- Officer Reports
●Mattie Carter – Chair
oAssistant to kansas commissioner,
▪Don’t text and drive pledge contest
▪Pledge to not text and drive
▪School with most pledges is winner
▪Online or through text, on facebook
▪Ends on Tuesday Nov. 22nd
▪KU KState football game is when winner is announced
▪Thurs Nov 17, Virtual reality simulator to get pledges
▪For facility, alumni, fans and students. Anyone can take it
▪Contact insurance department for further questions
oMeeting with Stefan to discuss changes not made in full Senate
●Adam Steinhilber– Vice Chair
oMentorship program handouts
●Nick Rose – Secretary
oAbsences and email
- Approval of Minutes
- Motion to approve
- seconded
- Elections
- Student Rights Committee Associate Senator (1)
- Open to anyone not currently a senator
- Martin and Anna nominated
- Matin wins
- New Business
- BILL-2017-023: A BILL TO FUND THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY (ACM) AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
- Presentated by Jack
- General funding for office supplies
- Club does education events
- Open to all students
- Questions
- None
- Called to question
- Seconded
- Passed
- BILL 2017-025: A BILL TO FUND THE KIOSK
- Presented by Grace
- Design magazine
- Art and literature by KU students
- Wins awards nationally
- Amended to $3000 for Fall Semester
- Spring is unchanged
- Money goes to printing, nothing else
- Questions
- How are they distributed?
- Through Student Senate and city of Lawrence
- Negative Speech for Amendment
- Strike line from $5000 to $3000
- Motion to call to question on Amendment
- Seconded
- Passed
- Motion to call to question
- Seconded
- Passed
- BILL 2017-028: A BILL TO FUND OBOE STUDIO CLUB
- Presented by Alyssa
- Most of event is funded by outside senate
- Open to most students
- Questions
- None
- Motion to call to question
- Seconded
- Passed
- BILL 2017-032: A BILL TO FUND INTERNATIONAL PEER SUPPORT
- Presented by Alyssa
- TABLED IN FINANCE
- Motion to Table
- TABLED
- BILL 2017-029: A BILL TO AMEND STUDENT SENATE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARTICLE II SECTION 1 AND ARTICLE VII SECTION 7
- Presented by Taylor and Connor
- College of Liberal Arts has enacted legislation similar to this bill
- Logistically sound feasible task
- Academic seat should be based off academic interests
- Freshmen and Sophomore seats was created in 60’s for general student body, Juniors and Seniors for individual interests.
- 5 categories and 6 category At Large
- Each category represents an area of academics
- Each category has 2 representatives
- One must be underclassmen
- Questions
- How are seats done by category? Does one category get more than another.
- 20% of seats apportioned to At Large
- Each Category after At Large gets two seats
- Motion to extend by questions on floor
- Passed
- Questions
- How would administration ensure students are enrolled in that major?
- Dean Stamp
- Dean office determines they are part of that major
- How would you implement dual majors? Would they run for more than one?
- You could represent either one. Can only run for one.
- What if people switch majors, would they transfer to new position or step down?
- If someone switches majors they should step down from that seat
- At Large seats are up for debate
- What are the errors of the current system?
- Issues of proper representation, such as Freshmen and Sophomore and transfer of credits.
- A junior may be a second year residence
- Representation should be towards academic interest
- Motion to extend questions
- Passed
- Questions
- Would you consider on seats being proportion by people applying to be majors.
- There are people who want to be involved are not because their is a bias of specific majors (i.e. PoliSci)
- Would this bill require you to get signatures only from your major?
- Anyone for At Large, major are only for any other categories
- Can one major only vote for their major?
- Can vote for their major and At Large
- What about undecided?
- At Large was originally intended for them.
- What happens if other categories not filled?
- Stay vacant so remains available for people in that major
- What would the size of the categories be?
- Unknown for the moment
- WIll more students in a major determine the seats?
- Yes
- Negative Speech by Chance
- Has to answer three questions Is it necessary, will it restrict access, will it lead to more problems?
- If it ain't broken don’t fix it
- We can fix the sophomore and Freshmen problem by changing credit system
- No student is prohibited from getting a seat no matter the major.
- Won’t change the amount of people running
- Will exclude people who want to be involved because not enough seats for their major.
- Would make senate more exclusive
- If you switch majors you will lose your seat.
- Too many students switch
- People who get involved in senate want to be involved, shouldn’t force others
- We already have unfilled seats.
- Some majors may not be interested
- Less voices because less seats
- Bill is unnecessary, just changing things for the sake of change. We can fix our problems through different methods.
- Will lead to seat fillers rather than actually representatives.
- Questions
- Clarify diversity and allowing broader access?
- Will lead to diversity of majors rather than diversity of opinions.
- Less voices due to less people.
- Again it would exclude people.
- Do you think the reason people are not involved from other majors because not interested or lack of opportunities?
- There is nothing to preclude them. No official rules
- Students are often busy and there are many factors other than lack of opportunities.
- Question
- Do we want more diversity if we can fill those seats?
- Doubt the seats will be filled.
- Will lack people who are interested in student senate.
- More majors yet less interest.
- Do you think this creates an institutional barrier?
- What system is better despite its flaws, all systems have flaws.
- Will be unnecessary change.
- Only people elected will be people who are most popular in a major.
- Anyone without social capital will not have a chance.
- What if seats were limited to mainly At Large, would allow more seats for people interested yet still help those in majors?
- Will only help a couple.
- Will still have less seats filled.
- Those who are not interested will not stay, so wouldn’t it be better to have seats available to people who were interested later.
- Senate would be a revolving door, people would never stay as a senator.
- People new to Lawrence have a hard time getting the signatures how would this impact it?
- There would be a bigger issue.
- Positive speech by Canstanza
- Important for diversity.
- The system is broke, even people in political science have a hard time because they don’t know many people.
- Will harm minority students if not passed because they know less people without their majors.
- There shouldn’t be one type of people in senate.
- If seats can be filled that falls on the senate.
- Argues it would be easy to fill
- Questions
- How does current system stop freshmen from getting seats if no seats were open despite major?
- The more people you know the higher chance you are to get connection
- Minorities don’t know as many people outside their major.
- What would you tell a senator from disadvantaged background that they had to lose seat due to losing seats?
- Look to At Large seats available.
- Can amend the bill.
- Called to Question
- Seconded
- Passed
- Announcements
- None
- Adjournment
- Adjourned at 7:50
410 Kansas Union ∙ University of Kansas ∙ Lawrence, KS 66045 ∙ (785)-864-3710