Attendance:
 Sarah
 Nathan Koffke
 Calvin
 Joe
 Chris
 Stacyi
 Megan
 Thomas
 Nathan Krueger
Bylaws
 Issues from ad hoc: recurring discussion from dual position and new discussion
on whether the controller should be able to vote. Break down of votes was fairly
consistent. Wanted to do these because the position was only open to business
students but it is actually open to all students. However certain criteria is looked
at when the hiring process takes place. The requirements of the job are fairly
open. Brought up that it wasn’t as open as all other member positions. It is also a
paid position and they thought that they could be dishonest about numbers in the
spreadsheets. (??this was a little confusing).
o Nathan: although anyone with access to the spreadsheet could do that even
though paid or not
o Joe:
o Sarah: this year we have alternates
o Cal: I think taking away their vote would encourage them to manipulate
numbers more
o Sarah: there are quite a few checks and balances in place to make sure that
does not happen.
 Chair has to approve it, controller looks over it again, then goes to
Jim, then to admin services. We also have minutes that can be
referenced.
 Is Nathan the average student voting member? Their argument was
to keep the voting as diverse as possible.
o
 Two position
o Time conflict, … etc
o 2/3 majority vote is everyone is out. Process and consequences to replace
chair. We have discussed it and we have unanimously voted but we will be
opening up that for discussion again
 f
Bylaw
 Joe: I think we should start with the controller nonvoting
 Sarah: we actually have steven here to discuss the 2 position
 Steven: The basis of the feud is that there is a faction of OSA that wants this and
this committee doesn’t. The idea is to have a confirmation hearing in OSA senate
if someone wants more than one position. Senate would vote no unless they can






















show how it would be more beneficial for the student to have both positions. They
can analyze potential conflicts of interest
Cal: is this focused on the controller having two positions?
Steven: potentially the chair couldn’t hold a second position unless they can prove
they can do both
Joe: this still limits the position. If running unopposed they would have no other
choice to allow them to carry 2 positions.
Steven: only have 2 positions if it is necessary
Sarah: address that ppl are instructed to vote no. Our issue is limiting who we can
vote for. … Committee has reasons for electing people. They should just be
checked that the reasoning is valid. The vote should not be restricted.
Cal: is this just focused on OSA positions or other paid positions too
o Sarah: Specific OSA paid positions
Steven: SLS is paid through SLS money
o I think its any OSA funded positions.
Cal: why just OSA paid positions, can come into play w/any paid position
o It can come into play with any 2 positions
Tom: checks and balances. If you are going to bias for a club you will be anyway
even if you aren’t pres. …
Joe: its just more of a check
Steven: OSA is not the only pos that could have a potential problem. But they are
some of the most powerful positions on campus. It is the most influential….
Sarah: is this a happy medium?
o 6-yes
o 1-abstention
Thomas: I think in the end it doesn’t matter too much if we have a process or not.
I know for you that wouldn’t be a problem because your honest but I don’t know
who will have it in 10 years.
o So you are in favor of the strict language
Sarah: Only go through confirmation Process if you are elected to one of the
positions.
5.06.8 put clause: should the winner of the election be also appointed to a paid
OSA paid exec position they will have a second process….
Appointed paid OSA position.
Should winner be in a paid OSA position during term as allocations chair they
will go through an additional confirmation process by OSA senate committee
Steven: candidate must show evidence that candidate
Should go through an additional confirmation process that shows their candidate
can hold the position and not cause any detriment to the committee…
Cal: can we use better phrasing for OSA paid pos. will they always continue to be
paid
Sarah: idea that it’s paid signifies there is a large time commitment.
Steven: is their a doc that says when a position should be paid



























Sarah: if there is it would be in seg fee bylaws, but I don’t think there is anything
in there. It’s determined on an annual basis.
Steven: should winner of election be in a paid OSA pos. will go through a second
process that shows they are going to be competent in the pos.
Sarah: we should add that evidence comes from committee
Joe: person who wants to be elected should do it before they get elected
Sarah: OSA elections take place later.
Joe: that is why I think this should be in OSA bylaws
Sarah: having a similar clause in OSA bylaws.
Joe: that would be easier than having this election committee. Its easier for a
single person to do this
Steven: at senate there was a lot of discussion that we can’t do that to OSA
bylaws
Sarah: I thought they were saying they would do that too
…
Sarah: If we go back and say we should put it in yours they may resent it. We
should propose our language to them and show that we support they idea. But I do
agree with you Joe. The 2 pos. affects OSA as well.
Joe: I don’t get why this isn’t in seg fees too. Why is this only the allocations
chair.
Sarah: pres and VP of OSA could still hold another chair position. Their response
was that they should change that
Nathan: we should just move forward and we could revise it in future
Joe: I think it’s a good middle ground and with our time commitment
Sarah: lets move forward
Steven: purpose of idea is to resolve this, it doesn’t affect.
Motion to strike 4.03.13 add in as 5.06.8 Should the winner of the allocations
chair election be in a paid OSA position during their term as Allocations chair the
candidate shall present evidence to the OSA Senate proving that he/she is
competent and capable of holding multiple positions.
Nathan Krueger enters
Sarah:
Motion by Megan and second by Nathan Koffke
…
Steven: they can only control it if they have two OSA pos.
Sarah: ex. VP and chair of allocations are both intense positions. But pres has
hold seg fees chair. There are concerns with that but we have no control over that,
Petra has said in past ppl with 2 pos. do an exemplary job. Seg fees and
allocations makeup is fairly similar.
Tom: timing of elections. Allocations should happen first because if it is a
contested election…. Its giving an unfair advantage to one person. Allocations
should pick individually from OSA.
Sarah: its hard to make a clause like this w/o giving OSA power. For example me
and Joe are running. I get approval and then I’m good to go. Should ASA





















approval be denied to chair elect they should get to choose which position they
would like to pursue.
Tom: OSA can’t tell them what position to take.
Sarah: Once you have been elected to 2 you go in front of Senate and if they say
yes then they are good to go and if not then they choose which position they want.
New Motion by Megan second by Calvin: 4.03.13 add in as 5.06.8 Should the
winner of the allocations chair election be in a paid OSA position during their
term as Allocations chair the candidate shall present evidence to the OSA Senate
proving that he/she is competent and capable of holding multiple positions. If
OSA approves of the candidate’s ability to manage multiple positions, he/she
shall retain all positions to which he/she was appointed. However, if OSA does
not approve of the candidate, he/she shall choose which position he/she will retain
and give up the other.
o Favor: 6
o Opposed: 0
o Abstentions: 2
Should the controller vote
Joe: boils down to controller is above student voting membs, it should be easy to
get another member….
Cal:
Nathan Kof: I saw their pts. I agree with Joe. Person that holds this position will
just sit there and do the number crunching and then sometimes not show up
Joe: not voting would hinder their attendance
Nathan kof: I see why they shouldn’t have a vote; I’m on board to move on.
Chris: you pay student fees, I don’t
Sarah: commit. Membs are required to attend members. We aren’t going to hire
someone that isn’t going to show up. I don’t think that we should spend 2 wks
fighting this
4.01.01 spelling change correct budget.
Joe: the hiring process is going to limit candidates and voting should be open
Tom: controller could vote on what he gets paid to do. In most jobs you don’t get
to vote for what you get paid for
Chris: some upper level people do get that. I disagree, he pays to go to school here
he should get a vote
Sarah: it sounds like people have minds made up. If they think they should get a
vote they should make a vote.
Calvin: Motion to keep controller section as is. second by Joe
o Favor: 5
o Opposed: 0
o Abstention: 3
Sarah: any other changes
Is it lacking anything
Any other concerns
Motion to approve amended doc and send to OSA for approval. Second by
Nathan Krueger
o Favor: 7
o Opposed: 0
o Abstentions: 1
PPM
 Sarah: we got through funding policies.
 Calvin: can we revisit prizes and awards. Our main focus was incentives within
org. what I failed to realize was some of the events such as bingo are funded by
prizes and awards it keeps hundreds of students entertained for hours. I think we
should revisit section and revisit section.
 Sarah: open to the floor.
 Changes from last time: food, subscriptions, dues and memberships, and prizes
and awards.
 Right now its no prizes and awards
 Nathan Krueger: I think that if it goes towards a program that goes to students
should be allowed. The reason to begin with was to strike prizes to committee.
Add that prizes and awards put on for greater student body would be considered.
 Sarah: in events that are open to entire student body and each event not exceeding
$X
 Sarah: groups may not give gifts or donations to any group, org, department, etc.
The only gifts that are acceptable are small prizes given to students participating
in an event, program open to entire student body
 Chris: no limit because the breakdown of what they need the prizes for will be in
their narrative.
 Cal: RUB does a breakdown for $ per student
 Motion by Calvin second by Tom: groups may not give gifts or donations to any
group, org, department. The only gifts that are acceptable are small prizes given to
students participating in an event, program open to entire student body
o Favor: 7
o 0
o 0
 Appeals process
o Sarah: required by F50 to have an appeals process
o No objections to keeping it as written previously
 End of fiscal year
o Technically we are just lending the $ so we can just sweep it up
o Nathan: we actually just adjust the amt we put in
o Sarah: any objections to keeping it as is. -none
o

 Thomas: I don’t understand 10.3 you can’t spend more $ than you have
o Admin services won’t let you bounce a check.
o Chris: they will let you sit in the red for years.
o Nathan kof: right now there is a problem that there are not enough new
account numbers for the new clubs. Once we take up the old clubs we will
be getting more money, it will be put in our reserves
o Sarah: previous spending is covered on diff clause
o
 Capital equip.
 Policy violation penalties
o We can sweep up $ and take away budget. Right now it is pretty open
language which I don’t mind. We don’t want to penalize groups for future
years.
o No objections to keeping it as is
 End of doc. Pretty basic, may reorganize it to make more sense. Are there any
additions?
 Ill send this out and if you notice anything just email and we can do email votes.
 Motion by Megan to approve the new PPM as written. Seconded by Calvin
o Favor: 5
o Opposed: 0
o Abstention: 1
Scheduling
 Bylaws get passed by senate next week and then PPM will be passed next week.
 Plan on having a meeting next week but ill let you know.
 Deliberations during interim after 4.
o 4:30 tentative time.
o Short or long meetings
 Less for longer times
 Tom: would it be possible to not meet the first week
o We don’t want to get in a pinch at the end.
o
 Meet in sage? Is everyone okay with that?
o Yes
o
 Motion to adjourn by Calvin and second by Tom
o Favor: 5
o opposed: 1
