ASUCI Senate Minutes
Monday, October 15, 2012


  1. Bureaucratic Procedure
    1. Call to Order at 5:06 PM by Andrea Gaspar
    2. Approval of Minutes
      1. Motion to approve
        1. First, Nicole Hisatomi
        2. Second, Shadi Jafari
    3. Approval of Agenda
      1. Motion to amend agenda to put Public Comment before Housekeeping
        1. First, Nicole Hisatomi
        2. Second, Sabreen Shalabi
      2. Motion to suspend bylaws
        1. First, Nicole Hisatomi
        2. Second, Sabreen Shalabi
    4. Attendance ABSENT

  • Arman Liwanag – At-Large Representative
  • Summer Ko – At-Large Representative
  • Raymond Delacruz – Business School Representative
  • Angela Yu – Engineering Representative

    1. Motion for twenty minute public comment with two minute speaking time
      1. First, Nicole Hisatomi
      2. Second, Joseph Park
  1. Old Business
  2. Public Comment
    1. Lauren Hyman—President of Jewish Student Union at UCI
      1. Jewish community feels deeply offended and excluded
      2. Betrays UCI as an anti-sematic campus
    2. Daniel Narvy—president of MPME
      1. Does not think both sides were heard
      2. Does not believe both sides are transparent
      3. Legislation was remarkable, including positive and negative publicity
      4. As a Jewish student, the response is alarming
      5. Hate is hate and we should not have it on campus
      6. This alienates students
    3. Narvi Baroukhim—
      1. What happened on Tuesday was disappointing
      2. Should be done in a more transparent manner
      3. Battles should be chosen correctly
    4. Frank Williams—President and Founder of Irvine Global Innovation Group
      1. Targeting Israel to explore its innovation
      2. The companies we work with daily are globalized
      3. There is an international job market
    5. David Fridman—freshman at UCI
      1. Little transparency at UCI
      2. If there was more transparency and communication between Legislative Council and students, there would be more comfort
    6. Yael Katz—
      1. All hurt and upset that there was no transparency
      2. Felt blindsided, targeted, and disappointed
    7. Sharon Chulien—Freshman
      1. Had the option of going to other UCs where the Jewish voice is represented more equally
      2. Came here to see something change
      3. So shocked that something like this could happen at an institution that is so intelligent
      4. A piece of legislation that passed
    8. Nanny Warfield—third year and Anteaters For Israel president
      1. AFI is a pro-Israel organization that helps teach UCI students about the culture
      2. Next time, they would like to be included in this
    9. Sara—
      1. ASUCI did follow standardized procedure
      2. This is not the first time UCI has taken a political stance and hopes that more come
      3. Recognizes Israel’s contribution
      4. Feel open to criticize specifics of the legislation
    10. Daniel Fridman—
      1. Found legislation to have “fluff,” including comparisons that should not be in there
      2. The bill was constructed in order oppose countries that oppress major minorities
        1. Sabreen Shalabi—clarifies, agrees.
      3. Finds there is no oppression that the bill states
    11. Motion to extend public comment by twenty minutes with two minute speaking time:
      1. First, Kleshie Baisie
      2. Second, Hassan Mukhlins
    12. Daniel Narvy—president of MPME
      1. Did not like the way the process work or factors of the bill
      2. Urges both sides to be heard
    13. Nicole Hisatomi—
      1. Extends invitation for public to actively help improve Constitution and Bylaws
    14. Reza Zomorrodian—
      1. Legislative Council is always open to hearing public input
    15. Andrea Gaspar—
      1. Extends invitation for public to actively adjust the legislation and share input at open meetings
    16. Shiv Gandhi—
      1. Found resolution to be rushed
      2. Did not get to hear the voice of the student organizations
      3. Wants to listen to what all the students believe
      4. Wants to ensure Jewish students feel safe
    17. Lisa Le—
      1. Former council member
      2. As a council member, the legislation was out accordingly
      3. It is a legislative council’s responsibility to be informed and if a council member is not informed, they should abstain or reject from legislation
      4. The legislation highlights the humanitarian aspect
