ASUCI Senate Minutes
Tuesday, May 16, 2017

ASUCI Senate Minutes

Tuesday, May 16th, 2017

 

  • Called to Order by Orozco at 5:21
  • Attendance
    • Senator Noureldine arrives late at 6:31.
    • Senator Xiao and Senator Erikat leave early at 6:25.
  • Approval of Minutes
    • approved
  • Approval of Agenda

·       Lu: Motion to add Election Commission Budget Report to new business 6A/ Second: Hernandez

    • approved
  • Public Comment
    • Julie Lim: Speaking on behalf of Nathaniel Sun who is president of PASS (Pilipino-American in Social Studies). Letter from Sun read with explanation of the club and request of the senate for funding for their executive board retreat’s extra day.  
    • Julie: Motion to suspend bylaws and add 6D, discussion of public comment for ten minutes/ Second: Abuzeid
  • Executive Officer Reports
  • Special Committee Reports
    • Disability Services Center Committee: no new updates
  • Old Business
    • 5A: B52-11 ASUCI Funding in Support of Dean's Ambassadors Council 10th Annual Hot Topics Debate 
    • 5B: R52-72 By-laws Amendment: Senator Application Reform 5:32

§  Chair passed to president La

§  Safady: Motion to strike ‘In the case that all applicants are rejected from either the Rules Committee or the Senate, the application for the vacancy may be reopened one (1) more time. All previous applicants are free to reapply, as long as they still meet the requirements of the seat’./ No seconds.

§  Orozco: I do not think it is wise to do nameblind applications. Especially in regards to impeached individuals that apply and not holding people accountable. They will still be interviewed if the rules committee chooses to do so.

§  Abuzeid: Agreed with Grecia

§  Safady: I think it would not be an issue for senate. People tend to support people by what their interests are rather than what is best for all the students and student government?

§  Orozco: So you believe that interviewing someone that is impeached is best for the student government?

§  Safady: I think that would be something for the SAG to deal with.

§  Baranwal: One thing that could be done is to bar anyone that has been impeached from applying and the nameblind process can still be applied

§  Abuzeid: I have never seen a job application that is anonymous. I find it weird that you would not want to see the name.

§  Porumand: I think your thing with nameblind cyberstalking things is an invalid point to bring up. What is on the internet is for people to see. Regardless of nameblind it will be seen in the interviews. If you don’t want it out there, then don’t put it out there. I don’t think you should be ashamed of your name. If you think that is how it going to work, then don’t put it out there.

§  Orozco I think that some accusations are being made, when none of those things actually happened. No cyber stalking occurred, we know what this is about. To accept these accusations is incorrect. To make those accusations is irresponsible. Another point is that I would not like to make name blind. If I commit arson and it’s on ABC news, companies are hired to look at our record and do back ground checks for employment. It is important for us to look at the whole package. We should discuss this with our students as well. Don’t think blinding it fixes anything.

§  Safady: I don’t think it makes a difference, then I don’t see why it is an interview. I used to do job interviews, I did not see their names because they had been cleared thru another process. I was not the one that did the background check. Someone else can do those. We should not infringe on free speech. Being offensive is still protected by free speech. When we discriminate based on what we find offensive, we are abusing our power. It is just not right. The SAG should have guidelines if you are engaged in a group or photos of you doing something violent, then you would not be accepted, but other things that may seem offensive, I think that would be up to the SAG to speak to the applicant before things move on. I think we all have a right to defend ourselves. But even just me being here on campus, I have experienced so much discrimination on campus. Everyone thinks it’s about your color, but here it’s about what we think. I don’t want to make this worse, I want to bring us together.

§  Lim: I think if you believe the senate cannot be unbiased enough to have the names there, certain things may be controversial or debatable, we may be skewed to go with the people we agree with. If you are worried about that then I would pass it. But if you believe the people on senate and rules committee will not be skewed by their own personal beliefs and their stances on certain things that are more debatable if it is right or wrong. If you believe that they won’t show their personal bias, then this name blind will not work out. Then we won’t be able to see if they did anything actually objectively wrong. Then don’t pass this legislation.

§  Sidhu: I think that knowing the name is important because knowing the name, it is important to look at them in the context of what they are applying for. For certain jobs nothing on the internet of what is posted matters. If you’re looking in retail no one cares. But if you are working for the public then they want to know who this person is. If you’re in education they want to know who is representing the school; you have to think in the context of what you’re applying for.

§  La: If you end up appointing someone for who the public opposes then that will reflect on you as a body.

§  Scruggs: I was thinking we need to come to a healthy medium. I do believe that the names should be present. I also believe that an official process should be done. An SAG or some other official would be able to use an unbiased process. I do think a third party should go through and do a check. If they do see something outlandish they can see it is not a fit, if there is something of concern then the senators can present that.

