Minutes: ASUCD IAC 5/16/2010

Consideration of Senate Bill #94:
Author’s Comments: This bill is to put the pro-tempore as the head to make sure that Aggie Pack submits a quarterly report like other units. Keeping transparency of Aggie Pack in terms of funding, and to make sure they follow through with the memorandium of understanding
Questions in text:
Align everything under “A.”
Public Discussion:
Pascual: question for the author, have they been usually giving quarterly reports?
They gave a report this quarter but not the previous two, this way it will be instituitionalized
Pascual: Just wanted to make sure this bill would be followed. Yield.
Cano: do you want them to submit an actual report?
Yes they will submit a report
Commission Discussion:
Pascual: does anyone want deferements? Motion to call Senat bill 94 into question
Called to question: no objections
Passing it: no objections
Consideration of Senate Bill #95:
Author’s Comments: Well laid out in the background, but basically a pledge of aliegence attempt has been made in the past but there were some problems in the writing so we rewrote it to help the pledge of aliegence to find it’s appropriate place. Unlike the last time, we do not have video cameras and we will not threaten to post them on the internet
Questions in Text:
Hsu: decapitalize voluntary on line 19
Public Discussion:
Pascual: do you guys know the similar authors?
Myerhoff: I know one of them but not all of them
Pascual: I love America, I yield
Was there a reason this failed besides people being against this bill?
The attitude was to spear the student government for not doing it, it was not voluntary. It was more of a statement instead of an actual attempt. It was a witchhunt for people who hate America
Pascual: the motives were to take a stab at ASUCD for not loving America. Here the motives are clear.
Hsu: Line 9 insert “upon” after “that of”
Cano: there is no ASUCD officer who will recite the pledge, so there will just be a moment of silence where people could recite it if they want?
Vice President would invite anyone who wishes to recite, people are more than welcome to join. It will happen organically if people would like to say it. If no one wanted to say it, it would be a moment of silence
Fatima: Is there normally an American flag in the senate meeting?
Yes
Commission Discussion:
Pascual: would anyone like a deferment? Yield
Cano: I’m fairly opposed to this, I think it’s ridiculous to actually recite the pledge of aleigence at the senate meetings. This is a public institution and there are lots of international students who will go back home after they get their bachelors degree. There have been plenty of supreme court cases involving this. In no way can it infringe on your writes, for example the West Virginia trial
Hsu: This is a completely different case than West Virginia, I don’t believe it applies in this case (more details, Aaron can you add what you said?)
Cano: we’ve been doing fine without the pledge of aliegance, I don’t think there is any reason to add this
Fatima: have there been complaints about saying the pledge?
There was a senator two terms ago who wanted the flag removed from the room during meetings, it seemed like an attack just for attacks sake. That made me think about where are we, where are we going to school…it offended me and many others. I think in fairness it has gotten out of hand to forget that we are going to school funded by state of California, part of the united states. I think a lot of people would be happy to see this. The argument that we’ve been doing fine without it, I think we’d do fine with it.
Fatima: there are some words that might not trickle down with other people, for example some people might be athist and there’s god in it. You’d have to add a lot of things for other people for patriotism
The reason we chose the pledge of aliegance is that it’s one of the most widely practiced form of expressing patriotism. You don’t have to say it, you can omit any part you want, like the under god part. Though people may take issue with the pledge of aliegance it is still there. We are a student government modeled after the government of the united states. If we’re trying to practice government in a formal way in the state of California why would we not want to follow through? There are very few people who would take offense to someone who wishes to say the pledge of aliegence. For me it wouldn’t be irrelevant and I know there are those out there who agree.
Maemura: on line 10 reword the clause “there is no compelling reason”.
Accept
Maemura; why not leave it at the discression of the VP to decide it each year?
I find that if you leave it to the discression of the VP it just takes one person to make a fuss, the VP is very involved in the intermal personal interactions of the Senate. They will not want to step on toes, this would be a political tool. It would put an unfair burden on the VP.
Maemura: how would this affect senate dynamic?
I don’t think this would divide the senate in any way. I know that Senator Lee wants to say the pledge, he just became a citizen. If anyone would like to they should have the opportunity.
Hsu: first I did not say the first amendment does not apply to students I did not mean that. I think it is a very crucial point to this bill. I generally agree with what the authors have to say.
Fatima: I respect Senator’s Lee’s sentiments with this. Other people may feel uncomfortable saying it with everyone else. You could be viewed as unpatriotic or un-American. It could come off that way, it’s just how it works. Do you not think it will make people uncomfortable?
