Official
USC Undergraduate Student Government
Meeting Minutes
TCC 227
Tuesday November 17, 2015
Executive Officers
Jordan Fowler, Vice President
David Moreno, Chief of Staff
Tiffany Chang, Treasurer
Diana Amparo Jimenez, Program Board Executive Director
Edwin Saucedo, Program Board Finance Director
Executive Cabinet
Eric Miller, Academic Affairs Director
David Chang, Academic Affairs AD
Sarah Dhanaphatana, Academic Affairs AD
Brianna Thorpe, Community Affairs Director
Zheng Xiao, Community Affairs AD
Logan Dallas, Elections and Recruitment Co-Director
Keith Keer, Elections and Recruitment AD
Matthew Stern, Leadership Funding AD
Paul Samaha, Marketing AD
Morgan Monahan, Social Media AD
Austin Dunn, University Affairs Director
Austin Churchill, Wellness Affairs AD
CJ Angle, Wellness Affairs AD
Program Board
Hannah Nguyen, ACA Director
Nikoli Patiyeli, Graphics AD
Krystal Chavez, LSA Director
Kiara Sanchez, LSA AD
Elizabeth Guzman, LSA AD
Chelsea Zhang, Marketing Co-Director
Ainsley Stein, AD Marketing
Amanda Verdadero, Performing Arts Director
Sara Kern, Performing Arts AD
Kathryn Kelly, Speakers Director
Elizabeth Bricker, Special Events Director
Joshua Chang, Trojan Pride Director
Katya Sutil, Trojan Pride AD
Jenny Di, PSA Director
Shyann Murphy, WSA Director
Senators
Jacob Ellenhorn, Commuter
Bulk Lao Commuter
Chris Fong, Greek
Darian Nourian, Greek
Sanjay Mahboobani, Greek
Aaron Rifkind, Residential
Sabrina Enriquez, Residential
Alec White, Residential
Eric Dubbury, Residential
Advisors
Karina Medrano
Guests
Christopher Records
Alaina Hartley
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Call to Order
a. Meeting called to order at 7:05 PM.
Reading and Approval of the Minutes
a. Senator Mahboobani motions to approve the Minutes as read.
i.
Senator Enriquez seconds.
ii.
The Minutes are approved as read.
Approval of the Agenda
a. Senator Enriquez moves to add Syria Resolution to New Business
i. Senator Nourian seconds.
b. Senator Fong moves to add Recruitment Resolution to New Business
i. Senator Lao seconds.
c. Senator Lao moves to strike PB, Wellness, Professional Academic, and
Discretionary from Presentations
i. Senator White seconds.
d. Senator Rifkind moves to add Sponsoring Senator and Senator Constituency
Bylaw Change to New Business
i. Senator Enriquez seconds.
e. Voting
i. The amended Agenda is approved.
Open Forum
a. None.
Reports of Officers and Directors.
a. None.
