Plenary 9/25
10:30 Official start of Plenary
3:24 Quorum reached
YJ ’12:
AGENDA
- Overview of Plenary (Welcome)
- Approval of the Rules of Order and Agenda
- Resolution 1: Establishing and Defining the Role of the Bi-Co Liaison
- Resolution 2: Composting Research and Development at Bryn Mawr
- Resolution 3: Reorganization of the Bryn Mawr Concert Series
- Resolution 4: Creation of a Fund for the Residential Council
- Resolution 5: Effective Representation Resolution
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
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.
Priya Saxena ’12:
Establishing and Defining the Role of the Bi-Co Liaison
Presented by Priya Saxena ’12 (Head of the Honor Board).
Whereas, there exists a Bi-College Consortium (Bi-co) between Bryn Mawr College and Haverford College, that is utilized by many students on both campuses.
Whereas, in this exchange, in both academic and social life, there have been cases when students have broken the community standards of the institution other than, of which she/he attends.
Whereas, it has been necessary for the judicial body for Bryn Mawr College and Haverford College to get involved in some of these instances,
Whereas, no such form of communication has been created,
Whereas, differences exist between the Honor Codes, policies, and resources of each institution that is important in circumstances involving a trial or procedure at either institution.
Whereas, the creation of a Bi-Co Liaison would establish communication between the two schools in such circumstances and serve as a resource,
Be it resolved, that if the resolutions are passed at both Bryn Mawr and Haverford’s Plenary, the following addition be included in the Bryn Mawr Self Government Association Constitution: Section C “The Bi-Co Liaison” under Section V “Other Institutions”
e) The purpose of the Bi-Co Liaison is to keep the home institution informed, as well as serve as a source of knowledge about the home institution. The liaison will be responsible to attend any necessary meetings, transporting any necessary documents back to the home institution, and bringing up relevant points that the jury may have thus far neglected to consider.
The liaison at both institutions will be governed by the same set of procedures that were consented by both Bryn Mawr Honor Board and Haverford Honor Council and will be made readily available to the community. Changes to these guidelines that do not conflict with what has already been stated can only be changed with the consent of both the Bryn Mawr Honor Board and Haverford Honor Council.
Priya Saxena ’12: Last semester SGA voted on the procedures of the bi-co liaison, which would be a role assigned to a member of the Honor Board. This means that if I were being tried at Haverford I would have a member of the Honor Board go with me – not for support, but to transport documents and relay information. The purpose of this resolution is to make sure that resolutions are fair and applicable to the home institution and also to make sure that papers are brought back to because we have lost papers in transit in the past. The procedures of the bi-co liaison have already been approved by Honor Board, the Dean’s Office, the Haveford Honor Council, and SGA. This resolution would make it in constitution and giving it institutional memory.
Resolutions passes.
Daniele Arad-Neeman ’14 and Karen Leitner ’14:
Composting Research and Development at Bryn Mawr
Presented by Daniele Arad-Neeman ’14 and Karen Leitner ’14 (SGA Sustainable Food Committee)
Whereas, Bryn Mawr has made a commitment to make practices on campus more sustainable and “green” by signing the President’s Campus Climate Commitment;
Whereas, all of our compostable food waste is currently incinerated with the rest of the college’s waste;
Whereas, this waste releases 9,108 lbs of carbon a year;
Whereas, there is significant student support for a composting program as demonstrated by surveys and research done in Erdman dining hall by the 2010-11 Environmental Studies Senior Seminar;
Whereas, Dining Services has expressed interest in working with the Sustainable Food Committee on composting in the dining halls but both lack administrative oversight and financial support;
Be it resolved, Bryn Mawr students support the efforts of the Sustainable Food Committee in their efforts to conduct research for the creation of a comprehensive composting program on campus.
Daniele Arad-Neeman ‘14: Essentially this resolution is about demonstrating student support for research on implementing a composting program on campus – a lot of other colleges have one already. This is an initiative of the Sustainable Food Committee, which is an SGA committee. We want to raise awareness since there are many groups looking to be involved in composting. We will be holding meetings open to the whole campus. We want people to know what we’re doing and make this happen in the next few years.
Julia Fahl ’12: This is a small campus. Composting smells bad. Has that been taken into consideration?
Daniele Arad-Neeman ‘14: We met with dining services. We’re meeting with Swat to talk about how their composting program works. We’re looking into having farms pick up the compost every few days. There are also machines with a bio-filter. It will take a few years to get infrastructure for that, but they would take less time and money for upkeep. It would not be as you said, a smelly pile. Everything would happen in the machine.
Emily Tong ’13: What do you mean by support? Are we voting on financial commitment or time commitment?
Daniele Arad-Neeman ‘14: This is not a financial commitment. We wanted to raise awareness. This resolution is only on research and making that happen so we can get to a place where we have composting program.
Karen Leitner ’14: We need to make sure it’s economically feasible. We might to some grant writing.
Emily Tong ‘14: Grant writing for the research?
Daniele: No, the grants would be to implement the program. We would do research then write grants. This resolution is just about research.
Matanda Mondoa ’15: Where would the compost go? Would it go to the community garden outside Haffner and Wyndam or would it go to a local farm?
Daniele Arad-Neeman ‘14: We’re going to figure that out once we know about more about getting the machine. Ultimately, we’d like to bring it back to the community.
Karen Leitner ’14: We’d love for you to be a part of the conversation about that.
Daniele Arad-Neeman ’14: We’re going to have a big meeting to give people a chance to express any of the ideas they have about the composting program.
Heidi Hoffman ’13: A composting program would involve dealing with a lot of legislation from Merion township. How are you going to work with that?
Daniele Arad-Neeman ‘14: We have a lot of her research from last year. We met with Bernie from dining services. Logistically building any structure takes time, but it’s not impossible. It just takes a lot of work and we’re willing to do that.
Liz Terry ’13: Who would sort the compost?
Karen Leitner ‘14: The goal would be to not create more labor. So it would not be dining hall workers.
Addie Ansell ’12: Is researching the composting program going to be the focus of the sustainable food committee?
Daniele Arad-Neeman ‘14: This will definitely be our focus for the year and next couple of years. However, we’re still going to work on getting local foods in the dining halls and hosting a local food diner every semester. Yes, it will be a priority but it will not detract from the things we already do.
Addie Ansel ‘12: Have you looked into the farms-to-school programs at other college campuses?
Daniele Arad-Neeman ‘14: We’re thinking about it but that’s part of the research we have to do because some of those programs create more waste. There’s a lot of transportation and other factors involved.
Pro Mic:
Ani Chen: I believe this resolution would make Bryn Mawr more competitive in the world of college admissions because other colleges are moving forward with composting programs.
Resolution passes.
Kate Grant ’12 and Lauren Bochicchio ’12:
Reorganization of the Bryn Mawr Concert Series
Presented by Lauren Bochicchio ’12 and Kate Grant ’12 (BMCS Co-Heads)
Whereas, Article VI, Section XII of the Constitution regarding the Concert Series currently reads:
Section XII: The Alternative Concert Series
Subsection A: The position of Alternative Concert Series Head may be held by up to two people, to be appointed by the Appointments Committee from the Association in the spring semester prior to their year of service.
Subsection B: The Appointments Committee shall, at their discretion appoint up to six people to serve on the Alternative Concert Series Committee. The duties of the Alternative Concert Series Committee shall be determined at the discretion of the Alternative Concert Series Head(s).
Subsection C: An Alternative Concert Series Event shall be defined as an event featuring a performing artist brought to campus at the desire of the Association to fill a gap in campus programming and funded by the Alternative Concert Series Fund as outlined in Article VI, Section XII, Subsection D.
Subsection D: The Alternative Concert Series Fund
- Every semester, in consultation with the current Alternative Concert Series Head(s), the Treasurer shall submit a recommended monetary cap for the Alternative Concert Series Fund in the next semester to the Representative Council for approval.
- The source of funding for the Alternative Concert Series Fund can be derived from any SGA account at the discretion of the Treasurer, also at the approval of the Representative Council.
