ASUCI Senate Minutes
Tuesday, February 24, 2015

ASUCI Legislative Council Minutes

February 24th, 2015


  • Called to Order by Sanaa Khan at 5:05PM

  • Attendance

    • * John Salazar will be absent (Personal)

    • * John Beneke will be absent (Class)

    • * Jordan Edmunds will be absent (Personal)

    • * James Louie will be absent (Personal)

    • * Reza Zomorrodian will be absent (Mesa Court/Housing)

    • Bill Thomsen and Josh Nguyen left early at 6:08PM

  • Approval of Minutes

    • Motion: Hong / Second: Carlson

  • Approval of Agenda

    • Clarification Typo on agenda, R50-59 not B50-59 - Phan/Carlson

    • R50-54 consideration on Thursday - Hong/Carlson

    • Motion: Tsai / Second: Lima

  • Guest List

    • mark deppe (asuci/sgsm)

    • dan dooros (student affairs)

    • Ayan, Myron, Parshan (members of public)

  • Public Comment

    • parshan: regarding R50-54, thank you councilmember tin for postponing it. the person who will be speaking regarding differentiation of the terms.

    • mark: hoping to continue bringing administration in. assuming scheduling works, lisa cornish coming in next tuesday and talking about mesa court expansion. if you have other areas of campus you’d like to request to come in and speak, i’d love to do that. one current thought is to ask dr. parham to come and chat in an informal setting, during a closed session. if this is something that interests you, please let me know.

    • dan: had opportunity today to tour riverside and their bus system and hopefully bringing changes back to anteater express

  • Old Business

    • R50-59

      • Pull from Public Info Committee - Phan/Tsai

      • Open Discussion (15 minutes/1 minute speaker) - Phan/Carlson

      • Lima: we made changes/edits to the legislation and passed it through public info committee

      • Call to Question - Tsai/Rico

        • Resolution Passes

  • New Business

    • R50-60

      • Pull to Floor - Tsai/Delshadi

      • Motion to Open Discussion (10 minutes/1 minute speaker) - Phan/Hong

      • Hong: the final total students would be paying is $27-ish

      • Khan: this is a different fee

      • Hong: is this another fee

      • Khan: yes. this is not an expansion of the previous fee but another additional one

      • Delshadi: if we were to modify that fee, 33% of that would go back to financial aid. we would essentially eliminate any support that AS would get.

      • Fatahi: where is no sunset clause

      • Delshadi: final resolution submitted to UCOP/SFAC has a sunset clause

      • Khorsavi: does it have to be in the language of the resolution, in order for it to properly be voted on by the student body to have a sunset clause

      • Delshadi: what we will do is insert final language submitted to UCOP that includes all those guidelines, including 30 year reaffirmation.

      • Delshadi friendly amendment to add sunset clause

      • Hong: what led you all to the conclusion that a $9 fee increase was needed

      • Delshadi: $9 would be the amount we feel that would be needed to restore the AS services. what we’ve done is project our budgets. things we would like to do is: decrease shocktober cost of attending, more students attending lobby visits, bringing back legal clinic, increasing SIRPs

      • Khan: travel grants, similar to what AGS have. essentially josh (student services) and I (EVP) take in the most money, but our expenses increase each year. 51% of our budget goes to administrative salaries, 49% for us, most of that goes to EVP and Student Services for their huge costs. that leaves little for the rest of the offices. other offices have not been able to expand their projects due to the lack of funding. UCOP is cutting back on student projects, and we as AS need to react to that

      • Delshadi: this fee adjusts for inflation, so we would not have to ask students for a fee increase of this manner in the future.

      • Phan: i understand you all need this fee, but how do we intend to pass this to the student body

      • Delshadi: we are in the middle of mid-year reallocation. will set aside funding to create publicity and marketing for this event. executive cabinet is committed to making this happen, this fee this year. the 51% we pay to administrative salaries will just increase year after year. that 51% allows us to have staff support, but unfortunately thats an increasing cost and we do not have an increasing budget every year. we want to create a financially stable AS for years to come.

      • Guevara: how is our current budget look like

      • Phan/Nguyen: currently $1.2m income a year, $500-600k to admin salaries, $120k to SPFB/alt media, less than $400k for programming

      • Guevara: how much would this fee increase our program budgets

      • Delshadi: we’re looking at doubling our operating budget

      • Fatahi: why does it say that Legislative Council supports this, i understand the fee and the resolution but why does it say we specifically support this, because i don’t

      • Phan: two resolutions may have to be written, one putting this resolution on the ballot, the other basically stating that we support this initiative, we would set aside equal funds we spend on the campaign for a counter-campaign

      • guevara: so can we use reserves for our budgets

      • delshadi: we can’t allocate ASUCI Reserves money for future budgets, we can only spend how much income we bring in.

      • Delshadi: if you look at generally accepted accounting practices, we aren’t financially stable

      • Lima: if i was not a legislative council member, we always say our tuition is gonna increase, now asuci is asking more money from us. how do we make this clear to students.

      • Sidney:  agreeing with Lima, putting things as “Student Support Services” is really big. if you could list events or programs you know that would happen, students would be more likely to vote on it.

      • Guevara: agrees with Sidney/Lima, adding a list would be helpful, not just that it would AS

      • Nguyen: marketing plan right now, we have made projected budgets with what we would do with the money if it did/doesn’t pass. if it doesn’t pass, things look bad. everything would be cut to keep big programs afloat. its bringing ASUCI down. the idea behind myUCI would have this this and this, and if myUCI passed- we could bring these things. we don’t want to be binding with the language, in the event it becomes unfeasible but we still have to do it b/c its in the language. we are not trying to short the students with what we can do, but i am sure the next asuci officers will can do what they can do best.

      • Delshadi: as josh mentioned, we cant decide how future money will be allocated. we will market services will be recommended if this fee passes and things will be brought back.

      • Khan: I know this is hard, but what we have now is barely enough to do programming. We have $600 for the CARE Commission on what is something that affects students nationwide in colleges. This money is to help us get by, we make do with our money. If we do not pass this, we may be pressed to make cuts. We shouldn’t be position

      • Sidney: i don’t think many people here are against this being on the ballot. none of us are in a position to vote on this , everyone is in agreement on having this on the ballot. everyone is in favor of this being presented on the student body, but everyone’s constituents do have concerns about passing another fee. advertising services might help sell this to the student body, hoping your marketing plan doesnt fall through, but if we advertise services it might help persuade students

      • Hong: i understand your concern about like, we have been campaigning against the tuition increase. but this is a different case, tuition increase could have been mitigated by government. this is one where the students have a right to good student governance. its a fee that hasn’t increased in a very long time. asuci has always been putting up a lot of programs. you have my full support.

      • Delshadi: i just want to say, the support of council is really important. if we can’t convince you all, then we have no chance in the student body. we want to get you on board and get your support. students are feeling the tuition increases, but this is a tool that we need to advocate for our students. if we are unable to pass this and provide services and programs that our university doesn’t, we are in a tight spot. just having your support means a lot. everyone in favor of this initiative would appreciate that. money will continue to dwindle, in a few years we are looking at a different ASUCI that has less programs, events and services. that’s not an ASUCI i want to be a part of. we are working on a minimal budget and trying our best to do the most with it. we prioritize our budgets with things that are important to the students, and we want to do more.

      • Thomsen: i feel we have elapsed the time, i feel like we’ve heard a lot of the same things a lot of the different times.

      • Motion to close speaker’s list - Thomsen/Arkules

      • Barnoy: what are we lacking compared to other UCs particularly?

      • Nguyen: right now we sit at roughly under $400k, SB has $12m. i can’t say if we had 12m, who knows what we could do. its very hard to say, because it would change a lot.

      • Sidney: going to ask John to elaborate on what he meant on legislative council being embedded on the legislation

      • Delshadi: as a collective and personal level, if you aren’t invested in this, then maybe the students you’re under would not vote for this either.

