Public Portion Minutes 10/27/2013

1. Public Portion

Moment of Silence.

BG: Start with public portion committee updates–specifically Public Portion (PP) Planning Committee.

ZR: PP not well attended, may not be best forum for public to share thoughts because overwhelmed by HC members — separate PP, maybe combine with abstract discussions and have some of HC but not all of HC. Discussion questions. Would increase attendance rates at Abstract Discussions, PP. Also rename to Community Forum or something.

Emily Brown: Only non HC members here?

BG: No. Introductions.

*Introductions happened.

BG: Thoughts?

ZR: # hours council is together are few, one more would be helpful.

BG: Thoughts?

Emily: Good idea.

AW: Public portion needs to happen more often than abstract discussions in the past.

ZR: Thinking of making it biweekly–pick up old abstract if necessary.

AW: Yes, good. PP not super effective, council can get defensive.

BB: PP is a lot of no one showing up or devolves into talking at each other about intimate Code experiences – would like to move community involvement to a different forum.

*Discussion of typical public portion attendance.

Emily: If format is made known, would be better.

ZR: how would we inform public of change? Mass email?

RBK: Maybe.

Emily: Planning a state of the code?

JSL: technically only for emergencies.

BG: must decide and conserve our use of mass emails.

RBK: personal preference is attaching it to abstract email, but using Go, Facebook, etc.

*Discussion of viability of the Go boards, Weekly Consensus.

BG: Seems to be support of proposal. How many council members is right?

ZR: Nice to rotate members – 4 people at a time.

RBK: (trolling)

Alison: Useful to have one from each grade per week.

*Support.

BG: Biweekly? Monthly? Weekly?

MLL: Why fewer council members? Less intimidating?

Alison: No way everyone could get together anyway. Ensuring a minimum number of people.

BG: In emergencies we can but it’s a lot to add for everyone.

RBK: usually 10:30 at night.

DMS: Different type of dialogue when fewer people. Based on the past, better for intimate conversations.

BG: could add discussion updates to committee updates during Sunday meeting.

BR: Felt like HC was waiting for me to leave when I went to PP because there were other things to do.

RBK: Who should lead?

ZR: Changes every time because everyone seems qualified / interested.

MF: Biweekly can be better attended.

ZR: Also easier to provide food.

Emily: Biweekly better than monthly in case something happens.

MLL: Or if someone has an idea–don’t want to have them wait for too long to share it.

AW: Dropping from weekly to monthly could make people feel shut out.

DMS: Set tone for only a public debate will help. Encourages open dialogue.

ZR: PP name connotes exclusivity.

Alison: Listed as a “guest” in minutes, too.

BG: Concern – abstract discussions about an hour, feels short because people have to read the abstract then discuss. Adding more things to that–when does it happen?

ZR: Does it add more time? Conversations inspired by abstracts and PP are similar. Why is it only an hour?

RBK: Usually fizzles after that.

Alison: Wouldn’t be something you have to read at this, though.

MLL: If we’re trying to bring in more people, likely more time.

ZR: Do people bring concerns to PP?

BG: No. But constitutionally it’s why we have it. If we separate it, they could bring their own issues. Tried to bring it to PP this year but people didn’t show up.

ZR: Important for face-to-face venue rather than email?

BR: Yes, important to have a conversation but need not be with everyone.

Alison: Don’t want it to feel like the big group will discuss it without you.

ZR: Could leave mechanism so that people email co-heads, set aside time for adhoc public portion if necessary.

DMS: Could rename it from PP.

ZR: Details of execution will figure themselves out.

BR: Way to balance authority with conversation?

Emily: Might lose open discussion, committee updates, etc.Could leave PP as an option so we could see how HC works.

Ann: Don’t call it forum for concerns. Discussion is more open-sounding, equal parties.

Alison: Should be forum for people to bring concerns. People who haven’t even been to PP feel that concerns are acknowledged but then ignored.

RBK: Could update website to allow for time to meet with people with special concerns. Should switch to other committee updates.

DMS: Question: Librarian’s opinion of changing things? Plenary resolution?

JSL: Already addressed in my Plenary resolution.

Emily: Sneaky!
JSL; Friendly amendment and we talked about it at Plenary, and committee.

BG: (reads language for public meetings from JSL’s Plenary resolution.

ZR: Well-written.

*Snaps.

BR: Getting the word out–website might not be the best way. Facebook?

BG: We have one. No one liked it.

RBK: Formal process for resolving issue should go on website, but should have another way.

Emily: Confused community members would check the website.

