General Body Meeting

2/26/17

9:00PM, Benjamin Franklin Room, Houston Hall

  1. Roll Call
  2. Open Forum
  3. Executive Reports
  1. President’s Report
  1. Administrator Meetings
  1. SRFS
  2. Upcoming: Business Services and NSO
  1. Exit Guides
  1. Vice-President’s Report
  1. Past UA Steering
  2. Past University Council
  3. UA Steering Schedule
  1. UA Report
  1. Membership Update
  2. Member of the Week
  1. Treasurer’s Report
  2. Secretary’s Report
  1. Airport Shuttles
  2. Annual Report
  1. Executive Business
  1. Annual Budget Confirmation
  2. NEC Vice Chair for Elections Report: FPC Updates
  3. University Council Appointment Process Confirmation
  4. Bylaw Amendment: Reducing Minimum Number of Presidential Debates
  5. GBM Structure Discussion Paper
  1. Academic Initiatives
  2. Dining, Sustainability and Facilities
  1. Completion Reports
  1. Dining Guide Edits
  1. Social Justice
  1. Project Updates
  1. Advisory Board for Career Services
  1. Completion Reports
  1. Table Talk: Beyond the Ban
  1. Student Life
  1. Project Updates
  1. Mental Health Social Media Campaign
  1. External Seats
  1. Residential Services Advisory Board Meeting
  2. Penn Violence Prevention Student Advisory Group Meeting
  3. Task Force on a Safe and Responsible Campus Community Town Hall
  1. Communications

Reports


President’s Report

  1. Administrator Meetings
  1. Student Registration and Financial Services

Last week members of Cabinet met with senior administrators from SRFS. We discussed Penn’s policy on outside scholarships, whether or not SRFS can offer aided students off-campus housing assistance on an accelerated timeline in order to accommodate their needs, expanding the student line of credit, and SRFS initiatives. Penn is working with financial aid offices across the Ivies to evaluate its external scholarship policy, which currently has a student’s summer savings contribution reduced first, followed by their work-study grant and then parent contribution. SRFS needs more data before they can make any changes to this policy, but they are receptive to the fact that students are unsatisfied. They are going to reach out to offices across campus to request that any jobs they post be listed as work-study and non-work-study whenever possible so that students who lose their work-study grants are still able to find work.

b.     Upcoming

  1. Business Services: 3/15
  2. New Student Orientation: 3/20 
  1. Exit Guides
  1. This week in committee meetings directors are going to ask members to create exit guides for each active project. The intention of the guide is to give you all a mechanism to evaluate the status of your projects as the session wraps up. The guide should be written so that if someone who has never been on the UA before were to take over your project, she or he would know what work you have done and where to pick up. To get full committee attendance the week after spring break you must submit an exit guide to your director.

Vice-President’s Report

  1. Past UA Steering
  1. This past Tuesday, UA Steering met with Dean Furda and members of the Office of the Admissions team to talk about Quaker Days, re-branding of the college application process, and other questions about Admissions, specifically about the current work done to increase diversity and outreach.
  1. Past University Council
  1. This past Wednesday, University Council met for the Open Forum session. Before Open Forum, there were three presentations from administrators focusing on online learning initiatives at Penn, the new Penn Center for Learning Analytics, and Penn Engineering Online Education. During Open Forum, there were three presentations. Graduate students spoke about the need to increase mental health resources, the administration’s role in sparking open discussion regarding recent political events, and the need to provide support and resources for marginalized students beyond political statements. Fossil Free Penn spoke about the administration’s decision to reject a divestment proposal. The undergrad delegation also made comments during New Business encouraging the University to continue to support outreach for First Generation, Low-Income students, to stand in support with the Jewish community, and to foster open discussion despite differing opinions. The minutes for this meeting will be approved at UC Steering this Wednesday.
  1. UA Steering Schedule
  1. There are three more UA Steering meetings scheduled for this semester. The dates are as follows: 3/14, 3/28, 4/11.

