Spring Plenary 2017 – Minutes
Representative Council Members Present: Ananya Kumar, Abbie Sullivan, Camila Duluc, Elizabeth Hilton, Bridget Murray, Kyra Sagal, Sam Heyrich, Sophie Goldstein, Milan Fredrick, Priyanka Dutta, Connie Lam, Lillian Oyen-Ustad, Nikki Shakamuri, Abby Chernila, Dilesha Tanna, Margaret Gorman, Lea Williams, Leticia Robledo, Adriana Gay, Veda Nambi, Juhi Aggarwal, Jessica Breet, Makeda Warde, Farida Ilboudo, Emma Porter, Phoebe Dopulous, Nicky Westerduin, Jasmine Rangel, Madison Brown, Emily Drummond, Emma Lasky, Emma Levin, Claire Romaine, Claire Gaposchkin, Sarah Awad, Celeste Ledesma, Cassidy Gruber
Representative Council Members Absent: Katherine Nichols, Tyler Brown-Cross, Precious Robinson, Catherine Bunza, Sohini Maniar, Hannah Henderson-Charnow, Manal Hussain, May Zhu, Evelyn Aviles
- Plenary began at 7:00 PM in McPherson auditorium. Quorum was reached at 8:13 PM.
- The first resolution, “The Reaffirmation of the Bryn Mawr College Self-Government Association Constitution”, was presented by the 2017-18 SGA Executive Board and was passed by a visual ballot.
- The second resolution, “The Reaffirmation of the Bryn Mawr College Honor Code”, was presented by Swati Shastry, Head of the Honor Board.
- After one pro comment pointing out the importance of recognizing and confronting racism as part of the Social Honor Code and a question regarding how the spirit of “positive confrontation” is actively reaffirmed, this resolution was passed by a visual ballot.
- The third resolution, “Changing the Maximum Wait-Time for Quorum”, was presented by the 2016-17 SGA Executive Board.
- The original resolution proposed shortening the then three-hour maximum wait time to one hour and fifteen minutes.
- After some discussion regarding the feasibility of this time frame, the resolution was amended to change the wait time from three to two hours.
- This resolution was passed 184 to 144.
- Quorum was lost but regained at 9:05 PM right before the vote to pass the third resolution.
- The fourth resolution, “Regulating the Representative Council Attendance Policy to Five Unexcused Absences per Semester”, was presented by the 2016-17 SGA E-Board.
- The final resolution was amended to state a maximum of four unexcused absences as opposed to the previous five following discussion.
- The final resolution was passed by a visual ballot.
- The fifth resolution, “Paying the SGA Executive Board”, was presented by both the 2016-17 and 2017-18 SGA Executive Boards.
- An amendment to include the Traditions Mistresses/Masters/Mistexs in the proposed stipend did not pass.
- After much discussion regarding the E-Board’s interaction with the College’s Administration, the source of the money from the SGA budget and the College, the E-Board’s SGA-related commitments compared to other organizations, etc., it was eventually proposed that the resolution should be tabled until the Fall. This measure passed.
- Voting was to begin on the other proposed measures to extend time and call the question when the Assembly and SGA once again lost quorum by just over thirty people. As per the SGA Constitution, if quorum is lost a second time Plenary must end.
- Plenary was adjourned at 10:18 PM due to the second loss of quorum. All other resolutions (six in total) were tabled until Fall Plenary.
Quorum was gained at 8:13 PM.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Welcome to my retirement!
Rachel Bruce ’18: Hi everyone! I am required by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to tell you that everything said here tonight will be recorded for the minutes.
Rhea Manglani ’17: Okay, so the History of Plenary:
In 1892, Bryn Mawr College became the first institution in the U.S. to give students the responsibility to decide on how they should govern themselves. While it was considered a radical experiment, it has become one of the most valued aspects of the Bryn Mawr education. The tradition of student autonomy and responsibility has created a unique campus where students participate in discussion and resolution of the most important issues facing the College.
Twice a year, students get the opportunity to present resolutions to the entire student body. The Spirit of Self Governance is a beautiful thing and should make all Mawrters proud.
ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER:
Plenary uses a form of communication based on Robert’s Rules of Order. This ensures that the will of the majority is done while protecting the voice of the minority. The rules of order may seem awkward and sometimes constraining, but they 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 resolution – 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 resolutions, 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.
**If you wish to ask a question, please line up at the middle yellow QUESTION microphone. **If you wish to make a statement in favor of a proposal, please use the green PRO microphone.
**If you wish to make a statement in opposition to a proposal, please use the red CON 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 person at the microphone will be allotted more than one minute to comment on the resolution.
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 their proper seat during a vote, so 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.
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. 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.
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 composition of 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.
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.
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 by and uphold the Social Honor Code by respecting this rule.
PLEASE CLEAN UP AFTER YOURSELF AND RECYCLE PLENARY PACKETS/BOOKLETS!
A special thank you to Bryn Mawr College for allowing us to use McPherson Auditorium and to our volunteers for your time and support! Really, thank you so much guys.
We will move onto the first constitution the reaffirmation of the SGA Constitution presented by the New E-Board.
Plenary Resolution #1: The Reaffirmation of the Bryn Mawr College Self-Government Association Constitution
Alisha Clark ’18: So happy we reached quorum so fast!
“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 [19th of March, 2017], on behalf of the entire Self Government Association, reaffirm our commitment to self-governance, the SGA Constitution, and the Honor Code.”
Alisha Clark ’18: In summary: “The Bryn Mawr College Self-Governance Association – the first collegiate student government in American history — was established in 1892 as a way for the students to govern themselves. SGA is having the voice and the power to create positive change in our community through confrontation, discussion, and action. SGA also empowers us to create a community of mutual respect for all Mawrters. This resolution is to reaffirm our commitment to the spirit of self-governance, the Honor Code, and the SGA Constitution.”
Rhea Manglani ‘18: You have 30 seconds to identify if you want to speak. I think we can move to a vote. So we’re going to vote on this. Your options are to vote yes, no, or abstain. Raise your packets for yes? Since it’s pretty obvious, you can put your packets down. No? Abstain? Resolution One passes!
Next we have resolution two presented by current Head of Honor Board.
Plenary Resolution #2 – The Reaffirmation of the Bryn Mawr College Honor Code
Swati Shastry ’18:
“Whereas, the life of the Honor Code relies on community investment and engagement,
Whereas, all members of the undergraduate community have a responsibility to abide by the Honor Code,
Whereas, confrontation is the necessary first step toward bringing an infraction to the attention of the Honor Board, and is a responsibility listed in the Code (Article II, Section A),
Whereas, our bi-co partner, Haverford, lists a similar responsibility for individuals to the community in its Honor Code (Article 2, Section 3.06),
Be it resolved that, we, the undergraduate students of Bryn Mawr College, reaffirm our commitment to positive confrontation.
So basically this is to reaffirm our commitment to the Honor Code and Spirit of Confrontation.
Gabrielle Smith ’17: I would just like to say is that a part of our Honor Code means mutual respect. Many times on this campus people don’t do that and instead do not combat racism when they see it. I hope that everyone who votes yes to this resolution is going to confront people who are racist and discriminate against marginalized groups.
Aleja Newman ’18: To piggyback off of what Gabby said, what happens when we don’t do that? Sometimes people don’t really allow you to have positive confrontation or public neutral space for that confrontation. What are we doing to uphold this?
Swati Shastry ‘18: Having a resolution each year forces us to have a discussion about this, but I feel like the biggest part is that there is a difference between the academic and the Social Honor Code. The social is a little bit more tricky in that it requires your own agency. Your peers will tell you things and there’s no way to reinforce that. It’s an ongoing conversation that we don’t have as much as we should. That’s important.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: We’re going to move to a vote so vote yes if you are in favor of this resolution please raise your packets. No? Abstain? Think about what Gabby said, it’s a very important comment. Next resolution is by the old E-Board so Jocelyne and Shaina.
Plenary Resolution 3: Changing the Maximum Wait-Time for Quorum
Shaina Robinson ’17:
“Whereas, the current wait-time for Plenary is three hours,
Whereas, this is no longer necessary with the introduction of “Night Plenary”,
Be it resolved, the Plenary wait-time will now be one hour and fifteen minutes.”
To summarize this: “This Resolution serves to shorten the maximum wait- time to reach quorum from three hours to one hour and fifteen minutes. This change is being proposed with the introduction of “Night Plenary” to respect members of SGA (the students’) schedules, whereas Plenary had previously taken place during the afternoon when the three hour maximum was first proposed.”
Rhea Manglani ’17: Okay, Balcony.
Claire Romaine ’17: My question is when does this start because as I understand it is that we would have not gotten quorum tonight. We would we have dismissed.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: We don’t start the count until the event time. We could open the doors at 5:00 PM but we still wouldn’t start the count until 7:00 PM. Con mic?
Sam Wall ’17: I am against this because, although I understand the importance of respecting students’ schedules, it will lead to more instances of not reaching quorum. As someone who has been though not reaching quorum, it sucks. I think it’s an issue that should be approached by getting people to come to Plenary, not changing how long we have to wait.
Rhea Manglani ’17: Question mic?
Delaney Williams ’17: What happens if we don’t reach quorum?
Shaina Robinson ’17: If we don’t reach quorum, then essentially Plenary would be over.
Delaney Williams ‘17: And it would it not be rescheduled?
Shaina Robinson ’17: The resolutions get tabled until the next Plenary next semester.
Rhea Manglani ’17: Balcony?
Aly Robins ’17: Is this formally instituting Night Plenary for the rest of Bryn Mawr’s existence? With off campus, McBrides, this could be difficult.
Shaina Robinson ‘17: Yes, this would.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: I did a survey of Plenary last semester. About 98% of the student body that responded, which was 200 students, responded overwhelming in favor of keeping Plenary at this time.
Hannah Zamore ’19: You said that if we do not reach quorum we don’t have Plenary. If we don’t have Plenary what does that mean?
Shaina Robinson ‘17: If Plenary does not happen, it depends on the semester. In the Fall, if resolutions get tabled they have to be presented in the Spring. Things are a bit more dire if not reached in the Spring because the Constitution has to be ratified and the Honor Code does well. A lot of funding on campus will be lost and events would be in peril.
Leah Baker ’19: Leah Baker ’19.
Maggie Alvarez ’17: Maggie Alvarez ’19.
Leah Baker ‘19: Our question was about people who work in Dining Services. At Haffner, having Plenary at 7:00 does not give people opportunity to change and come. Maybe think about starting at eight to give people some time?
Catherine Cameron ’20: Is there any particular reason that rescheduling Plenary is not a thing that can be done or say the possibility of what may be done? Having one night where maybe not everyone comes and we lose funding for stuff does not seem smart. Is there a historic reason for this or is there a rule somewhere?
Jocelyne Oliveros ‘18: I guess the reason why we’re doing this is because of the three-hour wait time is that at five minutes to the three hour mark people would start coming. This would incentivize people come quicker.
Catherine Cameron ‘20: Can I rephrase? You did not answer. Why can’t we reschedule it?
Shaina Robinson ‘17: Plenary is extremely hard to schedule. We have to coordinate our schedules with various departments on campus including Conferences and Events and Dining Services. We plan this months in advance. We try and pick date that will work best for the student body, send out surveys, get feedback; therefore it is really hard to plan another Plenary if the one does not work out. We do have precautions in place. There is digital reaffirmation process and a few other emergency procedures.
Caitlyn Haskett ’20: Earlier both in New Dorm Dining Hall and in Erdman workers could not leave until 7:30. There’s already a lot of pressure put on workers that feel they have to come to Plenary. Additionally the supervisors have a mandatory meeting every Sunday and cannot be here right now and cannot count for quorum right now. If in the future that were not to happen, that’s really unfair to those of us who work in Dining Services.
Sally Little ’19: I have a proposed amendment. Strike one hour and fifteen minutes and change it to two hours.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: This is a friendly amendment.
Aleja Newman ‘18: We don’t we also have to reach quorum to vote on every resolution? Can we not have a different wait time that works for just starting versus voting for resolutions? For example, having two hours to reach quorum as we’re staring instead of waiting to get quorum to begin in general.
