ASUCI Senate Minutes
ASUCI Senate Minutes
Tuesday, March 14th, 2017
· Senator Aldoghmi arrives late at 5:46. Senator Hasan arrives late at 6:00.
· Below is a copy of the read statement made by Carl Olson, Arts Senator Applicant:
· Carl Olson: “Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, Executives, and Internal SAG: for those of you who may not be aware, my name is Carl Olson and I have an application pending to fill the Arts senate vacancy. Now, since this process has now been draw out for nine weeks without any formal communications regarding my status until today, I must make the assumption that there might have been some mistake with my application which could bring into question my capabilities and qualifications.
Just so we can all be on the same page, I have taken the liberty to procure various student testimonials in my favor, which I have passed out. Also, attached to the back is my correspondence with the office manager of the music department, since I have been in contact with him for some time now discussing the various hurdles and obstacles staff faces. Of course, I’m sure the At-Large Senators here are aware of these problems, as they represent all students at this school, but for the rest of us, I just went ahead and compiled all this information into a single document.
I am a fourth-year violin performance major pursuing the BM program; I know my department forwards and back, inside and out; I know just about every faculty, staff, and student on a first-name basis; I know my peers better than any of you could ever hope to know them. But that is not my own testimony. When the senate released the application for the vacancies for the third time – each time subsequently longer in order to prolong this ordeal – the Senate President approached and asked if I would be kind enough to spread the word of the open app to my fellow students and even if I could get in contact with my dean, so that the departments could help advertise. It’s quite ironic that I have somehow been found qualified to be a messenger from the Senate to the Arts student and faculty, but somehow not qualified to fill the role for which I advertised.
On top of this, I had been in contact with the VP of Academic Affairs and she wanted to work with me to help establish a Student Council over at Claire Trevor, since there is no current senator and I am more-or-less the liaison between that school and the rest of the campus at this point.
But, I’m sure you all know best. It’s your job to. But I must ask: how many of you are aware that faculty from UCI won a Grammy last month? I found it disappointing that not once did I see a public remark or any mention of congratulations from any of you or ASUCI as a whole. It appears you all must have simply forgotten. But I didn’t; and the rest of us didn’t. We all went to Prof. Kojiro Uzemaki’s office in the Music and Media building (second floor, about fifth office on the right) to shake his hand and ask him about his experience.
Make no mistake, when you finally decided to review my application and you voted to brand me “unqualified,” you supported charging students $15,000 a year to go unrepresented. You supported a $500 per quarter “Art fee” that only arts majors bear. You supported staff that is overworked and underpaid and students who volunteer at front offices just to make sure appointments get scheduled. You supported students having to clean their own buildings because our janitorial service has been cut to just once every two weeks. That is what you support.
So, with all this information I’ve provided you, if this Senate still finds me to be “unqualified” to fill the vacant arts seat and represent these students, then I, as an arts student myself, must find this senate unqualified to represent the school of the arts. Any questions?”
§ Note: There may have been remarks between Olson and various Senators or ASUCI officials that were not able to be recorded.
· Dan Dooros: Congratulations to this body. I attended the event. Compliments to Rafi and Tianna for a great program.
· Taylor Chanes: Hi all, I came to speak at public comment to bring up some concerns about the internal SAG. These are concerns from my office and members outside of ASUCI. These are concerns of what they have done. They have shown a disregard for the chair of this space and has broken Robert’s Rules and manipulated this space to get the senate to do things. I would like to bring up the concern of the Chief Justice in coming into this, who seems to be very involved in the investigation. Seeing as J-board should be the most unbiased. I feel like there has been a bias. I would like the senate to start an investigation on the SAG as well as the chief justice. You do have the power to add this as a discussion on the agenda.
· Trinh: Motion to suspend by-laws and add to the agenda in new business to discuss Carl Olson application for Art’s Senator for 5 minutes/ Second: Hernandez.
· Executive Officer Reports
§ Orozco: I move to suspend by laws to move 5a to 5b and 5b to 5a. / Second: Erikat.
§ Abuzeid: Motion to approve the agenda/ Second: Xiao
§ Natoolo: I look forward to seeing the next president of the senate. I will pull my name off the list. I know some of you wanted me to run again, but I really want to see someone else take charge. It is a humbling experience. It is growing pains. There is so much to do. It is a lot of work. You have to be ready. You have to have a tough skin. It is so fulfilling when you know you are speaking truth. Know that being a leader you have to be willing to be a servant. If you are willing to take a position to just have a title you will be taking the wrong seat.
§ Orozco: Move to go into closed session/ Yakub
§ Closed session entered at 5:29.
§ Jacoby: Motion to end closed session/ Second: Lim
§ Open session entered at 6:34
§ Orozco: Motion to go into discussion for 10 minutes/ Second: Hernandez
§ Natoolo: It is such a shame that when you mentioned that you never got any formal response. First off I think that is a lie, because I have been in communication with you. Because it is going toward our publication. I have been in communication, so I don’t know how you want to defend yourself on that. We go through a process and I want to let you know that other people have been denied. I am grateful that you have stepped up to defend yourself, it’s commendable. But you are not the only one who has been denied. We did want a better representative for the whole school. Only one applicant did not seem right. That may be our fault. We were meeting with the dean tomorrow to send the email to the entire school. I’m sorry you felt that we rejected you. It’s great to have testaments from other students. Great, shows who you are as a leader. That said, I would love the committee that made the decision to also give reasons why. I am a firm believer that there are always two reasons to a story. This goes in life. Always been the 2 sides of the story. I am so grateful that we have this as a discussion. If there was just public comment, what they would have taken is just one side.
§ Olson: Thank you for opening for discussion. What I had meant was more of a formal communication. I assumed our conversation was informal. I assumed that was informal and not the senate giving a ruling.
§ Natoolo: The ruling was given this weekend.
§ Orozco: I would like to comment to the other senators and execs in the room. We will be showing some apps that were rejected and some that were approved. These are confidential so we cannot show them on the board. That being said, the app for freshman for humanities and for art education, all had very similar questions. As we can attest, we have gone over some interviews for the freshman, there were about 8 applicants, but only 3 or 4 were interviewed. So not everyone in the senate was able to see those that were submitted. (Senate looks at example of rejected app). Again I apologize that you had some issues, but why you did not mention those issues in the application, when many more applicants did. We would have loved to see those. We realize that some of the questions are vague and we can fix that for future apps so we can avoid this. But we did see other applicants give more specifics on issues.
§ Yakub: If everyone can take a look at freshman app #5, you can see the detailed and specific answers to these vague questions. And look at the 3rd app posted and compare. No one knew you personally, it was just the way the questions and answers were portrayed on paper. There was just a process where they need to seem good enough on paper for us to recommend an interview. If we felt the app was not taken seriously or as detailed we would not recommend them. It is a process that we go through to get to an interview plus the interview. If 5 or 6 can write very detailed descriptions and problems and what they can bring to the table, we hold up everyone else to that tier.
§ Orozco: In regards to the lack of communication, we apologize that it took so long. If you look back at our agendas, we were dealing with other pressing issues. We had committee breakouts pushed back several times. In that regard all I can offer is the apology, with all respect, we did expect little more weight to the applicant for this positon.
§ Baggia: We were looking for major issues, and some applicants, listed more universal issues.
§ Orozco: Move to extend time by 5 minutes/ Second: Yakub.
§ Baggia: We all tried to make time for this. She had to keep all messaging us to make time, personal time. We are all students as well, but I am sorry too.
§ Xiao: As part of the rules committee that made the decision I have a couple comments to make. Some of the other apps we found lacking as well, so even previous Senator Tin, could have been better. The lack of response does not state that he does not have those ideas. But I voted no just because of fairness. My second point is that I was tasked with filling out the council purpose form for the arts senator by Lydia, and I was not able or do not know anything about the arts department, and I think there is a task at hand for the next art senator.
§ Safady: The answers were not very elaborate, but your resume was outstanding. Out of all of the applicants you definitely had one of the best. I’m kind of sad that the responses to these questions would detract from the decision.
§ Orozco: You did have a lot of work experience, but not much UCI experience, except one club. We also did look at resumes. But other applicants had involvement with ASUCI.
§ Yakub: I also looked at formatting. And if one is longer than a page then usually employers don’t accept it. Even for interviews, if you send a weird resume with a weird font they will not like that.
§ Olson: I understand the questions and answers are a serious point. I believe I submitted on the February 10th deadline. And for the new one. I did not have the actual tangible issues on hand at the time of the application, that’s why I presented them today.
§ Orozoc: As a 4th year? I can tell you I can list the problems with the school of social sciences off the top of my head.
§ Abuzeid: Motion to extend by 5 minutes/ Second: Hernandez
§ Orozco: I do not know if any other senators would like to comment. We made sure to review each applicant and each resume.
§ La: I have a few clarification questions. You said you submitted the first app on February 10th. And then again?
§ Olson: I believe I had to resubmit
§ Natoolo: We had only one applicant. So we opened it up again to receive more.
§ La: Was there a difference between the first and second?
§ Orozco: The difference was in question 4. If you look at number 4.
§ La: Were there any other changes or just number 4?
§ Orozco: I believe so but I will look at it again.
§ Olson: In response to the resume, since I double major, I typically take the stance of making a cv instead of a resume because of the breadth of things. It was a cv and not a strict resume.
§ Natoolo: This is not a closed matter, we are still reaching out to the school to get other applicants, you still have the opportuning to apply again.
§ Olson: Take my tone as me trying to get the answers and transparency. I just did not know what was going on for a whole quarter and I started getting sketched out.
§ Orozco: I would like to retract my statement. The apps were the exact same. It was spaced out a little more so I thought there was a bit more added. It was spacing.
§ La: The reason why is I was concerned about your comments. I have spoken with you before. I remember you came into discuss, with your consent, I remember you brought up mental health. But I don’t remember you bringing up the arts school.
§ Olsosn: I knew some of the arts issues. But really it was because there was a lack of a representative in the arts positon.
§ Orozco: Move to extend time by 3 minutes/ Second: Jacoby
§ Olsons; It was more about lack of communication.
§ Natoolo: But we did have communication and emails back and forth.
§ Olsons: I apologize for that. I meant about formal, I considered that informal.
§ Natoolo: The reviewing happened this weekend. And that is the order of the senate. I was trying to tell you in all the emails that we had not gotten to it and that we had opened them up again.
§ Olson: I understand we were in communication since week 2. I think what I was referring to was the senate committee getting back to me. So I’m sorry about that.
§ La: I would recommend reaching out the Internal SAG. For problems like that.
§ Natoolo: We have to be mindful of what we say. If only we did not follow up to have a discussion.
§ Olson: Did Sid ever reach out to you or after you reached out to him?
§ Olson: I did reach out to him and he did to you. But maybe he is not the best person to reach out to.
§ Yakub: If your concern is the committee looking into it, we literally did not see it until Sunday. We literally did not get a chance to review it until Sunday.
§ Olson: My grievances are split in a binary: Carl the applicant is upset with the committee reviewing late. Carl the student understands the agenda issues
§ Senate: thank you