Presentations
a. Greek Senators: Sanjay Mahboobani, Chris Fong, and Darian Nourian
i. Senator Mahboobani
1. Deferring recruitment resolution
2. Meeting with Dr. Carry after break
3. Thursday night curfew policy change
ii. Senator Fong
1. Presidents teach in program to tackle chapter president issues
such as sexual assault, alcohol abuse, etc…
iii. Senator Nourian
1. Coliseum renovations to advance student input
2. Advancing recreational space for students on campus
b. Community Affairs: Director Brianna Thorpe and AD Zheng Xiao
i. Past events
1. Greater LA: Mercado La Paloma
ii. Projects
1. Greater LA
2. Community engagement forum
3. SCommunity network
iii. Greater LA: 3 Worlds Café on Friday Nov 20th 11:45-2:00pm
iv. Community Engagement Forum
1. Pushed back to next semester
2. Topics: What does it mean to be in the community, student
stories, and USC gates
3. January 14th, 6:00-7:00pm
v. Go Metro
1. Research GSG model and existing transportation deal
2. Student metro survey
3. Encourage metro transit campaign
vi. SCommunity Network
1. Phase 1: Organization info competition
2. Phase 2: Organization outreach
3. Phase 3: Creating visual representation of the network to be
published on webspace
vii. USCxCommunity Block party
1. March 26th
2. Performers, food, bike raffle, resource fair
c. Performing Arts: Director Amanda Verdadero
i. Mission: Bring the best of the arts to USC
ii. Goals
1. Increase visibility
2. Expand artist network relaunch in February
3. More student feedback on what they want to see
4. Collaborate with other student organizations
iii. Past events
1. Monthly comedy nights
2. Slam poetry night
3. Artist network mixer
4. CirqueSC
iv. Upcoming events
1. Center theatre group production panel: November 19th 6:307:30pm
2. Battle of the Bands: November 20th 8-10pm
3. Holiday Destress with PAC: December 2nd at 7:00pm
d. LSA: Director Krystal Chavez, AD Kiara Sanchez & Elizabeth Guzman
i. Who we are
1. One of 9 cultural assemblies
2. 22 Latino oriented member orgs
3. Our purpose is to encourage, facilitate and promote the
academic, pre-professional, cultural, social and political
self-realization of USC’s Latina/o students as individuals
and as community
ii. Events Funded
1. Check Yourself
2. Dress for Success
3. Mi Cultura Night
4. Cyberstalking Catfish
iii. Past Events
1. Soulsa
VII.
2. Danze Urbano
3. Latinx Survey with Diversity Affairs
4. Pan Dulce Series
iv. Upcoming events
1. Screening of Border Town
2. Trojan Family Dinner: November 29th 6-7pm
Unfinished Business and General Orders
a. Elections and Recruitment: Logan Dallas
i. Senator Rifkind moves to split subsection IX.C and IX.F on the
elections code revisions
1. Senator Lao seconds.
ii. Voting
1. Subsection split is approved.
iii. Senator Dubbury moves to vote on all elections code revisions apart
from IX.C and IX.F
1. Senator Enriquez seconds.
iv. Voting
1. The elections code revisions are passed.
v. Section IX.C discussion
1. Rifkind: I want to strike out volunteer because it gets
complicated when people volunteer because you can be a
member of USG, work on a campaign and be called a volunteer.
2. Senator Nourian: People in the past have abused that privilege.
vi. Senator Rifkind moves to vote to strike out volunteer
1. Senator Lao seconds.
vii. Voting
1. The amendment is approved.
viii. Discussion
1. Paul Samaha: is there already an established punishment for
members who are caught volunteering?
2. Logan Dallas: If you are found to be working or volunteering on
a campaign, first of all it is delineated because you cant be on
the core 5 and be a currently seated member but this also
implies that you cant be volunteering and if you are it is
considered an elections code violation. It is violation eligible.
3. Senator Enriquez: So this implies they can’t volunteer but it
doesn’t explicitly say they cannot, so is it punishable?
4. Logan Dallas: It’s not technically punishable but the implication
is you are still working for a campaign. In the past if you’ve
been found working for a campaign, it’s not acceptable. People
have been punished before.
5. Krystal Chavez: So that means you can publicly support but not
volunteer? What’s the difference because if you volunteer
you’re saying you’re endorsing, so I don’t get the difference.
6. Logan Dallas: The difference is you aren’t allowed to be on
core 5 but that doesn’t stop you from volunteering and doing
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
just as much without on the core 5 which isn’t fair. So that’s not
really fair if you’re doing all the work of someone’s campaign
manager but you’re not their campaign manger.
7. Senator Dubbury: What we’re looking at as the definition of
volunteer is that you’re allowed to endorse and show support.
This is to remove the possibility of people using the term
volunteer and doing a lot of highly intensive campaign work
under the title of volunteer. This has been abused in the past. I
want to clarify that so it’s a clear separation.