Shaina Robinson ’17: I don’t think that’s possible, unfortunately.
Gabrielle Smith ’19: Point of Clarification, that’s already in the Constitution.
Jane Rossman ’17: If you’re a senior you might remember the eight-hour wait time for reaching quorum, and then that we never reached quorum in the Spring. While I do think that the two-hour wait time is a good idea, I do remember it took around 3 hours to get quorum last year. I don’t really find it realistic.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Con mic last one, we may have to recount for quorum.
Kat Phifer ‘19: While I understand that Plenary is difficult and long I agree with Jane in that shortening it from three hours to an hour and fifteen minutes is not realistic because people have full-length commitments. I don’t think it will make it faster.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: We’re going to recount for quorum, everyone please take a seat. Section counters get ready. We have lost quorum. We have thirty minutes to regain quorum. If not, all resolutions will be tabled until the Fall.
Quorum is reached again at 9:05 PM.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: We are on Resolution Three, which has been amended to two hours as opposed to one hour and fifteen minutes. We can immediately go to a vote unless we want to extend speaking time or table the resolution. Okay, we’re going to a vote.
Raise your packets if yes, you are in favor of this resolution. Counters please count. Remember to count your own selves.
Rhea Manglani ’17: We got 184 yes, 144 no so resolution passes. We are moving on to Resolution #4.
Plenary Resolution #4: Regulating the Representative Council Attendance Policy to Five Unexcused Absences per Semester
Jocelyne Oliveros ‘18:
“Whereas there is no formal written limit of unexcused absences for missing SGA meetings as a representative council member,
Whereas, it is important to uphold accountability in these elected positions,
Be it resolved, in Article IV Section 3 Subsection B, will now read “Elected members of the Representative Council are allowed up to 5 unexcused absences from SGA meetings per semester; however, missing plenary counts as two (2) absences.”
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Thirty Seconds to comment.
Claire Gaposchkin ’17: So what I guess my question is, what is the penalty for missing more the five unexcused absences?
Shaina Robinson ‘17: If you go beyond, your position is in jeopardy. You have to consult with the E-Board and there are various procedures you might have to go through if unexcused absences remain unexcused.
Hannah Smallwood ’20: Is there something in place between excused and unexcused absences so that SGA can still be accessible?
Shaina Robinson ‘17: As far as I know, we’ve been relying on the Honor Code in terms of excused and unexcused absences. We’re taking their word for saying why they can’t make it to meetings.
Toby Makowski ‘18: How many SGA meetings are there per semester? During the Fall, especially with Fall Break, you only have twelve weeks. If you’re allowed to miss up to five, you could end up missing half of the meetings.
Shaina Robinson ‘17: There are approximately ten SGA meetings in the Fall.
Toby Makowski ’18: If you’re allowed to miss up to five, you could end up missing half of the meetings.
Kat Phifer ‘19: I have a question about the type of absence. Is it ever specified excused versus unexcused? Also does it say anywhere else?
Shaina Robinson ‘17: Yes, there is. It does not say anywhere in the Constitution.
Rachel Bruce ‘18: Excused typically counts for illness, family emergency, or religious commitments. Unexcused is more like, “I didn’t feel like coming”.
Rhea Manglani ’17: Or “I forgot”.
Lillian Oyen-Ustad ’19: Having five unexcused absences, I am extremely in favor because it makes it more accessible.
Bridget Murray ‘17: I have a question. In the time I’ve been on RepCo, is there any rationale why it is five?
Rhea Manglani ‘17: From what we had been told it was five. You can make an amendment to make it four.
Bridget Murray ‘17: Can I do that?
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Someone is at the pro mic but sure.
Margaret Gorman ‘19: Having it in the constitution is helpful because it makes things easier. I was worried if I got more than five unexcused of what happens or who was keeping track of it. It makes it solid.
Bridget Murray ‘17: Can I propose an amendment to make it four unexcused absences instead of five?
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Okay, this is a friendly amendment.