UA Report

  1. Membership Update: Rebecca, Associate Member on Academic Initiatives, has decided to end her term on the UA. Jack Talley, Associate Member on Academic Initiatives, has been removed from the body for missing more than 2.5 committee meetings.
  2. Member of the Week. This week’s member of the week is…

Treasurer’s Report

Secretary’s Report

  1. Airport Shuttles
  1. Airport Shuttles shifts for spring break will take place this coming Thursday and Friday from 10-7 and 7-7, respectively. Make sure to sign up for shuttle shifts and post on at least 3 listservs as each one counts for 0.5 committee attendance. So, the shifts together with the listserv duty will account for 1 committee attendance.  All information can be found in the emails sent on Friday and Saturday from Simon Miller. Also please change your cover pictures if you have not done so already, as we will be relying more on social media campaigning. This time we have also bought Facebook ads that will run through the shuttle dates. If you have any questions or concerns please email us!
  1. Annual Report
  1. Please look at the handout for the timeline and detailed information regarding the Annual Report. For committee members, I will need a project overview for every project that you have worked on this year. Directors should review these updates correcting grammatical errors, factual inaccuracy, and adjusting overall tone if needed. Directors should also submit a committee overview along with 3-5 projects to highlight. Exec members must hand in progress relating to your position. Please make sure you follow the timeline and if you have any questions or concerns at any point please let me know!


Executive Business


Annual Budget Confirmation

Authored by Michelle Xu, UA Treasurer

From the second budget GBM, there have been no new amendments to the budget proposal put forth by the Budget Committee during the first budget GBM.  Today, we will vote to confirm the annual budget allocation for the 2017-2018 academic year unless there are any emergency amendments to be proposed based on new information received this week.  

NEC Vice Chair for Elections Report: FPC Changes

Authored by NEC Vice Chair for Elections, Allie Rubin

 

This year, the NEC has worked on improving the elections process and the Fair Practices Code, attached to this agenda. The following are major updates:

  1. Reducing the amount of paper necessary for election proceedings, by increasing the number of petition signatures per page, and moving towards an online application for the General Election;
  2. Reducing the minimum number of debates from three to two, upon UA approval;
  3. Accommodating students that now go abroad in the Spring to run for upcoming session;
  4. Clarifying what "candidacy" means (i.e. it starts far before the candidate's meeting);
  5. Changing all gender-specific pronouns in the FPC to gender-neutral singular pronouns.

More generally, I have administered 5 elections over the course of this academic year - the New Student Election, a Re-Election for Class Board 2020 President, a UA College Representative Special Election, a UA Wharton Representative Special Election, and finally the General Election next month. Additionally, the NEC administered board elections for Lambda Alliance, Epsilon Eta, Penn Dems, Latin@ Coalition, and Wharton Latino.

 

Please reach out to elections@penn-nec.org for questions and comments!

University Council Appointment Process Confirmation

Authored by UA Vice President, Sola Park

On February 18th-19th, 2017, the Nominations and Elections Committee conducted the University Council nomination process. Members of the Undergraduate Assembly, Riad Hamade (UA Speaker) and Dante Miele-Elion (NEC Liaison), and members of the Student Activities Council, Noah Lee (Vice Chair of the Student Activities Council), Nikita Sood (Executive Board Member of the Student Activities Council), and Edward Jing (Chair of the Student Activities Council) observed the interview and deliberation process. This process involved 11 hours of interview on February 18th and 8 hours of deliberations on February 19th to deliberate on which nine organizations should receive a seat at the University Council, and which organization, if any, should be on the list for flex seats, if any.

None of the UA or SAC observers reported any issues related to the fairness of the nomination process. Each group representative was given sufficient and equitable time to answer the NEC’s questions and demonstrate their eligibility. The process respected the NEC guidelines and the NEC Chair encouraged deliberation to the best of his ability. During deliberations, each member of the NEC was provided time to express their views, and both sides of each deliberation were elicited and heard in full.The NEC Body deliberated until an overwhelming majority was ready to move to voting process, and ensured that all information was discussed and arguments were made before decisions.

