Wesleyan Student Assembly — Wesleyan University

Minutes: February 27, 2005, No. 18

WSA Officers

President: Emily Polak
Vice President: Jeremy Abrams
Treasurer: Brittany Mitchell
Coordinator: Ali Gomer

Meeting Agenda and Business

1. Approval of the minutes
2. Presentation by President Bennet
3. SBC update on funding criteria and Spring Fling
4. Discussion on selection of the Dean of the College
5. Committee Reports
6. New Business and announcements

Opening of Meeting
Meeting opened 6:05 PM.

Approval of Minutes

Minutes approved.

Presentation by Douglas Bennet

• President Bennet suggests that one time a semester speaking before the WSA might not be enough. There are a few issues he wants to talk about. The first is Wesleyan’s endowment, which he says is not on par with that of other peer institutions. For the time being, Wesleyan will reinvest 1.5% of the endowment each year. However, that amount will only be enough to stay even and not to increase overall endowment. Wesleyan expects to be fundraising at a much higher rate than it was before the recently completed Wesleyan contribution campaign. That campaign raised $289 million.
• The second issue is admissions. This year’s applicant pool has more diversity with 19 black students accepted after the Early Decision. One thing that students can help with is promoting Wesleyan when these students come to campus.
• The third issue is the new dean. Bennet would like students to continue to contribute to this search by coming to Maria Cruz-Saco’s meeting on Monday and voicing qualitative opinions on both candidates to Bennet through email.

