Council Clippings

This edition of Council Clippings covers the UHR and GSS meetings from Feb. 16, 2010.

The Caribbean Student Association (CaribSA) requested funding from SGA to host the second annual Caribbean Expo on March 10.

According to the organization, the event will showcase the culture of the Caribbean Islands through dances, skits and a fashion show. The bill requested funding for decorations and advertisements for the event, totaling approximately $431.48. The bill met with JFC policy and passed UHR 44-0-0 and GSS 21-4-3.

The Student Construction Association (SCA) presented a bill before SGA to cover the costs of attending a national conference and design competition in Washington.

The bill requested funding for travel, registration fees, and lodging, totaling $3464.

The bill was amended to conform to JFC policy regarding non-competitive organizations, bringing the total down to $3224. The bill passed GSS 26-3-1 and UHR 44-0-0.

UHR considered a resolution opposing legislation currently in the Georgia General Assembly to remove the ban on concealed weapons at college and university campuses in the state of Ga.

In recent weeks, the legislation has aroused reactions from a diverse range of groups. Just recently, presidents of the universities and colleges in the state of Ga. voted unanimously 34-0 on a resolution against the legislation. The faculty senate similarly passed a unanimous resolution against the house bill. Furthermore, SGA presidents from universities and colleges in the state of Georgia, also voted to pass a resolution against the house bill with a vote of 32-3.

The debate in UHR began with a report from a representative for the U-council, a body representing the College of Computing. The U-council distributed a survey asking for student opinions on the legislation and presented a detailed list of statistics during open forum. According to their internal survey, a majority of students favored the house bill. UHR representatives considered a motion to postpone a vote on the resolution for one week in order to perform similar research before deciding on the resolution.

Opponents of the motion argued that representatives should always perform background work on the bills before consideration during the meeting, and postponing a bill to perform more research when it was past due was according to one representative, “shameful.”

Proponents contested that while many representatives hadn’t prepared well for the discussion, it would be irresponsible for UHR to vote on the bill without prior research. Other representatives were concerned that voting on this issue would attach a political statement to the Institute as a whole, suppressing the views of students with the minority opinion. A majority of representatives believed that it was appropriate for UHR to vote on this resolution, as it could have a direct impact on student life.

A debate also ensued about the effect of guns on campus, with representatives supporting the resolution stating that guns would escalate violence on campus and others claiming that college students were responsible enough to use weapons only to defend themselves. In the end, representatives resolved to postpone the resolution and reach out to constituents.