Reducing Minimum Number of Presidential Debates

Authored by NEC Vice Chair for Elections, Allie Rubin and Riad Hamade, UA Speaker

Background: In the past couple months, the NEC and UA leadership have been discussing changing bylaw (43-e) so that the NEC Vice Chair for Elections has the option of planning fewer President debates than in the past. The reasoning behind this is that the NEC would like to put more focus on one major President / Vice-Presidential debate event, in terms attendance, resources and content, instead of spreading efforts in multiple avenues. The second debate is typically a web-debate. We will continue using the language of “x or more” in case a future VCE decides that more than 2 debates are necessary (example: when 3 or more candidates are running).

Original Text: The Presidential candidates shall participate in a minimum of one debates, and the Vice-Presidential Candidates shall participate in a minimum of one debate, unless the Commission by unanimous vote determines that emergency or other major unforeseen circumstance requires that one or more debates be cancelled.

Bylaw Amendment: The Presidential candidates shall participate in a minimum of two debates, and the Vice-Presidential Candidates shall participate in a minimum of one debate, unless the Commission on Undergraduate Assembly Debates by unanimous vote determines that emergency or other major unforeseen circumstance requires that one or more debates be cancelled.

GBM Structure Discussion Paper

Authored by Kat McKay, UA President


Background: Over the past few weeks the UA has tried out different GBM structures: organizing the meeting by document type, by committee with no director overviews, or by committee with director overviews. At least since the 2013-2014 academic year the UA has organized the GBM the same way that we do now: roll call, open forum, executive reports, and then member documents categorized by committee. This year we added the external seats category. There is no doubt that UA GBMs could be shorter (or longer). How can we modify the way GBMs are structured so that meetings are engaging and substantive? Since this year is almost over I will pass along your input to the next UA President so she or he can take it into account when creating agendas.

Discussion Questions

  1. Which of the 3 formats we tried do you like the best?
  2. What other suggestions do you have?
  3. What do you like about GBMs? Dislike?


Academic Initiatives



Dining, Sustainability, and Facilities


Completion Reports

Dining Guide Edits

Authored by Santosh Nori

 

After encouragement from the DSF director, and in response to a number of DSF projects that needed publicity, we aimed to revise the Dining Guide put out to students by Penn every year. The purpose of the dining guide is to inform students about the operations and logistics of Penn Dining, as well as the options that are available to them to make sure they feel at home while dining through Penn’s dining plans. As part of our edits this year, we included information about options open to students who have food allergies, students who wish to submit recipes to the chefs, as well as the new Meatless Mondays initiative for vegan/vegetarian students. Although options for these students existed before, they were never properly publicized to students, hence students rarely took advantage of them. We hope that adding this information to the dining guide in a clear manner will better inform students of the options they have when they eat at the dining halls. This project is complete.


Social Justice


Project Updates

Advisory Board for Career Services

Authored by Julianne Goodman

I met with Pat Rose, Director of Career Services, about potentially creating an Advisory Board for Career Services. Due to the broad scope of Career Services and failed attempts in the past, we decided it was best to use other channels of information sources such pre-professional groups and other organization's Advisory Boards. One resolution to create a partnership with the pre-professional business Fraternities - Alpha Kappa Psi, Delta Sigma Pi, and Pi Gamma Nu - to help keep Career Services better updated on the recruiting changes in the investment banking and consulting industries, as much of this information is primarily known by people in the process and varies by firm with deadlines continuously shifting earlier in the year. Additionally Career Services will be looking into creating a feedback form on their website so students can more effectively communicate grievances without having to set up a meeting with a career services counselor, the current practice. Lastly, we discussed having Career Services conduct a campaign during OCR that entails placing signs throughout Locust Walk with facts such as "60% of Penn Students do not receive their summer internship through OCR" with hopes of reducing the stress and student reliance on OCR.  These three initiatives will seek to improve the undergraduate recruiting process.

Completion Reports

TableTalk: Beyond the Ban

Authored by: Julianne Goodman

TableTalk: Beyond the Ban was held on February 22 in Perry World House in collaboration with TableTalk, MSA, PASS, UMC, Impact, and AIS. The event was designed to bring different individuals around campus together who would not interact under ordinary circumstances to create meaningful conversation about immigration and refugees. The strong attendance of 80+ people allowed for eight small table discussions about the issues moderated by leaders of each co-sponsoring organization. The leaders of each organization met over the weekend to prepare fact sheets and create guiding questions to establish a productive framework for the conversations. The positive experience from the event will promote increased dialogue and further collaboration among the individuals in attendance and the co-sponsoring groups.


Student Life


Project Updates

Mental Health Social Media Campaign

Authored by: Jason Kim

The Mental Health Social Media campaign aims to decrease the general tendency of students to hide any stress and difficulties affecting them and instead act in a manner known as "Penn Face". This project is a collaboration with Penn Faces and other student organizations in order to start a social media campaign.

Social media tends to allow students to self select what they share and how they are perceived as online, and typically such selection prevents others from viewing a realistic version of someone's life. This project consists of student leaders and significant organizations changing their profile photos with a singular theme and filter containing a Penn Faces logo. In the description of the profile photo all participants will include a personal story as well as links to various mental health resources and a Google form in which they can share their story if they wish to be published on the Penn Faces website.


External Seats


Residential Services Advisory Board Meeting

Authored by: Maria Curry

We had our monthly RSAB meeting this past Tuesday. Special Project Director Jeremy Estrada from Penn Business Services met with us and spoke about upcoming building projects. Other conversations included finalized logistics of the new Salto Lock System for all Penn Residential Housing, comments on the current room selection process for the 2017-18 school year, more accurate assignments for singles versus doubles in the Quad dorms based on size, and potential designated space for mental health counseling in all on-campus dorms. Residential Services is looking into producing a survey in the near future to gauge student interests on possible projects.

PVP Student Advisory Group

Authored by: Jay Shah and Jordan Andrews

 

Last Wednesday we went to the Penn Sexual Violence and Prevention student advisory group meeting. Malik Washington, the Associate Director of Sexual Violence Prevention and Education, brought up many upcoming events during his presentation, including SAVA training, which is a training workshop that will equip students with the skills necessary to identify interpersonal violence. These will take place on March 17th and 24th from 12:30-4:30 in New College House. Jessica Mertz, the Director of Sexual Violence Prevention, also brought up PVP recognition for clubs which will pilot in March. In order to be recognized, organizations must follow certain criteria which includes having a member complete the SAVA training. They also asked if organizations wanted to partner with them for the Got Consent campaign. Jessica Mertz also brought up the Reach Out app created by PVP which includes support services, policies, reporting options, prevention/education and more. Finally, the discussion transition to the Task Force. One clarification that was made was that the task force was not made to directly address a concern, but rather to assess the current landscape. With that being said, Monica Yant Kinney, the VPUL Executive Director of Communications and External Affairs, reassured everyone that task forces usually lead to positive changes such as the hiring of new CAPS staff and the creation of the PVP office itself.

Task Force on a Safe and Responsible Campus Community Town Hall

Authored by: Michelle Xu

This past Thursday, the Task Force hosted a town hall to listen to students' concerns and suggestions regarding their initiatives.  The first panel comprised of a panel discussion between representatives from GAPSA, the Student Athlete Advisory Board, and IFC.  For the second half of the town hall, the three tri-chairs of the task force, Val Cade, Beth Winkelstein, and Maureen Rush addressed questions from the audience.


