Official
USC Undergraduate Student Government
Meeting Minutes
TCC 227
Tuesday December 1, 2015
Executive Officers
Rini Sampath, President
Jordan Fowler, Vice President
David Moreno, Chief of Staff
Executive Cabinet
Holly Bard, Parliamentarian
Amy Perez, Secretary
Senators
Cassandra Aguayo, Commuter
Jacob Ellenhorn, Commuter
Bulk Lao, Commuter
Chris Fong, Greek
Darian Nourian, Greek
Sanjay Mahboobani, Greek
Sabrina Enriquez, Residential
Alec White, Residential
Aaron Rifkind, Residential
Dan Li, Residential
Eric Dubbury, Residential
Giuseppe Robalino, Residential
Advisors
Karina Medrano
Luis Canton
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Call to Order
a. Meeting called to order at 7:02 PM.
Reading and Approval of the Minutes
a. Senator Dubbury motions to approve the Minutes as read.
i.
Senator Mahboobani seconds.
ii.
The Minutes are approved as read.
Approval of the Agenda
a. Senator Rifkind moves to strike Academic Affairs, Commuter presentation,
Academic Affairs Resolution, and add Bylaw changes
i. Senator White seconds.
ii. The agenda is amended
Open Forum
a. None.
Reports of Officers and Directors.
a. None.
Presentations
a. PB Marketing: Director Caitlyn Tran
i. Marketing Committee Events
ii. New Hires Next Semester
1. Ainsley Stein
iii. Conquest
iv. New website
v. App
Unfinished Business and General Orders
a. Deferred Recruitment Resolution
i. Senator Fong motions vote to to add Austin Dunn and Sigma Nu as a
supporter
1. Senator Mahboobani seconds.
ii. Voting
1. Additions are approved
iii. Discussion
1. Alaina Hartley: I want to give you insight into the impact of the
PanHellenic council. We want to put greater emphasis on
mental health going through recruitment. We want to increase
partnerships to have robust discussion about inclusion,
diversity, sexual assault, and education. I’m happy to answer
anything about PanHellenic recruitment. But just know we are
willing to have discussion about this with USG. We are aware
changes need to be made and want to have a discussion about
this.
iv. Senator Fong yields the floor to Julian Sanchez
1. Julian Sanchez: I transferred here last fall and wasn’t involved
in any activities so spring semester I rushed. I’m visually
impaired so before this I had no involvement and Greek Life
was as way for me to make a lot of friends. I didn’t have the
opportunity to live in housing with close knit communities
where students are encouraged to make friends. Taking away
fall rush especially for transfers impacts the way they can lead
in their house. This took all leadership opportunities because I
missed two semesters as a rush and a pledge. In addition, the
argument of Greek Life being set to a certain person, I’m living
proof there’s a house for everyone. I don’t drink and in Greek
life I’ve never been forced to do so. People are really
encouraged to be themselves and not forced to be any other
way. In addition spring recruitment won’t solve the problems
we’re facing but enhance them or give us more problems. I also
want to say because of Greek life I've had the opportunity to be
involved in so many other organizations.
2. Victoria Park: Very few people know about Asian Greeks, we
only have 4 houses here so deferring recruitment would really
hurt us. The people who go through Asian rush are at about 100
and half accept their bids and half of those people are freshman
or transfers. So this would really hurt us. Our recruitment runs
for only 2 weeks so the stress of recruitment doesn’t affect
Asian Greeks. All of our orgs are a part of Asian pacific
American student assembly so we’re already giving students
another network and the argument of giving students more time
to acclimate doesn’t apply to us. The Asian Greek council wants
to continue to work with APAS to address these issues. Feel
free to ask me questions and get to know us. I feel this is a
bridge for starting intercouncil events. I hope in the future we
can work together more and learn how to connect these bridges.
