STUDENT SENATE SESSION XXXVIII – MEETINGNovember 6th, 2016 – 6pm– Paul College Room 165 MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. COMMUNICATIONS a. Senator Communications:

i. None.b. Graduate Student Senate

i. Holland: glad to be here.c. Liaison to Administration

i. Not present.d. Senate Executive Board

i. Parliamentarian Shannon: Sorry for technical difficulties. As you may have been able to tell, we are starting to use a new system to record meetings. All of you should have the agenda for tonight’s meeting, so keep an eye out for that. Lastly, send me your amendments and your resolutions to Judiciary by 7PM tomorrow.

ii. Executive Officer Alex: By popular demand we have made the logging of office hours a contest. We hope that this will be a way to reward those who put in more hours than expected. For this week, Tyler has clocked in the most hours! Keep logging in those hours everyone! You are doing a great job!

iii. Business Manager Christian: no communications.iv. Director Public Relations PJ: My committee positions will be approved

tonight, and there will be an add bill for general members as well. I believe we picked a great team, and I can’t wait to share it with you. We will be having our first committee meeting right after this meeting.

v. Historian Jesse: A quick point of information to members of political campaigns. Make sure you understand the Housing rules before soliciting political flyers in residence halls. Sliding flyers under student doors, for example, is not legal. As a member of a political campaign, I understand that political activism is a great thing, but there are rules for a reason. Thank you.

1. Alex: Point of information: you can talk to students and hand them flyers.

vi. SAFC Chairperson Aaron: Budgets and Concepts are over, sort of. We still need to present the budgets tonight, and we will vote on them next week. Tonight I will simply do a Q & A. If you have other questions related to SAFC, please approach me. Remember, as part of your Senator requirements you have to attend a SAFC meeting (Friday at 2:10).

vii. CFO 1 Danny: I was at NACA and I took away a lot from the experience. Feel free to talk to me to find out more about that. I will also answer questions about SAFC during my office hours.

viii. CFO 2 Jake: Please seek me out as well if you have questions. I would be happy to talk about Budgets and Concepts with you. Look forward to a big communication next week!

ix. Academic Affairs Chair Bryce: My council and I finished up the fall break resolution that will be coming to floor next meeting. I will be canceling my meeting for this week, just so you know.

x. Campus Structure Chair Zach: My council will be meeting Wednesdays at 5pm, but that might change in the neat future. I would also like to ask that you all go onto your class Facebook pages and talk to people on social media that there are voting shuttles for any member of the community so that they can go vote. It is a non-partisan effort. Lastly, I want to point out that the debates last meeting got heated. When we discuss resolutions and subjects in the future, we should make sure that we are critiquing content and not personality. It is important to stay as civil as can be.

xi. Community Development Chair Sarai: We will have two resolutions coming to the Senate soon, but if you are interested in talking about them before they come to the floor you can attend our meeting tomorrow at 6pm before Judiciary.

xii. Health and Wellness Chair Katie: I have been approached by many people interested in joining my council or attending the meetings, so I might change the meeting time. If you are legitimately interested, please e-mail me and let me know what times work for you. As some people have sort of hinted at it, Tuesday is Election Day. Please vote! It is your civic duty. Everyone here on campus is trying to make it as easy as possible to get out and vote.

xiii. External Affairs Chair Sadie: My council and I are working on a resolution about direct communications (i.e. mass e-mails). Go vote!

xiv. Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Chair Alicia: My council will be meeting Mondays at 4. Shoot me an e-mail if you have any problems with the meeting time. We are working on a JPEP resolution and finding ways to improve Student Senate education.

xv. Financial Affairs Chair Ian: We will be meeting Wednesdays at 6:30pm now, due to discussions on fees. There will be speakers and resolutions on this soon.

xvi. Judicial Affairs Chair Brennan: Tonight is round two of the legal service resolutions. I appreciate everyone who talked to me about the resolutions. Let’s have a good meeting.

e. Student Trustee Lincolni. I had some lovely meetings over the last couple weeks. Because your

voting records are public, I will shame you publicly if you did not vote. But anyway, we had some really good stuff going on with the system office regarding the first amendment on campus. All parties are trying to engage students, which is difficult if policies grab you right by the neck. I believe that these steps will make it easier to get things done and be an American in America.

f. Student Body Vice President Carley

i. President Obama is coming to UNH tomorrow. Have fun, if you’re going. The Student Master plan is coming soon, and there will also be a resolution on bike racks for next week.

g. Student Body President Joni. A lot of resolutions are coming up. We are ensuring that they go through

judiciary, but they will get spread out, especially in light of Budgets and Concepts. Regarding legal services resolutions, I will probably be making a motion to move it to the bottom for the sake of other resolutions. I believe it is fair to get those done first so that the parties involved to not have to wait through our long legal service discussion. We have had a good week gaging student opinion, and with the combined eight years of experience between Brennan, Lincoln, Carley and I, we will be more than happy to answer your inquiries.

h. Student Senate Speaker Alex Friesi. The SOPs specify that after the first-year election that there be a

announcement allowing five days to petition the results. Thus we plan to have the results announced by the next meeting. There have been discussions in Exec regarding the use of technology to record Senate business, which is why we have experimented with it today, and why we have had some technical difficulties. As you all might be aware, PJ is trying to update the Student Senate website, which would include audio recordings.

ii. Lincoln: [Explained microphones].i. Danny: Motion to suspend the first standing order.

i. Danny: There are some important things coming up in other business, and judging that we are going to run late tonight, I want to give budgets the proper time they needs. Suspending the first standing order will ensure that there is no possibility of going home without introducing the budgets.

ii. Jake: this is a common process, and I urge that you all vote in favor of this.

iii. Passed with two nays and one abstention.4. NEW BUSINESS

j. XXXVIII - 2.01 - Removal of Senatorsi. Alex Work added Keenan Collins (Williamson 3) to the bill.

1. Alex Work: I talked to him, and he wanted to step down.ii. Approved with one abstention.

k. XXXVIII - 3.01 - Approval of Senators i. Nooran Alhamdan (Non-resident 11) was added by Alex Work.

ii. Approved with one abstention.l. XXXVIII- 4 – Approval of Judiciary Members

i. Shannon added Alex Hawkii. Josh Velez, Abbie Sheridan, and Sarah Lunn added themselves to the bill.

iii. Approved with one abstention.m. XXXVIII-5-Approval of Public Relations Committee Members

i. Digital Content Creator: Camden Tatsapaughii. Advertisement Manager: Nick LaCourse

iii. General Members: Hanuth Saxena, Junko Yamazaki, Josh Velez.iv. PJ: These are the decisions that the interview committee made. There will

also be bylaw changes coming up relating to the PR Committee. Anyone is welcome to add themselves as a general member. We will be having our committee meetings after the Student Senate meetings.

v. Jake: Will meetings change in the future, given the length of certain Senate meetings, such as this one?