Stack

• Jeremy Abrams suggests that we should look at putting more money into the CRC. Bennet asks if the CRC is understaffed. Abrams says yes. He thinks we need to increase the visibility of the CRC and get more staff so that students will get jobs and then be able to give more money back to the university. Bennet says he will look into the staff and location problems.
• Sam Ruth suggests that we might need to come up with some innovative strategies for making money since Wes students not that likely to get high-paying jobs. Bennet says that Wes is now fifth among colleges that send graduates into the peace corps, but this is not going to prevent Wes students give back, as the last campaign has demonstrated.
• Nathan Victoria suggests that increasing Wesleyan’s visibility outside the campus is important. He also says that current student satisfaction will have the biggest impact on future giving. Bennet says that we have been through a time this year when there was a lot of dissatisfaction that was not totally legitimate. He says that compared to most universities, Wesleyan is a “hell of a school.”
• Why is so much money being invested into the sciences when it is not the main program that students want. Bennet says that science is important in a liberal arts curriculum, and it needs to be exploited. The investment in the plan toward science is primarily to pay for the new science building because the old one needs repair. The early decision students look more like potential science students than last year.
• Yaw asks what the exact role that the students’ comments will play in the final decision. Bennet says he will be very happy to have student comments. He wants to know the rationale for our critiques of the candidates. Bennet says he has not made a decision on this search, and he wants to get as much informed input as possible.
• Monica Arduini asks what will be the qualifications in the job search. Bennet says they are formally laid out in the job description, and he will go back over the job description before hiring and then see who is the better candidates.
• Zach, a guest, says that keeping and creating student loyalty is important and asks what student protests were unjustified. Bennet says that day-to-day student needs will be dealt with faster than in the past when the new dean comes in. Bennet says that the report on the student protests shows an enormous amount of consultation.
• Nathan Victoria suggests that Bennet should respond to the community as to why the new dean is picked. Bennet says that there will certainly be a response. He also says that he will expect the new dean to act as a WSA liaison.
• Josh Ente asks what he would look for in a dean if he were a Wes student. Bennet says that he would want answers. What has happened recently is that we have got bogged down in the process when students needed answers.
• Nora Connor asks what the next steps after the two community forums are. Bennet says that there was a meeting of the executive committee of the WSA and senior faculty. There was discussion of having periodical forums in the future to engage important issues. He suggests that there is a mid-range of things and they are progressing well.
• Zach Kolodin asks what the timeline is for the multi-cultural dean task force. Bennet says that first the task force will be pursuing is how to fit such a dean into the organization. He would like for the preliminary arrangements to be made by the time when the dean comes to office. Bennet says he does not want to resolve everybody else’s needs for dealing with multicultural issues, but the first forum showed the possible need for a multicultural dean.
• Ana Weigben, a guest, asks what is he referring to when he says Wesleyan. Bennet says that he is explicitly responsible for the health of this school. He tries as much as possible to speak for the whole university. Among students and faculty there are many different points of view.
• Thomas Coen asks what specific steps will be taken to improve the student body’s view of the administration. Bennet says that there is a rather thin connection between students’ satisfaction and their giving in the future. He says that the best way to improve the administration’s image is to improve communication. Bennet will not do the roundtable and instead will be meeting with individual groups. He does not anticipate more forums.
• Brittany Mitchell says that a lot of people in the community are expecting a response to come out of the forum. Bennet says that the specific issues under question are being acted upon by the groups that are responsible for them. Mitchell suggests that putting a story about the followup to the forum in the Argus would be a good step.
• Guest: What power will the dean of the power have to budget for a multi-cultural dean? Bennet says that we must first figure out how the multi-cultural dean will be augmenting other people’s roles in promoting multiculturalism.
• Josh Ente asks how the gender-neutral housing issue will be resolved. Bennet says that there is a new policy that will largely resolve the issue. Ente agrees.
• Guest: It might be very overwhelming for the dean candidates. It seems that the students or the administration are responsible for helping to choose, but they are not getting any concrete role in the choosing process. Bennet thinks that the decision is not just pro or con. The problem with a plebiscite is that if everyone votes for a candidate and then that person pulls out, it will hurt the campus. He wants to make as studied of a choice as possible.
• Ali Gomer asks when the decision will be made. He hopes to get as much input over the break and then work on it with the help of background checks.
• Guest: Is the dean position being restructured? In the past it seems that the deans have been limited in their power to reach out to students. Bennet says that the new structure will allow the dean to make much faster decisions for the campus. Bennet says that the position has evolved a lot since Patton has been dean. Having a forceful and articulate president on senior staff will be important.
• Bennet says that the gender-neutral housing poll is not conclusive. It is not proof of an objective inquiry. The guest asks students how he is supposed to convey his interests when his requests have not been answered. Bennet suggests that there is not a simple yes or no answer.
• Jacob Mirsky asks if the WSA does well in representing the student body. Bennet says that it does. He has been trying to encourage students from all different backgrounds to join the WSA. He says that there are tons of pro-student decisions made daily and weekly, but students outside of the WSA do not recognize it.
• Nora Connor asks what is the future of the director of affirmative action, Michael Benn. Bennet says that having that presence is important.
• Guest: what is the difference is between dealing with a plebiscite and him choosing the candidate himself? It is much easier to deal with the responsibility confidentially.
• Evan Simko-Bednarski asks why is it necessary to select the candidate confidentially. Bennet says that we should treat the candidate as a first-choice candidate.
• Sam Ruth suggests that the new dean of the students has to perform a delicate balancing act. He suggests that Bennet should emphasize the new dean’s role as an advocate of the students. Bennet says that it is a good idea and that there are a lot of different ways of doing it. He says that it is very important for students to realize the complexity of the dean’s job. It can be very wearing.
• Guest: There is something in conflict. Now, it seems that we are relying on an informal way of giving input. It seems wrong to not have a record for the students’ choice. Bennet says that the goal is not total transparency. It is to get the best person for the job and make sure that this person has as much support as possible. This will allow us to get the best candidate. There should be some kind of a conversation in the WSA executive committee. It would be helpful to get some kind of confidential decision on who is the better candidate.
• Josh Ente asks why is there no representative on the executive master plan committee. Bennet says there will instead be a series of briefings that will deal with a wide variety of issues.

