Special Events Funding Minutes 2/17/13
Vrinda Varia ‘13: we have two events that qualified for funding through our bylaws. We are going listen to their presentations and then we will go to a vote.
Ana Mejia ‘14: the title of our event is “Re-Mix: Hip Hop and Political Activism.” This event will consist of an open work workshop and open mic performance. Our event is hosted by Mawrters for Immigrant Justice, Mujeres, the CEO, and potentially SGA. We planned to have a spoken word workshop on March 21st from 6pm to 9pm lead by Crystal Leigh Endsley in the Campus Center. We will have the open mic performance in Rhoads Dining Hall on March 22. We will have a DJ, food and refreshments, and have at least 100 people open to the tri-co. The next slide is a description of an example of what we will be leading in the workshop:
- What does it mean to be politically active in today’s generation? How does Hip Hop music shape the political understanding for youth? In what ways can popular culture be used as socially responsible creative expression? With the election of Barack Obama, politically charged lyrics and performances became more frequent in the Hip Hop community. This session provides examples from Hip Hop performances to investigate the potential and possibility in using art as a form of social and political activism.
So more about Crystal Leigh. She is currently a visiting professor in Africana Studies at Hamilton College in New York. She was previously an instructor in Women’s Studies at Penn State. She has a dual Ph.D. in Women’s Studies and Curriculum and Instruction. She is internationally recognized as a spoken word artist, activist, and actor, performing and presenting workshops and lectures both in the US and abroad. Her performances and current research focus on issues of performance and identity and the ways they intersect with feminist pedagogy, race, and popular culture; Hip Hop and cultural production as activism. She is asking for $2500, $250 for lodging, and we will be getting food from Chipotle for $400. The total for this event is $3150. The funding that we have secured is $400 from Mujeres, $100 from MIJ Club, and $250 from the CEO. The amount we are requesting from Special Events Funding is $2400. And now onto why there is a need. Bryn Mawr hosts a lot of activism workshops but these workshop generally attract the same crowd. We need something that will really excite the general student body and get them interested in being politically active. This workshop can engage people and take activism to the next level. We can use the art of spoken word to present a different and creative way to be politically active.
Chloe Baumann ‘14: do you have any ways to ensure that 100 people do show up? How will you publicize?
Ana Mejia ‘14: from my experience for planning for culture shows; we are planning for la gala so we hope to publicize there and attract crowds.
Leslie Castrejon ‘15: I am co-president of Zami which is the LGBTQ student organization for students of color. I am also culture show chairwoman for Mujeres. For Zami, some background information:
- We hosted the first campus wide event for Zami called Zami’s Queer and Culture Conference.
- The purpose was to create a more connected network of queers of color through workshops and discussions with the broad theme of empowerment.
It will be open to all allies and members of college age community. We have 5 colleges and universities that have shown interest and collaboration. There will be a workshop for how to be a good ally. D’Lo will be performing about his experience growing up as a child. D’Lo is a queer Tamil Sri L.A., nkan-American, political theatre artist/writer, director, comedian, and music producer. His political agenda is to explore and challenge immigrant and traditional cultures. D’Lo represents many issues concerning/are of interest to the Tri-Co community such as immigration, gender, and sexuality, activism, and racism. The money that we are asking for from SGA in will be going straight to D’Lo. He is asking for $4000 for the performance, and we have estimated about $1000 for travel and accommodations. So that leads to a total of about $5000. So far we have been asking for funding from clubs, etc. We have gotten collaboration from Active Minds ($500), Rainbow Alliance ($100), Center for Social Sciences ($300), Pensby Center ($1000), and AMO ($1000), and the President’s Office. That brings us to a total of $3400 dollars. The rest is what we are asking for. The event will be on March 29th at 8-10pm in Goodhart Music Room. D’Lo is recognized internationally by many colleges and universities well as performances of rainbow actions. His performance received a grant. He graduated from the New York school of audio and engineering. It is about leaving personal stories through comedy and video. This performance he has been doing internationally. As you can see, he does many things. He is an activist, he is an entertainer, and the reason why we think he is important to bring to Bryn Mawr is because he presents many issues concerning and are important to the Tri-Co community, such as immigration, gender and sexuality, activism and racism.
Karina Siu ‘14: how much are you actually asking for?
Leslie Castrejon ‘15: we are asking for $2000.
