Yall,
We’ve got some new supplies for the Food Trunk!
These include MealHelpers (you provide the meat, they’ve got everything else covered), rice/pasta mixes, and some choc. chip cookie mixes.
Soon to come: olive oil, more pasta, and more. IF YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION, let Greg D. know and he will get it in the Trunk for you.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Order of Business: Regular Meeting, November 10, 2010 7:30 p.m.
Invocation
Prayer
Approval of Minutes
Reports
Old Business
New Business
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
A regular meeting of the King’s Council was held at 7:32 p.m. on November 3, 2010, in the Founder’s Room at The King’s College, the Student Body President being in the chair and the Director of Communications acting as secretary. The Member from Truth was represented by a proxy, Betsy Brown. The Student Body President shared from Philippians 4 as a devotional. The minutes from the previous meeting were approved as distributed. The Student Body President moved to create a special committee for purpose of planning Vision Week, to be composed of five members and appointed by the chair. The committee shall report on their plans, subject to Council approval, at the next regular meeting. The motion was unanimously adopted without debate. The chair informed the society of her meeting with Advancement about the president’s inauguration, and indicated the Council’s participation was likely to be ushering. The Director of Finance reported on the society’s budget: $83,317.53 was budgeted for the year, $28,032.04 spent, and $55,285.49 remaining. He moved to allocate $150.00 to City Engagement from the Discretionary budget category. Discretionary contains $3,900. Greg Pittman, speaking by unanimous consent, said he would use the $150.00 for a service organizations fair. The motion was unanimously adopted. The Director of Communications reported on plans for a freshman forum. The society agreed a separate meeting about Ludlow was not necessary. She also announced the Council retreat. The Director of Student Organizations reported on the Organizations Council Committee. The org presidents were excited about its potential for solidarity and idea-sharing, apprehensive about meeting inflation and bureaucracy. More discussion would follow. He moved to remove the reporting deadline on the organizations council committee. The motion was carried 9-1, Reagan dissenting. The Director of Student Events reported on Fall Concert: while it was a high-quality event, attendance was frustratingly sparse, resulting in a $700 event deficit. The society agreed that events had been very successful thus far, and that the end of midterms likely tanked concert attendance more than any other factor. In Old Business, Anthony reported on the decorum committee’s meeting. The committee (Annie Clark, Dr. Bleattler, Lauren Christian, Josiah Peterson, Jonathan Irwin, and Alex Nogy) identified breaches of etiquette occurring in classes and visiting speaker events. They defined decorum in terms of humility, respect, honor, grace, and vision, and determined to pursue positive reinforcement rather than pure crackdowns. They also planned to recommend the concept be introduced at New Student Orientation and tied in with the College’s vision and the honor code. Returning to the Student Body President’s report, the chair moved to enter committee of the whole to continue our discussion of vision, which was unanimously approved by a show of hands. She summarized the remaining points of her vision for the year: community being led in an attitude of service, spiritual life being evident as students live out the spiritual disciplines, academics being put to use outside the classroom simultaneously with the traditional education, and communication being constructive. The chair noted she had observed past leaders viewing their positions as opportunities for authority rather than service. The society discussed delegation, overcommitment, accountability, and spoon-feeding constituents. The chair encouraged all to lead with passion. The society exited committee of the whole by unanimous show of hands. There was no new business, and the society adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Order of Business: Regular Meeting, November 3, 2010 7:30 p.m.
Invocation
Prayer
Approval of Minutes
Reports
§ Student Body President
o Vision discussion
§ Director of Finance
o Budget update
§ Director of Communications
o TBA
§ Director of Student Organizations
o Orgs Council report
§ Director of Student Events
o Fall Concert report
o Events feedback time
Old Business
§ Anthony: decorum report
New Business
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Order of Business: Regular Meeting, October 27, 2010 7:30 p.m.
