Budget Committee

Evans reported on Budget Committee

Manuscript

Requested $1414 for publishing their next volume. They have received other sources of funding and this request represents half of their projected costs. President Oden’s office is providing matching funds.

Approved by voice vote

Carleton Conservative Union

Requested $12 for envelopes to mail The Observer to alumni/ae

Approved by voice vote

Harriers

Requested $729 to attend an improv comedy conference at Oberlin College

$600 bid passed by BC based on recent guidelines placing a ceiling on conference funding.

Approved by voice vote

David Sterling

Requested $150 to attend a conference on a rare blood disorder (ITP). He plans to give a talk when he gets back. The $150 request is as per conference per person guidelines

BC had a long debate regarding whether the Biology department would be a more appropriate source of funding.

Approved 7-4

Unite for Sight

Request $700 to attend a conference at Harvard.

BC approved a $450 bid, arguing that 2 of the people wishing to attend were seniors, worried that this experience would not benefit campus as much since they would soon graduate. Further Unite is a new group, BC wanted them to prove themselves

Motion to open discussion from Navratil is approved.

Navratil inquires why the organization wanted to send seniors. Austin Lau clarifies that the seniors are officers in the organization, they wish to host a panel discussion when they return from the conference, and these students have had significant public health experience and wish to work in that field.

Navratil moves to amend the bid to $600, representing the full per-conference allocation under new guidelines.

11-3 amendment passes

The bid passes 13-1

ASIA

Request for students to attend MAASU conference. BC recommends $600 bid on basis of new conference cap. There was significant debate over this allocation, and in the end, BC felt pressure not to table the issue due to impending deadlines. 21 people will be sent to the conference, which represents a significant portion of ASIA’s budget for the year that was not represented in spring allocations.

Discussion is opened

Shields notes that the treasurer of ASIA was unable to attend the BC meeting and therefore their understanding is somewhat unclear. ASIA was allocated $4,000 for yearly budget, and plan to spend 3 grand on MAASU. BC fears this will detract from on-campus programs originally planned.

Rubenstein asks why it can’t be tabled until we can get clearer information about their budget. Shields notes that the conference is over spring break, so they need to register now and retroactive funding violates guidelines.

Senator Sun, who is also an officer in ASIA, clarifies the situation. ASIA receives additional funding from multicultural affairs and the Asian Studies department. Students will also contribute towards the conference – thus, this money is not coming entirely out of CSA allocated funds. At the end of the MAASU trip they will still have enough money for events for the rest of the year.

Navratil supports the 600 dollars, but worries about spending money that was allocated for programs on a conference. Since it violates the proposed budget from last spring, could the treasurer reject the expenditure?

Evans has a problem with the allocation since a big chunk will come from existing budget. All 4 grand was intended for on campus programming, it’s not clear that the organization will be able to bring back a benefit to campus, and so on.

Singer asks whether giving this $600 can pressure them to bring back benefit to campus.

McLain asks about the treasurer’s power to reject funding allocations. Cutting checks to organizations takes place at the discretion of the treasurer. McLain further inquires whether ASIA recently requested other funding.

Kiner asks about the purpose of CSA funding for these trips off campus - Is it to allow students to go or just because we’re required to give them money?

Shields wants to change the funding structure for conferences back to 150 per person for only a few people to go. This past Thursday, BC expressed their wish to revert to limited funding since more and more group members are seeking funding to participate.

Sun notes that Evans’ number is not accurate: ASIA had $5,600 at the end of spring allocations. He adds that MAASU will help future leaders of campus organizations: leaders from Chinese club, Korean Students Association, Coalition of Hmong Students, DESI, and ASIA are all planning to attend. Originally wanted to tap the Dean of Students’ fund, but it’s empty.

Pay notes that the debate taking place should remain germaine to the $600 being allocated for this conference, not to ASIA’s larger funding and allocation situation. Many student organizations change their budget from their original proposals throughout the year. Until all orgs can be audited, the students wanting to go to MAASU shouldn’t be disproportionately affected.

Stark notes that we don’t necessarily know about other groups shifting from their allocations right now, and if senate was aware, they would discuss it as well. However, agrees that this issue is not necessarily relevant to the $600 conference allocation.