      • Khan: clauses states “Leg Council will be overseeing the budget and administration of the fee”

      • Phan: i understand the purpose and see that this fee is needed, but have a hard time seeing how we can sell this to the undergraduate student body to have them pass it.

      • Motion to postpone legislation to Thursday - Phan/Thomsen

        • delshadi objection motion to postpone fails - 5-7-0

      • call to question - Delshadi/Thomsen

        • resolution passes 11-1-0

    • R50-61

      • pull to floor - Tsai/Kathuria

      • open discussion (10 min/1 min speaker) - Phan/Thomsen

      • Tsai: could someone clarify what would it means if it would be “met with contempt”

      • Khan: we can amend that. normally in terms of formal bodies, to meet something with contempt, means that we can pass a resolution condemning it and be very angry at the same time

      • Delshadi: reason why this legislation came up was because we want these services to stay within ASUCI, just wanted to make council aware that these two resolutions have passed. hopefully there will be no contempt, maybe we could amend contempt out.

      • Tsai: just an administrative point, just because it’s titled reaffirmation of the resolution considering it already passed last year, it wouldn’t be fitting to amend the actual language that was reaffirmed.

      • Deppe: is any of this in the new constitution

      • Phan: yes, it has its own article

      • Motion to Call to Question - Phan/Tsai

        • resolution passes 12-0-0

    • R50-62

      • pull to floor - Phan/Tsai

      • postpone to Thursday - Phan/Delshadi

    • R50-63

      • pull to floor - Phan/Thomsen

      • phan motion of privilege, secondary author read legislation

        • delshadi seconds

      • delshadi motion of privilege, secondary author read legislation

        • tsai seconds

      • postpone to Thursday - Phan/Delshadi

    • R50-64

      • pull to floor - Phan/Delshadi

      • phan motion of privilege, secondary author read legislation

        • delshadi seconds

      • Delshadi friendly amendments to fix typographical errors

        • phan accepts

      • postpone to Thursday - Phan/Tsai

    • R50-65

      • pull to floor - Phan/Delshadi

      • phan motion of privilege, secondary author read legislation

        • delshadi seconds

      • Delshadi friendly amendments to fix typographical errors

        • phan accepts

      • postpone to Thursday - Phan/Tsai

    • R50-66

      • pull to floor - Phan/Tsai

      • phan motion of privilege, secondary author read legislation

        • delshadi seconds

      • postpone to Thursday - Delshadi/Tsai

    • R50-67

      • pull to floor - Delshadi/Tsai

      • phan motion of privilege, secondary author read legislation

        • tsai seconds

      • postpone to Thursday - Tsai/Delshadi

    • R50-68

      • pull to floor - Phan/Tsai

      • phan motion of privilege, secondary author read legislation

        • tsai seconds

      • phan motion to consider items R50-62, R50-63, R50-64, R50-65, R50-66, R50-67 and R50-68 as one consent agenda for consideration on Thursday

        • delshadi seconds

      • postpone to Thursday - Phan/Delshadi

  • EXECUTIVE OFFICER REPORTS

    • ACADEMIC VP NIKKI: art lab going on right now 5 to 7. we also have another event, boba event, “how $2 can affect your grade”. professors will come in and be talking about caffine and how it affects the body. visions will be presenting advocacy projects to the execs tomorrow, they will find an issue on campus, present it and the execs will adopt certain projects. amp reviewing mentor applications, will be done friday - people accepted will be notified beginning week 10. academic senate, is almost done with diversity video. waiting on last minute changes. jenna marbles coming next thursday, having difficulties - its definitely having and people RSVP’ed will get in. we want more people to get in, but not sure if that will be possible. if you RSVP, be there at 6:45. at 6:45 we will release extra space to standby line. we are working on a photobook to send to ellen, with a lot of photos. zach ferguson’s friend (OP Films & Media) will be taking this to the ellen show to present to her soon. hopefully