Kat Phifer ’19: In anywhere else does it say what happens if someone misses that? You mention meeting with the E-Board or having to step down.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: There’s nothing specifically.
Aleja Newman ’18: I think you should change it back to five. Knowing myself and other people and some of us, as much as we think or talk about it, Bryn Mawr can be a hard place to be in. Additionally, I guess I’m confused about whether a group project counts as an excused or unexcused absence.
X: Point of Order, all amendments have to be seconded.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Everyone sit down, we have to vote on four versus five. We’re going to vote on changing it to four unexcused absences. Raise packets for yes, no, or abstain.
This amendment passes. The resolution now reads that Representatives may have up to four unexcused absences. Now back to discussion of resolution itself. People at mics may return.
Hannah Zamore ’19: Question/comment. It feels that even four feels like a lot of absences. It concerns me that even in addition to the four absences that, as an elected representative, they can miss the majority of SGA meetings. Is there anything in the constitution about this?
Shaina Robinson ‘17: There is a section in the Constitution that details impeaching someone if one of the criteria is not fulfilling duties, which could include not going to SGA meetings.
Hannah Zamore ‘19: Would that include unexcused versus excused?
Shaina Robinson ‘17: Usually if there is an serious number of excused absences we will sit down with them and see what kind of circumstances are happening in someone’s life. If it begins to become too much for them, we may discuss the possibility of them resigning from their position.
Sophieanne Millis ’20: I think it would make more sense to make absences proportional to the number of meeting in semester. For whatever reason, we have a significantly less amount of meetings in the Fall. Why not say that you can miss a certain fraction of the meetings?
Rachel Bruce ‘18: That is a great idea but unfortunately that would become too complicated when tabulating the absences after a while. This is probably the best solution for the time being.
Delaney Williams ‘17: Motion to Call the Question!
Rhea Manglani ‘17: We’re going to vote on this. Raise your packets for yes to Call the Question. This is by visual ballot. You may put your packets down. Raise packets for no? Abstain. Yes, we’re going to vote. Raise your packets for yes? This is again by visual ballot. Raise your packets for no? Raise packets for abstain? This resolution passes. Now onto Resolution Number Five.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Next is pay the E-Board presented by the 2016-17 E-Board and the 2017-18 E-Board.
Plenary Resolution #5: Paying the SGA Executive Board
Anna Huang ’19:
“Whereas, the fulfillment of the duties outlined for the members of the Executive
Board in the Constitution is dependent upon the number of hours they can spend on SGA.
Whereas, each E-Board position spearheads a sub-committee, oversees its responsibilities, and trains its members, in addition to hosting individual office hours and attending various meetings.
Whereas, SGA positions require each Executive Board members to practice social and intellectual competency, requiring a certain level of leadership and transparency.
Whereas, in the past students have been unable to run for the Executive Board due to the number of hours the positions require from their position holders on a weekly basis.
Whereas, this has disproportionately affected students who depend on student employment, making the Executive Board only accessible to students who can afford to forgo pay.
Whereas, SGA is made inaccessible and not fully representative of the student body since only a subsection of the student body can afford to fully devote their time to an Executive Board position.
Whereas, for the following positions to be paid, the Executive Board is working with Marybeth Horvath and other members of staff and the administration, as deemed necessary, to ensure that correct steps are being taken to develop job descriptions and hourly rates for the Executive Board.
Whereas, if the College decides that SGA can use the SGA Budget to pay the
Executive Board members, SGA will use the accumulated emergency pool from the SGA Budget to fund stipends until active discussions regarding the administration’s potential contribution to the budget have ended.
Be it resolved, that if the five Executive Board positions (President, Vice-
President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Head of the Honor Board) are paid through a stipend, the stipend amount shall come out of the SGA budget for next term. As per current policy, the budget will be approved at a Representative Council meeting. However, the proposed stipend amount of the Executive Board will not be enacted until the student body votes on it at Fall Plenary.
Be it resolved, that these are academic year only positions and any summer work is done on a volunteer basis.
Be it resolved, that if the stipend amount is reduced or rejected by the student body at Plenary, residual funds will enter the emergency pool.
