The University of Scranton

Student Government
Minutes
Date: 10/4/19
Place: BRN 500
Start Time: 3:15PM
End Time: 7:00PM

TYPE OF MEETING Student Senate Meeting

FACILITATOR(S) Fahad Ashraf, President
Jeffrey Colucci, Vice President
MINUTE KEEPER Kimberly Baxter, Secretary
PRESENT Cabinet: Ashraf, Colucci, Welby, Fullam, Brannelly, Donnelly, Baxter

Senate: Alian, Haggerty, Gallagher, Corrigan, Balliet, Nealon, Smith,

Perrachio, Sharma, Patel, Wiafe, Middleton, Sunday, Dieser, Ryan,
Myers, Marcotte, McLaughlin, Muhammad, Murtaj, Asiedu-Wiafe

Guest: Mrs. Huey Shi Chew, Cody Morgan, McKayla Kathio, David
Pennino, Joseph Chabuel, Michael Abromovage, James Ruff, Justin
Thomas, Christine Jiang
ABSENT Senate: Jarvis, Kilner, Connolly

A. Prayer/Roll/Minutes

Prayer/Roll/Minutes Jeffrey Colucci

Update
Colucci: Hello Everybody. Welcome to our Friday afternoon meeting, I hope you all had a good
week. We’re going to begin the meeting by having Senator Sunday lead us in prayer.

Sunday: In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. God, we ask you to calm all of our
minds from whatever they were previously focused on to this meeting today. To allow us to have
constructed criticism towards one another and to get done what we plan to do. Thank you for giving
us this beautiful fall day even though it’s windy and cold. Thank you for bringing us together today,
allowing us to have this opportunity. In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen.

Colucci: Thank you. Now Secretary Baxter will take attendance.

(Attendance Taken)

Colucci: Now we are going to move on to approving our minutes from the September 20th meeting.
All those in favor of approving the minutes say, “yay”, “nays,” “Abstentions”. Okay. The minutes
 from our September 20th meeting has been approved pending President Ashraf and Dr. Davis’s
approval. Now we are going to jump down to Senate Forum. We have Mrs. Chew here from the
Office of Global Education and I’m going to have Senator Murtaj introduce her to have our
discussion about the international senator seat, that we are continuing from our last meeting.

B. Senate Forum

Senate Forum Senator Murtaj

Update
Murtaj: Mrs. Chew came here from the International Student Office to help answer some of the
questions that we had last meeting and hopefully to discuss with her what the best possible way to
format this student government representative. Thank you for coming. I met with Dean Rivera
today, we were talking about some interesting ideas on how we might be able to format the seat
differently than what we were recommending last week. Initially, the International Senator was
created was because we wanted someone to be representative of the international students who
came here for a semester or one year. We believed that their experience is very different than
people that stay here the whole time or that moved here when they were younger and before they
started their undergraduate education. We then did open it up for four year international or
exchange students for the position. One thing Dean Rivera mentioned, that I’d like to see
everyone’s opinion on, instead of having the elections with international seat, because a lot of times
there aren’t a lot of international undergraduate students. When we go around for elections getting
people to sign the petition, a lot of those students actually won’t be here for the next semester. The
idea that Dean Rivera had was possibly at the beginning of the year, maybe one of the first
gatherings of the international students, explain the position, advertise for it, and see if students are
interested and apply through an appointment process, so that they will be here. They won’t have to
have the form signed by people who won’t be here. For example, that’s why we don’t have senior
sign the form because they won’t be here next year. So, having students who won’t be here next
year sign the forms is a good point. So, that was one of the ideas. Dean Rivera do you want to
elaborate more?

Rivera: I think you did a good job capturing it, Senator Murtaj. We just talked a little bit about the
history of the international student seat and the importance of it. If we were to make some of the
changes that we were talking about at the last meeting as far as expanding the definition of an
international senator beyond the University’s definition of an international student, no longer would
be able to go to the Office of Global Education and say, “these are the names of the people who
signed the form, are they in fact international students,'' because the definition no longer mirrors the
University’s definition. It just got me thinking about that election process. In the past, many of you
will remember that we required 50 signatures for people who wanted the senate seat, but we change
that for the international seat because there are always, sometimes 50 undergraduate students here
to get signatures from. Now, thinking further along, we have our elections in March but we’re
excluding students who are going to be here for the upcoming year, because they’re not here yet,
which doesn’t seem to make a lot of since. So, that’s why, in reading our constitution and bylaws,
thought of this after the fact, but of course wanted to bring it to Senate.
Chew: May I just give you some ideas. I was looking at one of your Senators when she applied for
this position. I was actually the one who suggested it to her because she studied abroad this former
senator, and she saw a need for a voice here. I told her an example, in my previous school who was
in the same situation. They actually had a meeting where SGA appoint a seat, where the student
doesn’t need to run. There’s no way a student would be able to run for a few reasons. It’s not that
there just not here, but that the students are trying to get adjusted to on campus life, and U.S. life.
They do not have to think about how to get votes and how to campaign, it’s just way too much for
them. I think there was an example, which was very similar to what Dean Rivera said. Logistically,
it’s not easy for them to do it. Also, again, the students are not here. I just want to affirm what she
has just said.

Murtaj: So, after that, I know we had a lot of conversations previously, about different ideas. Even
if we did do what she just proposed, which is the appointment process, we can still talk about
expanding the position to others and not just F1 and J1 students. This would be more difficult in
regard to tracking their status. Do you believe other Visas could fit into this?

Chew: I think it was established that it’s for F1 and J1 students and this is the group we are
targeting for. They have different experiences. Even international undergraduate students on
campus is about 30 something students. And the other category of students is even smaller number
that will open up. I think this group is very sizable for right now. I must tell you now, that the
International Enrollment Admission Team is trying to boost up our international undergraduate
students. It can go up in the next few years. I will say, and Glenn can attest to it right now. But, the
experiences of international students are very different and very specific and that’s part of the
reason why in some ways we maintain the status is a good idea. But maybe the way we try to
recruit this person, we can think about that. I think since we have established this position for at
least four or five year, for me, I have found there is no system way of recruiting for this position.
You must also realize that you guys are already transitioned. You have your own group that keeps
moving along, changing leadership, so a lot of things get lost. The past few semesters, we have a
SG president that will come in, exactly like Dean Rivera said in the beginning of the semester, you
come in and we try to talk about it and then we get somebody. Probably, Glenn probably heard that.
Also, Glenn is very different with his interaction. He is more well versed with the community than
some of our other international students. So that’s a little bit different. Generally, it is much easier
to increase our approach in reaching out to international students in the earlier part of the semester.
Another thing I would like to suggest, is if you don’t have anybody in place for the position, if you
need some kind of feedback from international students, we do have an International Club. If you
guys need anything like input or something like that, we send somebody for now like our President
of the club. Who knows him? We have full leadership right now. It’s not easy finding leadership
from that group. But we do have full executive leadership. We can get input for you, while waiting
for that position to be filled.

Brannelly: I just have one question. Are there any students at this University that are considered
international students that aren’t on F1 or J1 visas?

Chew: Yeah.

Brannelly: What Visas are they?

Chew: It varies by almost 20 types of visas. The normal visa people vary by is H4, people on a L2,
which is like if their parents are here temporarily because their parents were transferred from a
different country, and E2 is treaty. H4 is a dependent of someone who is working here on a foreign
on a work type of visa. I normally see on campus. I was talking to Enis that the Micronesians who
are not on any Visa, but who are very much international, which I have brought under us. In every
sense they are very international. They come from abroad. Because of the treaty with the United
States, they can come in and out of the country without any Visas. We have that category of people.
The Micronesians would be the closest group who could probably represent the international
student because they are really from abroad. The other category, I would assume, is some of them
study in high school and might have been here already for a few years and is well adjusted and
different needs.

Colucci: Questions for Mrs. Chew?

Ashraf: Do you have access to that information? For example, if someone would apply with a
different Visa such as an L2, is that something you would be able to verify, or would that fall on the
student to provide documents for it?

Chew: I would not have access to other types of visas because my office only deals with F1 and J1.
You would probably go through the admissions office. The Admissions Office would know the
whole demographic of the student. Some of it too is hard to track because the way we hold them.
For example, if you are an F and a J per se, our definition of international student is clearly marked
because there’s immigration regulation pertaining to this group. We’re required to track them,
monitor them. The other type, the non-F and Js, they are not really fall under tight immigration
rules. I think the way admission office is coding them is they might put them as international. I’m
not sure they’re even coding them for that category of visa.

Ashraf: Thank you.

Chew: That what I know, I might be wrong. I work closely with out admission team, so I kind of
have an idea of how they are doing it, but I cannot say for 100%. It might not be so easy trying to
trace this group.

Ashraf: Thank you.

Colucci: Questions? Thoughts about how we might want to proceed with the international seat
requirements.

Myers: The way that I’m hearing this is that a common theme across international students is not so
much what visa they hold, but rather their involvement in the International Club? Is that correct, in
that most international students are involved in international club rather than holding a specific
visa?

Chew: Not exactly. See the students who are international per se under F and Js. My office is
responsible for them. So, I track them for immigration purposes. I advise them and I also hold
programs for them. So, there students are obviously in the club. Whereas this group here that I do
not know about and don’t have responsibility, I have no clue. It’s not a fact they join the club, but
because they are F and Js they obviously know there is a club because of how we program.

Myers: Yeah. Okay.

Alian: Senator Murtaj, I would go to Admissions and hopefully ask for a list and percentage that
they usually get over the past 5 years, so we can see. Then maybe make our decisions off of that
and whether or not to include different visas. I really do like the appointing of an international
appointment.

Murtaj: I wasn’t thinking of it until my conversation with Dean Rivera, but what we were trying to
do in the past is make the international student representative fit in our already predetermined
structure. But it seems like that doesn’t make the most sense for them. Having this different
process, makes a lot of sense. I don’t know if everyone in general consensus with that.

Myers: I also think the appointment process here makes the most sense for all the points that have
already been brought up. It’s part of the reason why I asked if it was common for all the
international students if they were in the international club.