Senator Ellenhorn moves to vote on the previous question
1. Senator Mahboobani seconds.
Voting
1. Vote to the previous question is approved.
Senator Mahboobani moves to vote on the amended amendment
1. Senator Enriquez seconds
Voting
1. Strike out of volunteer is approved.
Discussion
1. Senator Enriquez: There’s been a lot of question about if
assemblies should have the ability to endorse, do senators still
have questions about any of this?
2. Senator Ellenhorn: We were clear in earlier meetings where we
stand on the issue. I look forward to someone introducing an
amendment that reflects a consensus on what the Senate feels
on this matter.
3. Senator White yields the floor to Krystal Chavez
a. Krystal Chavez: I spoke with my assembly and they
brought up the point that if people who are working
alongside someone who will run, and if you know them
personally, it is better to say how you know them, what
they’re like in the office and then decide if you want to
endorse as an assembly. Don’t we have the right to be
able to do that? Their concern was that if you have the
knowledge, why can’t you endorse as an assembly. If
you have the ability, why can’t you endorse someone as
an assembly?
4. Senator Mahboobani: That’s a valid point that in the office you
get to know people and that would be good to make a decision
as to who you are going to support on an individual level.
However, for the entire assembly to say they support someone
would create a hostile environment in office because, say the
election works out a different way where the other candidate
wins. They go into an environment where they know they
weren’t supported. Keeping the office a neutral environment
makes it a more efficient and effective place to work. I don’t see
how assemblies endorsing helps besides making it more
stressful.
xiv. Senator Rifkind moves to strike the amendment and revert to the
original wording
1. Senator Dubbury seconds
xv. Voting
1. The revert to original wording is approved.
xvi. Section IX.F. discussion
1. Senator Enriquez yields the floor to Shyann Murphy
a. Shyann Murphy: I want to bring up a few points but one
point is why it’s helpful for assemblies to endorse. One
reason is our constituencies are distanced from USG and
from the elections process. With WSA, the only way
people heard about elections was through WSA. So if
we could have a conversation about who we can and
can’t endorse, that would be really beneficial. Also, I’m
a director but I don’t just make arbitrary decisions. We
have an executive board and I run everything through
them. I’m elected and so are they, so we have
conversations about what our members want. As far as
creating a hostile environment, I think there’s potential
for that but these are things we can discuss in assembly
meetings. These things don’t have to be an issue in the
office.
b. Diana Jimenez: Last year E&R sent a survey to
everyone in USG about the elections code and a lot of
what came up was assemblies under PB, because they’re
elected and everything they do has to be voted on, so I
don’t understand how this isn’t being brought up now
because you’re making all these decisions without
talking to them about what affects them directly.
c. Edwin Saucedo: Every assembly has their own
constitution. So it’s not like the directors make a
decision based on the assemblies. So for example when I
was PSA director, I sometimes didn’t think funding was
being used as efficiently as possible but regardless of
what I thought we all had to still vote on it. To your
point about office culture, you choose who you endorse
personally but as an assembly that doesn’t reflect on you
because there’s an e-board and many other people
making the decision. It’s a lot of people making the
decision, not just one person.
d. Hannah Nguyen: As an assistant director of ACA last
year, what Shyann said was true. Our constituency had
questions about elections and it was frustrating not to be
able to give answers about what I had first hand
experience with. And also people on my board couldn’t
have discourse about it, so I think it’s important we’re
allowed that. Also PB assemblies are the only body
besides Senate that represents students. So I don’t see
how member orgs can endorse but we can’t. Everyone
has to be in consensus to push an official endorsement.
e. Chris: I understand your concerns but it seems way
superseded by the necessity of assemblies to have a
voice of their own. I don’t think office politics are an
important enough of a reason to not let them endorse.