- The Alternative Concerts Series Head(s) shall be responsible for allocating the Alternative Concert Series Fund in accordance with their By-Laws to events on campus that fall under the definition of an Alternative Concert Series Event as defined in Article VI, Section XII, Subsection C.
- The Alternative Concerts Series Head(s) may co-sponsor Alternative Concert Series Events with other campus organizations but they will be held solely responsible for the allocation of the Alternative Concert Series Fund.
- All Alternative Concert Series Events that receiving funding from the Alternative Concert Series Fund shall be approved by the Representative Council before contracts with performing artists are signed. Contracts can be approved anytime after the Alternative Concert Series Fund cap is approved.
Whereas, the series is now known as the Bryn Mawr Concert Series;
Whereas, in the creation of the Bryn Mawr Concert Series it was decided that three officers would be appointed and three would be elected by the members of the Series;
Whereas, booking a performer is often a time-sensitive process;
Whereas, the Bryn Mawr Concert Series must first get approval from Conferences and Events and Student Activities, which itself can be a lengthy process;
Whereas, scheduling a vote of approval by the Representative Council for each artist is often difficult on short notice especially later in the semester;
Whereas, the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Heads and Officers were appointed or elected to their positions on the basis of their previous experience and accountability in booking performers;
Whereas, after deliberation with the Treasurer it was decided that presenting a general list of events at once to the Assembly would make most sense;
Whereas, it was decided at the December 5, 2010 SGA meeting, the Bryn Mawr Concert Series wouldn’t present each artist individually in the future;
Be it resolved, that the Constitution be updated to reflect the changes that were made in the past year regarding the concert series;
Be it resolved, that Article VI, Section XII of the Constitution read:
Section XII: The Bryn Mawr Concert Series
Subsection A: The position of Bryn Mawr Concert Series Head may be held by up to two people, to be appointed by the Appointments Committee from the Association in the spring semester prior to their year of service.
Subsection B: The Appointments Committee shall, at their discretion, appoint up to three people to serve on the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Committee. Members of the Bryn Mawr Concert Series who are eligible to vote shall elect three other officers to serve on the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Committee. Eligibility to vote shall be determined by active membership for at least one semester. The duties of the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Committee shall be determined at the discretion of the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Head(s).
Subsection C: A Bryn Mawr Concert Series Event shall be defined as an event featuring a performing artist brought to campus at the desire of the Association to fill a gap in campus programming and funded by the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Fund as outlined in Article VI, Section XII, Subsection D.
Subsection D: The Bryn Mawr Concert Series Fund
- At the end of every semester, the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Head(s) shall create a budget in consultation with the Treasurer, including a list of events with an estimated date, genre, and cost, to then be approved by the Representative Council. At the beginning of the next semester, the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Head(s) shall present a more finalized schedule to the Representative Council.
- The source of funding for the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Fund can be derived from any SGA account at the discretion of the Treasurer, also at the approval of the Representative Council.
- The Bryn Mawr Concert Series Head(s) shall be responsible for allocating the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Fund in accordance with their By-Laws to events on campus that fall under the definition of a Bryn Mawr Concert Series Event as defined in Article VI, Section XII, Subsection C.
- The Bryn Mawr Concert Series Head(s) may co-sponsor Bryn Mawr Concert Series Events with other campus organizations but they will be held solely responsible for the allocation of the Bryn Mawr Concert Series Fund.
Lauren Bochicchio ‘12: This resolution is officially changing what we’ve already changed in Constitution – the name and the way we budget.
Kate Grant ‘12: Things that have changed are: the name, now there three appointed members of the committee and three elected members, the budgeting process is different. Instead of going to SGA meetings and doing it one artist at a time we’ll have a more generalized list. It takes a while to get a room reserved and figure everything out on the student activities side. We have trouble fitting into SGA meeting and scheduling when to present. There are generally too many steps. We want to constitution to reflect changes that have take place.
Con Mic:
Blair Smith ’12: I’ve been a voting member of SGA for three years, and an active member for four. I have a problem with what was approved. BMCS shouldn’t get $28,000 a semester to bring artists to campus that we don’t approve.
YJ ’12: Point of information: this was voted on by the assembly. They aren’t guaranteed the money that they’re given by the assembly.
Blair Smith ’12: BMCS has approved some, but we haven’t had completely artist approval. The purpose was so they could budget and present artists earlier. I don’t think that’s occurring. BMCS is presenting artists after special events funding has occurred.
Lauren Bochicchio ‘12: We presented the show a couple weeks ago.
Blair Smith ’12: There’s been no approval process.
Kate Grant ‘12: There was an approval of the budget last semester. The understanding we had come to was that we wouldn’t present each artist individually.
Blair Smith ‘12: I’d like to propose the following amendment to Subsection D:
5. All Bryn Mawr Concert Series events must be approved prior to the event taking place by the Representative Council. Events can be presented on an individual basis or in a bulk presentation.
Rebuttal:
Lauren Bochicchio ‘12: The reason we originally did not like this process was because the process is already really lengthy. We have to go through multiple people in order to book an artist. We have to go through conferences events, and with the changing of dates it’s hard to schedule an SGA meeting at the right time. We can’t have agent wait for an offer because it’s likely that the band will be booked somewhere else in that period. While we could present a few artists at an SGA meeting, it’s likely that the artists would change.
Pro and Con for amendment:
Con Mic:
Annafi Wahed ’12: It would be nice to have every arrist approved because it is a lot of work. It’s not an efficient process to book an artist, so it won’t run smoothly. If this ammedment were added, improvements in conference and events would need to happen in addition to it.
Lily Catlin ’13: I think this amendment is unrealistic. We can’t have SGA approve every event a month before when we book artists. It sometimes takes two months or two weeks to arrange everything in order to bring an artist to campus. The time line for the process isn’t always the same. If we can’t say definitely whether someone is coming, lining that up with SGA meetings it hard. We’re not trying to take money and not be accountable for it. We want to let people know what’s going on, but it’s unrealistic to have every artist approved in the way that this amendment suggests.
Pro:
Blair Smith ‘12: It’s possible to make time to book the artist and present at SGA. We need approval and accountability and that’s what SGA is for.
Lauren Bochicchio ‘12: Point of information: All BMCS meetings are open to the public and people can give their opinions about who they think we should book.
Kate Grant ’12: It’s more productive to have people come to BMCS meetings because we’re not booking huge artists. We don’t have the money. SGA assembly members don’t know the artists that we’re booking.
Lauren Bochichhio ‘12: We have between four and five events a semester and we host around 12 artists a semester. There are a lot of complications involved in that.
Unfriendly amendment.
Amendment is not included in the resolution.
Resolution passes.
Julia Fahl ’12:
Changing the Board of Trustees Representative Position to an Appointed Position
Presented by Julia Fahl ’12 (Board of Trustees Representative)
Whereas, the Self Government Association (SGA) is a representative body of and for the Bryn Mawr community,
Whereas, student representation is of great concern to the Bryn Mawr Community and a vital aspect of Self-Governance,
Whereas, recent internal changes in SGA have occurred to increase effective representation across campus,
Whereas, the Board of Trustees Representative receives a vote in the Assembly, but represents no body of students,
Whereas, this position is an important part of student – administrative relations, but requires little input from community members,
Whereas, the primary job of the Board of Trustees Representative is to disseminate information to the student body rather than represent its needs,
Whereas, it is constitutionally mandated that the removing of a position from the general assembly be approved by the community at large,
Be it resolved, that the Board of Trustees position be changed to an appointed position; and the description of the position in Subsection L of the Self Government Association Constitution be removed, thereby changing all of the letters of the subsequent Subsections in Article IV Section I.
Julia Fahl ‘12: I’ve been a Board of Trustees rep since I was a freshman. Having fulfilled for 4 years, I recognize it’s not a representative position. Rather it fulfills more of an appointed position role. I disseminate information, but don’t I represent students at the Board of Trustees meeting. This resolution is a matter of housekeeping. By changing the Board of Trustees rep position to appointed position and removing the vote, we’re ensuring that representative positions in the assembly only represent a body of students and not individuals.
Questions:
Sarah Theobald ’12: Have you thought about making this an elected position that’s not a member of the assembly? The Board of Trustees rep would still be a representation of the student body.
Julia Fahl ‘12: I have thought about it and would be open to a friendly amendment. My thinking was that it would be good to have a process with a more in depth interview in order to choice someone who would have a better understanding of what the Board of Trustees rep needs to do. Making it an appointed position will result in more a qualified Board of Trustees rep. …Not that I’m not qualified.
Resolution passes.
Blair Smith ’12:
Creation of a Fund for the Residential Council
Presented by Lee McClenon ’14 (in absentia) and Blair Smith ’12 (Res-Co Co-Heads)
Whereas, the Residence Council strives to improve the in-residence experience of students while maintaining goals of equality, innovation, and community,
Whereas, the Residence Council hopes to improve collaboration between dorms to achieve the goals stated above,
Whereas, the Dorm Presidents, who serve on the Residence Council, oversee their individual Dorm Discretionary Funds for yearly events,
Whereas, these funds do not carry over year-to-year, cannot be used for long term planning or improvements and are insufficient for urgent projects in dorms,
Whereas, damage of dorm property, regardless of cause, currently falls to dorm residents, putting even greater financial strain on dorms that host open campus events,
Whereas, a fund to serve all dorms and would benefit the residential experience of students,
Whereas, the current head of Residential Life, Angie Sheets is in favor of this plan,
Be it resolved, that Article VI, Section IV of the Bryn Mawr Self Government Association Constitution be amended to include:
Subsection M: The Residence Council shall preside over the Residential Council Fund.
- The Purpose of the fund shall be to cover lasting improvements, replacements or repairs to dorm common spaces beyond what Facilities is able to provide.
- The Residence Council Head(s) shall communicate and work with Facilities on all appropriate projects.
- Proposals for spending from the fund shall be brought forward to the residence council by students, Dorm Presidents or the Residential Council Head(s).
- Approval for spending from the fund must be voted on by the Dorm Presidents, one vote per residence, and shall require a two-thirds majority of quorum.
- The Residence Council Fund shall be allotted $1,000 each semester by the Student Finance Committee and be collective.
- This Fund shall be capped at $8,000.
- When money is expended from this fund, the Residence Council Head(s) must make an announcement about the decision at the next assembly meeting.
Blair Smith ’12: Basically this fund came about at res-co two years ago. A glass table was fallen on by student who then got up and ran away. Replacement of table was the responsibility of the residents of that dorm and the dorm presidents. They had to pay out of pocket for 600 dollar table. The purpose of this resolution is to take care of situations like that and to initiate the improvement of dorm space – Perry and Batten house for example. A res-co fund would facilitate long term projects. It would be $1000 each semester because Tuesday morning group said they didn’t think we were asking for enough (previous we were asking for $500) to create any change on campus. The SGA dues to which you contribute and from which this fund would be drawn will be spent during time at Bryn Mawr.
Katherine Woolls ’12: Where is the $1000 each semester coming from?
BS ’12: SGA dues. It wouldn’t affect the budgeting process, it would just be taken out directly at the beginning of the year.
Pro:
Anna Jaffe ’12: I live in Batten House and we have to budget through SGA. People live in Batten during the summer and the things we buy with SGA funding get trashed over the summer. It would be great to have money that’s allocated for the dorms to initiate improvements.
Vrinda Varia ’13: How will this maintain the accountability of dorm residents for their actions?
Blair Smith ’12: This would be for lasting projects, which would be approved 2/3 major vote in res-co (res-co heads can’t vote). It will increase functionality of living spaces, rather than the amount of people feeling comfortable trashing them.
Pro-Mic:
Kendra Kelly ’13: Bryn Mawr used to have staff member in charge of interior design. The position was eliminated a number of years ago. It falls on housekeepers to fix what’s broken. I support because I think it will fill in for necessary position we don’t have anymore.
Resolution passes
Plenary ends ~ 4:30