Senate Briefs 02.01.13

New York Times: All the News that’s Fit/Cheap to Print

This week the ASPC Senate debated changes to the current New York Times delivery service provided to all Pomona students/mooching tourists. According to new ASPC advisor Piya Bose, the ASPC budgets $10,000 for NYT services annually, broken down into 60 cents for 120 print issues and 120 digital subscription passes per day. Bose posed the question to the Senate of whether they would support upping the amount of digital subscriptions while keeping the number of print issues the same. Senators agreed that they should poll students to find out what they think about the issue. Some even added that the poll should include a question about whether people even know that the ASPC funds the NYT subscription, or really does anything in general.

Safe-Sex Machine

The Senate also brought back the idea mentioned in last week’s meeting of installing a Plan-B vending machine on campus. While Senators seemed generally in favor of the concept, some of the issues brought up included being able to ensure that all purchasers of Plan-B are over 17 (in compliance with California state law), handling potential backlash from parents and the community, and whether or not the Senate should collaborate with the Health Education Office (HEO) to get the project done. On top of all that, Commissioner of Community Relations Darrell Jones III PO ’14 advocated selling “higher types” of contraceptives and other items in the vending machine, prompting Vice President for Campus Activities Joseph Reynolds PO ’15 to win the award for most appropriate use of the phrase “Sex Machine” in a sentence since James Brown coined it after PUB March 4, 1970.

Consider the Dead Horse Beaten

Two weeks ago, the Senate voted like a Palm Beach County resident in 2000 [1] to publish their annual budget online, and two weeks later they finally got around to deciding just what they voted for. Initially, there were two motions on the floor when the vote was called two weeks ago. The first was for limited transparency and an incomplete budget to be published online that would allow students to gain line-item information if they requested it. The second was just to publish everything and let students deal with it as they pleased. While both motions somehow passed [2], the Senate decided to vote this week on whether or not the two motions were contradictory, which, if they were, would mean that the second motion’s passage would nullify the first.

After the Senate finished deciding the subjective nature of objective facts and could definitively say that voting for full transparency was the opposite of voting for not-full transparency [3], First-Year Class President Nico Kass PO ’16 moved to rescind the motion passed two weeks ago, continuing the beautiful democratic tradition of wasting everyone’s time when democracy doesn’t get what you want. However, after a fun [4] debate that lasted the relative equivalent of four Friday morning o-chem classes, Kass’s motion was defeated and the Senate decided to table drafting a cover letter for the budget until next time. My guess is we’ll be able to decide on the salutation by the end of the next meeting.

1. Read: many times.

2. Believe me, I don’t understand the logic/math behind that either.

3. See previous footnote. Add palm to face. Sigh.

4. Read: not fun.

Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply