February 16, 2014 Minutes

SGA Meeting 02/16/14

Natalie calls the meeting to order at 7:10 PM. 

Absent: Xavia Miles, Alex Beda, Ivy Drexel, Kayla Bondi, Jennifer Mendez Alba, Namita Dwarakanath

Announcements:

Karina Siu ‘14: Basketball’s last game is on Tuesday at 7 PM.

Indoor track is at 7 PM at Haverford.

Anna Sargeant ‘15: Hell Week is this week! It is from February 19th to 26th. It will begin at 5:35 PM on Wednesday when the bell rings. Have a wonderful Hell Week!

Pamudu Tennakoon ‘15: May Pole dancing spot sign ups will be at Plenary!

Syona Arora ‘15: Plenary is on Sunday, February 23rd at 12:30 PM in Goodhart!

Natalie Kato ‘14: If you are a member of the Rep Council or want to volunteer for Plenary please show up at the glass atrium at 10:45 AM. If you already have a shirt please wear it because we have a limited supply. Show up before 11:15 because then we are closing the box! We are raffling room draw numbers and garden party spots.

Your 2 Cents:

Lauren Footman ’14: I wanted to bring up concerns regarding the role of social media in SGA elections and other SGA things. Oftentimes perceptions become reality. Keep in mind when SGA is mentioned and the perception on social media. SGA is inclusive but when things are associated with SGA people might feel disenfranchised regarding what they feel they can come and talk about. I am saying this because sometimes things are read wrong but on social media people can see anything.

Emma Rosenblum ’15: What are you talking about?

Lauren Footman ‘14: People have come to me about things on Twitter and Facebook during the election. People can be more conscious about how things are perceived.

Elizabeth Vandenberg ‘16: You mentioned elections on Facebook. Can you expand on that?

Lauren Footman ‘14: I’m referring to comments in relation to the election and what’s going on.

Elizabeth Vandenberg ‘16: Like what?

Lauren Footman ‘14: I don’t want to call it out. People can email you personally.

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: The honor code stresses confrontation – have people confronted the people they are concerned about?

Lauren Footman ‘14: It’s an individual issue and they are moving forward, but people can be mindful.

Updated Appointments Bylaws Presentation and Vote:

Rebecca Cook ‘15: I changed some of the language and updated the processes to reflect how it has been done over the past few years. The bylaws were out of date and not phrased properly. I changed some wording. Scheduling conflicts are at the discretion of the Vice-President. I made it more specific where things may be found and clarified to contact the appointments committee for scheduling conflicts ahead of time.

I also specified that heads of committees may be present for interviews for the committee that is being appointed. Traditions sitting in for Hell Week committee interviews is helpful.

The Vice President must check in with last and currently appointed people for each position for updating the position description. If they do not respond to three check-in emails, we will schedule a meeting to discuss the position. The Vice President also must make appointed positions aware of resources such as the leadership workshop, SGA budgeting, and offices on campus.

Colin Baumann ‘14: Why is club budgeting in the appointments committee bylaws?

Rebecca Cook ‘15: It is concerning how committees are able to apply for SGA budgeting.

Colin Baumann ‘14: As head of an appointed committee, it’s inconvenient. You could move it to SFC bylaws.

Amy Chen ‘14: Also just to clarify, Bryn Mawr Concert Series is not exempt from the budgeting processes.

Natalie Kato ‘14: That is a friendly amendment.

Approve Bylaws: Sofia Oleas, Anna Sargeant, Nina Shmorhun, Danyelle Phillips, Celeste Gambino, Christina Tse, Hannah Hastings, Sarah Lesser, Jessica Ferriera, Sara Kim, Sarah Lovegren, Carolyn Jacoby, Elizabeth Vandenberg, Colin Baumann, Rhett Richardson, Jenna Myers, Alex Francendese, Karina Siu, Jancy Munguia, Odeymarys Garrido, Angela Blatz, Daniele Arad-Neeman, Anna Kalinsky, Sam Terry, Natalie Zamora, Dani Weissman

Do Not Approve Bylaws: –

Abstain: Sarah Gilmour

Special Events Funding Presentation and Vote:

Natalie Kato ‘14: We have allocated $7,000 for SEF funding. There will be one presentation from Zami.

Iliana Dominguez-Franco ‘16: We are asking for funding for Sister Outsider, which is one of our events. We fell like this event will add to the diverse experience of LGBTQ people of color and their experience that lacks representation and visibility on campus, and the space that queer people of color navigate on a daily basis, and what it means to have to juggle identities. The performance will be an hour and forty-five minutes long, and Rhoads Dining Hall has already been reserved.

Rochelle Waite ‘16: The theme of our conference is Voice, so this spoken word is appropriate. We are asking for $3,500. $3,000 would go to the speaker’s fee and $500 is for travel costs. We also receive $1,000 from AMO and $150 of that is going to GALAEI Organization that will do the workshop at our event. They work with Latin@ and Black queer people. Opening speaker is Qui, one of the original founders of Zami. Also, HotPot, which is an rganization that works with Asian queer people of color. Also $350 for food. We are collaborating with the college news and SAW.

Iliana Dominguez-Franco ‘16: The opening reception is the keynote speaker and a film screening of Wildness, co-produced by a Bryn Mawr professor. Day 2 is a panel of queer professionals and Sister Outsider. Day 3 is the workshop day. Basically we plan to advertise to ensure attendance – flyers, notecards, chalking, mailbox stuffers. We are working with the Blue Bus for transportation for Swat students. We plan to go to several clubs to advertise events personally – Rainbow Alliance and also Swat organizations

Natalie Zamora ‘14: What other clubs are you reaching out to for advertising purposes?

Iliana Dominguez-Franco ‘16: Affinity clubs, POC clubs, clubs that intersect with our club – different interests, other queer clubs in the Tri-Co. Basically everybody because marginalization does not just apply to sexuality and culture.

Anna Kalinsky ‘15: Is it open to Tri-Co completely or open to specific organizations only?

Iliana Dominguez-Franco ‘16: All members of the Tri-Co.

Natalie Kato ‘14: Move to a vote.

Yes, fund this event: Sofia Oleas, Pamudu Tennakoon, Christine Newville, Christina Tse, Ali Krusinski, Danyelle Phillips, Hannah Hastings, Sarah Lesser, Jessica Ferriera, Sara Kim, Sarah Lovegren, Carolyn Jacoby, Elizabeth Vandenberg, Colin Baumann, Jessica Arbon, Rhett Richardson, Jancy Munguia, Karina Siu, Odeymarys Garrido, Karunya Venugopal, Noor Massanat, Erin Saladin, Lucy Gleysteen, Emma Rosenblum, Dani Weismann

No, do not fund this event:

Abstain: Sarah Gilmour

We will be funding his event

Plenary Resolutions Presentations:

Natalie Kato ‘14: Some resolutions that were going to be presented in the fall have been moved to this semester. We have 11 resolutions to be presented. We have allotted 5 minutes for each resolution because there are so many.

Betsy Helm ’16: Green Ambassadors.

Whereas, Article VII, Section I, Subsection C and Article VII, Section II, Subsection D, Subsection E, and Subsection F of the Constitution of the Self-Government Association of the Undergraduate School of Bryn Mawr College (henceforth known as SGA Constitution) references “Recycling Representatives” and “Recycling Committee,”

Whereas, Article VII, Section II, Subsection F states that the “Recycling Representatives shall oversee recycling in the dorms and other activities the committee undertakes,”

Whereas, the recent expansion of projects and responsibilities of the Recycling Committee and Recycling Representatives have surpassed the overseeing of recycling in dorms to include a variety of other “green” projects and initiatives that encompass sustainability efforts at Bryn Mawr College,

Whereas, the term “Recycling” restricts the implications of the committee’s extent and responsibilities,

Whereas, Victor Donnay, the chair of the Sustainability Leadership Group, has indicated support for changing the name of the “Recycling Committee” to “Green Ambassadors Committee” and the title of “Recycling Representatives” to “Green Ambassadors,”

Whereas, Jim McGaffin, the Assistant Director for Energy and Project Management of Facilities Services, has indicated support for changing the name of the “Recycling Committee” to “Green Ambassadors Committee” and the title of “Recycling Representatives” to “Green Ambassadors”,

Whereas, the Sustainability Leadership Group Committee, has indicated support on Friday, September 20th, 2013 for changing the name of the “Recycling Committee” to “Green Ambassadors Committee” and the title of “Recycling Representatives” to “Green Ambassadors,”

Whereas, the 2012-2013 Recycling Committee met consensus regarding this name change during the fourth quarter of the academic year, after the 2013 spring plenary,

Be it resolved, that henceforth all initiatives set out by this committee will be attributed to the Green Ambassadors and Green Ambassadors Committee.

Be it resolved, that the use of “Recycling Committee” in Article VII, Section II, Subsection E be changed to “Green Ambassadors Committee,”

Be it resolved, that the use of “Recycling Representative” in Article VII, Section I, Subsection C and Article VII, Section II, Subsection D, Subsection E, and Subsection F be changed to “Green Ambassadors.”

Natalie Kato ’14: The next resolution is regarding gender-neutral language in the constitution. Presented by Elizabeth Vandenberg and Sofia Oleas.

Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16:

Whereas, The Constitution of the Self-Government Association of the Undergraduate School of Bryn Mawr College (henceforth known as the SGA Constitution) does not consistently use gender neutral terms throughout the document,

Whereas, Article IV, Section I, Subsection K, Point 4; Article V, Section I, Subsection A and Subsection G; Article VII, Section II, Subsection O, Subsection P, and Subsection Q; and Article VIII, Section IV, Subsection B use the words “Freshman” and “Freshmen” when referring to first-year undergraduate students,

Whereas, Article VI, Section IX, Subsection A uses the word “Freshwoman” when referring to the Songs Mistress,

Whereas, Article VI, Section VI, Subsection A uses “her/his” and Article VIII, Section III, Subsection E uses “s/he”,

Whereas, “Freshman”, “Freshmen”, “Freshwoman”, “s/he”, “his/her” are non-neutral nouns and pronouns,

Whereas, the SGA Constitution should use inclusive, neutral language,

Whereas, not all students of the Bryn Mawr College student body identify with the gendered language of the SGA Constitution,

Be it resolved, that the use of “Freshman Class Songs Mistress” in Article IV, Section I, Subsection K shall be changed to “First-Year Class Songs Mistress,”

Be it resolved, that the use of “freshman” in Article V, Section I, Subsection A shall be changed to “first-year”,

Be it resolved, that the use “freshmen” in Article V, Section I, Subsection G shall be changed to “first-years,”

Be it resolved, that the use of “Freshman Dorm Representative” in Article VII, Section II, Subsection O, Subsection P, and Subsection Q shall be changed to “First-Year Dorm Representative”,

Be it resolved, that the use of “Freshman Songs mistress” in Article VIII, Section IV, Subsection B shall be changed to “First-Year Songs Mistress,”

Be it resolved, that the use of “Freshwoman Songs mistress” in Article VI, Section IX, Subsection A shall be changed to “First-Year Songs Mistress,”

Be it resolved, that the use of “her/his” in Article VI, Section VI, Subsection A shall be changed to “their,”

Be it resolved, that the use of “s/he accepts” in Article VIII, Section III, Subsection E shall be changed to “they accept.”

Colin Baumann ‘14: Have you spoken to people about ‘mistress’?

Sofia Oleas ’15: We felt that the individual position in this case could be the ones to decide. It’s up to them.

Pamudu Tennakoon ‘15: Point of information – Anna and I met and decided to include mistress and two other options so anybody who held the position could choose how to identify themselves.

Colin Baumann ’14: We’ve got a week before plenary. Can we offer an amendment?

Sofia Oleas ‘15: That’s a fair statement. Suggestions?

Colin Baumann ‘14: We can meet. I will probably offer an amendment

Sofia Oleas ‘15: It will have to include the entire section of Traditions as well as other sections.

Natalie Kato ‘14: Move on to next resolution presented by Brenna and Emmett.

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 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, due to its content,

Be it resolved that anyone responsible for creating a class syllabus must 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.

Anna Kalinsky ‘15: ‘Must’ be included? How will that be enforced if they do not?

Brenna Levitin ‘16: We are speaking with the Provost about having it enforced.

Anna Kalinsky ‘15: Can I propose to say “highly recommended?”

Brenna Levitin ‘16: That’s a friendly amendment.

Emma Rosenblum ‘14: How have conversations been going?

Brenna Levitin ‘16: We have been attempting to speak to faculty and various people but hard to contact people because of the snow days.

Emmett Binkowski ‘16: We spoke to the Dean’s Office.

Carolyn Jacoby ‘14: You can talk to the Faculty Curriculum Committee head and have them to speak to professors; it would be a good resource for streamlining.

Emma Rosenblum ‘14: Will you have something included in course guides, like on the Tri-Co Course guide?

Brenna Levitin ‘16: This is meant for individual assignment warnings for readings or screenings. Potentially it could be for the class overall, but it is not specified.

Emma Rosenblum ‘14: I ask because I’ve taken classes where there is a lot of heavy stuff talked about in every class.

Emmett Binkowski ‘16: The first day of class professors hand out the syllabus so it is easy to see what to expect.

Sofia Oleas ‘15: It might be helpful to include in the course description so when people are shopping there is a trigger warning so they don’t run into a problem during shopping week.

Natalie Kato ‘14: The next resolutions presented are from the Honor Board. There are three of them.

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: Whereas, Article 1, 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, Subsections c read:

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 that 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 is a practice that 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 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 Deans Office to ensure that future student handbooks be printed to include the most recent version of the Honor Code that reflects this change.

Colin Baumann ‘14: On the topic of gender-neutral language. One of the concluding clauses – can you change “his or her” to “their”?

Amani Chowdhury ‘14:  It is a friendly amendment.

Next resolution:

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 mirrors the way in which student representatives to the Honor Board rotate to serve on hearings

Whereas, options for scheduling hearings would be constrained with 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 on a hearing;

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 Deans’ 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.

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: Next resolution!

Whereas, all students in the Undergraduate College of Bryn Mawr College are expected to abide by the spirit of the Honor Code in academic and social settings;

Whereas, Article II, Section B, Subsection 1 section a of the Honor Code reads:

If a student is offended by the actions of another student, either personally or because the student believes them to be detrimental to the community, the student must confront the student directly as the first step toward conflict resolution…

 

Whereas, members of the community may choose to engage in confrontation with the help of a third party;

Whereas, Article II, section B, subsection 1 subsection b of the Honor Code reads:

In conflicts where a third party may be helpful, the following resources are available:

i. The Hall Adviser’s role is that of advising the students on how to use the Honor Code. Hall advisers may, if asked by one of the conflicting parties, help facilitate, but not mediate, the resolution of prolonged disputes. They are a part of the support network during repeated attempts at confrontation; they may give advice to both sides.

ii. If the problem remains unsolved, a formal mediation may be desired. Mediation is a process by which a trained, neutral third party assists the parties in a conflict to arrive at a resolution through facilitating communication. The Conflict Resolution Committee, along with Facilitated Dialogue, can be utilized to foster communication and help solve prolonged disputes with complete confidentiality. Contact information for both resources can be found in the student handbook and on the College’s Web site.

iii. Customs people, because it is necessary that they maintain good relations with both sides of a dispute, are asked not to participate in mediation or confrontation between freshwomen in their halls. They may refer conflicting parties to the appropriate resources.

iv. Honor Board representatives, assigned by dorm, are available to address concerns regarding the Honor Code and confrontation.

Whereas, the 2013-2014 Honor Board’s poll of over 200 students has found that there is confusion on the issue of third parties used in conflict resolution (i.e. in roles of facilitation versus mediation, use of third parties in confrontation and conflict resolution, and whom they see fit to fill these roles);

Whereas, members of Dorm Leadership Teams are resources to all the residents in their respective residential spaces and as such must remain impartial

Whereas, members of the Dorm Leadership Teams and other campus resources have also expressed confusion about their roles in conflict resolution, and go through extensive training that does not properly outline the extent to which they can act as a third party, or the tools necessary to act in such a role while still allowing for relationships on the hall to remain intact;

Whereas, members of these Dorm Leadership Teams may endanger their impartiality by acting as a third party in conflict resolution, especially in situations which affect the social dynamics of a residence hall;

Whereas, the Conflict Resolution Committee has been formed to assist students with conflict resolution, and has developed a process to mediate meaningful conversation in resolving conflict, but is currently underused on campus;

Whereas, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “advice” as, “Opinion given or offered as to what action to take; counsel; recommendation.”

Whereas, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “facilitate” as, “To make (an action, process, etc.) easy or easier; to promote, help forward; to assist in bringing about (a particular end or result).”

Whereas, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “mediate” as, “To act as a mediator or intermediary with (a person), for the purpose of bringing about agreement or reconciliation; to intercede with.”

Be it resolved, that the Honor Code modify Article II, section B, subsection 1, subsection b read:

b. In conflicts where a third party may be helpful, the following resources are available:

i. Customspeople, Community Diversity Assistants, Peer Mentors, and  Dorm Presidents may give one-on-one advice on how to proceed, and help students to process their feelings if they need support in identifying the conflict in question, and then refer the student to an Hall Adviser if they would like to request a facilitated conversation.

ii. Hall Advisers (henceforth known as HAs) may also give one-on-one advice on how to proceed, and help students to process their feelings if they need support in identifying the conflict in question, and may be asked to facilitate a conversation between the two parties involved. If this request is made, both parties must consent to having that specific HA present. Parties may ask any HAs, even those not in their hall, to play this third-party role. If the parties cannot come to a resolution on their own and need to resolve an impasse, the HA will refer the parties to the Conflict Resolution Committee for a mediated conversation.

iii. The Conflict Resolution Committee (henceforth known as the CRC) may be used to mediate a conversation between the parties in question if they have come to an impasse and a facilitated conversation has not produced a resolution, or if the students were not both willing to participate in a facilitated conversation. If again a resolution cannot be reached or if the resolutions proposed by the CRC are not followed, the CRC will refer the parties to the Head of the Honor Board who will call for a Social Honor Board Hearing to resolve the issue. The resolutions from such a hearing are binding. Not adhering to these resolutions will be considered a further infraction of the Social Honor Code, and resolutions for a second infraction may include, but are not limited to, having students excluded from the College.

iv. Honor Board Dorm Liaisons serve a primarily educational role on campus. They are campus resources for questions about procedures described in the Honor Code and interpretation of the Honor Code. By acting in an educational role, they will limit the chances of creating conflicts of interest with students in conflict, thereby not compromising their roles in hearings.

Be it resolved that plans to train Dorm Leadership Teams with a focus on one-on-one communication with single parties, to assist them in finding the words and resources to resolve conflict as opposed to mediating conflict directly;

Be it resolved that plans to train Hall Advisers be structured to focus on proper facilitation between conflicting parties and emphasize the role of the CRC as a resource if they are ever approached to fulfill this role;

Be it resolved that the newly appointed Customs Committee and the Honor Board will stress the distinction between available resources to incoming first-year students during First-Year Orientation every academic year;

Be it resolved that the CRC receive training upon accepting their roles, specifically to develop proper mediation skills to be used in resolving community conflicts;

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 Deans Office to ensure that future student handbooks be printed to include the most recent version of the Honor Code that reflects this change.

Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: In one of your ‘whereas’ statements, this is concerning another Plenary resolution – you mention ‘freshwoman’.

Amani Chowdhury ’14: The proposed new one has it changed.

Natalie Kato ’14: The Constitutional Review Committee is next!

Sarah Lovegren ’14: Whereas, the Constitution of the Self-Government Association (hereafter referred to as “the SGA Constitution”) does not accurately describe the ways in which SGA currently operates,

Whereas, the SGA Constitution has not been maintained in a way which promotes consistency and usability,

Whereas, the SGA Constitution uses the phrases “Association” and “SGA” interchangeably,

Whereas, “SGA” is a commonly used abbreviation for “the Self-Government Association,”

Whereas, “the Association” is a reference to “the Self-Government Association,” that has fallen out of use,

Be it resolved, that the use of any form of “Association” when referring to the Self-Government Association in

  • Article I, Section I, Subsections A, C, & D
  • Article I, Section II, Subsection A, D, E, & F
  • Article II, Section I, Subsection A
  • Article II, Section II, Subsection A
  • Article III, Section I, Subsection B, Lines 2 & 6
  • Article III, Section I, Subsection D, Lines 2 & 6
  • Article III, Section I, Subsection E, Line 9
  • Article III, Section I, Subsection F, Line 5
  • Article III, Section II
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection A
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection D, Line 4
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection E, Lines 2 & 3
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection F, Line 3
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection H, Line 2
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection I, Line 7
  • Article IV, Section II, Subsections A & B
  • Article IV, Section III, Subsections A & R
  • Article VIII, Section I, Subsection A
  • Article VIII, Section II, Subsection A
  • Article IX, Section I
  • Article X, Section I, Subsection A

shall be changed to “SGA”,

Be it resolved, that the use of “the entire Association” shall be changed to “all members of SGA.

Whereas, the Constitution contains unnecessary capitalization of words such as “Amendment,” “Faculty,” “Administration,” and “Students,”

Be it resolved, that the use of “Amendment” in Article I, Section II, Subsection F shall be changed to “amendment”,

Be it resolved, 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.”

Whereas, positions which can be co-held do not grammatically allow for being co-held,

Be it resolved, that the positions of Haverford College Representative, Off-campus Representative, McBride Representative, Head of the Elections Board, Head of Residence Council, Head of Curriculum Committee, Representative to the Faculty, Head of Social Committee, and the Head of Committee on Public Safety shall be written as “Haverford College Representative(s), Off-campus Representative(s), McBride Representative(s), Head(s) of the Elections Board, Head(s) of Residence Council, Head(s) of Curriculum Committee, Representative(s) to the Faculty, Head(s) of Social Committee, and Head(s) of Committee on Public Safety” respectively in Article II, Section I, Subsection C;  in the title of Article IV, Section I, Subsection B and in 1, 4, 7, and 8 within Subsection B; in the title of Article IV, Section 1, Subsection D, and in 4, 5,  and 6 within that Subsection; in the title of Article IV, Section 1, Subsection E, and in 1, 2, and 3 within that Subsection; in the title of Article IV, Section 1, Subsection F, and in 1, 2, and 3 within that Subsection; in the title of Article IV, Section 1, Subsection H, and in 1, 2, 3, 4 within that Subsection.

Whereas, the Constitution fails to capitalize “Assembly,” “Office,” and “,” when referring to proper nouns,

Be it resolved, that the use of “assembly” in Article II, Section I, Subsection E shall be changed to “Assembly”,

Be it resolved, that the use of “office” in Article III, Section I, Subsection C, Line 1 shall be changed to “Office”, Article II

Sarah Lovegren ‘14: Committee on Public Safety will be changed in a different resolution to the proper new name.

Sarah Lovegren ’14: Whereas, it is harder for McBride scholars to attend regular Representative Council meetings than it is for traditional undergraduate students,

Whereas, McBride Representatives must attend regular Representative Council meetings in order to retain their positions,

Be it resolved, Article IV, Section I, Subsection F, 2 1 be changed from “The McBride Representative(s) may be held by two people.” to “The McBride Representative(s) may be held by four people.” and Article IV, Section I, Subsection F, 2 be changed to “If there are two or more people holding office, only one Representative is required to be present at meetings of the Representative Council.”

Whereas, Public Safety is now referred to as Campus Safety,

Be it resolved, that the phrase “Committee on Public Safety” in

  • Article II, Section I, Subsection C
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection N, Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 8
  • Article VI, Section VIII
  • Article VI, Section VIII, Subsection A
  • Article VI, Section XI, Subsection B
  • Article VII, Section II, Subsections I, J, & K

shall be changed to “Campus Safety Committee”,

Be it resolved, that the phrase “Public Safety” in Article IV, Section I, Subsection N, Line 3 & 4 shall be changed to “Campus Safety.”

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

Whereas, the descriptions of Dorm Presidents, Members-at-Large, Haverford Representative, Off-Campus Representative, McBride Representative, The Class Presidents, Head of the Elections Board, Head of the Residence Council, The Head of the Student Curriculum Committee, The Traditions Mistress(es), The Representative to the Faculty, The Head of the Social Committee (SoCo), The Head of the Committee on Public Safety (COPS), The Athletic Association Representative, The Civic Engagement Representative, and The Office of Intercultural Affairs Representative all assign voting rights, attendance, and participation  in the Representative Council, permission to serve on its committees, and participation in achieving its long and short term goals,

Be it resolved, 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.

  1. Representatives shall attend and participate in the Representative Council meetings.
  2. Representatives will vote on behalf of the representative’s constituents in Representative Council meetings.
  3. Representatives may serve on committees formed by the Representative Council.
  4. Representatives shall participate in achieving the Representative Council’s long and short term goals.,

Be it resolved, that all remaining Sections be numerically adjusted.

Be  it resolved, that the following lines be removed as they are now satisfied by Article IV, Section I, Subsection A:

  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection B, Lines 2, 3, 5, & 6
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection C, Lines 2, 3, 4, & 5
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection D, Lines 7, 8, 9, & 11
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection E, Lines 4, 5, 6, & 7
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection F, Lines 5, 6, 7, & 8
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection G, Lines 4 & 5
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection H, Lines 5 & 6
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection I, Lines 11 & 12
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection J, Lines 7 & 8
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection K, Lines 9 & 10
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection L, Lines 4 & 5
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection M, Lines 5 & 7
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection N, Lines
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection O, Lines
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection P, Lines
  • Article IV, Section I, Subsection Q, Lines

Whereas, the description of the Haverford Representative can be restructured to promote clarity,

Whereas, the Office of Haverford Representative must be held by a current member of SGA residing at Haverford,

Be it resolved, that Article IV, Section I, Subsection D, 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 may be held by two people.”

Be it resolved, that after Article IV, Section I, Subsection D, 1, a second and third statement be added, reading:

“2. The Haverford Representative(s) shall be held by a current member of SGA residing at Haverford for the academic year.

3. The Haverford Representative(s) shall represent SGA members residing at Haverford College.”

Amy Chen ’14: Office of Intercultural Affairs is the Pensby Center?

Sarah Lovegren ’14: Pensby Rep. Sorry.

Sara Kim ’14: On top of the McBride Rep – can you incorporate Off-Campus rep too? If it’s co-held one off-campus rep may attend?

Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: And Haverford reps too? And all people who live off campus because it’s more difficult for students to attend meetings because they live off campus.

Elizabeth Vandenberg ‘16: Whereas, the President of the SGA does not currently have the power to set the agenda of Representative Council meetings,

Be it resolved, that the statement “The President shall set the agenda of the Representative Council meetings.” shall be added to Article III, Section I, Subsection B between Lines 3 & 4 where the statement becomes Line 4 and all subsequent lines follow after numerically.

Whereas, the Treasurer’s task of keeping time at SGA meetings is not assigned in the Constitution,

Be it resolved, that the statement “The Treasurer shall keep time at all meetings of SGA.” be added to Article III, Section I, Subsection D as Line 9.

Whereas, the Secretary does not actually call and preside over meetings of the Members-At-Large,

Be it resolved, 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, Line 3 and that subsequent lines be renumbered accordingly,

Whereas, website is one word which should not require capitalization,

Be it resolved, that the words “Web site” in Article III, Section I, Subsection E line 10 shall be changed to “website”,

Natalie Kato ‘14: Last one for CRC!

Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: Whereas, The Constitution of the Self-Government Association of the Undergraduate School of Bryn Mawr College (hereafter referred to as the SGA Constitution) is out of date,

Whereas, the Constitutional Review Committee was charged with reviewing and updating the SGA Constitution at Spring Plenary 2013,

Whereas, the Constitutional Review Committee has not made all of the necessary revisions to the SGA Constitution,

Whereas, the Plenary Committee is charged with the task of annually reviewing the SGA Constitution, but has not done so,

Whereas, the SGA Constitution should be regularly reviewed to prevent future inaccuracies from surviving for a prolonged period of time,

Be it resolved, the Constitutional Review Committee shall be renewed until Spring Plenary 2015, at which point they shall present their final revisions,

Be it resolved, the Constitutional Review Committee shall be convened every two years after Spring Plenary 2015 to review the SGA Constitution and assess whether it should be revised,

Be it resolved, Article VI, Section X, Subsection E of the SGA Constitution reading “The Constitution and its Bylaws shall be reviewed by the Plenary Committee every year unless waived by a majority vote of the Assembly.” shall be taken out of the SGA Constitution.

Natalie Kato ‘14: We are going to move on to the next and final resolution by the Plenary Committee

Nora Scheland ’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);

Whereas, it is imperative to make an effort 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 taking across the entire academic year as some students are abroad each semester;

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

Whereas, a majority of the student body has expressed a need for a time limit through surveys and discussions through SGA

Whereas, the Self-Government Association (SGA) Representative Council voted in favor of having a time limit on Sunday, January 26, 2014;

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 events;

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 (this will be discussed in a minute) will be maintained for reaching quorum at every Plenary.  If quorum is attained and then lost, a time limit of half the previous time limit will be established.  After quorum is lost a second time, the time limit to regain quorum will always be 30 minutes.  After these 30 minutes have elapsed, we will cease the waiting period and the attendees will be dismissed.  Plenary will not have been held at that time.  For example, if the time limit to reach quorum is 3 hours, and quorum is reached and then lost, the time limit to regain quorum will be 1 hour and 30 minutes.  If quorum is reached and then lost again, the time limit will be 30 minutes.”

Be it resolved, Article I, Section II, Subsection H?? New Subsection? of the SGA Constitution read, “If quorum is not reached at the Fall Plenary, then resolutions will be tabled for discussion at the following Spring Plenary 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 quorum is not reached at the Spring Plenary, then a Special Plenary will be held.  A Special Plenary will have a quorum of one-half of the Association.  The time limit for quorum will be one hour more than the normally imposed time limit.  After the originally scheduled Spring Plenary, the newly elected SGA Executive Board will assume their positions, fulfilling all responsibilities, but the SGA Executive Board Emeritus will preside over the Special Plenary.  If quorum is not reached at Special Plenary, then all resolutions except the Reaffirmation of the SGA Constitution will be tabled for discussion for the following Fall Plenary during the next academic year at the discretion of the resolution writers.  Plenary will not have been held that Spring Semester.”

Be it resolved, Article I, Section II, Subsection J? of the SGA Constitution read, “If quorum is not reached at Special Plenary, then a Digital Reaffirmation will be held to reaffirm the SGA Constitution. A Digital Reaffirmation will have a quorum of 2/3 of the Association.  The time limit for quorum will be 48 hours.  The Elections Head and Head of the Honor Board will oversee the vote for the Reaffirmation of the SGA Constitution.

Be it resolved, “If quorum is not reached for Spring Plenary or Digital Reaffirmation, then the newly elected SGA Executive Board, SGA Executive Board Emeritus, 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.”

Colin Baumann ’14: You reference half the Association. Do you have any ideas where to hold Plenary?

Natalie Kato ’14: No. Maybe two locations simultaneously.

Natalie Zamora ’14: We have to hold straw polls to decide number for 2, 3, or 4 hours to wait for quorum, and another straw poll for 2/3rd or 3/4ths for Digital Reaffirmation, and also for 24 hours or 48 hours.

Nora Scheland ’15: Straw poll for 2, 3, or 4 hours. Keep in mind the stipulations of the resolution.

Natalie Kato ’14:

2 hours: ~five people

3 hours: ~thirty people

4 hours: ~six people

Abstain: ~four

The time limit will be 3 hours.

Nora Scheland ’15: Quorum for digital reaffirmation – 2/3rds or 3/4ths

Natalie Kato ‘14:

In favor of quorum 2/3rds: ~thirty people

In favor of quorum 3/4ths: ~five

Abstain: ~fou

Digital reaffirmation quorum of 2/3rds.

Nora Scheland ’15: Time limit for digital reaffirmation 24 or 48 hours

Natalie Kato ‘14:

24 hours: ~eleven

48 hours: ~twenty

Abstain: ~six

Time limit will be 48 hours 

Vote on Inviting President/Advising Deans to Plenary on February 23, 2014:

Natalie Kato ’14: Vote on whether or not to invite the President and advising deans, then vote on whether or not we will allow for them to speak.

In favor of inviting President and deans: Sofia Oleas, Pamudu Tennakoon, Nina Shmorhun, Danyelle Phillips, Hannah Hastings, Sarah Lesser, Sara Kim, Sarah Lovegren, Carolyn Jacoby, Elizabeth Vandenberg, Colin Baumann, Rhett Richardson, Anna Kalinsky, Sam Terry, Jessica Arbon, Jancy Munguia, Alex Francendese, Erin Saladin, Natalie Zamora, Celeste Gambino

Not in favor: None

Abstain: Jessica Ferriera, Sarah Gilmour

We will be inviting the President and deans.

Speaking:

In favor of allowing the President and advising deans to speak during Plenary: Danyelle Phillips, Christina Tse, Sarah Lesser, Celeste Gambino, Sara Kim, Emma Rosenblum, Jessica Arbon, Karina Siu, Odeymarys Garrido, Angela Blatz

Not in favor: Sofia Oleas, Sarah Lovegren, Pamudu Tennakoon, Nina Shmorhun, Natalie Zamora, Dani Weismann, Carolyn Jacoby, Elizabeth Vandenberg, Colin Baumann, Sam Terry, Kaeun Bae, Jancy Munguia, Erin Saladin

Abstain: Rhett Richardson, Sarah Gilmour, Hannah Hastings

We are inviting the President and advising deans but they will not be allowed to speak. They will be notified about this after this meeting.

Elections Discussion and Vote:

Natalie Kato ’14: First what we are going to do is have Elizabeth come up and give a timeline of what has happened and then we will have Amani explain the procedure that the Executive Board has proposed to go about.  Then we will ask if candidates are willing, they may approach the mic, and speak to any concerns – either about the vote or concerns they have had about the election.  Then we will ask the Representative Council if they have any questions as well.

Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: I am the Elections Head, a lot of you know that.  So the timeline of events. So I posted minutes from candidates forum at 11:30pm on Monday Night, on February 10th. I received an email from Miriam, a presidential candidate, at 12:18am on Monday night.  Then, Natalie sent me an email regarding the minutes and the complaint at 1:35am on Monday night.  I responded to Miriam and took down the minutes from the elections blog around 9 on Tuesday morning.  Then I received an email from Amani addressing the situation at 9:26.  I emailed the candidates to see if any of them had problems with the minutes at 1:50pm on Tuesday afternoon. I posted an explanation on the elections blog regarding the absence of the minutes from the blog at 1:57pm on Tuesday.  I received a correction later that afternoon and then I emailed people who helped me take minutes at candidate’s forum on Tuesday evening.  I just continued to email with Natalie and Amani and the former elections head about the situation until I met with Amani and Natalie at 10:30pm and talked with them until midnight on on Tuesday night about potential courses of action.  We talked for about an hour and then invited the candidate to talk to us about what she wanted.  Then we emailed the candidates about the possibility of a revote at 4am on Tuesday night and we had an emergency meeting of the Rep Council, although we did not get quorum, on Wednesday at noon.  Then I received another correction about the minutes on Friday evening.  Then Natalie sent me an email right before she sent you all an email about having found the original recording of candidates forum and that she and the executive board has been working on describing them.

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: Elizabeth, can you just clarify who was editing the minutes?

Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: I was editing them.

Natalie Kato ’14: No, no.  It was not the entire Eboard.

Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: Oh, who was transcribing the minutes? No.  Natalie, Amani, and Amy were transcribing the minutes.   

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: So we are going to talk about the timeline of events from the SGA Executive Board’s stance.  So basically in the constitution, it says that if we have any concerns that we need to bring them to the Representative Council.  And whenever we want to interpret the Constitution, it needs to be done with the President of SGA, Head of the Honor Board, in consultation with a third member of the SGA executive board.  So in talking about this whole issue, for hours, we decided that what had happened was unconstitutional and it was a concern that needed to be brought to the Representative Council, which is why we held the emergency meeting on Wednesday at noon.  Unfortunately at the emergency meeting we did not reach quorum to figure out how we wanted to proceed.  Whenever we raise a concern at that emergency meeting, we determine whether we will let the situation stand as it is or decide on doing something.  So that explains why we are here today in this room talking about this.  Any questions?

Natalie Kato ‘14: Are there any candidates in the room who wish to come to the mic and voice their concerns either about the vote that is to be taken place, which is if there will be a revote or if we will use the votes as they stand.  Then after that, there are also subsequent votes for if we decide to have a revote.

Alexis De La Rosa ’15: I said a little bit of this at the emergency meeting, but I realize there are more people here.  So, personally, I would like to stick with the election results.  Nobody knows what they are.  I just feel that there are a lot of students who were first time voters and some of them seniors and freshman and basically all years, who normally wouldn’t consider voting and who did and I think that the numbers would go down significantly which would jeopardize all of the candidacies and decisions up for this election.    Other than that, I guess my opinion on the minutes is that there were some things missing in general, but personally I didn’t bring a lot of concerns forward because at this point, I would like to move on and hear the elections results.

Pamudu Tennakoon ‘15: What position are you running for?

Alexis De La Rosa ’15: I am running for vice president.

Natalie Kato ‘14: I also realized I do not think we mentioned that there was another candidate who brought forward a concern.  Did we mention that Elizabeth?

Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: yes, we did.

Natalie Kato ’14: Does anyone else have any questions or comments?

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: I am sorry I did not elaborate a little bit.  When we were interpreting the Constitution and deciding what had happened was against the honor code or not, we thought that the reason we think it was unconstitutional and potentially against the honor code is because the minutes were described as being biased or not thorough enough is potentially compromising all of the votes from Monday morning until Tuesday morning.  But, then by taking them entirely down, you are taking down the words of candidates that were content with them being up.  That is why we, the three members of the SGA Exec Board wanted to consider the revotes so that way, all of the candidates can have either new words put up or their entire words up from the original candidate’s forum.  I just wanted to put that out there.

Pamudu Tennakoon ‘15: If we do choose to have a revote, what would the timeline be for elections be?

Natalie Kato ‘14: The timeline, I believe, is that elections would run Monday-Tuesday and run-offs would run Thursday-Friday.

Pamudu Tennakoon ‘15: Point of Information: run-offs would run into Hell Week and personally, I think that would take from the number of people who would vote for run-offs because the number of people voting has been pretty low.  And during Hell Week, people will be busy and there might not be as large of numbers voting.

Miriam Ahmed ‘15: So I am the candidate who voiced the concern in the first place and I am not asking for a revote.  I do think that the minutes did not accurately reflect what I had said during candidate’s forum, but I understand that it is hard to keep track of everything and if it was malicious in a way, I would have seen the merits in having a revote, but I think it was an accident.  I think it is more important for us to move on and start getting into hell week and welcoming the first-years rather than redoing the election.

Keshia Koech ‘14: I had a question about whether there was a conversation around posting policy during the election?

Natalie Kato ’14: Could the elections head answer this?

Elizabeth Vandenberg ’16: Can you clarify that? Did I ever confront someone or did someone confront me?

Keshia Koech ‘14: Did anyone ever confront you or examples of people not following the honor code during elections?

Elizabeth Vandenberg ‘16: I can’t say that.  I cannot talk about anything that might have to do with anyone because of confidentiality.

Sam Terry ’14: My understanding is that the recording was lost, but it has now been recovered and I am just curious if anyone has gone back and listened to the minutes and held it up to the recording.  Because to me, biased is a very strong word.  Right? Like to say that I don’t think a biased is malicious.  But, I think that biased, by definition connotes a certain amount of intentionality for someone.  So I am just curious, did there seem to be a biased or was it across the board?

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: After spending hours and hours – going through the two and half hours of candidates forum, transcribing every word.  Basically, to be quite honest, the beginning half was very thorough and by the end of it, it got very, for a lack of a better word, sloppy because it is very hard to transcribe for two and a half hours.  So, yes, people at the beginning had very thorough responses and by the end, it started to lack.  Unfortunately, the positions in question, so basically presidency, was a little bit more near to the end half of this entire thing.  We also want to make a note that some people had commented that some of the responses recorded were attributed to the wrong people.  So I just wanted to put that out there as well.

Sam Terry ‘14: And so when you say sloppy, is it a matter of content – what someone is saying – or how well someone is articulating what they are saying?  You know what I mean? Is it that I didn’t take down your words word-for-word or that I didn’t say what you were saying?

Colin Baumann’14: Can someone summarize what Sam said?

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: Was it that the content was misrepresented or not represented?

Amy Chen ‘14: So was it the idea or the words?

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: So was the idea there or not the words?