Watkins reiterates that ASIA has looked for funding elsewhere and believes it should be funded. However, he wants record to show that if ASIA comes back looking for program funding during spring, they already spent their budget on a conference.

McLain asks how much they’re getting from other departments, Sun notes that those numbers depend on Senate.

Yanger notes that the $600 is not in relation to the other issue of spring allocations funding – they’re separate issues.

Evans advocates tabling, since senate does not know where the money is coming from.

Shields echoes Evans sentiments, worried about what happens in the spring if ASIA comes back wishing to fund an event.

Navratil proposes sending back to BC, waiving retroactive funding guideline, which requires a 2/3 vote.

Navratil’s motion is approved 15-2.

Library Evaluation

A special team for Library Evaluation is introduced by the student representatives of the Library Committee. The reps are from UCSB, Bucknell, and Mt Holyoke. After meetings with students, library staff, and faculty, they are seeking senate input.

Watkins believes the hours are too short.

Singer suggests extending hours around exam time.

Navratil believes the video loan policy should be more open. Students would prefer it, faculty tends to disagree.

Wiczer questions size and scope of the library, especially primary source material and Econ periodicals.

Yanger praises the staff as excellent, friendly, approachable.

Basnyat asks how this info will be used. The reps explain that every 10 years the library has a self study and external review.

Black confirms library hours issue, proposes leaving some floors open but locking others to cut back on staffers. Also notes that the libe is often too cold.

Stark observes that adding more computers would be beneficial. Also praises the reference librarians

Hart Ruthenbeck praises the space design, outreach, and cooperation with the Northfield library and Olaf. Notes the effects of increasing paper costs.

Katchergis and Kiner note that they have never felt the collection was lacking. Kiner further likes the libe temperature since it prevents him from sleeping.

McLain suggests adding more closed workspace/ study rooms. He appreciates the compact shelving.

Navratil says e reserves may be increasing paper use, suggests looking into regulating it.

Shields loves the new Interlibrary Loan system, initially disliked physical changes but now they seem positive. Suggests instruction sheet on how to use the multimedia equipment.

Cooper asks about better use of 5^th floor. A number of senators express that they were unaware that a fifth floor existed, proving his point.

Watkins likes the ease of e reserves, study ambiance is great on 3^rd.

Shields addresses that Senate funds many student organizations purchasing DVDs, but they have no central location for storage. Would like to shift them to library, but the libe only allows a few hours for checkout. For this to work for student orgs, it would need to be at least overnight.

Basnyat likes ereserves. Appreciates corners with no windows and study rooms so he can’t get distracted.

Singer interested in providing study space in areas outside – but near- the library.

McLain angered by people leaving their stuff at computers for long periods of time when they are not there.

Shields objects to cell phones in the libe. Could panels be installed to restrict signal?

Reps ask about cafes in the libe, senators generally don’t feel the need for this.

Chartering Committee

Evans presents a report on Chartering Committee. This week’s review has separated charters into groups of possible objections, and groups which chartering thought would not require debate.

Knightengales

The first line of the charter says the group is an “all female” group, CSA bylaws require groups to be open to all. Since auditions are open to all, the organization is theoretically all-inclusive. However, they do not wish to mislead Senate since only high-register vocalists will be selected.

Watkins says that gender definitions are complicated and Senate cannot really define it.

Rep notes that anyone with female range of voice could be accepted, so if you are contralto, you have a “female voice” regardless of your gender.

Cooper indicates that rewording the charter could be ok, to suggest anyone with a “female voice” could sing with the group.

Rep notes that last year they submitted a charter with that wording and it was suggested that they were skirting around the issue.

Navratil adds that as long as tryouts are open to everyone, he believes it’s ok. Wording could be changed to “high voices a’capella group”, or even just an a’capella group, instead of “all female”

Senate moves to table and ask them to return Spring term with a re-worded charter.

Croquet Society

Evans reports purpose statement includes an extensive joke regarding the Bavarian Illuminati, which does not reflect the purpose of the group.

Reps say “it’s a joke.” After the joke, further explanation illustrates what the organization does – Croquet.

Navratil asks why this needs to be in the charter. Can this just be somewhere else?

Evans notes that this blurb goes in the lagniappe, acting as a de facto advertisement for the organization for incoming freshman.

Hart-Ruthenbeck observes that the problem is, the statements are sent to insurance companies.

Watkins notes that lots of senate is boring, this isn’t. It’s not really a problem, we should move on.

Singer asks the rep why they can’t just say it’s a lighthearted group

Reps ask how much of a problem it presents with insurers.

Black asks if it is possible to add something else to the lagniappe description, so the official version and the lagniappe version could be different.

Hart- Ruthenbeck clarifies that is not possible. Insurers might have a problem with the statement, but they might not.

Kachergis suggests specifying it’s a joke within the purpose. Unfortunately it is observed that it would no longer be funny.

Lewis believes the purpose should be taken more seriously, not a joke. Especially if it’s getting sent out to insurance companies.

Watkins said the lagniappe aspect is key, it’s a good advertisement

Evans notes that the purpose is supposed to work in 10 years, not just for the current members.

Black sees a possible slippery slope to lots of silly purposes and a big insurance hassle.

Shields moves to approve

5-10 fails – Evans asks the group to re-word it and return in Spring.

Mustard Seed

Evans notes that the charter says that participants MUST believe in Jesus Christ as their savior.

Reps say the authors are at practice, so they’re not here, they could change it.

Hart Ruthenbeck clarifies that the charter originally was approved because performances are open to all campus

Pay notes that Knightingales could say the same, but we still sent them to amend their charter. The point is that the charter should not automatically exclude anyone from participation.

Rep notes that their requirements reflect personal choices, whereas with Knightingales you can’t choose to whether or not to have a female voice. Changing this changes the organization.

Navratil moves to approve, the charter is approved 10-6

Sola Scriptura

Evans notes that the questioned wording is “all leaders view the bible as the word of God.”

Navratil says qualifications on officer positions are not a problem in his opinion.

Wiczer says that if we have a problem with people putting jokes in charters since they represent official organizations of the college, then this is a very significant assertion. God in upper case etc.

Lewis said that he strongly opposes this type of wording due to limits on officers. If an organization proposed limiting leadership to Blacks Only or Straights Only there would be huge outcry. Every group at Carleton needs to be open to any population of Carleton students.

Basnyat said that determining the leaders’ belief in the bible as the word of God is questionable… will they have to take an oath? Should be resolved within the organization, not articulated in the charter.

McLain sees this from Christian perspective. The Bible is seen as word of God in this group. This is the particular ideology and purpose of the group. Christians with other beliefs could attend, but to teach from that perspective, group leaders need to agree.

Watkins says the purpose of the group is to study the bible not as a historical text or lit, but to study it as a religious text that is the word of God. Doesn’t say that participants have to believe this, just that to lead the study you must come from this perspective.

Rep says they are just trying to be honest about what actually happens in the group. Religious beliefs are different than natural endowment since it is a personal choice anyone in the Carleton community could make.

Yanger says it is open to anyone to discuss passages etc. catering to different types of people on campus, the people leading need to know what they are talking about. Doesn’t mean it has to be exclusive.

Navratil suggests that the wording could be changed to say, “the organization espouses the belief that” or “we believe that” the bible is the word of God, therefore avoiding limits or strict qualifications on officers.

Motion to table and have the group make the change passes 11 – 6

Motion to reconsider the Mustard Seed charter on the same grounds only gains 8, cannot be considered.

Photography Club

Evans notes that the charter mandates a membership fee, which is not officially limited but becomes an issue regarding whether membership is “open to all.”

Rep says the current fee is $4, if people want to waive the fee it is possible, it just helps for a rainy day.

Evans clarifies that it is a precedent issue.

Rep says he is willing to drop it from the charter

Evans suggests approving the charter after dropping the fee, Senate approves the amended charter unanimously by voice vote.

Whoa! Hip Hop Dance

Evans notes that the conflict results from the existence of the Wellstone House of Action (WHOA) already operating on campus. Whoa! hip hop reps were reluctant to change the name.

Discussion is opened

Reps note that they have been using the name, hiphop different that house and people won’t be confused, has been used with groups, companies, printed on warm up gear, etc.

Shields says it should be voted on, if it doesn’t pass they’ll have to change it. She further notes that they can use whatever name they want to for internal purposes. They can continue to print whatever they want. It will just be confusing for the Business Office for the official names to be so similar.

Whoa! hip hop dance charter fails 5- 9

The un-debated charters are voted on as a block and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Constitutional Review Board

The Meeting Secretary left during the CRB debate as the meeting ran long due to scheduling conflicts. His Excellency Senator Colin McLain took some of the subsequent minutes. Due to the long meeting and change of hands, some of the CRB debate is less than clear on the record. For a complete version of the amended bylaws, see the CSA website. –EP

Cooper notes that due to the length of the meeting, CRB has summarized the changes into major substantive categories. He requests holding the semantic debates to a minimum, and voting simply on substantive issues.

Navratil reports on major changes:

Creation of CSA Chartered Organizations article, consolidating and clarifying requirements for organizations. Brief discussion regarding maintaining minimum number of members ensues.

Change approved unanimously by voice vote

Moved Spring Allocations procedure to financial regulations article, more appropriate and logical place for it.

Unanimous approval by voice vote

Splitting committee descriptions into College and CSA committees due to the different procedures and functions of these categories

Unanimous approval by voice vote

Eliminate mandatory Webmaster position since Reason web editor has simplified the process. Brief discussion regarding the role of the Webmaster ensues. After the change, it would still be possible to have a Webmaster, just not mandatory. Further, the logic of having an internal Webmaster is emphasized.

Unanimous approval by voice vote

Financial Regulations Changes

Creating a discretionary fund at 10% of capital reserves each year.

Watkins worries that this will make cap reserves more “touchable”

Cooper notes that we are using cap reserves as a discretionary fund at the moment and so we’re overspending – having a designated amount of money would constrict the level of dipping into cap reserves.

Stark believes it makes cap reserves more untouchable.

Watkins says that this 10% will always be spent annually, guaranteeing depletion of cap reserves.

Stark notes that after this fund is spent, the officers will be responsible to prevent further access to cap reserves, and their job will be easier.

Watkins says after the change, the fund will be much more easily and excusably used.

Evans says this is a compromise between two factions: one group says senate hordes, another says maintaining a huge fund is necessary for fiscal responsibility. This is compromise… more discretionary money but it provides for increased barrier to further access.

Watkins worries that it is not much more untouchable.

McLain calls question

Watkins moves to table the changes creating the discretionary fund.

Stark moves to discuss

Stark notes that senate turnover means this should be decided now since new senators won’t understand the context.

Watkins says he doesn’t want the change to happen, he thinks there are malleable new senators.

Senate votes 9-2 to table the changes to B and C

Diversity Initiative Fund

The fund currently can’t fund catering costs. Changes would allow this funding, as well as allowing multiple smaller allocations per year. This makes the fund more accessible and appealing to groups.

Unanimous approval by voice vote

3^rd Center Fund

Added funding for meals with Alumni/ae

Unanimous by voice vote

Food Funding

$40 per term per group of food not central to an event currently allowed, changes allow more flexible/ discretionary decisions based on the nature of the event.

Retroactive funding more clearly defined – if the expense takes place before Budget Committee meetings it is retroactive, if before senate allocation process, it can be approved.

Move to table by Navratil approved.

Removal of Student at Large from Elections Committee since the position was always hard to fill. Some changes to Election rules.

Dining Committee information relocated to CSA committees’ section.

Student Auditor now a member of Budget Committee – previously this was optional, now it is mandatory.

A number of proposed changes to BC regulations tabled until next term.

Internal Committee Chairs

CRB proposes change mandating that all chairs would be appointed by the President.

Shields supports, Watkins indicates that the Pres’ selections should be subject to senate review. Griffiths objects to the time this would take.

CRB change approved, with stipulation that senate will approve the President’s nominations.

Agenda emails removed from bylaws