3. Hannah Wing: I went through rush and became a member of
kappa. The school I transferred from had spring rush because
they think students need time to decide. Little did they know
there was a lot of dirty rushing. Something as simple as
associating with members is considered dirty rushing. I ended
up meeting tons of girls in a house and felt I was a member. As
a new student to college I couldn’t wait to become a member. I
was dirty rushed by the girls with high hopes of getting a bid.
Having the whole semester allowed girls to judge and
stereotype each other before rush even started. I didn’t want to
go to social events because I didn’t want to jeopardize my
chances of getting a bid. When I walked in the house I felt
completely at home on the first day. On pref day I was so
happy. I was even told what the shirts would look like and was
basically promised a bid the next day. The next day I did not
spend time stressing about getting a bid. But suddenly all the
months of promising came to an end. I was dropped from
recruitment for dirty rushing. The months of excitement turned
into depression and confusion. All my friends were completely
shocked. I couldn’t be more confused as to why this happened
4.
5.
6.
7.
to me. After talking about this matter with freshman kappas I
can tell you fall rush is beneficial and there’s no need to walk
on eggshells. By forcing students to rush in spring it allows
people to be on their own in social situations without support. I
know spring rush is supposed to solve issues regarding mental
health. I know from my experience this isn’t true. I hope my
story gives you more perspective on the subject. I hope this
prevents the same thing from happening in the future.
Aaron Kennedy: I grew up on a farm on Colorado. I transferred
here and found my home at USC. I rushed at USC and as the
semester carried on my pledge brothers made me realize my
strength. As all this heat kept coming on I got through it. I
wanted to transfer back to Colorado and the only reason I stayed
was for my fraternity. I got sworn in yesterday, I’m the new
president. I get it; I understand there are issues and reasons for
this. Bringing up deferred rush isn’t a solution. We can find
other ways to stop these things from happening. There has to be
a better way. I wouldn’t be here if deferred rush were a good
solution.
Garov: The main issue here is the deprivation of opportunity
that deferred rush creates. Other orgs have not been subject to
this same prejudice. Many orgs throw parties the same way as
Greek Life does but suffer no prejudice. Deferred recruitment is
a way for the university to exclude Greek Life. With 2
semesters of recruitment, more people can join if they want as
opposed to being excluded. These orgs don’t just involve us
when we’re on campus but after we graduate. We shouldn’t
treat other houses different than Greek Life houses.
Marie Griffith: I came to USC a year early so I was young and
my mom was worried about me. At first I was hesitant about
rushing. Then I figured I would rush and drop if it wasn’t for
me. It’s one of the best decisions I’ve ever made. I had so much
guidance that helped me and were there for me. I know the
university is concerned about mental health and assault. Coming
in and having support, as a girl is invaluable. If you don’t make
friends right off the bat you won’t have that strong and vast
support system as you do in a sorority. As president I have seen
girls who suffer from mental health issues. We had an
international girl and her dad called me and had me be a peer
support for her. I know you’re thinking maybe first semester
recruitment will be more stressful. But it’s better to have peers
there for you. I’ve had girls come to me so I can anonymously
report them to get mental health treatment. I understand these
concerns but having Greek Life as a resource helps prevent
these issues.
Alex: In the recruitment process, none of this is binding. You
can go through the whole process and you don’t have to commit
until you’re initiated. You have 2-3 months to decide. No one is
forcing any new student to rush their first semester. I think its
important to realize there are a lot of people who choose not to
rush their first semester but then later decided to do so. We all
got into USC and are capable of making own decisions.
Especially when we have the support to make them. We never
force anyone to be in our org, we only want people in the org
who want to be there and make it better. People can make their
own decisions so I think that’s important to keep in mind.
8. Jake Simon: Thank you for being here. There’s one point of
clarification I want to make. I was a spring admit and when I
came to USC it felt too late. Recruitment for fraternities was the
thing that allowed me to connect with so many people which
was so important for my freshman experience. I wouldn’t be
involved in any of these things if I hadn’t been able to rush.
Also, thank you to everyone here who filled out the survey
about Greek life. We had one specific thing that spoke to me
which was issues like mental health. One stat was 1/3 of people
in the Greek system had interacted with the USC counseling
center. Over 90% of those people said they turned to a friend to
council them through a problem.
