March 29 Senate minutes on attendance bylaws

by Lucy Morris

Friday April 21, 2006

The March 29 Student Senate meeting began, as usual, with a quote, this one by political philosopher Edmund Burke: “You can never plan the future by the past.” Following was an announcement by first year Vice-Chair Neil Makhija that, unusually, all sixteen student senators were present. This statement was met by a round of applause.

The majority of the meeting concerned ongoing discussion of Senate bylaws, in particular the introduction of a Bylaw 2.1 (L), which addresses the duties of senior class co-presidents. Ambiguity in related bylaws resulted in turmoil this year, including the suspension and subsequent re-instatement of senior class Co-President Alexander Edelman. The Bylaw Committee, represented by junior class President Davin Searls, presented a revised version of a previously proposed bylaw.
“If two [senior class co-presidents] are elected, both must attend regular Senate meetings,” it read. “However, they may divide other commitments associated with their positions,” including seats on the Student Activities Subcommittee and Students for Students Scholarship Fund. Further, “If they choose to do this, the senior class presidents must notify the Senate chair and the individual(s) in charge of these responsibilities.” Unchanging is the clause stating that “together, [the co-presidents] have only one vote and count as one in determining quorum.”

Edelman and Co-President Alexandra Conboy took immediate exception to the attendance terms of the bylaw. “The idea that both senior class presidents have to go to every meeting and can’t split it up is ridiculous,” said Conboy. “If there’s more flexibility for senior class co-presidents, it facilitates better performance.” Searls disagreed “one hundred percent,” pointing out senior presidents’ unique entitlement to division of committee duties.

After the matter was called to question and a motion not to pass the bylaw failed, discussion resumed. “This doesn’t really affect myself or [Edelman],” insisted Conboy, but rather “the future” of Senate. She compared the responsibility of both co-presidents to attend all meetings to parenting, noting that both parents do not need to be present to put their children to bed, but can instead discuss the ritual afterward. Edelman emphasized the many additional responsibilities of senior class presidents, including working for the alumni magazine and planning commencement. “This [attending Senate meetings] is the least important thing I do as senior class president,” said Edelman.

Edelman seemed to take offense to discussion of a topic raised in part by his own absences from Senate. “A lot of people in this room should be ashamed of themselves,” he said. “I’ve been raked over the coals by this group of people. My name has been trampled on.” Sophomore Treasurer Amina Sariahmed replied, “I’m not really moved by your statements,” and moved to approve the motion, which was seconded and then faced an objection.

During resumed discussion of the bylaw, Searls explained its strict stance on attendance by highlighting the large decisions made at meetings. Pointing out that Senate has approved funding in amounts up to $10,000 in a single meeting, he said, “I think it’s astonishing that you wouldn’t want them [the senior class presidents] both to be here for that.”

Sophomore Senator Alana Sliwinski agreed, saying she was “angered by the notion” that meetings didn’t seem to be important to some senators. But, she said, “I’m here because Senate is more than $250,000 and how we disseminate it.”
Sophomore Parliamentarian Sarah Janowsky called the meetings “a formality, but…a really important formality.”

After a third failed attempt to pass the motion, senior Senator Anthony Gambol motioned to table discussion of the bylaw for the following meeting. Conboy, speaking out of order, said that postponing the topic “will just make us so much happier to come to Senate next week.”