This is a democratic process and there’s enough
deliberation to where it’s not one individual making the
decision about whether or not the assembly will endorse.
f. Jenny Di: I understand where senators are coming from
in the sense that people in my assembly will have very
different opinions as to who they support. I don’t know
if I would feel comfortable endorsing a particular
candidate just because the majority says they endorse
them.
g. Senator Enriquez: You wouldn’t be required to endorse,
it’s only if the assembly feels strongly about a candidate
and they feel comfortable doing so.
h. Krystal Chavez: If I can endorse as an individual, then
I’m allowed to tell my assembly I publicly endorse this
person? I feel like your constituency will be asking you
all these things anyway because they trust you to
represent them.
i. Senator Ellenhorn: The DT does a fabulous job at
covering all the candidates and I would ask you, if your
constituents ask who to vote for, you send them that
link. They can also check the candidate’s social media
pages and post platforms. People should be able to make
their own educated decision. It’s categorically unfair for
organizations that get thousands of dollars from the
student body to be able to pick and choose and back up
candidates. I understand it’s a collective decision but
even so, being able to put a collective name behind a
specific candidate is unfair. It makes people who are
outside of the system very hard to break in and run for a
position because the assemblies might not know or
support them. I am in support at remaining at the current
wording because I feel it does the job we need it to do.
You yourself as an individual can still endorse and talk
about it. Putting your organizational endorsement is a bit
unfair.
xvii. Senator Nourian moves to vote on the wording as it currently stands
1. Senator Dubbury seconds
VIII.
xviii. Voting
1. The current wording is passed.
New Business
a. New Leadership Fund AD: Tiffany Chang
i. Senator Enriquez moves to suspend Robert’s Rules to vote on new AD
Carson Hatfield
1. Senator White seconds.
ii. Voting
1. The new AD is approved.
b. New Speakers Directors and ADs: Diana Jimenez
i. Director Megan Black
ii. Director Ainsley Stein
iii. Michael Iluma
iv. AD Sabah Chaudry
v. AD Elizabeth Grace
vi. Senator moves to suspend Roberts Rules to vote on the new Directors
and ADs
1. Senator seconds.
vii. Voting
1. The new Speakers ADs and Directors are approved.
c. Elections and Recruitment Bylaw Change | Referendum: Logan Dallas
i. Article II Section VI
1. Senator Enriquez: This is the old verbiage; we went back into
bylaw history. In every governing body there’s a way to do a
referendum. Right now we’re an inadequate government for not
having it, which is why we’re putting it back. Somehow it
vanished but this is to have wholesome bylaws because people
have asked about it.
ii. Senator Enriquez moves to vote to suspend Roberts Rules to vote on
the referendum amendment.
1. No second.
d. Bylaw Additions | Open Forum and Discussion: Jordan fowler
e. Bylaw Additions | Sponsoring Senators: Jordan Fowler
i. Purpose of being a sponsoring Senator on a resolution
f. Bylaw Additions | Senator constituencies: Jordan Fowler, Senator
Mahboobani, Senator Nourian, Senator Rifkind
i. There should be 12 student senators who can be any USC student with
good standing
ii. Senator Enriquez moves to suspend Roberts Rules to vote on the
amendment
1. Senator Mahboobani seconds.
iii. Voting
1. The new senator constituencies are passed.
g. USC Membership in the IIE Syria Consortium Resolution: Senator Enriquez &
Christopher Lo-Records
i. Background
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Syrian civil war has been underway since 2011
No indication of peaceful resolution is forthcoming
200,000 killed
4200000 refugees
Many hundreds of thousands of Syrian students and scholars
among the displaced.
Institute for international education
1. Administers Fulbright
2. Syrian consortium: 50+ institutions in the US
Resolution
1. Let it be resolved that the University of Southern California will
join IIE’s Syria Consortium for Higher Education in Crisis and
will commit to offer specific spaces and funding to Syrian
refugee students and scholars, by no later than the 2015-2016
Academic Year
2. Be it further resolved, that the University of Southern California
Office of the Provost will issue a public statement detailing the
specific spaces and financial assistance that it will provide to
Syrian refugee students and scholars, by no later than the end of
the 2015-2016 Academic Year.
