Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to order at approximately 7:36pm and directs Mr. Altman to take the attendance, and Mr. Altman takes the attendance.
Mr. Weinberg reminds everyone that it’s important that everyone shows up to senate meetings on time, especially when they are going to be short.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman takes the floor and thanks everyone for a great senate retreat last week. He tells that it important for everyone to be on the same page with USG’s philosophy for the year. Transparency is of the utmost important for this administration, particularly following the previous administration. He explains that we will do our best to work with the administration whenever possible, as opposed to against them. He tells that he is very excited about the coming semester and he hopes to see the initiatives get off the ground as quickly as possible.
Mr. Weinberg thanks Mr. Diemand-Yauman and turns the floor over to Mr. Kothari and Mrs. Taylor.
Mr. Kothari explains for new USG members how Projects Board gets it funding and what it uses it for. He explains that the money is used for groups who will directly benefit student life.
Mrs. Taylor then presents two groups seeking approval. There is a motion to approve all groups and a second, and all the groups are approved.
Mr. Weinberg thanks Mr. Kothari and Mrs. Taylor and calls the meeting to adjourn at approximately 8:10pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jack Altman
USG Executive SecretaryMr. Weinberg calls the meeting to order at approximately 7:33pm, and directs Mr. Altman to take attendance.
Mr. Altman tells that he cannot take attendance because he does not have the attendance sheet, and Mr. Weinberg proceeds to take attendance.
Mr. Weinberg tells that there must be executive session to confirm appointments. There must be a motion second and vote to go into executive session. There is a motion and a second. There is a vote of confirmation, and executive session commences.
Mr. Weinberg tells that in executive session, Jack was confirmed as Executive Secretary, Communications Direct Peter Tzeng, Brian Jeong as student groups liaison, Mike Yaro for IT chair, Kelley and Shawn are new Projects board chairs (everyone applaudes).
Shawn says there were a lot of events this week. They funded the Hong Kong event in Wu Café for 350, 185 for Princeton Animal Welfare society will have a project called meet your meet, it will be by frist, the total amount was 327, half form projects board, half from ODUS (163.5 from each). The Princeton entrepreneurship tiger launch project will have their final event this Saturday. This was 950, 475 from each. Princeton Slow Food had an event with 15 students going to a chef’s house to learn how to cook 200 dollars from each. Princeton water watch has a private film screening on Friday, 80 dollars total, 40 from each – the DVD will be donated to the USG film collection. Wran was shown, this cost 207 dollars, which came from the res col fund. The Chicano caucus will have an Easter egg hunt, for this was 805 dollars half from each. Students in free enterprise will be having a flea market with local vendors (yesterday) they are raising funds against Muscular dystrophy. Wine tasters event and taste of champaigne, this was a total cost of $350 from the res col fund. Amnesty international will have an event of 180 from each ODUS and projects board for 360 total.
Mr. Weinberg says he will take attendance since he did not send Mr. Altman does not have the correct list.
Mr. Altman says he could, but it would be better if Mr. Weinberg did.
Mr. Weinberg proceeds to take attendance.
There is a motion and second to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting is adjourned at 8:11pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jack Altman
USG Executive Secretary
Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to order at approximately 5:02pm and directs Mr. Altman to take attendance.
Mr. Altman proceeds to take attendance. As he does, Mr. Yaro explains the new attendance system using google docs. He tells that there will be color coding and percentage-keeping based on attendance at meetings. The system uses present, absent, and excused.
Mr. Weinberg tells that today we will announces the committees for the various work-groups that we have decided on.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman tells that he has spent a lot of time on the work-groups, and presents them as a google doc. He says that he wanted to use google docs because it is very easy to understand and very visible for everyone. He explains that it will help to ensure accountability for everyone.
Mr. Levy asks what “e” means, and Mr. Diemand-Yauman replies that it means the absence is excused.
Mr. Yaro tells that the google doc will allow you to take notes on why the absence exists.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman asks Mr. Yaro to bring up the document for the workgroups. He shows the top initiatives, and who is on each of the various groups. For each workgroup, there is one point-person, whose job it is to update the google doc. Each point-person will take notes at each meeting, and he will take notes directly to the google document. He clarifies that the google document is secondary to results – it is important, but it is merely a tool to facilitate results. Certain groups will have a group liaison, whose job will be to be the representative on ex-com. Mr. Diemand-Yauman reiterates that there are no chairs for these groups – all actions are collaborative. Groups with an ex-com member on the group will not have their own liaison. He tells that he will update point-people with updates, thoughts, and contacts they should look to. He explains that some of these initiatives may be incredibly tough, and it’s possible that the work-group will end within the week. For example, it is possible that groups like gender-neutral housing will not be feasible.
Mr. White hat asks if he can join other groups.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman tells that while you can, it is best to focus efforts. He then turns attention over to Mr. Yaro.
Mr. Yaro then takes over and begins to discuss the new domain name for USG for 2009. He explains that there is now webmail for everyone using gmail’s interface. This can be found at mail.usg2009.com. He tells that he is logged in as “Jack”, and will presently log out. He logs in as a new person, and Ms. Jacobson volunteers herself. Mr. Yaro tells that everyone’s password is currently “usg”, but that this should be changed to something more secure.
Ms. Diemand-Yauman clarifies that this will be used primarily to access the spreadsheet, rather than to use email.
Ms. Purple scarf asks if this is a year-long set up or something more permanent.
Mr. Yaro tells that as of now it is simply for this year. He tells that he will email out a link to this page for everyone, and proceeds to send out the email. He recommends that this link be added to bookmarks.
Mr. treasure asks if you can just pull it up on documents.
Ms. Liz asks if all USG emails will be fed through this account.
Mr. Yaro tells that this is not the case, it is simply there should it be wanted.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman re-emphasizes that this is mainly for the spreadsheets.
Mr. Yaro asks that no one vandalize the site. He explains how you can take attendance, turning attention to the paper he handed out to everyone with a screen shot.
Ms. Liz asks how to take attendance when meetings are not for the entire senate.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman explains that each workgroup will have its own attendance sheet. Additionally, excom and U-council will have attendance sheets.
Mr. Yaro tells that all changes on the google doc are saved immediately and automatically, so you do not have worry about it. He asks that people please do not fiddle with any of the colors on the spreadsheets.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman says that he hopes everyone will religiously check and update these spreadsheets. He says this is helpful because it will allow him and ex-com to easily see what has happened and what has been planned. He then goes on to discuss that he wants groups to give at least one “periodic update” that gives a general overview of where the group is at. This could be done roughly once per week. He tells that ideally the ex-com liaison will tell him and he will give some sort of feed back and play the canary in the cage.
Mr. Levy asks if the google doc will say who has posted the comment.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman says that you can simply sign your comments. He tells that he wants each group to come up with some sort of mission statement, explaining concisely what the precise objective of the group is. He then asks for questions, begging everyone to ask questions.
Mr. Yaro tells that the coolest thing about google docs is that all changes are instantaneous, and gives a brief demonstration of this brevity. He says that this is very snazzy.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman says he will try to get all of the emails out to each working group. He encourages everyone to get into gear.
Mr. Lund asks who establishes the first meeting.
Mr. Diemand Yauman confirms that this should be done by the point-person.
Mr. Weinberg motions to adjourn, there is a second and the meeting is adjourned at approximately 5:22pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jack Altman
USG Executive Secretary
Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to order at approximately 7:35pm and instructs Mr. Altman to take attendance.
Mr. Altman proceeds to take attendance.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman tells that the IT committee has made the USG Independents Room Draw Information Swap. This was based on information from independent students who were interested in drawing into Spellman, but did not know who they could room with. The system will be sent out soon. Additionally, there will be a new academic calendar survey sent out, which we hope to get great data from and will help us with reforming the system. He thanks everyone for all the work that has been done recently, especially for all the hard work with the google docs.
Mr. Weinberg moves to the next item on the agenda, the ethics code. He tells that there are two different versions, and one that we can sign. He opens up the discussion and tells that he will call on people who show hands.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman tells that we must keep the discussion relevantly.
Mr. Candelaria argues that it is necessary to allow the president to endorse candidates because he has a specific knowledge of the system. Denying students of the ability to hear the president’s endorsement does not deny the students of any information. He notes that when there are affiliations, there is damage to the civic culture of the organization. He feels that the information given to students from the president is strongly over-ridden by the intense damage that can be done from seeing affiliation-based political endorsements.
Ms. Chism feels that it should be kept the way it is – when students see that the president is endorsing someone, they will take this opinion extremely seriously, since the president has been elected to speak on behalf of the student body. People have trouble separating the president as an indiviau
Mr. Wang speaks, saying that the president is seen as a figurehead of the organization, so in order to prevent misinterpretations, the president should not be allowed to endorse candidates.
Ms. Christina speaks, saying that the voter is not given enough credit, saying that students will not be quite so influence by the opinion of the president. It seems unrealistic to run our student government so differently than the real government. There should be more faith given to the student body to be allowed to know the opinion of the president. Assuming that the president qualifies his opinion, he does not feel that there is anything wrong with that.
Mr. Candelaria counters that the benefit then that students get from knowing this information then disappears even farther. He then asserts that politicians do not endorse candidates within a party until they can stand together as a unified party. While he appreciates the free-speech argument, he does not feel that it is the most important issue in this case.
Ms. Huddleston explains that some harm may be done thinking of USG as a government, since we do not have any actual power outside of our influence. It is better to think of USG like any club on campus that aims to improve students’ lives. This could lead to a divisive nature.
Mr. Schiff states that his biggest problem right now is that the status quo has not been a problem for many years. He claims that the problem in the last year was much more complicated than this, but he does not want to go into it. Voters do not know what happens in these meetings, and he feels that the president is really the only one who knows who will be best for the job at the end of the day. He knows the people in this group. He asks what would happen if we moved towards a system where no one in USG could endorse candidates. He explains that it should be the case that the connection of the endorsement should be explained but that we should not take away.
Ms. Salciciolli tells that this issue only pertains to Connor, as opposed to all of us. She explains that we should all sign the one we like, and since Connor has already vowed not to endorse anyone, maybe we don’t need to come to consensus.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman tells that for him it really does not make any difference, because he will not endorse candidates no matter what the candidate decides. He hopes that this will set a precedent for future precedents.
Ms. Salciciolli says that maybe we should just leave it alone.
Mr. Schiff says that then we should not address the issue.
Dean Dunne tells that this issue comes up very rarely. In the past, this group plays an important role when there must be weigh-in on a candidate for re-election, so USG members did not endorse candidates. He does not recall an issue ever coming up before this past election, and he says that there has always been an unwritten understanding. This is not to say people didn’t have opinions, they just felt it was not their role to endorse someone in any type of official capacity. This normally pertained to class officers, since they were not present in many of the workings of USG.
Mr. Candelaria agrees in theory with Ms. Salciciolli, but warns that we should not just continue to push it off. One of the things he is pushing for on the reform-committee is making a constitutional amendment. He claims that we can no longer trust the presidents to stay silent in regard to political endorsements.
Mr. Levy clarifies that the version without the precedent is old, and Mr. Wang clarifies that there is a very old one, which is another reason to vote for the one with the precedent (jokingly).
Mr. Weinberg tells that the consensus is that we will all sign the version without the ban on presidential endorsements, and that we will readdress the issue when we come to constitutional reform. He asks to clarify what are we voting on between signing it or tabling the issue.
Mr. Levy says that there will be strong opinions on each side.
Mr. Candelaria says that members have the prerogative to sign or not sign.
Ms. Rosen says that she would prefer to sign the longer document, but crossing out the sentence that bans the president from endorsing.
Mr. Levy motions to pass the longer code, and Mr. Weinberg counts the votes. There are 12 for, 8 against, and 1 abstains. He asks if it should be passed around for signing.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman tells that at this point, almost everyone is on board to sign at least the document with the clause crossed out, with the understanding that he will not endorse anyone, and that this can be addressed later by the reform committee.
Mr. Weinberg tells that the next item on the agenda is the budget.
Mr. Martin explains that there have been a few changes to the budget since last time. He passes around the updated budget, and explains that there is a USG budget 2009 folder that has detailed information about the budget. If there are any questions about the budget, this folder should be referred to. Also, since the social budget is the largest item, Ms. Jacobson has laid out the budget for that. There are a set of outlines included for how things should be paid for within USG, such as keeping receipts and leaving messages in in-voices for reimbursements.
Mr. Levy asks where the Liz Duffy fund has gone.
Mr. Martin tells that $750 has been given every year, but they only need it once every other semester, not every semester. This will be a spring budget item.
Ms. Chism asks why we are doubling communiversity but so much less for the activities fair.
Mr. Martin replies that will all be allocated over the course of the year, and split half and half over the semester. The $500 for Activities fair is a working budget for small costs. He tells that Meet the Candidates has gone down by $200 since it had such low attendance.
Mr. Levy motions to approve the budget; there is a second, and a unanimous vote to approve. There are no oppositions or abstentions, and the budget passes. He thanks Mr. Martin.
Mr. Candelaria prefaces before he begins the presentation on professor accountability that he has not been working hard in the last week because of his thesis.
Ms. Kate and Mr. Wang explain that the current problem is that students often do not get the quality of feedback they should get on their written work. The point of this group is find initiatives to increase professor accountability. One possible idea they thought of was a minimum word count based on the length and complexity of the paper. There is also an idea to find examples of good and bad comments on written work. Students should review and evaluate professors after receiving comments on JPs and Thesis. Post-emptively, when students are unhappy with their written feedback, what should be done? Maybe there is a way to tie this in with anonymous course comments. One possible issue is that it could potentially hurt the student’s relationship with professors in their apartment. The group hopes to draft a written proposal, and then meet with Dean Malkiel. Mr. Wang opens it up for comments and questions.
