Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 7:30-9:00Hopkins Hall 002

All College Council Meetings are open to the Williams Community. Anyone who wishes to speak before Council should contact Ellie or Olivia (eas6 or cot1).

Called to Order:

Guests/Proxies:MohazzabJoseph MackArringtonMattPeterDominic

Absences: I. Approval of Prior Minutes

Ellie: So we usually start meetings out by approving minutes

Serapia: before we approve minutes... Well, actually...

Kai: Yea there are some guests that have some concerns about the minutes, so if all of you Council members would like to hear them out before we approve the minutes... Maybe we could hear those concerns.

Mohazzab: Well, first of all, I know for a fact that statements I made were attributed to a number of different people and I don't know if I even need to go beyond that to say that the minutes were really inaccurate and poorly taken, to be frank. But also I have a real problem that the reason, the entire reason, we decided to anonymize the minutes to begin with was sort of just diluted into a personal feeling uncomfortable type of discourse when it was really about voter suppression and people getting doxxed, so I am really dissatisfied with that. And beyond that, Ellie the latest email you sent me you

said that the notetaker apparently didn't know that they had to take minutes until they... so they initially didn't take any notes for the first few minutes of the meeting and then at some point they spontaneously decided or had a revelation that they needed to be taking these notes and started doing so... which is why the first bits of the meeting were so badly conveyed? But I'm not sure what happened there because I remembered saying to the minutekeeper that in response to the minutekeeper saying "I'm more than happy to not do any work," me and one other speaker spoke saying, "No, none of us is asking you not to take minutes at all. We are just asking you to anonymize them." So I'm just wondering, if the minutekeeper wasn't able to comprehend that, is there particularly any reason for me to trust the rest of them? So basically, I was hoping I would be done with CC last week, but it turns out I'm not because the minutes are in shambles. That's pretty much it from my end.

Lance: Hi there, I'm the minutekeeper. My name is Lance. Anyways, thank you so much for your thoughtful email. If you'd like to tell me... so, just a procedure from CC, because I want to be done with it too, I understand. If you say that a certain thing was misattributed to the wrong person, I was handling 12 different guests that were sitting in geographically different locations, I had to look down while typing, right? So it is a bit challenging, but for instance, I don't remember which guest number you were and I don't remember which guest number you were. I also don't know which guest number I attributed your guest number to, right? But if you want to send me a quick correction, because clearly you know which ones are misattributed, I can easily change those numbers real quick. That is always how we do it, that is why we approve them in the next week's minutes. As for 'in shambles', I only didn't type down two things: 1) personally identifying information - if someone who said something that was deeply personal, I tried to limit that to preserve anonymity; 2) clearly anti-Semitic things I didn't type down. I want repeat them, but I didn't type those things down. So those are the only two things I didn't type. If that is a mischaracterization that you are uncomfortable with, I don't know what to tell you. Those are the only two things I didn't type. Again, there is an audio recording. I can't actually, accurately 100% transcribe things, though I do try my best. But that is really all I can say. If there are specific edits, I'd love to hear them. I can just edit them real quick, we can vote on it, and we can move on to this training.

Mohazzab: I just want to read out a section of a response to Ellie's email that I sent her...

Lance: Just to say -- I can't speak for Ellie... But I can change the minutes.

Mohazzab: As someone coming from the world of woefully underresourced activism which would have collapsed on its face without minutekeepers that do precisely that

which I am referring to which is concisely summarizing statements while maintaining an accurate representation of the real issues at play. Uh, that world would not have survived. I just have had in my life to rely so much on minutekeepers who handle statements quite accurately while preserving the spirit of the actual issue raised from many more people than this room. So, I understand that this is almost bringing a degree of subjectivity into it, so I don't place the onus on you to respond and refute this claim, but I don't find that burden argument very convincing. I think that perhaps we should have some dedicated software or some kind of paid position or whatever, but that shouldn't be a reason for not being able to take accurate minutes. Beyond that, my issue was not just with misattribution. I don't think that post-publication corrections are really doing anything... like people have already read them, there is stuff on blogs... just because CC hasn't voted to approve them doesn't really do much, that's just a formality. Beyond that, the fact that a doxxing and misrepresentation issue was construed as a personal discomfort issue. The fact that I personally had a statement that was supposed to be about... well, the essence of the statement, I thought and I think people understood it that way because I spoke to people in this room afterwards, was that armed conflict does happen in the world and in the absense of armed conflict, half of the people in this people would still be colonized and in fact the US wouldn't be independent without armed conflict, so we can't just bring up the existence of armed conflict as a way to end the conversation. We have to move beyond that. We have to admit that complexity into the debate and still be able to have those conversations. That instead came across as me saying that both sides are armed, and that isn't going anywhere. Which makes me sound a bit like an idiot, right? I read that and I thought that if that hadn't had my guest name behind it and if I hadn't known that I had been the one making that statement, I would have dismissed it as a really silly point. I think that being able to preserve the spirit of these arguments -- and multiple people have these concerns -- is a really crucial skill when it comes to minutekeeping because otherwise what even is the point? There is no accountability if what people are able to read in your minutes is a really watered down version of events.

Lance: Yeah, I entirely agree. I personally feel that we should have a livestream so that people can watch play by play, every word. To the degree that we did not have that --

Mohazzab: Don't we have a recording?

Lance: We do. And if you email me, I can send it to you. I am bound by the bylaws --

Mohazzab: So why do you want a livestream that has people's faces on it instead of the recording?

Lance: So the thing is, currently, I follow the rules for everyone, right? So I can send it to you, but you have to request it by email. If you think it should be published publically like instead of people having to request the audio --

Mohazzab: But why did you say the livestream as an independent solution as opposed to the audio recording that already exists?

Lance: I think your concern is that it is not publically available?

Mohazzab: That's not my concern.

Lance: Well, it does exist if that is your concern.

Joe: The point that Mohazzab made earlier on is that the damage is already done with these minutes already, right? They are up on blogs. People have seen them. It's going to be used for better or worse as an image of the kind of discourse that went on last week in CC, right? So just me and Mohazzab sitting here and going through the minutes with you and wasting everyone's time, and trying to get all of the corrections down and all of the arguments done right practically could do nothing. What we'd really like is for there to be some disclaimer to be inserted at the beginning of the minutes when we approve them this week saying that there were attribution errors, that they misrepresented people's arguments, and they are not accurate.

Mohazzab: And that the minutekeeper didn't know that he wasn't supposed to be keeping minutes until a few minutes into the conversation, at which point, he made a revision of the arguments.

Lance: Just for clarity, I'm the minutekeeper. So you don't have to keep saying that -- the name's Lance. If you are going to say --

Mohazzab: You can include your name in the statement if you want instead of minutekeeper, that's up to you.

Lance: No, no, I'm just saying you don't have to keep referring to this nebulous minutekeeper, just refer to me. If you are saying that I did not specifically know to take minutes... Yeah, because Kai's first thing he said to me that he didn't think I should take minutes that meeting which is totally fine, and I was under the impression for quite a while that I shouldn't. I quickly realized that I should -- actually, you may have brought that up --

Mohazzab: Both me and Jake brought it up, and we brought it up twice before the meeting and before the meeting and discussion started.

Lance: Right, so it was after a lengthy discussion that I hadn't taken minutes on. After that, I started taking minutes. It seems like a moot consideration. I do have a disclaimer that says that the below information that omits information that could personally identify students.

Joe: Exactly, but that is not our concern. We completely agree with you on the omitting students part. It's the fact that there is stuff in there that... there is attribution errors and that misrepresent people's arguments.

Lance: Would you like to tell me which ones to change, because I can change those.

Joe: Its what we were saying before that the damage is already done and that we would like something to be done retributionally informing the campus community that these minutes were not accurate, that the ones circulating are not accurate.

Lance: How about this, maybe let's fix the errors. I don't want them to just stay there, right? Maybe then we can table it to next meeting, we'll approve it then, and then we can say approved on May 7th.

Mohazzab: I think you are reversing our priorities. I'd rather do what Joe said first and then table the revisions and I'm not going to come for the revisions because I frankly don't care that much.

Joe: I mean really it's not our responsibility to go through all of the arguments we made with you and make sure they are basically represented. We just want to make sure there's at least an acknowledgement that they were bad to begin with, that's really all that we want.

Lance: I personally think that they are fine and that they represent everyone's arguments accurately. I didn't know about this concern until literally right now. I think you emailed me, but it wasn't about actual argument concerns. Again, I'd love to sit down and talk about this because if its a more structural issue, I'd love to improve my minutetaking. I don't think I'm comfortable just writing willy-nilly into the minutes right now, but again, we can table this until next week and talk about it.