Rivera: I’m trying to think about how we define the seat because you can still be in International
Club without being an international student. Right? It’s not closed to international students. So, how
is it that we go about articulating what we’re talking about, I would be happy if it were a
Micronesian student from the same type of experience? That same voice is what we’re looking for.
I don’t know if you have suggestions on the wording or whether you would be willing to help us
offline to help us refine the wording, so that it’s not limited to the F1 and J1 visa if that excludes the
Micronesian students or some others. But yet, it’s not open to anyone who joins the international
club, because that’s not necessarily the voice we’re looking for.

Murtaj: Are the Micronesian group coded as international? No, okay.

Alian: By international, are we saying that after they attend the University they are going to another
country? Is that how we’re defining it or just by their visa?

Rivera: You can probably speak more specifically, but when you send the list of international
students who we’re talking about. They’re normally students who are visiting the United States for
a period of time to take classes either as an exchange student or I forget the other term.

Chew: A regular F1 student. At the university that definition, right? My office defines international
student as someone who actually apply for a student visa, so they are coming here purposely to
study. But there are two types of student visas under two different programs. The regular one would
be the F1 student and the other is the exchange under the department of state is under the J1, but
they’re both specifically student visas. This is how my office defines international student because
of the whole reason of immigration rules. After 9/11 nobody cares that much, but they only care
about F1s and J1s and tracking them. So, that is my definition, but if you go to admissions a
broader definition would be non-citizens. They could be here under the L2 or other types of visas.
They didn’t apply directly to be a student, but they came through their parents coming here for
business. So, they are international students that are here but not with a student visa. So, that is the
difference and that difference is also make the difference between their experiences. For example,
the L2 student has parents that are here. International students on F1 and J1 have no family here.
So, it a whole different ball game. That’s why this group is slightly different on the F1 and J1 and
the Micronesians, because they are without parents and mostly here on their own.

Patel: I guess this would be a Dean Rivera or Senator Murtaj question. Are we looking to open up
the international seat to students who are here with visas because of their parents or are we still
looking to have it open only for international student’s visa?

Murtaj: I think that’s what we’re trying to figure out. The whole conversation sparked when we had
the one student applied who couldn’t move forward with the international seat because of the
restrictions we have. That’s why we looked into it, but I don’t know if it is our advertising. Maybe
if we keep it the same and do what we suggested in the beginning and maybe go in and advertise
directly to the international students, maybe we’ll get more turn out. That’s kind of how I think I’m
leaning a little bit more now, at least to see what happens. Maybe that will work. If it doesn’t work,
then that will be a conversation about opening it up more. I think after all our conversation maybe
we should do more advertising. It was from my understanding after attending the meeting and
spoke to more students about it they’re interested parties that will apply once the forms open. That’s
just my thought process, I don’t know if everyone is on the same page. If not, I’d love to hear a
different view.

Colucci: If anybody has any thought right now, I think it’ll be good to talk about it now. It’ll be
good to final legislation by our next meeting so we can fill the seat. What’s going through your
mind about this?

Corrigan: I do have to agree with Senator Murtaj, but I feel if we start stretching that availability to
students it might stretch even more and then we’ll start crossing the line, because we’re getting into
that same pattern of who are we going to accept and who are we not? I do agree that opening it up
to more people can accumulate more people who are interested in the position. I’m just worried that
the stretch we’re doing now will prolong the search.

Murtaj: So, unless anyone has any objections, I’ll move forward with not changing the constitution
and we’ll open up the form and see who applies. Hopefully, at the next meeting we can have
applicants possibly here.

Rivera: I don’t know when the next meeting of the international club is, that would seem to dictate
when because that’s a critical piece of this.

Chew: I think it’s next Tuesday or Thursday. Let me check.

Murtaj: Currently, the form is closed. I don’t know if we’re okay with opening it back up.

Chew: Yes, Tuesday.

 Murtaj: What time?

Chew: 11:30.

Murtaj: Okay. I can go to the next meeting and one last time advertise, push it. We can open it up
and have interviews hopefully in the next two weeks at the next Senate meeting. Is everyone ok
with that?

Colucci: Does anyone have any other questions for Mrs. Chew while she is here?

Patel: I just want to clarify that we’re keeping it with just F1 and J1 visas and it’s just going to be
international students?

Colucci: Yes, I believe so. Is that okay with everybody? Okay. We’re good. Thank you for being
here Mrs. Chew, we appreciate it. Now, we’re going to move on to New Business.

C. New Business

New Business Jeffrey Colucci

Update
Colucci: First is Student Senate Bill 177, “Student Senate Resolution Regarding a Club Charter for
Turning Point University of Scranton”. Before we begin, President Ashraf would just like to make a
few remarks.

Ashraf: Hello Everyone. A few weeks ago, I engaged with a constituent on social media
surrounding Turning Point. In the exchange, I made a comment that summarized the club charter
process that does not accurately reflect the full process. To avoid any perception of partiality
surrounding this discussion, the vote and the rest of the process, I’ve spoken to Dean Rivera and
communicated this to Cody, and I’ve decided to recuse myself from the Turning Point proceedings.
This means I will not be participating in any aspect regarding Turning Point.

Colucci: Thank you. I just want to make a statement too as we start moving into the Club
Chartering Process. We’ve had numerous students approach us about chartering new clubs and we
just want to make sure we’re getting this process right, so I want to make a few comments about
that. I expect that there are going to be many new club charter requests on the agenda in the coming
weeks and months. Student Government has the responsibility to hear these requests by students
who wish to form new clubs, and then make a determination on whether this club will make a good
addition on our campus. I think it’s important to note the three reasons clubs have not been
approved in the past, which are: the club is too similar to another club on campus, there isn’t
enough demonstrated interest, or their mission is in direct opposition to the mission of the
University. As we begin our first club charter for the year by Turning Point USA, I ask that you all
remain unbiased and keep your personal opinions aside and do what is best for the University and
our constituents. Although one may or may not personally support the organization looking to
become a Student Government chartered club, we need to take a step back and be reminded of our
constituents. Now, I’m going to ask Senator Murtaj to introduce the bill.

Murtaj: Thank you. So, we have a club charter for Turning Point USA. We have the club officers
here to answer any questions you may have. I don’t know if you want to elaborate on anything now
or later?

Morgan: Yeah. We do have a slide show. I could start the official introduction there of if you would
rather me just start it from here, it’s up to you guys.

Colucci: Yes. If you want to start the PowerPoint that would be good. Also, just before you guys
speak could you say your name so Secretary Baxter can get them down for the minutes. Also, just
so you know we have Senator Kilner and Senator Connolly on the phone. They couldn’t be here
today, but they wanted to be a part of the discussion. We will keep them on speaker phone.

Morgan: Hi everybody, my name is Cody Morgan, I’m the President of Turning Point USA here.

Abromovage: I’m Michael Abromovage. I’m a freshman and the Vice President.

Chabuel: I’m Joseph Chabuel, I’m a freshman. I’m the marketing manager for Turning Point USA.

Kathio: I’m McKayla Kathio, I’m an accounting major and I’m a member.

Pennino: I’m David Pennino. I’m an education major and I’m a member.

Morgan: Okay. So, what do we stand for? Basically, Turning Point is a non-partisan, issue based
political group that focuses on identifying, educating, training, and organizing students to promote
the principles of freedom of speech, free market, and limited government. So basically, we’re pro-
limited government, pro-free market capitalism and we’re all for individual liberty. So, why were
we created? We’re a non-profit organization that encourages students to engage in American
politics and realize the importance of political engagement in our country. This is a very pressing
issue right now, as politics seems to be a growing and growing hot topic of importance. I believe
Patricia Cummings told me our school was rated one of the most politically apathetic campuses in
the United States and we’re looking to change that by starting to warm people up to political
engagement and political discourse. We strongly believe in individual liberties, which is the liberty
for people to have freedom to exercise their right without any restraint from the government. We
are issue based. We focus mainly on economic issues. We are not socially, everybody has their own
opinions on the social issues, but we do not push social issues through our club. Things like
abortion, LGBTQ rights, anything like that we don’t have anything to do with that. I mean people
are more than welcome to engage that, but what we’re all about is the economic issues that we
believe to have brought the United States to the success that it is at now.

Abromovage: We have a slide also on what benefits bringing Turning Point to University of
Scranton would be. Not only would it allow us, but all students to share their views and engage in
civil discourse as Cody already mentioned. We do have in line some community service events,
like doing service at the Ronald McDonald house and local soup kitchens, which we would also
like to engage in. It’s not typically a political thing, it’s just something we would like to help better
the community and get people involved aside from strictly community service clubs. We also have
already started to collect forms to get all students registered to vote. There’s no targeting of whether
we know a student is of a certain party, we encourage all students to vote and that’s something that
we push on all people. As young people and as Americans it’s our duty and our liberty to express
our opinions and elect who we believe deserve to be elected to our government.

Morgan: Recently. There was an article that was published by the NY Times that basically stated
Lackawanna and Luzerne county were the biggest swing counties in the whole entire country when
it comes to this upcoming election. We think that having this political discourse in such an
important area, would allow for a more accurate representation of what people want in the election.
Right now, there is 1,500 Turning Point Chapters among colleges and high schools. Among those
1,500, I believe only five have been revoked and only 3 of those have been overturned due to
public scrutiny, etc. But, it’s a growing organization. We love it so far. Me and Mike actually
attended the conference last week. It was truly an amazing experience. Right now, they have the
Black leadership summit and the Latino leadership summit and the women’s leadership summit,
where they focus on issues pertaining to those groups and how they should address those, etc.

Ambromovage: That’s all for the slideshow, but we would definitely like to answer any questions
or concerns that you might have.

