SC Exec Meeting Minutes 2/22/10

I. Moment of Silence

II. missing Rachel and Charles; 13 guest community members; Bi-Co

III. Business in General (storage and plenary, etc.)

  • · Storage: new policies stemming from flooding of storage in apartments this summer—some in administration thought we should get rid of all storage entirely; will’s sense that administration was considering severely limiting storage but housing committee has managed to mitigate the severity somewhat; this new policy has been kept under wraps mostly—will and Harrison meet with the deans every week and the deans never really mentioned this, even though they explicitly asked Smitty in September to keep them informed about storage policies; there has been a feeling for a while that up-campus storage is overcrowded with old things that have been left; meeting this Wednesday at 7pm with housing committee
  • · Thoughts on storage policy (exec and community members) that Will will bring up in the meeting on Wednesday:

o No storage for furniture is pretty outrageous; the fact that we must remove all of our things from storage now and can only apply for storage to put our things back in may—what do we do with things in the meantime? Some people do not have cars to drive to another storage facility

o We don’t know whether the no-furniture policy extends to lamps or mini-fridges (smaller than prohibited furniture requirement)

o What can we store in high security storage? Are there limitations to what you can store in there? A TV for instance?

o How can students be expected to pay for and transport to off-campus storage; Swat service comes to pick your stuff up

o 150 miles requirement seems arbitrary; doesn’t include NYC and this seems unfair because most students coming from the city do not have cars

o Why is this being implemented now rather than during summer break? Will thinks it’s because the admin wants to be able to go in and clean out storage over spring break and this process has to happen during the school year. They should have considered doing this over Winter Break, then

o Deadline to move out stuff is March 1st, but spring break begins March 5th, so that seems logically inconsistent

o There should have been more student input from the beginning—no input outside of housing committee; but it seems like they may be open to suggestions and revisions now

o What is the reason behind the fact that storage won’t be offered in all apartments? (some of the basements have been identified as ‘wet’ basements—duck pond to creek runs under HCA now, which is why 800 was so flooded)

o It might be nice to expand storage in the basements that are specifically dry

o One positive thing with policy: there is a significant problem of leaving things in storage up-campus for years—it will be good to clean those storage units out

o They’re going to donate all of the extra items left in up-campus storage

o There are also concerns about some of up-campus storage in addition to the apartments in regard to flooding and damp walls that damage people’s things

o You apply for storage and find out during reading week and finals—if you have to store your things off-campus, this is difficult timing

o They will be leaving in study abroad storage, but maybe we could expand study abroad storage space

o In terms of off campus storage, if we have a program that will come on campus and help transport our things then that is ok, but as it stands now students themselves can’t bring in outside storage companies—they have to go through the school, so we’re just stuck in a limbo space where we are unable to plan for storage

o Prices of Swat storage: a small fridge is $30, a small TV is $25, etc.–>to store everything through this program will cost hundreds of dollars for most students; and other storage programs are not much better

o Given other issues with dean’s office lately, communication has been a bit stilted

o Try to post some discussion points on Go and have a more structured discussion before the meeting

o It seems like a great idea to clean out the storage units at least once a year

o Also, this whole process will make people more conscientious about what they put in storage

o Do we want to come up with a serious counter-proposal?

o May want to run senior yard sale earlier because people will want to get rid of things from storage

o Why didn’t housing have more surveys about his issue? They did take some information from a survey from 2 years ago

o Housing should make a formal announcement to students who are abroad who have things that are stored in general rather than abroad storage

o What came across in the e-mailed policy was: ‘other colleges don’t provide the amount of storage we do, so we shouldn’t either’àthis is faulty reasoning; we already have storage space that most colleges don’t

o Suggested Changes: pushing the deadline back; getting rid of 25 cubic feet requirement; getting rid of the universal ban on furniture (particularly furniture that is less than 25 cubic feet); have larger, pooled storage areas between people (so that 4 people can have 100 cubic feet); there should be differentiation in treatment between people living in the apartments and people living up-campus; looking into off-campus storage;

§ Plenary: resolutions that passed were: (1) disambiguating the term ‘serious’, (2) clarifying dean’s panel procedures, (3) reviewing procedures proposal, (4) financial aid policyà presidents will meet with Emerson to present these

§ All three of the last resolutions technically failed according to the rules of the constitution because we lost quorum

§ Discussion of the 6th resolution indicated that students were interested in discussing the PE requirement; it seemed to be the most contentious resolution; didn’t seem that people wanted to pass the resolution, but did want to reform the requirement, clarification of the policy

o Because there is some interest in looking at the policy, maybe we should have Wendy come to an SC to discuss the policy; if we do go to her we should come with very specific ideas

§ There definitely seemed to be a big divide between people who value this requirement and those who think it’s useless; don’t know how this gets resolved before meeting with Wendy; maybe have an online poll?

