Committee Minutes, Tuesday, January 18th 2005

Chairman Zach Adams submitted the following report on Monday, January 24th 2005, on behalf of the Campus Community Committee, and pursuant to its Tuesday, January 18th 2005 recommendations:

Attendance:

There were seven (7) Members (Adams, Langley, McCarthy, Moye, Sevits, Stephenson, Wilburn) present.

There was one (1) Member (Sarah Thornton) absent.

A quorum was present.

The following officials were also present: Chichwak, Cleary, Fabricius, Heard, Ortega, Quick, Small, Toms, Watts

Report Overview:

I filed a seperate report for GB 93, which was debated in this meeting.

Meeting Minutes:

Campus Community Committee Minutes – January 18, 2005

Opens – 8:05

Attendance
Sen. McCarthy, Sen. Stephenson, Sen. Sevits, SSPPT Cleary, Sen. Fabricius, Sen. Toms, Sen. Langley, Sen. Wilburn, Sen. Adams, SSP Quick, Sen. Small, SG Advisor, Wolfpack Club Reps (2), Technician Rep, and [Sen. Moye, Sen. Chichwak, Sen. Ortega, Sen. Heard, in order of arrival].

Providing an increase of tickets to the Student Wolfpack Club was discussed.

Sen. Adams reads proposed policy:

Student Wolfpack Club will be allotted one third of the tickets left over from general student distribution assuming that this number does not exceed the number of Student Wolfpack Club members who:
(i) did not get tickets through the Student Wolfpack Club;
(ii) have at least one third of the possible priority points; and
(iii) also attended the 6am Student Wolfpack Club ticket distribution.

This policy would start next football season if accepted. A copy of the proposed policy has been given to the representatives of SWC to give back to the organization.

SWC Reps: 2600-2700 members are now part of SWC.

Fabricius: I feel it should be adjusted for the growth of the student body.

Adams: Should we propose an increase for the general allotment?

SWC Reps: That would be preferable. If we get 900 or 1000 tickets, we use whatever we use, and we give them right back.

Langley: We should get the exact numbers of your active and non-active members then find the exact number of general student tickets we get so we can see what would be good.

Wilburn: It seems appropriate that your enrollment has grown a third, and you’re getting a third of what we have left, it seems like it is a quick fix. You look around at basketball and you see that seats are empty. The student section is packed but the other seats are not. Is there also talk of expanding the student section?

Stephenson: They’re hasn’t been, but when they expand the bowl they may add some there.

Langley: What could we do for this? Has student tickets been sold out, so if we got 1000 extra tickets could we use them?

Stephenson: Only Duke has been over allotment.

Langley: Can you find the numbers for us for next meeting?

SWC Reps: Yes...we’ll type it up next week.

Adams: There are probably many people here about the voucher dilemma that has been going on. We can’t name anyone or else we’ll have to kick everyone that is not part of SG out. We don’t have punitive authority, but we can only make a recommendation to Gov Ops or subcommittee on ethics.

Stephenson: The subcommittee on ethics doesn’t have any power until they get a bill of formal charges.

Adams: I think Gov Ops has the authority to.

Fabricius: I think the first thing of importance here is to let everyone know what we’re talking about.

Langley: I’ve heard rumors, everyone has, but to be the committee that overlooks the tickets, and Will Quick wouldn’t even tell me what is really going on, and I’ve never heard the truth of what’s really going on; I’ve heard rumors.

Adams: Basically, there’s some people who took some vouchers.

Langley: Are we talking Senators?

Cleary: We can’t mention names.

Langley: More than just Senators?

Cleary: I think it is the committee on ethics job to draft a bill of formal charges but you might want to make a recommendation about not allowing those students to do vouchers.

Fabricius: We need more than just a general impression of the facts; we need to know what is going on here. Are we talking about some major theft or some fairly minor things?

Birdsell: Is this one specific time?

Fabricius: I feel this is something we need to get out on the table.

Adams: Eventually Gov Ops will take care of that. It was more than a few tickets, and it was more than a couple people so it is a pretty big deal and it shouldn’t have happened. The students will be punished but as far as getting the names or numbers, I don’t feel that is serving our purpose.

Birdsell: This one time they got caught and I feel there needs to be a formal investigation.

Wilburn: I feel we should step up. I think people are either naive or blind to believe no senator who has given out vouchers has taken vouchers. It’s not a big deal to take one or two, to take seventy or eighty is ridiculous. It is naive and blind to see this as an isolated event. People need to realize that the common practice is not acceptable anymore. This can’t happen anymore, but I don’t think we should punish these people when it’s been ok to grab an extra one or two.

Fabricius: In the past it has been all but an official process. What I’m trying to get a grasp on is that people suddenly realize that people has been doing this and for a while. The people that went by the old standards need to be informed of the new standard to follow. My question is prior to that Tuesday, or whenever it was, what would have been a reasonable amount of vouchers to remove?

Adams: If the school knows about the situation, there are going to be people upset about vouchers being stolen. We have incentive for people to work vouchers, 2 tickets each. In the future, we might need to figure out a way to track the number of IDs swiped by each volunteer and keep track of what voucher numbers they had given out.

Fabricius: I fully agree that people shouldn’t take vouchers, they shouldn’t in the past. Has the committee given them this idea? I don’t think so.

Birdsell: I think they were given this idea by certain individuals. University policy is one voucher per ID.

SG Advisor: And the volunteers know that?

Birdsell: Even for a volunteer, it’s a University-wide policy. To think that Student Government officials think they are above that in itself is...

Fabricius: In the past we were told we could take them.

Wilburn: I knew people from my freshman year, not just senators, but people who knew how to get their hands on extra vouchers so come Tuesday night my voucher didn’t win I knew someone who I could call. I think it needs to be brushed under the carpet and be a forgive and forget thing and tell everyone about the new culture. I’ve worked the last game and I know some people accused of this. It used to be that I could come and pick up vouchers but from Scott, now I have to go and sign them out. I’ve worked in the past and I know it was common practice to take some, and I don’t I think I am above the law. But say I get caught with 10 vouchers in my own pocket then do whatever you want, that would be poor judgment against my own integrity.

Adams: This is my personal thought: I think because it is becoming such a big deal, those accused will be punished. I think that we should recommend that those who came forth and admitted that they were wrong, taking one or two should not have the same punishment as those who took a significant amount. From now on you will be punished if you take vouchers. We will change the culture from now on.

Wilburn: I don’t think it is appropriate for people to be punished. Before Scott, well back, it’s been going on.

Fabricius: I feel if the committee sets a number, 1, 5, 10, what would be a reasonable standard. I think this should be construed on those who have done above and beyond what is ordinary wrong doing.

SG Advisor: This committee should not make a decision, that goes through Gov Ops.

Fabricius: I disagree; the Government Operations subcommittee can not proceed with impeachment. And they can’t decide if someone should be eligible to distribute vouchers again, that’s this committee.

SG Advisor: So you do have in the scope of your abilities written in the bylaws?

Langley: We oversee the ticket process.

Fabricius: This committee has complete and total authority over ticket distribution.

Birdsell: The only problem I have with punishing the people is that you’re punishing the few people who came forward and admitted it; those are your good people, those are the ones honest enough to say that they did something wrong. But you’re going to go out and punish the people who admitted to it without finding all those who were lying about it?

Adams: How would you feel if we came to the Senate and said that from now on you can not take vouchers or you will be punished and you will not get vouchers?

Langley: You pay your fees, you should get a voucher, that’s unfair.

Adams: Lets say that people who stole 10 or more vouchers should be punished as an example and from now on policy will be that you shouldn’t take vouchers.

Stephenson: Zero-Tolerance.

Hutcherson: The individuals who were affected last semester, unless we have exact evidence can not be dealt with. The individuals who have grossly violated the vouchers themselves will be brought to the subcommittee on ethics. As far as removing their ticket privileges, but my recommendation as the chair of Gov Ops is to have the subcommittee send a list of those who broke policy to athletics to suspend their voucher privileges.

Fabricius: We have one clause in our punitive powers to avoid us changing the rules. I feel it should be censure, impeachment, and suspension of stipend.

Moye: Why don’t we ask them not to distribute vouchers anymore if we will have problems blocking their IDs?

Hutcherson: Since the individuals can be censured, then we could turn it over Paul Cousins to restrict tickets for a period of time.

Langley: I would like to solve it in house but that is another way to do it.

Hutcherson: There needs to be some action for receiving vouchers.

Fabricius: For losing privileges as a student you should go to the judicial board, if it is as a senator, it should go through the punitive process.

