Last Senate meeting there was an ad hoc that could reasonably called "the Committee to clean up the huge Senate mess". Its members are Jerzy Kaufman, Asia Bennett, Michael Landsman, and Nick Tagliarino, and its recommendations are the following:
In response to constitutional concerns raised during the Fall 2009, an adhoc on Constitutional Compliance was formed to investigate these concerns and to propose fair solutions.
Below are the committee’s recommendations:
Recommendation 1
Changes to Current Constitution vs. Changes to the Bylaws
Due to the fact that our current working constitution (Constitution of the Pitzer College Student Senate),, which was voted for by the majority of Student Senate in the academic year of 2008-2009, has yet to be approved by College Council, we, as an Adhoc committee, find it to be of the utmost importance that this document is endowed with the proper legitimacy through an approval from College Council. In order for this to occur, the Student Senate must first come to an agreement as to how best to make our current constitution adhere to the Faculty and Student Bylaws. We believe that once the appropriate changes have been made, particularly those regarding elections and appointments, and, subsequently, our constitution is in compliance with the Student and Faculty Bylaws and thereafter deemed legitimate, then the Student Senate will have the respected authority to implement changes to the Faculty and Student Bylaws in the future. Without a constitution approved by College Council, any changes directly made to Bylaws will leave the problem of constitutional and governmental illegitimacy still uncured. For the sake of efficiency, the priority of the Senate in the short-run must be to ensure that our current Constitution, which we have used as governing document since the start of the 2009-2010 academic year, is validated by the administration of Pitzer College. In the long-run, the Senate may decide whether or not changes should be made to the current Student and Faculty-Bylaws. However, due to the limited amount of College Council meetings remaining this year and the fact that decisions made by the Senate in 2010 will continually be considered meaningless without the support of a genuine legal document, we, as a government body, should take the appropriate initiative and work towards validating our current constitution. For the Student Senate of Pitzer College as well as the Student body, as its own sovereign entity, the decision to function under legitimate circumstances must be made in timely fashion.
Recommendation 2
Dean of Students/Election Protocol (Involvement and autonomy)
It is the belief of this committee that our elections protocol has become deeply convoluted and internally contradictory. Given the sheer number of times in the past four years that elections have been called into question, we resolve that our procedure must be re-created with the principles of parsimony and transparency at the helm.
Therefore, this committee resolves that as the basic standard for running elections, the Student Senate should to revert to the Bylaws as they contain a set of clear and streamlined procedures which were drafted cooperatively between the faculty, administration, and students and have been formally recognized by the College Council. Obviously, our Student Senate must choose and move forward with only one set of election guidelines. This committee strongly believes that our legitimacy as a body will be best protected and our election process will stand the best chance of being reinvigorated if we use the Bylaws as our foundational text in matters of elections.
Concurrently, this committee recommends that:
One major election be held each spring for the whole of the coming year although there can be one secondary early Fall election.
Should a position become vacant mid-term, it will be filled by an appointment made by the Student Appointment Committee.
If no one runs for a given position, it shall be the responsibility of the Student Appointment Committee to nominate capable, qualified students who will fill out an application so that the appointments committee can choose the most qualified applicant for the job. All nominees must, of course, fill out an application prior to appointment.
Between ten and fourteen days shall be allowed between the announcement of candidates and the election itself so that the candidates can build momentum.
As regards the appointments committee: no appointment may be formalized without the full committee present and prepared to appoint each nominee with a majority vote.
The Secretary and Communications Secretary should be made formally responsible for overseeing elections. However, the Dean of Students may veto the election guidelines (which, yes, must be approved before candidates put their names in) within one week of their initial approval and send them back to the Senate for reconsideration.
For the benefit of the students and to minimize the intrusion of our Senate on the personal lives and time of the employees of OSA, polls will close Friday after lunch and vote counting will begin Monday and finished as soon as possible. In the interim, all paper ballots shall be entrusted to the secretary of the President and stored in the Office of the President of the College OR in the Registrar's Office.
Election complaints must be dealt with before results may be released.
Electronic Ballots MUST preserve voter confidentiality. We should not hold or support elections where the ballot contains a name and ID number on the same page as whom they voted for.
The following phrase should be added to the application to run as well as the election protocol... "Any student who applies for Pitzer College Student Senate should have the intention of fulfilling their duties for the desired position throughout the entire duration of the term.
Recommendation 3
Appointment Committee & the Necessity of Faculty Representation
Given this to be the case, it has been called to this Adhoc committee's attention that, in accordance with the Bylaws explication of Standing Committees, "Student committee members shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Student Appointments Committee and the Dean of Students" (Article I, Section 1.7.b). As elucidated by Appointment Procedures, "Student appointments to standing college committees and trustee committees will be made by the Student Appointments Committee, which shall consist of the Executive Board of Student Senate and the one faculty member of student senate" (Article VI, Section 6.5).
Incidentally, this committee [the Student Appointments Committee] was, for the 2009-2010 year, never formed, nor, of course, was any faculty member appointed to it (in accordance with Article I, Section 1.7.b, by means of the Executive Committee of the Faculty and the Dean of Faculty, as well as within the constraints applied by Article III, Section 3.2). The lack of this committee engendered what has been considered a non-compliance with governance documents definitionally and necessarily with regards to student appointments for the 2009-2010 school term.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of this Adhoc committee that the Student Appointments Committee, as elucidated within the Bylaws, be formed such that the composition of Senate in future school years is in compliance with the current and up-to-date, legally binding documents of governance. It is the belief of this Adhoc that the presence of the Appointments Committee will solve the endemic confusion of the Senate’s recent elections and appointments stemming from the lack of coherent guidelines throughout multiple documents.
As a matter of practice, it has been further brought to this committee's attention that, due to the number of faculty appointments to the Standing Committees of Pitzer College, a dearth of tenured, senior faculty remain such that no appropriate or qualified faculty can feasibly be appointed. Whether or not this will be the case in future years, the Bylaws afford the President a means by which to circumvent such a dilemma as stated by Voting Members of the Faculty (Article I, Section 1.3): "The right to vote may be given, on a year-to-year basis, by the President to members of the teaching faculty with less than full-time appointment to Pitzer College upon recommendation of the Executive Committee of the Faculty."
For the aforementioned reasons, the steps needed to be completed such that we - as a school-community - are in compliance with our governing documents are as follows:
1) Formation of the Student Appointments Committee of which the composition shall be: a) the members of the Executive Board of Student Senate, and b) the faculty member of student senate.
1.a) The faculty member of student senate shall be one.
1.b) The faculty member of student senate shall be appointed either in with standard rules of faculty appointment to Standing Committees (Article I, Section 1.7), or, by circumvention by a time-constrained, one-year appointment by the President (Article I, Section 1.3) on recommendation from the Executive Committee of the Faculty (Article III, Section 3.5.a.i).
1.c) Student committee members shall be appointed by the President by the advice of the Student Appointments Committee and the Dean of Students (Article I, Section 1.7.b).
2) Any and all student appointments subsequent to the formation of this committee shall be in compliance with these aforementioned regulations and procedures (excepting in instances of amendment of the Bylaws).
Recommendation 4
The Benefit of Maintaining an Individual Student Senate Website
Given that the Constitutional documents of Pitzer College's Student Senate are not readily accessible via school sponsored web-pages or information resources; and, given that the most current and recently voted-upon Constitution has only been made available by the good-graces of an independent student web-site; It is the resolution of this Adhoc Committee to press for, and recommend the creation and maintenance of a Student Senate website.
Although the contents of the website may and should be discussed at a later date, the creation thereof would permit ready student access to valuable Student Senate information, and provide much-needed accessibility and inclusiveness for the non-Senate student community.
It is further the recommendation that this site be separate (but not necessarily detached) from the http://www.pitzer.edu website. The reasoning for this relies on the notion of Pitzer's Student Senate as a body of governance for the Pitzer student body which is not hosted by the school, but intrinsic and self-directing.
It is otherwise of importance to note that hosting the Student Senate website on the http://www.pitzer.edu webpage requires and necessitates, in and to at least some extent compliance with the format, and style of the host site. What is more, separation would allow for the site to be more self-directed and would eschew many of the quandaries given the evolving and not necessarily convergent directions of the current school website and this proposed site.
The funds for hosting such a website are readily available in the Student Senate fund which has been set aside for such Senate events as a retreat, foodstuffs, and phone lines.
In the interim, however, this Adhoc recommends that, in the interest of accessibility and ready access, the Communications Secretary of Student Senate upload to Sakai and make available the current working-Constitution of Student Senate, the Bylaws, and this Adhoc recommendation if and upon its approval. No out of date documents may be posted on sakai.
Recommendation 5
Establish an archive on PZ Website
The rules governing the student senate have undergone several major changes since it was first created many years ago. Each change made to the constitution was done for a reason. Each change was hotly debated before being approved and sent to the students to vote on. However there exists no record of either a justification for each change nor a copy of the debate surrounding each change. The communication secretary should work in conjunction with administrators and students to create an archive of the progress of each senate. The Archive shall include but not be limited to the current and past forms of the senate constitutions, senate minutes, and current and past budgetary proposals. Each constitutional amendment shall be accompanied by a minimum one page justification plus debate.
Recommendation 6
Supplant old documents
As of Spring 2010, there exist three different versions of the constitution governing the Pitzer student senate. One version, entitled the Student Senate, can be found under the Governance section on pages 49- 52 in the Pitzer College 2009-2010 version student handbook. Another version entitled Student Senate can be found as Appendix I in the Faculty handbook as read online http://www.pitzer.edu/offices/dean_of_faculty/handbook/index.asp on January 28, 2010. The last version entitled the Constitution of the Pitzer College Student Senate was approved by the student body during the Spring 2009 and currently (Spring 2010) serves as the governing document for the Student Senate. An online version is available at http://pitzeruncovered.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Constitution-of-Pitzer-College-Student-Senate.pdf as last viewed on January 28, 2010.
The senate can not, for obvious reasons, operate under three different sets of rules. Three official contradicting constitutions must not exist. In the future official rules that govern the Pitzer Senate must be posted in both the faculty and student handbooks. As soon as the changes are made to the current governing document for the Student Senate ( Constitution of the Pitzer College Student Senate), the senate must work to replace the versions found in the student handbook and faculty handbook. This process should occur every time the constitution is changed. All three versions must be the exact same.
Recommendation 7
Appointment vs election
Whereas the annual spring Student Senate elections for the 2009-2010 academic year could not field competitive races for the certain seats and whereas the current Aesthetics representatives have been actively involved in their committee work meeting the duties of their positions as outlined in Article IV, Section 3 of the Working Constitution (Constitution of the Pitzer College Student Senate), and whereas there are a number of elections scheduled to fill vacant positions for the duration of the school year, the Adhoc recommends:
The four appointed members of the Aesthetics Committee all 9 people appointed to elected positions - shall not be removed from office. All four 9 positions will be up for election in the regularly scheduled spring elections for the 2010-2011 school year. It is the reasoning of the Senate that this decision best maintains stability and activity in student governance for the remainder of the school year but does not preclude democratic involvement in senate as the original, regularly scheduled election. For the positions yielded no competitive races and there is an upcoming special election to fill currently empty seats in the senate. This Adhoc in no way endorses this decision as a precedent. We feel this decision is one as part of many to correct the structural issues student governance is currently facing. We believe streamlining election guidelines and establishing a single constitution will maintain clear precedent to create popular democracy in student self-governance
Conclusion:
We hope future student governing bodies will never be forced to deal with such issues every again. Our decisions should not be used as precedent just instead as a temporary fix to inherited problems. We recognize that the solutions are not ideal, but they are the most fair given the circumstances.
The Contra Costa Timesreports that "The Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College spent $50,000 to have [Lupe] Fiasco perform at [Bridges] auditorium."
Put another way, CMC put the equivalent of a full year's tuition toward bringing him. Of course, in the event that the 2500-seat venue is filled to capacity with tickets sold at $20 each, they'll break even.
Admission Counselor and recent Pitzer grad Adam Lev Rosenzweig '09 wrote a letter to the editor published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I first met Adam way back in the Fall of 2006 when we both took "Victorian America". He would often say smart things on the intellectual level of the letter below, and in response I would smile dreamily at him.
...anyway, the point of his letter (I think) is to defend interdisciplinarity, at least in social sciences and at colleges like Pitzer. To separate the disciplines would relegate the histories of women, sexual minorities, and ethnic minorities to second-class status. All of those threads should be valued in college courses.
"The Virtues of Interdisciplinarity"
To the Editor:
The tone of alarmism surrounding the wholesale reorganization of academia is unnecessary. Jerry A. Jacobs's thought-provoking article ("Interdisciplinary Hype," The Chronicle Review, November 27) counts most of its supporters in the field of the sciences, and practically all at the professional research level. I would at least make the case for interdisciplinarity at the undergraduate level.
Graduate schools will train their students in the applied methods of their fields. Indeed, I agree with Professor Jacobs's assessment that the creation of "centers" and "institutes" most likely embodies the most practical solution to the interdisciplinary debate at the professional research level. There is evidence that during students' introduction to higher education, however, it is helpful to cast a broader net. Take the example of medical schools, which are famously admitting more and more students with undergraduate backgrounds in the liberal arts and humanities—fields that Professor Jacobs has shown to exhibit significantly higher rates of cross-disciplinary citation.
Regarding American studies, Professor Jacobs inappropriately assumes that the goal of American studies has been to identify a "unified theory of American culture." That idiom, echoing the storied "unified theory" in physics, reflects the science-centered perspective of the current disciplinary conversation. In American historiography, the "unified theory" equivalent is known as "consensus history," and has been intellectually out of fashion since the middle of the 20th century. It is clear that American studies gives space and voice to groups in American society that have been marginalized by traditional American historians. Relegating those scholars and their subjects to "area studies" (the return to monodisciplinary scholarship) only supports the feeling that, while their stories are valid, they are somehow not "American." Therefore, indeed, good American-studies scholars would balk at the advancement of a unified theory.
I can only hope that undergraduate liberal-arts institutions like the one I am privileged to work for continue to lead the way in valuing the intellectual diversity of our interdisciplinary faculty who, after all, are training the students who so eagerly seek positions at the feet of you established university professors.
Adam Rosenzweig
Admission Counselor
Pitzer College
Claremont, Calif.
Liberty’s Last Stand is a student publication at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California dedicated to the maximization of individual freedom and liberty. The publication’s staff was organized in 2009, due to resistance to libertarian views in existing student publications, and it released its first edition in January of 2010. Liberty’s Last Stand covers issues pertaining to liberty internationally, domestically, in California, and at the Claremont Colleges.
So this gives CMC yet another notch on its student media bedpost: The CMC Forum. The Claremont Conservative. The Claremont Port Side. (And probably other sources I don't even know about.) And now, Liberty's Last Stand.
I've been pretty critical of some of the stuff various CMC outlets have published (shocking, I know) but you have to give them credit: they value public discourse.
This is a partial transcript from the final Senate meeting of the year on Sunday December 6, 2009. My emphasis is supplied throughout the transcript, and my commentary is interspersed.
Senate Chair Brian Orser: [unintelligible] We need to finish before the end of the semester. To that end we need to deal with the issue of membership and the issue of our own legitimacy. There have been a lot of allegations made on the interwebs, about the senate, about this constitution being brought forward, about our current constitution, about the executive board of senate, and I’m not going to address all of those allegations in turn but there are a few primary issues. I’m not sure what’s going on behind me, does someone need to [unintelligible] ...
Those primary issues are this letter we received, they are our current constitution, and they are the bylaws of college governance. An incidental issue is the judicial council: its history and its [unintelligible]. Now we’ve been prompted by this letter from the dean of students to look into matters of compliance... I think there are enough people here who haven’t read this letter that I should probably read that letter.
Me, Your Humble Blogger: I have a question, I’m really sorry to interrupt you. Are we actually in discussion right now? Are we changing the order of the agenda?
BO: No, actually. I’m-- We don’t have normal status as a governing body right now; we need to address this before all other things. We cannot make decisions because the legitimacy of our government has been called into question. And as for the letter I’m about to read, our position in the college governance system is sort of questionable right now if you don’t mind.
I found this inaccurate and unnecessarily dramatic. Senate has been terrible for the past semester, but to characterize it as illegitimate because Jim Marchant said so is ridiculous.
Sean Sullivan '10: If you don’t mind, can we just ask if people have read this letter, it’s a really long letter [unintelligible].
BO: I know for a fact that there are people here who haven’t.
I also found this annoying: Orser essentially admits that he consults with certain Senators ahead of time, but not others. Further evidence of this comes later.
Charles Butler '10: Then perhaps we might as well ask the author of this letter [Jim Marchant] to present it.
Charles points out that Dean of Students Jim Marchant was sitting in the room at the time, and I agreed with Charles: Jim Marchant would be the best person to explain the letter that he wrote and submitted.
BO: I would ask that I continue speaking without interruption for at least a few more minutes. If that’s okay. Thank you. The relevant section of the letter reads that there are certain positions which [unintelligible] people were appointed to standing committees of the college instead of being elected as required by the student senate constitution. Now those positions are indicated as one on academic planning, one on diversity, one on external studies, two on campus life, and all four of the aesthetics committee positions.
The issue here is that all of those positions are meant to be elected as per the current constitution of student senate. They were appointed by the executive board at the beginning of the semester. They should have been elected in the spring on the ballot upon which all of us were elected, but for legal reasons that ballot was incomplete.
(I don't know what "legal reasons" means in this context.)
BO: The ballot included the current constitution under which we are operating as well as the executed board. It also included several members who are on senate today. Most notably included Mr. [Hale] Shaw [’12] as sports representative, who no longer exists unfortunately as well as PAct representative position. Because the constitution, which changed the composition of senate, was on the same ballot as certain positions which were eliminated or changed, we have this issue. Hale’s disappeared.
The position of Sports Representative was added to Senate's composition two years ago, as an attempt to increase school spirit. When we were revising the Senate Constitution last year, I don't recall anybody bringing it up. Personally, I think Hale is a very smart and dedicated Senator and I value his input. I think his talent is being wasted. But when push comes to shove, his position doesn't exist, and Hale hasn't acted as a representative would be expected to. He hasn't, to my knowledge, publicly solicited the input of Pitzer athletes, held athlete meetings, or brought sports-related issues to Student Senate. If Brian is using this example as one of the terrible things that the existing Constitution has done, I think he should keep searching.
BO: Also, I believe Ms. [Meredith] Gabriel [’12] as a member, I believe her position has changed from elected to appointed. So she was elected to a position that became appointed.
This is exactly what should be happening all across Senate: we should elect students to every single position, even if it says in the Constitution that they should be appointed. If there is anything positive that has come out of the larger debate about the new Constitutional proposal, it is that students want every position to be elected.
BO: Also, those elections did not include elections for judicial council as they should have. We began the semester without judicial council appointments or elections.
And elections were never held, except for the First-Year Representative position, during the Fall semester. I'll get into the judicial council debacle in another post.
BO: So that’s the context in which we find ourselves. The constitution under which we are currently operating also brought in in that same ballot, and that constitution is, in a certain sense, the point of this discussion.
The bylaws of faculty and student governance are the legally binding bylaws of faculty and student governance. They are made such by the bylaws of the College which indicates that they will be such. The bylaws of the Faculty and Student governance are in the faculty handbook alongside the governance section, section 4 of the faculty handbook, which is a sort of appendix on the composition of various committees, etc.