Sponsoring Organizations
1. USC Middle Eastern Studies Program
2. Graduate Policy and Administration Community
3. Student Bar Association
4. Social Work Student Organization
5. Associated Students of Planning and Development
6. Queer Graduate Alliance
Questions from the Senate:
1. Senator Rifkind: As senators we’re elected by constituents, can
you tell me who of our constituents this impacts?
2. Christopher Lo-Records: It impacts the entire USC community
by making the university a place that accepts at scholars and
students who are at risk. It also enriches the university
atmosphere since you have people who have experienced war
and incredible loss. Also people who are experts in their fields.
Some scholars who have been placed through this are experts in
their field.
3. Senator Nourian: When passing a resolution, they’re supposed
to represent the student voice. What part of your research
helped you to indicate this is what the student body wants?
4. Christopher Lo-Records: In the past there have been concerted
efforts to raise funds for Syrian refugees from many
organizations at the undergraduate level. There have been
several fundraising campaigns during holidays, for example. I
have solicited at the graduate level and found significant
support from several organizations. We have sponsorship from
the Middle Eastern Studies program here, which is also
evidence of support from a mostly undergraduate program.
5. Senator Enriquez: It also falls under our mission statement of
the university. Again, this is a morality issue. I can also bring a
list of the undergraduate members who are sponsors.
6. Christopher Lo-Records: At the graduate level, the Student Bar
Association, GPAC, and the school of social work umbrella
organization are also sponsors. They represent thousands of
students.
7. Senator Rifkind: I appreciate you’re trying to remove the
politics from this but the Huffington Post and NY Times have
had headlines recently that relate to this issue, so how do you
remove politics?
8. Christopher Lo-Records: Because the concept of this is
completely removed from the political issues right now, they’re
not intrinsically tied. The issue in the news is a conflation of
refugees with terrorism. The issue that launched this was the
model of over 50 universities who have done this as well,
before this was ever an issue on the Huffington Post. A number
of organizations in and out of the US have accommodated these
students. It is not a political issue.
9. Senator Enriquez: Politics are one thing but when talking about
refugees, we’re talking about human lives and life or death
situations. Having a university where they can go means life or
death. It also makes a stark difference to what is offered to the
world of academia because if Albert Einstein were not given
refuge, for example, where would we be? By not offering
refuge to these students, we’re doing a disservice to academia as
a whole.
10. Christopher Lo-Records: Participating in the consortium is very
much tailored to the institution. By passing this, it doesn’t mean
20 refugee students will be admitted. Some schools have
students go through the regular admissions process. The only
difference is they more aggressively mark it, where it’s open to
refugees. This just gives us unanonymity so we can go to
administration and say this is what we want to see happen.
11. Jordan Fowler: You can also work to meet with different
administration before the vote happens. This won’t be voted on
until 2 weeks so you might want to have a conversation about
this with admin to help expedite the process.
12. Christopher Lo-Records: Your signing off on this resolution
will be a very strong message to get support from
administration, regardless of the political issues at the moment.
h. Deferred Recruitment Resolution: Sanjay Mahboobani, Darian Nourian, Chris
Fong, Alaina Hartley
i. Discussion
1. Krystal Chavez: I just want to bring up a couple points. Saying
you require mandatory study hours in your resolution, you’re
saying you allow hazing because anything requires people to
meet in a specific place at a specific time is considered hazing.
Also, I don’t know if you consulted the Multicultural Greek
council because they already do this.
2. Senator White: I applaud all of the effort you have put into this.
I’m sure we’re all familiar with the Trojans for Equal
Opportunity to Associate. This measure shows the pro-fall
recruitment much better. Have you talked to them about asking
them to down their page or changing their message?
3. Alaina Hartley: None of us are associated with that page. I
personally messaged them and asked to stop posting on behalf
of an entire constituency.