§  Chanes: Going off of what Tracy said, I should caution on creating an investigation system. This may not be happening. This is questioning our own qualifications because our on SAG office has come under investigation. I think this would be problematic. Also this is public services and many of you were elected and many students probably face booked you and searched you when voting. Those applicant have a right to defend themselves to you and you have a right to see the defense as justified or not. Even if there is face book stalking, you cannot just use that info solely against them for accountability measures.

§  Lim: If you believe we are all bias, then wouldn’t it be better/ pro making it anyways?

§  Baranwal: Motion to extend time by 10 minutes/ Second: Pourmand

§  Safady: As for the cyber stalking I saw screenshots from people in this room. To say there was no cyberstalking is provably wrong. I don’t want to make accusations. If we were really about finding the best apps, then this wouldn’t be a problem. This is really scary. There are so many ways to commit covert discrimination and racism. This is another way to do that. I’m for the name blocking things, we should not have a rule where if someone gets rejected twice then they should not apply again. That should not be a rule.

§  Baranwal: I think it is justified if senate wants to select a candidate or not. Every single senator, or most were elected by students. It is well justified to appoint a senator and use senate opinions. I will not comment on the bias factor. For policy, agreeing with Taylor, instead of going through SAG, it is breach of checks and balances, because they are part of the exec branch. If they start affecting the way senate operates then that breaks our three branch government. If the idea exists of background check, then senate should administer, not SAG.

§  Pourmand: This whole name blocking thing, I don’t get it. Senators are elected. Their names are up there. Students vote based on the bio and the name. We all know why you are upset about this but you are elected based on constituents, they will see your name and cyberstalk you and read your bio. The person you are talking about will not be art senator. They lost very badly for president. We know what the constituents want. I don’t know why this name things is still coming up. We examined this. We don’t need another branch looking these people up. We need to chill.

§  Hong:  Just want to agree with what Taylor and Sid said. Senator apps should just be an internal process. I did not expect this provision to have to so much gravity attached to it.

§  Motion for straw poll to strike name provisions, yes for strike, no for not striking/ Second: Alazani

§  Hong: motion to strike name blind provision from the legislation:

“Let it be resolved, that the ASUCI By-Laws Article III. Membership Provisions, Section E. Vacancies and Appointments, Subsection 5 be amended from:

“5. Appointments shall be determined in the following manner:

a) The Rules Committee shall review all eligible applications

b) The Rules Committee shall interview all eligible applicants. Selected candidates shall be presented to the Senate for approval”

            to:

            “5. Appointments shall be determined in the following manner:

a) The Rules Committee shall review all eligible applications, that the President of the Senate has rendered name-blind

b) The  Rules Committee shall interview all eligible applicants. Selected candidates shall be presented to the Senate for approval”

 /Second: Hernandez

§   Chair passed back to Orozco

§  Shall be stricken

§  Safady: I’m only hoping to find a resolution. It think if we are the problem and making a legislation to try and fix a problem that is really us. Embarrassing that its taking so much of our time.

§  Chanes: Maybe y’all should look into conflict and bias training. Make yourself more comfortable with each other. We must take into account that everyone has bias and we all act them out in different ways. We must consider ethical values that maintain decent human values. Training would help.

§  Hong: Motion to call into question/ Second: Hernandez

§  Passes 13-1-2; Yes: Lu, Baggia, Erikat, Aldoghmi, Sidhu, Abuzeid, Hong, Xioa, Pourmand, Alazani, Hassane, Hernandez, Scruggs, Hasan; No: Safady; Abs: Lim, Orozco

  • New Business

·       6A: Elections Commission Budget Report 6:01

§  Much of the budget went out the unexpected special election.

    • 6B: R52-73 Judicial Board Appointments Spring 2017 Part II 6:15

§  Legislation read by Hong

§  Hong: Motion to adopt the legislation/ Second: Lim

§  Orozco: There are two legislations. One with Priya and one with Teresa. If y’all can discuss both candidates with in this discussion. But ideally only one of these can pass. It would not make sense if both pass. It can makes sense if none pass. But not both. This is the most transparent way. You can discuss both people if you would like.

§  Hong: Motion to amend the first clause from 4 to 1/ Second: Lim- no objections.

§  Lim: Motion to amend to change vacancies to vacancy/ Second: Hong

§  Hong: Motion to fix all grammatical errors change from plural to singular. Second: Lim- no objections- amended.

§  Hong: Out of the two candidates I would pick Priya over Teresa. Priya seems like she wants to do a lot of good. And I feel like she will be able to understand more about J-board. I’m not sure about Teresa.

§  Lim: I agree with what you said, also that she (Teresa) has a lot of time constrains already.