Invocation
Prayer
Approval of Minutes
Reports
§ Student Body President
o Update on Town Hall meeting
o Duanne Moeller: housing update
o Further thoughts on Council vision
§ Director of Finance
o Budget update
§ Director of Communications
o Update on Council lunch with Pres. D’Souza
o Inauguration news
§ Director of Student Organizations
o Orgs Council committee
§ Director of Student Events
o Fall Concert
o First Tuesday
o Jenny & Tyler
Old Business
§ Anthony: decorum committee update
New Business
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
A regular meeting of the King’s Council was held at 7:33 p.m. on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 in the Founder’s Room at The King’s College, the Student Body President being in the chair and the Director of Communications acting as secretary. The chair read Jeremiah 29:11 as a devotional. The minutes were approved as distributed.
The Student Body President reported that President D’Souza was willing to hold a town hall meeting to answer questions about his roles as college administrator and public intellectual, and that questions would most likely be collected from students in advance. Date and time were to be determined. Moving to a discussion on the performance of the Council, she praised the Members for their service to their Houses, and reminded the society that the purpose of debate time is for thoughts and concerns to be aired, in which Robert’s Rules should not intimidate. She noted that the Council was taking on a managerial role, whereas it ought to be a place for leadership, and urged the Members to envision their Council role as a crucial part of their House role, or else bring up for reexamination the place of representation. But above all she desired that the society maintain and inspire enthusiasm, and that it find its direction and pursue it intentionally, thoroughly, and well. She announced her intention to bring a committee-of-the-whole motion at the following meeting for the purpose of discussing this topic more thoroughly.
The Director of Finance reported that the Council had received an additional $5,000.00 from the College, clarifying that it was a routine installment, as the society’s entire budget is not granted at one time. The society had spent $22,789.30, with $60,528.23 remaining.
The Director of Communications reported that President D’Souza was willing to give the society an update over lunch about institutional strategy and development, and ascertained the best day of the week by a brief poll.
The Director of Student Organizations reported that the committee on the organizations council would be meeting that week, with an update to follow.
The Director of Student Events reported a homecoming expenditure of $2,495.85, which was significantly under budget. She announced upcoming events, including Saturday in the City and the October Mid-Month Movie, and Fall Concert, set for October 29th at Calvary Church in Gramercy at 8 p.m., for $7.00 per ticket. Calvary Church parishioners would be invited.
The chair moved to recess for five minutes.
The society recessed at 8:10.
The society reconvened at 8:15.
The chair moved by unanimous consent to allow Sean Horan to speak about sports. Mr. Horan, having run from the subway, updated the society as follows:
In new business, Elizabeth moved to request that the Interregnum Committee not include the Crime & Punishment quiz as part of the Interregnum Competition. Several Houses had not known the quiz was part of the competition, and she explained that she wished not to penalize their ignorance brought on by a communication snafu. In debate, Lewis clarified that competitive quiz grading was an innovation. Ten Boom noted that Student Development had been unaware, but the Director of Communications and the Member from Elizabeth clarified that Interregnum competitions fall under the sole discretion of the planning committee. Truth and Bonhoeffer said Mr. Wesley had informed the Council verbally and by paper handout that the quiz would be graded competitively, in addition to the original summer email. Truth believed requesting that the rankings be thrown out would harm the Council’s credibility. Thatcher’s primary concern was that even though it was exec teams’ responsibility to know and to communicate the details of the quiz, communication had been fuzzy and three tenths of the student body had gone in without knowing it was a competition. She stressed that she meant no criticism toward the Interregnum Committee.
Lewis compared the motion to the Council’s early discussion on the administration of the Great Race, and echoed the concern about the Council’s reputation in getting involved with competitions ex post facto. Thatcher noted that she had to approach Mr. Wesley for clarification about quiz policy, and anyway the results hadn’t been published yet, whereas the Great Race was better understood and the standings were known by the time the Council met to discuss them. Truth suggested that student efforts were more important than rewards distributed for determining the motion’s fairness.
