Northeastern University International Relations Council
Fall Board of Directors Meeting #1
Date: September 14, 2014 3:10 PM
Location: Political Science Conference Room
Present: Rawan, Cam, Evan, Phil, Will Joyce, Gavin, Elise, Jane, Katie, Jillian, Steph,
Bridget
Absent: Sarah, Merlinda, Miranda, Alex
End: 5:20 PM
Selection Process











Cam: We need supermajority or unanimous consent. New selection process must
take effect by October 4th.
E-Board Draft Proposal for Selection Process:
o HDs will have a preliminary role of suggesting what qualities they’d like to
see in their travel team
o HD is assigned a travel team for the conference
o HD is involved in process of selecting pairings for specific committees
o HD will receive the list before it’s announced to all of IRC to comment and
adjust the list with any concerns
 They will have a number of hours to respond with any concerns. If a
significant change must be made, the selection team will meet again
to adjust
Phil and Cam: E-board strongly recommends that BoD consider excluding HDs
from the selection process of travel teams. Their role is to prepare delegates for
conference, not just selecting.
E-Board Draft Proposal for Make-Up of Selection Committee:
o Slot 1: E-Board Representative
o Slot 2: Faculty Advisor
o Slot 3: BoD Appointee
o Slot 4: Senior/Alumni Member
Phil: E-board rep will have traveled to two conferences or served as HD before
AND will have received consent of the advisor
Gavin: Will HDs be given a team that they’d later put together or is it a
recommendation? Cam: The HDs will be given an entirely composed team.
Will: Will HDs be selected before BoD Appointee? Answer: Yes, they’ll be selected
alongside rest of the BoD
Phil: Motivation behind structure is that selection must serve the best interests of
IRC as a whole not just one team. Each slot embodies a different
voice/perspective that’s instrumental to the selection process.
Steph: What kind of criteria would be set for potential Alumni?
Jillian: Is everybody still eligible to try-out for travel team? Answer: Yes
Cam: BoD appointee criteria is the same as HD criteria i.e. mentorship
capabilities, expertise of conferences, etc.

Motion for a 5 min. Moderated Caucus, 30 sec. speaking time to discuss 4th slot
o Will: Must consider the 4th slot as a consulting expert
o Jill: Problem with an Alumni is that they’re not at all the weekly meetings
and won’t see the personal growth of delegates, only a “frozen image”
o Jane: Alum don’t know people’s behavior, personality, and compatibility
between teammates
o Phil: Benefit of alum is that they’re removed. The other three slots would
be filled by individuals aware of personality/behavior/compatibility
o Steph: Biggest concern is that alum won’t have knowledge of internal
processes…perhaps prioritize senior member over alumni?
o Elise: Agrees with Steph, would rather see Senior member over Alumni
because it’s better to have a current student on selection committee
o Katie: Suggest that alumni will only be considered if they’re recent
graduates. Problem with this suggestion is that alum will intimately know
current Senior members and give them preference
o Evan: Prefer Senior over Alum, agrees with Katie that they should be
recent graduates
o Rawan: Alum’s perspective would resemble that of delegates from other
schools at competitive conference i.e. first impressions of skill sets,
strengths and weaknesses, etc
o Gavin: We need to establish whether 4th slot will be fresh faced or very
seasoned before we decide whether or not to prioritize senior over alum
o Will motions to extend by 5 mins; Phil motions to extend by 10 mins, 1
min speaking time. Phil’s motion passes
o Phil: Alum act as judges in other conferences for awards so having their
input in the selection committee would be an advantage. Recent
involvement in IRC (throwdowns, etc) means they don’t need to be recent
graduates
o Steph: Prefers Senior member over alum. Must be in touch with IRC. How
would the 4th slot be selected anyway?
o Elise: Disagrees with Phil. Reasoning of requiring that alum are recent
graduates is that they’d have knowledge of new conferences and new
members
o Will: Discussion of alum’s familiarity with members requires a
reassessment of how IRC conceptualizes try-outs: are try-outs meant to be
the sole determinant or does selection committee assess overall
performance of an individual? If the former, then alum is most
appropriate
o Jane: Considering we’re selecting travel teams for 2 ½ conferences, tryouts cannot be the sole determinant. Overall performance must be taken
into consideration
o Jill: We need to discuss how the 4th slot is chosen in the first place
o Bridget: While one quarter of the selection committee won’t completely
sway decisions, we just need to consider their role: observer or same



reiteration of the other parts of the committee? What kind of voice we
want for the last slot?
o Gavin: Let’s discuss selection of 4th slot
o Will: BoD and e-board can come up with 3 people for 4th sloth and BoD
votes on one person so that the list is limited
Unmoderated Caucus
o Phil: we need a 4th slot to avoid gridlock. An even number incentivizes
unanimity
Motion for a 5 min. Moderated Caucus, 30 sec. speaking time to discuss selection
of the 4th slot
o Will: BoD should be involved in selection of the 4th slot. Compromise is
that everybody gets a say but it’s limited to a qualified person as
determined by e-board and senior board member
o Phil: Uncomfortable with having both e-board and BoD selecting the 4th
slot
o Katie: Logistically, each body is already voting for a representative (slot 1
and slot 3) so BoD and e-board involvement in 4th slot would be timeconsuming
o Will: Everyone who’s already represented is represented in other aspects
of the selection committee
o Steph: Agrees with Katie on logistics point. The whole premise of a new
make-up of selection committee is to limit numbers in decision-making
processes
o Rawan: What’s the time-frame in which all of this is occurring? Who is
selected before who?
o Will: Our criteria of senior vs. alum preference will change depending on
circumstances
o Phil: Concerned about feasibility of BoD being able to decide on time.
Once again, logistics is a big concern
o Jane: What about not having a 4th slot? What if unanimity becomes a
requirement for the 3-person selection committee?
o Phil: Would prefer to have a separate discussion on 3 vs. 4 slots
Round Robin discussion 30 sec. speaking time on Selection Committee being 3 or
4 slots
o Jane: The 4th slot is too complicated and there’s a high likelihood it could
be mistakenly assigned to the wrong individual
o Evan: Removal of the 4th slot is a valid option but merits of a 4th slot is that
they’d provide more nuance to discussion
o Jill: Never been on selection committee before so high trust in Phil’s
judgment. So far, it’s too lengthy of a process to select 4th
o Rawan: Still concerned about time-frame and logistics of how everything
will be accomplished
o Will: No strong preference between 3 vs 4 slots. If we’re doing 4 slots, the
4th should go to an Alum because Senior members are already heavily
represented in all voting blocs

o Gavin: We need 4 slots, favor alum
o Bridget: 3 slots not conducive, 4 slots are better. Alum are well-versed and
experienced
o Phil: Only 3 slots aren’t feasible and favors alum
o Steph: 4 slots are better to have different perspectives. As long as alum
criteria is well-defined, it is acceptable
o Cam: 4 slots better than 3, agrees with Will that senior members are well
represented
o Elise: No preference between 3 or 4 slots. Merits of 4 slots outweigh 3
Motion for a 5 min. Moderated Caucus, 30 sec. speaking time to discuss 4th slot
o Cam: Favors alum because Senior members are well-represented
elsewhere
o Katie: We can give preference to alum. In the event there’s no active
alumni, we’ll defer to a Senior member
o Evan: We’re asking for a major time commitment from alumni. Is that
feasible?
o Phil: Agree that the 4th slot will be a major or between alumni and Senior
member. Already spoke with alumni that can devote time
o Elise: Agrees with Katie. No decision yet on how 4th slot is elected. It
should be 2 people: Faculty Adviser and Senior member of the e-board
(President and so on)
o Jill: Agree with Katie; okay with Elise’s suggestion of having faculty
adviser and President select 4th slot
o Jane: Comfortable with 4th slot being selected by the HDs
o Bridget: HDs are already excluded, this would give them a bit more
influence
o Jill: Phil knows alumni, it should just be Phil and the President
o Will: HDs will have a voice selecting BoD appointees anyway so it should
be Phil and President
o Phil: HDs won’t have adequate knowledge of alumni but we can have HDs
select BoD appointee to be confirmed by whole of BoD
o Gavin: Phil and President is a good process. It’ll expedite decision-making
o Jane: E-board and faculty advisor would then have too much
representation in the selection team
o Rawan: HDs role seems weak in the eyes of BoD, clarify advisory role in
selection process
o Elise: HDs do have a weak advisory role
o Will: Phil has strong ties with the alumni
o Phil: Agrees with Will, HDs don’t have same connections
o Evan: HDs can pick a candidate to be affirmed by BoD
o Bridget: At this point, it’s an unnecessary extra layer of work
o Jane: Rejects notion that HDs don’t know the alum—IRC members
interact with them at throwdowns


Motion for a 10 min. popcorn debate
o Will: We can’t rely on HDs to have full knowledge of entire alumni
association. If HDs want a stronger role in selection of selection committee
members, it should be slot 3 (BoD Appointee)
o Jane: Takes issue with transition where HDs have majority of say in
selection to none. BoD should a have sub-body made up of HDs
o Elise: Phil puts together alum list, presents them to HDs with description
of who they are in their involvement, and then HD selects one
o Phil: Disagrees with Elise. We could re-frame 3rd slot for more HD
inclusion
o Cam: Mechanics of Elise’s proposal are uncertain
o Jane: BoD seat follows same pattern of why BoD exists: to serve long-term
interests of IRC
o Gavin: HDs have no real relationship with alumni
o Elise: Agrees with Gavin. If we do insert HDs in the process, it would be
the 3rd slot. The biggest concern with selection of 4th slot is that it’s a small
group selection a person; it’s not democratic because Phil has personal
relations with alumni
o Phil: Understands Elise’s reasoning. Recommends that 4th slot is done
along the same lines as HD selection process; 3rd slot is an e-board
appointment confirmed by BoD; 1st slot is deliberated by HDs and
confirmed by e-board
o Will: Why even include HDs?
o Jane: HDs need to have semblance of representation in selection team
o Phil and Elise: Agree that HD inclusion in selection process is good
o Jane: As HD, preparation is important. Their vision for their team needs
to be known.
o Will: Must re-think what HDs’ role is. Agrees with Sarah’s written
statement that taking HDs out of selection process frees them to better
focus on preparation efforts
o Phil: Would Jane’s vision concern be better addressed if HDs were
included halfway through the selection process? After Day 1 of try-out
sessions, selection committee and HDs will meet and HDs will lay out
vision/qualities they want to see in composed team
o Jane: Agrees with Phil’s suggestion. Future HD applications should
include a section where HDs write down vision/qualities they’d like to see
Verdict:
o Slot 1: E-Board Representative
o Slot 2: Faculty Adviser
o Slot 3: BoD Appointee (HD criteria)
o Slot 4: Alumni using approval process of the HD selection system
o HDs and selection committee will meet halfway to discuss vision of travel
team. On future applications, HDs will have to stipulate specific qualities
they want in their travel team




Phil is currently working on language to present to the rest of IRC on Wednesday,
September 17 so IRC can vote on language on October 1st
Motion to adopt Draft of Selection Process/Committee by unanimous consent:
passes
Language for HD Selection Process will be done by Wednesday, September 17 so
vote will occur on October 1st
Gavin is our Mentorship Coordinator. Do we add a new BoD position or break up
Director of Retention, Branding, and Recruitment? Will deliberate next time.