§  Lim: motion to call into question/ Second: Hernandez

§  Fails: 6-9-1: Yes: Lim, Sidhu, Abuzeid, Hong, Safady, Hernandez; No: Lu, Baggia, Erikat, Aldoghmi, Pourmand, Alazani, Hassane, Scruggs, Hasan; Abs: Orozco.

    • 6C: R52-74 Judicial Board Appointments Part III 6:25

§  Legislation read by Hong

§  Quorum lost at 6:25

§  Quorum regained at 6:35

§  Hong finishes reading legislation

§  Adopted

§  Hong: Motion to edit clause one from 4-1 and there are to there is and vacancies to vacancy/ Second: Lim- no objections

§  Lim: Motion to call into question/ Second: Hernandez

§  Fails: 7-7-2: Yes: Baggia, Aldoghmi, Abuzeid, Pourmand, Alazani, Hassane, Hasan; No: Scruggs, Hernandez, Safady, Hong, Sidhu, Lim, Lu; Abs: Orozco, Noureldine. 

    • 6D: Pilipino Americans in Social Sciences Discussion

§  Lim: They want help in funding their retreat. This will help them transitioning their new exec board. Very important because they are heavily understaffed. They need to make sure they really train the new board members. This retreat will cost around 600 they don’t expect complete coverage, but as much as we can. Wondering if senate would be willing to help out?

§  Abuzeid: Who does this organization effect?

§  Lim: The club and the board have a whole variety of majors even though it does say social sciences. But they have people from all around.

§  Pourmand: How much were you thinking?

§  Lim: Right now we have around 750 and it is toward the end of the quarter. I was thinking around 200-300.

§  Hassane: I know student organizations can apply through SPFB? Why would we give them money versus them applying? I don’t the implications

§  Lim: The SPFB money has to be open to every on campus. This would just be for their members. For the funding bard, it has to be open. I don’t think it would set a precedent. In the past we have helped fund orgs with certain things. We can always say no. I don’t think it will cause a precedent. We don’t advertise it.

§  Orozco: I know that Sonia is trying to do a similar thing with a different club in allocating for another student club. Or to do an event with mental health we just have to mindful about the money we have left. I’m currently planning a new senate orientation that will be around 400-500. Please help these orgs but be mindful of training new senators.

§  Hong: speaking from experience, I would not be on board with giving them that much money. Because this is student money. I would still like to apply SPFB kind of rules in that it serves a greater good for students. But maybe specifically for a school or a specific event. Giving to an outside org to help with their org in just one small sector of the school, I’m rather skeptical of giving them 200-300.

§  Sandy Hi: I agree with Tin’s points. Also I know in the proposal it was mentioned that they don’t want to do it locally because people can go home. But if you really don’t have the funds, then you can do it differently just by talking. I don’t think it matters about the location, rather just having the conversation. We had similar experience, but my club just decided to get in a room and deliberate everything. And if we wanted and to extend retreat you can have it at your house and have something that doesn’t need that much money. I understand it is fun, but I do not see anything wrong that if there are no funds, then let’s just do this.

§  Hong: My max would be maybe 100. That is the most I’d be willing. It is really up to senate though.

§  Baranwal: One thing is that allocation of this money is cool and all, but usually when senate approaches this type of cases, if a club asks for money, we direct them to the funding board. A bigger things is that if we give them funding only for their own club enrichment, and it doesn’t help the student body as a while, what justifies us giving them money over the  600 other clubs on campus that don’t know they can ask us for money.

§  Lim: That is true. Now I am thinking if there are other ways for clubs to get help?

§  Baranwal: Move to extend time by 2 minutes/Second: Hong

§  Hong: There is a lot of opportunities if you just look. The school has things for school specific. ASUCI for specific events. This discretionary is for side project. A major things we have is that they are social studies, and you are the business representative.

§  Lim: They are on the business rep on our page.

§  Hong: It is leadership training, not even an event. They should spring them on themselves anyways.

§  Lim: Motion for a straw poll vote for giving any monetary funds to this club/ second: Hong

  • Senate Intern Program Report
    • No new updates
  • Committees
  • Hong: Motion to strike committee breakouts/ Second: Lim
    • Rules
      • none
    • Finance
      • B52-11 passes 7-0-0
    • Public Information
      • none
    • Advocacy
      • Each member has done series of visits to different resources on campus to create our resources guide.
  • Immediate Business

·       B52-11

·       Hernandez- Motion to call into question/ Second: Hong.

·       Passes 15-0-1; Yes; Lu, Baggia, Noureldine, Aldoghmi, Lim, Sidhu, Abuzeid, Hong, Pourmand, Alazani, Safady, Hassane, Hernandez, Scruggs, Hasan; No: none; Abs: Orozco. 

  • School Breakouts
  • Final Business
  • Announcements
  • Next Meeting: Thursday, May 18th, 2017
  • Baggia: Motion Adjourn Meeting at 6:59
    • Second: Alazani