9. James Crell: Does anyone here have a dissenting opinion?
10. Kiara Sanchez: MJC doesn’t take a side on the resolution
because on the council we have people in support and against it.
LTA is against this resolution because we see it as a liability in
the sense that national has told us that unless you have a GPA
we can’t recruit you because we want to give you a chance to
get to know the school. A lot of our sisters are from minorities
that never knew about Greek orgs. So beginning a process the
first week of school doesn’t make sense to us because we want
to empower you. I just wanted to give you the opposite side.
v. Senator Rifkind: Other schools like WashU have spring rush and they
argue it bonds the freshman class. What’s your response to that?
1. Nick Cohen: We go to a much bigger school so you’re not
going to bond all these students. My best friend at U Penn has
been going through dirty rush all semester. I saw this guy telling
me he feels forced to go out 4-5 times a week. This spring rush
is killing him and his grades. USC is not U Penn but it’s close. I
don’t want to see people here go through dirty rush trying to get
a bid. The benefits of spring rush are so much less than the
costs.
vi. Senator Ellenhorn: I rise in favor of this resolution. Through deferring
recruitment, USC is trying to take away choice from our student body.
We’re smart enough to make decisions about what we want to do.
Deferred recruitment makes no sense. Theyre saying you can be
stressed in the fall but not in spring? I want to support students being
able to choose the orgs they want to be involved in. Voting for this
resolution says we want to give students the choice.
vii. Senator Robalino: I’ve been listening to all the stories. I am undecided
on to how I’ll vote. For those of you who follow senate you know this
isn’t usually the case. I’m also listening to what the senate has said as
well as the people here. I want to turn it to Greek senators to help me
make this decision. The faculty senate and admin have come fourth to
us and said after considering all the factors in play that things like
sexual assault and GPA are guiding the reason they want to push this to
spring. On that note, I have to be fair and consistent. When the campus
climate resolution came up I asked a question about putting the goals of
the university first above all. My question here is for the good of the
university, thinking about GPA and sexual assault, isn’t there a benefit
of pushing this to spring? Again, for forgetting the goals of the
university, not to marginalize people at the university. I want to yield
the floor to anyone who can respond to this.
1. In terms of GPA, I read the resolution faculty senate passed. I
don’t understand where they’re coming from. Our average GPA
is above that of all undergrads and women. So I don’t
understand that argument that academics suffer. We have a very
strict policy about getting into our sorority without a certain
GPA. Girls who are falling behind have mandated study hours.
So we do prioritize school and support each other. Its interesting
this resolution isn’t being proposed for any other orgs like the
marching band who can recruit in the fall. It’s hard not to think
this isn’t an attempt to isolate us. Our new member education
period is an hour week talking about sexual assault and alcohol
education. I feel all the issues they said earlier of why people
shouldn’t join right away is very unfounded.
2. Alex Keen: Since 2010 the all Greek GPA has been higher than
the average. The important thing to realize is the job of admin is
to maintain the image of the university. Academic senate never
even asked our opinion or how the Greek system works. Within
each fraternity there’s a scholarship chair who guides academic
success. In addition, all new members are required to have
study hours. Also, you don’t see this on the athletics department
who have ridiculous GPAs compared to Greek. As we’re trying
to make this university better, we have to realize other schools
have hundreds of years of academic excellence. We need to
realize and stay true to who we are. USC is known for football
and the Greek system so we need to stay true to that.
viii. Senator Dubbury: I want to respond to the statement made about the
band. I have a lot of friends in Greek Life. I think there’s so much good
with it. I chose to be with other orgs here. I know what it’s like to work
hard. You guys do the same. I think there’s issues out there but I don’t
believe the academic senate should put shackles on what you can and
can’t do. You need to have the grassroots decision making to alleviate
these issues. I can attest that being in the marching band is a huge time
commitment. A lot of people have a lot of issues that people in Greek
Life do. But if marching band were in spring it would be no better. It’s
the same commitment. Everyone in the marching band supported us
and referred us for academic success. We made it work as a family. I’m
very much in support of everyone in the Greek system so I want to give
you all a shoutout for coming out tonight.