Be it resolved, that if the College and Human Resources determines that the
Executive Board members cannot be paid through a stipend and that they are employees of the College, the Executive Board positions will be paid through the Student Activities student employment line.
Be it resolved, that these will be considered Level IV positions under student-employment guidelines due to the expertise and highly technical tasks required for each position.”
Anna Huang ’19: In the appendix we have the job descriptions of the E-Board members. In summary: “Executive Board positions on SGA are not currently paid. Due to the intensive number of hours necessary to fulfill the duties of these positions, those who cannot afford to spend unpaid hours of time on these positions cannot run for them. This means that the Executive Board positions are not accessible to the entire undergraduate student body. In an effort to make SGA an inclusive space that is representative of the Bryn Mawr community, we want to make the positions paid either through an SGA approved stipend or employment through the College. “
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Since people are starting at the mics I’ll give time to speak. So Question, Pro, Con, then Balcony.
Charis Nandor ’19: if this is paid, are you then working for the Administration?
Swati Shastry ’18: All of us have some level of duty to to the Administration by nature of our position and representatives between the students and the College.
Delaney Williams ’17: I want to propose an amendment. Strike President and Vice President in “Be it resolved Be it resolved, that if the five Executive Board positions (President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Head of the Honor Board) are paid through a stipend, the stipend amount shall come out of the SGA budget for next term…” …since we are adding a new E-Board position, it wouldn’t make sense.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Do it to show visually?
Delaney Williams ‘17: Is that friendly?
Rhea Manglani ’17: Yes that is friendly.
Swati Shastry ‘18: So the reason why we didn’t add it is because what we’re doing now is putting it through the SGA budget. We’re trying to get it paid through Student Activities. Anyway, that it would be enacted next April and would not be included in this cycle.
Delaney Williams ‘17: So this is more of a proposal and not the Constitution?
Swati Shastry ’17: Yes.
Aleja Newman ‘18: I have a few points about con. E-Board positions are asserted leadership, voted on by the student body. This is tricky like the idea of Dorm Presidents being paid. If you’re being voted on should you get money. There is talk that running on campus is a popularity contest, which I agree with. If it is coming out of the budget it is taking away from clubs. Secondly you’re running to benefit the community. This should not come with monetary reward. Coming out of the SGA budget when we have all these SGA dues, it’s not fair.
Anna Huang ’19: It will only come from the SGA budget for one semester. The proposal for President [of Bryn Mawr College] will set it as a formal student budget item and the College will support all student payment afterwards. In terms o the popularity contest, this resolution serves to motivate people to campaign for these positions. Less and less people running because they think that there is no time commitment. When I went for Treasurer, people asked me if there were time commitments. It’s actually not that popular.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Real quick to clarify, there is no guarantee that Student Activities will pay for that.
Nora Broderick ‘18: My question is what is the Emergency Pool and what is it used for?
Jocelyne Oliveros ‘18: Typically what happens is that when the budget is structured, we usually have budget 20 to 25% in case of anything happening. That has been in place for a really long time. It’s usually not tapped into because it’s an emergency budget.
Mara Schlotterbeck ’20: I’m just confused. If you’re pulling this from SGA budget, where are the residual funds coming from? What is going to lose out to pay or this?
Jocelyne Oliveros ‘18: The emergency pool fund varies from semester to semester. That emergency fund fluctuates. If it came to a point that pool money would go from 25% to 30… if the school did not give money during Fall Plenary it would go to 25%.
Mara Schlotterbeck ‘20: So you’re saying you would pull this?
Jocelyne Oliveros ‘18: Yes.
Jasmine Rangel ‘17: I want to propose amendment about Traditions.
Rhea Manglani ’17: We need a second.
Lillian Oyen-Ustad ’19: Seconded!
Swati Shastry ’18: Traditions has different line of responsibilities.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: So Jasmine, would you want to vote on that or are you okay with the future doing that?
Jasmine Rangel ‘17: Yes, I’d like to vote. Have people vote.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: We’re going to put this to a vote. The vote is yes, to add Traditions People to the resolution. Options are yes to add, no to add, and abstain.
Anna Huang ‘19: So actually we asked the people from Student Activities and they said Traditions can reach out to ask for funding from them. They don’t have to use the SGA budget. For this resolution we’ve been meeting with people from Student Activities. As opposed to the Traditions Mistresses, we [the SGA E-Board] cannot do that.
Jasmine Rangel ‘17: I guess how does that affect the replacement? Is it because you included it as an either or?
Rhea Manglani ’17: We’re going to move to a vote. Your options are yes, no, and abstain.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: This amendment does not pass. We will return to discussion. We have roughly three minutes left. I’m going to start over with question, pro, con, and then balcony.
Lisa Li ’20: You just mentioned that funding for payment is going to come through the SGA budget for one semester, but after that you’re going to make a proposal to the President to ask for separate funding for the payment. How is that separate budget going to affect the campus-wide hiring and budget? By that time will you guys write a new resolution?
Anna Huang ‘19: Well I guess we won’t write a new resolution for you to vote on. We also need to talk to Student Financial Aid. I don’t think it will affect the budget for the school because the school has a lot of money. It will only be $7000 set in other part to… so that money can grow. We will profit for every semester, it can be used to pay us. Finally, we don’t have to pay or cost any money from the SGA budget. But we need time to [perfect] this.
Hannah Smallwood ‘20: I think we all know as Bryn Mawr College that we have to make it harder for students who have to work to be part of student government and suppress those voices for everyone. It undermines the system for everyone.
Annie Belgam ’18: While I think the E-Board positions are really important, the problem I have is the fact that depending on the different where the different committees do decide the money to come from, possibility that the E-Board would have administrative boss or advisor which would undermine the idea of a student-run government. While I think there should be a future resolution, there is a way this isn’t the way to do it.
Mariam Haider ’18: Mariam Haider, Class of 2018.
Lizzie Siegle ’18: Lizzie Siegle, Class of 2018.
Mariam Haider ‘18: As a student athlete that works 12 hours a week, that’s just basing it off work hours and how much you have to work, plenty of sports and clubs for students who don’t expect to be paid for our hard work to serve committee.
Lizzie Siegle ‘18: We make the time for work study.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: We have run out of time.
Aleja Newman ’18: Motion to extend by fifteen minutes.
Leah Baker ’19: Second!
Rhea Manglani ‘17: We’re going to vote to extend speaking time, everyone sit down.
Phoebe Dopulous ‘19: Motion to Table the resolution.
Molly Marion ’20: Seconded.
Tyler Manning ’20: Point of Order. We still have to vote on time frame less than fifteen minutes.
Daniela Lopez Lopez ’19: Question, can you make another motion to extend by another time the answer is yes?
Nora Dell ‘19: Point of Clarification, you can make as many as you want.
Kate Hawthorn ’19: Motion to extend by five minutes.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Please quiet down. there is a motion to extend by five minutes by Kate Hawthorn.
Hannah Zamore ’19: Second!
Rhea Manglani ’17: Are there any other motions?
Aleja Newman ‘18: Motion to extend by seven minutes.
Leah Baker ’19: Seconded.
Lynn Wu ’19: Motion to extend by speaking order.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: [That was a] Motion to extend by speaking order
Rachel Ellerson ’20: Second.
Caitlin Haskett ’20: Point of Order, the motion to second that was never voted on.
Rhea Manglani ‘17: We’re voting first on motion to table and then extend time.
Delaney Williams ’17: Motion to Call the Question.
Sarah Kraus ’17: Seconded
Rhea Manglani ‘17: Okay so the motions are motion to Table, motion to extend by fifteen minutes, motion to extend by five minutes, motion to extend by seven minutes, and motion to Call the Question. To vote to table until the Fall, raise your packets for yes, no, and abstain?
Yes: 184 to table
No: 101 to not table
Rhea Manglani ’17: Okay, we may have lost quorum. Everyone we are going to count to see if we still have quorum. Counters ready yourselves. It appears we have lost quorum, therefore according to the Constitution if we lose quorum a second time we have to end Plenary. All resolutions will be tabled in the Fall. I’m sorry, guys.
Quorum Lost at 10:14 PM