Embedded Files
Post date: Jan 16, 2018 10:50:42 PM
Agenda 01.17.18.
Approval of Minutes
Reports
Notes and New Business
Council Minutes 01.03.18
“Don’t be intimidated by what you don’t know. That can be your greatest strength and ensure you do things differently from everyone else.” -Sara Blakely
1. Approval of Minutes
2. Reports
A-Mod: Trying to get Friday activity period date for Cell-phone motion veto discussion.
Treasurer: Council fund = $7096.28. Co-curricular fund = $4700. Bringing allocation today that will come from Council fund.
Secretary: No alternates can vote.
Admin: Got approval for time period of MLK day from Mr. Campbell. Confirming speakers.
OEC: Bringing motion today.
SAC: Over break talked about whether or not Winter Carnival will be an all day event and about community service. Yesterday decided to strike whole day idea. Schedule will be similar to last year Winter Carnival schedule. Will try again next year.
3. Student Life Visit Travel Money Allocation
I move allocate $210.38 to Hal Bourne and Matt Prince from the Council fund.
Student life went on a trip that Council condones. Wording passed by Council that Student Life should go on two trips each school year. Money spent on gas and renting transportation.
I move to add under Article VII: Committees, point E. Organizational Engineering Committee (OEC), subsection 2 (specific duties)
i. To facilitate the process of moving Council members to Common Grounds without Council members, following the guidelines passed by Council. This process will take place after the election of new Council in the spring semester.
Guidelines planned to pass in future. Process considering is at the end of the school year, OEC will look at Common Grounds. Will make sure incoming 8th graders will be placed in Common Grounds without Council members, and move other Council members on a volunteer basis so no students are forced to move Common Grounds.
Wish to see guidelines before voting on motion.
I move to table this motion until OEC brings guidelines on the moving of Council members to Council.
Motion Passes (OEC Bylaw Revision Motion tabled)
I move to amend the “Enforcement” section to add after “a staff member” to read “tell the student, ‘I feel that your attire is prohibited by our dress code’ and” and strike the phrase under “Students Cannot Wear” “on any protected class.”
Protected class doesn’t mean anything personally. Adding language that staff can use toward students can reduce uncomfortable level in conversation. Language is example and does not have to be used by teacher necessarily.
Protected class refers to legal wording on harassment. Protected class wording refers to of groups that may face additional challenges. Hesitate to remove “on any protected class” without understanding the real meaning.
Big part is awkwardness of conversation. Blanket statement is helpful.
See no reason to include wording “protected class.” Have clear language in motion stating that students cannot be discriminated against for any reason. Seems redundant to have “protected class” wording. Implicitly understood that we should not discriminate for any reason.
I move to amend the amendment to unstrike wording “on any protected class.”
Motion Passes
I move to amend the “Enforcement” section to add after “a staff member” to read “tell the student, ‘I feel that your attire is prohibited by our dress code’”
Motion Passes
I move to amend to add “cleavage” in the Policy section after “genitals, buttocks” and strike “Cleavage does not have a coverage requirement.”
Clearly articulated that students are excited to expose more torso. Want to articulate strong discomfort with viewing lower cleavage.
I move to amend the amendment to unstrike “Cleavage does not have a coverage requirement.” and add “Upper” before “Cleavage” so the sentence reads “Upper cleavage does not have a coverage requirement.”
Want to make it clear that there is no grey area to upper cleavage.
Both amendments are problematic because it is difficult to define upper and lower cleavage.
Seems unnecessary to state that a student can show upper cleavage if they choose.
Does not seem like it will be a problem where students will come to school with shirts so short they show off lower cleavage.
Amendment seems discriminatory towards females and different body size. A female with a smaller chest is less likely to be dress coded than one student that has a larger chest size.
Motion Fails
I move to amend to add “cleavage” in the Policy section after “genitals, buttocks” and strike “Cleavage does not have a coverage requirement.”
Again depends on body type like upper cleavage. Feels that it is against spirit of motion.
There is a larger conversation about self-governance that needs to occur with the larger student body instead of legislating it.
If we pass this amendment, need to strike wording in motion that we are not discriminating based on gender.
Motion Fails
I move to strike “Cleavage does not have a coverage requirement.”
Cannot say that there is no cleavage requirement because a student is not allowed to come to school naked. Wording draws attention to fact that student can display cleavage. Striking will make policy more consistent.
If cleavage is just another part of the body, we do not need to explicitly state it.
Wording was put into motion because cleavage was one of the largest issues with dress coded students across the country.
Wording should be kept. In the future of HHS, there may be grey area. This wording will allow for clarification.
Conversations can still happen around lower and upper cleavage, but does not necessarily have to be legislated.
Motion Passes
Blanket statement is useful, but feel that student should receive reason to dress-coding if a student is dress coded. Sending student to office without explanation seems strange, even if it is uncomfortable.
6. Meeting Adjourns
Report abuse