GSA SPECIAL ASSEMBLY MEETING – BYLAWS 5/1/14
Agenda Approved
Constitutional Committee Chair Report
-
-
Committee was formed in Fall of 2012 due to crushing debt and issues of
how to handle other incidents because of lack of cohesive plans and
agreements that were not laid out in the Bylaws and Constitution.
Document you see here for discussion is 8 months of work by the Committee,
another month of work by the Committee and E-board, and includes
amendments proposed by the assembly members via e-mail.
E-board feels a large amount of the Bylaws are not ready for passing. Articles
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 with amendments.
The Committee feels the rush is necessary due to the fact that, despite a
largely successful E-board, there have been several issues this year with
officers no longer in positions at this time. Bylaws do not need to be perfect,
they need to be reasonable and can always be amended.
It is critically important for the assembly to understand that it is up to the
Assembly itself to vote and input laws.
Preamble and Article 1
-
No changes suggested by Assembly or E-board.
Both adopted. No abstentions or No’s.
Article 2
-
Disagreements about change 4. Perhaps change to be an officer similar to
Assembly Speaker, to avoid needing a completely removed party to be
mandated to attend all Assembly meetings. Discussion Tabled
Disagreements with line 2 of Section 6 on Page 4. Concerns with not allowing
policy outside of what is ‘normal’ policy. Original change to this section was
made due to ambiguity in earlier drafts. Objection Withdrawn
Move to approve Article 2 without amendment 4 until further discussion.
1 No, 0 Abstentions, Rest Approve
Approved
Article 3
-
Concerns raised were handled in previous articles and were not able to be
handled due to such.
All in Favour.
Approved.
Article 4
President’s Section
-
No discussion raised.
Vice President, Treasurer, and MCAA Section
-
Treasurer and MCAA Chair sections will be handled at a later date due to
issues on the University’s account, particularly with UAS.
Programming Chair language suggested to be removed that refers to a
mandatory holding of 2 Social Events.
Vice President – Webmaster not officially recognized by policy and thusly
suggested to strike language.
Motion is to move to strike just the language “with a Webmaster”.
Motion Results: No abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Motion: To strike the language “shall oversee at least two GSA social events
per semester;”.
Motion Results: No abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Motion: Change the wording of ‘office the following year.’ To ‘office the
following term’.
Motion Results: No abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Question raised about what fundraising regarded and then answered that
this would not require any further money from students and fundraising
would be for further money voted on by the Assembly.
Motion: “shall over the allocation of jobs” changed to “shall delegate tasks”.
Motion Results: No abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Question raised about whether or not removing Treasurer and MCAA Chair
from the Bylaws and how that effects their existence. The answer given is
that both are included in the Constitution.
Motion: Use language from the constitution as place-holders for the two
positions.
Motion Results: No abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Grants Chair concerns: suggests to strike “reviewing them” and changing it to
“committee review of applications”.
Concerns regarding whether or not we can change that, due to the Motion
previously made about the purpose of this meeting, suggestion is made to
merely hold it for the next assembly meeting.
Motion: Move on discussion.
Motion Results: No abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Stipends Section
-
-
-
-
It has been a very long discussion whether or not to include these between
the Committee and E-board.
The idea behind reviewing the stipends is for the purpose of whether or not
stipends are raised or lowered. Fees are looked at every 2 years in May and
voted on by the student body. Stipends should then be looked at the next
February with the new fees in mind to keep the stipends in line with the
budget.
The idea of increase is to represent a Professional Model vs. a Volunteer
Model, going towards a Professional Model – making the positions
competitive with adjunct pay.
Concerns have been raised against the idea of NOT using a Volunteer model
(due to personal experience that volunteer is best), stipend increases, and a
possible miscommunication about whether or not review at the 2 year point
requires raising.
Motion: To table change in stipend numbers at another meeting.
(Amendment 3, other numbers to be discussed pursuant their amendments.)
Point brought up that the numbers currently listed (4.5k etc.) have no proof
that they were agreed upon by the Assembly. The President raised concern
on what that means.
Amendment to Motion: Move the currently listed numbers (4.5k etc.) to
what is currently paid out and proven by documentation.
Another comment on Professional Model vs. Volunteer was brought up that
in other countries or places that it is customary, or should be, that these are
paid positions.
Another comment made by someone is of the opinion that because of all of
the direct correspondence during these meetings that there are so many
additional requirements for the officers that pay should be mandated, not on
a volunteer base.
Request, with agreement that they should be Professional, that more
information is provided before numbers are discussed.
Amendment to Motion Results: No abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Motion: To replace the values as printed in the Bylaws draft with the
numbers in the previous Bylaws packet.
Motion Results: 0 abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Motion: Accept Stipend section as is.
Amendment to Motion: Add to motion: strike Assembly Speaker and UCR
pay as well.
Amendment to Motion Results: 5 Yes’, 8 No’s, 4 Abstentions. Not
Approved.
3 abstentions, 0 No’s, Section Approved.
Other Issues Section
-
-
Veto was put into place to be very difficult, thus why it must be a unanimous
vote by the E-board. Assembly is still able to override any Veto. Clarification
made by Caitlin.
Motion: Lead Senator be changed to having same attendance requirements
as RGSOs.
Motion Results: No abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Motion: Retain final sentence of section 13 pursuant to E-board members on
legislative committees.
Jessica’s thought process behind this has partially to do with the Assembly
Speaker being a non-voting E-board member and the fact that E-board
members should be privy to information on committees such as the Bylaws
committee so things do not end up being so exclusive of the E-board and rush
of time such as we are currently experiencing.
Concerns of the Committee were that there is a more clear separation of
powers and not be allowed to vote on these committees.
The language is fine as long as the veto is maintained. – Caitlin
Suggestions that E-board member being counted towards quorum, not a vote.
Motion Results: 0 abstentions or No’s. Approved.
Motion: Change veto amendment to include “new policy or rule established
by the”, strike “action by a” after ‘assembly’.
Amendment to Motion: Add on at the end ,”,and this override shall be the
final vote on any singular issue.”
Amendment taken as friendly.
Motion Results: 1 No, 6 abstentions, 12 Yes’. Not Approved. (Called to
question, no 2/3rds achieved.)
Motion: Add on at the end,”, and this override shall be the final vote on any
singular issue.”
Motion Results: 2 abstentions, 0 No’s. Approved.
Motion: Adopt Article 4.
Amendment to Motion: Each E-board must maintain a physical handbook
that pertains to their job.
Amendment found friendly.
Motion Results: 19 yes, 0 abstentions, 0 No’s. Approved.
Article 5
-
Proposal to pass neither option from Amendment 2. Adds additional checks
and requires more than impeachment
Motion: Accept Article 5 except for section 5.
Called for Orders of the Day