12/04/12 BOD Meeting

  • Share E-Board memo on teaching philosophy
    • Last e-board meeting, sat down and discussed philosophy of teaching
    • What is concept of info sessions/topics/what are topic guides and how do we wish them to look?
    • Introduction of memo on teaching strategies
    • How to deal with memo:
      • Wait to talk about it until new e-board gets chance to read it
      • Vote on it now
      • Also there has been a suggested template for topic guides
      • Very sudden to throw it at BOD, there needs to be discussion of document in and of itself
      • Memo is a compilation of ideas in last E-Board meeting, with the intent of presenting at this BOD meeting
      • Recommendation of a Facebook/social network chat to table this for now
      • Tabling this until next semester will eliminate our ability to involve ourselves in syllabus, needs an answer to write syllabus
      • The memo is meant as more of a suggestion to incoming E-board
      • Has been duly noted, and memo will be under strong consideration for next syllabus, but it is not place of outgoing e-board to have declaratory voice, recommends Professor drafts next syllabus and then presents it to the board, but doing it now hinders discussion
      • Suggest we pool our feedback to send to central account
      • Should not use Google Docs, it is express duty of e-board
      • Now each member of BOD is required to submit suggestions on memo for next E-Board to consider with syllabus
      • Came about with system not working and people not agreeing with the system. It comes down to getting the memo before the board and the BOD to take action.
      • We need more time to give formulated thoughts, propose a 10 min. moderated caucus for pooling ideas to then submit as written recommendations
      • Moderated
        • Role of EVP → First and Third paragraph are unclear because of choosing AVPs; creation of background guides → passed out not e-mailed? Assignments should also come out at that time
        • Clarification on AVP as a choice
        • Matter of policy → a lot of it is far too prescriptive, assumes that info session is going forward, Professor and EVP should decide how much EVP does.
        • It is understood that this should be discussed at a later date, the Professor needs to be more involved in the club, unclear professorship
        • Helpful in terms of transition to new E-Board, reiterating Professor’s involvement and these are recurring issues
        • The role of EVP → AVP is at discretion of EVP, the “must choose AVP” does not stand according to constitution; one point person should write background guides
        • How does this affect syllabus writing? Nothing indicates what class/club/meeting/delegation meetings are; yes, Professor should have a larger role, but that should not be the job of the BOD to decide.
        • The document dodges most controversial aspects, 1) short debates and 2) different countries every time did not allow for in-depth debate into each country or topic
        • System of education should not change from E-Board to E-Board, should be institutionalized, maybe a little more rigid so it remains constant/consistent semester to semester
        • That is up to the Professor to involve himself more
        • It is not the intention to dictate, simply suggestions
        • Institutionalize discussion on education, must have record of what kind of policies were implemented
        • Another debate has been standardized procedure platform, nothing has come to fruition, something like the memo is a good step in that direction and can be amended
        • Does not discuss why actions were taken, assumption that current model of info sessions followed by debate will continue
        • We have to remember that this is a class first, club second, Professor has to tell us if he wants to teach x, y, z
        • Agree with Parliamentarian, MAL is our focus and we have ability to try a different structure
        • Agree with Parliamentarian also, fundamentally what was used this semester had lots of flaws, and an info session debate has to happen before January.
        • Info sessions not failing because of bad structure they are failing because of lack of depth, not academically conducive to learning as we could be
        • Professor needs to be more involved because that does provide continuity, AVPs are necessary, and the general problem with info sessions is ratio to debate
        • If Professor is the voice of class, all this is just a suggestion from old to new E-Board, this is not in our realm of discussion
        • Everyone should submit written feedback to central account (although there is a strong recommendation for a special BOD meeting because of the length of discussion needed)
    • When should meeting happen in next two weeks?
    • There is an agreement over a problem with ratio of information session/debate, how should we play with that ratio? A second point is we need a discussion on topic guides, need higher linkage between guides and syllabus (more clear on info session and topic guides), speak to pedagogy along with system of pedagogy, debate vs. learn vs. outside research.
    • Incoming President will try to schedule additional bod meeting, along with written feedback to discuss:
      • 1) Role of Professor
      • 2) What is info session
      • 3) What is topic guide
      • 4) Ratio of debate to info session
  • Throwdown this year? If so, what topic (NATO something)? When (January 26 or February 2)?
    • Jan. 26 or Feb. 2
    • Topic will be left to next E-Board
      • 1) Cybersecurity
      • 2) Energy Security
      • 3) Internet control, sovereignty and liberty
  • SGA Update
    • Full body only voted on one document
    • Issue voiced by SGA was that weekly reports would have to be approved by president, meaning he would approve of his own reports and hours, it was voted down
    • Direct elections manual was voted on, now this year’s slates will be required to run on one slate, either no slating or only slating, document passed
  • 2013-2014 Fall and Spring Schedule
    • Schedule for next year, MUN can be down to 2hrs because of requisite hours
    • With this MUN is 5:30-7:30 (everyone required to do NERMAL and JCC), not enough NATO hours to reduce (requiring NERMAL makes the whole conference too big)
    • Option 1: NATO remains 2.5 hrs
    • Option 2: board adds another event
    • Option 3: think of another option
    • Requiring all members to go to tryouts? Problem: have to move all tryouts to outside of class
    • First year we did NATO, we had long single debate, great training, allows for significant resolution, problem as tryout: way we scheduled it made decision too late
    • Propose we add people to JCC committees, or make tryouts during NERMAL, treat it as extra committee
    • Add 2 Saturday simulations and cut class to 2hrs
    • Registration will take as 2.5hrs but we will shorten class some days and make up the time in outside simulations, codify shortened time
    • Break time: .5 hour or 15 min? 15 min. starting at 7:45
  • Conference Approvals for 2013-2014 Season (PD)
    • Automatically Approved
      • NUMAL
      • SERMAL
      • NATO
      • NERMAL
      • BMAL/HSMAL
      • RMUN
      • Votes May Be Required
        • MSMUN
        • IMUN
        • NATO-JCC
        • BarMUN
      • Class-Required Conference Time (in case of shortening class)
        • Currently Unneeded; May be needed.
  • VOTE (get rid of BarMUN): 13 favor, 1 opposed, 3 abstentions
  • VOTE (tentatively add MUN conference of some nature: CMUNNY or UPMUNK): 15 favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstentions.
    • We need to look into numbers before voting on conferences
  • Storage space
    • Need to clean, all IRC things to be removed/organized
    • Cleanup team put together
  • IRC Accounts
    • Former VP Admin created document with all information, every account is recorded
  • Political Science Department search
    • Current IRC President: Google doc with dates, already had two interviews
    • Most involved with international public policy and will likely be involved in interviewing all 4 candidates

 

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

Comments are closed.