ASUCI Senate Minutes
Tuesday, April 04, 2017

 ASUCI Senate Minutes

Tuesday, April 4th, 2017

 

  • Called to Order by Lu at 5:17
  • Attendance

·       Senator Xiao left early at 6:30pm. Senator Zheng left early at 6:30 pm.

  • Approval of Minutes
  • Approval of Agenda

·       Mousa: Move to postpone B52-08 to Thursday/ Second: Trinh

  • Public Comment
  • Executive Officer Reports
    • President: Concern with J-board appointments. We haven’t heard back. No one has updated the applications. Everything is delayed. Looking forward to updates. Been frustrating for us. Secondly, I met with one of my commissioners, Ivy, she wants you all to update the code of ethics. It’s been about 7 years. It establishes what we should expect of our officers in ASUCI. She wants you all to revisit and consider updating it and speak with constituents. One of my commissions, mental health commission event, open mic night in arts school. Would be great for you all to come out and show your support. Also need help with mental health conference. It will be an amazing conference you should try and attend if you can.
    • Internal Vice President: Two quick items. Tuesday at 5pm, next week event “Lets Remain Safe” about food security; about fresh produce and preserving shelf life. Free food for students. Next Wednesday at 5pm. Speakers for LSAT event from commissioner’s office.
  • Special Committee Reports
  • Old Business
    • 5A: Judicial Board Appointments

§  Lu: Stress the importance of pulling up the applications again. We need to do a revote today. Would like to appoint at least one member today so they can meet quorum.

§  Yakub: The way we ended last time, we felt there were just not strong applicants all together

§  Safady: I disagree. I thought that two applicants were very strong. Roxanna and Reece.

§  Lu: Please pull up the applications found on senate fb page.

§  Orozco: The execs sent us an email with all those they appointed. Everyone should have access to their resumes. So we can discuss them.

§  Lu: first applicant was Juliet, found on page 3 of our notes.

§  Yakub: She kept asking us to repeat the questions.

§  Lim: She was in the middle for me. Her interview was alright. It wasn’t very memorable. She was the most in the middle for me.

§  Safady: I felt about the same way. She didn’t seem like she was passionate about the subject or anything. It didn’t seem like she was thinking about the subject at hand. Sometimes being fair doesn’t matter, you have to interpret things.

§  Orozco: We should look at their responses to the questions on the applications and resumes, because they are more inline with the position than the ones we asked. So if we could all pay attention and pull those up to appoint someone that would be great. Because otherwise we cannot do anything. Access from your senate emails.

§  Yakub: For Juliet and Aviel, I felt that their actual applications were very strong, but when we actually talked to them their interviews weren’t that strong.

§  Hernandez: We should take into account what they are going to be doing because they are not going to be talking to everyone, but working and interpreting the constitution.

§  Yakub: Agreed.

§  Orozco: Reece and Roxana did better in interview but not so well in the application. As someone that studies law we have to look at [several] things. I don’t see them doing this. Even though they could articulate themselves very well like a lawyer, it doesn’t say judge

§  Lim: I agree, at least for Reece. His experience doesn’t really fit in with this positon. His application is not as advanced as the others. I don’t think I would appoint him.

§  Yakub: Aviel stands out more than the others.

§  Lim: I did not think that his [Reece] experience fit in well for the postion.

§  Mousa: Point of order, Reece said that emotional connections don’t have any place in J-boards? So he is saying that he is not biased. Should not have bias?

§  All: yes.

§  Mousa: The most qualified in my opinion is Roxana.

§  Yakub: Most qualified in my opinion is Aviel.

§  Safady: Those were my top picks.

§  Lim: Roxana and Aviel

§  Abuzeid: I feel like Roxana had the most experience in the interview but in the application it’s not the most detailed as everyone else.

§  Mousa: Roxana apps is better than Reece’s. Her interview I can tell she had a better interview.

§  Orozco: The difference between her and Reece is that she is citing case law. So that is better.

§  Mousa: You can tell she knows what she is doing. And has experience.

§  Orozco: We have not talked about Jasmine or Juliet that much.

§  Mousa: Did anything stand out regarding her?

§  Yakub: For Juliet her application does seem very strong. But when she was up there I didn’t get a vibe that she cared and she had to repeat everything up there.