SBC update on funding criteria and Spring Fling

Brittany Mitchell presents a document created by the Social Committee about the issue. If the WSA passes the document, then the document will be sent to student mail boxes.

Stack

• Emily Polak motions to approve the document. Motion passed

The SBC has revised its criteria for allocating its funding

• Janine Criscuolo suggests some grammatical changes.
• Zach Kolodin asks for an example of a discriminatory club. Mitchell says that a woman’s club would be discriminatory.
• Matt Ball offers an amendment. Mitchell accepts part of it, that the SBC will not fund maintenance and facilities’ upgrades.
• Emily Polak suggests a friendly amendment: the SBC does not fund the WSA. Mitchell adds it.
• Motion to pass the revised document. It does not pass.
• Stack reopened after Robert’s Rules of Orders are suspended.
• Jeremy Abrams says that some things should be required. Mitchell says that the SBC sometimes needs to make exceptions.
• Annie Fox asks if there is something more concrete than saying serving as many people as possible. Mitchell suggests that with this wording there will be more discretion for individual groups.
• Jeremy Abrams suggests creating more concrete criteria for trips. Matt Ball says that the SBC needs to have room to decide on individual cases.
• Mitchell says that the SBC has taken a lot of time to work on these issues.
• Motion to pass the SBC document. Motion passes.

Discussion on selection of the Dean of the College

Ana Weigben suggests that students should support a vote for the dean is that it is important a recorded student vote. The WSA could show that it is behind student voice.