Joe: I mean the armed conflict thing is a pretty good example because... not to flatter Mohazzab, but he's a decently coherent speaker... he doesn't just walk into a room and

say random things, but that is what he was represented as saying essentially. I thought there was a pretty clear dialogic line he was saying, none of which was represented.

Lance: Let me just read back the minutes, tell me what you'd like me to change so I can make sure... Just to be clear, do you know which guest you were? Were you guest 3?

Mohazzab: Statements that I made were attributed to a number of different guests so I have no clue.

Lance: Neither do I, but we'll assume this is it. Again, its anonymous. I didn't even know your name until right now... I'm really bad with names. Let's say you were guest 3, I guess, I have no idea... So lets see, guest 3 said: "Just a note on conflict. Armed conflict in the real world is very often the root of the solution for political issues… Talking about how each side is armed and how each side conducts its military conflicts… this isn’t going anywhere. Why don’t we return to the question about why WIFI needs to exist when we have clubs like Jewish voices for peace. What else is WIFI doing if not taking a step that is pro-Israel?" So to the extent that that was your argument, what did I miss? What can I add?

Joe: Well there's a very different part that I remember him saying. Part of his point was the demonization of armed conflict doesn't make a ton of sense when you consider that most of the people in the room, had armed conflict not been a thing, would have been living under some kind of colonialism. That seemed to be his point.

Mohazzab: It was that, and beyond that, at that point in time the discussion had become each side describing the nature of the violence committed by the other side. I didn't think that descriptive activity was going anywhere because descriptive activities are purely rhetorical and don't go anywhere, right?

Lance: I tend to agree, yeah.

Mohazzab: I wanted to move to real issues and the questions about what positions WIFI was going to be taking in the conflict and that doesn't convey that at all. It just seems like a random point about "oh, this isn't going anywhere... armed conflict".

Lance: I think, my understanding if I was to read these minutes, I think it's saying "armed conflict happens, that's not going anywhere... both sides are armed. Let's return to the question about why does WIFI need to exist on campus." I think that's what your argument is... I guess I fundamentally don't understand where we are different.

Mohazzab: I'm not sure what you've written conveys that very accurately.

Jesse: Let me just jump in really quickly. My concern that I had with these minutes is that, in the Open Time section, it says, "I was instructed by the Presidents of College Council along with other members of the executive broad to keep these minutes as general and broad as possible"... how come the rest of Council never heard about that? We decided in Council to anonymize the minutes, but I don't think I ever heard anything about making them as broad as possible.

Lance: Yeah, I was definitely instructed to make sure information was not identifiable. For instance, if I did not include your name, but then I described your entire life story... I think that it's fair to say that I should generalize.

Jesse: I understand that you need to generalize in terms of people's life stories, but I can point towards something specifically that I said that left out literally half of what I said...

Lance: May I know which...?

Jesse: Let me bring it up... My point is, the concern with these minutes is that they are very broad. The exclude a lot of information that was said that is not necessarily personal that if someone was not in this space, they were not going to know what was said. They won't know the context. They don't know what happened in the meeting. This quote that says, "there is nothing in the bylaws that says we have to vote on something just because it is okay with the bylaws". I believe that refers to when I asked a question, "Is there anything in the bylaws that says we have to vote for this, even if its not against any of the bylaws," and then I went on to say, "on good conscience, as elected representatives in College Council we're allowed to make decisions in the best interest of the people we're supposed to be representing." And none of that was mentioned was mentioned. I feel like things like that kind of misconstrue what people say in this room, and people outside of this room will read our statements as very dfiferent.

Lance: I think that is a very good point. I necessarily can't write rhetorical statements... things that are really pretty rhetorically I often have to omit. The gist of what you said is captured in the minutes, you can't deny that. I do agree, it sounded much better when you said it, and it always will. That's why I believe firmly in an audio recording, I believe firmly in a video so that we can see what's going on because ultimately I can only type like 130 words a minute... The fact of the matter is, you talk much faster than that, right? It's not a woe-is-me story, but I have to necessary cut corners and so I prefer to make sure the core of what you're saying is represented. And I think Mohazzab, my

understanding is that I did represent the core of your statement, but –– and you can shake your head no –– you're an amazing speaker but I can't get that rhetorical edge on it.

Mohazzab: Lance, it’s not rhetorical its just I was making a logical refutation to a certain argument to that certain type of discourse -- a discourse that used rhetorical descriptions.

Lance: Can you tell me what warrant or what claim did I miss in your statement, and let me add it real quick?

Mohazzab: Okay, I'm not telling you this for the sake of you making the correction because I think that will put the issue to rest --

Lance: Okay, I won't make a correction if you don't me to. At that point, its a moot point. Either tell me what corrections to make so we can vote on the minutes, or let's vote on the minutes because there are no corrections to make. I don't know to tell you.

Mohazzab: You just asked me if you thought your statement had represented me, and now your telling me --

Ellie: We're going to go to speaking order now because we have a lot of guests here and we want to be mindful of everyone's time and we do need to get to anti-bias training tonight, so if we could please return to speaking order that includes guests, so if you have anything to say raise your hand.

Solly: In the interest of everyone's time, we have some guests, and I believe that this conversation is a conversation that should be held outside of this because we are just wasting more time.

Motion to Approve Last Week's Minutes: SollyMax: Objection. I think we should hear the guests out.

Mack: Thank you for having me. I know you guys have a long meeting tonight, so I'll try to do it quick. I'm here also surprised about last week, but I'm not going to comment on the actual content of what was discussed. What is concerning to me is that, as far as I can tell, the bylaws were fulfilled in the club but it still wasn't approved which means that it was a special case of some kind or that you guys should change your bylaws to reflect what you guys are doing as a student body. The bylaws should reflect what you do. The first suggestion is that you guys should release a statement that says exactly

what you mean, and that would I think it maybe being misrepresented in the minutes. I know y'all did a closed vote so maybe you guys should have a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion and that way both sides would be represented and the student body would understand what went behind this decision and why this was a special case. That's the first suggestion, the second one is to change the bylaws to reflect what you guys actually think. That's for the sake of WIFI, but that's also the sake for future clubs that are going to try, you know they put a lot of time in putting these together and they want to know what goes into a group and all.

Mohazzab: As someone with a wider political stake in the free speech discourse on this campus and this conversation on campus and generally as someone who exists in conversation with political discourse on campus, right? I think it is a big issue when the reason to anonymize something like minutes which is an issue on campus right now, an issue that has become conflated with conspiracy and free speech, I think it is a big problem when the decision to anonymize is represented as a bunch of students feeling uncomfortable with voicing their opinions while being held accountable-- while having those opinions associated with their faces and names. Instead of the actual discussion that happened that was about doxxing and voter suppresion because then it takes away my ability to make the argument to anyone who makes this about transparency and free speech to say that hold on the right to the transparency democratic process is a right that is derived from democratic processes functioning in the first place which cannot happen when websites are carrying out voter supression. Given that it was about people that we spent a certain amount of time about how people are feeling unsafe, that this is voter suppression that is actually affecting people psychiatrically. That was completely misrepresented, it wasn't simply omission. The discourse wasn't about personal discomfort. I don't know who said those things, and I don't know how they go into the minutes unless there was some degree of individual interpretation of the conversation that was happening that was filtering into the minutes which is okay, that's fine, human error happens. I think the way to ammend that is a statement or some sort of retroactive action. It can't just be making corrections that no one on campus will read.

Lance: quick question-- should I be taking minutes right now? Do you want your name associated with what you just said? Because again, I want guests to feel safe talking here. Do you want your name associated with what you just said? Do you want to just be 'guest'?

Mohazzab: I personally don't mind, I can't speak for anyone else.

Peter: Recently, in light of a series of controversial sessions of this council, a decision has been made to protect the anonymity of those who come here to say their piece.

This decision was made at a time when we as a community, like many colleges in this country, are grappling with exactly what kinds of speech should be accepted and protected under the principles of the First Amendment. Now on this larger issue, it is clear that there is a great deal of nuance to the arguments of both positions. When the Chicago Principles state that an acceptable restriction on free expression might include the prohibition of speech that “constitutes a genuine threat or harassment,” how is such a threat to be defined? Language is, beyond all else, the most powerful tool at our disposal. It is the most fundamental mechanism by which our societies function and flourish, while simultaneously serving as an instrument of insurrection. So how can it be said that language itself, when used systematically in an attempt to undermine or delegitimize, is not a genuine threat? But it is with this very same power that such threats can best be opposed. True change, fundamental change, is possible only through persuasion; persuasion is possible only through language. The alternative resolution of conflict necessitates the imposition of one party and thus the subjugation of the “other”. For any issue to be truly resolved, in order to eliminate that state of “otherness” and alienation, paradigms must be shifted. This is achieved through conversation, debate, education on both sides so that the conclusion reached is the synthesis of enlightenment on both sides. This is why free speech is so, so crucial. It must be protected. Now, the decision of College Council to post anonymous minutes could be construed as an attempt to protect freedom of expression. Of course, people will be more comfortable sharing their platforms if they do so while sheltered from the public eye. However, college council is an elected body, accountable to its electorate. CC precedings should be transparent; therefore this precedent of anonymity is not only damaging to the legitimacy of this council, also dangerous. Language is a means of communication; it allows for the exchanging of ideas between wholly distinct individuals, each of whom is the product of an amalgamation of factors: family, nationality, faith, ethnicity and so many more. And it is these differences that free speech serves to express, especially in a setting such as an elected student council, so as to build a platform upon which empathy can arise. But when there is no face behind the words, no voice to anchor them, then they risk revitalizing alienations and furthering the tensions that they might otherwise serve to alleviate. Anonymity allows conversation to be misconstrued as nothing but blind condemnation of opposition, and it runs counter to the principle of accountability that is foundational to any elected body. Now I know that this has gotten quite verbose, so while there are several other issues that I hope to raise with College Council at a later date, I’ll leave you with this. It is an insult to the countless people around the world who have, and continue to, literally risk their lives in order to speak out against injustice, and fight for the freedoms which we are apparently all too willing to throw away. On this basis, I ask that you end the anonymization of CC minutes. Thank you.

Serapia: That was a succint summarization of so-called 'neutral enlightenment values' that quite frankly don't capture the gravity of the discussion that was held last week. I think that free speech in a vacuum, it is easy to argue for an ideal that exists in a vacuum like free speech, liberty, freedom, they sound so good! No one wants to deny that we are for liberty, freedom, but the thing is that when there are specific applications of those conditions and in particular last week when concerns about student safety and particular targetting by right-wing media that name students, that puts videos of our recorded minutes, livestreams online and they are being targetted by right-wing media for comments and basically derailment on these platforms... There is a real concern and compromise of safety and future career prospects and what-not. And in light of that, its important to avoid the chilling effect of speech that arrives from the potential for personal atttacks and backlash that people do experience. It is important to acknowledge that that happens. You may have never experienced it because of certain privileges you have and what not, because quite frankly radical progressives are targetted way more than conservative students as a general example. So I think it is important for the special case of last week's meeting to be announced as 100% to avoid any discussion about there being a threat against free speech.

Jesse: So I appreciate your statement, one thing I would like to say, you closed off by saying that all future CC meetings should not be anonymized. If this was included in our minutes from last week, you would have known that this decision to anonymize minutes was solely for that meeting because it was such a contentious issue, because there were so many nuanced factors that needed to be taken into account for that discussion, because there were safety concerns for those students -- not just feeling uncomfortable -- literal safety concerns because of names showing up on right-wing news platforms. There are many students who have been named on this campus already. We didn't want people to be singled out and targetted like students have been over the past couple of months. Again, the decision we made to anonymize minutes was for that specific issue and that specific meeting, so I don't know if that was said in the notes from last week, but that is what we decided on.

Joe: When I'm speaking Mohazzab, feel free to cut in whenever because this probably concerns you more directly. One of the concerns we raised about anonymized meetings was literally people's safety. There are a lot of international students on campus and there were a lot of people in the room that were international students, right? People could literally face reprisals against their family or them personally in some of their home countries if their name was associated with this and then released on a right-wing news outlet. So if its literally a decision between people potentially being killed and anonymizing College Council minutes, I'd pick anonymizing College Council minutes

every time. I mean I love everyone in this room, but I don't think you're that important. I'd rather see people's families go on living.

Kai: Peter I think that was a wonderful speech, and that is why I think it is so important that we address the fact that the reasoning for the minutes was so underrepresented in the last minutes. And Lance, I appreciated the fact that today you changed it and updated it a little bit, but I would like to see some more substantive addressing of that because I think there are lots of people who are very concerned about the transparency of College Council and I think that as a member of the community you have a right to be concerned about this body because this is the body that governs, right? You have every right to have those concerns about freedom of speech and about transparency, and so does everyone. When it comes down to it, there were extremely real safety concerns and concerns of voter suppression. I had several members of Council that I'm not going to name who approached me saying they would not feel comfortable voicing their views because of sites that are particularly concerned with doxxing one side of the debate and not the other, that causes an inequity. There are a lot of real concerns about equity here given the fact that there are sites like Cannary Mission that was not at all mentioned in Lance's first minute notes. That website was mentioned a variety of times specifically because its a giant website that a current student at Williams is on. Someone reported her due to her Jewish Voices for Peace activism. She is now on there. She can no longer enter the country of Israel because of that. When she is looked up by employers there is a website that says she is anti-semetic even though she is Jewish. It is a tricky situation here when one side of the debate is being attacked and surveilled and being nationally seen in this way. I think to provide a fair and equitable debate here, we had to anonymize the minutes, and I wish you had been able to hear that complex discussion we had last week, or at least read about it.

