Skip Navigation

Meeting Minutes

February 21st, 2005

  • Location: Sayles Hill
  • Time: 7:00 pm
  • Present: Vice President Andy Evans, Treasurer Lilly Shields, Becca Stark, CJ Griffiths,Andy Navratil, Kilang Yanger, Jim Watkins, David Wiczer, Jumal Lewis, Abhinab Basnyat, George Kachergis, Colin McLain, Jess Black, Cole Zimmerman, Tom Kiner
  • Absent: President Seth Cooper, Tim Singer, Jesse Moreno, Dan Rubenstein, Brandon Sun, Alejandro Mendoza
  • Guests: many concerned students, representatives of Budget Committee, representatives of Social Programming Board
  • Secretary: Even Pay

Vice President Evans called the meeting to order.

Budget Committee

Treasurer Shields presented the report from budget committee

Collective for Womens Issues (CWI)

Requested $150/person for 8 people to attend a conference.

Budget Committee struggled since, 4 of the 8 who want to go are seniors which makes a “bring back” plan difficult since the conference takes place late in Spring term.

BC recommends $600, $150 per 4 people, and further recommended Constitutional Review Board or Governance to talk about limits on the number of people going to conferences under the $150/ student budget guideline.

The $600 bid passes unanimously

Carleton Democrats

Request $900 in honoraria for Eric Reeves (expert in genocide in Darfur, from Smith)

The bid passes unanimously

Hart-Ruthenbeck requests someone to see her regarding the speaker’s contract

Resident Assistant Sunny Days program

Requested $110 for decorations, food and drink, table custodial fee setup.

Budget Committee recommends $0 based on guidelines restricting food, wish not to set precedent for funding residential-life events.

Motion to open discussion passes

Watkins clarifies that the program is different than normal Res. Life programming because it is open to the entire campus and all of the RA staff is involved. The purpose of the event is to give people the chance to “blow off steam” during reading days

Shields notes that RA activities should be funded by Reslife not CSA, casino night is now an exception.

Navratil asks what exactly is happening in this program

Shields explains that it has a Hawaiian theme

Watkins notes the presence of a beach ball and Jimmy Buffet

Wiczer disagrees with the slippery slope argument, believes there are clear boundaries between this and normal RA activities.

McLain disagrees, nothing that all floor’s events are open to others on campus, so all campus involvement doesn’t seem like a clear line.

Shields clarifies that CSA money should go to chartered orgs, RA’s are not a chartered organization.

Stark adds that the relevant distinction is that Reslife should be the sponsor of this event. CRB has drafted some new wording to exclude funding Reslife events in the future, since they have a separate set of funds.

Watkins motion to amend and second to have $40 bid. To amend the Budget Committee bid, a 2/3 vote is required. The motion to amend fails.

New Business:

Election results are read out.

Sophomores cannot run for president.

Thanks to election committee for all their work.

Number of votes for candidates is online.

Navratil submits inquiry regarding impeachment procedures. It is noted that a number of members have impeachment pending, and that will take place at the next meeting.

Committee on Student Life

Basnyat reports that paper use has gone up, Joel Cooper concerned about the rate at which use is increasing, trying to find a general outline. Cost prohibitive to get software to charge students for printing.

Wiczer asks what percentage of profs are using e-reserves

Watkins clarifies that we can’t really track stuff on e-reserves. They don’t really know how much paper usage has gone up as a result of e reserves and still don’t have solid numbers on total paper use, just an estimate based on reams ordered.


Kachergis reports on ITS committee meeting. Paper use cant be tracked, that would cost more than its worth. Joel Cooper recommends duplex printing and try to raise student awareness of the excess printing.

Student asks if they have looked into putting course reserves in the bookstore?

Basnyat says the idea has been discussed, one thing preventing this is that profs don’t prepare in advance, want to add stuff at the last minute.

Watkins notes that one recommendation was writing a proposal to college council requesting profs to create a packet if high-volume of e-resesrves will be used for a class.

Frank Brody inquires whether the primary concern is environmental or economic?

Basnyat indicates the college is concerned with both issues.

Student asks if ink cartridges are also a problem

Basnyat says at athe moment only paper use is being considered

Matt Ruen asks if recycled paper causes jams (ITS official statement as per request at the last meeting)? Yes, it does.


Evans reports that new online charters for all groups are due this Wednesday. If it’s not in by Wednesday, they will not be able to request funding during spring allocations.

McLain makes a case for pushing back the date.

Evans notes that there is no excuse because they have been notified for a long time. Evans also indicates that he will send out a reminder email ASAP.


Meeting this Thursday at 9pm to talk about making standardized online application forms for everything CSA accepts applications to. Task force will also take part in the meetings.


Yanger reports that they have not met, but did receive a Logo entry. The entertaining entry is passed around.

Other committee reports at an end, Vice President Evans moves to the final item of Budget Committee business, which was moved to accommodate student representatives.

Social Programming Board Budget Request

Evans outlines the format for the SPB debate, which will include a report by treasurer Shields, an information session with representatives of SPB, a discussion period open to students and senators, and voting on the budget recommendation.

Shields reports on the SPB request

Request of $12,000 for spring concert

The organization was originally allocated $15,000 during last year’s spring allocations. They have $4,000 remaining in their general budget, but some of that is already designated towards SUMO event, so only about 16G can go towards spring concert.

15 G goes towards setup, security, and standard fees.

Budget committee recommended an additional $5,000

The committee did not feel like they could go above this and still have money for groups next year. Last year Senate allocated 20G from capital reserves for the concert on a one-time basis due to the pullout of St. Olaf. Since then bylaws regarding the use of Capital Reserves money has changed. It is only for long-term projects that will stay on campus.

SPB Reps passed spreadsheet of SPB remaining budget.

Last year there were two acts, one costing 15 G and another 7 G

Money aside, compared to last year, this year’s spring concert will be totally different. St. Olaf’s concert is on the same day, administration is forcing regulation of the alcohol consumption. In order to keep this event successful we need a strong budget. Doing the concert without St.Olaf changes a lot. Last year we had 22 G for talent, as of now we have 9 G. Olaf spring concert will have 40 G and is scheduled on the same day. Concern is that Carleton students will go to Olaf to their concert instead.

30 Minute Discussion period begins

Basnyat inquires if the date can be changed. Sara Israel clarifies that it is too late to change it, they selected the date based on initial assumption that Olaf would participate.

Ruen asks what difference 7G (the difference between the 12 G requested and 5 G approved) would actually make since Olaf has such a much larger budget. Israel clarifies that the Olaf show might not be open to Carls, or they may charge hefty ticket prices.

Shields informs senate that there are 88 other chartered orgs who could use this funding. 7 G out of spring budget means roughly 15 other programs that won’t be able to take place Last year SPB given 20 G as “one time” allocation. Clearly expressed that this would not be repeated, and they needed to find outside funding.

Navratil asks what Olaf’s objection is to cooperating with Carleton, and what sort of alcohol regulation will be in place? SPB Reps clarify that differences in alcohol policy is one of Olaf’s main concerns. Ironically, they are also concerned that Olies would not attend if Carleton made any changes to the drinking policy. Carleton made many concessions on drinking.

Basnyat inquires whether funding spring concert will deplete money used for Rotblatt. Shields notes that the traditional funding of Rotblatt technically goes against budget guidelines against funding personal property.

Laura Monn, member of budget committee, adds that no one wants to eliminate spring concert. This is the best BC can do, to allow other student groups to do all the programming they want to do during spring. Funding from Capital Reserves is NOT sustainable. Her priorities are fiscal responsibility, welfare of students in the future.

Kiner suggests supplementing the regular budget with funds from capital reserves, therefore allowing funding of student group events as well as spring concert. Shields notes that she got much negative feedback for this last spring.

Stark expresses concern about the sustainability of the funding. Last year there was a lengthy debate that made it clear there would not be a repeat of this allocation. Nothing has happened to make spring concert more sustainable.

Watkins asks Shields if there are alternative options for funding the concert. It is clarified that this is the only option for funding spring concert this year unless they charge for tickets.

Sara Israel observes that according to current account balance, there is a lot of money for this term that has not been spent.

Stark inquires as to the source of the proposed 5G. Shields clarifies at her discretion, 4 G from honoraria and 1 G from Special Allocations.

Yanger asks what sort of talent the SPB is looking into?

Israel clarifies that they are still researching bands, talking to agents. 15 g to get the Strokes, arrested development for 10G are some outside possibilities. Part of the point of spring concert is not to get a band that plays the cave.

Navratil expresses hesitancy to increase the funding. While spring concert is clearly enjoyed by students, fiscal responsibility is a higher priority.

Laura Monn professes that depleting cap reserves is not sustainable. What happens when the next crisis occurs? Birth control funding, KRLX tower collapse? Last year we spent every penny by the end of the year. Most groups wait until the very end of spring term to do their programming. The remaining account balance is not superfluous money.

Kiner asks how much money is in capital reserves? The balance is recorded. Last year’s balance over 120,000, this year’s balance 70,000.

McLain asks where else SPB has looked for funding. Israel has contacted businesses in town regarding sponsorships and partnerships, the bank, contacting malt-o-meal, culligan water, and so on.

McLain asks of the audience members, who is not a senior? All but two are Seniors.

Student views this as a crisis, suggests senate treat it as a “loan”, SPB will do some major fundraising, charge a small ticket price, etc. Funding is critical now since band contracts must be negotiated. Then we work on fundraising.

Rud Hubbard asks what has been done since last year at this time to secure permanent funding for the concert?

Frank Brody adds that spring concert is the defining event of the year for many Carls. Spring concert benefits the WHOLE community, not just a few small student groups. He suggests compromise and patching together a solution, not an all-or-nothing vote.

Lewis adds his 100% support for funding spring concert. Senate has funded lots of “BS” but this is something students actually want. This brings diversity and sells the school.

Kate Jones adds that all these organizations do not contribute to the entire Carleton community. At spring concert you see people that you’ve never seen before. Brings us together at the end of the year. Two defining events of most Carleton years are Rotblatt and Spring Concert. Rotblatt is not so inclusive. Spring concert unites the whole community. This is a recruiting aspect of the college.