Elizabeth Vandenberg ‘16: how many people are you expecting to attend?
Leslie Castrejon ‘15: we are expecting more than 100. In addition to the Trico we have invited other colleges, as well as the seven sisters. We have confirmed more than 7 colleges that have confirmed to come so we are expecting a full event.
Marian Slocum ‘15: will the Goodhart music room be big enough?
Leslie Castrejon ‘15: the capacity is 110.
Chloe Baumann ‘14: along the same lines, you are expecting about 100 people, so what is your plan if you hit over 100 people? Have you considered moving the location.
Amy Chen ‘14: if more people register, then we can move it to Goodhart. It is just that Goodhart is more expensive. The problem is TGH has been booked for the time.
Chloe Baumann ‘14: have you considered Rhoads?
Amy Chen ‘14: no we have not, but we can.
Anna Kalinsky ‘14: if you do expect to go over capacity and if you need more money, what will you do?
Amy Chen ‘14: this is why we are trying to avoid Goodhart; it is because it comes with additional expenses.
Vrinda Varia ‘13: point of information, reserving specific spaces at Bryn Mawr does not cost money. I just want to move this to a vote as soon as possible because we are running out of time.
Sowmya Srinivasan ’13: The first event is asking for $2400, the second is asking for $2000. So theoretically we can fund both of them if you vote to fund both of them.
Vrinda Varia ’13: so we are going to vote. So like Sowmya said, we can fund both events if you think they are both events that will add to Bryn Mawr’s community and should receive funding from Special Events. So our vote is going to broken down into:
- Yes, I approve Re-Mix
- Yes, I approve Zami conference
- Yes, I approve both
- No, I don’t approve special events funding
- Abstain
Special Events Funding Vote:
In favor of Re-Mix only: 1 person
In favor of Zami conference only: 2 people
In favor of both: 27 people
No to special events funding: 0 people
Abstain: 1 person
Vrinda Varia ‘13: both events will be funded through SGA. Thank you for coming out early and getting us through that.
SGA Plenary 2/17/13
Vrinda calls plenary to order at 3:30pm
Vrinda Varia ‘13: welcome to plenary! It is the last meeting of the 2012-2013 exec board! The first meeting of the new board will be held on February 24 at 2pm in the Campus Center. The last two pages of the plenary packet are notes from dining services and a budget overview. Over the past couple of weeks, dining services has presented budget cuts that might happen. They wanted to redo the survey with some financial information in hopes that that might change some of your decisions. Look for a survey on Tuesday that will be sent out on the class list serves. Fill it out with costs in mind. If you have any questions, email Bernie Chung-Templeton at bchung@brynmawr.edu who is the director of Dining Services.
AGENDA
- Overview of Plenary (Welcome)
- Approval of the Rules of Order and Agenda
- Resolution 1: Reaffirmation of the Constitution
- Resolution 2: Community Presentation of Honor Board Abstracts
- Resolution 3: Financial Transparency
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 a 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!
Natalie Kato ‘14, Rebecca Cook ‘15, Syona Arora ’15, Amy Chen ’14, and Amani Chowdhury ’14:
Resolution 1: Reaffirmation of the Constitution
Submitted by Natalie Kato ‘14, Rebecca Cook ‘15, Syona Arora ’15, Amy Chen ’14, and Amani Chowdhury ‘14
Whereas, the Self Government Association of the Undergraduate School of Bryn Mawr College is the first and oldest system of self-governance in the United States,
Whereas, the spirit of self-governance permeates almost every aspect of the
Undergraduate Bryn Mawr College experience,
Whereas, the students of Bryn Mawr College have pledged to work together for the welfare, benefit, and preservation of the community as a whole,
Whereas, we recognize that to reach full potential of our community, we require a commitment on the part of each and every individual,
It is hereby resolved that we, the members of the Self Government Association of the Undergraduate School of Bryn Mawr College present today, the 17th of February, 2017, on behalf of the entire Association, reaffirm our commitment to Self-Governance, the Constitution, and the Honor Code.
Vrinda Varia ’13: you now have 3 minutes to explain your resolution.
Natalie Kato ’14: so we reaffirm the constitution, honor code, and self-governance every Spring at Plenary. It is a way that we preserve the foundation of what our school was built on and our commitment to self-governance.
Vrinda Varia ’13: we now have 12 minutes for questions and comments.