ZR: Maybe redebut the website.

BG: Mostly in support of this. Not really consensus decision?

RBK: Could do it for fun.

BG: Anyone not in support?

RBK: Biweekly meetings, rotating members (One per class), breadsticks…

ZR: Will include an abstract even if it’s not new?

MLL: Concern with that – maybe just a theme if not an abstract because people could have concerns. Themes could give community members more freedom.

ZR: Having an abstract doesn’t mean abstract will be topic, could just give context.

RBK: Abstract will be prepared, but could talk about something better if there is something better.

BG: Limiting abstract discussions to community forums? May have more abstracts than community forums in the future.

DMS: Biweekly could be minimum and add some if necessary.

MF: Special edition community forum could happen.

BG: Do we have one day of Community Forum, because abstract discussions are two nights.

BR: Abstract released – does it replace biweekly forum? Technicality, but concerned about centering discussions around abstracts because there should be space for community concerns.

Alison: Not a need for abstract discussions and PP to be combined–abstracts in response to specific incident, but PP could be about broader concerns.

RBK: Two days of abstracts important–Wednesday could be community forum and longer than Thursday, which is an abstract discussion.

ZR: Still could ask for concerns at abstract discussion.

MLL: Community forums on the same night every time? Some people could never come.

RBK: If someone can’t come, they could come to the abstract discussion.

ZR: Also could rotate days so people could come sometimes.

DMS: Easier for the whole thing to be looser by having flexibility in the night it happens. Loosey Goosey.

RBK: Let’s say Wednesday and talk more about it next week. Other things?

BG: Other committees!

SeemaD: Bes and I are putting up Halloween posters for JSAAP committee this week. Also planning on putting up signs in bathroom stalls.

WL: Does JSAAP emphasize that people are equally responsible for actions when drunk?

BR: More focusing on not drinking too much. Women’s Center might do things like that?

MLL: Someone brought up that Honor Council should emphasize this.

BG: We have had HC-related incidents on Halloween.

JSL: Customs groups are supposed to be doing joint AMA/HCO session. Also, see Rip Van Winkle for abstract related to alcohol.

ZR: Also Batman and Robin.

BR: Surprised that people didn’t bring up this issue sooner – email by tonight for Code-related postering.

MLL: Property damage in HCA a few weeks ago.

DMS: Surprisingly large amount of drunk people peeing in their rooms.

ZR: Cleaning up vomit if it happens in someone else’s bathroom.

RBK: Dinner. Gross.

WL: Community Outreach Committee – better postering with sandwich boards for finals week emphasizing emailing Code. General guidelines.

ZR: Concern about vandalism.

WL: Public places.

EB: Packet for Customs teams before finals.

ZR: Also good for informing freshmen about HC and finals.

EB: Also Pizzas, Professors and the Code – focusing on new faculty.

BG: Invited three professors last times, Will give you emails.

MLL: Sexual Misconduct Education Committee.

ML: Meeting tomorrow with members of Women’s Center to talk about ideas.

MLL: Also talked to members of ASC, SOAR. One suggestion was talking about alcohol and still having responsibility for actions – active bystander.

ML: Making process of reporting sexual assault more public to improve reporting rate.

MLL: Could clear up misconceptions – encouraging people to feel safe. Talk to Honor Council, the Deans.

BG: Look at new website for sexual misconduct reporting – could help publicize. Should add it to our website.

*Constitution banter.

SergioD: Safety and Security Committee: Went over Leeds burglaries, arrest for person who sent out thieves, investigation ongoing. Installing protective screens for bottom floor of Leeds in response and in Lloyd as a preventative measure. Test of emergency system went well. Tabletop exercise soon to try out emergency notification system soon (weather issues, etc.) Bought cameras with analytic software to capture motion – easier to catch someone stealing. Installed in remote places – back of DC. US Open review and what it did for College reputation.

MLL: Could that be publicized more?

SergioD: Haverford was approached by USGA, told they needed to use campus. Haverford said yes – politics, economics. Good reputation with community at large – able to pass permits for Tritton and Kim more easily as a result.

*Brian talks about sewage.

DMS: Multiculturalism committee has not done anything.

CB: Work in progress.

DMS: Will talk to Cathy Quero. Brainstorming.

RBK: Email Maria, Ope, Dean Tensuan.

SergioD: Communication with affinity groups?

DMS: In progress.

RBK: Final points?

DMS: Multiculturalism could work with PPPC to plan community forums.

RBK: Ice cream?

Everyone else: YES!

Moment of silence.