Morgan: First before anything, we are aware of the potential controversy when it comes to a club
like Turning Point. There were, how many people, by a show of hands, have heard of Turning Point
before? So, there have been issues raised with certain individuals in the club who have come out
and said things that did not align with what Turning Point it all about. There is the one woman, her
name was Chrystal. She made racist remarks over private text and that was probably the biggest
media source or story about Turning Point. She was one of the employees there. As soon as Charlie
heard, who is the national director and President of Turning Point, found out about this, he fired her
within 72 hours. Another issue was a man named Juan Archiletta, he was a former employee but
after he was employed and had left the company he was caught saying very all right things I guess
but that didn't fly too well he was also barred from attending any more Turning Point conferences.
So, the whole idea that there's a negative stigma around some of the things that tournament stands
for, they are all totally against what turning point is about. There is nothing as far as I know that
hasn't been addressed and corrected involving that. As Charlie Kirk said, he wanted to root out any
potential bad apples because when you do run a political organization, no matter what side you're at
you are going to have some extremists who are going to engage in it. But we aren't going to tolerate
that. We do believe in freedom of speech of everybody, but say like when I'm running the club for
example, there will be a zero tolerance policy when it comes to any racist remarks or Nazi remarks
or any of the other stigmas that have occurred with or in other chapters at other colleges.

Colucci: We can ask questions of them in second reading, but first let’s move on to first reading for
grammar, syntax and spelling in the bill.

Dieser: Motion for first reading.

Haggerty: Second.
Colucci: Now we’re in first reading again, for grammar, syntax, and spelling.

Murtaj: I would like to recommend for someone to make a friendly amendment for section two
purposes, to capitalize the club charter at the end of the sentence because it’s capitalized throughout
the whole document. If someone will make that friendly amendment, I will accept.

Sharma: Friendly amendment in section two purpose to capitalize the club charter.

Murtaj: Accepted.

Haggerty: Friendly amendment, in section three findings, subpoint 3, capitalize club charter for
consistency.

Murtaj: Accepted.

Haggerty: Motion for second reading.

Alian: Seconded.

Colucci: Now we are in second reading. This is more for the content of the bill. You can ask any
questions for the representatives of the club at this time. The floor is opened up to you guys.

Murtaj: Just for the interest of the club, they have already had two meetings and that’s where the
number 35 came out. They were on their list or attending the meeting and showed interest in the
club. If you have any questions about the meetings or anything. They are already established
through the national organization Turning Point USA., they’re recognized. Now they’re just
coming to us to get Student Government club charter, so they can have a royal sync page and
promote that way, white boards and table sits and do things that only Student Government
chartered clubs have the right to do.

Patel: In the bill it says that Turning Point University of Scranton is non-partisan. So, if it is
affiliated with Turning Point USA, which is a conservative group, there is a little bit of
contradiction there. I'm just a little confused on whether or not the entire organization is
conservative because it is mentioned on the website.

Morgan: Yes, it is a conservative organization. The conservative is not partisan. The partisan would
be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party. It is an independent organization that focuses
on the issues, even though the issues tend to stray conservative. So, it still consistently not a
partisan organization.

Sharma: Out of curiosity, do you know if any local University or schools also have a turning point
Club?
Morgan: I believe Kings and Misericordia right now are the two local schools. I know Misericordia
is in the process right now and I believe Wilkes has one too. So, Wilkes has an established chapter,
Kings is in the process, and Misericordia is in the process.

Sharma: Do you have any connections or sense of how those clubs are doing at their perspective
universities?

Morgan: I'm connected with someone; her name is Carly. She is a representative from the
Leadership Institute, who I reached out to help me start this up. She's basically the one helping
them start out to, and she said it's doing great so far. She's given me some emails and networking
names and numbers too.

Haggerty: What would be some concrete goals that you hope to accomplish on campus like what
would be your specific mission, specific to the University of Scranton this semester?

Morgan: Like specific things we would like to do?

Haggerty: Yeah.

Morgan: Okay so basically, we want everybody to be politically involved regardless of what's your
what's your political affiliation is. So, we want a table on campus, and we want to host friendly
debates. You know, some civil discourse. We'll have some different events. There’s one idea that a
lot of Turning Point Chapters do called the Free Speech Ball. It’s a giant, ten-foot beach ball. They
put it on the campus green and everybody write whatever they want on it, and it’s a pure
symbolization of free speech. It’s an interesting thing and they pass it along from school to school
to see what people have written. Then, there is a speaker that will come in. There was actually a
speaker at the conference, who offered to come in. His name is Benny Johnson. He is an IJR
reviewer and daily caller editor, and a current chief officer at Turning Point. He showed interest in
speaking here. We’re going to have voter registration drives all the time. Like we said, just the fact
that our area is so important this upcoming election, we are looking to have people who are out of
state who might not necessarily, like people in NY, NJ would rather like to see their vote matter
more in a swing state. If you know what I mean. So, regardless of their party, we’ll register people
to vote and we’re going to do some community service, spread the good name about the University
and what we are about at Turning Point and I’m sure other things will arise. That’s all I can think of
right now.

Haggerty: Thank you.

Nealon: This is just a clarification; I had looked into this organization online. I appreciate that you
guys brought up a lot of the issues you would find when searching for this organization. I
appreciate that you brought it to the table. It’s important to have what you guys are doing and bring
your voices to the table. I just want to clarify a couple different things. My main one being is there
an affiliation between Turning Point USA and Turning Point Action.

Morgan: I am not entirely sure.

Nealon: Yeah, I just noticed that online because Turning Point USA and Turning Point Action are
run by the same person, Charlie Kirk.

Morgan: I would assume they are affiliated.

Nealon: Yeah. They’re run by the same person. The difference between the two of them is Turning
Point USA is a federal 1c3, which is a non-profit organization which it’s nonpartisan, so it cannot
be politically affiliated. But, Turning Point Action has a 1c4, they are, their website says Turning
Point Action is the number one group educating and identifying republican voters on college
campuses across the country. That’s just where I wanted to clarify the non-partisan.

Morgan: Yeah, we are non-partisan.

Nealon: Yes, okay.

Colucci: Are you good?

Nealon: Yeah, I’m good.

Colucci: Do you have a response back to that? Comments?

Nealon: Yeah, I was just looking to clarify that the connection between the two of them might arise
an issue because we already have a College Republican group on campus. I didn’t want that to be a
conflicting thing. If there is a connection, it seemed from what I saw on line, they're website wasn’t
really clear what the connection was, besides the fact that they were run by the same person and
that Turning Point Action is not just pushing conservative groups, but more so organizing
Republicans. I also saw online they just acquired Students for Trump, the rights for that
organization.

Morgan: I know what you’re talking about. Turning Point Action is a completely separate. Once
you mentioned the Students for Trump thing, because I know Student for Trump is owned by the
same person, or president of the same, Charlie Kirk, but it is not officially affiliated organization.
Basically, Turning Point USA is the non-partisan group that focuses on the grassroots and the
political discourse, while Turning Point Action is targeted towards republican voters. I don’t
believe that there is any explicit crossover between the two.

Myers: I think it’s worth noting too here that upon giving a club charter for this we will be
chartering Turning Point USA and not Turning Point Actions.

Morgan: Correct.

Myers: The two are separate. I think it’s very clear here to delineate that.

Rivera: Can I ask a few things actually?

Morgan: Yeah.
Rivera: One I think the bill might need to be updated Senator Myers, because when you look at the
club charter, the club name is just Turning Point University of Scranton, so it doesn’t delineate
USA versus Action. I didn’t even know about the action thing until he just brought it up. I actually
had a couple of questions. One would just be, I understand that in talking with you that you are
non-partisan. One of the interests that I have in my role is helping students get more engaged as
well, particularly when we have election years, whether major election years or midterm election
years. So, I’m always looking for opportunities to bring student clubs and organizations together, as
well as the political science department, for example, to host watch parties, engage in conversation
around the issues that are relevant to students. Is this something you could see you club getting
involved in?

Morgan: Yes. Definitely. Since the fact that we’re nonpartisan, other clubs and organizations like
College Democrats and College Republicans could not collaborate with us, but we could
collaborate with them on something. So, we would be able to join in with them, but they would be
able to come with us asking for something, if you know what I mean.

Rivera: If they came to you saying, “Hey we know that there is debate happening next week and
we’d like to partner with you to advertise this across campus”, that’s not something they could do?

Morgan: We can do that. I feel like that would definitely be beneficial to the campus because as
you know part of the college experience is not only experience diversity in general, but diversity in
thought as well. The idea of being exposed to different ideas, helps us mature and grow as people
and to come to better conclusions in life. It’s through those new ideas that we have life experiences
and help us in the future. So that exchange would definitely be something we’re interested in.

Abromovage: Actually, if I may touch on that. If in the case that a club would ask us to engage in
something like that, we would absolutely love it to not strictly be Republican club asking us to do
service with them or anything with them. I feel it would be fairer, and more upon our values if both
clubs did that. I think in the foreseeable future, you can see us engaging with the College
Democrats and the College Republicans for a united voice and not one voice that’s on one side or
just one voice that sees something a certain way and tries to avoid the other side, if that brings any
clarification.

Rivera: One of the other questions that I had in reading through the materials online and such and
the campus charter and the way you sign up with Turning Point USA or whatever it is, it talks
about clubs being required to host two activism events a semester or two a year, I forget. I was just
curious, but you may have answered this when Senator Haggerty asked you this, but are these the
types of events?

Morgan: Yes, correct. An activism event could be anything from one table, just hosting a table, or
having people do voter registration or anything like that. The free speech ball is an activism event.
The speech is an activism event, So, that’s definitely something we could easily fulfill.

Rivera: My last questions is a technicality when it comes to the constitution and bylaws, under
section four it talks about membership. “In order to be considered a member of TPUSA, one must
be a registered voter and regularly attend meetings or events. That made me pause, when I
considered that clubs and organizations are to be opened to all students of the University. As we
just talked about international students, who would be registered to vote in the United States. But in
a subsequent part of this document, when it talks about membership eligibility, it talks about in
order to be a member of TPUSA, you must be a member of the University of Scranton in good
standing, so that would seem to be a little bit different. I was wondering if you could speak to that.

Morgan: The in good standing part would basically be my response to the racism issue or the all-
right issue. We don’t want students who are renowned radicals in the club. We want students who
are not controversial basically in the club.

Rivera: If they’re not registered to vote though, Cody I think that’s what I meant. If they’re not
registered to vote, is that...

