- Called to order at 5:13pm
- Quorum Roll Call
Present: Navarro, Martin, Abergel, Cano Freeman, Maemura, Ramachandran, Salman, Cheema
Webb came late.
Navarro: motion to move into Public Discussion
Martin: Seconds
- Public Discussion
Cano: Wanted to define Senate Reserves. Necessary to define them even though some people thing it isn’t. In the past it has been defined as just for Senate needs, but should be for other groups that put on projects for the students. Now just a pot of money that sits at Senate.
Ramachandran: What are the legal limitations?
Cheema: Is there a set amount that has to be allocated to Senate Reserves
Chen: There is a constitutionally determined amount about $12,000 a year
Ramachandran: We’re talking about the Senate bill that was vetoed. Understood from Senate that if they gave money this time, that they would be required to give it to other groups that come and ask for it. We need to try to be neutral. Define Senate Reserves in such a way to make it neutral. How do we do that?
Tanner: There are no rules for how to use Senate Reserves money.
Freeman: Do we want to give monetary restrictions? Do we want to model after CFC or make it different?
Cano: CFC is structured in a way that we want clubs to get money, but CFC has these deadlines and you need event planned two months in advance. Having no deadline is effective.
Ramachandran: The only way that ASUCD can’t be sued is if it has mutual rules, and that is what CFC is for. They would fund projects that senators are interesting in and other stuff. The senators can only be like CFC. Can someone explain the legal stuff.
Abrham: Senators take different projects, and we can’t restrict it to platform goals because senators do take on different projects and react to what is happening on campus. What does it mean to be neutral? It is hard to define neutrality. When something is opposed in Senate it has to do with the light that is shed on it. Fine line to defining Senate Reserves and what is the limits. We need someone with legal background to keep talking about it.
Tanner: Budget cut issue was huge and could put that in the platform, urge not to restrict it to platform goals.
Ramachandran: We need to understand the legal stuff in order to determine neutrality.
Salman: ASUCD is a student body and it should be defined by students. Lawyer is not necessary to define what is right for the students. Organization now needs to pay for the trip, had they already gone? There should be fine lines to avoid any problems.
Tanner: We need a lawyer because there are cases in law citing in the veto at other universities.
Cano: Viewpoint with neutrality. Broad definitions: if you are Republican and want money, the same amount of money should be allocated to Democrats. Another definition is if a group comes for money and is given that money and another does later, you are required to give them money as well. Senators have projects that they used the money for, went in the direction of what CFC actually is. Can’t really change CFC rules without approval from the Senate. Define Senate Reserves as not what you can use it for, but what you can’t. We need to make a large cookie-cutter to fit in all groups, but Senate can also vote to suspend that bylaw.
Tanner: How we give out funding should be judged by the students. Important to change how we distribute money through Constitutional referendum or student referendum.
Freeman: No way to define what it’s not without leaving holes. Better way to define things is for the amount of people that money will be benefitting. Have some sort of time limit so that the same thing doesn’t happen again (2 weeks or something).
Ramachandran: Put on the form that students won’t receive money for two weeks or however long. Important that it benefits students, or at least people are interested in how may people it will affect. What we know when the bigger law is, then we can define what ASUCD can do.
Cano: Practical solution because we are having election codes revised by a lawyer. California Chief of Election is working on it, we will see that piece of legislation that quarter.
Webb: Don’t agree with using legal issue as an excuse. Not our job to consider legality. There was a resolution that passed in favor of the issue, but when it came down to discussing funding we started questioning legality. Don’t see restricting funding as a feasible thing to do. Can’t tie the Senate’s hands. Can’t write rules for everything.
Cheema: Who changed their mind? – Ozzy did. Mark Champagne is not a lawyer, that will not work. Things that benefit the greater student body should funded by Senate Reserves. Agree with Cano. Student to dollar ratio.
Chen: Agree with Webb, hard to define Senate Reserves. We should stop doing things with Senate Reserves that is illegal, but Senate Reserves can be used for whatever the Senate wants it to be. Defining it is a political issue. We should bring in a lawyer.
Abrahm: Senate Reserves are for whatever Senators want. We can’t look at student to dollar ratio because it marginalizes communities. Just because numbers are lower, doesn’t mean that they deserve less money.
Tanner: Student-dollar ratio could lead to lawsuit. Institutionalizing not funding groups based on percentage at our university. ASUCD constitution should go with the times on campus. If people complain about 2am meetings, maybe they shouldn’t run for Senate.
Freeman: Not a proportional number, just a solid number. Didn’t mean any proportionate means by group. Senate should at least consider that in their decision making.
Cano: Why should B&F have a bigger view. A practical solution is a two week time limit. CFC has a two month limit to receive funding, so two weeks is nothing compared to that. Don’t like that we’ve gone to that sort of style. Able to support a cause, but can’t give money to that cause. I like the direction of our conversation is going and we need an explicit definition as opposed to the implicit “definition” we have now. There are things we can not do and that is more beneficial for people to know.
Tanner: Is that really feasible for us to make a time limit.
Navarro: How we limit Senate Reserves should come from Senators. Run for Senate if you don’t like where the money is going. Make sure each commission sees it that needs to see it. Need to do it earlier because the President needs to sign it and we need to allot for that time.
Tanner: Maybe we should outlaw urgent spending bills? It is important for commissions to see it.
Ramachandran: You elect Senators to pursue their preferences, as long as its legal I see no problem. Defining what is legal is enough.
Web: Never endorsed a B&F binding bills. Can not force a Senator to be responsible. There are practical uses for urgent spending bills. We shouldn’t overreact to what is happening now. If you want to make a guideline based on IRS code you can do that. It was not illegal and if it was Mark Champagne would have done something about it.
Martin: Is there in the law timing on when something has to be vetoed by. – by the next Senate meeting. Putting disclosure at top of form that it could be vetoed, not that they won’t get their money for two weeks, but that it may not go through all the way. Doesn’t require a bylaw or limit people getting money at the last minute. Getting a lawyer would be good, more information is always good for the future. What information does Senate get besides the spending bill? – receipts, how much money and where its going. Student-dollar ratio depending on what the event is might be a good thing to take into consideration.
Maemura: In terms of law, is there anything wrong with giving Senate Reserves out on Senators own terms.Basic criteria is a time limit.
Ramachandran: Need to fund clubs in an even-handed way. Can’t just pick and choose.
Chen: There are some things we are legally barred from spending money on.
Freeman: There is a lot of talk that it is Senate’s money, but it is not a divine body that was placed in the conference room. The money came from the students. Should allocate the money for how the student wants it to be spent.
Abergel: Time limit not necessary because sometimes its not feasible. Money should be for students and students can get involved but it should still be up to the discretion of the Senators and they need to consider the students that will be affected.
Cano: Should not live in fear of getting sued. Should always have urgent spending bills. Did like the 2 week limit, but shouldn’t legislate that. Senate Reserves is very ambiguous and it is up to us if we want to define it. Need more information. Crucial to have IAC represented at the Senate table.
Chen: Agree with Cano, need more information. Agree with Abergel, haven’t gotten anywhere because we can’t define Senate Reserves. Can come to the conclusion that we can’t really do anything. We want to do everything right.
Salman: No one knows what they could and could not spend their money on. Should set limits on what you can’t spend it on, easier than what you can spend it on. Something needs to be done because students will get mad; it is our money. Need to have faith in the Senate and its made up of students and we make mistakes all the time. Informal agreement maybe for each Senate?
Cheema: Only two problems, they should know that the money could be taken away and it doesn’t hurt for legal limitations to be written into the bylaws. The system worked, earmarks are good but they can be taken out of hand. Should be more mindful of students and their money, but it becomes the associations money once we give it to them.
Webb: $150 for postage was legal. Student groups are ignorant, they should know they are not guaranteed that money. We need to be careful about confusing merits and legality. Don’t think we should legislate these things.
Freeman: Agree with Subhan, the system worked. You can’t create bills to make things go the way you want them to go. Some considerations are good.
Ramachandran: Get more information on the legal stuff. Motion to move into Commission Reports
Martin Seconded.
- Commission Reports
Ramachandran – went to Lobby Corps, went to Senate
Salman – Went to Lobby Corps, wrote some bills
Maemura – Good Picnic Day, lost sister and then found her
Cheema – Picnic Day was fun
Webb – Spoke to unit director of Book Exchange
Martin – Picnic Day as research for long-range plan
Abergel–went to Senate, talked to Whole Earth directors
Chen –went to B&F, went to Senate, went to long-range plan, and a lot of other things with the budget
Cano – went to Senate, Picnic Day amazing