Hutcherson: The subcommittee on ethics can reduce an impeachment to the censure and vice versa. If they feel that the offence is severe, they may request voucher

Fabricius: I move that:
(i) the committee henceforth sets a zero-tolerance policy on the unauthorized appropriation of vouchers by its volunteers;
(ii) the committee determines that volunteers who appropriated five or less vouchers could not have universally realized, under previously articulated standards, that it could be perceived as wrongdoing and therefore no further action should occur regarding those individuals; and
(iii) the committee determines that volunteers who appropriated ten or more vouchers have likely committed wrongdoing and recommends the Committee on Government Operations open further investigation into their actions.

SG Advisor: You’ve just opened the door for 0-10!

Adams: I believe most cases are either very small or very large.

Fabricius: We need to look at what would be the best use of student resources. I don’t think minor cases are a good use of resources.

Birdsell: How about six?

Fabricius: Six is a good number.

Wilburn: I like it better saying that it is a significant case.

Adams: I feel that is important for Zero-Tolerance from here on. We’ll make the recommendation that- what do you want 10?

Cleary: I like 10, 6 is a good number.

Birdsell: I think six is fair. If you told you stole six, you would be lynched if you don’t justify it.

SG Advisor: You’re stealing opportunity by taking an extra voucher.

Hutcherson: If you took six or above you would be recommended to Gov Ops. I would also say that if it is gross or major, a resignation would be more justified than Gov Ops and would save their credibility.

Fabricius: I hope the first thing the Gov Ops committee would do is hold a hearing before talking about specific individuals. I feel that people should be evenly punished for major wrongdoing.

Stephenson: If we suspend backpacks in the windows will that help?

Langley: If we can’t trust the people who are SG officials to go in there we have a big problem.

Hutcherson: That’s just what happened.

Langley: But what we’ve come to a consensus on is that it was the culture, but from this day forward it will be zero-tolerance.

Fabricius: That is what the committee should do. But we also need to have some hearing.

Langley: From this committee?

Hutcherson: So if they are students they should go to campus community and if they are senators they should go to Gov Ops.

Fabricius: This committee has a general authority to govern over ticket distribution. I think it is its prerogative first and firsthand to know what it is volunteering to be doing before everyone else.

Hutcherson: It’s obvious now that we’ve just set a bar of six or more vouchers. I’d ask that any information that you have be compiled into a report and sent to Gov Ops. We have investigations and the rest of the senate business so I want to make sure everything runs smoothly.

Chichwak: Since we’ll be dealing with this I also ask that you send it to me also.

Fabricius: I’d like to make a motion that:

(i) the committee henceforth sets a zero-tolerance policy on the unauthorized appropriation of vouchers by its volunteers;

(ii) the committee determines that volunteers who appropriated five or less vouchers could not have universally realized, under previously articulated standards, that it could be perceived as wrongdoing and therefore no further action should occur regarding those individuals;

Adams: Is that a recommendation to Gov’t Operations?

Fabricius: No that is not, that is an action by this committee on the part of governing its volunteers. And,

(iii) the committee determines that volunteers who appropriated six or more vouchers have likely committed wrongdoing and recommends the Committee on Government Operations open further investigation into their actions.

Consent called on motion.

Birdsell: I don’t feel you should say constitutes wrong doing, I feel taking one constitutes wrongdoing.

Fabricius: “unquestionable” added.

Motion as it stands:
(i) the committee henceforth sets a zero-tolerance policy on the unauthorized appropriation of vouchers by its volunteers;
(ii) the committee determines that volunteers who appropriated five or less vouchers could not have universally realized, under previously articulated standards, that it could be perceived as wrongdoing and therefore no further action should occur regarding those individuals; and
(iii) the committee determines that volunteers who appropriated six or more vouchers have committed unquestionable wrongdoing and recommends the Committee on Government Operations open further investigation into their actions.

Adams: Seeing no objections, the committee passes this motion by consent.

Hutcherson: I have a query for the chair. Do you have a list of individuals who have appropriated more than six?

Adams: No.

Hutcherson: Do you have any names?

Adams: No.

Langley: Who has this list?

Adams: You would want to talk to Will Quick and Scott.

Stephenson: I have the list but I can not disclose it at this time.

Fabricius: It will become a part of public record sooner or later.

Langley: I think the first step needs to be that every bit of intelligence that Will Quick has is handed over to us.

Sevits: Agreed.

Langley: Every bit of it, nothing held back.

Fabricius: Does this committee need to go into executive session?

Langley: At some point this committee does. If we want to do it tonight, that is what we need to do. If we want to do it next meeting after we deal with Student Wolfpack Club, that’s what we need to do.

