Wesleyan Student Assembly — Wesleyan University

Minutes: April 27, 2003, No. 21

WSA Officers

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

Opening of Meeting

The meeting was opened at 8:06 pm.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes were approved by a majority.

Meeting Agenda and Business

• Discussion of Campus Renovations
• COCo Shuttle Presentation
• Chalking Discussion
• Statement on Hate Speech
• EON Eggs
• Impeachment Trial

Discussion of Campus Renovations – Alan Rubacha

• The construction of the new University Center is moving along well. Mr. Rubacha has met with a committee of 30 people, and they have developed six new options for the architecture of the Center. The options will be presented to the Board of Trustees in May. The six options revolve around the center campus and the pre-existing buildings. Option A involves the Cage and Fayerweather. Middletown approves of this option; it is a potential, but is on the shelf for now. Options B and C involve renovating Fayerweather and demolishing the Cage. Options D and E involve demolishing the Cage and Fayerweather. These are very controversial, but the committee is obligated to investigate them equally due to the support of many wealthy trustees. Option F, which is endorsed by the Master Planner, involves knowing Fayerweather down to its original 1892 structure and leaving the Squash Cages untouched (there are many exciting possibilities for this, but it is the most expensive option in costing $47 million). With this option, there will maybe be an auditorium placed in Fayerweather. A connection will be built between Fayerweather and the Cage.
• Ali Gomer adds that the WSA should support one option for the presentation to the Trustees.

Stack

• Karen Courtheoux asks when the construction for each of the options would begin.
• Mr. Rubacha responds that all options would start in April 2005.
• Becca Solow thinks that Option F seems superior because it retains the historical atmosphere of the campus.
• Selina Ellis asks why there still won’t be enough space after the renovation.
• Mr. Rubacha explains that there will be enough space, but Option A presents more of a challenge.
• Selina Ellis inquires into the finishing date.
• Mr. Rubacha responds that it will hopefully take 24 months.
• Joey Wender states that Option F is fabulous because it preserves Fayerweather while also allowing for more space.
• Jeremy Abrams asks if the building will be pushed more onto Andrus Field.
• Mr. Rubacha explains that it will a little bit, but there will still be plenty of room for sports.
• Sam Franklin asks why benefactors are more inclined to support Option D.
• Mr. Rubacha informs him that that is not necessarily a fact. However, renovating Fayerweather will be a lot of work, and without considering sentiment, building a totally new building is the easiest option.
• Colleen Galbraith asks why the addition would be an auditorium.
• Mr. Rubacha explains that it would be able to be used for all sorts of occurrences.

Vote on whether the WSA should support Option D or Option F

Option F wins unanimously.

COCo Shuttle Presentation – Anay Shah

• (see attachment 21A)
• The Shuttle Proposal is still in the rough stages, but it has already been approved by MaryAnn Wiggin. She doesn’t like running the shuttle service; it takes a lot of her time away from other issues.

Stack

• Sohana Punithakumar asks if Public Safety will control the escort services after 4 am.
• Mr. Shah affirms that they will.
• Sohana Punithakumar asks where the new Department will be housed.
• Jeremy Abrams explains that that has not been figured out yet.
• Selina Ellis asks why the student drivers have to be over 21. If that is the case, the Department will have to train new people every year. Also, if the escort goes until 4 am, students shouldn’t be made to do that. As it is, there are a lot of good drivers in the shuttles.
• Emily Polak is wary of student drivers and having students accountable for other students. Also, it will be hard for them to refuse dropping friends off at places. She proposes that adults go through a much more involved training process.
• Jeremy Abrams points out that there are many responsible students on the campus.
• Mr. Shah explains that student drivers are employed on other campuses. Many civilian drivers don’t even stop at the assigned locations. By mixing civilians and students, there will be a larger group of drivers to call upon.
• Adam Poswolsky points out that it will be really hard to find drivers for Friday and Saturday nights. There is no reason to have student drivers; instead, better and more civilian drivers should be employed.
• Mr. Shah responds that it couldn’t hurt to expand the pool of drivers.
• Colleen Galbraith brings up potential issues with student shuttle drivers drinking. Instead, she suggests a stronger screening process. She also asks where money for a new Department is coming from.
• Jeremy Abrams explains that money will come from the Public Safety budget.
• Mr. Shah calls for a straw poll of who supports student drivers- 12 in favor, 16 against.
• Yaw Agyenim-Boateng states that we have to be careful with student drivers. Civilian drivers are responsible; Public Safety should try to fix problems with them instead of totally getting rid of them.
• Cecile Aro suggests that to strengthen the shuttle program, more frequent services should be added.
• Sam Franklin proposes looking into the particulars of student drivers at other schools. He also recommends opening up a few positions to students instead of actively recruiting them.
• Mr. Shah agrees that compromising is a good idea. He adds that maybe student drivers can be hired slowly, starting with graduate students.
• Joey Wender thinks that amending the shuttle system is a great idea. It has never been considered in the four years that he’s been on the WSA.
• Danny Rodriguez likes phasing in student drivers with graduate students, but is afraid that student drivers will not be an authority figure on the shuttles.
• Sohana Punithakumar points out that there are student drivers during Homecoming and Commencement; these drivers have shown that they are responsible enough.
• Sam Franklin asks if points can be used on the MAT.
• Jeremy Abrams responds that they are trying to propose it, but still need to look into more details.
• Becca Solow suggests limiting night hours to adult drivers.
• Leilani Kupo asks where the money for the new Director is going to come from.
• Tu Chi Nguyen points out that splitting the route in two and having two shuttles on the same route are essentially the same things. Seniors are responsible enough to drive shuttles. She asks if it costs less to hire student drivers.
• Jeremy Abrams informs her that it does.
• Adam Poswolsky states that when presenting this proposal to Senior Staff, Mr. Shah and Mr. Abrams will have to reflect the WSA’s varying opinions on it. He does not believe that it will be passed if the student drivers clause is in it.
• Mr. Shah calls for a straw poll regarding the phasing in of undergraduate drivers through graduate drivers. 19 in favor, 8 opposed.