Pro Microphone:
Chloe Baumann ’14 and Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: we have an amendment we would like to make to the resolution.
Whereas, the Constitution as it stands still pursues the spirit of self-governance and SGA it does not reflect the realities of SGA,
Whereas, the SGA Constitution has been amended in small increments over a considerable amount of time,
Whereas, the Constitution has not been reviewed holistically in recent institutional memory,
Whereas, SGA positions exist in the Constitution that are no longer utilized or filled. (e.g. Article VII, Section II, Subsections G and H describe the position of Curriculum Committee Representative as being elected during dorm elections),
Whereas, the institutional memory utilized by SGA representatives and Assembly members to carry out their duties effectively is not reflected within the Constitution. Over time, these positions have been altered and should be revised within the Constitution to maintain consistency,
Whereas, the language of the Constitution is neither consistent between articles nor is it entirely coherent. This has led to a loss of clarity and functionality of the document when it is referenced by members of the community,
Be it resolved, that a Constitutional Review Committee be recognized by the Appointments Committee. The Constitutional Review Committee will investigate potential changes within the SGA Constitution. This committee will consist of 6 appointed members as well as the SGA Secretary/Parliamentarian. This Committee will be active through Spring Plenary of 2014, at which time the Committee will either present constitutional revisions to the Association for approval or will seek to be renewed.
Vrinda Varia ’13: is this a friendly amendment.
Natalie Kato ’14: yes it is friendly.
Vrinda Varia ’13: we now have 8 minutes to discuss the amendment. So if anyone has any questions or comments about the amendment, line up at the mic.
Questions Microphone:
Saba Qadir ’13: what are you expecting to change and what specific goals do you have in the constitution?
Chloe Baumann ’14: essentially, if you read the constitution, it is pretty obvious that it is pretty cumbersome and different from what we do. What we are hoping to do with this committee is meeting with individual positions that are mentioned in the constitution to determine the accuracy of the description. We will also be holding several community forums that will be for members to come and give us their suggestions outside of SGA. We are looking to propose a draft without changing the structure at Spring Plenary next year. If there is not a draft, then there will be a resolution to increase time allocated to the committee because that just means that there is more that needs to be done than the time we have allocated.
Falastin Issa ’15: I was wondering who the six representatives are going to be who will be involved in the committee and how they will be elected?
Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: we will be going through the appointments committee. So a lot of the people who have been involved will also apply for it. We chose 6 because it is a small number where we can delegate and talk to other people about their positions.
Balcony Microphone:
Alex Spear ’13: I am confused by how this is going to work as an amendment as opposed to a separate resolution. How is this not different from writing a completely separate resolution?
Chloe Baumann ’14: with the original resolution, we reaffirm the constitution. If this was presented as its own resolution, which was the initial plan, it would be contradictory because we are stating that the SGA constitution needs to be revised and that we do not agree with what it says wholeheartedly, however we still stand to reaffirm the constitution and what it stands for as well as the honor code and what it stands for. Because we are not making actual changes, we are looking to review it; we feel that it is necessary as an amendment because it is directly related to the reaffirmation process.
Vrinda Varia ’13: We are going to start the 30 seconds; if anyone has any questions or comments, please approach the mic at this time. We are ready to move to a vote, but we have lost quorum. We are going to do a count again and see what the exact number is in the room. Based on the number of people in the room, we are going to vote. We have quorum exactly.
Chloe Baumann ’14: point of order, you are not allowed to “boo” or clap during Plenary.
Vrinda Varia ’13: yeah, be respectful of each other guys. We are going to vote by visual ballot. The options are:
- Yes, I agree with the resolution (in agreement of the amendment)
- No, I do not agree with the resolution
- Abstain
This resolution passes by visual ballot.
We are going to switch resolution two’s and three’s presentation order. We are doing this because a family emergency. We are going to move to resolution three and then we will go to resolution two after.
Alex Spear ’13 and Morgan Fine-Morris ’14:
Resolution 3: Financial Transparency
Submitted by Alexandra Spear ’13 and Morgan Fine-Morris ‘14
Whereas, Bryn Mawr College has a long and proud history of self-governance and the recognition of student leadership,
Whereas, both the students and the administration of the College have the same goal of improving the institution and the administration has made changes towards that goal,
Whereas, there lacks a consistent forum for dialogue between the administration of the College and the students,
Whereas, current students and alumnae/i would be interested in knowing the general expenditures of the College,
Whereas, the College Budget Committee does not currently act as a forum to allow for student input or to accommodate student interests,
Whereas, some projects such as Perry House have lacked student input in the planning and budgeting process,
Whereas, many organizations, including the government of the United States, publish their budget every fiscal year for public access,
Be it resolved, that the student body recommends that the administration annually publish its budget for the current Fiscal Year, with detail down to the department budgets and project costs, on the College website,
Be it resolved, that a notice saying the budget has been published will then be emailed to all current students and alumnae/i,
Be it resolved, that the student body recommends that the administration host an open meeting at least twice a semester, not to coincide with SGA meetings, to discuss future plans for the college and current issues that students and the administration face, and that the President of the College, the Chief Financial Officer, and other Cabinet members as appropriate attend.
Vrinda Varia ’13: you have 3 minutes to explain your resolution.
Alex Spear ‘13: there have been a lot of rumors around campus about what the college is spending its money on and I thought it would be best if we could have some hard data to look at. I talked to john Griffith and he was extremely reluctant to release information of any kind to leave his office. I asked him for details and he said I could have a copy of that, but it was never sent to me. Just with the frustrations about Dining Services and Perry House, etc. I thought it would be most appropriate to have that information be available, but not down to the level where salaries could be figured out. Big cheese forum is not sufficient space or time to discuss budgeting problems which is why these two meetings would be extremely important in the process to allow student feedback.
Vrinda Varia ‘13: we have 12 minutes for questions and comments.
Balcony Microphone:
Lillie Catlin ‘13: I was wondering if you could talk more about how the budget and how detailed the budget would be and that you requested to see?
Alex Spear ‘13: if line by line items are published, then salaries can be calculated, but John Griffith assured me that just to the department level would cover that up. This is coming from the chief financial officer that this would be an alternative means to not reveal salaries but get more data, which is what we want.
Questions Microphone:
Saba Qadir ‘13: while I do believe that this I really awesome to have financial transparency in terms of financial information, when I hear that you say that John Griffith is reluctant to tell you some information, I question the feasibility of this project. My question is how exactly are you going to take the initiative to create transparency between the administration and students?
Alex Spear ‘13: I had another conversation with John Griffith. When I asked him about feasibility issues regarding the resolution, he didn’t address that directly. He just proposed a completely different resolution with one appointed person to go and speak with him and then report back to the student body. I don’t think he recognizes that the student body is very active and engaged with the college, but just in SGA. The reason he doesn’t want the information getting out is more that he doesn’t understand the student body is at Bryn Mawr than any feasibility issues. I also got in contact with Emily Espenshade and she has some minor suggestions or questions and said that it looked good otherwise and that this is something that can be done.
Chloe Baumann ‘14: I know it was mentioned at SGA last weekend that a couple colleges do release this information. Do you know any colleges? And if so, do you know how they do it?
Alex Spear ‘13: I do not have that information.
Yichun Fu ‘13: First a comment, I spoke with John Griffith and other admin members about bringing these transparency questions and bringing financial transparency to the college and John is very positive with sharing this information on different levels. First he wants to educate students about how the college finances work and hold different things. And also bringing different student reps with this issue. I believe that this is not going to work if we put specific admin members against us. The college should really be working together. In that sense, I am asking what kind of effort you will try to build to bring student reps to different board committees into this to educate students?
Alex Spear ‘13: some of those positions including those trustees positions are not included here. Mostly because they seem to be doing their own thing and I wanted to add greater forums so that this information can be shared. Not everyone comes to SGA meetings; few people come to SGA meetings unless they are required to. A lot see our email, but having this sort of information available I thought was extremely important, and actually talking face to face with people would add a lot of information to the general community.
Yichun Fu ‘13: I agree that information should be increased, but I think we should also use current resources. I think communication should be increased.
Anna Lichtenstein ‘16: my question is what is the problem to be able to figure out individual salary rates? Enough that we can ensure that our faculty and our staff and our student workers are being paid fair rates? What is the problem.
Alex Spear ’13: in general that is a privacy issue and it is considered by a lot of people to be a breach of confidence in order to share salaries. So while that information and those causes maybe worthy, it is really not up for us to decide that we look at how much money everyone makes. That is a very emotional issue.
Anna Lichtenstein ‘16: it is not each professor, but how much.