Adams: I think our motion is good enough for now.

Langley: Do we need to make a motion to hand over the list?

Hutcherson: Next week Gov Ops will be meeting, the sooner we can get the information...

Adams: This information you will have, but I don’t think our committee should deal with it.

SG Advisor: This is the proper way, we should follow all the rules.

Cleary: Whether in committee or open senate we need to go into executive session.

Fabricius: We can’t go into executive session because these are public officials and the student body has a right to know; it’s a matter of state law.

Quick: Until formal charges are made we must be in executive session. That’s what student legal services said.

Fabricius: We can’t impeach someone in executive session.

Langley: Should we meet next week and have these people come in one by one and speak to us? So next Wednesday night we will let come in.

Cleary: I understand that you all have jurisdiction over tickets but we’ve gone beyond just a ticket issue. If someone steals money it’s not a treasurer’s issue but it goes to the subcommittee on ethics. I think the subcommittee on ethics should be investigating and campus community can do its proper and right duty by saying this is a guideline, but the subcommittee on ethics can conduct all disciplinary action.

Langley: It falls under our committee to be in charge of every aspect of student tickets.

Cleary: My point is that the financial services committee deals with the finances of Student Government, but if someone was accused of misappropriating funds from Student Government, the subcommittee on ethics or Gov Ops would be in charge of investigating the situation, not the Financial Services committee.

Fabricius: I think what this committee did was take a first step in stating what is wrong in ticket distribution.

Hutcherson: We need to know by next week who appropriated six or more vouchers.

Adams: I don’t feel that this information needs to be discussed in this committee.

Fabricius: If anyone felt that the names were compiled in an improper fashion that would be an issue.

Adams: I think if that concern did come up that would be turned over to Government Operations in their whole investigation.

Fabricius: I think this committee is explicitly standing behind the list.

Langley: I’m not standing behind any list until we see a list.

Sevits: Agreed.

Langley: I don’t know how this list is compiled, nobody is telling me anything.

Adams: I don’t think that is part of our committee.

Sevits: This is dealing with ticket distribution policy and we need to see every bit of intelligence that they have because this is a ticket distribution policy issue. We need to deal with it here and we can send it to Government Operations once we see what is pertinent to ticket distribution policy and we just don’t want to hand it off and then have someone else report to us what is our job to do. We need to do our job and we need to have all the information. How do we know what is necessary to investigate?

SG Advisor: We’re not charged to investigate wrongdoing, that’s what ethics committees do. You need to define policy that says what is right or wrong so they can so that they can implement it on your behalf.

Adams: I think at this point we have enough information, not that we had any names or numbers or anything, but we had enough information to set policy and that’s what we did.

Hutcherson: Let me state that the concern that you had in reference to how the list was assembled, the subcommittee on ethics will file a report. It will not be a secret society; it will be included in the report.

Fabricius: I feel the committee should make a motion so that there will be no doubt how the list was compiled.

Hutcherson: I am already going to charge my subcommittee on ethics chair to release a report on how the list was compiled. That will already take place in my realm. But for the zero-tolerance policy, the people should not work the windows until this is resolved.

SG Advisor: It does not accuse anyone inappropriately.

Fabricius: It does not accuse anyone, it punishes them. They haven’t been accused, it’s absurd.

Wilburn: I don’t think anyone who got caught will be working anytime soon. Scott knows so can politely say no. There will not be a shortage of people to work.

Langley: I want to know how this list was compiled. As I understand it, I’ve heard rumors, I want to hear the truth.

SG Advisor: I’ve just told you, the Student Body President and the Student Senate President had information brought to them and from that information they called people accused, some people admitted to it.

Wilburn: The people who worked the window are public. They called everyone and they either came forward or they didn’t, and the people who came forward are on the list.

Langley: Is it not Scott’s job to oversee the people who were working the windows?

Adams: I don’t think that is really a big deal.

SG Advisor: Not right now.

Sevits: Frankly, I don’t believe that how this information was gathered may be pertinent to this committee but the information itself is! That’s what we need to see, we don’t need to see it in a public session I feel because formal charges have not been brought but this needs to be an issue that is shown in executive session to this committee because this is a ticket policy issue right now. We don’t know otherwise, it’s our responsibility.

Adams: The thing is it wouldn’t change anything; we’ve set our policy and made our motion.

Wilburn: I’m with these guys here. I don’t think it is appropriate for an issue to be brought to my attention and not know all the facts. Even if we’re saying that is not going to effect the decisions we have already made. I hope we are all mature enough to make an objective decision based on who’s on the list that’s just the fact that it is most appropriate for us to know nothing but the truth and all the truth.

Adams: Do you want a list of the numbers?

Langley: I’d like to see a list of all the intelligence and I have another thing is that this issue should have been handled by Scott, the student ticket administrator.

SG Advisor: He was included in those phone calls.

Langley: Did you Scott? I didn’t hear anything about that. You just told me when I asked the truth and you told me that the Student Body President and the Student Senate President handled this and nothing about the student ticket administrator.

Sevits: This reeks of a cover-up!

Stephenson: Yes, I was called and I was asked.

Langley: Were you the first telephone call?

Stephenson: I don’t know.

Langley: He should have been the one to call the people.

SG Advisor: This goes back to how they handled this.

Langley: I don’t like the way this list was compiled. It does matter.

Cleary: The chair has the floor. I think the critical issue comes to jurisdiction over the issue. Yes I understand there are claims of a cover-up and I believe that the committee dutifully charged to take on the investigation will take this into account. It is paramount to protect those involved otherwise we will get sued. Due process must be required.

SG Advisor: You’re not a judicial body.

Cleary: This committee does not have investigation ability. This committee has the ability to set guidelines.

Sevits: With all due respect, nor does the subcommittee on ethics at this point.

Adams: We know that there are some students that stole a significant amount of tickets. The specifics could be compiled it could be 500, it could be 100, it is not relevant. We know generally what happened, we made our policy accordingly. We do not need to know numbers or names.

Hutcherson: The names will be going to the subcommittee on ethics.

Adams: They can take care of it.

Fabricius: I appreciate both sides of the argument but the question is if the committee has complete jurisdiction over the matter. The question we face is does this committee has the ability to evaluate everything that has been done to this date regarding governing tickets to assure everything was done properly. And I think it was done properly. But sometimes the best thing so that these individuals can act properly is to get more information on the table. The way to stop uncontrolled rumors is to have uncontrolled fact.

Wilburn: I agree with that.

SG Advisor: I think all we can do is wait for the report.

Wilburn: It seems our job would be to make a report when we have the jurisdiction to view the information. I feel that maybe that the policy we made may be correct but if this was in the court of law it would be declared a mistrial since we don’t have all the information and that is not fair to us, the governing body who is supposed to make the decision. I know we are saying that the information is not pertinent to this but it is because it is our job to make the decision.

Adams: But don’t you think that is in the past and there is nothing positive that could come out of the decision?

Langley: I think this was handled poorly all the rumors going around.

Wilburn: I think that was our problem, it was how poorly it was handled and how people took things in their own hands.

Toms: I was going to say this earlier, but I think having numbers would have helped in this situation. If we’re going to set a limit, and most people took seven tickets, are those people going to be punished? So numbers could be important.

Fabricius: I do think it was inherently fair to set a number without knowing names or numbers. But now that the number has been set, I think it makes since so that this committee has full confidence with what has happened.

Adams: What I want to bring to the table next is making two assistant ticket administrators. I’d like to move that Jon Chichwak and Casey Perry be appointed as assistant ticket administrators.

Sevits: I object to the motion until Scott has voiced his opinion.

Cleary: My question is the committee prepared to consider the legislation before it? Right now the committee has no stance on a ticket administrator.

Adams: So now we will look at GB 93, so basically this puts in writing what we have been using in the past and there is one small change. And that is that the senate actually approves our committee appointment of ticket administrator by a majority vote.

Langley: Who is the author of that?

Cleary: I am.

Langley: To make it official, does it have to have the majority of the senate?

Adams: Without this legislation I could appoint him myself and the committee would vote to approve the appointment, but this legislation would say we would make the appointment and senate would approve it.

Langley: I think it falls under us but the senate doesn’t really need to vote on it. We can handle it in-house and that is our job of our committee. The student senate trusts us to make that decision.

Cleary: I would argue that this is one of the most visible things that we do, and the senate should have the ability to vote on who the ticket administrator is. One it gives us latitude if the campus community committee is off center with what the rest of the senate is doing and secondly what it does is it provides us with a vote and a check.

Sevits: This is the second time tonight that we are removing some of our ability and moving that to the senate.

Adams: Point of information, it does not put the power in the Senate’s hands.