The issue here which I’ve been attempting to arrive at is that our current constitution is not actually congruous with the bylaws of faculty and student governance. In fact the constitution under which we are operating is in so many important ways, out of compliance with the bylaws of faculty and student governance that we find ourselves it seems in some sort of crisis: What document is authoritative and what should be happening.
I will give a few illustrations: for example, Academic Planning Committee: as enumerated-- its membership as enumerated in the governance section 4 of the faculty handbook will be 4 appointed student members, yeah 4 appointed student members. In our current constitution, we read that there will be one elected position and two appointed positions.
So we have disagreement in number and what mode of selection. Now, this is a problem because there is disagreement. We cannot have a body which is constituted with disagreement, disagreeing documents. Now the reason that we have this situation, that we have this sort of disagreements is, is really unfortunate. Our current constitution was never taken to college council. Our constitution is actually not our official constitution. Two points on this. College council is the chief authority in the college governance system. But as far as we’re concerned, the college council is the highest body. The college council is the one that approves all changes to all of them--college governance.
Here is where I believe Brian is dramatically overstating the conflict. Student autonomy is often stated as a core value of the college- the administrators and faculty don't care how we conduct ourselves as a body except when it interferes with larger processes of College governance. The only reason Jim Marchant sent his letter to Student Senate asking it to comply with its own rulebook is when Executive Board illegally appointed several people to positions that are required to be elected.
And you know, this sounds technical, okay so, let’s just take our current constitution to college council. Unfortunately that won’t actually fix the issue, because the reason we have this issue is that if our current constitution had been taken and directly approved-- by this body and the student body-- had been taken to college council, they would have said sorry, it’s going to be a much longer process for you. You need to make sure that your document and the bylaws of the college are in agreement. We could -- our current student senate constitution to the college council.
Now, that leaves us in a little bit of a bind, because in the faculty and student governance bylaws, it indicates that the constitution of student senate will be the student senate constitution found in the faculty handbook. There’s actually a legally resting place for our constitution. I can’t change some words and the cover page and say that it’s our constitution. Unfortunately, and I talked to professor [Stuart] McConnell about this, who spearheaded provisions of the faculty handbook, unfortunately because student senate is a very student sort of thing, they didn’t look at any of the sections pertaining to students.
Pomona.edu is currently down. Based on chatter about their big groundbreaking site redesign process, I'm guessing the new site will be up and running on Monday. Remember, when EDUcheckup.comreviewed their site a few months ago, it scored an embarrassing 47%. I'll be interested to see how it looks!
ETA: On the EDUcheckup review page, Pomona web dude Rory Reiff said that the launch date was going to be January 11, 2010.
On Saturday morning, it was discovered that the Marquis Library was treated with disrespect. Furniture and other various items were taken apart and moved. This created an environment that does not allow our students to study comfortably or at all.
At this time, The Marquis Library will be closed until further notice. Please use the study rooms in the residence halls or Honnald/Mudd.
This is absolutely incredible: Someone has said something intelligent about the weather we're having! A Seattle architect (I can't figure out exactly who) from Johnston Architects ("An outlet for news and ideas from the Seattle-based Architecture firm") wrote this post, reproduced almost in its entirety below:
But the real problem with rain in Southern California is the drainage. Like I said, it rains very rarely, but when it does the volume is incredible. For some reason, the urban planners who built this area decided to largely neglect these rains, probably figuring that people could deal for a day or two. Los Angeles is a city known for it’s pavement, which is quite impermeable and facilitates massive runoff during storms. Claremont (and, I assume, the rest of SoCal) is no different. The result is that when it rains, the few storm drains drilled into the sides of the streets are completely inadequate, and the roads turn to rivers.
I wish I had photos to show but I don’t have a camera down here, so a description will have to do. There’s one street in particular, College Way, that becomes inundated during storms. It’s a central street that you pretty much have to cross to get from the dorms to the academic buildings. Because the Claremont Colleges are built on a slight grade and Pomona is at the bottom, the rain accumulates as it cascades down the impermeable, drainage-free roads and parking lots. By the time it reaches College it’s two or three inches deep in the gutters, rushing by like a channeled stream. Roads are built convex so that the runoff like this accumulates at the sides so it won’t inconvenience cars, so the difficulty lies in getting to and from the middle of the road.
The first day I had to cross these rapids, I tried to jump to the shallow center, but misjudged the depth. As soon as I landed in the half-inch, flowing water, it swept up around my feet and drenched my shoes and socks. Feet wet, I trudged on to my class, trying to figure out a better way to get around. The next day I went out of my way to walk down to the intersection where College runs into 6th Street, in the hopes that crossing would be easier. It wasn’t, and I again essentially waded across the street.