Ms. Salcicolli tells that maybe there does not need to be a post-emptive social channel, since professor will certainly give more feedback when pressed.
Mr. Levy agrees that emptive measures are more important, so that students do
not have to jump through the hoops of talking with their professors.
Ms. Kaplan claims that students are very rushed at the end of the semester, but she feels that it does certainly add to the academic experience to get the work back. She adds that if you get your work back and are unsatisfied, there does not need to be an overly-formal channel, but that professors should be encouraged to have post-semester office hours.
Ms. Rosen agrees that there should be required returning of finals, and tell that she has had seminars with professors where she was unable to get exams back. She feel it will be difficult to execute a restriction on good/bad comments because who will judge. Also, word counts should be general, not actual restriction, to avoid superficial fluff in the responses.
Mr. Lund says that there is already a requirement to return final exams, and
they must hold on to the exams for a minimum of three years before they throw
them away. He is interested to see how a minimum word count could be
implemented, and that Dean Malkiel would be very hesitant about that. He does
not know what form this could be suggested in.
Ms. Huddleston tells that we are, in a sense, customers or clients. As such, we have a minimum level of performance that we should be able to expect.
Mr. Lund and Ms. Rosen feel that this is not a good route to take with Dean Malkiel.
Mr. No asks how it should be suggested, if not through Dean Malkiel.
Mr. Martin wants further clarification about the current system of comments.
Ms. Huddleston tells that currently there is an anonymous system on Point, and that it goes to the professor without anyone knowing who wrote it. Mr. Wang says that comments can be specific or general. Ms. Kate tells that it seems like it is sometimes difficult to get constructive feedback from some professors and it possible that students will want another set of eyes reading their JP in such a case.
Mr. Morris has a direct response – we do not want to form a system where students become dissatisfied with their grades and look for a second opinion. Mr. Candelaria agrees. Mr. Morris does not want it to be misinterpreted as students get a second shot at grades.
Ms. Christina says that the important thing for her is to have backing from the university. She feels that there is currently no accountability for professors, who get bad feedback semester after semester and nothing changes. She cites an example from her experience. She feels that the administration does not respond to these comments.
Ms. Salciciolli says that these comments are read over before staff members are granted tenure.
Mr. Schiff says that although there is room for improvement in professor accountability, the best way to do this is not through written comments. He does not think that formal rules on something as abstract as comment does not make sense, students can push harder when they are looking for more comments.
Ms. Kaplan says that one of her problems is that she is sometimes unable to read the comments on her papers. A lot of professors have really sloppy handwriting. She feels that students would read the comments more if professors’ writing is too sloppy.
Ms. Christina says that maybe comments should be typed, because this will lead to greater thought into responses.
Ms. Rosen says that department heads should be more involved.
Ms. Kaplan says this would be a big burden on the department head.
Mr. No claims that there is already a lot of pressure on department heads.
Ms. Chism says there should be a way that professors have more office hours at the end of semesters, so that students can give sufficient responses to their papers. She tells that one professor had office hours, but they were all taken-up by other students. Students should be aware that professors are responsible.
There is a motion and second to extend for two minutes on the issue, and the motion passes.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman says that the presentation was great. He tells that he agrees
with Mr. Schiff to an extension, but says that we must cultivate an environment
where students get the most out of the academic experience as possible. He also
explains that this is an established problem, that administrators do want help
with and will be receptive too.
Mr. Levy wants everyone to be careful with the tone of our arguments – we should not make professors type up notes. We must go to professors in an appropriate way.
Mr. Morris explains that we can still use course evaluations to give feedback on written work, and that this should be encouraged.
Ms. Salciciolli says that the fact that we should have a way to officially evaluate professors after the final papers.
Mr. Lund tells that evaluations take place mid-term to avoid bias.
Mr. Weinberg tells that for the last five minutes or so, other work-groups can now ask questions to the senate. He says that for the shoestring group, they should email ideas to him. Also, the regular time of ExComm meetings will be posted soon. Email him if you want to know when it is.
Mr. Yaro
tells that the website is being worked on with the IT committee, and shows the
new design to everyone. The main shift is that this is not Connor’s website or
his website, but rather everyone’s website. His main point is that this website
is for all the members of USG. People can use the site as a tool to say what
they want. Also, point people will be asked to give a mission statement, which
he will ask people for later. Also, he tells that the minutes will be put
directly onto this website. Parts of the website are under construction, but it
will be operational within the week and improved constantly. This is so there
is no longer of website.
Ms. Rosen motions to adjourn, there is a second and the meeting is adjourned at
8:33pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jack Altman
USG Executive Secretary
Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to order at approximately 7:33pm and directs Mr. Altman to take the attendance.
