Committee Minutes, Monday, March 29th 2004

Vice-chairman Tracy Hutcherson submitted the following report on Wednesday, March 31st 2004, on behalf of the Diversity Committee, and pursuant to its Monday, March 29th 2004 recommendations:

Attendance:

There were three (3) Members (Hutcherson, Lassiter, Marshall) present.

There were two (2) Members (Derek Gatlin, Isenrich) absent.

A quorum was present.

The following officials were also present: Hernandez, Scurry

Report Overview:

The NCSU Student Senate Committee on Diversity conducted a Hearing of the Student Body Commission on Diversity. Three principles from the Executive Branch were requested to attend: Natalie Scurry, Chair Diversity Commission; Andrea Hernandez, Vice-chair Diversity Commission; and Lock Whiteside, Senior Associate Director for Recruitment. Both Ms. Scurry and Ms. Hernandez were present. Mr. Whiteside did not appear.

Mr. Whiteside sent E-mail notification to Diversity Committee member Senator Lassiter the evening prior to the Hearing stating that he had a “scheduling conflict.” To this point it is unclear, nor has any justification been given, as why Mr. Whiteside did not submit his correspondence directly to the Vice Chair of the Diversity Committee. At approximately 4:10 PM, March 29, 2004, Mr. Whiteside was located in the Student Government office filing Expense Forms for the 2004-2005 Student Body Elections. Via telephone and through a mediator, Mr. Whiteside claimed that he had in his position, E-mails concerning the Appointments he made to the Commission. He assured the Vice Chair that he would forward those E-mails prior to the hearing to allow the Committee to view them and consider them as evidence. This action did not happen and as to the point of this Report, Mr. Whiteside has yet to present said E-mails.

Going into the hearing, the following areas were to be discussed:
1. What has the Commission done?
2. What did the Commission outline as their goals for the year?
3. Have any of their goals been achieved?
4. Did the Commission need financial assistance?
5. How can Student Government help to ensure that appointments to this Commission are expedited?
6. How many members need to be on this Commission next year?
7. What are some of the lessons they have learned and what can they pass on to the Commission next year?
8. Did the Commission have enough membership?
9. If yes, why were so many individuals appointed during mid January and mid February?
10. If they did not have the membership needed, did they suffer?
11. Why were there so many people appointed to the Commission?
12. Why were there 12 appointments made during a 1 month time frame?
13. Did the Commission ask for more members?
14. If so, when and how long did it take to fill their needs?
15. How can Student Government help to ensure that appointments to this Commission are expedited?
16. How many members need to be on this Commission next year?
17. What are some of the lessons they have learned and what can they pass on to the Commission next year?

Ms. Scurry and Ms. Hernandez attended the hearing and yielded to each question from the Committee. Their responses to the questions that were posed to them were well sculpted. They also asked questions of the Committee in functional aspects between the Diversity Committee and their respective Commission.

During the dialogue between the members of the Commission, several points were brought to the foreground. The predominate issue, which was identified, was miscommunication on several different levels. The next major hurdle that they had to straddle was lack of members on their Commission. They were surprised to find out they had 18 members which were appointed to their Commission. They were even more surprised that they were appointed close to 6 months into the current session, or better worded, 2 months prior to the end of the Spring semester.

When questioned if they had spoken to Mr. Whiteside about appointees they stated that they had not spoken to him. When the names of the members of the Commission were listed, Ms. Scurry and Ms. Hernandez could only recognize half of them. They even went on to mention that the individuals that had been appointed had never met with them prior to their appointment. Ms. Scurry and Ms. Hernandez believed that prior to individuals being placed on the Commission they would have the opportunity to meet with them. There was and is a major concern that the Commission was hindered from serving students based on not having the number of people “Earlier” to conduct proper planning of events and attending different committees around campus. As Mr. Whiteside did not appear at the hearing, the Committee could not ask him the vital questions about the appointment process that he utilized. To highlight some of the questions that were raised during the hearing, that Mr. Whiteside could have answered, had he have been there, were: why he choose not to appoint members prior to mid January 2004; why he appointed 12 people in such a short time but had not contacted Ms. Scurry and Ms. Hernandez; was there a Presidential directive for him to appoint the number of people he did and in the timeline he utilized; and, were the individuals he appointed able to meet when the Commission was to hold its meetings? As far as Commission membership, both Ms. Scurry and Ms. Hernandez feel that 18 members are too much and stated that 7 would be nice but 10 would be ideal.

The Commissions goals and direction were the next portion of the hearing. While they meet with SBP Caravano early on in the Fall and periodically during the months to follow, they were placed in the situation to construct their own goals and ways to achieve them. They had a lot of motivation and little resources and yet were able to stay motivated despite all that was going against them. Some of the other issues dealt with continuity from year to year and they expressed a desire to have the Chair and Vice Chair in place after the Spring election, so that they can take part in activities already being planned for the fall. They feel there should be training on the use of Student Government web resources (scheduling of meetings, posting meetings and agenda, and submitting reports).

The Commission sees the importance in branching out to other entities around the University. This is from both an Informative and Persuasive manor.

From an informative approach, they would like to have individuals from the following units attend the Commission meetings:
1. UAB
2. Traditions Commission
3. Alumni Association Student Ambassador

In the attempt to be persuasive in Diversity based decisions, they believe it would benefit the Commission to have and Ex-Officio seat for a Diversity Commission representative on the following:
1. Diversity Advisory Council
2. Homecoming committee (Ambassador Program)
3. President's Roundtable
4. Wolfpack Welcome Week committee *dealing with Convocation
5. New Student Orientation
6. Diversity Appropriation Committee (Office of Equal Opportunity)

While the Commission does not have a budget, we discussed what they might like to do if that were made available. They view a budget as a key in promoting Diversity in which the Commission could Cosponsor events with Student Organizations.

The Committee gave Ms. Scurry and Ms. Hernandez a few task to complete to ensure that their hard work on the Commission continued to thrive.
1. Submit a written list of events that they had participated in
2. Create a job description for each of the members of the Commission
3. Identify key goals that they want to achieve and how they can determine if they have achieved them
4. Create a binder of information and contacts that they can pass on to their successors
5. Setup an appointment with SBP Caravano

The Committee told “The Commission” that they would be here for them as a resource and that we would support them in issues concerning Appointments and view and discuss what can be done in the area of budgets. We also, as a Committee, realize that the concerns that we had with the Commission were not completely their fault. In fact, the only thing that we could fault them with is not asking for help. It appears that they were somewhat successful prior to the Block of appointments from mid January and mid February and that having 12 people thrust on them, without them knowing about it, did not help.

The NCSU Student Senate should be kept informed of these issues, as it is important. Subsequently, the Vice Chair of the Diversity Committee still wants to know the answers to the many questions left pending concerning the whole appointment debacle, which Mr. Whiteside has key insight. Thus the Diversity Committee will ask that the Government Operations Committee request that Mr. Whiteside account for the actions he took concerning appointments. After that occurs, a final report will be generated concerning these issues.