On the specific nature of the breakdown, Bonhoeffer noted that the summer email announced the intention to grade the quiz as a competition, but Mr. Wesley’s presentation to the Council made that determination less certain. Lewis, Elizabeth, Barton, and Reagan were uninformed, but several Houses were never confused because of the initial email. Lewis had felt the confusion but believed the responsibility of communication fell on the Houses to distribute information, especially when it’s been published several times. He believed it would be more unfair to penalize students who did prepare competitively.
Reagan raised a point of information that his House had just been informed of its standing.
Elizabeth, not being aware of any results, asserted an absence of mixed motives about this question. She wanted the Committee to reconsider for the sake of several students who hadn’t known their circumstances, and had no wish to criticize or undermine the Committee’s work. Lewis asked whether such a motion would not also open the door for the Committee to reconsider the validity of the success and efforts of Houses that did well, and whether everyone did not receive the same initial information. Elizabeth granted these facts, but maintained that the knowledge was fuzzy and many students went in without competition motivation. Several questions revealed that Elizabeth’s misunderstanding had occurred within the exec team. Thatcher asked whether the knowledge that standings had gone public (via Reagan’s liaison) affected Elizabeth’s desire to pass the motion, but Elizabeth still considered herself ignorant. (Barton preferred “unbiased.”)
Reagan said if he voted for the motion, he would do so because of the lateness of the reading announcement and the difficulty of completing it in time. Anthony said the motion should have been brought before testing began, and expressed discomfort with taking action after the fact. QE1: what bothers you about timing? Retrospective action on a competition is always sticky. The Director of Student Orgs clarified that the Council had no actual power and could only recommend. Churchill said it wouldn’t be fair to address the Committee if the breakdown had occurred on exec teams. Elizabeth believed responsibility for the breakdown was less important than the fact that a breakdown happened. Barton was inclined to represent her House’s frustration in spite of her personal views on the subject, but agreed that the publication of the standings changed the situation.
Churchill hoped Interregnum had more of a purpose to the students than its point values. He urged the Council to show consideration to the Committee since the quiz policy was new, and not penalize students who worked hard in view of the competition.
Reagan moved to extend the meeting by ten minutes. The motion was adopted 9-1, with Lewis in dissent.
Anthony moved to amend the motion by substitution so that it reads, “I move to request that the Interregnum Committee weight the Crime & Punishment quiz at 5% of the overall Interregnum Competition.” This measure would serve a compromise and penalize no one. Lewis asked whether it would hurt either party of students, competitive or uncompetitive, to diminish the weighting, and was answered in the negative.
Anthony moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. The motion was adopted unanimously.
Thatcher asked if the Council ought to recommend a way to reallocate the extra five percentage points, and Reagan if Anthony was worried about leaving it to the Committee. To both Anthony said no. Thatcher was concerned about changing the relative weights of the Interregnum competitions, but the Director of Communications pointed out that the main motion would alter them by 10%. Thatcher said the 10% alteration was either fair or not, so the main motion’s effect was less bothersome, stating that the proposed amendment was unclear in terms of achieving a level playing field or making a meaningful statement about what was fair. Reagan thought the five percent downgrade was negligible. Churchill pointed out that professors sometimes grade on a curve, and favored the amendment’s strategy of compromise. Lewis repeated that post-competition meddling made for poor credibility, and favored voting the motion down for consistency’s sake.
The motion to amend was tied with Elizabeth, Anthony, Barton, Ten Boom, and Churchill in favor, and Bonhoeffer, Truth, Lewis, Reagan, and Thatcher opposed. The chair voted nay, and the motion to amend failed.
The main motion returned to the table, and Reagan? moved to extend the meeting by ten minutes. The motion failed, over the ayes of Elizabeth, Barton, and Reagan.
Elizabeth asked if Reagan would consider abstaining from the vote since Reagan’s standings were known. Reagan declined to abstain for his House’s sake.
The main motion was defeated 7-2, with QE1 and Barton in dissent.
The society adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
____________________________________________________________________
Order of Business: Regular Meeting, October 20, 2010 7:30 p.m.
Invocation
Prayer
Approval of Minutes
Reports
New Business
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
|
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Nov | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