Amy Chen ‘14: So, what Sam asked was was it written badly or was it just missing information.  That was the question.

Natalie Kato ’14: I would say both.

Melanie Bahti ’16: I have a question about the use of recordings during candidates forum.  I ran for a position last year, and I do not remember them using a recording to then fill in the minutes later.  Is it common practice to use a recoding?

Natalie Kato ‘14: It just depends on the person taking the minutes and the elections head for  if that is done or not.  In the past, there have been instances when the person taking the minutes did use a recording, there have also been instances when people didn’t.

Elizabeth Vandenberg ‘16: Really it’s just me. It is not the person talking minutes. It’s me.

Aine Sheehan ’15: Did the candidates know that they were being recorded?

Natalie Kato ‘14: I believe so because the recorder was in the middle of the room, but I do not know if it was explicitly stated.

Melanie Bahti ‘16: From my perspective, in reading my minutes, the minutes were more thorough than they have been in the past and my minutes were towards the end.  I ran for a position in the April elections last year and in those minutes, we were lucky if we got a full sentence.  So these, from my perspective were more thorough.

Colin Baumann ‘14: If someone is in the front speaking, can we give them a mic?

Natalie Kato ‘14: Melanie could you state what you just said.

Melanie Bahti ‘16: So I said that I had run for a position this elections round and I was towards the second half of candidates forum. I felt that the minutes were more thorough than in the past.  I ran for a position last April and those minutes were less thorough than these minutes so that is why I was okay with these minutes.

Natalie Kato ‘14: If anyone has more comments or questions, then we need to extend time.  We are going to move into the vote.  The vote will contain two portions.  So yes, we will have a revote or no, we will not have a revote and we will let the current votes stand or abstain. If it is voted that there is a revote, then the options will be we will use the minutes from the candidates forum that Amy, Amani, and I transcribed, we will ask the candidates to answer 3 random questions (type their answers and return them in 12 hours), we will ask the candidates to answer all of the questions (type their answers and return them in 12 hours), no minutes and no questions at all, or abstain.  These questions, if asked, will be optional for the candidates to answer.

Vote for Revote or No revote for Elections:

In favor or a revote: Elizabeth Vandenberg, Jancy Munguia, Karina Siu

Not in favor of a revote and using the votes as they stand: Sofia Oleas, Pamudu Tennakoon, Nina Shmorhun, Danyelle Phillips, Ali Christina Tse, Sarah Lesser, Sarah Lovegren, Carolyn Jacoby, Rhett Richardson, Colin Baumann, Emily Garcia, Dani Weismann, Kaeun Bae, JessicaArbdon, Daniele Arad-Neeman, Noor Massanat, Karunya Venugopal,  Sam Terry

Abstain: Celeste Gambino, Sara Kim, Emma Rosenblum, Odeymarys Garrido, Sarah Gilmour

Natalie Kato ’14: I also wanted to note that this portion of the minutes will be edited by another member of the Eboard.  So it has been decided that we will not do a revote and we will use the votes as they stand currently.

SAW Budgeting Penalty Discussion and Vote:

Natalie Kato ‘14: Amy is now going to present the options

Amy Chen ‘14: No culture show; no budget for fall 2014; $250 for each semester. The SFC recommends the last choice as the basis allows the culture show with the same amount of money for food as ASA spent last semester. It is also a fresh start to SAW as it is the same budget given to a new club. Given how much was cut from food this semester across the board it seems the most fair option. Additionally no matter what they will have to revisit their Constitution.

Swetha Narasimhan ‘15:  We would like to throw in our two cents. This was an honest mistake on SAW’s part, not realizing that the budget should have been submitted. We are going back to our constitution and making sure that the future board knows what is happening.

Sheena Gopal ‘15: In terms of the three options stated, we are strongly against the first one (no culture show) because opening the community to different perspectives is part of our mission statement, and not having a culture show takes away from that.

Amy Chen ‘14: Just to clarify no culture show just means no culture show funding from SGA.

Sheena Gopal ‘15: This is important because obviously we have a say but also the SFC and SGA have a say in what goes through budgeting and what goes to our club and everything. We should have a say into what goes into our budget each semester. $250 each semester flat takes away from our say in the matter.

Swetha Narasimhan ‘15: Point of information about the food – we look at different catering options. As a cuisine, South Asian food is more expensive so those are options we have looked at and always try to go with the cheapest option. We would be satisfied with ‘no budget in the fall’ because we have to go back to the constitution and have more meetings with SAW as a club.

Colin Baumann ‘14: If you were to suggest an outcome, what would it be?

Swetha Narasimhan ‘15: A probationary period in which we could restructure ourselves and budget correctly.

Natalie Zamora ‘14: For 250-250 – the budget in the fall would go to the culture show and the budget in the spring would go towards other events?

Sarah Lovegren ‘14: What is your average budget per semester?

Swetha Narasimhan ‘15: For fall around $600 and spring around $1,800.

Sarah Gilmour ‘14: This is a question for the Exec Board. You presented $250 as a number – was that so it would give the club a chance to start over? From now on can they only increase their budget the same way as a new club?

Amy Chen ‘14: That was not discussed. It will be decided by the SFC and future treasurers.

Sarah Lesser ‘15: Will SAW still be allowed to apply for funding from the annual fund regardless of the option picked?

Amy Chen ‘14: No fall budget is also no annual fund.

Danyelle Phillips ‘14: Is there an option for SAW to be able to apply for annual funding? That fund was created for a reason.

Amy Chen ‘14: That is a chunk of money set aside for budgeting.

Danyelle Phillips ‘14: They should be able to apply.

Amy Chen ‘14: The intent behind $250 is because $1,800 on food is a lot because we cut a lot of other clubs for food.

Emily Garcia ‘14: Culture shows applying for annual funding – if you cot down what the club was cut this semester to a bigger penalty so they can still have a culture show budget but gets cut fairly in terms of how other clubs were cut for culture shows.

Amy Chen ‘14: We can compare to other clubs.

Sarah Lovegren ‘14: For SAW, how likely is it for the culture show to fall in the first 3 weeks of spring semester?

Sheena Gopal ’14: We usually have our culture show this time but since we found out we were discussing having it at a later time.

Sarah Gilmour ‘14: If there is no budget for fall semester, when they present for spring budgeting will they revert to $250 or go back to this spring’s budget and increase by 50%?

Amy Chen ‘14: They would increase by 50% of fall 2013 and go from there.

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: On the Honor Board we often discuss reflection – what went wrong and why. Can you reflect on that?

Swetha Narasimhan ‘15: We traditionally pushed budgeting on the treasurer so there was not as much reflection with the board. This is an issue that will be addressed in the future. We also looked at physical budgets and did not speak to past treasurers and did not try to get information from elsewhere. We were in a rush to do budgets and assumed that we could work solely off of paperwork.

Amani Chowdhury ‘14: SAW uses advance forms.