§  Mousa: we also have to consider who is a good candidate to work with and speak with.

§  Orozco: I like that Juliet cited all the issues and even cited the dissenting opinion. Showing that she is not biased. Like we were really frazzled that day, so I’m not taking the interviews as much as the applications.

§  Hernandez: I think with greacie, the legal reasoning by her is very strong.

§  Lu: We are at 9 minutes left. Would like to keep to our allotted time frame and vote.

§  Mousa: Would you all be ready to vote right now?

§  Bender: Could you all get the resume?

§  La: Might take a long time.

§  Yakub: Motion to bring J-board elections to the floor/ Second: Hernandez

§  Lu: we will be going through every applicant and we will be going yes, no, or abstain.

§  Mousa: Motion to add 2 minutes/ Second: Lim

§  Voting occurs—results read. Roxana (14-0-2) and Aviel(14-1-1) are appointed  by receiving at least 2/3rd vote.

  • 5B Senate appointments 6:02

§  Lu: Please pull up the senate documents. We will be voting and discussing in the same way.

§  Mousa: May we do this as a closed session?

§  Mousa: Motion to go into closed session/ Second: Hernandez

§  Brennan: Personally I don’t agree with closed session. I think it is not a great thing to do to go into closed session when choosing people to represent people on this campus.

§  Mousa: I retract my motion.

§  Lu: Back to discussing the applicants. We are voting for the humanity senator and the Education senator.

§  Lim: I think for the humanities positon I would go with Tin because he has a lot of experience already and he does show up to the senate meetings a lot. And he voices his opinions. He is updated on everything. I think he would be a better pick than Diego.

§  Lim: Diego did not specify how he would go about making change or improving things. He didn’t specify on how he wanted to help undocumented students.

§  Yakub: I think that Diego is a strong candidate. He addressed a lot of people. And he seemed really passionate and about the issues and wanting to help minorities in general.

§  Hernandez: Was Diego a double major?

§  Yakub; I think he has another major in social sciences. International studies.

§  Lu: Are there further discussions for the senate?

§  Orozco: Can we do it all at once

§  Abuzeid: Let’s finish humanities. Did Tin say anything that stood out in terms of what he wanted to do?

§  Lim: He did mention the lack of classes and also to bring back women’s club?

§  Safady: I think he felt students don’t recognize the importance of humanities in general and wants to bring out the importance.

§  Mousa: Did Tin answer to the humanities? Because we need people to address the humanities.

§  Abuzeid: I think both Tin and Diego said that they want more involvement with humanities classes and outreach to students. They both did not mention details in how they would go about that. Tin does have more experience and shows more passion about everything.

§  Abuzeid: Are we done with humanities senator? So we can discuss education.

§  Orozco: Any last comments about Tin or Diego.

§  Lu: Let’s move on to discussing education applicants.

§  Mousa: Was Dahlia’s interview any less vague than her application?

§  Yakub: No, it was not any less vague

§  Safady: The education department is very vague. Very small. Still forming.

§  Lim: Can we all discuss the impressions we had?

§  Hernandez: Grecia?

§  Orozco: I think I wrote that Amrit noted a lack of research opportunities in her school. The only thing that Dahlia said was that there was no newsletter. They both said 2 issues.

§  Lim: Based off the comments, it seems that Amrit had more emphasis on education and brought up more issues that probably a lot of people in the education department have. I think in her app she spoke about lack of classes and no research.

§  Lu: Back to the original question, do you want to invite them all back or do you feel comfortable making a decision?

§  Yakub: Motion to bring senator voting to the floor/ Second: Mousa.

§  Tin is appointed by 10 out of 14 votes. Amrit is appointed by 13 out of 14 votes.  

  • New Business
  • Senate Intern Program Report
  • Committees
  • Mousa: Motion to go into committee breakouts for 20 minutes.
  • Mousa: I retract my motion.
    • Rules
    • Finance
    • Public Information
    • Advocacy
  • Immediate Business
  • School Breakouts
  • Final Business
  • Announcements
  • Next Meeting: Thursday, April 6th, 2017
    • Lu: All in favor to adjourn meeting?

All: Yes.