Draft, March 31, 2006
UMM Constitution Revision Committee
Meeting # 5: March 27, 2006
Present: M.E. Bezanson (Chair), R. Heyman, M. Korth, T. Lindberg, T. McRoberts (Secretary), S. Olson-Loy, J. Ratliff-Crain, G. Rudney, R. Wareham and R. Webb
It was suggested that the Secretary could be responsible for the Assembly ³memory² and information about the work of the Assembly as opposed to being the recorder of particular minutes. In essence, the Secretary might reside over the records of the Assembly and that could be an important Assembly function rather than being a Chancellor¹s office function.
Another member noted that the tradition for many years was that the Executive Committee‹which included and was led by the Chancellor--was in fact, the ³Steering Committee² of the Assembly and served as the ³Committee on Committees.²
There was a question about whether or not the parliamentarian should be a member of the Assembly with a right to vote. There was a difference of opinion about whether or not this was appropriate. But, sentiment seemed to lean toward that the parliamentarian should be a voting member of the Assembly who would not vote in matters related to his or her own vested interest. This was due, in part, to a sense that a member of the assembly should not lose the right to vote in order to serve as parliamentarian.
Next came a discussion about the timing on selecting the representation on committees from the students and the USA staff. Since the conversion to semesters, the selection of student members for campus committees has not been in sync with the announcement of committee assignments to the Campus Assembly. Some effort needs to be made to bring the selection of members on committees in line with our campus elections so that students can be assigned to committees in a timely manner.
Under Section 4, Meetings, there seemed to be agreement that having two meetings routinely each semester was fine, although there were some language changes proposed. It was also noted that it would probably be appropriate to say that additional meetings may be called in a term (as distinct from special meetings).
There was a fairly long discussion under Section B about what constituted a special meeting and how that ³procedurally² came about. Again, it was made clear that special meetings are different than additional meetings as suggested under Item A. Special meetings, it seems, are called for a very specific purpose and not simply to have an additional Assembly meeting in a given term. The committee again discussed how one determines the actual number of Assembly members that were needed to call a special meeting. This comes back to the confusion over what constitutes membership in our Assembly.
There also followed discussion about contradiction in the language of the constitution about the exact timing on how many days in advance an agenda had to be distributed to Assembly members.
Finally, we briefly discussed the meaning of an ³Executive Session,² as explained in the constitution.
At the next meeting the committee will take up the discussion of a quorum. The next meeting will take place on Monday, April 3, same time and same location. No meetings on April 10 or 17.