Wesleyan Student Assembly — Wesleyan University

Minutes: April 13, 2003, No. 19

WSA Officers

• President: Joey Wender
• Vice President: Yaw Agyenim-Boateng
• Coordinator: Sara Mirsky
• Treasurer: Adam Lachman

Opening of Meeting

The meeting was opened at 8:03 pm.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes were approved by a majority.

Meeting Agenda and Business

• Discussion of College Body Tax
• ConnPIRG Discussion
• Resolution on Iraq
• Committee Reports
• New Business and Announcements

Discussion of College Body Tax – Adam Lachman

• (see attachment 19A)
• First, Mr. Lachman proposes an amendment to the WSA Constitution to change the name of the “College Body Tax (CBT)” to the “Student Activities Fee (SAF).”

Vote

• Amendment passes.
• The SAF is now at $94 per semester. The SBC hopes to raise the Fee $15 per semester. It became clear that the Fee needed to be increased in the Midyear Report; the trend of requesting money has greatly increased (increase of 52%). While this leads to more competition, there should not be a huge gap between what the SBC is able to fund and what it has to reject. Furthermore, the cost of events will increase in the future, more active student groups are emerging, etc. On the scale of how much peer schools charge for their SAFs, Wesleyan is on the lower end. Since we’re in competition with them for speakers, bands, and more, we need the money to compete. Raising the Fee now will eliminate the need to raise it next year. The SBC chose a raise of $15 because: 1) it is still very small on an individual level, and 2) the $5 difference from $10 is insignificant in the theoretical debate of the issue. If the Assembly passes a $15 raise now, it will be longer before it asks for another one. It is important for all representatives to affirm the raise so that everyone can advocate it.

Stack

• Colleen Galbraith inquires into the percentage of total funds that the SBC has allocated this year.
• Mr. Lachman explains that if it hadn’t been for the surplus last year, and if it weren’t for 3-4 years of keeping a balanced budget, the SBC would be in more and more trouble with its funds. It has about $50,000-$60,000 left and hopes to leave at least a $10,000 surplus.
• Yaw Agyenim-Boateng believes that a $5 difference is significant when added to the tuition hike. It is better to have an increase of $10 than nothing.
• Mr. Lachman agrees that the increase matters, but the difference between $10 and $15 is not bad. People will either pass it or not pass it based on the idea behind the increase.
• Joey Wender asks how the SBC is going to convince the Student Body that the raise should be passed.
• Sohana Punithakumar responds that when the SBC campaigned for a raise last year, the IPC and SBC pursued an active campaign to convince students that the school would be better for it.
• Becca Solow points out that the difference between $10 and $15 is very tangible to the SBC; it will not have to reject events because of lack of funding. The difference, however, is not as tangible to each individual. The increase in total requests has been 52%; an increase of $15 would only increase funding capabilities by 16%. Anything lower than $15, therefore, would be ineffectual.
• Mr. Lachman adds that the SBC will continue its aggressive policy to keep costs down.
• Sam Franklin asks if the difference is covered by Financial Aid.
• Mr. Lachman answers that the University has already made adjustments for the increase. The SBC ran the figure of $15 by the administration so that there wouldn’t be a shock to them.
• Sam Franklin believes that the advertising campaign would be totally valid and would work.
• Mr. Lachman points out that it would also raise awareness of the SBC.
• Selina Ellis thinks that the idea of the SBC having more money makes it a little less intimidating (adding that this could also be an effect of the absence of Sebastian Kaplan-Sears).
• Nathan Victoria asks why the SBC chose $15 and not $20. He also inquires into
• some ideas for the campaign.
• Mr. Lachman explains that the SBC will campaign by writing WeSpeaks, writing letters to group leaders, getting RAs involved, engaging freshmen and sophomores, blitzing campus with posters, etc. He answers the first question by saying that people would probably see an increase of $20 as unfair. Also, the budget should not have too much money left over.
• Danny Rodriguez asks how the SBC can assume that it will not need to ask for an increase next year, seeing as it did not foresee its need for an increase after last year. He believes that it would be more effective to raise the Fee higher and push it harder.
• Mr. Lachman agrees that those are valid points, but he still believes that more than $15 is too much. Last year’s and this year’s raises are tied together; before then, the Fee hadn’t been raised for many years.
• Patrick Rheume points out that the WeSpeaks will impress upon people the need for an increase when they see all the things that the SBC funds.
• Joey Wender asks how ConnPIRG’s attempt to raise the SAF by $5 per student
• will affect the SBC’s increase.
• Mr. Lachman responds that it will make both raises harder to pass.
• However, Wesleyan is in a very dangerous place; it risks falling way behind other schools and going below 40% of funds allocated.
• ConnPIRG’s request will probably dilute what the SBC is trying to do.
• Leilani Kupo announces that raising the SAF is becoming a nation-wide trend.
• Colleen Galbraith believes that $15 is a good amount because it would help stay in check with where we are.

Vote on putting a $15 increase of the Student Activities Fee on the ballot.

Passes unanimously.

ConnPIRG Discussion – Jessica Tritsch and Isaac Fleisher

ConnPIRG is a group that focuses on the environment, consumer awareness, social awareness, etc. It would like to start a chapter at Wesleyan, but doesn’t want to take money away from other groups. It therefore hopes to charge $5 per person per semester separately from the SAF. It plans on networking with other groups at schools across Connecticut. There are currently three chapters in Connecticut and hundreds across the country. ConnPIRG would like to come to Wesleyan because 1) it is a very active school, and 2) it would add a lot of resources to the community (PIRG hires faculty advocates to work with it). Students will be in charge of the funding. At other schools, PIRG runs internship programs so that students can take classes on topics such as grassroots organizing. There will be a vote every two years to put the charge on the ballot.

Stack

• Joey Wender makes a point of information and ascertains that items are put on the ballot by either 1) the WSA approving it, or 2) getting 1/3 of the student body to sign a petition.
• Mr. Fleisher points out that people will not associate the raise with the SAF because PIRG has made it clear through its advertising that it is separate.
• Jeremy Abrams asks who would oversee the money if the item were passed.
• Ms. Tritsch explains that the group would have to figure it out, but the money would hopefully be accountable to the SBC.
• Adam Lachman adds that it would run similarly to the readership program.
• Ms. Tritsch includes that at other schools, members vote on a Board to handle the money.
• Becca Solow argues that it is unfair to make students pay a fee if they do not agree with the cause. Also, only a limited number of students would be involved in the organization, but they would hold a huge amount of resources.
• Ms. Tritsch believes that the organization would benefit the whole student body and would get involved in many aspects of the campus. The idea of PIRG is that students would have an organization that works with them and on their behalf. The idea of having it independently on that ballot is to show that the whole student body supports the organization before charging that much money.
• Mr. Fleisher adds that PIRG will be visible and will be engaging in activities that benefit the whole campus.
• Ms. Tritsch explains that the group needs a big budget to hire staff.
• Sara Mirsky inquires into the line of pitching when getting people to sign the petition.
• Ms. Tritsch responds that she explains what the groups is and shows that it is very campus-oriented and directed.
• Mr. Fleisher answers that people have been very receptive. If people worry that it will compete with other environmental groups, he explains that it serves a different function.
• Adam Lachman asks where the group’s money would go: to Wesleyan or to a national, centralized fund for all schools.
• Ms. Tritsch answers that most would go to a staffperson working on campus, and the rest would be pooled together.
• Adam Lachman asks what percent of income would go to administrative costs.
• Ms. Tritsch responds that it would be about 15%.
• Adam Lachman asks if there is a way for students to opt out of the charge.
• Ms. Tritsch explains that there would be problems if that option existed; it might lead to people requesting money back for other groups, as well. If people want it, though, it will be made an option.
• Colleen Galbraith believes that the WSA should wait for the 900 signatures. The idea didn’t come out of the WSA, and it shouldn’t go through us. She asks why a small group of students should get such a large amount of money that is separate from other groups.
• Ms. Tritsch explains that it would benefit the large campus, train people for leadership skills, etc. She gives the example of an internship program in Oberlin to which many groups send freshmen. PIRG would held fund other actions and groups, as well.
• Mr. Fleisher adds that Wesleyan will network with other Connecticut schools.
• Danny Rodriguez argues that students should be able to opt out of the fee, especially since not everyone votes.
• Sara Mirsky points out that if he feels so strongly about the issue, he should get people to vote against it.
• Yaw contends that PIRG should be like other clubs and go through the SBC. There are other clubs that are branches of national or statewide organizations that go through the SBC. PIRG should start small, then if it has a huge membership, it should go for the $5 fee.
• Mr. Fleisher explains that PIRG wouldn’t be a student club; it would be a chapter of an already existing organization. Furthermore, it does not want to compete with other groups for SBC money.
• Patrick Rheume asks if the group would fund both conservative and liberal issues.
• Ms. Tritsch answers that the students in the group would decide on this.
• Selina Ellis, who is hyper on caffeine due to drinking too much Coke, asks what is to stop other groups from putting fees on the ballot. She doesn’t understand why the group needs so much money and what makes it so different and great. She is very skeptical about the situation.
• Ms. Tritsch ends by informing the Assembly of an informational session on ConnPIRG this week. She will let the WSA know when and where it is.

Resolution on Iraq – Joey Wender

• (see attachment 19A)
• The discussion will start precisely where it ended last Sunday night. People can add friendly amendments to the document presented.

Stack

• Leilani Kupo reminds the representatives to think about whose voice the document is representing. They should think about who their constituents are and make sure to represent that voice as well as the WSA’s voice.
• Adam Lachman believes that it is better not to pass a resolution than to pass a vague one.
• Sasha Freudenberg reviews SPIN’s past actions and argues that the majority of the student body is against the war.
• Nathan Victoria points out that only 14% of students went to protest in New York City; no one can say that the majority of student are against the war.
• Sohana Punithakumar adds that students may not be speaking out for the war because the campus is not exactly supportive of alternative views.
• Joey Wender argues that passing an anti-war resolution is out of the WSA’s scope.
• Selina Ellis believes that the WSA cannot silence people by passing a resolution. SPIN is so active; the WSA does not need to take on this role as well.
• Karen Courtheoux contends that the WSA should represent the vocal majority, in which case the resolution is too watered down.
• Monica Arduini reports on the emails that the WSA has received regarding the resolution. There have been 17 in favor of a strong anti-war resolution, and one against.
• Sam Franklin states that most students don’t know what they think about the war. Passing a resolution is all the WSA can do; it is good enough. Also, he argues that the resolution should not be viewed as relating to political parties.
• Adam Lachman points out that the fact that the WSA is getting emails on the issue shows that people are concerned. He believes that the points made in the resolution will be valid for a long time.

Vote on the resolution on Iraq (finalized version: attachment 19B)

• 23 in favor; 4 opposed; 3 abstentions
• (please note that though the discussion on the resolution lasted for many hours tonight, most of it is not included in the minutes seeing as it mostly consisted of amendments which can viewed in attachment 19B)

Committee Reports

Committee Reports for this week were tabled to email.

New Business and Announcements

• Joey Wender announces that petitions for WSA reelections are due on Wednesday.
• Emily Polak encourages people to attend a meeting with the Dining Committee at 7 pm on Wednesday.

Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Monica Arduini, WSA Secretary