October 19, 2005, Law Classroom #2
Allsopp, Baker, Bangert, Baroni, Bley-Vroman, Brown, Chang, Comcowich, Cox, Diamond, Donegan, Duffy, Ericson, Efird, Fassiotto, Fritzinger, Fryer, Fujimoto, Grandy, Haig, Hawkins, Herring, Hijirida, Hudson, INazu, Kazman, Kent, Lampe, Lee (Lenora), Lorenzo, Magaard, Manshardt, Mark, Minatodani, Nitz, Port, Raleigh, Ramos, Rieder, Russo, Rutter, Sansone, Satsuma, Scanlon, Shiramizu, Sipes, Skouge, Speitel, Staff, Stark, Stodden, Tiles, Valliant, Weinstein, Yates
Buenconsejo-Lum, DeMattos, Garcia, Greene, Halagao, Kamakawiwoole, Kennedy, Kipnis, Lee (Meta Tjan), Liebert, Lopes, Madey, Sanders, Stimson, Ward, Weems, Weiczorek, Yu
Bingham, Bridges, Decarlo, Fryer, Paull, Yuen
Chair Robert Bley-Vroman called the meeting called to order at 3:05 p.m. The Minutes of the September 21, 2005 meeting were approved with one correction.
Bley-Vroman reported that the Congress meets today, 4:00 p.m. at Architecture Auditorium.
UARC consultation schedule: The substantial agenda item at today's congress is UARC. Faculty are encouraged to express their views. Others may also be able to speak. The Congress is a discussion group, not a decision-making body, but the Congress will help the Senate decide what to do. The Senate will be meeting in the near future to take action on the UARC.
It is the responsibility of the SEC to draft resolutions and alternative resolutions that will assist in discussion, with the hope that any amendments and changes that result from the discussion will be appropriate and represent faculty views. Today's handout has two resolutions, "con" and "not-con" that were drafted as a framework for discussion. There is currently no "pro" resolution. The not-con resolution includes provisions and conditions that would need to be met to support the UARC. The SEC can continue to tweak and amend with senator's suggestions after the meeting today. Senators are urged to use these in discussions with colleagues in their constituencies.
Ka Leo wrongly reported that the Senate meeting today will discuss UARC. Instead, Congress will discuss UARC.
Two resolutions were drafted by Kim Bridges, CFS Elections Officer, who is not in the Senate today.
Bley-Vroman comment: By laws state secret ballot is used. It is unclear whether electronic balloting would be included. The resolution clarifies that electronic voting be permitted.
Discussion: Hawkins asked if text we send electronically is "written". Cox explained that counting would also be done by computer. Someone asked if ITS is working on a plan for this? Cox: Yes, a secure electronic system is in use by other groups and will be adapted by ITS to MFS needs.
Russo (Economics) stated he favors this development, noting that large corporations commonly use these methods. ???Feld (ED) suggested that the resolution should read "secret and secure". Lampe (Math) asked that the same language be added in another place. After the friendly amendment was included, the question was called and the resolution passed unanimously with no abstentions.
Cox explained that there is currently a problem electing SEC members. This new system will allow voters to select their top candidate, rank-ordering them (first, second, third, fourth, etc.). Then the rank-ordering is taken into consideration in the counting. This method is used by city councils, faculty senates at such universities as Stanford, etc. A questioner asked what happens if someone is allowed to vote for 8 candidates but votes only for 3? Cox: This is allowed.
Ericson (ED) asked about the language of "alternative methods". Bley-Vroman said the statement on alternatives gives the CFS lots of flexibility. Lampe: True, but the last part of the resolution indicates that this will in future be detailed in the By-Laws. Hawkins (LLL) asked if the two resolutions would result in having only one election (for senators and SEC)? Cox responded that there would still be 2 elections; there must be a second election for the SEC. Hawkins: Could a college state they want to run their own election? No. Sansone (Oceanography) noted that he would be happier if we had more specificity and were to vote on a resolution that proposes the actual changes. A non-senator from Library (?) asked about election procedures in general. Bley-Vroman noted that the problem is in counting the votes for multi-seat elections, as the method is not specified. Without a ranking, each person's votes are counted once. With a ranking system, the computer looks at first choices. If there are 100 voters, and a particular person is the first choice of 20 voters that person gets a seat. With ranks you have more information to work from. The idea here is to permit a system which will allow MFS to take rankings into account. Currently, the top candidates are clear but some people elected to SEC had very few votes. Someone(?) asked: Doesn't the proposed method increase the power of a small group? Bley-Vroman: Yes. Suggestion: There needs to be an exploration of various weighting methods. Lampe: Currently, we vote for the number of seats open. When an alternate is needed the next highest person is taken. Last election, people voted for 4 people, but in the end we needed 6 people. Manshardt (CTAHR) asked about the historical way of doing elections, versus what's in the By laws and wondered it CFS could just go ahead and change the method? Cox responded, yes, CFS could just do what they want, but it seems wise to consult the senate.
A Motion to call the question was made and seconded. 31 in favor; against 12; abstaining 6. The resolution passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: