Tuesday, April 25, 2017

 AGS Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 25, 2017


    I.      Call to order
Meeting called to order at 5:40pm by Michelle Chan

            Quorum is established with 20 members, 9 proxies (24.5 total, 19 needed)


    II.     Approve Agenda (1 minute)
Motion to approve agenda by Connor

            Seconded by Mikaela

            No objections, motion passes


    III.    Approve minutes from previous meeting (1 minute)
Motion to approve agenda by Connor

            Seconded by Richard

            No objections, motion passes


    IV.    Executive and Committee Reports:
a. President Division (3)

  Symposium happened and was a success. Chairs needed for next year!

  Policy symposium on June 10, Richard is working to finalize planning.

            b. Internal Divison (2)

  Working on wrapping up projects and starting early on Bylaws/Constitution edits for next year

            c. External Division (2)

  Meeting with President Napolitano to discuss existing UC issues

  Same weekend, Becky will be going to the UCSA Board Meeting in Berkeley

            d. Finance Division (2)

  Just did a Project Funding Approval for SPICMACAY

  Also did Travel Grants for Spring Round

            e. Social Division (2)

  Spring Events are out and posted, please let constituents know that some events have limited ticket access so get your tickets early.

            f. Admin Division

  Working on formal recognition of former council members on website

  Elections and Service Awards updates later



V. Resolution 17-08: To vacate council member seats for failure to provide


  Motion to approve by Richard, seconded by Connor

  Motion passes unanimously, no objections




VI. Resolution 17-09: To approve UCSA 2017-18 Budget

Add a line stipulating that us funding UCSA is conditional upon us attending UCSA? from Connor

Approving the budget doesn’t necessarily mean approving paying dues and participation if anyone would decide to leave.

Any suggestion of what the mood is regarding possibly reforming/leaving UCSA?


Move to make an amendment: After last word in last clause beginning “Let it therefore be resolved…” we would add “ contingent upon AGS’ sustained membership in UCSA” by Connor

Second by Mikaela

Motion passes unanimously, no objections

  Motion to approve by Richard, seconded by Connor

  Motion passes 17.5-3-3.5



VII. Resolution 17-10: Appointment of AGS Staff: AGS Policy Symposium Co-


Expressed interest from SLC, Women’s Leadership Conference, and Symposium to continue doing similar things. Richard has been active in policy on campus and interested, as is Justin.

Stipends will come from Stipends division of budget and conference funding will come from Presidents Programs

  Motion to approve by Connor, seconded by Becky

  Motion passes unanimously, no objections



VIII. Resolution 17-11: A resolution to define and appoint graduate student donor


To help coordinate issues surrounding health and wellness, and that AGS has a voice in soliciting donors for these projects.

Do we know anything about this committee and how many students? And will there be a formal agreement between AGS and admin?
It is not known what the charter of the official committee will be and what agreements will look like, but this will appoint point people in preparation for whatever is next.

Should we add something about the term of office?

Motion on to amend final line to say “at the pleasure of AGS Council” after the word therein in the last clause.

Motion passes unanimously, no objections.

  Motion to approve by Becky, seconded by Connor

  Motion passes unanimously, no objections



IX. Resolution 17-12 To Ratify 2017-2018 Election Results

Turnout: 822 15.9% (record high!)

This is about the elections process, not the winners themselves

Michelle gives the chair to Will, unanimous vote

Aaron Echols does the election website and processing votes

They were held within the timeframe, everyone was allowed to submit statements/photos, 

Issues with professional schools fixed re: notifying that election was happening

Things to change:

            deadline for submitting a formal complaint is not explicitly stated

            guidelines for campaigns based on ASUCI, but need some of our own

Two formal complaints, one of which we can consider here:

———>motion to extend time for speaker, then 10 minutes more

            Context: use of list-serv to campaign for president and chair for social ecology (no clear guidelines for campaigning)

            Complaint: Request an official revote: election committee not prepared to run democratic election; re-vote is needed to restore democracy and fairness; guidelines left unclear, voters in the dark; decisions are made in ad-hoc matter; no formal complaint procedure; need to have clear guidelines and timelines; AGS election committee has said that “official UCI listservs are not meant for AGS election” but no efforts were made to make people aware of this rule, and no place to make complaint/deadline to make it

            Ryan comment back: tone of email was more that this was the recommendation that we are using ASUCI guidelines, but it wasn’t clearly stated that there was wrongdoing by using the list-serv; understanding that the process was unclear, and thus extended deadline to 5pm today

            Chance: Did this lack of clear complaint procedures make it worth completely nullifying results, is there risk of that? Complainant: yes

            Connor: This would be something that internal revises when they revise bylaws for next year

            Richard: Questioning the extent to which this made an impact on the entire election. Complainant: It’s not about that, it’s about that the rule was broken

            Connor: Should only be talking about procedures, not list serv

            Becky: Did the extension of the deadline allow for the complaint to come through? Complainant: yes, but there is still this issue that the misuse of the list serv is unclear because of lack of clarity

            Chance: Three reasons to invalidate election, based on constitution; Violation of election procedures is likely the only reason for which we could nullify them in this case

            Becky: To Ryan, why are we not voting yet on the first part of the complaint today? Ryan: if we don’t ratify results, there is no point in disqualifying a candidate.