4. Senator Dubbury: I’m not in the Greek system, so I’m not
involved with the nitty gritty of these issues but I am very
impressed with the way you’ve handled these issues. You’ve
put in a lot of thorough and balanced effort. I think this is a very
objective way of approaching the topic.
5. Jordan Fowler: I really appreciate all the work put into this and
if I were a senator I would vote yes on it. One consideration I
hope you request get brought to the table is making sure the
voices of those students who it didn’t work out for get
accounted for. Those are the complaints I got as VP.
ii. Senator Mahboobani moves to suspend Roberts Rules to vote on the
resolution
1. No second.
IX.
X.
Announcements:
a. None.
Discussion
a. Giuseppe Robalino: This is commentary on Speakers Committee's event "ReEvaluating the American Dream" held yesterday. I have been very sick so I
was unable to attend, and, quite frankly this is a subject I'm very passionate
about so I really wish I was there. First of all, I would like to say I found the
event description very intellectually stimulating and thoughtful. My only point
of discussion here is just to ensure a level of accountability from the
organizers. This is not criticism, but rather an investigative inquiry as a
senator. Inside my head I wonder, was the only solution presented to solving
the issue of income inequality redistribution of wealth, or were other
perspectives also discussed? Was taxation part of the discussion--how the top
wage earners actually pay most of the taxes? How job creators leave states
with heavy taxation and hefty union demands? Was the use of those taxation
dollars discussed?--how job training programs are more effective at lifting
people out of poverty than welfare and unemployment insurance checks? What
of creating more financial literacy programs to learn how to take advantage of
our free market system, a system that has been empirically proven to have
lifted more people out of poverty than others tried historically worldwide? And
finally, did the discussion ensure to put into context the U.S. with the rest of
the world--such that we are able to recognize our privileges in that our poor
actually are in the top 1% of the world (not that this is ideal) but have access to
comforts like cable TV and cell phone use; that home ownership in the U.S. is
the highest in the world because our government works with our financial
institutions to make mortgages for first time homebuyers very accessible, while
the rest of the world can only rent versus how in the U.S. we are able to build
equity upon which we can retire; so that these facts, among many other
statistics help support the argument the American Dream may in fact still be
alive? I know the people who are mentioned here may not be in the room so I
welcome anyone who wants to respond to me to get in touch next Senate or
during office hours.
b. Giuseppe Robalino: Very quickly I’d like to touch on Provost Quick’s email to
the student body about setting up a team of students and administrators to
address diversity issues. I would just like to point out that the administration
has decided to go with a “task force” as a good compromise to the resolution’s
request. While I could not have predicted this exact response, it was under
similar thinking I proposed that the resolution be amended to read “task force”
prior to being presented to the administration so as to show we are reasonable
and responsible in our requests. All in all I am pleased they have come up with
a task force that has students involved.
c. Giuseppe Robalino: My final comment tonight is one that I’ve been discussing
over email with the ACA. Last senate, the ACA claimed USC is a
“Predominantly White Institution,” which according to our posted facts and
figures is simply not the case, with 66% of the student population being nonwhite. In our emailing, however, both Hannah and Luis were very diligent in
pointing out that for them, the use of “predominant” has a much more elastic
definition than what I would think other USC students and myself would take
as the standard connotation. I just ask that a citation and clarification be made
clear in future public communications so as to not confuse the average listener.
I applaud the idea of self-care but also strongly encourage that we not fall into
the pattern of consistent victimization, or victimization under the guise of
empowerment. I hope this event is not that. Again, I welcome any discussion
on this topic next Senate or during my office hours.
d. Senator Dubbury: We hope you feel better Giuseppe. Go to bed, get some rest,
and fight on.
XI.
Adjournment
a. Senator Fong motions to adjourn the meeting.
i. Senator Dubbury seconds.
ii.
No objections.
b. Meeting adjourned at 8:53 PM.