Wesleyan Student Assembly — Wesleyan University

Minutes: April 4, 2004, No. 16

WSA Officers

President: Sohana Punithakumar
Vice President: Daniel Rodriguez
Coordinator: Sara Mirsky
Treasurer: Camille Zahniser

Meeting Agenda and Business

1. Meeting Opening
2. Approval of Minutes
3. New Business
4. Dean Peter Patton
5. Social Committee By-Law Review
6. Communications Committee
7. Party Policy Discussion
8. Adjournment

Opening of Meeting

The meeting was opened at 7:03 PM.

Approval of Minutes

Minutes are approved.

New Business

There is no new business.

Dean Peter Patton

The implementation of a quiet area on Lawn and Home Avenues precipitated from friction between the year-round residents of Middletown and the Wesleyan students living among them. AWARE formed five years ago, after residents realized that they had taken a hit in their property values as Wesleyan spread out and off campus. But, there will be enough rooms with the new Fauver Field location to pull the far off-campus house back, in example, In-town. Another part of the commotion was that Home Avenue backs Mansfield Terrace and Brainerd, where there are many old residents. Next year, the off-campus status will be reduced to 20 slots. And, a ResLife staff member will move on to Home Avenue. The proto-type housing will be constructed on Pine Street and Beaman Triangle. Lastly, we are moving out of wood-frame housing for many reasons, but mainly because the maintenance required is impossible financially.

Stack:

• Becca Solow thanks Dean Patton for coming on her request.
• Camille Zahniser asks if there is much demand for housing in this area of Middletown, right now.
• Dean Patton replies that when he moved in the 1970s people were leaving, but now are coming back. And, there are a couple house that will be reconstructed by Habitat for Humanity. The school is also selling its homes at a slow enough rate that there is a high demand for them.
• Karen Courtheoux asks why the complaints of the residents are weighed more than student sentiment.
• Dean Patton says there are neighborhood standards, and many of those homes are not on the campus. Pine Street to the gym is all Wesleyan property and students can do all they want there, but those other areas are in a more residential part of Middletown.
• Courtheoux points out that schools take on reputations based on housing. And, with the institution of quiet streets, Wesleyan will see a different social life.
• Dean Patton says that houses on High Street are more suitable for late-night parties. Towns have been passing ordinances that allow police onto private property if there is under-aged drinking.
• Dan Penrod says that the Class of 2005 never experienced Clark Hall, and now might miss out on wood-frames. How are students suppose to respond to this policy, when fifty percent of the houses are liabilities?
• Dean Patton replies that we have to be more responsible, because the residents on the edges of Home Avenue will be calling the police and, we must obey the law.
• Danielle Krudy asks why Wesleyan wants to reduce off-campus living if landlords are willing to rent to students.
• Dean Patton says Wesleyan is acting for long term health and safety. The school is obligated to provide a higher standard of housing because it is a residential campus.
• Selina Ellis asks what will happen if this does not work--what if these kids don't care that it is suppose to be a quiet street?
• Pacho Carreño ask what if no students apply to live in quiet houses, and those students that are assigned to live in those house are loud neighbors.
• Dean Patton replies that the school reserves the right to move students that are being too loud from those houses.
• Ellis asks where the proto-type housing is going, and expresses concerns about institutionalized houses that are all the same.
• Dean Patton says they will be built between Pine Street and the gym. The goal is that they look like houses.
• Nora Connor asks if quiet house can host large gatherings.
• Dean Patton replies, yes, as long as the noise is contained within house.
• Emily Polak is concerned about parties pouring onto the street. Phasing out off-campus status is problem not a solution; there will be more parties going to remote location, which will require driving and thereby increase the chances of drunk-driving.
• Dean Patton points out that the prerogative is precipitous. The school has been working with AWARE for five years, and from their perspective, nine months of year they experience an abnormal life. Furthermore, Wesleyan must be responsible for itself; the community is not responsible for student safety.
• Nathan Victoria points out that students like uniqueness, and Wesleyan should make that a goal for the proto-type housing, because it will not be the case with Fauver Field.
• Annie Heindel says that there is a difference between independent living and being surrounded by campus. Wesleyan's goal should be to be able to facilitate an easy transition toward graduation and beyond. We should promote more student responsibility.
• Dean Patton says that every generation experiences Wesleyan differently. While wood frame houses are not financially sustainable, students on campus now will have the opportunity to live in them.
• Camille Zahniser is concerned about lack of space available for social student functions, partly with the removal of Greek program house status. She asks if it is possible to change social event policy and remove the fifty person cap on un-registered events.
• Danny Rodriguez argues that the social scene is dieing. Twenty people living off-campus will not sustain even one of fraternity house. There will be no place for students to go. He suggests putting space in the basements of proto-type housing.
• Arijit Sen says that Clark Hall has all the fixings, but has a bad stigma. The senior housing is great.
• Lisa Schamber lives on Home Avenue. The houses look nice, but only the outside. Inside, they are not nice spaces to live in--the proto-type houses will be awesome.
• Dan Penrod says that he lives off-campus and has spent the past three months asking the landlord to make repairs. He asks why we are not offering incentives for people to live on a quiet street.
• Ben Somberg says that in the case of chalk, the Administration asked us go to WSA, the WSA issued a strong statement advocating the removal of the moratorium, and now the Administration is not making any leeway.
• Dean Patton says that last year President Bennet stated his position, and he did not think the compromise was viable.
• Ben Somberg asks why he made no counter-compromise.
• Dean Patton replies that the President does not think there is a compromise.
• Camille Zahnizer observed that at University of Michigan students chalk a lot. She asks that there be a compromise and that the university look at the chalking policies of other schools.
• Dean Patton says that faculty, staff and parents with children were greatly offended by the chalking. It is not a case of freedom of expression; it is about media. No one is allowed to chalk on the streets downtown either.
• Karen Courtheoux repeats that the class of 2005, and other classes, feel that there has been a rough transition time between University Center construction, the Pavilion construction, and the Clark Hall construction.
• Dean Patton says that he has lived in Middletown for thirty years now, and right now is an exciting time; it is a great thing that student loans are capped at 20,000 dollars, because it was headed toward 30,000 dollars. At the same time, however, Swarthmore, one of our institutional peers, has a 10,000 dollar cap, and is headed toward zero loans in the future.
• Danielle Krudy comments that there has been a change in the personality of the campus and how it is perceived. It seems that the Administration is trying to reshape what this community is through the housing changes, chalking policy, stricter program house policy, anti-fraternity perspective. She asks where we are going.
• Dean Patton thinks Wesleyan is the most exciting liberal arts college and does not see that changing.
• Dan Penrod says that he feels the Administration is ignoring the fact that the current students will be alumni one day.
• Evan says that chalking and postering both have captive audiences. The chalking ban might turn moratorium policy down a slipper slope.
• Jacob asks if the Administration puts any other restrictions on media, particularly based on content.
• Dean Patton says that students must have permission to hang banners, and there are restrictions on signs, too.
• Johanna Goetzel says that Pi Cafe employees are now required to remove signs from the windows.
• Nora Connor asks why Wesleyan seems to be mainstreaming when it stands out against rival schools, because of its uniqueness.
• Dean Patton says that Wesleyans cross-admit pool is a completely different market from other tier ones colleges.
• Brittany Mitchell says that if students are drawn by Wesleyan's uniqueness, and its not standing in US News and World Report, then this might not be the right time to restrict chalking.
• Josh Bryant says that it is to attract students than worry about upsetting staff. After all, students choose Wesleyan for its energy and edginess.
• Arijit Sen says that Wesleyan has changed so far this year since orientation week, for example there is much less student involvement.
• Sara Mirsky sees that people come to Wesleyan based on passed perceptions, in the future there will not be the peaks of uniqueness. She asks why President Bennet does not offer suggestions toward make things more acceptable.
• Dean Patton points out that chalking did not start until ten years ago. And in fact, many students do base choices on the ranking statistics.
• Amanda says that while chalking makes some people uncomfortable, it makes those minorities that chalk feel more comfortable. She asks why President Bennet makes such a large income compared to the peer ivy leagues that Patton mentioned.
• Annie Heindel says that she understood that many of the policy changes have been to mitigate University liability. And, if that is the case with chalking, then the school should let students know the reason.
• Daniel Rubin suggest that the Administration pay attention to comments on fundraising, facilities and programming from the students.
• Jose Marantes argues that from a marketing perspective, chalking improves Wesleyan's image.
• Heindel asks if there was another location proposed for the Fauver Field residency.
• Dean Patton says that the Vine Street parking lot was an option, but there is not much light.

Social Committee By-Law Review

Stack:

• Sohana Punithakumar comments that the Coordinating Committee has no qualification to select the chair of the chair of Social Committee (SC) given nature of the chairs responsibilities and specialization.
• Tatiana Weise, chair of the SC, says that, currently, the present chair selects next year's chair.
• Punithakumar suggests tat the chair be elected within the SC with the consultation of the present chair.
• Weise agrees that the WSA electing the chair would not work for the SC.
• Maris Yanow informs the Assembly that it is obvious among the SC who will be chair's successor. And, the chair has traditionally picked that person because the chair is the only committee member that knows what everyone else is doing and who would be fit for the position.
• Selina Ellis asks how new members are chosen.
• Annie Heindel says that the SC decides as a committee. She suggests that next year the SC brief the WSA on their selections. Also, an SBC member on the SC would make a big difference.
• Zach Kolodin says that he understands that process requires fluidity, but does not understand why chairmanship should be passed down the way it is.
• Jose Marantes says that does not see the validity of the process. He suggest that SC members have decision making votes, which might motivate member responsibility and also prevent authoritarian problems.
• Weise agrees that the process is quirky, but points out that the person fit for the job usually does not want it.
• Hiendel suggests that the chair present the most qualified candidate, who the committee will approved by majority vote.
• Sara Mirsky brings up the issue of SC accountability. She wonders if the SC should be open to impeachment charges made by the WSA or by the student body at-large.
• Jose Marantes asks if the SC would be able to impeach its own members or only WSA. He states that having no knowledge of the SC, he as a member would not vote on an impeachment case without any basis.
• Mirsky suggests that a person from the SC bring forth a motion for impeachment, and then the WSA would follow normal procedures.
• Kolodin asks if there membership should have required attendance.
• Arijit Sen merely states that any amendment to the By-Laws be "water" tight.
• Sohana Punithakumar makes suggestions for improving accountability. She suggests that the committee have SBC and IPC voting members, or require that the chair come to the WSA at least 2 or 3 times per semester. She doubts that it is appropriate for the WSA to impeach a person not elected by the WSA.
• Weise says that all SC meetings are important, and invites WSA members to attend saying that both organizations should feel comfortable coming to each others meetings.
• Zahniser does not think that the chair should make the appointment because she is afraid of nepotism. And, has heard that performers of battle of bands are friends of SC members. She says that the committee must have codified accountability, and the SBC must be kept in the loop.
• Yanow agrees that codification is important. She says it is easy for her to forget that SC is part of the WSA. More effort must go into bringing in new members, among the a diverse applicant pool.
• Selina Ellis asks when the battle of the bands will be?
• Yanow replies April 22.
• Brittany Mitchell asks that the SC chairperson send a weekly committee report by email.
• Jose Marantes asks if it is possible have a campus-wide vote to decide Spring Fling performers.
• Tatiana that more that being a Spring Fling tradition, secrecy has a twofold: one to bring the entire school to the event and because the performers could change up to the last minute.
• Karen Courtheoux says that there are not enough specifications of SC member responsibility.
• Jose Marantes suggests that instead of asking students who they would like to perform, offer a list from of possibilities.
• Danny Rodriguez suggests that detailed meeting minutes be kept by one of the SC liaisons.
• Yanow says that the SC has a mix or bureaucracy and people that love music.

Communication Committee

Stack:

• The Assembly amends the rules of order for this discussion to be a free-form discussion facilitated by Arijit Sen and Jose Marantes.
• Sen poses the question, what really is the role of the WSA? He suggests discussing the points on the last page of the hand-out.
• Dan Pernod says that the WSA has not been extremely effective in accomplishing its goals. While the WSA might want to represent students, it cannot undermine its relation with the Administration. He comments that it is a great effort that Dean Patton stayed for one and a half hours and President Bennet responded with a page and a half to the Chalking Resolution.
• Courtheoux says that a lot of projects depend on circumstance.
• Solow says that the way we deal with language issues is arduous sometimes.
• Sohana thinks that WSA is unlike any student group. Student government must balance representation and initiative. Years ago the WSA organized a firebombing. Times have changed the Assembly and it is important to deal with the issues.
• Sen says that the Communication Committee is trying taking into account how the student body feels.
• Camille Zahniser says that the WSA is not proactive enough. The Assembly must figure out what is really wrong, and communicate it to the administration.
• Emily Polak says that with more respect, it is the Assembly's chance to represent the student body. Perhaps, opinion poles could be added to the next election.
• Zach Kolodin says that Committees must represent student concerns in their specific areas.
• Becca Solow suggests that the assembly as a whole work on only pivotal issues, not busy work.
• Marantes says that it takes time for people to express themselves, and suggests that committees seek out student expression.
• Sara Mirsky suggests that the Assembly work through COCo, who can pole groups on which projects and issues they would like the WSA to work on.
• Danielle Krudy suggests that WSA members be required to read the Argus twice a week to keep an eye out for red flags.
• Courtheoux says that the WSA should not reach out only to campus groups.
• Pacho Carreño asks that chairs be required to send committee reports by 6pm on Friday, and make reading the emails mandatory.
• Punithakumar believes that with the exception of SBC, representatives' obligations are to the Assembly not the committee, but there must always be time for committee reports so that assembly members feel engaged in what the Assembly is doing as a whole.
• Arijit Sen suggests that committee reports be moved to the end of the meeting.

Party Policy Discussion -- Emily Polak

The policy in question is the 'one party per block' rule. There is a chance now to address the rule and the possibility of altering it. Public Safety instated it to limit traffic on streets. One way to curtail this is to recommend its suspension except on major holidays (i.e. St. Valentine's Day or Halloween).

Stack:

• Solow suggests eliminating the rule for Wesleyan Campus Areas.
• Sara Mirsky agrees, and says that this is the opportunity to snip out this rule.
• Straw Poll: the Assembly unanimously desires the elimination of the one party per block policy.
• Nora Connor calls a point of no quorum.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Juan Sebasti—n Moreno, WSA Secretary