ix. Senator Dubbury yields the floor
1. I’ve collected data; our pledge process is 6-12 weeks on
average. The time commitment hasn’t exceeded 4 hours a week
of mandatory commitment per week. Its not a huge commitment
and they’re free to drop at any time. Given most sororities
operate at 9% retention it gives insight into the experience of
Greek Life.
x. Senator Nourian: I think the moral of the story here is, if something
isn’t broken then don’t fix it. I appreciate the conversation being
brought up. What hurt us the most with the faculty senate resolution
was that it was swept under the rug and hidden from us.
xi. Senator Nourian moves to vote on the resolution
1. Senator Ellenhorn seconds.
xii. Voting
1. The Deferred Recruitment Resolution is passed.
b. Elections and Recruitment Referendum
i. Senator Ellenhorn motions to vote on the referendum
1. Senator Aguayo seconds.
ii. Senator Robalino: Many times when we’ve talked about anything
procedural in USG, my model has always been to refer back to the US
government. The California state government operates with a
referendum system, but that is not necessarily how the rest of the
country is run. Being a in a representative democracy, the idea is we
elect members to a body to make these decisions. The inherent design
is not to be rule of the majority. It is rule of the interpreted majority
through an elected body. That is how I think of USG—without the
referendum. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this. Even though our
own state does have this system, the US government does not. USG is
comparable more to a “federal” than state government. I’d like to know
your thoughts on why we should deviate from that because it seems to
me that the US government doesn’t operate in this way. Not everyone
knows the rules or the constitution the way our senators do. The same
way the student body might not know exactly what is in line with our
university mission. My concern is the representative democracy aspect
and the idea that senate exists as a filter to always match concerns with
our founding documents.
iii. Senator Enriquez: It’s allowing people to have the ability to make their
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
own choices. If we make the choice that we want something, we should
have the power to do it and not just recommend it. I don’t think it
interferes with senate power but it allows for that outlet. The way
senate is designed doesn’t allow us to do what a referendum would.
Senator Mahboobani: How can we guarantee everyone votes and how
many people have to pass it?
Logan Dallas: In order to call for a referendum you have to have 1/8 of
the student body sign it. Then it would also be another majority vote in
order to actually pass.
Senator Li: It’s hard for us to get enough people to vote for a
referendum. If we don’t get enough people to vote it’s not a good
reflection of the student body. If we do decide to do the referendum, we
need to make sure enough students come out to vote.
Luis Canton: Resolutions are a call to action but referendums have a
direct student back up. The admin may or may not take it but it holds a
lot of weight because it has direct backing from the student body.
Senator Mahboobani: So it doesn’t automatically get put into law?
Luis Canton: It is more powerful than a resolution but it doesn’t get put
into law.
Senator Robalino: Is there any track record as to the impact the
referendum has on university admin and student relations?
Senator Enriquez: In terms of relationships, no. It is a recommendation
but it holds more weight. The establishment of the student aid fund at
this university is an example of a referendum. There have been no
issues with it and it’s highly regarded within administration because
students do a lot of service and contribute a lot to the university.
Senator Rifkind: If it does hold more weight then what’s the point of
having senate if you can just do a referendum?
Senator Enriquez: It requires a ton of people do you can’t just do
referendums. Referendums are huge endeavors and would never be
taken lightly. Just collecting 2 thousand signatures is no easy task.
Resolutions are very much in the vein of doing things more quickly and
the referendum is a lot longer of a process.
Senator White: For the food affordability survey we had a lot of
responses, 1160 exactly. That was a really important issue for a lot of
people and we still didn’t get two thousand responses. A referendum
has to be a really big issue to get that much attention.
Are there any times when a referendum could have helped facilitate
something happening but didn’t happen?
