USF Sarasota-Manatee Student Government Association Legislative ...
USF Sarasota-Manatee Student Government Association Legislative Branch 06/21/16
Senators in Attendance: Ricardo Centeno, Barry Callahan, Jeanie Ziven, Anthony Alibro, Sami Araboghli, Jaime Hernandez, Jay Dwyer, Edward Becht, Corinne Tucker Student Services Members in Attendance: N/A Guest(s): Sydney Whitlock, Associate Justice; Louie Carey, CAB Vice President Call to Order: June 21st at 4:03 PM Amendments to the Meeting Agenda: o Anthony moves to approve the agenda ▪ Jeanie seconds ▪ The motion passes and the agenda is approved Amendments to the Meeting Minutes: ▪ N/A Senate President Updates: o Ricardo visited Day springs and explained what he saw, as well as told the senators his opinion o He likes Daysprings, and wants the Senators opinions of the bedding options ▪ The senators consensus is to go with the cheaper, bunk beds option o The next JuSenEx will be scheduled on Tuesday at 12 PM – 2 PM in B224 o Food for thought will be the main discussion Old Business: o Ricardo wants the Senators to express their opinions about Stephanie D’Augustino’s application and interview performance o Jeanie says that if there had been a rollcall vote during the last meeting, she would have nayed Stephanie. She went on to say that the question which Stephanie got wrong was really important. Casting judgement based on sufficient evidence is of utmost importance. o Anthony says he would have said Aye. He thinks she has an entire summer to learn. He also thinks the rest of her application was good. o Sami also thinks she did a good job on her application, but did very badly on the last one. He thinks the last one was the “money-maker” question. If there had been a rollcall vote, he would have voted Nay. o Jaime is leaning towards Aye. He thinks that there might come a time where someone will have to be impeached even based on insufficient evidence. He says at the end of the day the school’s image is very important. o Jay says if they were going solely off of the last question he would vote Nay. He says that the Judicial members in the meeting said that her application was okay,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
and they would be able to train her. Jay thinks the Judicial branch’s opinion is most important. Edward says he would vote Nay. He doesn’t think anyone should be removed based on insufficient evidence. He thinks that is unethical. Removal should be based on whatever they’re on trial for and nothing else. Ricardo thinks that the Senator’s concerns are valid. Ricardo questions the weight that each question has. Ricardo says that Corinne brought past Judicial applications which were approved. He welcomes the Senators to review them. Barry says that it’s important the Justices only look at sufficient evidence. Basing a decision on insufficient evidence is completely unethical. Barry says that as far as his job is concerned, he believes that the last question is the most important. The only appropriate answer is no. Sydney says that the Judicial branch is actually not in consensus about this issue, and that some of them don’t think Stephanie should be approved. Sydney says the last question was answered badly, and she also believes that another question was answered unsatisfactory as well. In the question Stephanie said that she takes a humanistic approach to handling situations, and Sydney believes that empathy is not something looked for in a Justice. Louie says that he agrees with Jaime about believing that people who tarnish the school’s reputation shouldn’t work there. However, he says that his belief is the reason that he is not a Justice. He poses a hypothetical that what if one of these “school tarnishing” behaviors is just a rumor. If there’s insufficient evidence to confirm this rumor, then basing a decision based on that is wrong. The Judicial branch is about the facts and nothing less than that. He thinks that some people might be trying to make her fit into Judicial when she doesn’t. Corinne says that she doesn’t understand why individuals in the last meeting believe Stephanie to be biased. Corinne says in the last question, Stephanie answered it refreshingly. Stephanie answered it differently from the other Justices, who all just answered with a simple “no’. ▪ Ricardo pulls up the transcribed portion of Stephanie’s interview. Corinne references from the transcription that Stephanie wrote that she would look at all the facts. Corinne says that just because Stephanie didn’t use the word “no” doesn’t mean that she isn’t saying it. Edward references the transcription and says that Stephanie would look at the individual in questions past history. Looking at past history is not what the Senate wants to hear. Edward says that they want to look at only the evidence submitted for the trial. ▪ Corinne says that in any trial situation, a person’s past is also looked at. Any behaviors that are habitual are scrutinized. Barry says that both the Senate and the Judicial branch can enact disciplinary action on someone. He would be comfortable with the Senate looking at someone’s past habitual behaviors and making a judgment based on that. However, Barry says that the Judicial branch’s primary function is to uphold laws drafted by the representation of the student body. He also says that past behaviors won’t always be brought up in a trial situation. Barry doesn’t think that Stephanie fits as a Justice. Sami says that only past behaviors relevant to what the person is on trial for are going to be brought forward as evidence. Looking at the entirety of a person’s