1. PJ: No. PR never sleeps.vi. Katie: what was the decision process like?

1. PJ: We had a regular interview process, and each candidate submitted samples and resumes. The committee was made up of me, Jake, and Alex Work. Alex Fries gave thoughts about the candidates as well.

vii. Passed Unanimously.n. XXXVIII–6 –Legal Services 1

i. Jon: motion to move 6&7 to the end of new business.1. Jon: I think we should get through other resolutions first, so that

they can receive adequate discussion.2. Approved.

ii. Lincoln: I want to personally express my disdain for call to question. It is relevant only when things are being repeated, which in that case means the Speaker is not doing his job. Do not call to question otherwise. It does a disservice to the people we represent.

1. Shannon: Going into this discussion, we intend to be a lot more strict about repeating comments, so as to keep discussion flowing efficiently.

iii. Brennan: We pretty much went over these resolutions last meeting. However, I do want to address the concern that we are “abandoning” student legal services. We are simply dissolving it, and we will even be keeping some money to go toward events that will help students know your rights and such

iv. Jon: At the last meeting I was asked about my stance on legal services. After 3 ½ years discussing legal services, I approve of this new model. I approve of this for moral reasons, for I find it hard to justify why we have some students subsidizing other students’ legal costs even though some are having a problem affording school. The current model has 35 students paying for every 1 student’s legal costs. I can’t justify it, especially because I am supposed to fight for what is fair for students. This current model is an $88,000 investment, which is more than is put toward most student programs! Many SAFOs do not even have a budget of that size. This attorney can only represent you on something under a class B misdemeanor, and it cannot represent you on issues against university interests. The new model will help educate students on how to make the right legal decisions without unjustified subsidization.

v. Christian: The point was brought up that students subsidize the costs of other students. I see a parallel example of this in the student athletic fee,

which is about $1,000 per student. Some of us students do not even go to games. What do you say to those students?

1. Jon: You cannot use legal service unless you end up in trouble. Everyone knows that you cannot drink under 21, and that there are consequences. You have the option to attend games. There are such things as civil cases, but they are so small, for 90% of the cases handled by our current attorney are for alcohol violations. How does $88,000 justify that?

vi. Christian: Are you saying that students should not be able to pursue legal advice?

1. Jon: I believe that to be a mischaracterization of what I am saying. Students are making the choice to drink underage, and students should not have to subsidize that. You do not choose to use a service like you would choose to go to a game.

vii. Lincoln: point of information: athletics is part of a different fee than the fee that legal services falls under, so I do not think this is germane.

viii. Alexander: Lauren and I represent Fairchild. They actually decided to vote against this new model. They respect the fact that it is a reassurance policy for everyone, including themselves.

ix. Aaron: Did you explain to your hall council the attorney cannot represent students on nothing more than a class B-misdemeanor, and that the NH Bar Association can provide representation on anything at reduced rates?

1. Alexander: We did, yes.x. Brennan: We talked in a meeting this week about putting money toward

“events”. Can you elaborate on that?1. Jon: We understand that there are concerns about civil cases,

which is why we want to provide opportunities like bringing people in at a small fee to handle the small number of civil cases. The final “be it resolved” would cover that.

xi. Christian: When was the last time support for civil cases were advertised by the attorney?

1. PJ: The last time, at least, was before last year.2. Ian: Point of Information: The student attorney did have an event

to meet with students last semester.xii. Brennan: If we were to have someone come in once a month, what would

it look like to SAFC?1. Aaron: I do not like to comment on what SAFC will or will not do.

What you described is an ongoing series of lectures, which is in alignment with what other orgs do for education purposes. If the price was right and fair, and attendance was good, I would see no problem with that.

xiii. Ryan: When I talked to my constituents, they were at first against removing the attorney, but when I brought up the cost and alternatives they were then in favor of this new model, on the premise that they could have resources to get legal help if needed.

xiv. Abby: I was asked to share a story from a friend who used legal services. She is from California, and she had a car. Basically she was told that in order to drive a NH vehicle she had to have a NH license plate. She used legal services, got the NH plate, but lost her California residency. It was helpful for her, and it is important to realize that there are several ways that this service can be used, not just alcohol related cases. I believe it is good to keep this model in place.

xv. Lincoln: When you spoke with those people, did they say that they were satisfied with the alternative options to keep educational resources open, or did they want to see the current model developed more?

1. Ryan: I would think that they wanted to see it developed more.xvi. Holland: Could graduate students use legal services?

1. Jon: The service would not be free, due to not paying a student activity fee.

xvii. Kunal: Does the current attorney know that this is being discussed?1. Brennan: I told her that this was coming up. This is not a matter of

termination, but instead just a matter of renewing the contract.2. Jon: She has been informed during the entire process.3. Carley: The reason these bills are being proposed has nothing to do

with the attorney, but rather the service itself and student perception of it.

xviii. Doug: I was undecided on this for a while, and I do understand and agree with the concerns that have been mentioned. Yet I cannot agree to remove the physical presence of the legal service attorney here on campus. Whether we want to say it or not, college is an experience. I drank before I was 21. It does not mean you were bad, and it certainly does not mean you cannot have the service.

xix. Lauren: If this fails, could we present a different model?1. Brennan: December 31st is the cut off for the contract. I asked for

alternative models from senators, but none came.xx. Carley: Did you reach out to the local attorney about the initial

consultations?1. Brennan: Yes. My council has reached out to 25 lawyers, coming

from areas that include Dover and Boston. We got responses from a few attorneys so far, one of which (Joanne Stella) said that she already has cheaper rates for students.

xxi. Christian: Do you know the average cost to be represented on an alcohol case from an outside attorney?

1. Jon: It varies from attorney to attorney, so it is hard to nail down an exact cost.

xxii. Kunal: I was a graduate of the navitas program, which is in essence a program to help people who are less fluent in English. Many have made the mistake of engaging in piracy, for the laws here are different than in their home countries. How will Student Senate improve this communication barrier?

1. Jon: The navitas program also has police come in to teach students about registration and licensing. There is a lot of outreach for that. Under this new model, the list of resources would be available all over campus as well.

xxiii. Speaker Alex: Excuse me, but what is going on right now?1. Shannon: On the Senate Twitter there is a former member

attacking the page. Nick tried to respond politely, but it appears to have spiraled out of control.

2. Alex: I don’t think this is germane to the discussion.xxiv. Brennan: Fairchild has a lot of international students. Do you think having

someone coming in to tell them their legal rights would be beneficial.1. Alexander: I would say that any information would be valuable.

xxv. Lincoln: Don’t the police and prosecutors understand that we have systems in place to make sure students’ lives are not being ruined over a first time alcohol offense?

