New food vendor approved; Panera catered

The E-Board meeting on April 24, started out closed so that the Board could discuss the future of Union dining and the Union facilities assistant position. The meeting then opened again to discuss the affiliation of the Christian Students on campus, the reallocation of funds for multicultural events at the Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center, and an amendment to the report on National Affiliations the Board made earlier in the semester. The meeting was catered by Panera Bread.

Five motions were passed during the closed portion of the meeting. The first was to “approve [redacted] as the food vendor for the McNeil Room and approve renovations funded by [redacted] and Hospitality Services during the summer of 2018.” The second was to approve reallocating Thunder Mountain Curry to replace Subconnection, and the third was to approve transitioning Mega Burger to an undisclosed vendor. The fourth was to approve renovations to Father’s. The motion to “approve the recommendation of candidates in order of the preference presented to the Executive Board on April 24 for the Facilities Assistant by the interview committee, pending approval of Human Resources,” was the final motion passed by the Board before the meeting reopened again.

When the meeting opened up again, the Resident Student Association came before the Board to straighten out their status in the Union. They said that they were unsure whether they are a recognized club or an affiliated club. They were informed that they were at that time listed as recognized, and they replied that they are then looking to become affiliated.

With no further questions, a motion to reclassify the Resident Student Association from a recognized club to an affiliated club passed 14-0-0.

Next to come before the Board was the Christian Students on Campus who were seeking Union affiliation. They explained that their goal is for Rensselaer students to experience the truths in the Bible and apply them to their daily life, as well as to care for those who have just moved here or are from abroad. One major point of discussion that came up in questions from the Board was the differences between them and the many other religious clubs on campus. They explained that they weren’t a national organization like, for example, Cru, and that they are non-hierarchical and treat meetings not like a lecture, but as an opportunity for all members to share with one another.

After the members of the Christian Students on Campus stepped out, discussion continued to revolve around the question of what makes the club unique, and the eventual consensus was that religion is so broad that there is room for another group to have a different voice amongst the others.

The motion to affiliate the Christian Students on Campus passed 10-0-3.

Club/ICA Representative Ida Etemada ’19 presented her proposal to set aside $6,000 to fund a total of four multicultural club programs at EMPAC over the course of two semesters. In response to questioning from the Board, it was explained that there would be flexibility in the distribution of the funds over the two semesters, and that each program would still have to be approved by the Board.

The motion to allocate the money from club returns, to Performing Arts FY19 for “student performance expenses in EMPAC for multicultural organizations, pending available club returns” passed 12-0-1.

The final item on the E-Board’s agenda dealt with a motion the Board had approved in their meeting on March 29, to approve a risk rating for clubs regarding their inclusivity. More information on the motion, the ratings, and the discussion around its approval can be found at poly.rpi.edu/s/clubin.

One of the clubs that was classified as a medium risk by the ad hoc committee raised several concerns about their rating. They said that the problems the committee cited for the rating were issues with the national organization, and that they had moved away from it for those reasons.

The original motion was to retract and rescind approval for the entire report. However, several members of the Board voiced issues with that, saying that a lot of time and work went into the report, and that an issue with one club shouldn’t negate the rest of it. As a result, the original motion failed 1-10-2.

Another motion was made to amend the report to add an additional line stating that, after further investigation, the club is now assigned a low-risk status, which passed 8-1-4.