Mo’ Money, No Parking

College Council Minutes 10/18/00

[introduction]

Ami Parekh (Co-President) announced that the Presidential Induction will be this Saturday at 2:30pm in Chapin. Also, this Friday is the Committee on Educational Policy’s proposal deadline. If you want to have any comment in the future of the curriculum on this campus, please email 02mnb.

Todd Rogers (Co-President) introduced a new CC policy. Because meetings are often painful, we need a break sometime within the meeting. So in the tradition of mountain day, the presidents of CC will be able to announce a five-minute interval at any point within the meeting for a much-needed break. On a different note, Todd added that Open Time, where members hang out in the snack bar soliciting opinions, would be starting again soon.

[financial situation]

Ryan Mayhew (Treasurer) presented the Financial Committee’s proposal on how the $29,000 cash infusion should be distributed. The entire proposal is available on the web site, but most of the details are below. The money will be distributed into four areas – $250 into the Nationals Fund, $5,525 into the General Fund, $8,133.09 to immediate student group relief, and $15,091.91 to a student group contingency fund. The idea behind the contingency fund is that we have money earmarked for established groups if they run out of money before the end of the year. Tim Karpoff (Off-Campus) asked why we would have Student Group Contingency funds when we could just dump the money into the general fund, and then fund everything out of there. He sees a potential problem in encouraging groups to run dry of funds so they can get a piece of this pot reserved for them. Mayo Shattuck (Class of 2003) defended the fund by reminding council that we requested the money from the administration originally to help our existing groups who were cut 17% from independently assessed need. Ryan added that the delineation of funds is essentially soft; if we run out of money in the general fund, we can always shift some of this over.

Ryan then began group-by-group examinations of funding requests. For the most part, groups requested extra funds (from $200 to $3,000), and FinCom looked over their proposals and made a recommendation as to how much money should actually be allocated to the group. However, there were some groups – Cinephiles, Dissonance, Culture Counter, and the Lit Society that did not request emergency funding, but were still recommended to receive funds by FinCom. Ching Ho (FinCom) explained that most of these groups were really shorted in the initial budget allocations and that they really needed the money to function. Shenil Saya (At-Large), asked: if these groups need the money so badly, why they didn’t request it after Ryan solicited emergency funding proposals? Princess Alegre (MinCo) pointed out that many groups got less than what they asked for – why then give extra money to groups that didn’t ask at all? Erin Troy moved to amend the proposal to remove the allocations for the publications, and Ezra Goldschlager (Carter) made a motion to remove the extra funding for Cinephiles. Both passed 19-5-3.

Princess then asked why Sankofa got so much less than they requested ($1750 vs. $150). Ryan replied that both Sankofa and Gospel Choir have both received more this year than in previous years, and that FinCom is waiting to see if they do actually spend the extra money they’ve been given. If they do end up needing more money, they can always come to council to request from the contingency fund. CC then passed the proposal 20-3-5.

[intergroup fund]

Ami and Todd presented their proposal for the establishment of an Intergroup Fund. The mission of the fund is to build the Williams community by facilitating inter-group events, especially by groups that have not traditionally had much crossover membership. In other words, if two disparate campus groups want to get together (say, Rugby and Newman Association) and have a group dinner at the Thai restaurant, then they would be able to secure some funding under the Intergroup Fund. The initial seed money for the fund will be $2,000 – $1,000 from College Council and $1,000 from the Dean’s Office. Rob Sica (At-Large) asked how we would decide whether the groups were different enough. Ami replied that College Council would have to consider each proposal and determine whether it meets the guidelines of the Fund. Mayo thinks that the funding aspect is going to waste [valuable] meeting time, and, that in our present budget crunch, this proposal is just throwing money away, both on the part of CC and Dean’s Office. Ami responded that because social fragmentation is such a huge issue on campus, we should do whatever we can to combat it, and we should give this Fund a shot. Darah Schofield (Bryant/Woodbridge) asked if there would be a cap on how much money groups could receive. There is no cap within the proposal, and ultimately it comes down to CC’s discretion. John Phillips (Prospect) doesn’t understand the use of having an Intergroup Fund – to him, the cost of a dinner isn’t the obstacle that’s causing whatever fragmentation we have on campus; we choose to be fragmented, and if we didn’t want to be this way, we could start eating with each other without the Fund. Ezra asked why the funding would go toward small dinners between two groups versus helping groups co-sponsor events for the campus. Todd answered that the proposal as it stands can actually be used to fund both types of events, but that he thinks that interaction on a smaller scale will help the problem of fragmentation more. CC voted to pass the allocation of $1000 to the Intergroup Fund 24-2-2.

[funding]

Jordan Goldwarg came to request funds for Mountainfilm festival. It is a "mini-festival of documentaries and movies about mountaineering, the environment, eco-political issues, and a sense of culture and community." Last year around 150 students came, and the organizers want to come back again this year. Council voted 28-0-0 to give $500 to fund the festival.

Liz Hoover and Leah Amakawa came from NASAW (Native American Students at Williams) to request $332 from the intergroup fund for a Native Writers Poetry Reading co-sponsored by the Lit Review. After deliberation about whether this event should fall under the intergroup fund or the general fund, CC voted to give $250 from the intergroup fund 21-2-1, and $82 out of the general fund 23-2-1. The reason for the split was that, although the writers needed to stay two nights, only the first night was relevant to the intergroup event.

Liz Hoover also requested $500 from College Council for NASAW’s Pow-Wow. She originally was going to leave College Council out of the funding for the event, but in light of not receiving as much as she had expected from the Dean’s Office, she has been forced to find other places to fund some of the day dancers. James Moorhead asked if we should give them more than $500, and then motioned to bump up the proposal to $800 (what we gave them last year). Nishant Nayyar (At-Large) argued that this overallocation of funding is exactly what council had objected to in FinCom’s proposal; if a group asks for a certain amount, there is no reason for council to increase that amount. Despite the argument, the amendment passed 21-4-2, and then CC voted to fund the Pow-Wow $800: 21-1-3.

[gargoyle’s race topic]

Jen Geiger and Royce Smith came from the Gargoyle Society to announce a new program: "Introduce Race." It is designed to help students relate to each other better. You will receive a series of questions about race and your personal experiences in your SU Boxes today or tomorrow. Royce explained that our relationship with race is naturally defined by our own personal experiences with race. So, by sharing these personal, race-related experiences, we can gain a new perspective on others and ourselves. Jen announced that there would be many of forums in the next couple of weeks discussing issues of race on campus. If you have any questions, email 01rws or 01jmg.

[studfac]

Because the meeting ran so long, the members of student-faculty committees who came to report to council had to leave before they could talk to council.

[opinions]

Mayo announced the incredible onslaught of opinions that he has been graced with as of late:

85 against the Thompson parking proposal, 50 for the parking proposal, and a few other opinions in support of slightly different parking proposals.

Four opinions about how Mayo is a jerk for mass-emailing the freshman and sophomore class, and one concerning the way in which Mayo represents his class by spamming students.

One opinion that supported the open listserver, offered that perhaps there is not a social conduct problem on campus, and strongly emphasized that Nishant is, in fact, the Best JA.

One opinion that we should stop freaking out about parking and get the library to be open 24 hours/day.

And finally, one opinion that asked how one might subscribe to the open listserver. Well, that’s Joe’s fault actually, and it will be implemented soon. You can find out how by reading the minutes next week.

We tore through opinions to get to the parking proposal, and thus didn’t really get a chance to discuss the interesting issues of representation and mass emailing, but we will revisit those issues at a later date.

[thompson parking]

In the past week, quite a war has erupted over Thompson parking. Mayo sent an all-class email to both the freshman and the sophomores calling them to arms over the issue of lost spaces in the middle of the year. In response, the presidents of Thompson sent their own email clarifying their side of the issue. The result of both of these emails is evident in the massive amounts of opinions we received this week.

Noel Johnson (Thompson Co-President) started our discussion by clarifying that the proposal before council just concerns this year, and thus does not affect the freshman. He also added that the proposal is much narrower than the proposal (maybe coming as soon as next year) of defining the upper mission lot as a different parking area. Joe Masters (Secretary) was a little shocked that out of so many emails to CC this week, not one opinion argued that perhaps students shouldn’t be using their cars all the time (and so it shouldn’t really matter where we park). Ezra doesn’t believe that the Thompson proposal really fits in with the seniority in parking was outlined last year. For him, the proposal benefits the Thompson seniors after the year has started, whereas the original proposal only addresses seniority preference in the first five hours of parking selection in May. Tim asked if the proposal could just specify a bunch of spaces as "senior spaces" on campus, so we could avoid any issues of every senior house on campus requesting spaces in upper mission. Noel replied that Dave Boyer considers that plan unimplementable. Mayo objected to the plan on the basis of what student expectations for parking were this year – all drivers in Mission paid their $60 parking fee with the idea that they would have 80 spaces to choose from in the upper lot. Shenil expressed his aversion to the length and effort of the parking discussion by saying, "it doesn’t make a difference whether you walk to the upper or lower lot when you drive to your class in the science quad." After final comments from Sarah Barger (JA Rep), who would like to see more students walking longer distances to their cars, and Gus Howard (Dennett), who expressed his support for the majority (sophomores) over the Senior minority, the vote to approve the proposal failed 12-14-1.

[open time]

Shenil and Nishant announced to council that there are no plans to include students on the search committee for a new Admissions Director. For them, the Admissions Directory plays an important role in determining the Williams community, and it is in the interest of every Williams student to be represented on that committee. Because students have served on the Presidential Search Committee, the Athletic Director Search Committee, and the Selection Committee for the current Assistant Director of the MCC, Shenil and Nishant do not understand why students would not be included on this committee. So, to that end, they have prepared a proposal for council that endorses the role of students on the search committee. CC voted to table discussion and approval on this until next week: 20-3-1.

Finally, there were a few complaints about minutes misrepresenting students and being condescending toward housing committee. Joe replied that he tries to represent what happens within a meeting accurately, and if a member of council makes a comment that is judgmental, even toward another committee, it is more important to report the content of the meeting as correctly as possible than to censor content. Joe has also had some problems lately in the misquoting department, but promises to be extra-scrupulous, starting with the next minutes. Or maybe the one after that.

Joe Masters

CC Secretary

wso.williams.edu/cc