1. Jon: Yes. We have something called the first offense program. Police also work with students to make sure that they are educated and not taken advantage of.

xxvi. Christian: I have a bunch of signed letters about the removal of student legal services. It would be negligent to overlook this. This service has been in place for a very long time, and there is simply not enough due diligence involved in these new models.

xxvii. Brennan: where were these letter obtained?1. Christian: I talked to at least 100 members who were interested

what has going on with legal services. I was as unbiased as possible, which I did by showing them both resolutions and telling them about the current situation. Many were extremely concerned enough to want to sign the letter. [Read the letter to the Senate].

xxviii. Aleshia: Are these letters the same? Was there a letter given out to show approve for the bills.

1. Christian: There were some people who approved of the bills, but none of them, even the ones against it, wanted to submit a personal letter. Those who were against it wanted to sign a letter instead.

xxix. Carley: Why did you not come to the office with this feedback? If you were trying to be unbiased, why didn’t you provide a letter that students could sign if they were in favor of the new model?

1. Christian: I thought this was the perfect place to bring this up. I was in favor of presenting whatever they wanted. As I had said, no one really wanted to write anything or attend this meeting. I did not hand this letter to them before explaining the situation and answering all of their questions.

xxx. Parker: Could someone non-biased count the number of signatures?1. Alex Work: We cannot do that without knowing the purpose for

counting the signatures. Moreover, we cannot cross reference signatures or even validate that they were all UNH students.

xxxi. Lincoln: I have seen your portfolio of evidence. It is extensive and impressive, but when you really look it does come off as biased. Can you honestly say that the information was unbiased since the start?

1. Christian: I was clear about not starting with the letter. Regardless of that, I answered every question, including how many use the service and how much it costs and to what ends. I did not intend to withhold information. If people thought this was a waste of money, they would have said something. But that was not what I got, and that should be considered. I am not going to try and take full credit for this. Myself and others went up to people interested in hearing this, a lot of people wanted to know what was going on, and many were not happy with the new models.

xxxii. Isaiah: Did you mention that they could attend the Senate meeting?1. Christian: Many of the students were afraid to come here and

express their views. They were happy to have a letter that explained their views. This is an equivalent to giving their voice.

xxxiii. Brennan: What circumstances led to the changes in the legal services attorney?

1. Lincoln: One of the things I noticed in the Twitter assault is that so many people have fought for this, which makes some people ask how could we possibly get rid of it? You see so many times in the history of the legal services that people were fighting over what the attorney could handle. The reality is that they have all been fighting for things that have been slowly getting chipped away. Yes, long ago we started out with an attorney that could go after anyone to protect and fight for students. Now we are fighting to mitigate the loses that we are taking. While we have had a long fight to keep the attorney, there is no way to get back what we lost. We do not have the authority to make that happen. We are getting 1/64 of an attorney for half the price of an attorney.

xxxiv. Danny: How many students did not sign the letter because they were in favor of the new models?

1. Christian: From my end, I never got anyone who said they completely wanted to see legal services removed. I only got people who did not care, were unsure, or felt that they did not have enough information. I also made it clear they could come to this meeting or reach out to the student body president.

xxxv. Brennan: Would you say that dissolving the student legal services and brining in outside attorneys and speakers is getting rid of legal services?

1. Jon: No, not at all. This bill is meant to replace the current program. The letter is a mischaracterization of that because it makes it appear that the student legal service is being fully removed. We are not getting rid of everything. We are still going to have a full list of attorneys as well as educational programing.

xxxvi. Lincoln: what do you think on a personal level about cutting the attorney?

1. Lauren: I went to my constituents and I explained it in the most explicit way possible. They really did not want us to vote in favor of these new models.

xxxvii. Brennan: Can you explain the difference between trustee and representative voting?

1. Lincoln: We as senators are representatives, but at the same time we are trustees of interest. Yes our halls may tell us to vote a certain way, but you do not have to. In fact, I would urge you not to. I would vote based on what is best for your constituency, because ultimately they do not have all the background information that we do. I don’t understand how defense funding works, but I trust my representatives in Congress to handle that. That being said, we should always make sure that the people we talk to understand what they actually want. You were elected because they trusted you.

xxxviii. Hose: What was Joanne Stella’s rate?1. Tyler: The rate was hourly. I don’t remember how much it was

exactly, but it was far more expensive than the current rate.xxxix. Lauren: Did you feel that after your free consultation that you had

sufficient legal advice to go on with your case?1. Tyler: I found that I needed more of her services, particularly

representation. xl. Christian: This bill states “discontinue legal services program.” How does

this not mean that we are getting rid of the legal service?1. Brennan: When I put this up to Judiciary I was told that I could

make edits on the floor if need be.2. Jon: If you read the rest of the sentence, it says that the current program is going to be discontinued, not the service.

xli. Isaiah: how did you approach your constituencies to learn what was best?1. Jon: I got responses through the TNH article, by going to different

halls, and attending several meetings over the course of three years. These resolutions reflect that work.

2. Brennan: We talked to dorms and gathered opinions when I was just a member on the Judicial Affairs last year.

3. Carley: I have brought this up in conversation all over campus, from class, to ROTC, to residence halls. The general opinion is that the service does not reflect all cases that students face, and that it is not worth it.

xlii. Christian: When I was a senator last year, the goal was to tweak the service. Now we are considering such a drastic change. Because this is such a big change, do you think it would be necessary to have a direct communication to all students so as to get the most responses and feedback as possible?

1. Carley: Jon and I had a direct communication in first two weeks of school and received little feedback. The Student Survey we sent out only got 750 student responses. It is a difficult process.

2. Brennan: we get swamped with direct communications over the course of the year, and few students actually care to read them.

3. Lincoln: It is hard to get a direct communications, for it is at the discretion of the senior leadership. UNH also has a serious issue with survey fatigue, and we have terrible response rates in comparison to other institutions.

xliii. Christian: don’t you think this is a big enough issue that warrants a direct communication?

1. Lincoln: This is irrelevant to everyone outside this room. This issue is not worth their time. It is an issue that the University would not make a priority.

xliv. Isaiah: how many students were turned away from legal services?1. Jon: we do not have numbers on that.

xlv. Jon: point of order: please refrain from making the comments.xlvi. Christian: motion to postpone these bills for two weeks so that a proper

survey of student opinion may be conducted1. Brennan: Jon, Carley, and I received an email about the

approaching contract deadline. Do you think two weeks is enough time to conduct another survey?

a. Lincoln: No, and the reason is because I work with institutional research on polling and how we collect and gather data. Creating a poll that adequately explains legal services is a lot to ask for, and two weeks is certainly not enough time to do it. Fact.

2. Carley: The last student survey was open for about a month and got about 700 responses. How do you plan to work with PJ to get more responses in a shorter period of time?

a. PJ: out PR team came up with some ideas last night to advertise for this, including social media, TNH, and a direct communication that we can draft all in a day. We would also have a video Q&A, a public meeting session, and tabling at dining halls.

3. Bryce: What is your opinion on this delay?a. Christian: I may not have the same experience with

Lincoln, but I think that this can be easily accomplished, especially for an issue this big. It may not the best time frame, but it absolutely doable.

4. Ian: how will this delay effect list of attorneys you have gathered?a. Brennan: By request last week I made a list of attorneys

after contacting their offices. One e-mailed came from an attorney’s paralegal because he thought this was not worth his time, because it was not yet official. If we choose to do a bid process instead, I cannot effectively get someone in time.

5. Jon: point of information: former Judicial Affairs Chari Sam Paris sent out a survey and only got 350 responses, and that was in addition to a direct communication.

6. Aleshia: how long does the bidding process take?a. Jon: Normally two to three months, give or take how long

it takes to get responses.7. Zach: would it be the worst thing in the world to postpone this

legal services bill so as to have the proper student input?a. Jon: There has been a lot of work done on this over the

years, and as we said many times before, we had a direct communication and only got 700 responses. It is our job as a student representative body to bring student opinions to the floor. Senators went to their constituents, and now student opinion is ready to be voted on. I disagree with postponing this. It’s time to make a decision.

8. Carley: With everything going on this week, including the election, exams, and President Obama’s visit, we are going to get our survey pushed back further.

9. Hose: There is no consensus, and I find it concerning that we do not know for certain that the attorneys can provide reduced rates. We need that information before moving forward.

10. Jesse: We are a student representative body! We did our job and we are ready to vote! We are more effective and efficient than a survey!

11. Lincoln: I would not mind postponing this but, but we can’t get the responses we want in two weeks.

12. Carley: We are not in a perfect world, and we are not all going to agree on everything. Conducting another survey is simply pushing that reality off. A decision needs to be made.

13. Zach: motion call to question on the motion.a. Motion passed.

14. Motion failed with one abstention.xlvii. Danny: I urge you to vote yes on this bill. The service we are getting now

is a waste of money. xlviii. Ryan: On paper, this bill looks terrible. We are removing the only barrier

between students and the law. Overwhelmingly, students would be against this. It is very easy to make a case to the body and get signatures to continue this service. Even if we give them information in paragraphs which we understand they most likely won't read, they will vote poorly and from a very uneducated stance. If we give students a CHECK HERE FOR A FREE LAWYER, it’s a no-brainer YAY. However, we as senators who have run this service have done a disservice to the student body. We have not properly educated our student body on what our current legal services are, how little our attorney can do, and what alternatives we have purposed. We currently are far more educated on this topic then the rest of the student body. As such, we must take the educated action and

remove this service. Sure, students might be against it. When they are told that when they get caught for alcohol charges and the student senate is removing their protection? Hell, I'd be angry at student senate as well. But that’s before they know that only on their second offense will they go to court. That’s before they know that lawyers nearby offer the same consultation services. That’s before they understand the depth of the cost and percentage of use the student body gets from this service. I feel strongly that when we explain a service and one of our go to facts is that "its always been there", that is baseless. Quite frankly, that is the same line of thought or explanation discrimination uses. We are not removing legal services, we are adjusting how legal services will serve the student. We are prioritizing education over representation. We understand this, and thus we are voting for the best interest of our constituencies, not always their direct emotional reaction, but for the betterment of them.

xlix. Chris: How many hall council meetings have you attended?1. Lincoln: out of order. There is no attacking the credibility of a

senator and their constituents. l. Motion to call to question.

1. Failed.li. Parker: I talked to about thirty people in my dorm, less than five were in

favor of either of these bills. I will be voting against them.lii. Aaron: No one should be surprised that everyone would want a free

lawyer. We are not removing legal service, but simply providing them the resources to seek out their own counsel for anything they need. This new model eliminates moral hazard. The service is supposed to be a disincentive to break the law. Through the NH BAR Association, we can double our efforts to make sure everyone has the resources they need without us having to pay for nearly anything. With $88,000 we could renovate the MUB and the PCAC! All we are doing is making the service free. Please consider all of this information that you have been presented, and vote for the program that brings us the real value.

liii. Doug: motion to vote on the bill with a roll call vote.1. Speaker Alex: [explained roll call voting procedure].2. Lincoln: I agree that we do not want anyone to skip out on such an

important issue, but this is on the record and it puts people on the spot. I think the vast majority of students do not understand the value proposition here. Senators should not be put on the spot for voting in the interest of the student body as a whole, rather than solely their constituents.

3. Shannon: We could also do a secret ballot as an option.4. Zach: As a student representative body, we should not be afraid to

vote on record. 5. Jon: We have made amendments that have changed the entire

structure of the Student Senate body, yet we never did a roll call vote on them. We should keep the voting procedure as it is.

6. Carley: If we are so concerned about people not voting, we could just count.

7. Christian: Each of us should be held accountable for how we voted concerning our consistencies.

8. Jake: SAFC regularly does roll call votes, so I think a motion to do a roll call vote is valid.

9. Lincoln: SAFC does roll call votes intentionally to put people on the spot. Senate is not the same.

10. Motion failed 18-15, with 2 abstentions.liv. Aleshia: If this bill is passed, would the following bill be dropped?

1. Shannon: We would move to fail the second bill, unless it passes, then it would replace the first one.

2. Jon: the authors can also pull out the second bill.lv. Jake: Regarding the per person cost of the attorney, it would be around

$300. Some would say that by SAFC standards it would be rejected. However, this level of cost per student is not unprecedented. All events are different, and representation and attendance is different. People should think carefully about removing the current model, because if so there will be no going back. Senate is not going to be given back that funding.

lvi. Christian: I would urge you to vote nay to this new model. I have spoken to other members of SAFC, and if this came through SAFC like an event, they would be able to approve this even with the per person cost. I think this is a program that helps a lot of students. The real issue is that the Student Senate has neglected to bring legal services to its full potential.

lvii. Alexander: As student senators, who are voted in by the people we represent, it is irresponsible to say that we did not do our job and vote just on our feelings. I have been clear what the costs and benefits are . . .