Morgan: I know what you mean. I could amend that, or we could amend that somehow. I’m trying
to think. We could either register people to vote that could be one of the things we’re obviously
about is registering people to vote.

Rivera: I get that.

Morgan: Well, we could just take that out.

Rivera: I get that. I was just trying to balance that with the desire to be inclusive of University.
students. So, if there are students who are here that want to join the club that one of the things
Student Government focuses on, is the ability for campus community to join it.

Colucci: Before we move on, does anybody want to address a friendly amendment to edit the name
of the bill.

Murtaj: I don’t think the name needs to be edited, just because in section three findings point two, it
states that they are affiliated with Turning Point USA and not the other one. Also, it is mentioned in
their constitution that they are affiliated with Turning Point USA. I think the purpose of Turning
Point University of Scranton is to brand that it is the Scranton chapter of Turning Point USA.

Myers: I just want to respond to what Dean Rivera brought up about the voting. I agree with what
was said, in that all students should be involved in this including those who can't legally register to
vote in the United States. I think my reading of it, was that the idea being that these are students
that are politically engaged and essentially define politically engaged as being registered to vote. I
think the fallacy there is that those two are correlated. So, either addressing that with different
language or omitting that clauses.

Morgan: I think omitting that specific clause is a definite option.

Baxter: So, I’ve done a little bit of research and I don’t know everything and I’m not sure how
much you have to follow the Turning Point USA in comparison to this club on campus, but I know
that they have a professor watch list. Is that something students in your club would be able to
submit names?

Morgan: Any student in any university in the whole world can submit that. It’s basically, the
Professor Watchlist is a site that Charlie Kirk came up with. It’s conservative students who have
been discriminated against in general based on their political views. They can add the name of the
professor who discriminated against them based on political views. That’s basically what that is.
We would, just like any student in the United States, would be capable of submitting names if we
found that necessary.

Haggerty: On the Turning Point USA Website, their sample constitution it mentions the
organizations chapter would be independent from the national Turning Point USA. I didn’t see that
exactly worded in the constitution you submitted to us. Would it be safe to assume that you would
still be independent while affiliated with it?

Morgan: Yeah, that’s basically what it is. We’re the University of Scranton brand of Turning Point
USA. We are affiliated with them and will be working with them a lot, but as it says we’re not the
organization.

Haggerty: Right, okay.

Alian: What are your requirements that you have to follow?

Morgan: It’s really just engaged people in political discourse. There’s no quota we have to fulfil, or
specific, very straightforward missions. It’s just getting people talking and get people engaged and
get people educated.

Patel: Just to go back to the professor watch list. I don’t know much about it, so I googled it. I’m
looking at the website, and it’s just a little concerning that anyone can submit a professor who they
felt discriminated against them. I’m looking at the mission right now and it says, discriminating
against conservative students and advanced leftist propaganda in the classroom. Is there a way to
verify these claims? It would just be bad for the University.

Morgan: I do believe the national organization does investigate these because I did look. I
remember I brought this up with Charlie at the conference. He was giving me some different things
that might be hard topics in the club. He said that, I believe he has staff members, who will go
through and do research on these. It’s usually not one specific complaint. They’ll look for multiple,
or trends complaints and trends in different rate my professor ratings and different word of mouth
that this professor may be what they deem as discriminatory.

Myers: I think it’s worth noting that again it’s more the action of the national organization. The
people for whom we are giving a club charter, the five individuals in front of us and the other 30
people that they represent. The Turning Point Club on campus would not affect the students’ ability
to report a teacher to this list. Am I correct in saying that me as a person who is not a member of
this could do that and it would show up or not show up regardless of my affiliation of the existence
of a Turning Point USA chapter on our campus?
Morgan: Yes, it’s more of a tool that the president came up with. It’s just a database that he uses for
people to list professors for people to avoid. Anybody can do it regardless of if they’re affiliated
with it or not.

Sunday: There’s obviously a lot of controversy around this club. I’m aware of that, you’re aware of
that, everyone here is aware of that. What principles then in this club do you think gives students a
sort of a radical foundation if the club is just meant to promote politics.

Morgan: I believe it’s because of the lack of clubs that associate with political views. You have
these people who on the left and on the right that will cling to different organizations based on their
availability on campus. You might have a member of Antifa or a communist a member on the far
left who might join the College Democrats and bring a bad name towards them. But they aren’t
necessarily representative of the College Democrats. You might have somebody, a fascist or
somebody come in and work with the College Republicans who most likely have the same issue or
Turning Point USA and may simultaneously bring their name down too. We work to basically not
allow that. Any whiffs of that we catch happening, we try to cut ties immediately. That’s not
representative of what we stand for and it gives us a bad name.

Sunday: Prior going into this club or beginning the club would there be an educational background
that you promote with your club in the sense of saying we’re not affiliated with any of these views.
How would you go and judge radical individuals trying to use your club?

Morgan: Basically, the only way you can really tell is seeing our social media and hearing what
they say. I made it clear at the first meeting that we’re not about all right, this is about Turning
Point. The issues that we specifically stand for in our missions and that’s it. I will listen to
conversations that are had at meetings and at different events. If I catch wind of anything like that,
they’ll be removed from the club after clear evidence is shown that they had those radical views.

Colucci: We have Senator Kilner on the phone who would like to say something.

Kilner: I can’t find a quiet place here. I apologize if things I say are repeated and have already been
said because I haven’t been able to hear anything that has been talked about. I’ve had a lot of my
constituents come up to me with concerns about the organization. I did some research about it.
There are a couple things that really concern me a lot with it. One, that has probably been brought
up already is the faculty watch list. I had a faculty member talk to me yesterday. I didn’t even go up
to him, he approached me about it and how worried he is and other faculty members about this
watchlist. It doesn’t even make sense to me because the whole organization, in the mission it’s
supposed to be free speech, yet you’re putting faculty members on a website because of things they
say. Some of the stuff, one faculty member is there is because 50% of the grade in the class is the
final exam, so there put on a watch list. There is a female professor claimed that there isn’t as
many females in economics because most of the people in textbooks are male. She says that and
she gets put up on this watchlist like this. The only watchlist that I know about are terrorist
watchlist and FBI watchlist, so the fact that your putting faculty members on it is just really
concerning to me and academic freedom for those faculty members. Secondly, is on the website,
the merchandise, one of the types of the apparel that you can buy is stuff that has guns on it. So, it
says, Sunday Gun-day. I think on a college campus, with the type of violence that has gone on at
schools, that is not something we should have at all because it’s pretty insensitive. That should not
be allowed, and the club should never promote that type of merchandise. It doesn’t make me
comfortable with everything that’s going on with school shootings. There are two things I talked
about, I want to add on to the Club charter, I’ll give the exact wording in a second, that the faculty
watchlist and the gun merchandise won’t be allowed at as part of the chapter. The exact wording
was, Scranton Chapter will never promote, purchase, or sell merchandise with weapons on it.
Failure to uphold this will result in immediate revocation of the club charter. Second, no faculty
member at the University of Scranton will ever be placed on the faculty watch list maintained by
Turning Point USA. If any faculty member is found to be on the watchlist, this club charter will be
immediately be revoked. I would never vote to approve this club if those stipulations were not put
on to the club charter. I would like to hear the thoughts of the officers that are here.

Morgan: With the Professor Watchlist thing, anybody in the United States is capable of writing any
review that they want of any professor. So, this is not our chapter that is doing this. This is not
chapters that are doing this. These are anybody in the whole country that write a review can do it.
That’s not necessarily something we can control because technically anybody who is not affiliated
with the club on campus, will be able to write a review on the professor watch list. With that being
said, the gun part. That is the second amendment and that is the freedom to buy, not that the second
amendment is affiliated with it, but people have the freedom to buy whatever shirts they want. So,
it’s not necessarily, like if I came into school with a shirt with a gun on it, I don’t think anybody
would really care, to be honest. But the fact that it’s a turning point shirt, the fact they promote it, I
don’t see that as being a problem necessarily. It’s just the second amendment and what we stand
for, for limited government and freedom of the individual.

Rivera: That I can speak to a little bit. We do have some limitations on what merchandise can be
sold or distributed on campus.

Morgan: We don’t sell or distribute.

Rivera: That’s okay. I’m just saying as an FYI for everybody. There are certain guidelines that the
bookstore must follow too on what types of apparel they are and are not able to sell. I don’t think
weapons can be promoted. I don’t think consumption of alcohol can be promoted on t-shirts or
something like that.

Morgan: Is that just to purchase or to wear on campus? So, if someone were to come in wearing a t-
shirt with a gun on it, would that be against school policy?

Rivera: No, no, no, no no. I’m talking about sale and distribution. I’m just speaking to the issue.

Kilner: With the gun thing, I get that you can’t control what people wear, but just because it is one
of the products that Turning Point sells, you can never like in one of your club meetings or events
or something like that promote or encourage students to buy merchandise with guns on it, if that
clarifies what I’m saying.
Morgan: We don’t. If anybody wants to buy it, they can, but I’m not going to be promoting people
to buy anything on the website.

Baxter: So, just because you clarified on that. So, I get that anyone can submit names to the
watchlist, but as a club you will not be promoting students to submit names.

Morgan: No.

Abromovage: It’s definitely not one of the goals or something that we would stand by in the sense
that we would promote it or encourage it. It’s just something anyone can do. We do respect
freedom of speech.

Morgan: Like I said, it’s a tool for anyone to basically say what they want. It’s not our tool. It’s not
what we’re going to be using. It’s what the organization has provided for people to use as a
freeform of thought.

Colucci: Does Senator Kilner have anything else to say?

Kilner: One more thing. I just want to clarify this that this isn’t the first time when a club tried to
become a club that we done research into the organization. This has happened before, so I just want
everyone here to recognize that this isn’t an exception. Our sophomore year we didn’t pass a club
because we were uncomfortable with some of the stuff with the chapter. I just wanted to point that
out that it isn’t unique that this organization that we look into the chapter and organization that it’s
a part of.

Patel: Will the student be told or become aware; will you make it a point to tell them about the
watchlist.