Minutes


  1. Roll Call
  2. Open Forum
  1. Naomi-Track and Field
  1. Just wanted to give a shout out to Cal!!
  1. Aimee-SJP
  1. SJP has a problem with the PIPAC statement. It made the impression that the UA supported it.
  1. Gabrielle-Quaker Career Closet
  1. There were a total of 165 people who came. There were over 60 people who went home with a suit. It was a success!  
  1. David- PSG Stickers. Send me an email  
  2. Sola- I was reached out by someone on the representation project. If anyone is interested in going tomorrow please let me know..
  1. Executive Reports
  1. President’s Report
  1. Administrator Meetings
  1. SRFS        
  1. We talked about outside scholarship policy. If you get this, your expected summer savings is gone first, then work study, and then the parent contribution. It does not feel like people are earning the money. They understand the complaints but they want data about how many people receive these outside scholarship. It is informally and outside scholarship policy. If someone loses their work study grant, it does not mean that it is taking away the grant. SRFS are going to ask officers to ensure that they put up jobs that are not work study.
  1. Gabrielle- A lot of people don't apply to outside scholarships so the data might be skewed.
  2. Kat- They are also holding a session to explain how Penn is becoming a diverse class
  3. Kaylee- Has any idea of come up like maybe taking part of the scholarship and not the whole thing?
  1. They are looking in the data
  1. Elena- One of the scholarships that I received took away the money from work study and I kind of need that money. A lot of the job are research positions.
  2. Gabrielle- There is also a difference in taxes between work study and non work study. My work study took out 10% while my non work study took out 22%
  3. Kat- We also talked about deposits for housing early. Sam brought up if it were possible to bring up a forward grant. But they said that they can’t give out money for the new year if they new year has not started.
  4. Sam S- There is no policy for off-campus housing. They are working on a workshop for freshmen who might want to move off. Like writing a check every month is something that they have not done before. It would be ideal to push back all the deadlines.
  1. Upcoming: Business Services and NSO
  1. These are the last admin meetings left.
  1. Exit Guides
  1. Kat-This week in the committee meeting instead of output for the GBM, we will talk about exit guides. It will basically be structured so that if someone had to pick up the project they would know how to continue, including people you contacted. If someone is not running. It will count for half committee attendance.
  2. Tunmise- These are ongoing right?
  1. Yes
  1. Vice-President’s Report
  1. Past UA Steering
  1. We had Dean Furda and we answered a lot of questions regarding Admissions. They talked about how they are working to increase diversity as well as other things.
  1. Past University Council
  1. It was an open forum meeting. There were 3 presentations from administrators as you see on the report. There were 2 topics submitted. Graduate students asked about expanding mental health, fossil free penn, and fostering opening discussion. Also graduate students talked about a need to create a central diversity office.
  1. UA Steering Schedule
  1. I am planning on using the next Tuesday to use as a brainstorming one. The 2nd one after I put in VPUL.
  1. UA Report
  1. We are going to be voting on 3 things. It is a, b, c in the agenda.
  2. Membership Update
  1. Rebecca decided to end her term. Jack Talley has been removed because of going over attendance.
  2. We also decided to give Sam I a medical leave absence for tonight’s GBM.
  1. Member of the Week
  1. Julianne
  1. Treasurer’s Report
  2. Secretary’s Report
  1. Airport Shuttles
  1. They are going to be this coming Thursday and Friday. You need to cc shuttles@pennua.org when you send out the listservs. You need to do both to get credit. Each one counts for .5 for a total of 1 attendance.. Please change your cover pictures. Please look at the email that was sent out. If you know you are going to be late on campus on Friday, please sign up. You will be there for 10-15 minutes max
  2. Jay- If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
  1. Kevin- Can you send an email before a week?
  1. We will do that
  1. Krone- We are all connected so for cover pictures, change them. Also write some comments so they are bumped.
  2. Gabrielle- What if we are not going to be here?
  1. Please let us know
  1. Brian- It's 2 listserv?
  1. Yes
  1. Samara- When do you have to get there?
  1. 15 minutes before.
  1. Eric- How long after we have to stay?
  1. Stay until the next person comes
  1. Kyle- I arrived really early. And I was standing there freezing
  1. If there are more people signed up for the bus, please come a little earlier
  1. Taylor- Maybe a pop-up would help, just so people know where to go.
  1. Kat- I was going to say that we can get a pop up from the marketing budget.
  2. Julianne- you can get one of those cheap dollar posters.
  1. Annual Report
  1. Jay-Please make sure that you have one of the handouts. Committee Project overviews will be due when we come back from break on March 13th. The directors should review and edit these and send them to be by March 16th. Directors also have the discretion of changing the March 13th deadline for committee members but not the March 16th deadline for themselves. There is also a component for directors which includes a committee overview and 3-5 projects that they would like to highlight. The packet has a lot more information in the packet so please keep that. And please at anyone let me know if you have any questions!
  1. Executive Business
  1. Annual Budget Confirmation
  1. Michelle- I was glad to get this over without any major issues
  2. Tunmise- I just want to say that I am really proud of you Michelle. There was no cage fight. The other members of committee were great too.
  3. Ian- I really was not satisfied about how SPEC responded with the cultural funding question. A lot of times they have given funding but I don’t know. I was really upset that Carolyn said that it was an information problem. A lack of leadership of SPEC or insensitivity toward cultural week really bothered me. They should think about
  4. Naomi- People talked about amendments that should have been brought up but they did not bring it up. We should have had a bigger discussion and more thought.
  5. Taylor- Please take a look at it beforehand
  6. David (NEC)- We really appreciate your time and effort. Especially the budget committee. For those areas that you have comments, we would love to hear complaints so that we could work on them