Mr. Altman proceeds to take the attendance.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman welcomes the director of campus life initiatives and director of facilities. He tells that Chad and Amy met with him and Arthur and they decided to present. Also, there are members
from VSAC, the varsity student athlete committee. Athletes comprise roughly 20% of the student body, and it is important that they are represented and get a chance to voice their opinions.
Mr. Weinberg invites Mr. Klaus and Ms. Campbell to present.
Mr. Klaus begins the presentation on P2 , pre-princeton. He tells that Princeton brings students back to school much later than other institutions, for a variety of reasons. Ms. Campbell tells that there is a bit of an anomaly for the upcoming year, and we will be starting classes on September 17th, instead of September 11. Non-preapproved students will be allowed to come a day earlier, the Saturday before classes. This is the latest start day we would ever have, but it is a function of Labor Day’s late date. Mr. Klaus tells that Princeton gains a fair amount of revenue over the summer by renting out dorms to various hosted events. These events normally go up through mid-august. Ms. Campbell highlights that a lot of things are different over the summer, such as the absence of public safety and deactivated proxes. We know that students are on campus, but we do not know where they are, so in the event of disasters, we do not know where students are. The Housing Office has become the gatekeeper, but they are a service provider so this is not appropriate. The number of incidents of alcohol violations inclines steadily during august, and peaks just after Labor Day. It is estimated that 80% of the student body returns to campus early, although just 50-60% are there legitimately, and the University does not have the infrastructure to support this. Winter Break is another time with similar problems. Just before school starts, there are just 700 students spread out over a campus with a capacity of 5,000 students, so it is possible that’s a few students occupy a given building. Also, it is noteworthy that the football team has comingled themselves in one building when they are on campus with 150 students.
Ms. Salcicolli if any of these numbers are cross-listed, so that the numbers are not perfectly accurate.
Mr. Klaus responds that this is possible, and we just have numbers without a specified database. Ms. Campbell tells that there will be a pilot program that will create criteria for the approval process, early return groups, exception policy, implementation process, and the roll-out process. The plan is to co-mingle teams and groups that come early, so they will be grouped together, and unused buildings will not be accessible. It will be unacceptable to have friends lodge in rooms, and room will be required to be room-ready when students vacate them. There will be parking permits for a fee during the summer in lot 21. The pilot program will also include an online registration process, and an early arrival database.
Ms. Rosen asks if the designations will be for entire periods or smaller chunks of time.
Ms. Campbell responds that students will simply indicate the dates they wish to be on campus.
Mr. Lund asks how this will be enforceable.
Mr. Klaus tells that turning off proxes is the most efficient way to do this. Amy tells that residential colleges will be asked to control their space better. They have found that students will randomly sleep in common spaces over breaks. The common spaces will be available to students certainly over winter break. Maybe less over the summer, but by September 12th the spaces will be open to everyone. Some unresolved details include the database, the winter registration process, the approval and exemption process, contracts, move around logistics, the communication process, and 2010-11 planning. This plan is geared around University savings, building sustainability, and campus security. Chad asks us to think of what would be the best possible way to get the word out that students really need to wait for their approved date to come back to campus.
Ms. Salcicolli asks if roommates can come back if their roommate is on campus.
Mr. Klaus responds that we are thinking about this as a time that we are truly out of session, so we want to limit this.
Ms. Rosen suggests that we should meet with RCAs, who can let their advisees what the deal is.
Ms. Kaplan suggests that students should be informed earlier on in the summer.
Mr. Candelaria explains that an alternative to the co-mingling idea might be allowing students to simply let themselves go into their rooms who is pre-approved.
Ms. Campbell tells that the August co-mingling will allow other dorms to be closed for work and cleaning, since once anyone is in a building, that building is essentially off-line. The benefit realized by
football co-mingling was the inspiration for this.
Ms. Taylor asks how to enforce keeping roommates out of rooms with athletes.
Mr. No says that it seems silly to try to stop students with roommates.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman says that of course the system could be cheated like any system, but turning off proxes will disincentive students from coming back early with no purpose.
Mr. Weinberg then takes the floor, and thanks them for their presentation, and welcomes the VSAC group.
Ms. Henritze explains that all campuses have this type of group. This is a layer of student representation in the purely athletic sphere. There are 38 varsity sports at princeton, and they were recently named the 13th most successful sports program, which is particularly impressive considering the small size and lack of scholarships. From here on out there will be one representative that will be at every Senate Meeting.
Ms. Sequira tells that she is a member of the women’s squash team. She says that she has had great support and a lot of recognition as national champions.