Alex Spear ‘13: salaries are an extremely touchy issue and John said he really didn’t want that information getting around.
Balcony Microphone:
Alex Cook ‘14: I have a point of information regarding private universities and budget information. University of Rochester is a private university located in Rochester, New York. A question on their website is “Where can I find the latest information on budget planning (e.g. planning factors, salaries, etc.)?” The answer states “planning factors are published in January of the current fiscal year and are available on the office and budget planning website.”
Amy Chen ‘14: point of information, about the SGA treasurer position. We and the finance board meets regularly, twice a semester with the Board of Trustees and John Griffith about what is happening, and we have time at the SGA meetings to say what we have done and what is coming out of the Board of Trustees meetings.
Questions Microphone:
Emma Rosenblum ‘14: my question is more what your opinion is. What do you think or see as the qualitative difference in not publishing professors’ salaries versus publishing salaries? Do you think students would take the other information they have with that or professors might react if salaries were published or if students knew financial aid details, how this works with respect to transparency?
Alex Spear ’13: I am sorry, I sort of lost what you were saying.
Emma Rosenblum ’14: So I guess I am interested in what you think the reaction will be from students if given this information, whether it is public or not, how the budgets will break down. How do you think the students having that information will affect how students will approach certain issues?
Alex Spear ‘13: this resolution was inspired by the big fight over Perry house. Honestly we are adults, so having this information is going to probably lead to some anger and students have their own priorities and they may get frustrated with how much they are paid as opposed to other departments, but on the whole, having more information means students can react. So instead of spreading rumors, now students will be able to say if you look at the department budget and you look at how it compares to the other departments, I think this department is really over booked, let’s see what we can try and do to get that fixed. I think it will let students have more initiative in order to rectify any problems they see because they will have more information at their disposal.
Vrinda Varia ‘13: we are reaching the twelve minute mark, so in order to continue this discussion, we need to have a motion to extend time.
Motion to extend time.
Seconded.
Vrinda Varia ’13: I need a time. I need the person who is motioning to tell me how long.
Motion to extend time for 5 minutes.
Seconded.
Vrinda Varia ’13: I need approval by visual ballot. We will extend time for 5 minutes.
Balcony Microphone
Jennifer Lophn ‘13: I have a point of information to follow up on the point of information by Alexandra Cook. Not only do other institutions publish their budget, but other comparable institutions to Bryn Mawr, such as Mt. Holyoake, Barnard, and Vassar College. They all publish their budgets online.
Stephanie Feldman ‘15: I am hearing a lot of people talking about the budget being published and I understand admin accountability, but there is a recommendation here for meetings ever semester. Could you elaborate more on that?
Alex Spear ‘13: I am sure everyone is familiar with the big cheese forum. That is a limited meeting. It is not a time for a lot of interactions purely about the budget and what administrations priorities are. These meetings are intended for students to sit down with the people making the decisions the people driving the changes in Bryn Mawr and give student input and make sure the student perspective is included while handling the money and making decisions. So that things can go more smoothly and that Bryn Mawr can continue to have the same spirit in everyday fiscal changes to the college.
Questions Microphone:
Saba Qadir ‘13: I feel like this resolution will require a lot of student work and energy, and how do you envision that to go through and what steps have you taken already to continue it?
Alex Spear ‘13: obviously this will be a major hurtle. Morgan here, who is also excited about this resolution, will be following up next year. A lot can be done this year if this passes like getting in contact with administration, making sure they understand the resolution and the spirit behind it and get them as much behind it as possible so that these meetings can be planed next year. Morgan will do more follow up so that admin will keep their promises. Going forward, it really depends on student initiative to keep going, but I think that this is important enough that there will be plenty of people stepping up who will want to get involved.
Elizabeth Vandenberg ‘16: at the bottom of you resolution you say that they will host an open meeting. How have you chosen those administration members to attend those meetings?
Alex Spear ‘13: during a conversation with Emily Espenshade, she recommended these people. Obviously it is only required that two people come and that others as appropriate. Obviously, there isn’t a lot we can do to force the administration to do anything, however, I believe that we can send a clear signal that students are in favor of this happening. It is something that is possible and we have a lot of support because there is a lot that come out of this.
Con Microphone:
Yichun Fu ‘13: I have a motion. Motion to refer this issue to a special committee, maybe the student finance committee to with the treasurer of SGA to discuss this resolution and transparency what is feasible before the resolution goes on.