            Richard: The complaint brought is based on an email recommendation to not use university equipment, so there is no official procedure about it to be violated

———>motion to extend time 5 minutes more

            Ryan: Aaron’s response was haven’t run into these issues before, and so didn’t realize this was a problem; Ryan’s interpretation is to go to past precedent

            Val: Why do we ratify after instead of before?

            Ryan: to ensure every step of the way followed

            Chance: This is also related to section 4 of constitution. Also what are the ramifications of the first complaint?

            Ryan: Policy 900-12A specifies can’t use list serv

            Kate: is it about the complaint process, or is it that using the list serv was a violation of the elections process?

            Ryan: tonight is about election process. next time would be individual violations

            Richard: the deadline should’ve been public, but would this not have been where we would be with complaint being brought? This seems like not a violation of section 5

———>motion to extend time 10 minutes more

            Meigan: Don’t want to reveal too much about the initial complaint because if there is a discussion/hearing about her conduct, we don’t want to unfairly bias people through a discussion here about it

            Aaron: The ad-hoc nature allows us to extend the deadline, so maybe it actually helped in this case because that way we could get the complaint, which is the goal. We should be sure to keep things separate to eliminate bias.

            Ryan: If the election process is ratified tonight, then we would normally release results. But, since there is a formal complaint pending, any related elections would not be released until a hearing

            Chance: Are violations going unreported? No, so there isn’t an affect on the current results enough to have to nullify the results. We do need to change the process, but shouldn’t invalidate based on this

            Clare: If we ratify the election results and then find out that this person won, will there be a crisis of legitimacy?

            Kate: the results, independent of who won or not, is not released until complaint is resolved

            Chance: there won’t be a crisis of legitimacy. none of the aspects of section 5 have been met enough to invalidate results

            Complainant: filed second complaint because first complaint was going to remain unheard. there is no way I could’ve known that the deadline had passed, and this was used against me. would happily throw out second complaint if first complaint will be heard

            Chance: If you can give us evidence based on section 5, we will hear your complaint. Now that you’ve seen these rules, can you clarify which of these does your complaint fall under?

            Complainant: Complaint based on part C.

            Chance: what is your evidence

            Complainant: evidence is in the first complaint

———>motion to extend time 5 minutes more. motion loses 7.5-8.5-6

Move to consider 17-12

Motion passes 21-0-3

Chairship ceded back to Michelle



X. Resolution 17-13: Ratify web resolution 17-07

Need to ratify online web resolution

  Motion to approve by Richard, seconded by Connor

  Motion passes, no objections



XI. Discussion on 2017-2018 Council format

Proposed by current Execs, instead of meetings every other week, every week meetings with first part dedicated to general meetings and then next part of meeting will be committee meetings.

Discussion, issues with extra meeting attendance?

Will need to review Bylaws and Constitution to see what needs to be incorporated. Likely only Bylaw changes.

Concern with bouncing between meetings, will that be a problem to have people not giving full attention to one committee?

Think this will be a great way to keep people engaged, especially as year dwindles and committees have lulls in their schedules.


Motion to extend time by 5 minutes by Mikaela, second by Will. No objections, motion passes

Becky: could also be helpful with new council members, just knowing that everything is 2 hours rather than finding times during the week.

What if we have a busy meeting? Can’t go over 730 by reservation, so it will have to be 2 hour max and make next VPs accountable.

Could increase participation in all committees, but could make it more complex for meetings. Will need to coordinate that but seems like a worthwhile venture.

Consider a 5-10 minute break in between!


XII. Ethics Ad Hoc Committee Discussion

In consultation with Internal work on revisiting Bylaws and Constitution, it has also come to question whether there needs to be outlined guidelines for what standards are acceptable for AGS participation. A lot of other groups have similar codes, about behaviors or actions that would not be acceptable as members of AGS.


XIII. AGS Service Awards

Awards given! On website and Facebook. Will be recognized at SG Luncheon


XIV. New Business

Chance: Big news recently about UCI’s Science Building and Califronia State Auditor’s Report about UC Admin. Seems very important in light of our recent efforts around the Health and Wellness Building. $40M was given to the Science Building and the audit was concerned with inflated salaries and spending. Connor: Also revealed a discretionary fund held by UC that shows lack of transparency and other issues that are concerning. Should be something that AGS addresses. If you’re interested in related statement or action items, please contact Connor. Valerie also happy to bring statement to UC President Napolitano.

Kate: Student Center Board: Having elections for officers tomorrow. Cross Cultural Center is hosting “The Deconstruction Zone” this week with films and other activities if you want to check it out.


XV. Zots

-       Kate: Rahmadi Ankita for Symposium. They were very flexible on the day! Sarah Nainar!

-       Rahmadi: Richard Connor x 2 Will Alireza Jennifer Ryan Shafee Kate Sarah Laleh

-       Richard and Ryan: Ditto to Symposium organizing committee (Rahmadi Ankita Kate Sarah)

-       Becky: Ryan x 2 for elections retroactive typing

-       Blake: Van for being here despite prelim


Time Allotted: 120 minutes

Meeting adjourned at 7:25 by AGS President Michelle Chan

Moved by Richard, seconded by Becky. No objections, motion passes.