The frustrating part of all of this is that storm water runoff is a relatively easy problem to address, at least in the design stage. The more permeable an area is, the less runoff there is to begin with. This can be accomplished with permeable concrete, concrete pavers, and simply the elimination of unnecessary pavement in parking lots and around sidewalks. Additionally, landscape planters and swales – small plantings that absorb runoff into the ground – can be installed on and around streets with high runoff volumes. Portland is one of many cities that has begun to implement this kind of stormwater management strategy. Read about how successful they’ve been here.
I don’t expect the City of Claremont to take any real action regarding stormwater runoff, because it just isn’t a priority down here. This is the kind of thing though, that needs to be included in future developments. It has little upfront cost, and huge environmental and social benefits down the road. I think the biggest lesson to take from this, however, is the importance of fully understanding the environment you’re building in. It only rains in Claremont a few days per year, but it was a mistake to ignore the rain altogether. By comprehensively analyzing the spaces we’re modifying before the design process, we can take a more complete, efficient, and desirable approach to development.
These lovely folks did a little pre-wedding photo shoot around the Claremont Colleges. This is just a preview; there may be more to come. Here's to hoping that one of the long-term couples at Pitzer gets engaged before we graduate... on Valentine's Day, perhaps?
For those that are interested, the large lightening bolt that many of us saw on Tuesday afternoon around 1:30 p.m. actually hit the construction crane on the CMC campus. Apparently it shook several employees out of their seats and fused together pieces of metal on the ground below it.
Be safe.
Sincerely,
Jim Marchant
Meteorologist-in-training
NWS Forecast:
This Afternoon: Showers and possibly a thunderstorm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. High near 52. Northwest wind around 13 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%.
Tonight: Showers and possibly a thunderstorm. Some of the storms could produce heavy rainfall. Low around 45. West southwest wind between 11 and 15 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%.
Friday: Showers and possibly a thunderstorm. High near 51. Southwest wind between 8 and 10 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%.
Friday Night: A 50 percent chance of showers, mainly before 4am. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 39. South southwest wind between 3 and 10 mph.
Big News: Orientation Adventure is MANDATORY next year. ALL incoming students will be going on four-day orientation trips. This means that we have the opportunity to have a REALLY big say in what OA trips look like in the future. Student voice is imperative and I want to invite EVERYONE to have a say in what these trips should look like. This is a great opportunity to start getting involved on campus! I want to know what you loved and what you think could be better. Be creative and think outside the box! What about proposing a trip to read Walden in the woods, or mediate in the outback, or put together a theater production? We have the opportunity to redesign the entire program so start thinking about what makes up the essence of OA trips. So far we only have one trip proposed.
Community meeting for EVERYONE interested in OA:
YOU MUST SHOW UP TO THIS MEETING IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN BEING A LEADER OR COORDINATOR Everyone is welcome and encouraged to attend even if you have never gone on an OA trip
Saturday, January 23rd
4 PM Broad Performance Space
Agenda:
1. Create a mission statement for the OA program
2. Discuss the many different structures that the program can use i.e. all trips being outdoors, all trips having social justice themes, having workshops on campus… THINK BIG!
Please contact Megan Dooley or Chris Freeberg for any additional information
The Political Studies field group has found its replacement for retiring Professor and department chair Tom Ilgen: Dr. Geoffrey Lucas Herrera.
Although this rather dour staff picture contrasts with Tom's perennially jovial countenance, Dr. Herrera's academic interests look like they will fill the gap perfectly: By the end of the year he will have taught two semesters of "International Politics" at Swarthmore, his alma mater.
His wife Sally Steffen, also a Swarthmore grad, is a Senior Officer in the Legal Affairs and Associate General Counsel department of The Pew Charitable Trusts in Philadelphia.
Around the time Senate stuff really hit the fan, I frankly stopped being useful to readers because I prioritized my personal involvement in Senate dealings over reporting those dealings. But Winter Break is providing an opportunity to backtrack and piece together the chain of events.
My interpretation is this:
In the wake of the proposal of the new Constitution, debates among many students in many different fora were getting intense. What put those debates on hold was an email sent to Student Senators by Dean Marchant, which asserted that Student Senate wasn't following its own guidelines in the makeup of its representatives.
His reasoning was that because those representatives interact with larger College Governance structures, they have to be put in place through the methods prescribed in the Student Senate Constitution.
In other words, students were appointed by the Executive Board to fill positions that must be elected and Senate has to correct that.
Senate Chair Brian Orser appeared to freak out about that, and attempted to call a College Council meeting. Because he didn't go through the proper channels, and because he wanted to hold it late on a Friday night, nobody took it seriously.
He then postponed his call for the meeting until Thursday, December 10th. Nobody took that seriously, either. No one cancelled the meeting, but to my knowledge nobody showed up to it.
The primary sources are in chronological order below (I've highlighted the most essential parts of each document):
December 2, 2009: Dean of Students Jim Marchant sends the following email:
Dear Members of Student Senate:
Normally I prefer to initiate communication about important issues in-person with individuals or groups directly involved. However, given my experiences thus far this semester and due to time constraints, I find myself in the position of having to communicate this message to you, the larger Senate body, in writing without prior discussion.