      5. Does not support any warfare and UCI’s interaction as well
    18. Daniel Narvy—
      1. If you want to talk about human rights, talk about Sudan and Syria
    19. Yael Katz—
      1. In the bylaws, legislation is supposed to benefit all students and believes this legislation cuts off student funding; the legislation goes against bylaws
    20. Sharon Chulien—Freshman
      1. Gaza is being retaliated against because the targets are purposefully attacked on the innocent; Israel warns in advance
    21. Abdul—
      1. Supposed to be talking about the legislation
      2. Focus on legislation that the council passed
    22. Emad Kazi—
      1. Legislation is in the general welfare of the student
      2. Does not feel comfortable with money going into companies such as the ones mentioned within the legislation
    23. Motion to extend public comment by sixteen minutes with two minute speaking time
      1. First, Reza Zomorrodian
      2. Second, Rame Bashir
    24. Lisa Le—
      1. Legislation is about harming people and what war is
    25. Abdul—
      1. Mechanical engineering major
    26. Nicole Bastos—
      1. Ask for everyone to calm down and face the facts
    27. Shiv Gandhi—
      1. Wants to hear both sides of the argument
    28. Daniel Narvy—
      1. Impressive piece of legislation but believes it is based on false premises
      2. If someone does not have a full understanding of the conflict, they easily could support it
      3. However, it is wrong
    29. Ali Choudhery
      1. Finds it is important to talk about Gaza
      2. If his money is going to support machinery that is attacking innocent people, he does not support it
    30. Yael Katz—
      1. It is completely one sided to say it is a single entity at fault
    31. Sharon Chulien—
      1. Both parties want peace
    32. Emad Kazi—
      1. Legislation is getting lost—wants to hone in on the legislation and not the issue
    33. Sabreen Shalabi—
      1. Not targeting Israel and its existence
      2. The legislation is supposed to target the companies that are contributing the human rights violations—refers to international law and the UN
      3. Resolution is not anti-sematic
      4. Comments on the specific companies and human rights violations are needed
    34. Daniel Narvy—
      1. When people say they want to free Palestine, it involves throwing down Israel
      2. The legislation can be interpreted as very bad for the Jewish people
    35. Reza Zomorrodian—
      1. Wants to refocus the conversation back to the legislation
      2. Believes the intent of the legislation is directed toward the human rights violations involved
      3. The legislation is set as a statement against human rights violations
    36. Yael Katz—
      1. The document is based on Israel
      2. The document isolates and targets Israel
      3. Felt personally offended and unsafe
  3. New Business
    1. Legislative Council Housekeeping
      1. Nicole Hisatomi—
        1. Leaving at the end of the quarter, thinking about designating new chair
    2. Discussion
      1. Motion to have discussion about R48-15 for sixteen minutes with two minute speaking time
        1. First, Nicole Hisatomi
        2. Second, Kleshie Baisie
      2. Nicole Hisatomi—
        1. The next steps should be “where do we go next?”
      3. Kleshie Baisie—
        1. Did understand that there was no opposition in the room
        2. Believes that there are things that need to change about the publicity of legislations with Leg Council
        3. In terms of the legislation, voted yes regardless of the companies involved—does not believe any of her money should go toward companies that violate human rights; was not an attack on any country
        4. Did not reach out for any organization to come; did not actively exclude the Israeli organizations
      4. Traci Ishigo—
        1. Because of the tension in the room, would appreciate the abolition of snaps; wants room to share dialogue
      5. Nicole Bastos—
        1. Needs clarification on closed meeting bylaws with rules committee
      6. Kleshie Baisie—
        1. Does not find it to be a two-sided issue; voted on the legislation in regards to the student fees, not on the organizations
      7. Daisy Herrera
        1. Agree with Kleshie Baisie’s comments on the sides
        2. Leg Council is open to working with public on creating legislations for all
      8. Shiv Gandhi—
        1. Adjust legislation to remove any means of atta