Mr. Kelly tells that he is a junior on the football team. He tells that it is tough to balance the huge time commitment of football, but he explains that as he gets older it is easier. However, it truly is a year-round commitment, and he really appreciates student support.
Ms. Cape is a junior on the field hockey team, and she has loved being a student athlete, but it is a massive time commitment, in and out of season. She explains that it is great to have support of the student body and the faculty. It has been great in the past few years to see the school make efforts to mitigate negative stereotypes about student-athletes.
Mr. Jordan runs track and field, and explains that as a mid-distance runner, his commitment is truly year round. This can be extremely mentally draining and repetitive, and so he said scheduling would be very important to him.
Ms. Henritze explains that it is great for student athletes that no classes can take place between 4:30 and 7:30pm. There are still policies like food and housing that are of extreme interest to student-athletes.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman asks what besides scheduling is of particular interest to student athletes.
Ms. Henritze responds that there are negative stereotypes that apply to the student-athlete population.
Mr. Lund asks whether they believe that the school should have a role in rallying student support.
Ms. Henritze explains that of course this would be ideal, and if the USG can get buses to games, that is more effective than eating clubs which can only take a small number of students.
Ms. Rosen asks how VSAC deals with inequities in terms of the support that various sports programs get.
Ms. Henritze responds that this year Princeton went through a very comprehensive NCAA certification. One of the questions that came up with athletic directors is the difference between male and female sports, and big and little sports. One of the reasons that Princeton is able to have so many different teams is because the teams are not funded by the University; they are funded by alumni funds. University support is fairly even across the board.
Ms. Cape tells that she knows that as a female field hockey player, she understand that she will not have fan support the same way the football team does.
Dean Dunne tells that he sat on the NCAA certification committee, which was incredibly exhausted. He thought the interest the NCAA took in integrating the student-athlete experience was noteworthy. It was good to see the priority they place on the on-campus involvement of student-athletes. He says that he does not know of many student athletes who participate in USG, mostly because of the time commitments.
Ms. Henritze explains that strictly as varsity athletes, there is a charity that teams work together to raise for community houses. This has been a strong point of pride of involvement of student athletes.
Ms. Cape tells there is a move through PVC to use Communiversity to help underprivileged students around the area. There will be a construction project in the Trenton area headed by student athletes.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman thanks the members and hopes this will be a productive collaboration.
Mr. Weinberg tells that there will be a presentation by one of the working groups.
There is a motion and a second to go into executive session with appointed members and Dean Dunne.
Open meeting is resumed at 8:44pm.
Ms. Taylor begins the presentation on the project board, telling that now they will only ask for approval about things over $1,000. She tells that she wants to give $4,000 of projects board funding and $2,500 of other funds, and $15,000 from AI. She tells that shirts are $13,000, pizza is $4,000, balls are $500, prizes are $3,750.
Dean Dunne tells that there is no room to trim the budget. He explains that it is important to get feedback about this, because so many students participate. It will be on a Saturday this year.
Ms. Taylor tells that the Asian Night Market event is one of the other most expensive and popular of the event, and it is about a quarter as popular as dodgeball.
Mr. No says no real students go to this, and Mr. Tzeng responds that he loves to go.
There is a motion and a second to approve project board funding of $4,000. There are 19 for and 0 apposed.
There is a motion and a second to adjourn at approximately 8:50pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Altman
USG Executive Secretary
Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to order at approximately 4:04pm and directs Mr. Altman to take the attendance.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman opens the meeting explaining that he’s tired and cannot feel his face. He tells that Excom met and we will be having focused working groups and the list has been made but it still subject to change. We want people to be working on projects that they are interested in and feel good about.
Mr. Weinber then instructs Mr. Yaro to jump into his presentation on elections.
Mr. Yaro takes the floor and begins his presentation of Helios Secure Online Voting. He explains the long and complicated path that lead to his decision to employ Helios for the elections packet.
Mr. Weinberg commends Mr. Yaro on this mammoth undertaking, and everyone gives Mr. Yaro a round of applause.
Mr. Weinberg tells that next week there will be some administrators coming the meeting for the purpose of discussing the topic of emergency response on campus. He asks if there is a motion to adjourn, there is a motion and a second and the meeting is adjourned at approximately 4:43pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Altman
USG Executive Secretary
Mr. Weinberg calls the meting to order at approximately 7:32pm and directs Mr. Altman to take role, and Mr. Altman takes the attendance.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman opens up the floor explaining how many students have questions dealing with emergency response, and introduces a number of administrators who will be giving a presentation/discussion.
Mrs. Williams begins by introducing herself as the Executive Vice President, and she was a criminal prosecutor in New York for 12 years before. She also manages our external relations with police in the country. Before turning the floor to deputy chief Duvall, she explains that it is important to remember that safety and security is really about every different constituency on campus, ranging from students locking their doors to campus-wide task forces.
Mr. Duvall begins talking, explaining that he has been here for about 4 years as the deputy chief, after his 25-year career in a police department. With public safety, he in charge of patrol, communications, policies and procedures,
Mr. Harrison takes the floor, an associated director with public safety. His responsibilities include special events like athletic events and lectures that need security, the annual security report, training, and equipment and vehicles.
Mr. Walters takes the floor, and he has been with the University for 33 years. He notes that safety is a concern of public safety day in and day out, not just for emergency response. There are a lot of departments involved in making sure that we have an overall safe campus, ranging from construction safety, pedestrian safety, campus lighting, bike safety, fire safety, theater safety, and large-event safety.
Mr. Kinsey explains that he works in the office of the executive vice president, where he works as a liason with USG and GSG and the office of the EVP.
Mr. Duvall takes the floor, giving a broad overview of campus safety. Most of their action is service, not protection. About 20 of the 60 officers are sworn officers with full rights to arrest. They investigate University code of conduct, which is their primary function. The public safety officers answer to Mercer County, but more importantly to the code of conduct of the school. Princeton is a pretty safe campus with an incredibly low crime rate. Last year there were 40,000 service events, 58 burglaries (which are just people walking into unlocked doors, not forced entry), 5 aggravated assaults, 218 thefts (mostly bicycles), 18 forced sexual assaults (largely acquaintance sexual assaults with alcohol involved, not someone jumping out of bushes and attacking someone). There can be a tough spot with regard to confidentiality of victims who want to keep these events secret, even though the burrow PD expects public safety to report these incidents. Public safety also keeps a daily crime log, that can be found on their website.
Mr. Walters takes the floor and begins to talk about the EPTF (Emergency Protection Task Force). This task force is made up of a number of departments that convene to respond quickly and effectively to emergency situations. The bottom line is that most of this is transparent to students, but we should be assured that there are a lot of people involved in making sure that the campus stays safe.
Mr. Harrison tells that there is a requirement for all campuses to report their crime rates. One specialized type of security that has been needed was for a student who wrote an offensive cartoon and needed protection. They also make sure events are safe such as races, sporting events, lectures.
Mr. Weinberg then opens up the floor for senate members to ask questions.
Mr. No asks about who should we call in an emergency, public safety or 911? Mr. Harrison says that all students should program 609-258-1000 into their phones. Mr. Duvall clarifies that when you dial 258-3333, it equals 911 but it’s already directed to public safety, calling 911 may make it take more time. In an emergency, students should call 258-3333.
Mr. Duvall then answers a question about weapon reports on campus. He explains that there is a significant difference between a gun being fired and a potentially credible report. But still, the response is very quick no matter what. When shots are fired, local police will need to be brought in because public safety is unarmed.
Mr. Greenbaum asks who has the authority and how do they decide when to send out a message to campus.
Mr. Duvall responds that last spring the first incident took about 76 minutes to send a message to the students after the first report was given. He says that in retrospect, they realize that this wasn’t quick enough. The second report was 21 minutes, the third report was 13 minutes. Also, they are hesitant to send out too many of these messages.
Mr. Walters piggy backs that public safety is dealing with not credible, incomplete information, so it is a very difficult position, and they want to be sure they do not press the button to alert students too often.
Mr. Kinsey clarifies that during the 76 minutes, it is not as though nothing was being done. On the contrary, public safety was there within a minute of the dispatch and burrow police was at the scene within three minutes of the call.
Mr. Duvall says that is a very good point – a lot of stuff is happening this entire time.
Mrs. Williams adds that buildings have bomb threats all the time, and these are analyzed for credibility, so public safety to be as quick as it is is a very conservative policy.
The administrators discuss how even theater productions are told to be careful about the usage and transportation of weapon props around campus.
Mr. Weinberg asks for a motion to extend time, and there is a motion and a second to extend for 10 minutes.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman asks how the landscape of the relationship with the burrow and public safety has changed over the past decade.
Mr. Duvall responds that the burrow is as fearful as public safety is of a student dying from dangerous drinking, and the difference is that they have the law as a tool of theirs. Mr. Walters notes that about 1800 college students have alcohol related deaths every year, making this a much bigger threat than shootings.
Mr. Ackerman brings up the 911-amnesty law, and asks what is the University’s policy about this.
Mr. Harrison explains that there is no discipline attached to simply being intoxicated. Mrs. Williams clarifies that this has to do with how people are prosecuted for consuming alcohol. At this point, there are preconditions for what to do to be granted amnesty. The main reason no one has died on campus is because people called for help. Princeton students are expected to call for help, and when calling for help students will be protected by the University.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman thanks the administrators for coming in, telling that it was very helpful and informative. There will be a survey released later this week that will attempt to address a lot of these issues.
Mr. Weinberg instructs Mr. Jeong to give the SGRC report.
Mr. Jeong talks about a number of groups that want to become officially recognized as groups. Some of these include a bee-keeping club, a rubik’s cube club, and an alternative energy club. He tells that in order to become an official group, they have to apply online and explain their organizational structure, making sure it can continue after they leave. They must also explain what type of events they expect to have. There is a motion, second, and vote to approve all the groups.
Mr. Martin takes the floor and gives a presentation about constitutional reform. He discusses how succession will go in the event of vacancies, expenditures, pet projects, referenda, and pet projects.
Mr. Tzeng talks about the Air Your Grievances table, explaining that every person on the senate is responsible for taking two one-hour shifts each semester from 8-10pm on Mondays in Frist. Mr. Diemand-Yauman stressed the importance of seeming approachable because we don’t want people just quietly sitting at a table.
Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to adjourn at approximately 9:02pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Altman
USG Executive Secretary
Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to order at approximately 7:35pm and directs Mr. Altman to take the attendance. He proceeds to take the attendance.
Mr. Weinberg tell that this will be a short meeting, and Mr. Diemand-Yauman introduces his friend from high school who worked on student government with him in high school. He tells that the survey that has just gone out will be live for about a week. He updates that the task force had its first meeting last week, and all of the members are very satisfactory. He emphasizes that it is very important for everyone to make it out to the town hall meeting tomorrow evening – we want students there to show our support, and we are asking that each senate member go and bring three friends.
Mr. Weinberg tells that Peter Dunbar, the Honor Committee chair, will be presenting about the constitution and proposing an amendment.
Mr. Dunbar takes the floor. He says there is not a change in the spirit of the honor code, but rather a small change that will improve the efficacy of the honor code. He passes around a sheet to everyone that shows the proposed change, which entails removing the three alternates from the honor committee, and instead having twelve full honor committee members. He explains that this change could happen with either a petition with 200 signatures or through a committee vote, and that this happened through a committee vote. He reiterates that this will not be a change in the integrity of the honor committee, but simply that it will help them do their job more efficiently. There is a vote, and the amendment is passed with none opposed.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman introduces the ethics document, telling it is important to sign the document so we can have a formalized way to behave.
Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to adjourn at approximately 7:51pm, and the meeting is adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Altman
USG Executive Secretary
Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to order at approximately 7:33pm and directs Mr. Altman to take the attendance. Mr. Altman proceeds to take the attendance.
Mr. Diemand-Yauman welcomes everyone back and tells that we will talk about the Emergency Response Survey which was administered a couple weeks ago. The data has been analyzed and there will be a press release early next week.
Mr. Yaroschevsky tells that for the 2013 election the vice president is Gabrielle Colt.
Mr. Weinberg directs Mr. Martin to give a presentation on constitutional reform.
Mr. Martin tells that he has come up with a new revised constitution based on what we all discussed. The new constitution is 16 pages long, a full page longer than the last one. Mr. Martin then proceeds to discuss the changes he has made. There is extensive discussion pertaining to how to approve the reappointment of a new vice president in the case that a president must step down and be replaced by the vice president. Also discussed are the approval of project board grants and appointments to the u-council executive committee.
Mr. Weinberg tells that we have run out of time, but there is a motion and a second to extend for 15 more minutes.
Mr. Martin continues with his presentation, now discussing whether or not the code of ethics should be incorporated into the constitution. There is discussion that we do not need the freshman-sophomore council. He tells that the last important item is about referenda and the problem of whether they must be “actionable, non-frivolous items”. Instead, we should say the senate can remove referenda from the ballot with a 5/6ths vote.
Mr. Weinberg then turns the floor over to Mr. Yaroschevsky for a presentation on elections.
Mr. Yaroschevsky passes around some handbooks for elections managers that he created. With all of the things that have to happen for elections to go right, its not surprising that we’ve had a lot of problems in the past. He encourages everyone to read it over and give him feedback.
Mr. Weinberg asks for a motion to make the elections reforms that Mr. Yaroschevsky proposed. There is a motion, a second, and a there is a vote of approval.
Mr. Weinberg turns the floor over to Ms. Kaplan and Mr. No, who discuss the sustainability pledge. Ms. Kaplan tells that they have been working on the pledge for a while, and that so far people seem to like it. They ask that senate members look through it and send them their feedback.
Mr. Weinberg calls the meeting to adjourn at approximately 9:01pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Altman
USG Executive Secretary