As you know, one of the most distinctive and special characteristics of Pitzer is its governance system and the critical role that students play in it. We are one of the very few institutions of higher education in the world that include, in fact welcome and value, students in the decision-making process at all levels. My colleagues and I have heard consistently from students over the years that they appreciate the opportunity to be involved in College governance in such a meaningful way. Lately however, we have been approached by many students who have questions and concerns about the role of students in governance at Pitzer. As such, I am writing to you with the intent of clarifying and hopefully resolving some of the issues that have been raised.
I understand you are planning to hold elections to fill the vacant positions for Judicial Council, Environmental Senator, and Off-Campus Representative. It is good to know that you are going forward with this, especially since none of the five Judicial Council positions are currently occupied. However, I believe it is important to recognize that according to the Student Senate Constitution (attached) there are actually many more elected positions that need to be filled at this time. It is in best interest of Student Senate and all Pitzer students to fill these positions in accordance with the Senate Constitution.
Below is a copy of the results from last spring’s elections as reported by the Secretary of Student Senate in April. In addition to the Executive Board positions and the Sports Representative, I noticed that this election confirmed the approval of the amended Senate Constitution. Furthermore, I believe the Senior Class Representative was selected in a subsequent election and several appointed positions were filled. This fall there was an election for the First-Year Class Representative, but not for any of the other vacant positions to my knowledge. In the meantime, there appear to be many instances of students being appointed to standing committees of the College this semester instead of being elected as required by the Student Senate Constitution.
A list of the College’s standing committees with the number of appointed and elected student positions for each according the current Student Senate Constitution is below. According to my calculations, in addition to the positions you are already planning to hold elections for (which includes the 5 vacant Judicial Council positions), there are 9 others that need to be filled via elections: one each on APC, Diversity, and External Studies, two on Campus Life, and all four Aesthetics Committee positions. Since these committees apparently have the total number of allotted student representatives assigned to them at this time, a determination needs to be made as to which appointed students need to step down because they are currently occupying positions that require an elected student representative. For example: 5 students have been appointed to the Campus Life Committee; 2 will need to step down and be filled with 2 elected student representatives.
Committee Appointed Elected
Academic Planning
2
1
Academic Standards
3
0
Appts., Promotion and Tenure
2 (Jr. and Sr.)
0
Budgetary Implementation
1 (Vice Chair)
0
Campus Life Committee
3
2
Curriculum Committee
2
0
Diversity Committee
2
1
External Studies Committee
2
1
Faculty Executive Committee
2 (Jr. and Sr.)
0
Campus Aesthetics Committee
0
4
Please know that this is not a commentary about the suitability of the students currently serving on these committees. Rather, this is notification that many student positions on College standing committees have not been filled in compliance with the Student Senate Constitution.
Also, contrary to what my colleagues and I have heard and read in more than one venue recently, my office never agreed to the appointments that were made to the Judicial Council earlier this semester. Below is an excerpt from an email that I sent to the Student Senate Chair on September 23, 2009. This email was copied to Associate Dean of Students Chris Freeberg.
On another matter, I appreciate you and Paul providing a list of students that were appointed to the Judicial Council by Student Senate. As I mentioned when we met, I needed to check the most recent version of the Student Senate Constitution to verify that students could be appointed. I have since reviewed the Constitution and it states that all 5 student Judicial Council members are elected. I’m sure you already have it, but I have attached a copy of what I understand to be the current Constitution. Please let me know if you have a different understanding of this. Also, at this time we do not have any judicial cases pending, but it will be important to fill these positions soon.
No response to this email was ever received. Again, to my knowledge, no elections have been held to fill these positions or the many other elected student positions (other than the First-Year Class Representative), despite the fact that the current Student Senate Constitution states that elections must be held within the first 3 weeks of the fall semester.
It is the responsibility of Senate to ensure that the current policies and procedures that address student participation in College governance (i.e. the Senate Constitution) are followed. If they are not, then students are denied the unique opportunity to participate in Pitzer’s governance system in meaningful ways. Basically, non-compliance with the Senate Constitution undermines the voice of all students at all levels of governance of the College and brings into question the decision-making authority and legitimacy of Student Senate.
Finally, it is important to know that a new or amended Senate Constitution cannot be decided upon until there is compliance with the current one. As it stands now, since Senate is currently out of compliance with the Constitution, the decisions made by the current Senate body carry no authority in the College’s governance system.
I believe this issue can be addressed soon by holding elections for all of the elected positions as required by the Senate Constitution. As always, my office is willing to provide assistance as needed.
Sincerely,
Jim Marchant
Dean of Students
Vice President for Student Affairs
December 2, 2009: Senate Chair Brian Orser attempts to call a College Council meeting for Friday December 4 at 9:15 pm.
