home      forum      meeting minutes      lottery      program house guidelines      bylaws      links

 

















Untitled Document

Residential Council Minutes :: 4/15/08

Attendance: Alex Dean, Laura Supkoff, Mark Fuller, Adam Lewin, Scott Middleton, James Reed, Jillian Robinson, Mannan Jalan, Greg Anderson, Megan Petrollia

  1. Lottery Debrief
    1. “Next one hundred numbers” policy may not have been extreme enough, MacMillian 115 not sufficiently large such a number of people
    2. Square foot reference point could be helpful
    3. Second night seemed to operate more smoothly
      1. Separation of upperclassmen and rising sophomores worked well, sophomores tend to be more reverent
    4. Exit and entrance doors were successful
    5. More politeness may have been in order

 

  1. Policy Updates
    1. Natalie to talk about CD changes next week
    2. Jillian’s Project
      1. Working with Natalie to create a website specifically for incoming freshman
      2. Website will include information on residence halls, units, RPLs, room furnishings, room reviews
      3. URL to be sent out via mail to incoming freshmen
  1. Program House Review Update
    1. Review revisions in transition because of lottery
    2. Unlikely that Spring Review will occur this semester, but two-review system is likely to continue
    3. Other issues to be resolved by Fall Review

 

  1. Should ResCouncil serve as a judiciary body for Program Houses?
    1. We would essentially become student mediators for issues of Program Houses
    2. But would this extend to issues that emerge between independents in dorms around campus?
      1. This function could give some legitimacy to the reform beyond “Greek-bashing”
    3. Currently Greek Council often tries to resolve these sorts of issues and Dean Bova often resolves issues behind closed doors
    4. This reform could allow us to make better decisions in the review process
    5. Important to stress that we would NOT be a punitive, that we would provide peer mediation, NOT judgment
    6. Changing the peer standard could drastically change student behavior
    7. Student input could be nice, but important to remember that we would still function in a purely advisory capacity
    8. Program House biases could present themselves
    9. Is there actually any demand for this function?
    10. Should we be available for appeals after talking to the administration or available prior to the administration’s decision