Morgan: No, like I said we’re not going to be promoting anything. We’re going to say check out
the Turning Point website and if people want to pursue things further, they can, but we’re not going
to be pushing anything on anybody.

Joseph: If I can add on to that. I think as us, as a committee, I want to be able to collaborate rather
than differentiate between things. So, for example, the guns with the Second Amendment, that
something that we want to collaborate with different ideas and politics and make a bridge between
the left and the right.

Myers: Is there any sort of follow-up that occurs from a professor being put on this watchlist.

Morgan: I’m not sure.

Myers: I can’t see any difference between this and rate my professor.

Morgan: Exactly.
Myers: If, I wrote professor X, is no good and he is really mean on rate my professor, I fail to see
how, it very well may be called a ‘watchlist’. But I don’t think that actually has any teeth. This is
just some list that, whatever his name is, has in his office. I really fail to see how this is something
that could impact a professor any more than there rate my professor score would.

Morgan: The fact that you make, so few people know about it, that the fact that a rate my professor
would be so much more impactful to a professor than something like this would.

Alian: Several of you guys have stated that this is something that has been brought up, is not
something you guys believe in and that you want to bring to the University. Great. Amazing I am
totally with expanding communication and hearing what others have to say. But I am not okay,
without school representing something like this because this is not something, we do. The watchlist,
I don’t think a professor should have to sensor what he says in his lecture, to avoid being separated
or get some bad light shined on him or her. I don’t know, I just don’t feel comfortable with our
school being okay and having this on our clubs list for prospective families to be like, “oh, we
promote this”.

Abromovage: I’ll respond if that’s alright. Has anyone actually been on the professor watchlist
prior to this? I know personally, I haven’t. I just think it’s not even a well-known thing enough to
affect a professor score or reputation more than rate my professor or any other application. I
understand that you’re looking out for the faculty, but it’s merely a tool provided by Turning Point
and it’s not being enforced or a requirement or a quota. So, I don’t see it being an issue.

Murtaj: First, point of order. This topic has been asked and answered several times about the
watchlist. Secondly, regardless of if the club is chartered or not, anyone can post on the watchlist.
So, voting for the club is not in any way supporting or voting against the watch list because the
watchlist will continue to exist without the club. I think that’s a point we should not bring up again,
because we already asked them about it, and I don’t think they need to defend against or for the
watchlist.

Nealon: I agree that the topic of the watchlist isn’t really something that we should be getting into. I
understand that a lot of the thing son there could be upsetting to people, but I honestly thought
some of them were ridiculous but that’s my personal opinion. But I think that’s just not something
we should get into making the decision. In the decision of chartering this club, I don’t think that we
should focus on that because as long as the watchlist, as long as anything posted on the watchlist
isn’t illegal, it’s not anything that’s necessarily untrue. Someone who writes a review on there may
just as easily be able to go on rate my professor and write the same thing, and I don’t think we. If
we get into this, we get into our we going to police our students from using rate my professor and
other similar things like that? I just think that aspect of it, like what our University represent, I
understand that some of the views can be conflicting, but also there are other things, just like it that
we need to discuss. I know a lot of people use rate my professor and it's nothing that we had to
police, even if we wanted to, how would we do something like that. A few other things that
bothered me looking at it on the aspect of does this align with the University’s missions would just
be some of the things with the leaders of the organization. I know that you touched on some of
them, who had no tolerance for certain things. I found a couple things online, things that leaders of
the organization Charlie Kirk talked about. Things that he said that I don’t believe align with the
University’s mission, but that’s just my personal opinion. I think maybe looking at it in that aspect,
but the watchlist area is not something we should get into.

Morgan: What were the specific quotes?

Rivera: I just want to refocus ourselves back to the constitution and the things we have in front of
us because I do think there's the opportunity to go in a lot of different directions here. As student
Government we are tasked with reviewing club charters that come before us very carefully and I’m
appreciative of all the diligent work people are doing and have done in preparation for this. There’s
a sufficient number of students who are interested in this based on the information that was
submitted. Then we just need to look at whether they provided the appropriate documentation,
including when there's a national organization involved, they go through more of an intensive
process and provide national documentation and everything like that for review. Then we need to
make sure that what they want to stand for here doesn't directly conflict with the University’s
mission. Again, I just want to focus on this because I got lost too going in lot of different directions
out on the web, when it seems as if what you stated in article one section two purpose mission is
really what this club is about at Scranton if it was chartered. One last thing I want to mention is
some of the way they do the verification is students have recorded professors. In PA we have a two-
party consent state and you’re not able to record someone without their permission. So, I think it’s
something that’s a little nuanced for our state in addition to what you’ve shared already.

Marcotte: Motion for closed door discussion.

Gallagher: Second.

(Closed Door Discussion)

Colucci: So, Cody and the officers of Turning Point, we are now out of closed-door discussion and
there are some senators who have a few more questions for you.

Gallagher: I do have a question. You brought it up earlier, you said, “You would be able to go to
College Republicans and College Democrats for collaborations on events, but they couldn’t come
to you”. Can you just clarify that a little bit?

Morgan: Basically, we’re not allowed to associate, well not associate in terms of collaboration with
events, but they couldn’t come to us asking us for help with anything, basically, if you know what I
mean. They wanted help running an event, we couldn’t assist a partisan group in any of their
activities. But they would be able to assist us if we asked for it.

Gallagher: So, if an event isn’t particularly partisan geared, but just like watching a debate, would
that qualify as something you could all co-host?

Morgan: Correct. Yes, we could attend anything they host, we just can’t necessarily put our two
names together. You know what I mean?

Dieser: Motion to vote.

Colucci: Are we ready for that? Yeah? No? I don’t think we’re ready for that. Okay, do we have
any more questions for them, or we can go back to closed door discussion? This is your chance to
ask them any questions while they are here.

Myers: I really don’t like the idea of having a discussion without having them here to defend
themselves. I don’t think closed door discussion is going to be productive in that sense. Typically,
we use closed door discussion as an opportunity to talk about people in ways that there might
otherwise be hurtful after interviews. We’ve shown that Senators have no issue throwing punches
in terms of asking questions to this group. I don’t see the need for further closed-door discussion.

Patel: This is more of a question for you. If they were an uncharted club versus a chartered club,
what are the major limitations? Would they be able to advertise on campus, post things in DeNaples
or be a part of the club fair?

Colucci: They would not be able to be a part of the club fair. As Dean Rivera said they would not
have access to table sits, booking space on campus and things like that. In terms of advertising on
campus I don’t see why they wouldn’t be able to.

McLaughlin: At your meetings, what would happen?

Morgan: Basically, the approach that I took so far is, I would have an introduction. I’ll have
everybody introduce themselves and bring up an issue they feel is pressing. Then what we’ll do is
discuss the issues civilly between the different members of the group. Then we usually come to a
consensus. We’ll say this group of people agree with this, this group of people agree with that, but
we debate. We plan for events and different things we can possibly do in the future. Like last night,
even though we weren’t chartered yet, I let them know that a speaker offered to come and that as
soon as we get approved, we would have a table as soon as possible. We would organize future
events and have some civil discourse and introduce new members. I do have guest speakers come
in for the meetings. The first meeting I had a member of the Leadership Institute come in. Stuff like
that?

Haggerty: What is the differentiation between the Leadership Institute and Turning Point USA.
Would they be collaborating with them or is that a separate organization?

Morgan: They are entirely separate. They’re their own. They’re a for-profit organization totally
separate from us. I just know a person from the Leadership Institute.

Baxter: Where did you held your first two meetings?

Morgan: The Fireplace Lounge in DeNaples.

Muhammad: How many members do you guys have?

Morgan: 37.
Muhammad: How did you get them?

Morgan: Just going around and recruiting, and word of mouth and asking people if they wanted to
join. There is a very good consensus. I sent emails to people who I thought might be interested and
they sent it to people they knew would be interested. I think it might actually be at 38 now. It’s very
popular so far. At all the meetings, last night was our second meeting and we had 21 people. They
all came, I bought donuts for everybody, which I assume they enjoyed. We had some discussions
and I had my one friend speak.

Gallagher: In regard to membership, since you said you did have a few meetings, I do want to
comment on the fact that you have individuals of different years on your board. I want to
compliment you on that. But what is the general class range? Is it mostly upperclassmen or
underclassmen?

Morgan: It’s mostly, first years. Honestly, there’s probably 25 first-year students and about 13
upperclassmen.

Sunday: Your meeting last night, were there any signs there?

Morgan: Yes, we had our Turning Point signs.

Sunday: What were on the signs?

Morgan: We had our different Turning Point symbols, a Trump sign, which I would like to clarify.
As a nonprofit, we are able to not endorse, but support current elected officials. We are not allowed
to support unelected officials. If we wanted to support Senator Kamala Harris in the upcoming
elections, we could. If we wanted to endorse President Trump, we could. But we could endorse
somebody like Beto O'Rourke. We are able to support elected candidates. We did have a Trump
sign and we did have I heart America and I heart capitalism; we love Israel signs and stuff like that.

Alian: If your goal is to promote engagement and dialogue between members of the community,
why Turning Point. Why didn’t you just do it through a club that isn’t attached to something like an
organization like that.

Morgan: Turning Point is nonpartisan, but we can engage without that stigma of oh, there
republicans or they’re Democrats. We are pushing ourselves as an independent organization that
leans right, but we are willing to collaborate on ideas and push the idea of free market.

Fullam: Just to clarify, since you are non-partisan. You guys are independent group and your
straying away from Republican and Democrats, so how does endorsing an in office or any kind of
Donald Trump, make you stay away from said Republican Party.

Morgan: It’s just depends on who we happen to agree with at the time. There are libertarians that
we may agree with. I know some chapters have endorse people like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. It
doesn’t necessarily have to align specifically with one. Whoever, the group agrees with is who we
decide to support.
Wiafe: I feel by associating yourselves with Turning Point USA, y'all are going to have an uphill
battle because how do you have open minded discussions in your club. It’s going to be hard having
people joining your club.

