ASUCI Senate Minutes
ASUCI Senate Minutes
Tuesday, February 21st, 2017
· Senator Shahbaz arrives late at 5:18pm. Senator Abuzeid arrives late at 5:19pm. Senator Aldoghmi arrives late at 5:47pm.
§ Lu: Motion to bring R52-44 to the floor/ Second: Mousa
§ R52-44 read by Jacoby.
§ Orozco: Move call R52-44 into question/ Second :Lim
§ R52-44 passes 19-0-0, Yea: Lu, Mousa, Jacoby, Baggia, Erikat, Noureldine, Lim, Abdelrahman, Shahbaz, Xiao, Alazani, Trinh, Danesh, Hassane, Orozco, Yakub, Hasan, and Zheng.
§ Jacoby: Motion to bring B52-05 to the floor/ Second: Orozco
§ Legislation read by Lu.
§ Jacoby Motion to bring B52-05 into discussion for 5 minutes/ Second: Yakub
§ Yakub: Can you explain the part where it talks about the contingency account amount to 90 dollars?
§ Lu: So our total with tax is 83.65, the 50 dollars allocated would not cover this. So we want to withdraw 45.95 from contingency. But the total amount cannot be more than 90 dollars. So I’m leaving around 6-7 dollars to fluctuate for that.
§ Orozco: One air freshener is 10 dollars?
§ Lu: There is four in a pack.
§ Lim: Point of interest, how much is in the contingency fund?
§ Jacoby: 200
§ Jacoby: Motion to commit B52-05 to finance Second: Hernandez
§ Jacoby: Motion to bring R52-45 to the floor
§ Legislation read by Lim.
§ Xiao: Motion to bring R52-45 to discussion for 10 minutes/ sec: Hernandez
§ Yakub: For the spelling of “antifa’? Is the F supposed to be capitalized?
§ Orozco: Where are the sources for antiFa? You should cite these.
§ Lim: Do you want us to cite specific parts of it?
§ Jacoby: Anything that is a claim should have something with sources showing where these claims happen.
§ Shantharaj : I recommend you strike the first line regarding request for action.
§ Orozco: Also I am having an issue with terrorism, as it is not defined but is mentioned a couple times throughout this resolution. That is also an issue.
§ Mousa: Free speech activists are not defined as well.
§ Lim: Point of interest, should we take all these notes and give this to the primary author?
§ Orozco: Well it can be committed to rules and we would vote on it, if it doesn’t pass, then it won’t be voted on.
§ Xiao: should this also apply toward the “no ban and no wall” resolution as well.
§ Natoolo: That’s why it had to be brought back as well.
§ Shantharaj; All the periods at the ends of the ‘where as’ comments should be commas.
§ Orozco: The point of the rest at the bottom says to condemn the action of these groups at Berkeley to promote non-violence at UCI and encourage debate. I’m finding it hard how this accomplishes that.
§ Xiao: It’s because when Milo visited UCI, there was a protests and there was not any violence and there was not much controversy over it. However in regard to the Berkeley event it gave Milo a platform.
§ Abdelrahman: First of all, violence did occur during the milo event on the UCI campus. A girl was beaten and her phone was taken from her. I am confused why you would vote on this and also vote on the no ban one wall legislation because that condemns anti fascists. Terrorists has been used to objectify certain groups. Used to objectify these groups and classify them as terrorists. This is white supremacists language, that has been used for all time to objectify and oppress people. We should not condone any legislation of this kind and white supremacy of all kinds.
§ Mousa: So basically what Abdelrahman was saying is the rhetoric that was used in this legislation is oppressive and similar to the language that Donald Trump uses. The UC campus have violence toward the people you are condemning for the violence.
§ Jacoby Motion to extend time by ten minutes/ Second: Abdelrahman
§ Mousa: The word terrorist inherently points to Muslims and to blacks. Who are you condemning? It doesn’t make sense. I don’t see what this violence is? Is Milo’s rhetoric not just as violent?
§ Danesh: Yields time to audience member: The Berkeley students were using a type of violence that is equal to the historical white supremacist violence that people like Milo support. The students were protesting the white supremacists violence that historically has done damage to black and brown people. We are living in a state where black and brown people are being attacked by police. Protesting white supremacist rhetoric has very real consequence in this world.
§ Jacoby: I just want to say if it’s very easy for us to discuss this legislation without the actual author here. If there was a way to postpone to Thursday when she is actually here.
§ Lim: When you say the rhetoric of white supremacist? What else is in the diction
§ Yakub: So basically it’s kind of like they were protesting his presence there, so the rhetoric of what they are protesting for is something we should protest for as well.
§ Orozco: AntiFa and terrorism were not defined or free speech movements were not defined. Peaceful protest getting berated counts as violence. Then you should cite this. This individual has already caused violence to our brown and black population on this campus. Again, define those things and cite them. And make sure that if this is about mMlo.
§ Mousa: One critique out of the many is stay out of the word terrorism. It holds very racist connotations. It takes away from what you are really saying and places it on black and brown people.
§ Natoolo: Since the author is not in the room, if you have your name on the resolution you are held accountable for the resolution. You are accountable for the resolution. Should we table this for the next meeting. When Senator Lim did not co-author most of these words
§ Yakub: Instead of condemning the actions of antiFa, would be that we support peaceful protests instead of mailing it sounds like these were terrorists.
§ Zheng: I move to postpone this to next meeting on February 23rd.
§ Orozco: Object, I think this should be committed to rules. Lim: I think bc the person who wrote this leg and myself and both of are new senators and both of us should look over it again and decide about it. Especially with the primary author.
§ Baranwal: In the section of rules committee, the rules committee should be responsible for review the structure and in order to make reasonable changes to the leg and rules does have the power to take it into account.
§ Hernandez: I don’t think we are disputing that. I think it’s best to table it to Thursday and to hear the author out. So they can work with the rukles committee.
§ Baranwal: If it gets voted down then the leg would have to be resubmitted
§ Discussion of rules regarding rules committee and legislations.
§ Orozco withdraws her objection.
§ Zheng’s original motion goes through to postpone until Thursday.
§ Mousa: Objection—author decided not to show up.
§ Baranwal: I move to extend time by 10 minutes/ Object- Hernandez.
§ Xiao Motion to extend time by 5 minutes
§ Discussion on rules and Roberts rules continues.
§ Objection to postpone by Mousa; vote: less than 2/3rds. Now tabled until Thursday.
§ Baranwal: Motion to go into closed session.
§ Nand: Objection
§ Nand: In the constitution it says UCI students have a right to know this
§ Baranwal: Fragility of the saturation it is safer that this stays just with the senate members.
§ Nand: We must maintain transparency with the public.
§ Orozco: Motion to go into recess for 5 minutes/ Second: Jacoby
§ Majority vote to go into closed session passes at 6:15