Isabella Bartenstein ’14: I was the SAW treasurer last year. We ran into a similar problem. We spoke with Sowmya prior and had gotten an advance and prepared for this.

Amy Chen ‘14: Any additional options?

Danyelle Phillips ‘14: If ‘no budget in fall’ is voted upon can SAW have the ability to apply for the annual fund in the spring?

Natalie Kato ’14: Move to a vote.

No funding for culture show: None

No budget for fall 2014: Danyelle Phillips, Sarah Lesser, Sara Kim, Sarah Lovegren, Carolyn Jacoby, Elizabeth Vandenerg, Colin Baumann, Emily Garcia, Dani Weissman,  Jancy Munguia, Jessica Ferriera, Karina Siu, Erin Saladin, Sarah Gilmour, Sam Terry, Anna Kalinsky

Budget of $250 for both semesters each: Natalie Zamora, Pamudu Tennakoon, Nina Shmorhun, Celeste Gambino, Alex Francendese, Odeymarys Garrido

Abstain: Meg Sumner-Moore, Rhett Richardson, Noor Masannat, Karunya Venugopal, Christina Tse

No budget for fall 2014 semester will be awarded. Now vote on if they can apply for the annual fund for their culture show.

Pamudu Tennakoon ‘15: If there is no budget in the fall semester would they budget for the culture show in the spring?

Natalie Kato ‘14: Pamudu is asking if they are not allotted the fall 2014 budget are they still able to do a culture show in the spring later on in the semester? Yes.

Colin Baumann ‘14: I though the annual fund was for events like the culture show and push club budgeting away to apply solely through annual fund. I’m asking why they can apply for annual funding in spring no problem.

Sam Terry ‘14: If they don’t have a fall budget then can they apply for the annual fund? I asked that and the answer was no, but now we are deciding if that is fair or not.

Amy Chen ‘14: Before I said no, but this is a new option.

Emily Garcia ‘14: If they don’t apply for the annual fund but they have a spring budget can they apply for funding for a culture show through club budgeting and not as part of the $10,000 from the annual fund?

Amy Chen ‘14: Yes, they would go through club budgeting and club budgeting cuts. They also can use AMO money.

Erin Saladin ‘16: Can you clarify where in the SFC bylaws they are basing the decision off how they cannot apply for the annual fund?

Amy Chen ‘14: It’s not in the bylaws. It was a decision made – and it’s a penalty decided upon by the SFC, but the rep council can vote against this decision.

Erin Saladin ‘16: So it’s not just that they couldn’t have a fall budget, it’s that they would have no fall budget and no annual fund.

Amy Chen ‘14: Yes.

Sarah Gilmour ‘14: For next year you would like them to go through club budgeting but in the future they can go through the annual fund?

Amy Chen ‘14: Two treasurers from now.

Natalie Kato ’14: We can move to a vote.

Yes, SAW can apply for the annual fund: Danyelle Phillips, Nina Shmorhun, Sarah Lesser, Sara Kim, Sarah Lovegren, Carolyn Jacoby, Elizabeth Vandenberg, Rhett Richardson, Colin Baumann, Jenna Myers, Emma Rosenblum, Dani Weismann, Lindsey Crowe, Sam Terry, Alex Francendese, Karina Siu, Odeymarys Garrido, Erin Saladin, Christina Tse

No, they cannot apply: Emily Garcia

Abstain: Pamudu Tennakoon, Sarah Gilmour, Ali Krusinski

Natalie Kato ‘14: No budget in fall 2014 but you may apply for annual fund.

SGA Executive Board Goodbyes:

Syona Arora ’15:

  • Creation of the SGA Listserv
    • Used to inform all Bryn Mawr undergraduates about SGA meetings (previous minutes, upcoming agendas), elections, Plenary, and other SGA information
  • Virtual Mawrk Notes
    • sga.blogs.brynmawr.edu has .pdfs of old Mawrk Notes so they may be referenced
  • SGA Campaign
    • Increased visibility
    • SGA Buzzwords
    • SGA Stories
  • Constitution Review Committee

Rebecca Cook ’15:

  • Appointments
    • Updated Appointments Bylaws
    • Updated Position Descriptions on the Appointments Blog, thanks to data from a survey of current and past position holders
    • Updated layout of the Appointments Blog
    • Full transition to Appointments on the Moodle site
    • Increased communication with Appointed positions, paying close attention to mid-semester check-ins and feedback
  • Outreach
    • Worked to keep Appointed Positions more updated about leadership opportunities and SGA as a whole
    • Increased advertising for Appointments Rounds, with record applicants for previously under-applied positions
    • Took pictures for SGA Campaign, to help bring faces to SGA

Amani Chowdhury ’14:

  • Orientation
    • First Year & Re-Orientation
  • Hearings
    • Headed ~20 hearings
    • Successful use of Bi-Co Liaison
    • Hearing Reports
    • 40+ Abstracts written
    • Hearing Record Forms
  • Resources
    • Creation of For Faculty page and For Students page
    • Flow Charts and updated FAQs
    • Honor Board Office Hours
  • CRC
    • Helped establish their Mission Statement and Process
    • CRC site
  • Admissions
    • Common App proposal
    • New info for Tour Guides and visitors
  • OutreachPlenary Resolutions
    • Alum Panel
    • Encouraged the use of Honor Board Dorm Liaisons
    • Community emails
    • Faculty Surveys and interviews
  • SGA
    • Welcome Vid & Plenary Vid (I was the fish!)
    • Mock Hearing
    • Campaign Vid (in the works!)

Amy Chen ’14:

  • Revised the SFC Bylaws
    • Creation of an Annual Fund
    • Creation of Closed Events Funding Process
    • Made Interviews more Collaborative
  • Improved Transparency of Club Budgets Improved Budgeting Workshops
    • Publishing of budgets for public review on Moodle
    • Shifted Budgets and Submitted Budgets to Google Docs for more accountability and accessibility
  • Successfully campaigned for more SFC Representative ApplicationsEstablished Office Hours During Budgeting
    • Highest known amount of applicants!
  • Increased responsibility of SFC RepresentativesSought additional funding for SGA funded items like New York Times
    • SFC Representative Check-ins with groups
  • Board of Trustees Meetings
    • promote Divestment and Perry House

Natalie Kato ’14:

  • I am Empowered.  I am SGA. Campaign and kick off event
  • Sustainability Leadership Group
  • Collaborated with Rachel Heiser on Self-Care Initiatives
  • Collaborated with the Presidents Office on Pop-Up programming
  • Seven Sisters Conference/Initiatives
  • College Budgeting Meetings
  • Effective Discussions about Plenary, which has led to the Time limit for Quorum Resolution
  • Increased visibility of SGA through posters, table tents, etc.
  • Helped to promote President’s Office Initiatives (Coffee Hour, Events at Pen Y Groes)
  • Coordinated Big Cheese Forums (one with a longer time frame)
  • Increase visibility of different groups on campus by inviting them to come to SGA meetings to present

Old Business:

New Business:

Comments are closed.