Chalking Discussion – Emily Polak

• (see attachment 21B)
• The Chalking Subcommittee met with President Bennet last week. He will not have a policy by the end of the year, but he asked the WSA to come up with paragraph regarding academic integrity and civility. Ms. Polak asks for any additions or suggestions for the paragraph.

Stack

• Colleen Galbraith asks why this needs to be said.
• Joey Wender responds that this would help Bennet reach a decision. The paragraph is basically restating what that we have already said. It emphasizes a point on which the WSA agrees with Bennet. The paragraph is an ongoing process.
• Kevin Hall explains that with this, the Subcommittee is hoping to agree with Bennet on a definition of civility.
• Karen Courtheoux believes that civility can be considered a natural right and that that definition should be used in the paragraph.

Statement on Hate Speech – Emily Polak

• (see attachment 21C)
• Ms. Polak wants the WSA to issue a statement regarding the hate crimes and speech that occurred on Friday night. The hatred was directed at the tents in front of Olin set up to advocate for student of color issues in the form of program houses. The document would not be a resolution, it would just be a statement.

Stack

• Jeremy Abrams believes that the statement should advocate for the expulsion of the perpetrators.
• Joey Wender doesn’t want to put that negativity in the document, especially since that action will probably be taken regardless.
• Karen Courtheoux states that the hate crimes should be more specific. She, also, does not want to include punishment in the document.
• Sohana Punithakumar points out that the amount of hate crimes in general has increased a lot lately. The WSA should talk to students who have been victims.
• Ms. Polak does not want to make the document a laundry list for fear of leaving one out.
• Yaw Agyenim-Boateng advocates the participation of the attacked students in forming this document. Otherwise, the situation cannot be fairly represented.
• Ms. Polak agrees, but says that the document needs to be issued in a timely manner. No matter what, the WSA can condemn hate crimes.
• Jeremy Abrams points out that we are dealing with a premeditated, violent, hate crime. The WSA should take an extreme stand on the perpetrators’ punishment.
• Colleen Galbraith agrees that the document should promote the University performing aggressive searches into the matter.
• Ali Gomer also agrees. She points out that a series of many incidents have been leading up to it.
• Joey Wender states that this isn’t a contentious document and that it should not be bogged down.
• Adam Lachman advocates being more inclusive in writing the statement.

EON Eggs – Jesse Young, Joel Bartlett, Matt Montesano, Liz Eisenberg, Josh Bryant, Laura DiScullio, Erin Smith, and Alina Hoffman

• (see attachment 21D)
• The presenters give the history of inhumane egg farming in the United States. The problem is especially prevalent in Connecticut because there are more chickens per square acre here than anywhere else. The presenters cite problems caused by factory farmed eggs on chickens, workers on farms, consumers, and the environment. The European Union has already ruled against battery cages, and McDonald’s and Burger King are now only using chickens that have been raised in healthier environments. They cite previous resolutions that the WSA has passed concerning pro-environment and pro-workers’ rights issues. They read a letter from Professor Lori Greun that urges the WSA to support the resolution. They also read a letter from a free range egg farmer, Pauline Lord, that explains how farmers can’t survive economically because of huge egg corporations.
• EON has worked with local farmers who are willing to price their eggs at $3-$3.50/dozen. This price is basically comparable to that of battery caged eggs now. With their campaign, EON has already lowered the percentage of battery eggs bought by 40%.

Stack

• Joey Wender considers that the most thorough and impressive presentation he’s ever seen. He asks, however, if EON isn’t already achieving its goal by educating people. Shouldn’t people have a choice? Is it the WSA’s place to impose beliefs on everyone on campus?
• Mr. Bartlett explains that EON would need to constantly educate people each year. The group does not have everyone’s attention to give them a presentation like this. The role of the WSA should be to make that educated decision for others. Should people have a choice to support cruelties? He points out that people will never see that side of it.
• Mr. Bryant adds that the WSA has passed resolutions before in favor of one sort of product over another (for example, Fair Trade Coffee). Even without the animal rights aspect of the issue, the people who work on the factory farms work in worse conditions than people who work in sweatshops.
• Jeremy Abrams points out that a lot of EON’s arguments could be applied to meat as well. He further points out that 55% of students still bought caged eggs, even though educated. The difference exists because people bought free running ones.
• Mr. Bartlett explains that they are focusing on eggs because they are easier to control. Now the free range eggs have prices that are comparable to battery caged ones.
• Adam Lachman is in favor of the resolution in principle, but thinks that the resolution makes some generalized statements that are irrelevant to Weshop. He asks why EON wants a resolution banning all other types of eggs and how does that relate to egg-related products.
• Mr. Bryant argues that all of the statements are related. He states that free running eggs aren’t much better than battery eggs. Currently, eggs are used in many products on campus that don’t they don’t need to be used in.
• Sam Franklin agrees that EON did a great job. Everyone is on the point system; they will just have to balance their budget accordingly. He would like to see Wesleyan be the first university to pass a resolution like this.
• Mr. Bartlett adds that the prices of eggs aren’t even posted.
• Anay Shah points out that people waste points on so many things; he buys random freshmen dinners all the time. There is not much of a price difference between the two types of eggs.

Vote

18 for; 5 against; 2 abstain

Impeachment Trial of Patrick Rheume – Joey Wender

• The number of meetings that Mr. Rheume has missed surpasses the allowed number of absences. After receiving a warning, he missed the next meeting. He is a December-December SBC representative. He must be impeached based on lack of attendance.
• Mr. Rheume is given the floor. He recognizes that he should have gone to the EC and that missing so many meetings was wrong of him, but he won’t beg for people’s sympathy. He will simply answer questions.

Stack

• Yaw Agyenim-Boateng asks if Mr. Rheume has any reasons for not attending meetings.
• Mr. Rheume explains that he missed the last meeting because he couldn’t get a ride back in time after going home for Easter. He was also sick for one meeting…
• Jeremy Levinn tells Mr. Rheume that he should have told his Committee Chair and the CC that he was going to miss meetings. If the absences were excused, he would not have been impeached. He asks if Mr. Rheume thought to email people?
• Mr. Rheume admits that he was remiss in that.
• Selina Ellis asks if he has been going regularly to the weekly SBC meetings.
• Mr. Rheume believes that he has missed only one so far.
• Emily Polak asks if he really wants to be on the WSA and why.
• Mr. Rheume answers that he does. He has enjoyed working on the SBC, especially. He likes working on various issues, and was particularly excited to work for the SBC now with the higher SAF.
• Adam Lachman asks if this problem will arise again.
• Mr. Rheume promises to make a more concerted effort to come to meetings and stay for their whole length.
• Adam Lachman asks if Mr. Rheume will run again if he was impeached. He wants to know if Mr. Rheume understands why the attendance clause exists. He asks why Mr. Rheume does not come to meetings.
• Mr. Rheume responds that he would run again. He is busy, but he recognizes that that applies to everyone.
• Jeremy Abram points out that Mr. Rheume campaigned based on the fact that the WSA doesn’t do anything… how does missing meetings help that?
• Mr. Rheume acknowledges that it doesn’t.
• Mr. Rheume leaves the room while the WSA discusses his impeachment.

Vote to impeach

• 23 for; 2 against; 2 opposed
• Joey Wender encourages Mr. Rheume to run for the WSA again in the September or December. Because he is removed does not mean that he is not welcome in the future.

Adjournment
The meeting ended at 11:31 due to lack of quorum.

Respectfully Submitted,
Monica Arduini, WSA Secretary