Stack

• Matt Ball suggests that by having the students vote we are ignoring the administration, to whom the new dean will be responsible. Weigben says that the dean’s primary function is to represent students. Zach Kolodin says that the dean is responsible to more than just the students.
• Zach Kolodin says that he does not support the resolution because he thinks that we would be marginalizing our voice. As it stands now, students have a valuable opportunity to give their opinions.
• Gabe Tabak suggests that Bennet’s remark about confidentiality and that reducing this to a vote would not be beneficial.
• Nathan Victoria suggests that perhaps students could create an online web board with more transparent comments. Weigben says that students are often silenced by Bennet although he says he listens to them.
• Rabs Hutchful says that turnout for votes has traditionally not been very high and that the vote in this case would not been high either. She suggests that people have not received enough information and many of them lack time. Weigben suggests that making the vote in alignment with online registration would help. We might be able to have a vote after spring break.
• Brittany Mitchell says that the majority of students will not know enough about students. Faculty have not attended the meetings either. Pushing the timeline back will be harmful.
• Emily Polak suggests that we don’t have the ability to hire the new dean. We should shift our focus to a discussion of whether or not to have a poll.
• Zach, a guest, says that we should have a poll to get people interested in the way the school is run and recording what students think. A poll would include much more of a voice than the undocumented emails.
  Josh Ente asks if there is another issue that we could use to show that students care about student voice. Zach says that this is the important issue.
• Rabs Hutchful suggests that the student participation on the search committee involves students’ voices. Weigben says that the students on the committee do not represent student voice.
• Elaine Garven suggests that the confidentiality is very important. She thinks that public postings would be a better format for getting student input. She would like input to be completely confidential. Could there be a third party to direct the input?
• Zach Kolodin suggests that the search committee is already getting evidence in an objective way.
• Evan Simko-Bednarski says that we don’t have any ability to choose the dean. He thinks that we should have some sort of institutive poll so that they have some sort of documented say in the future hiring of deans or other leaders. We should be thinking of the future.
• Brian Brotman agrees that there should be a non-binding vote. We can ask for a vote and we can have a poll. We shouldn’t care if the administrators are not
• Kaitlin, a guest, asks why Emily Polak wonders why the WSA should be gathering student voice. She agrees with Evan that this could set a precedent. This is not an either-or problem with the yes-no vote and the student written comments.
• Weigben suggests that maybe the dean should feel unaccepted at first because it will force the person to satisfy all of the people he or she works for.
• Rashida says that the vote poll would not be the right way to select a candidate in this process because in this the administrators will know more about the candidates. In addition, because there will probably be a low voter turnout.
• Annie Fox suggests that we should think about two issues. 1-Are students informed enough to vote? 2-Is the confidentiality issue important? She does not feel informed enough to vote. She thinks that we should maybe have a public poll of some sort or a discourse through Wesspeaks. Anda Greeney suggests a vote without yes or no.
• Dave Woo expresses concern about the idea of having students voting at the same time as they register.
• Nathan Victoria worries that students might pick a candidate based on superficial qualities when the person is not the best candidate.
• Straw poll if there should be a poll for dean. Five people vote for the poll.
• Brittany Mitchell says that she does not agree that students are not getting a voice in this process. Students are getting participation on the search committee, and there is a very compelling reason for Bennet to listen to students’ voices.
• Karen Courtheoux says that she yields all of her time to other people to talk about their good ideas. Anda Greeney reiterates his idea for a public poll without a yes-no vote. Kaitlin suggests that an abstain vote is important.
• Rabs Hutchful suggests that the WSA/student dichotomy is not correct. She still seeks to represent the students but she does not always agree with them.
• Zach Kolodin suggests that he totally agrees that it is important to get student input but that a student vote is just a “cop-out.” Getting articulate opinions is very important and using a poll would not do that.
• Straw poll to have a web board that would allow people to publicly voice their opinions. Passed.
• Anda Greeney suggests that there should be attention paid to details.
• Currently there is a specific faculty committee that must ratify the new dean. Nathan Victoria straw polls that students should also have a role in ratifying the decision. Straw poll does not pass.
• Weigben suggests that the WSA does not take the initiative to represent student voices when there is a good opportunity. She advocates that students should work for their objectives.
• Brian Brotman suggests that we should view the dean as someone’s governance and not a job. It sounds like aristocracy in pre-revolutionary France.
• Karen Courtheoux motions to have the executive committee vote confidentially and then ensure that the search committee and President Bennet feel about this.
• Brittany Mitchell suggests that we have a link to the voting page with bios of the deans and an open message board. Courtheoux accepts the amendment.
• Weigben says that she wants the number because without them there will be no sense of transparency and accountability. She thinks that having the numbers only available to a select body of students completely goes against what she has been advocating for the past three and a half hours.
• Brittany Mitchell says that our number one concern should be getting our way. She suggests that a person will not come if the students vote against them. Confidentiality is important. Weigben thinks that Bennet is scaring us by not allowing us to give our voices in a public poll.
• Evan Simko-Bednarski says that we don’t have a chance of swaying the decision. The important thing is to think about setting a precedent. Brittany Mitchell says that we should be pushing for actual change.
• Elaine Garven asks Ana what would happen if both candidates rejected the job offer knowing that they do not have the full support of either the students or the administration.
• Nora Connor calls a motion to the previous question to have a poll in which the results remain public until after the job offer is made.
• 8 in favor, 9 opposed. 4 absentions. Doesn’t pass.
• Evan Simko-Bednarski calls motion to hold anon. Poll where results are public. Brian Brotman amends to add applicant bios on voting website, and Zach Kolodin amends to add the job description.
• 3 in favor, 12 opposed, 5 abstained.
• Zach Kolodin motions to write a WeSpeak on behalf of the WSA explaining the WSA’s rejection of a poll. Motion fails.
• Anda Greeney motions to have a write in poll that will be made public after the vote is over.
• 5 in favor, 7 opposed, 8 abstain.
• Weigben moves to reconsider Karen Courtheoux’ previous motion that there will be three options – yes, no, abstain, and a write-in box. Only the executive committee will see the results and then relay that information to the search committee and Bennet.
• 20 in favor, 1 oppose, 1 abstain.
• Discussion on advertisement and timing of the vote.

Adjournment
The meeting is adjourned at point of no quorum at 10:03 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Arie Eernisse, WSA Secretary