Senator Enriquez: The Norman Topping Student Aid Fund was
established through a referendum in the 70s.
1. President Sampath: We’ve passed resolutions in the past about
renovating Lyon center. I visited U of Utah and the way they
did their gym was through a referendum. It’s basically putting it
in student hands about what they want to have on campus. We
weren’t able to get anywhere with the Lyon center remodeling
because we didn’t know where funding would come from.
2. Logan Dallas: The language does imply that if we called for a
referendum we wouldn’t be able to vote on it until the next year.
You have to be working on the timing for something like this.
xvii. Senator Enriquez: It’s something that’s meant to be a tool to be
available. They’re rarely used and they’re for things people feel really
passionate about and admin isn’t doing anything about.
xviii. Senator Dubbury: So you need at least 2 thousand signatures do you
need everyone to vote to pass it?
xix. Senator Enriquez: There’s a minimum voting percentage and of those a
majority have to pass it.
xx. Senator Nourian: How does that x amount of people have to be
determined?
xxi. Senator Mahboobani: I don’t understand the timeline of how a
referendum would work.
xxii. Logan Dallas: You have to vote on the referendum then you would
move it to the student body vote which requires a certain percentage. If
that’s all done then you will have to wait a year from the time its
proposed to the time it can be voted on by the student body. There is a
secondary and tertiary level of review as well.
xxiii. Senator Li: Why was the referendum taken away?
xxiv. Senator Enriquez: No one knows why but it somehow got removed a
few years back.
xxv. Senator Robalino: I find the timeline to be confusing to understand.
Really, I think we can better discuss this in terms of governance
structures. Part of what makes the US so stable as democracy is that we
have a 2 party system. When you look to the rest of the world,
especially with parliamentary systems, there's a lot of changing
‘governments,’ where other parties can generate public support and
enact huge reforms and form coalitions that can change the entire
course of the country. Even though we are a student government,
there’s a lot to be said about the limitations we have. I think this comes
down to—what is to say these referendums will be used more
frequently, what’s to say they can be generated through upswell of
public opinion from one group over another. The reason we have a
democratic republic in the US is such that the legislative acts as a rock
of reason and rationality between what’s more correct and appropriate
and what absolutely everyone wants.
xxvi. Senator Ellenhorn motions to vote on the Referendum Bylaw
xxvii. Voting
1. The referendum is not passed.
c. Bylaw Additions Open Forum and Discussion
i. Senator Mahboobani motions to vote on the bylaw addition
1. Senator Dubbury seconds
ii. Voting
1. Addition is passed
d. Bylaw Additions Sponsoring Senators
i. Senator Lao motions to vote on the bylaw addition
1. Senator White seconds
ii. Voting
1. Bylaw addition passed
e. Syria Resolution
i. Senator Mahboobani motions to vote to add supporters
1. Senator White seconds.
ii. Voting
1. Amendment to the resolution is passed
iii. Senator White motions to vote to change verbiage from refugee
scholars to educationally displaced scholars
1. Senator White seconds
iv. Voting
1. Verbiage change is passed
v. Senator Li: I respect you both a lot for the research you've done. For
this resolution I think I am going to abstain because I feel like this issue
is intrinsically political. Given the timing, it’s political and I’ve always
wanted to stay away from politics. I spoke with undergrads and asked
how they felt. Most don’t have an opinion. If my job is to represent
them, I feel anything that deals with international relations and politics
is so complex and I can’t summarize such a complex issue into yes or
no for them. Also even though a lot of students are in support of this
resolution, this isn’t the correct procedure to move this forward. We’re
told you’re supposed to go to admin directly then come to us if they
don’t do anything. I also worry if we take a stance we will open
precedence for having USG involved in political issues.
vi. Senator Enriquez: I get your opinion but anything can be political if
you have the Internet basically. I just want to talk about all the orgs
supporting this. We have Trojans for Israel and Students for Justice in
Palestine. They know what’s going on in that region. I’ve had a student
tell me he’s been by Syrian border and if there’s anything we can do to
help someone, why not do it? It’s not a political stance when we’re
getting people from a variety of backgrounds in support.