Peter: Thank you all for those responses. I would like to address an implication that was made that I was politically conservative. I am a registered member of the Democratic Party.

Serapia: if that was am implication that you got, I must have misspoke. I was saying in general the targetting of right-wing media and what kind of students are affected on this campus.

Peter: Following that, in regards to all the points you all just made, I do think that absolutely the lives of people who come to this council and want to have their voices heard on issues they find important are of course far more valuable than whatever principles of free speech I might come in here and espouse. I think for an elected member of this council to have their views anonymized, have what they say in here

anonymized, as an elected representative, I think runs counter to the accountability that elected representatives have to their electorate. So I think that guests, especially on topics like last week in which their views that they come here and share put them in very real danger, I think that is entirely justifiable. I think for elected members of this Council to have what they say anonymized is an entirely different discussion.

Lance: Look, I love talking about things that are off topic. I think the debate over free speech is really awesome and I think there are really interesting points on both side but I don't think it is particularly productive to rehash the entire free speech debate in here. Just like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are not going to reach a conclusion in this meeting about which one is right. Look, again, as always -- and I should have been more clear about this -- if you ever have a concern about how I represented you in any of my minutes, reach out. But I cannot know that I misrepresented you unless you tell me. Again, maybe I understand that if you think that I'm biased and you think that I'm doing this on purpose, that's fine. You can think that, that's your right. I really wasn't trying to, and Serapia reached out to me over email and said that she thought I should expand the first part about why we anonymized in the first place. I tended to agree. I didn't type at all for the first conversation at the meeting. I had to go back at the end and type it. And Kai, I agree, I didn't mention the Cannary Mission because I didn't think it was a good idea to give credit to the Cannary Mission. If you want me to give it a lot of name drops, I totally can. The thing is, look, act like I'm biased all you want, I can't change your opinion. I can physically change them before we approve them, but I'm not going to issue an apology and say I'm a bad typer because the fact of the matter is I was trying my absolute best and I'm not going to apologize for that. We have wasted a lot of time on this, I say we just vote on the minutes and see how the votes go. If you don't want to because you really want me to change your argument -- if there is a logical link, if there is a warrant I missed -- tell me, we don't have to vote on it. We can table it to the next meeting. I will type and edit it to your heart's content so long as it is accurately what you said last meeting. But I will not be adding anything that was not said last meeting going forward, so that is where this discussion ends.

Mohazzab: I have a question on Parliamentary procedure... Who do I ask?

Lance: I can answer.

Mohazzab: Are you the one that can make the unilateral decision over that? Does the approval of the minutes and the amendment of the minutes... does the Council not have any voting power over that?

Kai: We vote on them.

Lance: The way that it works is that I am the sole writer of the minutes. The power of the Council is that they can choose to approve or not approve my minutes if they believe that they accurately or did not accurately reflect went on, and that is why it is important we vote on them.

Max: I think if we are going to make a statement like you guys want, we should also make a statement that this is not precedent setting. That we do hold our council members accountable. That we will anonymize guests if there is a concern for your safety. I think for everyone in this room, if you are voting, you need to be willing to be answerable to your electorate. I have no problem if you want you to resign from the meeting, cede your vote, and speak as an anonymous guest... I don't know if anyone else in this room would object to that, but I know that if I had a concern about my safety, that is what I would do. So I think that we need to make a statement correcting the minutes, also saying this is not precedent setting, and showing that we are willing to be accountability.

Motion to table last week’s minutes until next week: MaxSecond: WillThe Ayes have it.

II. Anti-Bias Training ~7:40-9:30

III. Budgets

Jamie: *walks through budgets*Motion to approve in full: TristanSecond: Porter

The Ayes have it Adjourned: 9:40

Respectfully Submitted,

Lance LedetParliamentarian, College Council