Morgan: So far, we have plenty of people join the club and we are looking at doubling our numbers
by the end of the semester, which we will. One of the ideas I have is I don’t know if anybody watch
Steven Crowler before, but I want to put a table on campus and a particular issue that happens to be
prevalent right now and I’ll put my view on it. Whoever has to be tabling have them out their view
on it. Then say this is my view, change my mind and then have anybody come up and put any
issues up. If anybody changed their minds, they change their mind. But it's the fact is that we want
to promote pure exchange of ideas that we don’t see much of.

Perrachio: Motion to vote.

Marcotte: Second.

Colucci: Hold on. Is everybody good to vote? Speak now. If you’re not comfortable to vote and
want more discussion to say it now and if you want closed door say it now.

McLaughlin: I’m just wondering if we’re going to bring up what we talked about in closed door
about the constitution right now?

Welby: It would be for now. Would any Senators like to propose?

Murtaj: Parliamentary inquiry. We had the motion. We seconded the motion, so should we vote
because we had a pretty long moments of silence.

Colucci: Putting aside that we have a motion on the table right now, raise your hand if you want to
vote right now versus if you want more discussion and want to add a friendly amendment to add
something to the bill. Raise your hand if you want to vote right now. Okay. Raise your hand if you
want to wait a few minutes. Okay. One more person wants to not vote than to vote. Senator
Marcotte, would you like to take back your second for motion to vote?

Marcotte: I would on the ground that I’d forgotten that we discussed proposing a friendly
amendment to the bill.

Colucci: The motion to vote is off the table at this moment. Chief of Staff Welby, can you go over
the proposed changes that we were looking to make?

Welby: Dean Rivera mentioned that if any of the senators would like to propose a friendly
amendment to section 3 findings point 1, under subpoint A. Subsequent point specific events and
specific things that are held by the organization specifically on our campus. Whatever would be at
table sits or what occurs exactly at meetings, just because we would have a say over that and would
be able to change that now. If we vote without changing anything or adding anything, we would not
be able to vote in the future. But then in the future, the club charter will be able to go back and
change their constitution.

Murtaj: I think we have not done that for any other club charter process in my time here, correct me
if I’m wrong? I think it’s not fair to limit them, well not limit them but say they can only do this
and this and this and your can do this and this and this. To specifically say it, they have the bi-
weekly meetings and I think they expressed a lot of their goals and what they plan to do. I think it
would be inconsistent to list things they are going to do in the bill, in my opinion.

Colucci: Just because we haven’t done it in the past, doesn’t mean we can’t do it in the future. I’m
not saying that we should or shouldn’t, I’m just saying.

Welby: I think it was Dean Rivera wasn’t saying one way or the other, just some senators are
uncertain because usually when we go into closed door discussion when we are voting we generally
have a consensus. But because there is so much division, she thought maybe this would ease some
Senators minds and make them more comfortable. It’s not necessarily what she recommended, but
it’s just something to ease people’s minds. I think we are so used to as a Senate all swaying one
way or not having too much discussion over it, this might change some people’s minds if we have it
specifically written out in the bill.

Colucci: Would anyone like to propose that friendly amendment that Chief of Staff Welby
mentioned. Whether or not it will be accepted but would at least like to propose it. Would you like
to say it one more time?

Welby: Sure. There could be a friendly amendment saying Turning Point University of Scranton
would host specifics on what they would do during the semester, such as holding table sits, or
certain events. Again, not necessarily necessary, but if people want it.

Colucci: No? Nobody?

Gallagher: I’ll propose it. Friendly amendment to add in those changes.

Welby: I think we don’t know exactly what the changes are right now.

Gallagher: Oh, okay. I just really got lost for a second there.

Welby: I think she just wanted to bring that to the attention of Senate in case anyone wanted to
propose a friendly amendment.

Haggerty: Just to clarify if Turning Point the club doesn’t think this aligns with the mission of their
constitution, do they have a say in changing it.

Welby: Well, then someone would make a friendly amendment, but he might not accept it. If he did
accept it, he would have to consult the officers of the club and the motion would most likely be
tabled.
Myers: Are there senators here who would change their decision based on the inclusion of that
clause because if they’re not, I don’t think it’s worth our time?

Colucci: Is there anybody here that would change their vote if we added that clause. No? Then
we’re not going to do it. Any other comments, questions, concerns to discuss with each other or the
officers of Turning Point? I don’t want to call on someone if they are going to say motion to vote if
there is someone that wants to say something? Does anybody have any questions?

Wiafe: Just for the club, if I was in your shoes, I would go back to the drawing board. Associating
yourself with this club is just going to be too stigmatizing. I never heard of the club until today, but
from what everyone was saying it seems that way. I think you should just be an independent club.
Sure, you won’t be able to go to your events and be with the other Turning Point chapters, but you
would still have people come in and speak their minds.

Morgan: We are working with the larger organization. A little bit, not off topic, but a little bit
different, I would be willing to amend a recommendation to not associate with professor watchlist,
if that would change anything because there would be some intense media scrutiny on the school
with a no vote. I’m not saying that as anything, I’m saying that as just so you're aware, because
they know. They’ve done it with almost every school that said no. Right now, they are working
with a group called FIRE and it’s basically takes into account that if there’s people they feel have
too much personal bias in a decision that they will legally act on it. I just want to put that out there.

Myers: I think that’s in line with what Chief of Staff Welby brought up earlier. When Vice
President of Student Affairs overturned Student Government. I think that those two are probably
connected.

Patel: I’m sorry, would you mind just clarifying that if we didn’t pass the club, then the national
organization would come after the University.

Morgan: It would depend on the reason. It would depend on the University’s written reason for not
chartering the club. Then they would base it on that.

Muhammed: What’s a justifiable and unjustifiable reason?

Morgan: If they feel, discrimination.

Sunday: How do they prove personal biases?

Morgan: I’m not sure how they do it.

Murtaj: Point of order. I don’t think the club officers have to justify what legal proceeding are
there. It’s not related to the club charter process. What we’re discussing right now is Senate Bill
177.

Colucci: Yes, I agree. First, I just want to say that anything said here is public. So, anybody can see
anything said. Second, where is it? Do we want to make a friendly amendment to include some
kind of clause for the professor watchlist and would that affect anybody’s vote? Does anybody
want closed door discussion?

Myers: I feel like we spent a long time discussing this. I feel most people have made their opinions.
I feel like if we keep discussing it for a long time, but I don’t think it’s going to impact the outcome
of this vote. I think it be wise for us to simply vote and see how it turns out.

Fullam: Just to point out to everybody, I know we’re all feeling a little impatient right now, because
I know it’s late, and I know that we’ve been here for a while. But it’s important that we remember
that’s why we’re here. We’re here to talk about these things and as Chief of Staff Welby said earlier
we usually are in agreement with a lot of what we do. This time we’re not. That’s why it’s taking a
bit. So, when we are suggesting closed door discussions, or to vote, or trying to figure out how to
adjust this bill with any friendly amendment possible, it’s important that we're patient with each
other and we’re understanding of the situation that we’re all in.

Murtaj: I’m always for having more conversation, but if we’re just circular debate, I don’t think it’s
giving us any added value. If anyone has any new thing to add, please raise your hand and talk. I’d
love to discuss. I don’t want to limit debate at all, but I think if we’re just going to be repeating the
same things, I don't think there is a purpose of prolonging it.

Patel: Can I motion for closed door discussion.

Alian: Second.

(Closed Door discussion)

McLaughlin: Friendly Amendment to add under section three findings subpoint one to add a sub-
sub section b, “Turning Point University of Scranton will not promote the professor watchlist at any
official organization meetings, settings, and communications.”

Murtaj: It’s kind of specific to have that, so I’m going to have to reject it. But it can be proposed as
a regular amendment and voted on.

McLaughlin: I propose this as regular amendment.

Colucci: Okay. So, if you would like that amendment to be included in this bill, please raise your
hand now, very high. Okay, everyone voted, and more Senators have voted to include this
amendment in the bill then those who voted to not include this in the bill. That will now be in the
bill.

Perrachio: Motion to vote.

Dieser: Second.

Colucci: Okay. The link to vote is on Presence Senate Bill 177 “Student Senate Resolution
Regarding a Club Charter for Turning Point University of Scranton”. Senate Bill 177 regarding
“Student Senate Resolution Regarding a Club Charter for Turning Point University of Scranton”
has passed pending Dr. Davis’s approval. Thank you, guys, for being here today.

(NOTE: Please see Minutes from the Special Session held on October 8, 2019 to correct an error
that occurred in the announcement of results as this bill did not receive enough votes to pass the 2/3
requirement for a club charter to be approved.)

Now we’re going to move on to Senate Bill 178 “Student Senate Resolution Regarding Changing
the Status of The University of Scranton Anime Club from Unfunded to Funded Status”. Can
Senator Corrigan please introduce this bill?

Corrigan: Hi everyone. This is the Resolution regarding Changing the Status of Anime Club from
unfunded to funded status. They currently have 25 active members. They don’t offer club dues and
they’re reasoning behind the change is for more organized events, as well as collaboration with the
Video Game Club.

Gallagher: Motion for first reading.

Murtaj: Second.

Colucci: This is first reading for grammar, syntax and spelling.

Haggerty: Motion for second reading.

Murtaj: This is a question. For funded status, I know for unfunded status, we capitalize it. I don’t
know which way, because in section two purpose funded status and in section three findings the
two times it wasn’t. I’m not sure the precedent on that. I’m not sure if it’s capitalized just because
it’s in the title or I don’t know.

Fullam: I think it should be capitalized, just for consistency. When we go from unfunded to funded
that’s its own category, so I think we should be capitalizing it throughout the thing. If someone
wants to make a friendly amendment to capitalize it on section two purpose and wherever else, it
was.

Murtaj: Friendly amendment to capitalize the f in funded status in section two purpose and section
three findings point one.

Corrigan: Accepted.

Haggerty: I think my motion is still on the table for second reading.

Dieser: Second.

Ashraf: This is for the content of the bill. This is also your chance to ask the members of the club
any questions you have.
Murtaj: Do we have a Video Game Club or is that the Gaming Club?

