11/18/12 BOD Meeting

  • Special topic: Selection Process
    • If leaders perform poorly, should not be traveling. Awards should not be priority if behavior has not demonstrated deserving.
    • We should travel quality not quantity. We don’t have to fill all slots, need to measure current performance, not past.
    • Per the constitution – it is not the place of the BOD to dictate selection.
    • Selection committee is not following selection criteria. We should not travel people who performed badly just because we know they’re capable of performing better.
    • Bothered that no one brought this up until now. The President and Parliamentarian should have been informed when the constitution was not being followed
    • The language is flexible. Inherent prioritization that we’ve created.
    • Unfair conflict for selection committee to decide what is better for our principles or for our conference experience.
    • Constitution states that past performance can be considered in tryouts.
    • The issue is not considering past performance, it is that leaders are not performing.
    • This same leadership that wins at conferences do not perform in class, NERMAL, BMAL, or volunteer to chair…etc. If we consider ALL these, these people wouldn’t make the cut anyway.
    • When leadership chooses to attend tryouts they need to perform.
    • Then make tryouts optional? Let people be judged on what they’re willing to put in.
    • That creates two separate groups for trying out.
    • Tryouts badly designed.
    • Sounds like this discussion is airing opinions. There is no question to be voted on. We’ve heard a consensus that selection committee is not obligated to travel leaders.
    • Make rule – selection committee is responsible for designing tryouts, writing topic guides
    • HD is unhappy that they were not consulted.
    • It is better to evaluate class debates.
    • The constitution delineates that selection committee can design tryouts.
    • VOTE: Should selection committee be tasked with designing tryouts? Unanimous vote in favor.
    • Selection committee cannot make policy issues. They are too temporary.
    • Role of prior behavior in selection decisions.
    • The debate over prior performance.
    • Maintaining continuity in selection criteria.
    • VOTE: Selection committee vows to comprehensive use of criteria. Unanimous vote in favor.
    • VOTE: Can E-Board make mandates to selection committee regarding criteria for tryouts? Yes: 0; No: 11; Abstain: 2.
    • VOTE: Can BOD make mandates? Yes: 1; No: 11; Abstain: 1.
    • VOTE: Amend constitution to clarify purpose of selection committee? Yes: 7; No: 2; Abstain: 4.
    • VOTE: BOD and E-Board have right to offer nonbinding advice on interpretation of criteria laid out (Article 10, Section 2 of bylaws). Yes: 3; No: 8; Abstain: 2.
    • VOTE: Decision-making priority is to make team that successfully represents university at conference. Yes: 5; No: 5; Abstain: 3.
    • The NATO Teams:  How do we think of the two teams?
  • Possible March Event
  • Election Details:
    • Elections = Tues, 8PM on December 4th.
  • Constitutional Amendments
    • Institutionalize election procedure – don’t allow candidates to remain in room during deliberations.
    • Move to get rid of deliberations all together. Q&A, no discussion.
    • General members don’t interact enough to have all insight on candidates
    • There aren’t campaigns, so deliberations are an important function in elections.
    • Should be up to candidates whether to be present during deliberations
    • Deliberations need to not be teardown sessions, attacking person instead of candidate.
    • Can we as a club agree to keep deliberations and not continue smear campaign?
    • We cannot expect to govern deliberations, we either have them or don’t.
    • Members do not know candidates. Candidates should leave room because for example, as someone running, didn’t want to say something negative about someone that might work with them on board.
    • Close off nominations before the night of, and give members an opportunity to talk about it outside.
    • If deliberations are kept offline, it will force clique decisions. How will general members gain the insight from experienced members?
    • Clique decisions happen because people are rushing in the un-moderated caucus to decide.
    • This is about what’s good for the organization, and not the candidates.
    • If we choose to close off nominations, the constitution must be amended.
    • We need to make that amendment this week. Approval committee agenda is full.
    • Won’t happen this election cycle; there is not enough time. Recommends to do it early in semester or it will fail.
    • BOD can make mandate to not allow candidates present during deliberations.
    • VOTE (should candidates be forced to leave during deliberations?): 9 in favor, 3 opposed. Passed.
    • Amendment on the Bylaws
      • Removing bylaws from constitution and putting in bylaws section.
      • Rules Interpretation note
    • Amendment on the Budget
    • Clearinghouse Amendment
  • Brain drain from having both MUN and NATO in the Fall
    • Change in leadership will fix
    • Need AVP for each program
    • Make MUN crisis oriented
    • Need to prepare delegates and create environment to perform, needs end goal – that’s competition. Rotating schedule easier for people on COOP.
    • Hard to prepare big committees
    • No more crisis simulations! The problem is not enough leadership. So many people come into MUN, not enough return – retention rate is not great.
    • There is more potential in MUN, we just need to make topics better.
    • The problem is leadership.
    • It is not leadership; there have always been problems in MUN.
    • Problem is pairing has been inconsistent. Should not be more than 2 countries each semester.
    • Problem is the E-Board keeps changing. The problems will not be fixed until the BOD sets something in stone.
    • One person should not make topics, they should be made by the group so it appeals to multiple people.
    • VOTE: EVP create Google doc to collect topics. Yes: 8; No: 1; Abstain: 1.
    • VOTE: Mandatory AVP for each program. Yes: 9; No: 0; Abstain: 1.
    • VOTE: Recommends EVP look to success of 2010 NATO debates. Yes: 6; No: 0; Abstain: 4.
  • SGA Update
    • None of the resolutions of governance (RG) passed – all tabled.
    • One allows SGA to approve its own budget – our representative will vote no.
  • Political Science Department Search
    • Already brought one candidate on campus. Next candidate on campus tomorrow, IRC President signed up to meet on Tuesday, and there will be one on campus every class day until finals. So many people!
    • Signed up for 3 people, and are open to others coming.
    • A spreadsheet will be made with interview times and positions. The first one is Tuesday morning.
  • Minor in Global Engagement, Minor in Security Studies, Masters in Security & Resilience Studies +1 Program.
    • Minor is security studies approved by dean. Model NATO currently election, might become requirement. Could be available spring.
    • Minor is global engagement – requirement to take one of the three regional based model classes (MAL, NATO, MEU). Not mandatory for IAF – that’s the difference.
    • Masters in security and resilience studies going forward. +1 program. Department considering Model NATO as mandatory UG class.
  • Storage cleanup
    • Needs to happen ASAP, so that we can keep the space next semester.
  • Budget Update
    • Over 95% of fees collected – have contacted all the remaining people
    • Refunded late fees due to concerns about reminders
    • More revenue and less spending that projected – on track to balanced budget
    • Decision to resign and run for re-election to allow membership to choose

 

This entry was posted in E-Board Minutes. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.