Pitzer College Community:
I am writing in response to a recent incident, which has raised an urgent question for Student Senate. Pursuant to Article II, Section 2.4 of the Bylaws of Faculty and Student Governance, I am formally calling an emergency meeting of College Council. As per Section 2.4, this meeting will take place no less than 48 hours from the time at which this email is sent (approximately 9:15 pm, Friday the 4th of December). I am sympathetic with the multiple demands on the time of our students and faculty; I would prefer to hold this meeting earlier, on Thursday or Friday. However, the 48 hour restriction would need to be waived for us to do so. Under no condition should this meeting be held after this Sunday.
This meeting, Friday December 4th at 9:15pm, will be held for the entire community to discuss an urgent issue of Student Government at Pitzer College. The only item on the agenda, as of now, will be a discussion of the membership and legitimacy of the current Student Senate.
Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Orser
December 3, 2009: President Laura Trombley politely rejects Brian's unilateral authority to call a Council meeting.
Dear Pitzer Community,
An email was sent last night by Brian Orser, President of Student Senate, calling for a College Council to take place on Friday evening at 9:15 pm. In order for a College Council to be called, the following steps must be taken pursuant to sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.7 of the Bylaws of Faculty, Staff, and Student Governance:
-The College Council meeting shall convene at the call of the President, the Dean of Faculty, the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Faculty, the President of Student Senate, or the Convener of the Staff Council Representatives.
-All members of the faculty and Student Voting Members shall be expected to attend such meetings.
-College Council meetings shall be held as needed but no less than once per semester. One week's notice of a meeting shall normally be given and in no case may a College Council meeting be called on less than 48 hours notice.
-The (College Council) Agenda shall normally be prepared by the Dean of Faculty in consultation with the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Faculty, the President of Student Senate, the Convener of the Staff CouncilRepresentatives, and the President.
-The Agenda will normally be published at least 48 hours in advance of the College Council meeting.
-College Council can only be held if there is a Quorum: While classes are in session, a quorum shall consist of no fewer than one half of the voting members of the College Council meeting, providing that this includes no fewer than one-half of the voting members of the faculty not on leave. While classes are not in session, a quorum shall consist of no fewer than one-half of the voting members of the faculty not on leave. (Voting members of College Council for fall 2009 are 64 faculty, 21 students, and 15 staff; 64 faculty are all voting faculty minus the Dean, 21 students are 1/3 of the voting faculty, and 15 staff are all Staff Council Representatives.)
-The President shall preside at College Council meetings. In the absence of the President, the Dean of Faculty shall preside. In the absence of both the President and the Dean of Faculty, the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Faculty shall preside.
On Monday of this week the incoming Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Faculty, the Associate Dean of Faculty representing the Dean, the President of Student Senate, the Convener of the Staff Council Representatives, the President, and the Secretary of College Council met in person in the President’s office and agreed that because there was no pressing business, College Council would not be held this week Thursday, December 3 at 4:15 pm (a time traditionally held so staff are not asked to attend outside of normal work hours). The President of Student Senate did not consult with these individuals before calling for College Council via email. As well, he did not consult with the three individuals able to chair College Council (the President, the Dean of Faculty or the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Faculty). If the President of Student Senate would like to call a College Council for next week Thursday, December 10, President Trombley would be happy to contact the Dean of Faculty, the Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Faculty, the Convener of the Staff Council Representatives and the President of Student Senate to meet and discuss.
Sincerely,
Laura Trombley, President
Alan Jones, Dean of Faculty
Ethel Jorge, Chairperson of the Executive Committee of the Faculty
Angel Jauregui, Convener of the Staff Council Representatives
December 4, 2009: Brian Orser moves his call for a College Council meeting to December 10, 2009.
Pitzer College community:
On Wednesday night, in response to an email sent by the Dean of Students to the Student Senators, and as per Article II, Section 2.4 of the Bylaws of Faculty and Student Governance, I called a College Council meeting to be held at the soonest possible time. Because of the dramatic implications for Student Governance and the urgency of the situation, I determined that the community must immediately discuss the assertions made by the Dean of Students in his email.
However, in the time since I called the College Council meeting, I have communicated with dozens of faculty and administrative staff members, and have determined that in spite of the gravity of the situation it will be difficult to attain a College Council quorum this weekend.
For this reason, I am postponing the College Council meeting until next week. Because the urgency of the situation will be less after this Sunday's Student Senate meeting, I believe we can afford to wait until the traditional time reserved for college governance. I am rescheduling this College Council meeting for Thursday, Dec 10th, at 4:15pm in the Founder's Room.
Respectfully,
Brian Orser
December 5, 2009: FEC Chair Ethel Jorge rejects call for College Council meeting.
Dear Brian,
In response to the request of the Student Senate Executive Committee, the FEC has determined that the issue brought before it was primarily one that concerned the students and that it was not appropriate or respectful to intervene because that would change the dynamics of the process.
Second, FEC's understanding of Jim Marchant's memo was that it did not invalidate decisions the Senate had made to date and did not refuse to recognize the Senate as a legitimate body to conduct elections.
FEC's considered advice is that the Senate hold elections as soon as possible in order to be in compliance with their constitution passed last spring.
Latest comments