1. Danny: out of order. This has already been stated.a. Zach: Jesse, I would like you to put it on the record that I

disagree with the notion that this is out of order. lviii. Zach: motion to call to question

1. Failed.lix. Zach: We have covered both sides of this debate thoroughly. I have

nothing more to say. Thank you for a night of debate. [Adjourned himself].

lx. Lincoln: I feel like people do not understand why people want to get rid of this current model. It’s not that “I don’t like spending money,” or “I don’t like this position.” I am a person that believes in second chances, but the value of keeping the current legal services model is not there. I have a story that I like to tell people: we all have constituents who work two jobs to attend this university. A $100 increase in their tuition is just the thing that can keep them out of college. Our obligation that is to make responsible decisions with student money. The reality is that only a few students actually use this service. Even in its hay day it was not worth the costs. I agree we need to provide opportunities for students to get out of their legal situations. The current legal service happens to be the most

expensive option. We can work with police and local attorneys to subsidize costs for students. Did any of us tell our constituents that we could use the money toward other things like better WI-FI and renovating the PCAC? If we showed them all we can do, the conversation would be different. This is not something we just pulled out of thin air. There are people who have discussed this subject years before us. You have to vote yes to this new model. Trust me, I would not do anything to hurt students. I have dedicated my life to this cause. I swear, you have to get rid of this current model. We are burning money!

lxi. James: what if co-senators disagree1. Alex Work: you can choose to abstain, or talk it out. But either

way, you only get one vote.lxii. PJ: As one Twitter is saying: no, no, no.

lxiii. Passed 25-11, with three abstentions.lxiv. Lincoln: you are all wonderful for being here. Thank you.lxv. Jon: I would love to talk to anyone about how to advertise the website and

list of attorneys.o. XXXVIII–7 – Legal Services 2

i. Carley: [Withdrew the bill].p. XXXVIII-R8- Concerning the Implementation of a Social Identities Discovery

Requirementi. Doug: I know that was a lot of stuff, but basically this is something that

has been discussed for quite a while. TNH mentioned this in the Coming Out Week. The end goal is to have an academic requirements where students have to take a class related to social justice. To do that we would create a committee where all stakeholders could discuss how to put this into the discovery program.

ii. Jake: I distinctly remember discussing the preferred name policy in session XXXVI.

1. Doug: The preferred name policy was brought up in session XXXVI, but implemented in XXXVII.

iii. Ian: A lot of students like to do double majors, so how can they accommodate for another discovery requirement?

1. Doug: That is an issue that the committee can discuss. Whether to end the discovery program is a separate discussion, though worth considering. I envision that each student would work with his/her advisors to figure out how to fit it in.

iv. Ryan: would the current student body be grandfathered into taking the new academic requirement?

1. Doug: again, this would be something that the committee would talk about it. It would probably not be fair to add a new requirement on current students.

v. Parker: Why do you believe that this should be a requirement as opposed to being optional?

1. Doug: it is important that every student have some sort of knowledge on social identities. These topics will affect everyone.

Not everyone needs to be an expert on the subject, but a basic understanding that social identities actually exist is valuable for any career. You can name any major and social identities would be relevant.

vi. Aaron: We currently have “environment, technology, and society” as a general education requirement. Couldn’t this fall under that requirement?

1. Doug: I thought about this. Personally, I want to see it as its own requirement. That way it can be more focused, and thus more beneficial.

vii. Aaron: what are peer institutions doing? Was this inspired?1. Doug: To my knowledge, I did not find a specific requirement in

other institutions like the one we are discussing here. I would have to look further. This was inspired by discussions with the people I work with and with TNH.

viii. Christian: I like where this is going, but adding another discovery requirement will make it harder to graduate. Many students mention that they need to add on a new semester due to not being able to fit in all the discovery requirements. I am worried that adding a new requirement will make it harder for students. Does anyone from last session know about what was discussed regarding the discovery program?

1. Jon: Former Academic Affairs Chair Justin Poisson attended several Faculty Senate meetings and talked about revising the discovery program. Every year Faculty Senate goes through the discovery program. There were discussions about providing optionality, but it did not pass there.

ix. Ian: Point of information: classes about minorities and social identities are under the “environment, technology, and society” discovery requirement.

x. Ryan: I see no reason to deny a study to look into adding a new discovery requirement.

xi. Emily: UMaine and UMass do have general education requirements related to this.

xii. Holland: is this resolution being brought up to Faculty Senate in conjunction to Student Senate?

1. Doug: No. It’s separate.xiii. Zach: Do you think it would be a better idea to change “society” in the

ETS discovery requirement to “social justice”?1. Doug: I would not support that, for it would take away the focus of

the new requirement. However, the committee could vote on anything it wants to.

xiv. Danny: Can you give a brief overview of what Faculty Senate thinks of adding discovery requirements?

1. Holland: I am not an expert, but I do know that Faculty Senate has debated this issue many times since discovery requirements were created. Everyone is in favor of the concept, but not everyone agrees on its conceptuality. My suggestion would be to make this implementable for the underclassmen.

xv. PJ: I definitely agree with everything in this, but the wording makes it seem that the committee has the ability to restructure the system. As a student, I have found it hard to add additional classes to my already packed schedule. I would be hesitant to pass this based on the wording.

xvi. Katie: This requirement is going to be another part of this already huge movement toward inclusiveness. We have made a lot of process, but there is still a lot left to go. This is a good stepping stone, and I am in full support of it. There are other schools already doing this, From the standpoint of someone who deals a lot with social justice, it is important to understand how different people live. It enriches education and is beneficial to every student on campus.. There are summer courses and J-Term options, so fitting the course is definitely possible. This is something that needs to be looked at, and this is another positive step, even though there are logistical steps.

xvii. Bryce: I am fundamentally against this. In effect, approving this committee will be a defacto for creating this discovery requirement. It is not right to tack on another requirement on students. I am not paying money to take a class like this. I am a double major and I cannot afford to take a J-term class, especially when it has nothing to do with my major.

xviii. Sadie: Each course carries a time and finical burden on students. My concern is about discoveries in general, although I do support the social justice movement.

xix. Zach: for most of my semesters here at UNH I have had to take more than four classes, due to changing majors. The discovery program was part of the problem. Disagreeing with this resolution is not an attack on social justice. There are still classes that people can take on this subject. To say that students should just do J-Term or summer term is foolish and offensive. I would encourage you to vote this resolution down, and have a resolution that defines social justice under an existing discovery instead.

xx. Doug: There has been disagreement, which is good. That is how democracy works. Even so, I want to respond to a previous comment, I would respectfully say that we are all here to take a class like this. In the real world, you need to be aware of social identities and how to treat people respectfully. A base understanding is invaluable in whatever field you go in to. This is something that should be a required, especially in a country and world that is becoming more diverse and interconnected.

xxi. Isaiah: I think we should not move this into a different discovery requirement because it takes away from the focus. We are in a changing world, so we must be to adapt to change to.

xxii. Jake: I really understand the concerns with this resolution, but the development of this committee is necessary. If you disagree with something, I urge you to make an amendment. We don’t want to reject this entirely or else discussions may not happen. I urge the author to make an amendment before it fails.

