~ mission statements, jerry maguire-style ~
college council minutes, halloween 2001
~ opening ~
if anyone has a hard-hat that garry (all-campus) could use, email 02tgs.
joe (co-pres) welcomed everyone to this special halloween edition of CC, and garry chimed in with a less-than spooky "mwa ha ha…" joe mentioned the fact that CUL is causing some stir on campus again as they continue to look at the college's residential systems. one proposal is to institute the "cluster-system" (read the article in "the record" for more info) and they are trying to incorporate as much student opinion as they can. sarah (co-pres) reminded us about first fridays this week in goodrich. don't miss it, it'll be fun (and sexy)!
caroline (2002) presented the opinions for the week, of which there were three:
•CC should drop discussion of "the mad cow" indefinitely
•if the vote of no-confidence in CC succeeds, will CC reschedule the vote?
•"the mad cow" should be excommunicated, not censured
scott grinsell (armstrong) expressed to CC that he felt that many of the issues we deal with (for example, the lack of commercial growth on spring street and the strict alcohol laws in this region) are related to town issues. he therefore suggested that CC investigate the possibility of having an emissary to the board of selectmen in williamstown (CC oohed and aahed at this idea).
nate winstanley (pratt) informed everyone that soon the snack bar will be selling pizza bagels at a reduced price on a trial basis, so everyone should go out and buy a lot of them to help make them a permanent fixture on the menu.
david brenninkmeyer (hopkins) asked what was up with the short supply of the NY times? JP (treas) replied that we get 125 copies of the Times each day and we could look into getting more, but it would require obtaining more funding.
caroline reminded everyone that the vote of no-confidence in CC will close tomorrow night (11/1) at 11:59 pm.
michael t. simerman '02 began his report on the committee on educational policy (CEP) by emphasizing that the theme for this year is the implementation of many of the proposals that were voted in by the faculty last year. basically, those requirements that will make it easier to graduate (reduced PE req't) have been implemented and are effective now, while the CEP hopes to implement the other proposals (such as the writing intensive req't and the quantitative and formal reasoning req't) for the class of '06 (all present students would be grandfathered in). hall o'donnell (tyler/annex) expressed his concern over the possible increase in class size that these changes may incur.
next, joe switched caps and reported for williams students online (WSO) that the new and improved email terminal software that they have been working on is done. working in conjunction with OIT, they hope to have these 20 or so IMacs up and running throughout campus in the next week or two.
~ council business ~
the AG this week recommended $996. to the outing club for buses to use for their winter study shuttle services. this request is a result of a miscalculation that escaped even JP's well-trained eye. bottom line, the money that they had as surplus from last year was actually spent over the summer and so they are a bit short on funding. the senior wine club also requested funding but rescinded that request a few days ago. CC voted to approve the slate 28-0-2 (1).
~ unfinished business ~
for those of you who are new to this scene, we picked up discussion in the middle of an amendment to a proposal to add the following condition to the section of the bylaws that itemizes what a group must do "to maintain its status as a group recognized by CC" (the italics are the amendment to the proposal under consideration):
3. an organization must act in accordance with its mission statement.
a. any organization failing to abide by its mission statement may face possible de-recognition.
i. a group is liable to face de-recognition if council has formerly censured the group by passing a vote of censure at a CC meeting.
JP began by saying that he's not convinced that we've worked out any coherence or intended effect to this bylaw. garry posed the following: didn't CC already discuss de-recognition and decide that it was a bad idea? wasn't the bylaw we passed on 10/17 (read those minutes at http://wso.williams.edu/orgs/cc/) to remove funding intended to mark the extent of our power to punish?
nate argued, on the other hand, that a group shouldn't be allowed to deviate from its mission statement. if you're not doing what you're supposed to be doing, then maybe you shouldn't be recognized. sharifa (wood/agard/garf) lobbied CC to have faith in our power to recognize and de-recognize a group. in response, floyd (all-campus) declared that he doesn't have faith (following last spring's blunder) in this body or any future body's ability to make that decision.
rory kramer (sub for nick kerr) argued that the mistake last spring was made because there was no structure to handle this type of situation. this bylaw puts that structure in place. CC should not handcuff itself by divulging itself of the power to de-recognize a group.
at this point, floyd moved to amend the above proposal to require a 3/4 vote to de-recognize instead of 2/3. the argument put forth is that requiring such a vast majority would limit our power while still enabling CC to de-recognize a group if it's obvious. the amendment passed, 28-2-0 (2).
christina (minco) asked if CC even has copies of these much-talked-about mission statements. sarah admitted that we would probably have to recollect mission statements from all current groups on campus (read: we don't have 'em).
garry then moved to change 3/4 to consensus (all aye votes or abstentions, no nay votes), arguing that if its egregious enough, there shouldn’t even be a question. caroline spoke against, insisting that it's important to have a legitimate opposition, and this consensus amendment would lend the majority of CC to try to pressure the minority into voting a certain way. the amendment failed, 5-22-3 (3).
scott thinks that while this motion is well-intended, the problem is that we shouldn't be doing this evaluation on the basis of a mission statement. it is a vague, new-age sort of thing that people started writing in the '80s. CC should have the power to de-recognize a group when it no longer serves the college community, but it shouldn't be based upon mission statements. CC then voted on the amendment to the motion, which passed 21-5-2 (4).
CC then considered the merits of the whole motion (the text printed above in both italics and normal font). charlie argued that there is something wrong in claiming that just because we recognize groups, we should be allowed to de-recognize them. we recognize groups as a service to the community.
in the end, the motion failed, 13-17-0 (5), meaning, in effect, that everything I just typed on this resulted in no formal change by CC.
CC moved right from one hot potato to another here. rory pointed out that if CC doesn't vote to at least censure the mad cow, they have basically gotten away with it, and CC has done nothing but to talk around the issue.
craig (sec) retorted that talking is possibly the best thing that CC could have done. also, he received an email the other day and wanted to draw attention to some of the highlights of that email. 1) the mad cow has apologized, 2) art, even bad art, needs a little breathing room, and 3) other groups on campus - the BGLTU, for example - also offend many people on campus with their chalkings, but there is no recourse taken there.
in response, caroline contended that CC never said that "the mad cow" couldn't exist. CC just said that they couldn't publish under the auspices of a CC-recognized group. also, the BGLTU may not be the best example, because the organization has divorced itself from many of the chalkings that individual students make.
garry asked whether we would be censuring "the mad cow" because of poor taste and offensiveness (which would be subjective) or because of a threat to personal safety (which would merit consideration of a censure). in response, christina and jason lucas '02 both affirmed that many members of the colored community in particular felt unsafe and violated.
ben cronin (morgan/lehman) said that we must accept and tolerate speech that may make our blood boil. floyd took it a step further, saying that while he recognizes that while his background might limit his perspective, he thinks the invocation of the 3/5 clause is an intelligent historical reference to a very sensitive topic to show how this campus works.
hall wanted to know if we had any type of message attached to the censure motion. if we consider this, we should have reasons for censuring the mad cow. when we vote, there should be a letter or statement of reason accompanying the censure vote. in order to give us time to compose this letter (sharifa will be writing it), craig moved to postpone this issue until next meeting, which passed 16-10-2 (6).
~ new business ~
floyd expressed frustration that we're not doing anything. he challenged CC members to do more than report to meetings once a week and then go home and do homework. think of some way you can positively change this campus, and then go out and just do it (nike had it right).
JP moved "that the council create an ad hoc committee to review the bylaws and suggest changes no later than the second week of winter study. the treasurer will chair the committee. other voting members will be floyd, mayo, jim irving, karen untereker, hall, charlie, scott, tamika, and michael*. meetings will be open to all council members." (*these included all interested CC members) charlie immediately moved to amend the proposal to tack "and students" on the end. the amendment passed 21-7-0 (7). the motion subsequently passed as well 29-0-0 (8).
michael henry (mills/thompson) proposed that "whenever a move to vote passes, all those who had their hands up when the move to vote was made will be given 30 seconds to speak on the motion being discussed." this vote actually ended in a tie 14-14-2 (9) and joe and sarah voted it down. for some reason, mass confusion ensued. we regained order just in time to talk about…
charlie wondered if joe and sarah had discussed drinking games with dean roseman. joe said that basically, property damage is the biggest issue. there will be a review of the whole college alcohol policy in the spring, and we (CC) will be asked to submit recommendations.
garry added that the social chairs had a 45-minute discussion with jean thorndike about drinking games. she also cited property damage as the crucial issue and the idea has been discussed of putting it in a house rule book that drinking games may only be played places where property damage risk is low.
hall moved to ask that motions to postpone indefinitely not be entertained, arguing that in effect, one can kill a motion prematurely, and that is really unjust. CC voted to a tie (again!) 14-14-1 (10) but the co-presidents disapproved, so the motion failed.
in response to one of her constituent's concerns, darlene forde announced that she would be looking into recommending that financial aid consider test-prep courses for the GRE and other grad school admissions test in the construction of a package.
respectfully submitted,
craig tamamoto
cc secretary, 02cat
~ absentees ~
noah coburn
(bryant/woodbridge), ching ho (all-campus), and jenny veraldi (co-op). jenny has missed two meetings in a row and therefore is no longer a CC rep.