Vrinda Varia ’13: before we comment on that motion, we need a motion to extend time.
Motion to extend time for 10 minutes.
Seconded.
Vrinda Varia ’13: we need approval by visual ballot. Okay, so there was a motion to refer this to a committee, potentially the SFC to further the conversation with administrators about the budgeting process and transparency with the college. Is that correct?
Yichun Fu ’13: yes.
Vrinda Varia ’13: I need someone to second that motion.
Seconded.
Vrinda Varia ’13: Can you specify the committee and what they would be doing.
Yichun Fu ’13: The committee will be SGA board members and the board of trustees reps and others and they will hold forum for student reps, admin, and faculty and staff to discuss what is the best way to present financial document to the campus and to host different events to educate students on finance on campus. I agree that this is a very good step to bring transparency to the campus. This committee will be working on a resolution to present at the board of trustees meeting.
Vrinda Varia ‘13: this motion is motioning to table the resolution and develop a committee to further this conversation. Point of order, there is no booing or applause during plenary. This would develop a committee that would further the conversation about what financial transparency would look at Bryn Mawr. We need a second to this motion to and then we will discuss it for 8 minutes.
Seconded.
Vrinda Varia ’13: we are going to hold off on conversation about the resolution and we will have 8 minutes to discuss this motion. This is only in discussion about the motion.
Balcony Microphone:
Elizabeth Wiseman ’13: I think the decision to table the conversation and postpone it is a bad idea. Plenary is one of the few times we get and I think we need to take what we are hearing at face value. Even if the entire proposal is not workable in the long run, I think that it would be a good start and getting the campus going on this is a good idea.
Pro Microphone:
Chloe Baumann ‘14: I feel like the motion to refer this to a committee is a good idea. I feel like there hasn’t been much discussion about this. We have had 2/3 weeks to make this into a plenary resolution with SGA. I feel like this is something that should be further looked into and brought back to the fall plenary with more logistical problems worked out so that we can present a stronger resolution to the administration.
Con Microphone:
Emily Strong ’13: while I do not think that this resolution is perfect, I think the major points can certainly be voted on today.
Pro Microphone:
Saba Qadir ‘13: I see that to me this resolution promotes transparency but does not give a very specific means of achieving that. We have just been talking about professors salaries, Perry house, dining services, but we don’t see this explicitly stated in the resolution. I feel like we want to see those specific things discussed in the resolution, it needs to be included. A committee will help affirm presence in the community so the admin could refer back to them as opposed to not having anyone else other than the SGA Exec Board, instead of generally not having any one to go to.
Con Microphone:
Maddy Austin ‘13: the impression I get is that the logistics have been already expressed about the extent to which the budget can be published and that is probably the most important point in this is that that information is available. It could be important, but at least presenting the idea to the administration about understanding the budget is certainly something that is doable.
Balcony Microphone:
Jennifer Lophn ‘13: to me this resolution is about transparency and the creation of a committee works against transparency because it takes the discussion out of a public forum into a committee. Additionally, it also does not inform the alumnae, which I do think is an element of the resolution that needs to be considered as well because the committee cannot go to the committee if the forums are only open to campus.
Questions Microphone:
Piper Martz ‘16: I just wanted to clarify whether or not this motion to a committee would include forums that were open to the general student body or if it was just for committee members?
Vrinda Varia ‘13: this period is to talk specifically about the motion.
Piper Martz ’16: I mean for the motion, not the resolution.
Vrinda Varia ’13: the committee would probably be SGA appointment or go through SFC. Is that correct Yichun?
Yichun Fu ‘13: my intention is that the committee will help to facilitate the resolution. So I would definitely hope to see more transparency through this process. Yes, openness is definitely necessary, not just the SGA exec board.
Saba Qadir ‘13: I have a question regarding the release of the budget; did we get explicitly approved from John Griffith that the budget would get passed to the students?
Vrinda Varia ‘13: I would like to defer that question to when we talk about the resolution; we are talking about the motion.
Evelyn Pan ‘13: as a senior, I don’t think we need to necessarily form a committee this semester because this motion serves as a step away from transparency. I am tired of hearing that nothing gets solved and we need to take more time. I want to see more things get done as soon as possible. As a senior, I really don’t have to care about the this college because I am graduation, but I still really care about this community and I want to make sure that as a Bryn Mawr student, things get done.
Vrinda Varia ‘13: we are approaching our 8 minute discussion. If we want to keep discussing the motion only, we need a motion to extend time.
Motion to extend time for 5 minutes.
Seconded.
Vrinda Varia ’13: I need an approval by visual ballot. We have to go to a count. This is a motion to extend time for 5 minutes. We need a 2/3 majority.
Motion to move the vote.
Vrinda Varia ’13: we are going to vote on the motion that Yichun presented about moving this to a committee. There is no extended time. I need a 2/3 majority vote to move to a vote. If we approve this motion, then the resolution will be tabled and a committee will develop in conjunction with the motion presenter. If it is not approved, then we will vote on the resolution as it stands. Now we are voting on whether to not we want to move this to a committee; the options are:
- Yes, I approve the motion
- No, I don’t approve the motion
- Abstain
We are going to vote on the resolution as it stands. The options for this vote are:
- Yes, I approve the resolution as it stands
- No, I do not approve the resolution as it stands
- Abstain
This resolution passes by visual ballot.
Point of order, no clapping or booing please. We are going to move to the final resolution
Amani Chowdhury ‘14 and Irene Shin ‘13:
Resolution 2: Community Presentation of Honor Board Abstracts
Submitted by Irene Shin ’13 and Amani Chowdhury ‘14
Whereas, releasing Honor Board hearing abstracts are imperative in keeping the Bryn Mawr community informed and in holding the Honor Board accountable,
Whereas, both Article II, Section A, Subsection 2, Point f, and Article II, Section B, Subsection 2, Point e of the Honor Code read:
Once a month, at the first meeting of the month of the Assembly of the Self-Government Association the Head of the Honor Board will make a short, anonymous report of the hearing to the Assembly to be inserted in the minutes.
The format should follow as seen below:
A student was found (guilty/innocent) of (insert broad description of the infraction, i.e. plagiarism or forgery) this week. The board came to the consensus that (insert summary of the course of action to be taken). A more complete description of the case, in the form of an anonymous abstract, will be released at a later date as specified by the Honor Code.
After at least two semesters, but within four semesters, an anonymous synopsis of the case is published for the benefit of the community.
Whereas, past Heads of the Honor Board have not abided by either of these sections of the Honor Code in recent years because of conflicts of interest and concerns about student privacy. As stands, the Head of the Honor Board does not release monthly reports to the SGA Assembly nor does she release Honor Board abstracts to the Bryn Mawr community,
Whereas, releasing Honor Board monthly reports as stated in the Honor Code may not take into consideration personal feelings and works against the Honor Code’s intent of restoration over punitive action,
Whereas, the Honor Code currently uses terms like “guilty” and “innocent” in the format for abstracts, working against the goal of mutual trust, respect and concern,
Whereas, the way in which the Honor Code dictates the Honor Board to release information may violate student privacy,
Be it resolved that abstracts be written and released in order to keep the Honor Board accountable. This is essential for reasons of transparency and in keeping the Bryn Mawr community informed,
Be it resolved that the Honor Code under Article II, Section A, Subsection 2, Point f will be modified so that Academic Honor Board abstracts be released in the following manner:
At the end of each semester, the Honor Board Head will release a final report of the hearings that took place to the Bryn Mawr Community. This report will include the number of academic hearings, the reason why they were brought to the board, and a broad description of the decision of each hearing. In addition, the Honor Board Head will present this information at the end of each semester to the SGA Assembly.
Included in the published report, the Honor Board Head must also include 5 to 6 random abstracts from no earlier than 2 semesters ago and no later than 6. This random selection should be representative of cases that are still relevant to campus life. All members of the Self Government Association have the right to ask the Honor Board Head for as many abstracts from hearings that have happened from no earlier than 2 semesters ago and no later than 4.
Be it resolved, the Honor Code under Article II, Section B, Subsection 2, Point e will be modified so that Social Honor Board abstracts be released in the following manner:
At the beginning of the spring semester, the Honor Board Head must release Social Honor Board Hearing abstracts from no earlier than two semesters ago and no later than ten. These abstracts should be presented to the SGA assembly and will be released to the Bryn Mawr community. The Honor Board Head should take into consideration issues of confidentiality while selecting these abstracts as there still may be collective memory over the incident. The Honor Board Head will consult the Dean of Undergraduate Students when doing so. If the Honor Board Head does not have any Social Honor Board abstracts to release, then she must state this to the SGA assembly at the beginning of the spring semester.
Be it resolved, that the 2013-2014 Head of the Honor Board include this in the Honor Code and have these procedures followed throughout the academic year.
Vrinda Varia ’13: you now have 3 minutes to explain your resolution.
Irene Shin ‘13: the honor code at the moment states that abstracts and summaries will be released. They have not happened in the last couple of years. What we are trying to do now is streamline it because it is an issue of transparency and keeps us accountable for our job. It is not because we don’t want to inform you, it is just a matter of confidentiality.
Vrinda Varia ’13: we now have 12 minutes to discuss this resolution.
Elizabeth Vandenberg ‘16: in your description for what will happen with academic honor board, you say that abstracts will be released abstracts no later than 6 semesters ago or no more than 4 semesters ago and I was just wondering why those times?
Irene Shin ‘13: I guess right now I don’t see that being an issue because it is hard to get all of those abstracts. There are three years’ worth of abstracts at a given time and trying to keep up with them and get them, that is a lot of abstracts to try and bring back.
Balcony Microphone:
Elizabeth Wiseman ‘13: as a former member of the honor board member, I find this a little concerning because I do remember making certain decisions of other students. It is a rare case in the honor board where honor board members have bad to expel students or dismiss them for a year. I am concerned if this is shown to SGA meetings that they can put two and two together. It will inevitably be revealed through the gossip mill.
Irene Shin ’13: the point of this resolution is to protect people’s privacy. That is also the reason why it is no earlier than 2 semesters ago and no later than 4 semesters ago.
Tess McCabe ‘16: I am curious as to how and why a student would request an abstract for a hearing?
Irene Shin ’13: she would request them by emailing the honor board head. Why is because she wanted to heard the types of abstracts being held.
Tess McCabe ‘16: a student could not request a specific abstract?
Irene Shin ‘13: no.
Vrinda Varia ’13: we are going to start the 30 second time; if anyone has any comments or questions, please approach the mic.
Questions Microphone:
Emily Strong ‘14: you mentioned a couple of times that there might be a type-o; what is that type-o?
Irene Shin ‘13: it would be in the second part. It says that: “All members of the Self Government Association have the right to ask the Honor Board Head for as many abstracts from hearings that have happened from no earlier than 2 semesters ago and no later than 4.” But it should read, “All members of the Self Government Association have the right to ask the Honor Board Head for as many abstracts from hearings that have happened from no earlier than 2 semesters ago and no later than 6.”
Balcony Microphone
Elizabeth Wiseman ‘13: I am wondering why you chose to release the abstracts at the end of the semester or that current semester?
Irene Shin ‘13: these abstracts are from no earlier than two semesters ago, so a year ago. The reason why we reason we did that is because typically these abstracts are presented along with all information pertaining to self-scheduled exams.
Vrinda Varia ’13: we are going to start the 30 second time again.
Questions Microphone:
Maddy Austin ‘13: when you say “no earlier than 2 semesters ago and no later than 6 semesters ago,” are you saying you will release them within 2-6 semesters?
Irene Shin ’13: yes.
Maddy Austin ’13: I think you want to switch where you say “earlier” and “later.”
Irene Shin ’13: do you want to amend it?
Maddy Austin ’13: yeah.
Vrinda Varia ’13: can you have it in writing?
Maddy Austin ’13: yeah.
Vrinda Varia ’13: so there is an amendment to say “no earlier than 2 semesters ago and no older than 6 semesters ago.” Is this a friendly amendment?
Irene Shin ’13: yes.
Vrinda Varia ’13: so we have 8 minutes to discuss the amendment. If anyone has any questions or comments, please approach the mic or else we are starting 30 seconds to move to a vote.
Lena Ferguson ‘13: that sentence earlier still needs to be changed to match the other ones.
Vrinda Varia ‘13: so we have 8 minutes to discuss the amendment. If anyone has any questions or comments, please approach the mic or else we are starting 30 seconds to move to a vote.
Motion to move to a vote.
Seconded.
Vrinda Varia ’13: we need a 2/3 visual ballot. We could also wait for 30 seconds. Okay we are going to move to a vote. The options are:
- Yes, I approve this resolution
- No, I oppose this resolution
- Abstain
This resolution passes by visual ballot.