I don’t think it will make people uncomfortable. If anyone had a question the senators are eloquent enough to discuss it. Anyone who runs under the scruitiny for office, they are under the spotlight…all of them are confident enough in their convictions and positions…everything is in the arena of politics, they could all explain why they didn’t do it.
Fatima: for example, there are some religions where you have vowed to not pledge to something else, Sergion brought it up. There are some people who won’t approach you to ask you about it, instead they just judge. There might be press in there who took a picture of some senators standing up and some sitting down. It’s not necessary to add more drama or politics into Senate. I would not feel comfortable pledging aliegance but it doesn’t mean I’m not patriotic
Given that it occurs at all levels, why the student governemnet won’t do it. Why is it at this level we need to protect people from being seen as patriotic or not? At every level of government higher than this, they do it. For people that would like to do it, why shouldn’t they be able to. You’re speaking in hypotheticals right now, but there are people right now on the senate table who want to. If we’re going to talk about hypothetical situations we need to go through a lot of the bylaws.
Fatima: I don’t agree with the speel on the hypotheticals. How are we supposed to talk about a bill thinking about hypotheticals.
I think there is going to be even more of a divide than there already is. There will be a group of people who say it and those who don’t
I see it as a different way, it will be an aliegence, it’s a unifiying thing of everyone who have already signed a form to work in government and better the lives of people. I don’t think it would become an issue or a political tool, they are not shy people. I would be offended if someone were to use it as a tool, and they would lose my vote.
Have you asked people if this was introduced if they would say the pledge?
I haven’t asked them all
I don’t think everyone would say it, I think college students think more progressively and would not say it.
Maemura: I see both sides, I was looking for a compromise. What about if we put it right before the call of order, so it would not actually be on record?
Would everyone just be around chatting, or would people be chatting? My concern would be that it would become a mockery. It would not be note taken.
Juarez: patriotism doesn’t have to be an act, by voluntarily reciting the pledge this act would show patriotism to those who want to showcase it…It’s your own right to feel patriotism or not, this act seems to do more harm than good.
I see where you’re coming from, but I think the context of where we are and where we live…it’s a tradition as a way to express it….its one of the shorter easier way to show it in an institutionalized way. We’re not in the US we’re not overseas…I don’t see this as becoming an issue, like with aggie headline etc. It’s an option for people to be able to say it if they want to or not. This is not going to be a witch hunt, it’ll be simple and procedural…it won’t be like “ed why didn’t you say that”…it’d reflect more poorly on those who accused people.
It may make people uncomfortable and people will have issue with it. This causes more problems than it would help
What about the flag being on the quad and making people uncomfortable?
That’s different
Fatima: You’re saying that we’re blowing it out of proportion, I think it’s blowing it out of proportion to say we want to hide the American flag outside. Thhis is an action, you don’t ask ten people to go put the flag out there, it’s the job of some employees….this action in senate meeting will make people feel uncomfortable, you haven’t even talked to many senators. I would feel more comfortable if you maybe did ask every senator…but honestly its not even the current senators…it would become very political. I’m not trying to say this as an attack, I can just see how this could become very political. I don’t see any reason to add anymore politics. I agree more with what Melanie said, I would love to see it before call to order or not there at all
I would agree with it being before the call to order, but I could see it being more explosive or devise if someone had not come into the room already
Fatima: it would become something that was always done say it would be at 6:05 every day
I feel like it is disrespectful by hiding it five minutes prior to the meeting. I would not be opposed to right before the call of order but people won’t get quiet, it could look even poorer. Like if you saw blah blah blah was talking during it…those people would be actually disrespecting it.
Hsu: I see both points, just out of curiosity does anyone know if their congress man or woman saying or not saying the pledge?? We were talking about if it would be a political thing or not, but if it were I would have expected to hear about it. If the call to order is what I understand it to be I would tend to agree with the authors that having it before might just exacerbate the issue…its not just saying it or not saying it, but now it could be talking through it…it might just become a more political and devise thing. One final thing about the international students, if we moved it before, it might give a worse impression…about international students if I went to some other country to study abroad if people were saying their nation and they were saying a pledge or singing a song, it would seem natural
This in unfathomable in the country I attended, they would find it atrocious. To be quite honest I’m not even sure how we’re considering this bill…its like reading the bible in high school…you don’t want to have to say it but you seem like you have to…its just divisive and unnecessary
I have studied abroad in Twaiian and they did things a little differently for them this would be perfectly reasonable…I think it depends on the particular country.
Juarez: besides the earlier points which I don’t think were addressed well, but its seems highly theoretical…you’ve questioned peoples characters or convictions
We can look in the minutes for that, I never said that
I would feel better if we could poll students and see how students feel or if they even want this put in
Cano: First I want to address a couple of things, as ASUCD students we pledge that we will defent the constitution, but we do not have to say the pledge. Its like at sports games where if everyone is doing it you will too….I want to bring a fact to life, people have had so much political attention to bringing the pledge to the government, it can be so bad that the government had to be disbanded and made later (Orange Coast College example). I agree with Fatima, people are going to feel uncomfortable to say the pledge…that’s a fact…a compromise would be to not even have it in the agenda
Maemura: deferments
Ed: something I’d like to propose is that a lot of folks have issues with the term under god as a manifestation of Christian ideals…are we not a publically funded institution that is funded by the state…we’re leaning along the lines of standardizing those lines of thinking…division of church and state, people would be seen as diverging from the norm
Maemura: imagine how much more contenious this would be at a Senate meeting.
The heart of this bill is that bc ASUCD is based on the federal governmental system that’s the reason we should do this…The public should have the opportunity to express their patriotism, their patriotism may not be with the pledge of aliegance.
Maemura: Are there any comprimises we can consider.
Daniel: we could talk about compromises if I can talk. First of all Germany, horrible example I imagine that is the only way it could work. We are open to compromises, I understand that for not everyone the pledge embodies patriotism…it’s one of the most instituitalized standardized way we could do that…I’m open to suggestions of other ways if we could incorporate it into the meetings. We didn’t choose the pledge bc of the under god statement, it just happens to be there, its just institutionalized. I don’t think we should not let a bill go to senate just bc it was devisive. The senate is elected to see these devisive issues.
Pascual: would anyone be opposed to a comprimise?
Renslo: I don’t know of a compromise, but I don’t think this bill will be passed without one.
Call Bill to Question:
Passing: Objection Cano
Roll Call Vote: 4-5-0 the bill fails
Senate Bill #Y:
Author’s Comments: essentially this bill is address the elections committee chair from resigining right before elections. This would prevent them from resiging if they want to run for senate
Questions in Text:
Hsu: line 6 delete the word any, add an s to the end of member
Public Discussion:
Pascual: this bill is very clear, this is what we do here in IAC it makes sense we shouldn’t have a conflict of interest, things can go badly…does anything want a deferemtnet bc I see nothing wrong with it
Maemura: I think for the language a timeline should be specified, like add in “for a current election”…”no active member”…add at the end add “while serving”…right now it’s ambiguous
Cano: they should be ineligible during their confirmed term…
Hsu: are we adding something or changing something? Change line 10 to enact
Commission discussion:
Maemura: I think we should say members serving are ineligible (remove the shall)
Cano: I don’t know while on the ASUCD electons committee…it doesn’t matter to me actually
Call to question
Objecton Hsu: change the and add members after committee on line 1
Call to question
Objection Maemura: do you want to add in term?
Call to question
Authoring? No objections
Senate Bill #X:
Author’s Comments: supposed to be the most non-controversial aspect of election reform
Questions in text
Hsu: add a period to the end of line 1, 77 decapitlize the word the, line 86-87 underline the sentence, nevermind then. Line 104 add a coma after affairs, line 209 this is a very trivial issue but there used to be a space before AM and PM, do you still want that space – Cano –yes…line 231 avoid gender pronouns. Line 323, all subsequent subsections. There seems to be an extra space on 279, and for the entire section 24 is the only thing amended the numbering? Cano – 277, 285…Hsu – oh nevermind. Line 386 add a space
Public Discussion:
Pascual: line 137, no ASUCD unit director can endorse a candidate…what does this mean?
Cano: it means that they can’t fill out the endorsement form, saying this person endorses this candidate. More will be addressed in other bills, the person’s actions constitute their endorsements
Pascual: why was the last elections reform bill vetoed?
Cano: becaue I removed certain sections…biggest problem was that it was written “at the discression of the elections committee” too many times
Pascual: are those sentiments reflected in this bill?
Cano: yes
Maemura: why did you strike 253-259
Cano: because that has to do with service hours and that doesn’t apply
Commission Discussion:
Pascual: this bill is very clear and well stated, I forgot again, your definition of endorse is actually putting your name down and signing that you endorse
Cano: yes, underline line 30-31…If you’re a director you should stay away from elections all together
Navorro: why did academic days get changed to working days?
Cano: working days allows more days depending on people’s schedule
Hsu: Line 133 should be section 411

(Renslo)