Wesleyan Student Assembly — Wesleyan University

Una Osato says that the results were close and many students voted, so a flat-line stance of the WSA is unfair. Nathan Victoria points out that forty-seven percent of the student body voted; the remaining fifty-three percent did not express their opinions—their stance is ambiguous and cannot be guessed at. Rebecca Solow says that the WSA did no campaigning—USLAC did campaign. The WSA must represent the majority of students at Wesleyan in its decision. Furthermore, compromises have been made: points are only to be used off-campus between five and eight pm.

Danny Rodriguez argues that there is always a winner and a loser. Just as the student housing pick; Danny was a sad 33. And, in elections someone has to win.

Ben Somberg denies Solow's claim that the WSA did not campaign, and so is saying that the election is a mandate of the student body to institute the program. USLAC was not given adequate campaign time prior the election—this was not a democratic election!

Beth Coddington complains that the dining service workers, those are effected by the plan, were unable to vote. Pacho Carreño says that the WSA must focus on what is going on presently, posing the question, how will this cause job cuts? Has anyone done the math?

USLAC member, Joanna Lawler, replies that the program can cut back on on-campus venues.

Mr. Carreño asks, has Aramark done anything to cut jobs yet?

USLAC member, Joanna Lawler, replies no.

Rebecca Solow points out the free will of students: they do not have to eat off campus if the do not want too.

Jesse Watson questions what it is that USLAC suggests the WSA to do, and why should testing the program not be aloud?

USLAC member, Joanna Lawler, replies that if the pilot program works, it will be more widely and permanently implemented, USLAC does not want points to go off-campus at all.

Mr. Watson pursues the point: what are you suggesting to have happen?

"We understand that the referendum is not binding and we do not want to move on the program."

Una Osato claims it is incorrect to call the results a mandate of the student body. We are talking about peoples' lives and that cannot be so clear cut.

President Sohana Punithakumar explains that the WSA put the issues on the ballot after discussions with administrators and USLAC members. In fact, USLAC agreed to putting it on. Dining service workers were invited to the meetings, and the Executive Committee coordinated with them. Secondly, President Punithakumar asks that USLAC consider a scenario in which a majority of student had voted against using points off-campus, pointing out that the WSA would terminate the pilot program and thus receive complaints from students wanting off-capmus point usage. Lastly, in 2004-2005, the program will be replaced by Flex Dollars, a debit account independent of dining service for spending at stores and restaurants.

Camille Zahniser, responding to Ben Somberg claim of WSA campaigning, states that she sent e-mails advocating the program, but did so as and individual and not a representative of the WSA.

Karen Courtheaux says that it is difficult to implement policy, but the voting was fair, and there were equally weighted statements of the ballot. She asks whether or not Aramark said talked about the purpose of the program from their perspective.

Rebecca Solow replies that they are allowing it because of student initiative, not because they want to have an off-campus point program.

Ben Somberg says that there are laws against worker violations and there are laws that require that seat belts be worn in cars. Thus, the WSA should fight Aramark's cut backs and implement meal equivalency for frosh and dining past eight pm.

Susan Vestro, campus-dining staff, say that we [workers] are the math equations, and you are looking at the cuts. We can all be winners in this and the most important thing is to le Aramark know what dining services you want on campus.

Camille Zahniser replies that many student groups have not met yet to discuss their budgets.

Pacho Carreño asks, why do we strive for a surplus and what do we do this that money.

Ms. Zahniser replies that the SBC does not want to have to raise the college body tax again.

Danny Rodriguez adds that we should remember our budget, in comparison to peer institutions, is considerably smaller, and he I want a better spring fling than last years.

President Punithakumar encourages freshman representatives to e-mail Zahniser with any questions regarding the budget.

Current by-law:

• The chairperson shall chair EPC meetings, and shall sit on the EC, SIPAC, and the STC, and shall be a student trustee on the Trustees' Campus Affairs Committee.
• Three (3) others.
• All shall sit on the Faculty EPC."

Proposed by-law:

• The chairperson shall chair EPC meetings, and shall sit on the EC, SIPAC, and the STC, and shall be a student trustee on the Trustees' Campus Affairs Committee.
• Three (3) other, consisting of one (1) voting and two (2) non-voting.
• The chair and the voting member shall sit on the Faculty EPC."

President Punithakumar answers that we have proposed changes, but they have not been presented to the Assembly to vote on. And, she asks, what will the two non-voting members do?

Ms. Courtheoux says that will remain unspecific for the future of the EPC to decide.

President Punithakumar asks, why did you not remove the SIPAC detail?

Ms. Courtheoux responds that she will gladly change it when all the committees standardize their by-laws and remove that together.

Pacho Carreño asks, why the committee formerly had three voting members?

Vote to pass by-law change: passed unanimously.