o
o
o o o
o
o o
o
o o
o
o o
history would be unethical and irrelevant to the case. He suggests that looking at the rest of the defendant’s history would be indicative of having bias. Louie says to Corinne that Stephanie word for word said that she would look back on a person’s past. He says that if there is no proof of something it should not be brought up in court, regardless of what it is. Nothing can be looked at besides facts. Jay asks if a person was brought to trial before, will the results and evidence of that trial appear on their history. ▪ Barry says that if the person was found guilty then yes, but if acquitted then no. Edward asks if she has put in a CAB application, and then states that he thinks CAB would be a better fit for her. Louie says there are seven applicants applying for CAB and he doesn’t want to come off as trying to pull her in for CAB. Corinne says that having a humanistic approach isn’t bad for Judicial. You can be humanistic and still follow the rules. Having Stephanie on the Judicial branch with her humanistic approach would be a nice change of perspective. ▪ Jeanie says that Alex Benishek’s intention with the Judicial branch was to incorporate a range of different perspectives Sami says that the system in place is designed for it to be fair for both sides. To consider insufficient evidence is not fair. He also believes that the Senate should weigh the interview higher than the application. Corinne says that Stephanie knows her limits, flaws, and challenges, which not a thing that a lot of people are aware of. Sydney says that she’s been looking through the application over and over, and each time she finds something wrong with it. Sydney doesn’t believe that Stephanie has a good idea of what the Judicial branch does. Sydney suggests cross referencing the audio minutes with what was said in the application. ▪ Ricardo says that the transcription that Jeanie wrote on the projector is word for word. ● Sydney says the whole interview is what she means Ricardo says that most Judicial branch members don’t actually have that good of an idea of what Judicial is until they join the branch and familiarize themselves. Ricardo says it’s important to be critical but at the same time hold the same standard for everyone. Corinne says she disagrees with Sydney, and that Stephanie answered her questions (specifically question 2) the way that any member of a branch should. Sami says that Stephanie is about to graduate anyhow, so she won’t be in Judicial branch that long. ▪ Jay says that he himself is going to be graduating soon, so is his initiative in Senate a waste? Ricardo asks the Senate what they want to do now ▪ Jay says they should rollcall vote ▪ Corinne says they should post a hypothetical ▪ Edward questions whether a hypothetical is the right course of action Ricardo asks by a show of hands, how many Senators are ready to vote ▪ The majority of the Senators are ready to vote Jeanie asks if they could go around again and know everyone’s final thoughts ▪ Ricardo thinks that would be counterproductive. He doesn’t want to open
o
o
up the opportunity to be a Senate that herds together. Jay motions for a rollcall vote ▪ Jaime seconds ▪ The motion passes and a rollcall vote begins ● Jeanie Ziven, Nay ● Corinne Tucker, Aye ● Anthony Alibro, Nay ● Sami Araboghli, Nay ● Jaime Hernandez, Aye ● Jay Dwyer, Aye ● Edward Becht, Nay o Stephanie D’Augustino has been denied for the position of Associate Justice. Barry says that those not in favor should perhaps have a conversation with her and tell her why she was not confirmed.
New Business: o N/A Open forum ● Sami requests Senators to go over the point system. He requests Senators to check their email every day. It would be much easier for the committee chairs if members responded accordingly and promptly. o Corinne says that even if you don’t respond to the email, at least do what the email is asking you to do. ● Ricardo tells the Senators to not be afraid to talk to their committee chairs. Announcements/Upcoming Events: o o
o
o
Executive Board Updates ▪ N/A Judicial Board Updates: ▪ Nothing is going on. ● Corinne asks about the mock trial o Ricardo says that Judicial will give this information when it’s available. CAB Updates: ▪ Interviews are starting Thursday in A217. Please don’t enter during interviews, enter beforehand. Darren Updates: ▪ N/A
Meeting Adjourned: Meeting adjourned at 4:53 PM.