xxiii. Danny: I also believe that this enriches the student environment and an individual’s social understanding. Graduating from college is supposed to

be hard. Dropping out or being unable to pay for one class is a bogus argument.

xxiv. Emily: I am a transfer student, and this is my third time switching majors. I am still 100% in favor of this. This resolution is just for a committee. I think it is so important, because no matter what field you go into you are always going to find someone different from you. It will be important to know how to interact. Social justice is extremely important, and a committee to discuss it is extremely important.

xxv. Lincoln: I have a bunch of viewpoints on this. No one has the power to direct their own curriculum completely. I cannot reconcile that students are adding time and money, but if the University thinks this is something necessary, it is not for us to determine that. The premise of some of these arguments are unacceptable. We are not here to debate curriculum. We are here to represent what constituents want. My constituents would want me to say “no way”. We want to see this rewritten that that social justice can be added to an existing framework. It is what they want, whether they are right or wrong.

xxvi. Nooran: I have some concerns. When a new requirement is discussed, the first thought that goes through a student’s mind is that it would be a burden, and not beneficial unless they see it as so. Social justice and respect are some of the things that cannot be taught in a classroom.

xxvii. Nick: Being someone who has two majors and two minors, I would hate to see a student not be able to pick up a second minor due to having an additional requirement.

xxviii. Lincoln: Is anyone in this room familiar with discovery review process?a. Jon: Maybe just Holland.

xxix. Peter: I have done a bunch of work with social justice in high school, including having a disability workshop. We had a lot of research and a great presentation, but teachers still shut it down. You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. If students feel forced to take this class, they may likely not be receptive to it. Even if you do force them to take it, some will probably still be a dick to everyone else. Adding this requirement comes across as kind of tone depth to the backgrounds of students.

xxx. Jon: I will try to keep this brief. The seven or so discovery categories are very broad, and I feel like social justice falls under at least one of them. I am glad Douglas brought this up. I can envision this as an inquiry requirement. I would hesitate to vote nay on this, because it is vague enough to allow the committee to look at a variety of options, and then Bryce and I can add to it. Students do not want another discovery class, but I believe we can still incorporate it in other ways.

xxxi. Tyler: There is a little thing called petition of academic variance, which with a good argument can allow the student to skip over a certain class or requirement.

xxxii. Lincoln: I have heard a lot about how this impacts individual people. I have heard a lot of “I thinks”, so can someone tell me what their constituents think?

1. Parker: Some thought this was great and would help create more well-rounded citizens, and some were not happy with adding another requirement. Most of my constituents asked me to vote this down.

2. Sarah: I agreed to vote for this. If you have to take something like math or science, then adding something else like social justice should not be a problem.

3. Sadie: call to question.a. Motion passed 29 to 11.

xxxiii. Failed: 15-13, with 2 abstentions.q. XXXVIII–R9-Charging Stations Around Campus

i. PJ: We were wondering why there were not more of these on campus. I know that people’s phones just kind of die without warning. The numbers are also quite staggering, especially about anxiety. We figured that we would at least bring this up, weigh costs, and see what happens.

ii. Danny: How much would this cost to implement?1. Camden: we can request quotes to get exact prices. In my research,

I found that we could get eight compartments for $1500. The website I looked at also offered discounts for volume plans.

iii. Kunal: who will be funding this?1. Christian: It is not under my purview.2. Jon: It depends. IT under Exec Council could make this a

university initiative. If this were to pass, Speaker Alex would figure out where this would go.

iv. Alesha: I have seen two different charging ports on campus. Would thses be wireless?

1. Camden: No. They would probably be the ones with the cords.v. Hose: I see a lot of statistics about anxiety, but none on how much battery

is lost in a day. Is it that important?1. Camden: There is a fair amount of research on that. The average

battery life for a phone varies. Thus, it is difficult to find those numbers.

vi. Danny: Do you question the validity of data from a cellphone company?1. PJ: If it did a study with citations, I would say it is valid. It might

be basis.2. Lincoln: point of information: those companies you cited

information from benefit from higher sales, thus there is inherent basis.

vii. Parker: If students have their chargers, why would this be necessary?1. PJ: Students may not always have their chargers on them.

viii. Danny: I would vote no on this. We are all adults and can be responsible. The facts are bogus.

ix. Lincoln: Is there any internal data to prove that students want this?

1. PJ: Everyone I brought this up to was in favor of, about high 20s.x. Ryan: as someone currently charging my phone, this is a nice quality

thing, but everyone would also like a personal hot tub. Student money should not be used on this.

xi. Bryce: Call to question.1. Fails 20 to 13.

xii. Sarah: the reason why there is a charging station in the commuter lounge is because students might forget their charger. Students who live here on campus have more common sense to bring a charger with them.

xiii. Lincoln: I like this idea. I was harsh on that data, but I guarantee the data is close to accurate. I would vote no based on the costs. We have holes in the walls, stairs caving in… charging stations just do not seem like a priority.

xiv. Lauren: personal responsibility is free, which is cheaper than $20,000.xv. Christian: I would be concerned about increasing the student technology

fee, considering that there are plenty of free alternatives. xvi. Alex Hawk: I like the concept. However, it is expensive. A better solution

would be to have more outlets, which would be much cheaper.xvii. Jake: I reject the notion that we should not be promoting quality of life

things like this. That being said, I would still support a cheaper solution. xviii. Danny: have you brought this up to UNH Facilities?

1. Camden: No, I have not.xix. Zach: as campus structure chair, I would have loved to see this come

through my council. Resolutions can get more data that way. Don’t vote this down, but instead table it so that the respective parties can help.

xx. Zach: motion to postpone the resolution to Nov. 20, with the understanding that the authors will conduct a better survey of students and have better data.

1. Ryan: when this is brought up to students, I want costs to be brought up.

2. Zach: is this motion acceptable and do you feel like you can accomplish this?

a. Camden: Yes, of course.3. Danny: I do not like this resolution because of the lack of clear

data. You can curve costs through personal responsibility.4. Alex Hawk: the authors should consider other options, especially

those that are cheaper.5. Zach: outright failing a resolution means you cannot bring it up

again, so please do not fail this resolution or the tabling motion.6. Motion passes 24-9.

xxi. Resolution tabled to November 20.r. XXXVIII–R10-Winter Parking Ban

i. Zach: I am sure many of you will have a vehicle. The parking ban is a thorn in my side, as well as to many others. I went to transportation committee and was able to iron out this agreement. You can park your vehicle all night long now, but not during a snow emergency.

ii. Jon: I would be hard press to find someone against this ban. This negotiation really put the ball in the student’s court. If we can show that students can move their cars, we might be able to keep this structure for future years. We negotiated the 2:15am lot thing due to the library staying open until 2am. It will give students enough time to go to their cars.

iii. Ian: how does this effect students that have mopeds?1. Zach: I am waiting on that. Mopeds should be fine until Jan 1st. I

am trying to get clarification on that, but it is taking longer than usual.

iv. Danny: do we have the infrastructure to do properly get the word out?v. Zach: We have e-mail, social media, and a STUDENT SENATE that can

TALK TO THERE CONSTITUENTS. . . so yes.vi. Jon: This is a student commitment. Two cars left in a lot can really

frustrate facilities and effect whether the ban is reinstituted.vii. Lauren: Colby Sawyer had a system where you would get a notification

and have to move your vehicle. It was a long process to move to a different lot every day.

viii. Jon: It does take time to move from lot to lot, but under this new system we would only have to do that during a major snow storm.

ix. Lincoln: If students do leave their cars, wouldn’t they just be towed?1. Jon: yes, but if there is a limited amount of time before the storm

hits, it will become a problem.x. PJ: is there going to be a notice before the ban takes place?

1. Jon: We are hoping for a 24 to 48-hour notice. It would not be within an hour. They are conscious of the weather reports.

xi. Tyler: I was also at the meeting. If we fail to meet their guidelines they will reimplement the parking ban.

xii. Jake: This is a great resolution that students can get behind. The administration is even willing to work with us. The ball is in our court. If anyone screws up, all of this may be for nothing. Please pass this and then follow through with it.

xiii. Danny: as a commuter student, this is necessary and logical. We have the technological resources to get this done. All we need it your support.

xiv. Lincoln: this is excellent work.xv. Passed unanimously.

5. OTHER BUSINESS s. Introduction of SAFC Budget

i. Aaron: these budgets were approved by SAFC, with a SAF of $91. Please look them over. The Business Managers will be joining us next week to talk about their budgets. Please bring this up to your constituents. If you have questions in the meantime, I will gladly answer them.

ii. Jon: how many hours were put into this process?1. Aaron: Considering all the time that the BM’s took to create the

budgets, and nearly three long meetings discussing the budgets in SAFC, I would say a lot of time went into this. At least 30 minutes

of your time bringing this up to your constituents would be appropriate.

iii. Danny: Jake and I are responsible for a half of the SAFOs, so if you have specific questions you can talk to one of us.

iv. Christian: if you have any questions at all, definitely reach out to me as well.

t. Acknowledgmentsi. Jon: I want to give a big thank you to Shannon, Speaker Alex, and Jesse

for working very hard tonight.ii. Carley: Will Jesse have access to the recordings?

1. Speaker Alex: Jesse will have the recordings to supplement the Minutes. This was discussed by the officers, on the understanding that the Student Senate has prompted the Historian position to fail. The recordings should help.

6. ADJOURNMENT 11:37pm

Student Senate Bill XXXVIII – 2.01 Removal of SenatorsIntroduced by: Executive Officer Alex WorkDate: November 6th, 2016

Be it enacted by the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire to remove the following individuals as Student Senators for the remainder of session XXXVIII:

Senate Action:Speaker Verification:

Student Senate Bill XXXVIII – 3.01 Approval of SenatorsIntroduced by: Executive Officer Alex WorkDate: November 6th, 2016

Be it enacted by the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire to approve the following individuals as Student Senators for the remainder of session XXXVIII:

Senate Action:Speaker Verification:

Student Senate Bill XXXVIII – 4 Approval of Judiciary Members

Introduced by: Parliamentarian Shannon O'HaraDate: November 6th, 2016

Be it enacted by the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire to approve the following individuals as Judiciary members for the remainder of session XXXVIII:

Senate Action:Speaker Verification:

Student Senate Bill XXXVIII – 4 Approval of Public Relations CommitteeIntroduced by: Director of Public Relations, P.J ButlerDate: November 6th, 2016

Be it enacted by the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire to approve the following individuals for the following positions of the Public Relations Committee for the remainder of session XXXVIII:

Senate Action:Speaker Verification:

Student Senate Bill XXXVIII – 5 Legal ServicesIntroduced by: Judicial Affairs Chair, Brennan Pouliot, Student Body President, Jon Dean, Student Body Vice President, Carley RotenbergDate: November 6th, 2016

Whereas, the costs, legitimacy, and need for Student Legal Services is annually reviewed by the Student Activity Fee Committee Chair, the Student Senate Business Manager, the Financial Consultant to the Student Activity Fee Organization, the Assistant Vice President of Student and

Academic Services, the Student Body President, the Student Body Vice President, and the Judicial Affairs Chair with their council, and

Whereas, there has been annual polling of the opinion of the student body regarding Student Legal Services, and

Whereas, this polling has shown frustration amongst students who feel that they are subsidizing other students' legal costs, and

Whereas, under the current model, students can only use the Student Legal Services attorney in cases below a Class B Misdemeanor, per University System of New Hampshire regulations, and

Whereas, approximately 5-10% of students use Student Legal Services in their four years at the University of New Hampshire (UNH), and

Whereas, Student Legal Services currently costs approximately $88,000, including the cost for the attorney and the square foot assessment, and

Whereas, under the current model, the costs to operate Student Legal Services increase annually, and

Whereas, a prudent solution to concerns regarding Student Legal Services is required to make the best use of the Student Activity Fee, therefore

Be it resolved by the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire to discontinue the Student Legal Services Program, and

Be it further resolved that the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire work with UNH Police Department, Durham Police Department, the Dean’s Office, and all other applicable and necessary departments to ensure that students receive the appropriate forms and information that will be developed by the Student Senate in conjunction with other departments.

Senate Action:Speaker Verification:

Student Senate Bill XXXVIII – 6 Legal Services 2Introduced by: Judicial Affairs Chair, Brennan Pouliot, Student Body President, Jon Dean, Student Body Vice President, Carley RotenbergDate: November 6th, 2016

Whereas, the costs, legitimacy, and need for Student Legal Services is annually reviewed by the Student Activity Fee Committee Chair, the Student Senate Business Manager, the Financial Consultant to the Student Activity Fee Organization, the Assistant Vice President of Student and Academic Services, the Student Body President, the Student Body Vice President, and the Judicial Affairs Chair with their council, and

Whereas, there has been annual polling of the opinion of the student body regarding Student Legal Services, and

Whereas, this polling has shown frustration amongst students who feel that they are subsidizing other students' legal costs, and

Whereas, under the current model, students can only use the Student Legal Services attorney in cases below a Class B Misdemeanor, per University System of New Hampshire regulations, and

Whereas, approximately 5-10% of students use Student Legal Services in their four years at the University of New Hampshire (UNH), and

Whereas, Student Legal Services currently costs approximately $88,000, including the cost for the attorney and the square foot assessment, and

Whereas, under the current model, the costs to operate Student Legal Services increase annually, and

Whereas, a prudent solution to concerns regarding Student Legal Services is required to make the best use of the Student Activity Fee, therefore

Be it resolved by the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire to redesign Student Legal Services to be an educational service, where the newly designed position (Student Legal Services Advisor) will be a part-time, non-benefited employee of the University of New Hampshire.

Senate Action:Speaker Verification:

Student Senate XXXVIII – R8- Concerning the Implementation of a Social Identities Discovery RequirementIntroduced by: Non-Resident Senator 7, Doug MarinoDate: November 6, 2016

Whereas, the University of New Hampshire (UNH) is “committed to supporting and sustaining an educational community that is inclusive, diverse, and equitable1,” and

Whereas, UNH has an anti-discrimination policy which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression2, and

Whereas, during Session XXXVI, the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire passed a resolution supporting UNH’s recently implemented preferred name policy, and

Whereas, during Session XXXVII, the Student Senate passed a resolution supporting the conversion of all single user restrooms on campus to gender inclusive restrooms, and

Whereas, during Session XXXVII, the Student Senate passed a resolution supporting greater access to education at UNH for people with disabilities, and

Whereas during Session XXXVIII, the Student Senate passed a resolution supporting statewide anti-discrimination protections on the basis of gender identity and gender expression in the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations, and

Whereas, UNH has resources on campus to support students, faculty, and staff in minority communities, and

Whereas, some of these resources include the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs (OMSA); the Diversity Support Coalition (DSC); the Office of Community, Equity, and Diversity, and

Whereas, there are many courses at UNH designed to educate students on different social identities, and

Whereas, these programs provide many educational opportunities for community members who wish to be allies to students, faculty, and staff in minority communities, and

Whereas, many students do not utilize these resources, and

Whereas, students who receive education on different social identities are more likely to become allies to students, faculty, and staff in minority communities, therefore,

Be it resolved by the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire to urge UNH Administration to form a committee to study the implementation of a new Discovery Program requirement surrounding the subject of social identities and social justice, and

Be it further resolved that this committee will include but will not be limited to representatives from OMSA; the DSC; the Office of Community, Equity, and Diversity; Student Senate; and Faculty Senate, and

Be it further resolved that this committee will present a comprehensive plan to implement this requirement by the end of the 2017-2018 academic year.

1 UNH Office of Community, Equity, and Diversity Mission Statement

2 University of New Hampshire Non-Discrimination Policy

Senate Action:Speaker Verification:

Student Senate XXXVIII – R9- Charging Stations Around Campus RequirementIntroduced by: Director of Public Relations, P.J Butler, Handler 1 Senator, Camden TatsapaughDate: November 6, 2016

Whereas, a survey conducted by Pearson Education in 2015 (1) showed 85% of college students own a smartphone, and

Whereas, the same survey showed 52% of college students own a tablet, and

Whereas, the same survey showed 79% of college students feel tablets help make learning more fun, and

Whereas, the same survey showed 68% of college students feel tablets help students learn better, and

Whereas, the same survey showed 86% of college students feel they need internet access at school, and

Whereas, the same survey showed 94% of college students feel they need internet access at home, and

Whereas, “home” for many undergraduate students that attend the University of New Hampshire is the University of New Hampshire Durham-Main campus, and

Whereas, according to McGraw-Hill Education and Hanover Research (2), 81% of college students use a mobile device to study, and

Whereas, a study done by LG (3) found that 90% of cell phone users experience a state of panic or anxiety when their mobile device battery percentage gets low, and

Whereas, a 2014 survey by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) (4) of students entering college found that 67% had a fear of their technology not working, therefore

Be it resolved by the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire to urge the University of New Hampshire to install more charging stations around campus, specifically in seating areas inside academic buildings, seating areas inside dining halls, and designated seating areas around the Memorial Union Building.

1-http://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/2015-Pearson-Student-Mobile-Device-Survey-College.pdf

2-http://www.mheducation.com/news-media/press-releases/report-new-mcgraw-hill-education-research-finds-more-80-percent-students-use-mobile.html

3-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3607598/Do-low-battery-anxiety-90-panic-losing-power-phones.html

4-http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/laptops-move-2014jul10.aspx

Senate Action:Speaker Verification:

Student Senate XXXVIII – R10- Winter Parking Ban

Introduced by: Campus Structure Council Chair Zachary S. Dumont, Student Body President Jon Dean, and Student Body Vice President Carley RotenbergDate: November 6, 2016

Whereas, the University of New Hampshire’s Facilities Department, in conjunction with University Transportation Services, has a long standing Winter Parking Ban in place, with the goal of keeping clear all University parking lots for the purpose of snow removal, and

Whereas, the Winter Parking Ban is implemented from the 1st of December of the Fall semester to the 1st of April of the Spring semester, and

Whereas, the Winter Parking Ban takes effect from 12:00 am to 6:00 am each morning, requiring all vehicles to be moved before 12:00 am, and

Whereas, a number of University services are still in operation well past 12:00 am, including Dimond Library, which is open until 2:00 am, as well as Wildcatessen and Philbrook Café, both of which are open until 1:00 am, and

Whereas, the student body of the University of New Hampshire actively uses those late night services, and

Whereas, the University of New Hampshire Transportation Policy Committee has agreed to the need for alleviating the permeant Winter Parking Ban as it currently stands in recognition of student body disapproval (1), and

Whereas, technology and other resources currently exist on campus to ensure that, if the Winter Parking Ban were to be reduced or not implemented altogether, the student body would be able to be made aware of the need to relocate their vehicles so that the Facilities Department can clear the parking lots (2), in the event of snow emergencies, therefore

Be it resolved by the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire to adopt the following agreement derived from cooperation between the Transportation Policy Committee, University Transportation Services, and the Facilities Department:

For the 2016 - 2017 academic year, there shall be no Winter Parking Ban during the Fall Semester. In the event of a snow emergency, during the fall semester, the University shall implement a temporary ban to ensure the removal of snow from their parking lots for the next day, utilising all available notification systems. During said snow emergency, all parking lots will close as normal, with exception to exempt parking lots and Mill Road Visitor Lot (formerly C lot), Edgewood Road Visitor Lot (formerly H lot), and the Thompson Hall Lot. These three lots will remain open until 2:15 am, so that students utilizing campus services will have a 15-minute window from the time of service closure (2:00 am), to access and move their respective vehicles,

and

Be it further resolved, that the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire commits to utilising its available resources to assist in the notification of temporary closures in order to aid the Facilities Department and University Transportation Services, and

Be it further resolved, that in the event that this agreement proves fruitful for the coming winter, which will serve as a test for full Winter Ban removal, the Student Senate of the University of New Hampshire will support the re-issuing of this policy for the 2017 – 2018 academic year, as a permanent solution to remove the Winter Parking Ban altogether.

Senate Action:Speaker Verification: