 

Appendix A: Suggested formatting for Content Warnings in Syllabi

Example 1:

Monday, January 28:
Screening Leon: The Professional in class
Content warnings include: gore, physical/sexual/child abuse, pedophilia, sexual assault, domestic violence

Example 2:

2/12/2014
The Last Patriarch, p 1-103
CW: sexual assault, domestic violence

 

 

 

 

[1] Statistic received from Stephanie Nixon, Director of Diversity, Social Justice and Inclusion and Title IX Coordinator.

[2] Reference to statement in the 1993 Plenary Resolution addressing racism at Bryn Mawr College. See Appendix Figure 1.

 

Comments are closed.