Senators in Attendance: Ricardo Centeno, Barry Callahan, Jeanie Ziven, Anthony Alibro, Sami Araboghli, Jaime Hernandez, Jay Dwyer, Edward Becht, Corinne Tucker Student Services Members in Attendance: N/A Guest(s): Sydney Whitlock, Associate Justice; Louie Carey, CAB Vice President Call to Order: June 21st at 4:03 PM Amendments to the Meeting Agenda: o Anthony moves to approve the agenda ▪ Jeanie seconds ▪ The motion passes and the agenda is approved Amendments to the Meeting Minutes: ▪ N/A Senate President Updates: o Ricardo visited Day springs and explained what he saw, as well as told the senators his opinion o He likes Daysprings, and wants the Senators opinions of the bedding options ▪ The senators consensus is to go with the cheaper, bunk beds option o The next JuSenEx will be scheduled on Tuesday at 12 PM – 2 PM in B224 o Food for thought will be the main discussion Old Business: o Ricardo wants the Senators to express their opinions about Stephanie D’Augustino’s application and interview performance o Jeanie says that if there had been a rollcall vote during the last meeting, she would have nayed Stephanie. She went on to say that the question which Stephanie got wrong was really important. Casting judgement based on sufficient evidence is of utmost importance. o Anthony says he would have said Aye. He thinks she has an entire summer to learn. He also thinks the rest of her application was good. o Sami also thinks she did a good job on her application, but did very badly on the last one. He thinks the last one was the “money-maker” question. If there had been a rollcall vote, he would have voted Nay. o Jaime is leaning towards Aye. He thinks that there might come a time where someone will have to be impeached even based on insufficient evidence. He says at the end of the day the school’s image is very important. o Jay says if they were going solely off of the last question he would vote Nay. He says that the Judicial members in the meeting said that her application was okay,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
and they would be able to train her. Jay thinks the Judicial branch’s opinion is most important. Edward says he would vote Nay. He doesn’t think anyone should be removed based on insufficient evidence. He thinks that is unethical. Removal should be based on whatever they’re on trial for and nothing else. Ricardo thinks that the Senator’s concerns are valid. Ricardo questions the weight that each question has. Ricardo says that Corinne brought past Judicial applications which were approved. He welcomes the Senators to review them. Barry says that it’s important the Justices only look at sufficient evidence. Basing a decision on insufficient evidence is completely unethical. Barry says that as far as his job is concerned, he believes that the last question is the most important. The only appropriate answer is no. Sydney says that the Judicial branch is actually not in consensus about this issue, and that some of them don’t think Stephanie should be approved. Sydney says the last question was answered badly, and she also believes that another question was answered unsatisfactory as well. In the question Stephanie said that she takes a humanistic approach to handling situations, and Sydney believes that empathy is not something looked for in a Justice. Louie says that he agrees with Jaime about believing that people who tarnish the school’s reputation shouldn’t work there. However, he says that his belief is the reason that he is not a Justice. He poses a hypothetical that what if one of these “school tarnishing” behaviors is just a rumor. If there’s insufficient evidence to confirm this rumor, then basing a decision based on that is wrong. The Judicial branch is about the facts and nothing less than that. He thinks that some people might be trying to make her fit into Judicial when she doesn’t. Corinne says that she doesn’t understand why individuals in the last meeting believe Stephanie to be biased. Corinne says in the last question, Stephanie answered it refreshingly. Stephanie answered it differently from the other Justices, who all just answered with a simple “no’. ▪ Ricardo pulls up the transcribed portion of Stephanie’s interview. Corinne references from the transcription that Stephanie wrote that she would look at all the facts. Corinne says that just because Stephanie didn’t use the word “no” doesn’t mean that she isn’t saying it. Edward references the transcription and says that Stephanie would look at the individual in questions past history. Looking at past history is not what the Senate wants to hear. Edward says that they want to look at only the evidence submitted for the trial. ▪ Corinne says that in any trial situation, a person’s past is also looked at. Any behaviors that are habitual are scrutinized. Barry says that both the Senate and the Judicial branch can enact disciplinary action on someone. He would be comfortable with the Senate looking at someone’s past habitual behaviors and making a judgment based on that. However, Barry says that the Judicial branch’s primary function is to uphold laws drafted by the representation of the student body. He also says that past behaviors won’t always be brought up in a trial situation. Barry doesn’t think that Stephanie fits as a Justice. Sami says that only past behaviors relevant to what the person is on trial for are going to be brought forward as evidence. Looking at the entirety of a person’s
o
o
o o o
o
o o
o
o o
o
o o
history would be unethical and irrelevant to the case. He suggests that looking at the rest of the defendant’s history would be indicative of having bias. Louie says to Corinne that Stephanie word for word said that she would look back on a person’s past. He says that if there is no proof of something it should not be brought up in court, regardless of what it is. Nothing can be looked at besides facts. Jay asks if a person was brought to trial before, will the results and evidence of that trial appear on their history. ▪ Barry says that if the person was found guilty then yes, but if acquitted then no. Edward asks if she has put in a CAB application, and then states that he thinks CAB would be a better fit for her. Louie says there are seven applicants applying for CAB and he doesn’t want to come off as trying to pull her in for CAB. Corinne says that having a humanistic approach isn’t bad for Judicial. You can be humanistic and still follow the rules. Having Stephanie on the Judicial branch with her humanistic approach would be a nice change of perspective. ▪ Jeanie says that Alex Benishek’s intention with the Judicial branch was to incorporate a range of different perspectives Sami says that the system in place is designed for it to be fair for both sides. To consider insufficient evidence is not fair. He also believes that the Senate should weigh the interview higher than the application. Corinne says that Stephanie knows her limits, flaws, and challenges, which not a thing that a lot of people are aware of. Sydney says that she’s been looking through the application over and over, and each time she finds something wrong with it. Sydney doesn’t believe that Stephanie has a good idea of what the Judicial branch does. Sydney suggests cross referencing the audio minutes with what was said in the application. ▪ Ricardo says that the transcription that Jeanie wrote on the projector is word for word. ● Sydney says the whole interview is what she means Ricardo says that most Judicial branch members don’t actually have that good of an idea of what Judicial is until they join the branch and familiarize themselves. Ricardo says it’s important to be critical but at the same time hold the same standard for everyone. Corinne says she disagrees with Sydney, and that Stephanie answered her questions (specifically question 2) the way that any member of a branch should. Sami says that Stephanie is about to graduate anyhow, so she won’t be in Judicial branch that long. ▪ Jay says that he himself is going to be graduating soon, so is his initiative in Senate a waste? Ricardo asks the Senate what they want to do now ▪ Jay says they should rollcall vote ▪ Corinne says they should post a hypothetical ▪ Edward questions whether a hypothetical is the right course of action Ricardo asks by a show of hands, how many Senators are ready to vote ▪ The majority of the Senators are ready to vote Jeanie asks if they could go around again and know everyone’s final thoughts ▪ Ricardo thinks that would be counterproductive. He doesn’t want to open
o
o
up the opportunity to be a Senate that herds together. Jay motions for a rollcall vote ▪ Jaime seconds ▪ The motion passes and a rollcall vote begins ● Jeanie Ziven, Nay ● Corinne Tucker, Aye ● Anthony Alibro, Nay ● Sami Araboghli, Nay ● Jaime Hernandez, Aye ● Jay Dwyer, Aye ● Edward Becht, Nay o Stephanie D’Augustino has been denied for the position of Associate Justice. Barry says that those not in favor should perhaps have a conversation with her and tell her why she was not confirmed.
New Business: o N/A Open forum ● Sami requests Senators to go over the point system. He requests Senators to check their email every day. It would be much easier for the committee chairs if members responded accordingly and promptly. o Corinne says that even if you don’t respond to the email, at least do what the email is asking you to do. ● Ricardo tells the Senators to not be afraid to talk to their committee chairs. Announcements/Upcoming Events: o o
o
o
Executive Board Updates ▪ N/A Judicial Board Updates: ▪ Nothing is going on. ● Corinne asks about the mock trial o Ricardo says that Judicial will give this information when it’s available. CAB Updates: ▪ Interviews are starting Thursday in A217. Please don’t enter during interviews, enter beforehand. Darren Updates: ▪ N/A
Meeting Adjourned: Meeting adjourned at 4:53 PM.