Shields notes that currently there is a Manuscript funding request tabled, there are lots of requests pending. Even if SPB got 20 Grand in the spring, that’s the most that we can handle. BC took close look at the request, did their best to find extra 5G. They could have recommended a 0 bid.

McLain notes that CSA pays for student life. If admissions really needs a draw, they should pay for it. No one comes here for the concert.

Ruen adds that it is much better PR to tell prospective students that anyone who comes here with an interest can participate in a funded student group.

Watkins has heard stories of spring concert, and it would be terrible if this was lost. The tradition needs to evolve, maybe some sponsorship etc.

Kiner says CSA is killing spring concert. Last spring when we made the allocation, senate stated that we would supplement SPB if they needed acts. Still haven’t heard any good arguments for NOT funding spring concert. If we’re going to do it, we don’t want a mediocre bad concert, otherwise we’re wasting 15 G.

Basnyat reminds senate that spring concert is a primary social event on campus. Thinks students would be willing to contribute a dollar.

Duncan Scherer adds that there are many initiatives from top down trying to deal with alcohol issues. Spring concert is working to eliminate alcoholism, working to make everyone comfortable so it is an all-inclusive event, not just alcohol. Henna tattoos, photo booth, and so on.

John Rent expresses his wish that the student audience could take part in Spring BC proceedings when they explain to groups why they can’t have an event. BC went through lots of calculations; this is the maximum available. BC is meant for events that did NOT get allocations last spring.

Yanger observes that spring concert quality has declined since her freshman year, but notes that it is important to give current frosh and sophomores a chance at this experience. Asks if it is possible to get a cut of the revenue from food vendors at the event.

Israel contributes that food vendors have not been charged in the past, and that potential revenue is low.

Lewis believes this situation is a crisis, since Olaf pulled out and the concert needs to be funded. Inquires whether or not we can poll the student population to see how much of the student body actually supports increased funding.

Laura Monn defends previously groups’ budget requests as more than “BS”, argues that spring concert must find alternative funding because this “crisis” can’t continue every year.

Lisa Bressler believes this is more representative of the student population that group funding requests.

Frank Brody would like a resolution that said that if the admin will restrict alcohol, admin needs to help pay for the additional security cost due to their restrictions. Second, in order for SPB to book an act, she needs money, so she can depend on it now.

McLain asks if there is any way to guarantee the repayment of a “loan” to SPB with fundraising. SPB reps clarify that there are no guarantees.

Navratil reiterates that there are no available funds for the concert. Cap reserves keeps falling, and it is needed to preserve a solvent budget for spring term.

Tim (student) inquires whether the refusable refundable fee could be used to fund spring concert in the future. Also notes that rejecting the Coke contract put a pinch on the budget.

Israel informs the body that last week at a meeting with Olaf, 12 of the 14 members of the decision-making group would be interested in exploring co-sponsorship next year. They are seriously considering it, so that would remove the problem in the future.

Having reached the end of the designated discussion period, Evans clarifies procedure and takes procedural questions. It is clarified that for a bid to be considered, 2/3 of senate must overturn the budget committee recommendation: 9 of the 14 present voting members must support it.

Evans opens the floor for amendments to BC’s $5,000 bid.

Watkins submits a motion to amend the bid to the full $12,000 with a stipulation that fundraising and ticket sales will take place to replace as much of the funding as possible.

Basnyat submits a motion to amend to $12,000 with a mandatory 2 dollar per ticket price.

Kiner submits a bid for the full $12,000 with no stipulations

Yanger submits a bid for $7,000 and requiring ticket charges

Lewis submits a bid for 12,000 and whatever can be made up is refunded.

Brief discussion on the bids takes place.

Kiner notes that CSA has already put $15G towards the concert and BC was willing to give 5G more. If no one comes, we’ve just blown a lot of money, so lets be sure to get a good act.

Navratil observes that all of these bids are ignoring the fact that Senate doesn’t have the money. Spring concert is great, but we can’t afford this.

Frank Brody asks whether we can give a loan as a student organization. He asks senate to be more flexible in their allocation mechanisms.

McLain supports Watkins’ bid. Likes the loan idea but it can’t be guaranteed.

Duncan Scherer expresses frustration at CSA’s conflicting statements. Do we or do we not have the money? The org obviously doesn’t know what is going on with itself if some people say reserves are adequate and others profess there is no money.

A brief period of procedural clarification ensues.

Kiner, Yanger, Basnyat, and Lewis remove their proposed amendments from the table. Only the Watkins amendment remains.

Navratil requests a roll call vote.

Yes designates support of the amendment overturning the BC bid and recommending a $12,000 allocation.

McLain Yes

Wiczer Yes

Kachergis Yes

Basnyat Yes

Yanger Yes

Kiner Yes

Lewis Yes

Watkins Yes

Zimmerman Yes

Stark No

Black No

Griffiths No

Navratil No

Shields No

By a vote of 9 to 5, the amendment replaces the $5,000 bid.

By vote of 9-5, the amended bid of $12,000 is approved.

A motion to adjourn is made and seconded at 9:00 PM