§ Should we have an online survey about all three resolutions? Get students opinions and then submit them to Emerson?

§ Particularly the One-card access resolution; it seems to be pretty universally accepted and there is no policy currently in place that directly forbids one-card access; the resolution was already passed as Bryn Mawr; if SC wants to recommend this to Tom King and we put it into effect, then Bryn Mawr would accept that as if the resolution had passed at Plenary; but maybe since it was proposed as a Plenary resolution we should still get some student input through an online survey or something

§ SC should set up an online poll for the last 3 resolution; while results could not be viewed as a binding vote in lieu of Plenary, instead it would be as though these were SC agenda items

§ Important to talk with SGA and ask how they are interpreting the BMC plenary resolution and whether a go-ahead from Tom King would serve to equal a passing Plenary resolution

§ It seems that a lot of people are resentful of Plenary and the way it is run; if we begin using polls then people may give up on Plenary entirely

§ Instead of an online poll we could make a Go Boards post; but this method seems like it will get lost amongst the other 800 or so Plenary threads

§ Maybe we shouldn’t actively pursue the lost resolutions since we cannot account for the opinion of the whole student body; these issues are now under the purview of Plenary and so SC is no longer in a position to make any of these resolutions agenda items and make decisions about them without full consent of the student body

§ Why not just treat these three resolutions like any other failed resolutions? Bring them up at the next Plenary

§ Contact SGA and find out what they are planning to do in light of our failed Plenary

§ For resolution 6, we can invite the community to an SC meeting to discuss it and then schedule a meeting with Wendy to discuss the requirement

§ Last resolution on social justice requirement: resolution wanted to create a committee to take a serious look at what social justice means to Haverford and come up with a new program; this resolution really needs the authority of Plenary, not just being brought up as an SC initiative; should be brought up at next fall Plenary; but there is some groundwork that C12 can do to prep discussion for this resolution, etc.

§ Sam will e-mail presenter of resolution 6 saying that we would like to have an open discussion about it sometime after spring break; also contact Wendy to keep her informed

§ Will will e-mail SGA tonight about resolution 7

§ Can we request that Emerson respond to all resolutions, even the ones we didn’t vote on? Yes, the presidents can make that request

§ On this coming Wednesday C12 will be discussing ways to improve Plenary—it will be an open meeting (as always)

§ Some procedures of Plenary are in the constitution (quorum, signatures needed, date, etc.), but a lot of the things in the rules of order are left up to the discretion of the chairs, but changes can only be made before the Plenary session begins; how does one change the rules of order or the agenda order at the beginning of Plenary? The process would be the same as that of an unfriendly amendment

§ Agenda for Plenary this year was set by the VPs and approved by all of Exec; last year the order was randomized, this year the resolutions that seemed like they would have the least amount of discussion went at the end and resolutions that would modify the honor code went before the ratification of the honor code

§ In past Plenaries, when we have met the time limit we have just voted on resolution with no debate; but this year, as according to the rules of order, we lost quorum for over 30 minutes and so dissolved Plenary (and people were still walking out through the side doors at that point)

§ We had accrued 50 minutes of stoppage time (when we don’t have quorum we are not in session); change of rules of order: we were going to go for 4 hours and then we were going to vote to extend for 30 minutes; maybe this wouldn’t be a great policy for next Plenary because if we had had to vote at 3 hours to extend time and people had voted not to extend time then we would have just voted without debate on the remaining resolutions

§ We introduced a lot of incentives to stay at Plenary—we had a ton of pizza, breadsticks, raffles of WaWa gift certificatesàBMC closes all the dining halls and caters Plenary—maybe we should try that

§ Would like to have a mode of operations for Plenary written into the constitution

§ Plenary could be more streamlined; 9 agenda items is a lot; maybe be more discriminating in what can be a resolution

o Franklyn had 2 sessions to discuss resolutions before Plenary to try to encourage students to consolidate resolutions, etc. àadditionally every student has the right to present a resolution if they get the required signatures, and even resolutions that seem like they could be no-brainers, but they may not be

o Maybe there should be a distinction drawn between things we should discuss as a student body and things we need to authorize; it might be more efficient if some things that don’t need to be authorized by something like Plenary could be discussed in another venue

§ Another concern is that when resolutions pass, the administration can just not implement it

§ What are the consequences with not finishing Plenary? At this point, it will be harder to criticize the administration when we as a student body are having our own troubles being involved

§ Will would like to put together some kind of informational session for the student body that informs everyone how much student input is actually granted by administration through student participation on committees, etc.

IV. VPs’ Report:

  • · Upcoming committee appointments: housing committee co-heads