The Annual Budget is Confirmed by a Vote of 28-1-2

  1. NEC Vice Chair for Elections Report: FPC Updates
  1. Allie- I spent this year looking at how we can make the elections better. We changed the pronouns. We also made it possible to run from abroad. We also wanted to make it clear what it means to be a candidate. We are also trying to reduce the minimum debates for the presidential elections. We also want to save paper.
  1. Kanishka- you are the bomb
  2. Jason- Do you mind elaborating on the 3rd one?
  1. A lot of juniors go abroad and we wanted them to have the opportunity to run. There should be a representative on campus for them in case there is an issue.
  1. University Council Appointment Process Confirmation
  1. Sola-On February, 18th and 19th the NEC conducted UC seat allocation. Riad and Dante went. There were 11 hours of interviews and deliberated 9 hours. After talking with UA liaisons and SAC, I thought that the process was fair.
  2. Riad- I thought it was fair process.
  3. Tunmise- I think having like observers to this process is very helpful. It is very hard to confirm a process like this. Last year, the process was confirmed but then a constituent group did not get a seat. This year we also had a problem with seat allocation. I don't think this is the best way of doing it
  1. Sola- This is to ensure that the process is fair, not the results.
  2. Tunmise- There is no political animal stuff going on. I still think that the process should look a little different
  3. David- If you have any feedback, we would love to hear it! The UA’s role in the process is to ensure that the process was followed according to the procedure and not the result.
  1. Tunmise- I don't mean that you are doing anything wrong. I think having an observer is not the best. I don’t think that's interactive. There was no report or discussion as to what happened. There is an air of mystery that should be addressed.
  2. Riad- You all can ask as many questions as you want
  1. Calvary- I don't know anything about this process. I have to trust 3 past down reports. It would be better if it were more hands on.
  2. Kasey- I totally understand where the feedback is coming from. We were there for the 19 hours. If you do have questions,
  3. Justin- Is the logic of not knowing because we would get political?        
  1. David- the reason why the UA votes on the process being fair is that if they had a say then that would bring your expertise. We are unbiased and if you had a say that would have a bias.
  1. Tunmise- Thank you for the conversation. I just wanted a little more engagement. But you should not tell us who you voted on. Keeping senior observers makes sense. I think it would help if NEC members can explain.
  2. Kat- Giving out some details would be a good idea. Like how many applied? How many got them? How many got flex seats? For the ones that did not get them, what did you make sure that they were represented?
  3. Kanishka- Is there an information gap like if a group has more experience they have a better shot?
  1. Sam (NEC)- we hosted office hours. We also emailed every group who applied and an FAQ. SO they could know exactly what to expect.
  1. Jordan- I am confused so we are voting on the process is fair but what happens if we voted con.
  1. Riad- then they would have to do the whole thing again
  2. David- I second what Riad said. We would have to sit for like 2 more days. The UA agree/believe in the process. For the information, it is open to any student. We outline the criteria and it deals with the status of underrepresentation, access to administration, number of constituencies and others.
  1. Jason- If there are a lot of groups that apply, what opportunity do they have to make sure they are heard?
  1. Sam(NEC)- what we have done this year is that we invited groups personally. The undergraduate delegation comes together to create a synthesis as to how they are going to address new business.
  2. David- To answer the 2nd question, The UA President and VP could also bring up a concern. The purpose of the UC to ensure that the student body at large is represented. We might need to publicize this more.
  3. Kasey- we sent a lot of information out. We can't just reach out to certain groups.
  1. Sola- UC is not the only method for groups to voice their opinions to administrations. They can come to UC Steering.
  1. Sam (NEC)- we send an email to all school
  2. Calvary- the publicity was good

The UC Allocation Process is confirmed by a Vote of 30-0-1

  1. Bylaw Amendment: Reducing Minimum Number of Presidential Debates
  1. Allie- We think that if we make a minimum more debates can happen but the less that happen can be better
  2. Raid- It makes sense to have 2 debates at minimum
  3. Kevin- How many people usually come?
  1. Allie- It takes a lot to get people to come. Like last year, there were not that many people there.
  1. David- If the contentions go up, there are more people that show up. We had two larger debates in the Huntsman room. There were a lot of UA and class board there. There is also meet the endorsers- that has better attendance too.
  2. Kat- I want to make a suggestions. If the race is contested, then there should be a debate
  3. Brian- How long are the debates?
  1. Allie- There is no guidelines on it. There tend to be like 45 minutes-1 hour. It's a lot of time.
  1. Kevin- What about changing the debates from 3 to 1?
  1. It is variable depending on what CUAD decides. From moving from 3-1, that is a bit extreme.
  1. Kasey- If you are interested in CUAD the applications are going out tomorrow. You guys will be confirming that slate by you and UA Steering. We are looking for 4 distinguished student leaders.
  2. Calvary- It could still be an open forum
  1. Allie- I don't know how much no contention there has been
  2. Kat- the last time there was uncontested was my freshman year
  1. Allie- Sam asked if they weren't contested. The VCE could just have a question. If this passes it would have to go to NEC for a vote

There is an amendment made to this document. It is as follows which the added parts underlined.

In years where the elections for these positions are contested, the Presidential candidates shall participate in a minimum of two debate, and the Vice-Presidential Candidates shall participate in a minimum of one debate, unless the Commission on the Undergraduate Assembly Debates by unanimous vote determines that emergency or other major unforeseen circumstance requires that one or more debates be cancelled. 

By a vote of 30-0-0, the amendment passes.

  1. GBM Structure Discussion Paper
  1. TABLED
  1. Academic Initiatives
  2. Dining, Sustainability and Facilities
  1. Completion Reports
  1. Dining Guide Edits
  1. Kyle- Santosh has been working on this and made changes to the guide that Jay worked on.
  1. Social Justice
  1. Project Updates
  1. Advisory Board for Career Services
  1. I met with career services. They talked about. They don't have a partnership with the pre professional fraternities so we are working with them. We are also creating an anonymous feedback form. We are also going to be putting up signs about truth on OCR.
  2. Calvary- what about pre-law fraternities
  1. Completion Reports
  1. Table Talk: Beyond the Ban
  1. Julianne-It was a really great event. The whole event was to humanize the situation. There were 10 people per conversation and I thought it was very impactful.
  2. Aimee- I went to the event and it was really good. It was good that something like this was made
  1. Student Life
  1. Project Updates
  1. Mental Health Social Media Campaign
  1. Jason- Social media provide self-selection. We are collaborating with Penn Faces and other groups to start this campaign.
  2. Brian- There is research that shows that going on social media creates more stress.
  1. Jason- I also saw that study. I also have my profile pic. That is a trend that everything has come to accept. This will aim to go against this social trend
  1. Kanishka- I thought something like this would be helpful. Seeing that other people having problems doesn't help you with yours.
  1. Jason- A lot of people have reached out to me telling me that they are under a lot of stress. If the student leaders can take part that would be good
  2. Kanishka- It would also be helpful if people displayed by more when they are walking. I don't really get the purpose
  1. Jason- that is why we are partnering up with different people. We will also have resources there so it is not just viewing other people's problems. If people want to continue on it, they can go to penn faces
  2. Jordan- I think partnering with Humans of Upenn would be good
  3. Kat- WHen I was a freshman, a girl said that Facebook is a representation of your best self. I think this is a great project. This really helped me. When Jason said student leaders, he means people in a room. Even a UA campaign would be really beneficial.
  4. Simon- Is this trying to open dialogue?
  1. Yes definitely. A lot of people here have difficulty
  1. Samara- Seeing who is considered a leader is a whole issue of itself. Spread out to other students as well
  2. Julianne- I agree with Kat
  3. Will- In Hong Kong, for this year there has been 22 suicides because of depression. A lot of students have trouble realizing that other people go through the same thing. I really like this. This really makes a difference in people's lives like a personal friend of mine.
  4. Kaylee- for the photoshoot, I have a friend that is going through a project where she takes picture of people’s faces and there are like 2 sides on a face.
  5. Kanishka- While it is important to guide people to CAPS, but it would be beneficial to get people to talk about it. There is a social stigma against CAPS. Maybe daring people to say how you are actually feeling.
  1. Jason- MIT also did this. We need greater emotional support
  1. External Seats
  1. Residential Services Advisory Board Meeting
  1. Kyle-All the new locks will be worked out by the new semester or sooner. Brian was working on something that was brought up- there are very large single rooms so they will be doubles. Also Jason and Simon with be working with them for mental health resources.
  1. Penn Violence Prevention Student Advisory Group Meeting
  1. Jordan- Last Wednesday we went to the Penn Sexual Violence and Prevention student advisory group meeting. SAVA training, which is a training workshop that will equip students with the skills necessary to identify interpersonal violence was brought up. They also brought up PVP recognition for clubs which will pilot in March. In order to be recognized, organizations must follow certain criteria which includes having a member complete the SAVA training.
  1. Task Force on a Safe and Responsible Campus Community Town Hall        
  1. Michelle-So last Thursday we had the town hall. We invited a lot of students to the panel and a lot of them did not come but we had a good discussion. The second half of it was directed toward administrations. There are also going to be more meeting coming up with this group.
  1. Samara- Were there members of off-campus on the panel?
  1. Michelle-They were invited but they did not come. Last friday we did have a meeting with off campus groups
  1. Sam S- For the future, it would be better to have graduate students separate. It felt like they were trying to parent us.
  1. Michelle- This town hall and forward me and chris will be focusing on undergraduate life and representing them.
  1. Samara- I was curious as to who was sending the information out. There were people going around advertising saying that it was meant to go after off-campus.
  1. Michelle- I saw all the ads that went out, but I am not sure what you are talking about
  2. Samara- I can send it to you. But we got it from our chapter president.
  3. Michelle- I wanted the UA to do more promotion stuff. Some people got personal invitations
  1. Kat- The language around the town hall was not student friendly. I have been talking to the Provost and Vice Provost and made it very clear that we don't want to follow in the footsteps of Harvard. They want to know how we can create a social capital and ensure that if people send an email such as OZ they don't have that social capital. There is some kind of agreement that they will not be noted in the meeting. They are very conscious about this and thus they didn't want to sit on the panel.
  2. Samara- I totally agree.
  3. Calvary- The administration saying that is much more stronger
  4. Justin- I agree with what Cal said. The meeting was on Friday morning so that was not a good idea.
  1. Michelle- All of my task force meetings are on Friday mornings because all the admins and students are free that time.
  1. Kevin- Invitations were handed in person. That did not feel very casual and moreso like forced
  1. Michelle- Maureen Rush said that she would not do that in the future.
  1. Kanishka- There needed to be more focus. The graduate students felt like a waste of space
  1. Michelle- we invited people from UMC, IGC, and I got 2 emails that said people were cancelling. This was meant for students to hear student suggestions.
  1. Jay- One clarification that was made was that the task force was not made to directly address a concern, but rather to assess the current landscape. However like during the PVP meeting the administrators reassured everyone that task forces usually lead to positive changes such as the hiring of new CAPS staff and the creation of the PVP office itself.
  2. Cal- I think there should be a focus and maybe a google doc and maybe have questions ahead of time.
  3. Kyle- I sat on the panels and we got all the questions like 5 minutes before the meeting. It wasn't the best and I was not happy. The DP was there so that affected a lot.
  4. Jay- Also if you guys have a better idea of how to give suggestions please let someone on the task force know.
  5. Michelle- we are starting to give our feedback and it will be a much better plan.
  1. Communications