Student Assembly Meeting

Thursday, March 20, 2025

• Term:
  2024-2025
• Assembly/Committee: Student Assembly
• Date & Time:
  Thu, Mar 20, 2025 - 4:45pm
  to
  6:30pm
• Location:
  Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room (WSH407)/Zoom
• Agenda:
• Meeting Packet:
• Audio Recording:
  SA-20250320.MP3 (36.8 MB)
• Minutes:
  1. Call to Order
     1. Chair Z. deRham called the meeting to order at 4:45 PM.
     2. Members Present: S. Almosawi; M. Barberis; S. Bartnik; L. Berinde; L. Blum; S. Chan; E. Chaudhuri (Late); Z. deRham; M. O’Donnell; C. Flournoy; E. Galperin; G. Gonzalez-Mulattieri; H. Hitchcock; N. Hite; C. Kim; F. Meng; J. Purcell; S. Razzak; D. Suarez; A. Vinson; T. Waguespack; J. Wu; E. Yao
     3. Members Absent: R. Acharjee (Proxied by S. Razzak); D. Addoquaye (Proxied by T. Waguespack); A. Aftab (Proxied by L. Blum); D. Gekman (Proxied by A. Vinson); J. Lederman (Proxied by E. Galperin); K. Liu; J. Silverman (Proxied by L. Berinde); C. Tarala

     4. Also Present: J. Swenson; S. Arnold; Vice Provost for Academic Innovation, Steven Jackson; 

         

  2. Reading of the land acknowledgement

     1. Z. deRham stated the land acknowledgement.

         

  3. Approval of the minutes

     1. J. Swenson motioned to approve the March 13th meeting minutes, motion passed with unanimous consent.

         

  4. Announcements

     1. No announcements.

         

  5. Reports of Officers, Committees, and Liaisons
     1. E. Galperin, on behalf of D. Gekman, promoted SHAC.
     2. N. Hite introduced a special project fund request under $500 for a group making buttons in support of the TCAT strike.
        1. E. Galperin asked whether there is precedent for funding politically themed items
        2. N. Hite confirmed that such funding falls within the Assembly’s guidelines.
        3. J. Swenson questioned the Assembly’s stance on funding political activities, noting that last year the Assembly chose not to take political positions.
        4. Z. deRham clarified that funding such initiatives is not prohibited and falls under N. Hite’s discretion.

        5. A. Vinson countered that in the same semester, the Assembly passed resolutions supporting strikes and political issues, so there is precedent.

            

  6. Open Microphone

  7. No speakers.

      

  8. Consent Calendar

     1. No items on the consent calendar.

         

  9. Presentations
     1. Vice Provost for Academic Innovation, Steven Jackson
        1. The Vice Provost gave an overview on key academic issues, including generative AI, classroom recording, and privacy. He addressed questions about the selection process for student positions on committees and staff roles in the Education Working Group.
     2. Director of Elections, I. Gilenson
        1. I. Gilenson announced that elections will shift to ranked choice voting, all candidates will receive $40 in funding, and petitioning (ending March 24) is separate from campaigning, which begins April 9.
        2. E. Galperin asked how candidates should respond if someone asks why they should support them.
        3. I. Gilenson responded that candidates can give a brief answer but should focus on collecting signatures at this stage.
        4. H. Hitchcock asked if candidates can post about petitioning on social media.
        5. I. Gilenson confirmed that it is allowed.
        6. J. Swenson questioned the purpose of petitioning without a platform.

        7. I Gilenson explained it’s primarily about garnering support from people the candidate already knows.

            

  10. Second Readings

      1. No second readings.

          

  11. Third Readings
  12. Resolution 40
      1. S. Razzak reminded the assembly of the resolution, which urges professors to include clear grading breakdowns in course syllabi. He shared that he had sent it to the Faculty Senate, but due to leadership transitions, it likely won’t be addressed before the end of the assembly’s term.
      2. E. Chaudhuri argued that without faculty support, the resolution would be "performative at best" and urged the assembly to do more due diligence before passing academic-related resolutions.
      3. S. Razzak acknowledged the limits of the assembly’s power but emphasized that addressing student concerns—like clarity on grading—helps build credibility and sets a strong precedent.
      4. A. Vinson pushed back on the idea that faculty backing is necessary for action, noting that past resolutions (like Resolution 20) resulted in tangible outcomes without external support.
      5. N. Hite agreed, stating that believing the assembly has no power is a harmful mindset, and they have made change before.
      6. E. Galperin admitted he hadn’t encountered the issue himself but supported the resolution after hearing student concerns.
      7. S. Razzak added that after reviewing publicly available syllabi, many lacked clear grading structures, showing the issue is real.
      8. E. Chaudhuri maintained that without collaboration from faculty or clear next steps, the resolution risked being dismissed.
      9. C. Flournoy emphasized that the assembly’s job is to advocate for students and that this issue is common and worthy of action.
      10. Z. deRham clarified that if passed, the resolution would go to President Kotlikoff, who has 30 days to respond—likely referring it to the Faculty Senate based on her prior conversations with him.
      11. S. Razzak closed by noting that faculty senators are busy and might not respond immediately, but the issue is still worth pushing forward.
      12. M. O’Donnell motioned to end debate; E. Chaudhuri dissented, but the motion passed 22–1.
      13. Resolution 40 was adopted with majority consent and a vote of 16–3–6.

   

  11. Appointments and Vacancies Calendar
      1. No appointments or vacancies.

   

  12. Adjournment
      1. The meeting was adjourned at 5:32     

   

  Respectfully Submitted,

  Kennedy Young

  Clerk of the Assembly

   

  SA Minutes (3-20).pdf (169.11 KB)