Ruff: I believe it’s gaming club.

Murtaj: Friendly Amendment to strike Video Game Club and replace it with Gaming Club.

Ashraf: That is a first reading.

Murtaj: Well, since this is the name of the club.

Ashraf: Okay.

Corrigan: Accepted.

Haggerty: How much funding would you be requesting? This may be a question for Abbey.

Jiang: For about a full year, we were thinking maybe $600 to buy movie rights for an event. Also,
for club subscription to streaming services.

Dieser: What’s your reasoning for not having any dues.

Ruff: Right now, it’s kind of a casual, whoever can come on a week night because we understand
it’s a commitment instead of doing school work.

Dieser: If you were to become funded would you consider changing that?

Ruff: Yes.

Dieser: Do you have an idea of how much?

Ruff: We were thinking $3-$5 dollars.

Dieser: Yeah, 5 dollars is good.

Haggerty: Motion to vote.

Murtaj: If you were chartered, you would institute $5 dues.

Ruff: Not necessarily, I thought it was more of a consideration.

Murtaj: Okay.

Patel: Motion to vote.

Smith: Second.
Ashraf: The link to vote is on Presence. At this time Senate Bill 178 regarding “Student Senate
Resolution Regarding Changing the Status of The University of Scranton Anime Club from
Unfunded to Funded Status” has passed pending my and Dr. Davis’s approval. Congratulations and
thank you for your patience. Now we are going to move down to Senate Bill 179, “Student Senate
Resolution Regarding the Request for New Initiative Funding by Commuter Student Association to
fund the First Annual Reaper’s Revenge Trip.” Would Senator Gallagher like to introduce this bill.

Gallagher: This bill is in regard to a new initiative request that came through our attention from
Commuter Student Association. It’s to start a Reaper’s Revenge trip. We were kind of surprised
that this isn’t typically done, so they’re hoping to start an annual trip. It would take place November
1st because there is a discount. It would be open to commuter students and residential students.
They’re planning to do table sits and advertise it if it gets approved. The new initiative funding has
to do with transportation and funding the tickets.

Murtaj: Motion for first reading.

Haggerty: Second.

Dieser: Friendly amendment to bold section one, two, three, and four.

Gallagher: Accepted.

Marcotte: Friendly amendment to correct the spelling of Rachael Gallagher’s name.

Gallagher: Accepted.

Ashraf: Any other items for first reading at this time.

Murtaj: Motion for second reading.

Balliet: Second.

Ashraf: This is for the content of the bill. If you have any questions you can ask the authors.

Haggerty: Since this is going to be an annual event, if we fund it this time do, we fund it next time
or would that be for discussion next year or the following years.

Fullam: Yes, they put it on their budget for next year and we’re not held to funding them this
amount until the appropriation committee to decide on in the future.

Murtaj: Section three findings, point three, the recommendation for $275 dollars wouldn’t actually
fund one full bus. I heard this today that it would be $300 for one bus. So, I would propose to
change in section three findings, point 3 sub point A. to fund one bus for transportation.

Gallagher: Originally, we didn’t think it was feasible to fund two buses, due to the fact that it is run
by the Commuter Student Association. Based on Senator Corrigan’s input and her own experience
she said a lot of people tend to drive themselves anyway. Although, it is open to all students,
residents will probably be the primary users of the bus. When CSA originally gave us their forms,
they requested $550 for two buses. We were not aware that they found a new estimate for $300. In
accordance with that we would be okay changing the amount.

Murtaj: Friendly amendment to change the amount.

Gallagher: Accepted.

Haggerty: Motion to vote.

Alian: Second.

Ashraf: Senator Alian can you take back your second.

Alian: I take it back.

Murtaj: Friendly amendment to change in section four resolution the $675 to $700.

Gallagher: Accepted.

Myers: Friendly Amendment to change the amount specified in section three findings, subpoint
three from $675 to $700 dollars.

Gallagher: We just changed that one.

Myers: I’m sorry. It wasn’t changed yet on the screen.

Alian: Second.

Ashraf: The link to vote is on Presence and I’ll hand it back over to Vice President Colucci.

Murtaj: Commuter Student Association at Roba’s right now and they had over 90 students attend.

Colucci: Senate Bill 179 regarding “Student Senate Resolution Regarding the Request for New
Initiative Funding by Commuter Student Association to fund the First Annual Reaper’s Revenge
Trip” has passed pending President Ashraf and Dr. Davis’s approval. Finally, we’re going to move
on to Senate Bill 180 regarding “Student Senate Resolution to Recommend Communication with
Students Regarding Local Services Tax Exemption”. I’ll introduce this. For any of you who don’t
know, the local services tax is a tax that is taken out of your paycheck. $6 every paycheck. I know
that doesn’t seem like a lot, but it adds up. This is for people who work in Scranton, but do not live
in Scranton. It was a tax created to help fund things that are happening in the city. However, if you
make less than $15,600 per year within the city, you are exempt from that tax. The Human
Resources Department and Payroll Department have failed to communicate this with students. I
was unaware of this. I actually inquired about this last year and had paid it, until I saw Joe filling
out an exception form and I said, “What is that?”. Then I went to Payroll and asked about it and
then got the form for myself. I then filed a refund for previous years that I’ve been paying this. I
didn’t get it yet. The issue that I see is this exemption is a possibility for students, but Payroll and
Human Resources have not communicated this at all to students. So, I reached out to Mr. Burke
who is the Director of Financial Aid and he is very supportive of the students getting the exception
form on file. However, the problem with that is every January the exemption form expires so you
have to fill out a new form. Therefore, Student Government is recommending Payroll and Human
Resources to get some effective communication out about this.

Haggerty: Motion for first reading.

Balliet: Second.

Colucci: Okay, this is for grammar, syntax, and spelling.

Murtaj: Friendly amendment to change the lettering in section three findings to numbers.

Colucci: Accepted.

Haggerty: In section two purpose, did you want it to say local services tax or specifically local
services tax exemption?

Colucci: Exemption.

Haggerty: Friendly amendment to add exemption in section two purpose.

Colucci: Accepted.

Haggerty: Motion for second reading.

Murtaj: Friendly amendment for section four, subpoint section one subpoint a, b, and c to remove
the period to be consistent with the rest of the bill.

Colucci: I had periods in other places, so can we just add a period?

Murtaj: Friendly amendment to add a period to section four subpoint one, subpoint b.

Colucci: Okay, so we had a motion for second reading.

Smith: Second.

Colucci: Now we are moving on to the content of the bill.

Myers: When you say $6.00 per paycheck, is that a flat tax?

Colucci: Yes.
 Myers: Oh, okay.

Colucci: Regardless of how much you make. So, if you work one hour at CTLE I would think that
would apply, unless you have an exemption on file.

Myers: I ask that because I’ve done that in the past, that I’ve worked one hour at CTLE and made
$7.25 in a pay period.

Colucci: I’m not exactly sure.

Haggerty: I think regardless that it’s really important that the University let the students know. I’m
from the Scranton area and I didn’t know about that I think communication is important.

Myers: I want to make it clear that I also think communication is important.

Marcotte: Motion to vote.

Alian: Second.

Colucci: The link is on Presence for Senate Bill 180. Senate Bill 180 “Student Senate Resolution to
Recommend Communication with Students Regarding Local Services Tax Exemption” has passed
pending President Ashraf and Dr. Davis’s approval. Now we’re going to jump around to Executive
reports.

D. Executive Reports

Vice President’s Report Jeffrey Colucci

Update
Colucci: I hope Weenie had a good time spending the last two weeks with Senator Gallagher. It is
now time for him to move on to a new Senator. This Senator has been working diligently on a few
different Student Gov projects and is so passionate about everything he does. I am happy to
announce Senator Murtaj as Senator of the week—thank you for all you do for this University!
Next, we wanted to make you aware of Wilkes University Diversity and Inclusion Student
Conference which will be taking place on October 19th with the theme of “Understanding and
Addressing Social Inequalities”. The Cross Cultural Center has a few students attending, and if
anyone on SG would be interested in attending and representing us, that would be great. The
University would fund the registration costs so it would come at no cost for you to attend. Would
anyone be interested in attending? Feel free to email me if anyone decides they want to attend.
Finally, I was hoping to get an idea if anyone has any interest in some Gov Gear. Last year, we got
really nice Patagonia’s with the University’s seal and our names etched on them. First, would
anybody purchase Gov Gear? Now, would you all want Patagonia’s again or something else—if so,
does anybody have any other ideas for apparel?
President’s Report Fahad Ashraf
Update
Ashraf: Earlier this week, the co-chairs for the Jesuit Student Government Alliance published an
article in the monthly AJCU newsletter. The article pertains to student advocacy and the importance
of maintaining a network of support and solidarity across our various campuses in light of our Jesuit
mission. I will be sharing this article with you all in an email following the meeting, and I would
encourage you to take a look when you have some time, read through it, and reflect upon its
meaning. In the Student Government Mandatory Dates list, you may have noticed that we have a
Team Bonding Laser Tag activity planned for October 16th. At this time, I would like to let you all
know that we will be rescheduling to a later time, probably in November, and we will let you all
know exactly when that is. In the meantime, we have decided to change our October Team Bonding
event to a trip to Reaper’s Revenge sponsored by Student Government on October 25th, just in time
for Halloween. Tickets will be free for you all, but we will only be purchasing tickets for those of
you who are comfortable with going through the haunted attractions. So, don’t think we will be
forcing you all to hang out with the zombies and clowns if you would hate that. In that case, there is
a commerce area available outside of the attractions where you can enjoy food and a bonfire, so we
are still expecting everyone to plan to come if your schedule permits. Please let Secretary Baxter
know if you have any conflicts with October 25th, and I believe she will be talking more about it in
her report. Finally, I hope you all enjoyed our retreat, bonded with each other, and feel more
confident in your service to your various constituents. To gain a sense of where we stand, how you
all felt about it, and to gather feedback for future training retreats, I will be sending out a Retreat
Assessment form in the same email as the article, and I ask that you please fill it out by next week.
It is only 7 quick questions and should not take more than two minutes. That is all for me at the
moment, thank you for all of your hard work!