Cleary: The only power the Senate gains out of this could theoretically be never appointing a ticket administrator and then the blame would fall to the senate. The committee has the charge of appointing.

Sevits: But we are competent to.

Langley: This type of thing is bogging down the Senate.

Ortega: I’m sorry but you were not called on (Sen. Sevits), you were not called on (Sen. Langley), Patrick has the floor, next is Erich.

Sevits: Patrick is not a member of this committee.

Langley: You are not the Chair! You (Sen. Ortega) are out of line.

Ortega: I’m getting kind of pissed off because I’ve had my hand raised.

Langley: Well you’re out of line.

Adams: Whoa! So some people think the Senate should confirm the appointment and some people don’t. Why don’t we vote on the legislation and if we have an amendment why don’t we bring that amendment to the Senate?

Langley: Why not do that right now? That’s what bogs down the Senate, the committee is not doing the work.

Fabricius: There is one major office that we don’t confirm and that is the part of the standing committee chair. If we’re not confirming those people, the most powerful people of the Student Senate. If we can’t determine if are doing their job properly why should we determine their subordinates?

Cleary: This check also important because we’ve created a position that has traditionally been a senator and this would allow for a non-senator to be appointed to the position. A vote would provide them with the support to do their job properly.

Adams: I think that is a good point. If the senate doesn’t approve the appointment of a chair, the senate shouldn’t have to approve the appointment of ticket administrator.

Cleary: Well we approve the inspector generals.

Fabricius: We should get rid of that position, it’s pointless.

Cleary: I’m not denying it but if we are going to appoint an inspector general who is going to report to a committee, they are approved by the senate.

Fabricius: I think we need to look more generally, if we want to lock in the system we have it is a good bill and I fully support it.

Adams: I think it is a really really silly thing with the Senate approving the appointment.

Langley: It could.

Sevits: They don’t need to approve it though.

Adams: I move to strike “subject to the majority vote of Senate” from GB 93.

Seconded, ayes have it. Line was struck.

Adams: I move to report for consideration by the Senate of GB 93.

Sevits: I second that.

Ayes have it.

Adams: We have just reported favorably GB 93.

*** Secretary’s Note ***
GB 93, although mentioned as being “reported favorably” by the committee to the Senate by Sen. Adams after the bill was voted upon, the vote was not to approve favorably but to only report the bill for consideration to the Senate. It should not be construed in any fashion that the bill was supported by a vote reporting it as “favorable” to the Senate.
*** Secretary’s Note ***

Fabricius: I feel the bill should have been voted down, it’s just more statues.

Adams: That is an opinion.

Sevits: I move to re-open discussion on the previous motion.

(Motion was not acknowledged)

Adams: Scott, tell us how campout went.

Stephenson: We had 218 people and that was sad. But everyone had fun. For the first time ever we did not kick out a singe group for drinking. Due to the trash bag thing I added another regulation to provide every organization with a trash bag. There was no trash on the ground. That was a lot different than last year. The next campout is in a few weeks for Carolina. Vouchers will be for Maryland, and it will be after wave of relief. It is an away game on Sunday. Tickets will be on the Wednesday at the game.

Wilburn: Can we do anything for entertainment for campout. If we can’t do fires, then there is not much there. I’m being honest.

Langley: I move to make a subcommittee for campout.

Adams: I move to dismiss.

Objected to.

Adams: I move to appoint Jon Chichwak and Casey Perry as Assistant Ticket Administrators.

Stephenson: Recently, there has been talk that especially under recent circumstances and Jon and Casey are the best people to help. I’ve approached both of them.

Consent called, acclamation, objection to acclamation. Consent called, seeing no objection, appointed.

Sen. Chichwak accepted the nomination.

Objection to adjournment.

Stephenson: I move to elect Mr. Sevits as an officer of this committee as IRC Liaison.

Langley: I will second that.

Adams: Consent.

Ortega: We already have an IRC Liaison.

Adams: How would you feel about Liaison to Campus Community Committee for IRC?

Sevits: Technically, the people who had the IRC Liaison position in previous semesters haven’t been showing up for all the meetings. I can show up for all the meetings and I already am a member of IRC.

Ortega: I will withdraw my current position and I will talk to Tony about appointing Joe.

Sevits: It’s not necessary, it’s a committee issue. It’s nothing against you.

Langley: It was called to consent, and there was no objection.

Stephenson: Ok, so what is the name of it?

Adams: “IRC Liaison”

Sevits: It keeps it in the Senate.

Adjourned – 9:46