1. President Sampath: I know we don’t want to set a bad precedent
about not going to admin first. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say
resolutions are a last resort. I don’t think that should affect the
way you vote on this since so many students want to see it
passed. I think a lot of issues are political. Students have offered
proposals on Leavey and other things that impact their academic
experience. What I think is happening here has everything to do
with academic experience because it allows other scholars to
come in and enrich your experience. We have a history of
bringing these refugees here and that’s one of the reasons our
university is such an incredible institution because we have such
diverse perspectives.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
2. Christopher Records: The outset of this resolution is very
personal to me. I have members of my family who would’ve
died without similar resolutions passed. It’s a very simple
proposal at its core. By joining the consortium USC would be
required to admit Syrian refugees who are qualified and funded
to come here. This organization has been here for hundreds of
years, supported by republican and democratic parties. In the
past, universities have supported scholars from around the
world from war torn Iraq and Nazi Germany. It’s too important
to be bogged down by political issues of the moment. It has
wide spread support so I hope you do the right thing in
supporting this.
3. A lot of my closest friends are Arabic Americans. This is
something I’ve been thinking about for a long time. I want
everyone to realize I think this transcends politics. If you do
vote yes, you should consider that. As much as I’d love to
accept Syrian refugees, what about everyone else in war torn
countries that we don’t see everyday? As soon as you say yes to
them, you have to say yes to everyone ad not just pick and
choose. That’s something to consider.
Senator Enriquez: I get that point but this is an established consortium
which is why it's so tangible to say yes to. There’s no harm in doing
what you can for those you can help in the moment.
1. Christopher Records: Consortia like this have existed for a
hundred years. The organization we’re talking about has
focused on Iraq, Germany, and where the need is greatest at the
moment. Right now it’s in Syria. By far the greatest need is in
Syria. If tomorrow it’s in Canada then that’s where the attention
will go. Because of the circumstances at the moment, that’s why
we are offering this resolution.
Senator Enriquez: The other reason the consortium is for Syria is
because they’ve been affected so much in their student population.
1. I came to USC thinking I could cross paths with people from all
walks of life. Senator Li you mentioned your constituency
didn’t have an opinion. Maybe they hadn’t thought about how
this could affect their time at USC. Has anyone else had this
experience with their constituents?
Senator Li: Most of them are educated on the topic. I talked to people
from all walks of life not just one group. A lot of people couldn’t make
the decision because it’s such a hard question. For the people I talked to
it’s a complex issue they don’t have a definite answer. My job is to
represent them. A majority of the people I talked to didn’t have an
opinion and I can’t vote yes or no.
Senator Robalino: I want to thank Christopher for meeting with me and
putting up with a lot of questions. I no longer have any funding
questions or concerns. You also showed the national security risk was
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
minimal. However, there are several unanswered questions that make
me lean towards this being an open issue where different channels
could have been taken. I haven’t received a response about how
administration feels about this. I still haven’t had a response about a
student population that this resolution would directly benefit. Because
the question today is about the polarization as Dan brought up and how
this deals with our duty to represent students, if we could identify the
student population that would be directly impacted that could answer
these questions. That would also lead us away from the questions of
does it directly impact the academic experience and many other
theoretical applications and put the issue to rest, allowing us to pass the
resolution. My final comment is, making these comments are not easy
for me. I am not against helping refugees. PSA made a comment about
whether or not they would support this resolution. PSA contacted Dan
and said their eboard decided not to take a stance because it might
trespass their role as an unbiased org. When I read that I thought, “if
only other PB assemblies and other parts of USG could abide by that.”
The senate should lead by that example
Senator Fong: One clarification is this resolution just asks for refugees
to have space allocated for them. This isn’t about the US taking in
Syrian refugees. This is for the refugees already in the US. The cases
you’re talking about are within the student body. My only concern is
that we would enroll based off of race. I agree with it but think it could
teeter on racial quotas in that you’re designating certain spaces to enroll
students.
Christopher Records: The meaning of spaces and funding is a target.
The 50 plus universities that have set that target and students have gone
through the regular admissions process and were admitted based on
merit. It’s not a quota so much as a target which is useful in a funding
sense because people can raise money around that. It’s also useful from
an outreach standpoint.
Senator Enriquez: I want to touch on your point of whether students are
in favor of this or not. You said you spoke to 30 students but we have
so many orgs in support saying they’d benefit from this. I want to make
it apparent with all these supporters there’s so many students who feel
this would benefit them. Within each org there are hundreds of students
implied. There’s huge support across political spectrums. I get what
PSA meant by that because they’re constantly talking about current
events but I don’t think that makes it political. I think that makes PSA
aware of its position and how some could construe it.
Senator Robalino: I think it’s very apparent there is a large portion of
the student body in favor. The only thing I’m saying is there are other
ways to show support than a resolution. I’m not here to say I don’t
support the resolution, I’m saying I don’t agree procedurally about the
way it’s going about. I’ve even had lively arguments over the phone
with other senators about it and my only concern now is the procedure.
VIII.
IX.
X.
My vote doesn’t mean I’m not in support of what it’s asking for. The
legislative exists as a rock to think about everything that goes into
making a decision. Sometimes the student body isn’t privy to sift
through all of the details that go into this. It is important to think about
the messaging that can be perceived by taking a position on this. PSA
decided not to take a stance because of the way it can be perceived. As
the rock, we have to take into consideration how the resolution will
come off to students. We are not necessarily against or disregarding
people in support but saying there’s other ways to go about it.
xv. Senator Ellenhorn motions to vote on the resolution
1. Senator Mahboobani seconds
xvi. Voting
1. The Syria Resolution does not pass.
f. Senator Rifkind: Future Speaker Pro Tempore ability to assign constituency
added to bylaws
i. Senator Robalino: So you’re saying they can assign constituency to
senators. This entire meeting I’ve been talking about stability. How
does this not threaten that stability? What protections are there to keep
us stable?
ii. Senator Rifkind: In congress you have different committees so this
would act like that on a local level. I think it’s beneficial because each
one can have a constituency and represent them. Also, you don’t have
to assign a constituency.
iii. Senator Robalino: Thank you for that explanation. What prevents one
interest a senator might have? Lets say one group is represented year
after year and others are not. What is in place to prevent that?
iv. Senator Rifkind: Senate changes every year and its up to the VP and
pro tempore to assign.
v. Senator Dubbury: Everyone has different interests but this allows
people to be more engaged and involved. This increases all the
constituency groups. I don’t think it will be too much of an issue in
terms of balance of voice. I think there is plenty of access to get all the
different views.
vi. Senator Robalino: I really want to continue this conversation with you
guys.
New Business
a. New justice selections
Announcements:
a. None.
Discussion
a. Senator Rifkind: I know a lot of senators have struggled with the Syria
resolution. I came to the conclusion this wasn’t political. I met the head of one
of the hospitals and they're helicoptering refuges in so they can get help. My
main thing is this resolution doesn’t affect any students, which is why I didn’t
vote for it. All the resolutions we passed have affected a majority of
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
undergraduates. There’s been a collective effort to sign a letter among senators
about our support for this resolution without directly voting on it.
Senator Dubbury: I’m very impressed with the research and want you to go
forward with this by talking to admin. Unfortunately I had a lot of constituency
who had nothing against it but didn’t feel like USG was the right place for this.
I had a hard time voting no on this and had to listen to people who came to me
about it. I can confidently say everyone’s in support of helping people. It’s a
matter of international relations. That being said, I think it’s a great path but
there’s a better avenue for going about this. I think a lot of people would be
very open to talking to you. A lot of the money will be covered for this and
only a piece would be covered by USC. That would be appealing to donors. I
didn’t want to pass this at a time when admin already don’t take us very
seriously. I think it’s a good opportunity for admin to support you without
going through this process.
Senator Robalino: I want to echo what Senator Dubbury said. The message
we're trying to send is two fold. We have hearts and want to help and support
the ideas in this resolution. However, recent events with Senate in relation with
GSG and the administration put us in a position where we have to take into
account the politics. This isn’t a position we wanted to be in but are in light of
recent events with other resolutions and history between USG, GSG, and
admin. With this letter we hope to balance things out and come to a reasonable,
fair, and compassionate solution.
Senator Enriquez: What I don’t understand is that I’ve asked for several weeks
if everyone has concerns. Why didn’t you say you were drafting a letter and
that you were going to vote no? You could’ve just been up front about it and
not wasted all our time. Why did you keep this under wraps until now?
Senator Li: Throughout the process with you, I was coming from a place of
good intentions; I addressed all my concerns and told you how I would vote.
Christopher Records: It would’ve been nice if this had been told to me prior
to today and spending many hours on this. Being here at 9 isn’t priority one on
my list. I would also say the comments about this being outside the scope of
USG is laughable considering the things that are under your scope are bylaw
changes that take 30 minutes. If this isn’t under the scope of USG then what
is? You should think about the purpose of USG. Thanks for meeting with me
but it’s maddening this wasn’t done in a more professional way that would’ve
spared the waste of time. Thanks to Sabrina for all your time with this.
Senator White: I’m not a sponsoring senator but not one person asked me to be
included on this letter. I do not understand why no one mentioned this letter or
their concerns to me.
XI.
h. Senator Robalino: I’m sorry Chris isn’t here to hear the response. All my
concerns were sent via email. I was frankly undecided. You can talk to other
senators where I’ve gotten into heated arguments because I was undecided.
This letter was created because we respected Chris’s time. The relationship and
things that happened in the past when GSG has brought a resolution sponsored
by USG has created tensions with the student body and the administration. It’s
heightened the scrutiny that we need to have with these things. We also don't
want to sacrifice helping the Syrian refugees. This letter is us trying to balance
the responsibility of political issues and helping Syrian refugees.
i. Austin Dunn: Did the people who didn’t sign this letter just not know about it?
Or did they decide not to sign?
j. Senator White: I was never told about this letter and even stated I was neutral
on the Facebook page.
k. Pau Samaha: Can we publish this so it has more of an impact?
l. Robalino: Yes it is meant to address all concerned parties.
m. Senator Rifkind: This was a very last minute decision but we wanted to state
our support. This was not a two week process of writing this letter.
n. Senator Enriquez: Giuseppe you said because I sponsored it and GSG passed
it you have to have higher scrutiny. If I sponsor something it has to go through
more scrutiny? Did I hear you correctly?
o. Senator Robalino: What you heard was a concern. When the Campus Climate
resolution what brought up initially there were various mistakes—grammar
mistakes, and an organization listed as a supporter wasn’t even a supporter.
Other senators also found it to be divisive and frankly over the top. And, as
Senators, we worked very hard: [USG Senate] sponsored the resolution and it
created a heated political climate. It created a charged climate and put the
senate in a vise. Just because we wanted time to talk about it, it was misframed
and interpreted incorrectly. There was intimidation. It’s not you personally, or
even Rini personally, but it’s you and President Sampath who happened to be
sponsoring this resolution. As a business major, in my professional work
experience from internships and such, I have learned reputation is everything
and how things are done is everything. If something breaches that trust or
peace, then yes, it is only a natural reaction that we scrutinize it to make sure it
is not divisive. This is literally a very rational human response to this issue.
This letter shows we’re in support of the ideals of the resolution and it’ll now
be published in the DT.
p. Senator Enriquez: This is bullshit because the fact that you have to vote down
a resolution and write a letter because I and GSG sponsored is absurd. I don’t
understand that and it shows how unprofessional this Senate is.
Adjournment
a. Senator Fong motions to adjourn the meeting.
i. Senator Dubbury seconds.
ii.
No objections.
b. Meeting adjourned at 9:27 PM.