Treasurer’s Report Joseph Fullam

Update
Fullam: Hello everyone! Last week I promised you all a report of The Office of Student
Government’s spending thus far in the year, so here it is. There are a couple numbers there are not
on there. For example, University catering has not giving me receipts for grocery bingo or our
senate retreat. So, I will be talking to them in the upcoming week. Any discrepancies please let me
know. Any questions please let me know. Of course, feel free to come visit me in my office hours.

Director of Communication’s Report Grace Donnelly

Update
Donnelly: Hi everyone! I hope you all had a great week of classes! Just a reminder, this weekend is
Street Sweep and I will be talking more about this following the meeting.
Director of Technology’s Report Glenn Brannelly
Update
Brannelly: Hi Everyone, Happy Friday! Last week I met with Susan Bowen, our Chief Information
Officer and she showed me the current status of the LSC study room project. To give you a quick
rundown for those of you who don’t know: The LSC Study Room project was started by the
previous Director of Technology, Jack Prendergast who began working on an LSC Study Room
Sensor System. Each study room in LSC will house a sensor on the ceiling which will detect
movement, or the lack thereof, in a particular room and in real time display the current status of the
study room to students. Students will be able to see which study rooms are available by logging
onto a new website they made on scranton.edu which will launch alongside the study room project.
If the sensors in a particular study room does not detect movement over a set time period, the room
will be displayed as available. IT are installing sensors into one column of LSC study rooms over
this week and next week to start, and they will begin beta testing the system. I will be working
closely with Susan Bowen and IT during this process to figure out the best way to promote the
system to the student body. I’m very excited to see this system launch and I will keep you all
updated along the way. And that’s it for my report.

Secretary’s Report Kimberly Baxter

Update
Baxter: Hi everyone. I have two quick things. First on Saturday you will get an email from me for
you to sign up for spots for open house. They’re going to be an hour time slot, so please help out
where you can. Hopefully, this will allow Senators to only have to work one open house and not
both. Also, you will get more information about Reaper’s Revenge, which is happening October
25th around 6:00pm. Thanks.

Chief of Staff’s Report Casey Welby

Update
Welby: Good Afternoon everyone! My only report point is about the crafts for Street Sweep.
Students will be cleaning the streets in the first hour and then making crafts for Safe Trick or Treat
the second hour. We have 4 different crafts- pumpkin stencils, skeleton crafts, painting a poster and
designing bags that the children will be able to carry around to receive candy in! So, during the
second hour if senators could be walking around supervising and helping out that would be great.
Thank you!

Ashraf: At this time can I recommend a motion for a five-minute recess.

Nealon: Motion for a five-minute recess.

Middleton: I just want to know what exactly we do at open house.

Colucci: At open house, we have a table in the Byron with the other offices on campus. We answer
any questions the student might have about Student Government or the University in general. It
allows prospective students to ask us any questions that they might have.
 Middleton: So, we don’t need to dress up for anything?

Ashraf: At table sits, we do business casual.

Murtaj: I don’t know if I can do this now, but I want to motion to table the Constitution and Bylaws,
so I don’t know if the recess will still be necessary.

Colucci: We’ll address that when we come back from the recess. Do we have a second for the
motion for the five-minute recess?

Dieser: Second.

E. Senate & University Committee Reports

Senate Committee Reports Committee Chairs

Update
Colucci: We will now be moving on to Committee reports. First, we have Academic and Scholastic
affairs with Senator Murtaj.

Murtaj: "Thank you Vice President Colucci. Academic and Scholastic Affairs is excited to get to
work. We are in the process of reaching out to our offices. Like we mentioned at the retreat some of
our goals is to get the Classroom Bill of Rights and Responsibilities solidified with the Provost and
talk with the Dean of the Library about getting third floor opened 24/7 like the first and second
floors. That concluded my report."

Colucci: Thank you. Moving on to the Appropriations Committee.

Gallagher: We had Abbey’s first two bills ever passed today. We worked really hard. We met as a
committee on Tuesday. We talked about increased communication and different aspects of
appropriations. But our primary focus will be increasing communication between clubs and
organizations because a lot of time they don’t know what New Initiative funding is. So that’s
generally our goal this year. That’s all.

Colucci: Thank you for that. Now moving on to Senator Dieser with Athletics and Programming.

Dieser: Hello everyone. We had our first meeting on Tuesday. It was very brief, but we’re just
letting everyone know where we’re at and who were in contact with. We’re reaching out to
Athletics, Club Sports, USPB, and the Aquinas to see if there is anything we can do for them.
We’re waiting to hear back from them so we can move on from there. That's it.

Colucci: Thank you. Senator Kilner is not hear but do we have a representative from Campus Life
and Dining that wants to report?
Perrachio: Senator Kilner is the new chair. We haven’t had a meeting yet, but that’s where we are
at.

Colucci: Thank you Senator Perrachio for that. Then finally Senator Haggerty with Safety, Justice,
and Service.

Haggerty: We also have not had an opportunity to meet as a committee yet, but we have scheduled
a time to meet. We are excited to start working on some of those goals we identified at the retreat.

Colucci: Thank you. Now moving on to University Committee Reports. President Ashraf with the
Board of Trustees Meeting update.

Ashraf: The first full Board of Trustees meeting of this academic year took place on September
27th, and it was a pretty quick meeting for the most part. Fr. Pilarz gave his report and updated us
on some of the Universities different projects and upcoming events, we received an update on the
admissions statistics for the 2019-2020 year, and briefly discussed some of the different resolutions
they are working on. If anyone has any questions or would like more information about anything,
please feel free to reach out.

Colucci: Now we’ll move on to the Board of Trustees Student Life Committee. President Ashraf
and I attended the Board of Trustees Student Life Committee last Friday. In this meeting they
discussed the Student Code of Conduct. Dr. Kegolis presented about the student conduct process.
Right now, they are doing a full review of that process. That’s good news to hear. We should have
a report on that soon. Also, there was a presentation about mental health and wellness. Specifically,
they had staff from the Counseling Center there discussing issues that college students face and
how the Counseling Center is combating the issues. Also, they talked about the resources they
have to help students. Now moving on to Chief of Staff Welby the Board of Trustees Education
Committee.

Welby: I attended the Board of Trustee Education Committee. We talked about the Middle States
report that just went out and other various reports. Updates on the Dean search for College of Arts
and Sciences. Dean Conniff is stepping down and going on sabbatical and will be returning in a
year as a professor, but in the meantime, we do need a Dean. Two weeks ago, the search team
visited campus to do a small assessment. The next step is airport interviews in November, which I
thought was really cool. And hopefully a candidate will be selected, and a job offer made by
December before the Holidays. Lastly, an update on potential new academic program. There are a
few programs that are in the works, very far in the future, but we’re looking into a few new majors
and pre-professional programs both on the undergraduate and graduate level.

Colucci: Thank you Chief of Staff Welby, now moving on to Director of Communications
Donnelly with an update from the Board of Trustees Meeting for University Advancement.

Donnelly: Also, I attended a Board of Trustees Meeting for the University Advancement
Committee on September 27th, last Friday. During the meeting, they talked about a few goals that
they have for increasing revenue, as many feel that the amount of revenue within the past 5 years
has been pretty consistent and believe there is room for improvement in this area. These goals were
put into 4 major categories: creating a culture of robust engagement, dynamic volunteer leadership,
dedicated staff committed to excellence and creating engaging and meaningful programming. Their
goal for the upcoming year is around $14 million, including all fundraisers like 5.06 and PBC
dinner. In order to reach this goal, they put together a targeted outline and “Road Map to Success”
for different levels of donors. They have also identified 10 leadership prospects (co-chaired by the
Dione’s) for help with campaign support and initiating briefing meetings and designated a
Campaign cabinet of 12 members to assist in “campaign design” to help shape philanthropic
message in an effort to increase funds.

Colucci: Now moving on to Senator Myers with the Assessment Advisory Committee.

Myers: Hi, friends. Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Assessment Advisory Committee,
essentially what they do is will assess how well the academic programs at the University are going.
We discussed a few different things, one of the things being general education programs. They
found that the university is doing well in achieving their course goals that they set out to complete.
One thing they did need was more data on foreign language and how well that was being met. And
there was one aspect of the math curriculum they wanted to see addressed. Additionally, we talked
about program assessment reports, which are done by individual majors and programs in the
different Academic colleges. Only CAS did there's this year. One of the things they wanted to do
was move CAS to PCPS model where they have programs rotating cycle. Essential what they found
was things we were going fairly well, but members of the program should work more in
collaboration and in using the AACs results. We also talked briefly about Middle States. They gave
us some recommendations to work on generally that had to do with inclusion of non-traditional and
graduate students. Then finally they wanted to rework faculty training over intersession. This year
it was on campus and faculty members had to be here physically, but there was a snow storm and it
was disrupted. They want to move it to an online module and still have some in person workshops
but primarily online.

Colucci: Finally, we’re going to move on to President Ashraf with the UGC update.

Ashraf: This morning, Vice President Colucci, Chief of Staff Welby, Senator Gallagher, and I
attended the first University Governance Council meeting of the semester. For those of you who
don’t yet know, UGC is an opportunity for representatives from the faculty, staff, and student
senates to meet, discuss different policies and issues surrounding our campus, and come up with
plans of action to proceed in our different groups. In future meetings, we may have forum topics
regarding changes to the anti-discrimination and harassment policy, takeaways from the Middle
States Self Study, a discussion about animals on campus, specifically outlining a potential policy
for support animals, and a discussion surrounding a potential hazing policy. They really value
student input in these meetings, and I look forward to getting your thoughts as we proceed. That’s it
for the UGC update.

Colucci: Thank you. Now moving back to Senate Forum with the constitution and bylaws edits.
 F. Senate Forum

Senate Forum
Update
Murtaj: Motion to table the Constitutions and bylaws edits.

Haggerty: Second.

Colucci: We have now tabled the constitution and bylaws edits.

Nealon: Motion to adjourn.

Haggerty: Second.