MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING OF

THE YALE POLITICAL UNION

18^th OCTOBER 2009

The Executive Board meeting of the Yale Political Union held on Sunday 18^th October 2009 was called to order at 4:10 pm in the YPU Office, with the President, Mr. Alexander Martone, presiding.

PRESENT (absences indicated in italics):

President, Mr. Alexander Martone (Pres)

Vice President, Miss Leah Libresco (VP)

Director of Campus Relations, Miss Camila YaDeau (DCR)

Director of Development, Mr. Fernando Reyes (DD)

Treasurer, Mr. William Shikani (Treas)

Chair of the Liberal Party, Mr. David Broockman (CLP)

Chair of the Party of the Left, Mr. James Cersonsky (CPL)

Chairman of the Progressive Party, Mr. Joshua Esquivel (CPP)

Chairman of the Independent Party, Miss Shaina Wright (CIP)

Chairman of the Conservative Party, Mr. Jeremy Schiffres (CCP)

Chairman of the Tory Party, Mr. Joshua Robbins (CTP)

Chairman of the Party of the Right, Mr. Warren Speth (CPR)

Speaker, Mr. David Porter (Speaker)

Floorleader of the Left, Mr. Bradley Pough (FLL)

Floorleader of the Right, Mr. Gabriel Ellsworth (FLR)

Secretary, Miss Nikki Singh (Sec)

VISITORS:

Mr. David Manners-Weber, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee

Miss Meredith Morrison, the Social Chair

Mr. Jaymin Patel, the Teller

Pres: I call this eboard to order. Hopefully other chairs will arrive. Our VP is in Boston. Now, let us begin with the Vagelos debate.

Speaker: Obviously it did not have the best attendance. Once we were off the docket, there was one person who wanted to speak. I thought the docket speeches were very good. The quality was great. But it was hard to overcome the lack of participation. I feel not too many people cared about the topic.

CCP: I agree with the Speaker. I was disappointed with the doctor's speech. It was a textbook recitation. It was certainly interesting, but it was not debate-worthy.

Pres: Of course I shall talk with the VP about what she spoke with the doctor.

CTP: I think we ran into a problem with the resolution. It was difficult to speak on the neg. I mean most people in the YPU have a conscience (really? how illuminating). I had to finesse my argument into an anarchistic capitalist vein. And that does not make for an exciting debate.

Pres: Do you feel that was the best resolution?

CTP: Though there may have been a knowledge deficit, pharmaceuticals could be more exciting. Plus it could polarize people without getting complexities intricacies of river blindness.

CPR: I noticed that the neg speeches were coming from the left. The right was totally uninterested.

Speaker: I noticed.

CCP: There is a difference between talking about pharmaceuticals and talking about the history of pharmaceuticals.

FLL: I agree completely. But we have had great debates when the guest spoke off topic. I do not believe that is the core of the issue here. To the CPR comment, why does having a guest whose whatever speech shape ... If it is the resolution, it is the resolution, but does the guest determine about which the Right wants to talk?

CPR: The guest sets the stage.

CLP: The reason why I went as far left as I could go was to provide the right fodder. Remember I talked affirmative vs negative responsibility. However, his speech was all about positive responsibility. There just were not enough people, and may be the right was not interested.

CTP: Just to provide further elucidation, every time I glanced in his direction, he was smiling and nodding at me, which should not be happening. (not to imply that we would like a glowering, misanthropic gaze directed at the Union at large.

Pres: For the resolution, I guess we should not constrain ourselves too much based on guest's preferences. So because this has happened repeatedly, we should strive to create debate-worthy resolutions. More comments? No. Well everyone received my email. (The Pres provides a summary of the past few events relating to plans for the 75th. Emails are always good.) But we still have Mr. Soto booked for Tuesday. There was still historical preservation should outweigh Yale's pursuits. Any input? ... I mean yes. We have to approve the resolution. We were okay with this on the doodle, but ... We could change it if necessary.

CPL: Perhaps we could broaden the resolution. Instead of the history of New Haven, it could be ... like the Dixville community.

DD: The speaker is an expert of urban development. But he does want to talk about historical preservation. If we want to keep this guest, we are boxed in.

Pres: I think this resolution is still broad enough.

CPP: I am in favor of the town-gown relationship. That could be interesting, and I know that has been done before.

CLP: I agree with my colleagues on the Left. I do not know how interesting historical preservation would be by itself. And I heard scattered things about the guest. Could we get more background?

Pres: He is from New Haven. He works for the Historical Preservation Trust. But I am not sure about which things against Yale he has campaigned. But he would say that Yale has a mission to preserve New Haven as part of its academic pursuits. So ... Would it be okay if we said preserve New Haven trumps Yale's development.

Speaker: I am not so concerned about linguistics but the breath. (One should always be concerned about the linguistics. It demonstrates respect for detail and an appreciation for rhetoric aesthetic.) I am concerned about assembling a debate.

Pres: People were excited about this debate at the last eboard and on the panlist. And for those, could they explain.

CIP: I am going to apologize. That is a problem--the right already checking out of the debate--no Dawkins, midterms; the 75th, which is a time commitment with the YPU. But seriously, I do not want this to be a disaster. So I think "Preserve New Haven" is broader, but ... We should choose a better track or how can we generate more interest. Perhaps it could mean communicating about previous debates.

CPL: I am still concerned even with a revised resolution. I am skeptical about the split. The guest may be cool, but there may not be anything worth debating.

The Pres conducts a straw poll to determine the preference for "Resolved: Preserve New Haven should trump Yale's development": 50/50.

DCR: What would be the aff and neg.

FLR: The Right would take the neg and the Left the aff.

Pres: I understand the thoughts here. We shall have to do work to ensure this debate goes off well. I encourage people with potential speakers.

Mr. Manners-Weber, the miracle boy wonder: Feel free to dismiss this, but is there a reason to have a debate? Midterms and a lackluster guest ... And as Ad Com, not accountable to anyone, I am wondering if we need one.

FLR: Okay. There is going to be a debate on Saturday. It would be good if the floor leaders had a week to work on dockets.

CPR: I mean we would be cutting one qualling debate.

Pres: So the 75th would be qualling.

DD: So only two types of people can get in: any under grad of the YPU or, second, any alumnus who registered to attend. Doing the latter, we have to open it to the public.

Speaker: The fuzziness enters with unregistered alumni.

DD: To be honest, if we are qualling the debate for members ... The chief whips are not going to work.

Pres: Not necessary.

DD: To clarify, if someone bought memberships, then he intends to qual.

FLR: The Alumni Board sets terms for this. Cannot the Alumni Board say the debate is open to all under grads and registered alumni?

CPR: I am concerned about the alumni who have purchased lifetime memberships.

Pres: I agree with the CPR. This is a trivial group of people.

CIP: Is there a difference between those who would come on lackluster Tuesday and those who would come to Saturday because they have to pay for Saturday?

Pres: We are coming to that.

DD: Yeah. We are near one hundred.

Pres: Good job everyone.

The Pres conducts a straw poll qualling Saturday's debate vs dismissing the Tuesday debate: the former.

Speaker: We can restrict to members of the Union with a two-thirds vote.

CPP: historically, we try to bring new people in.

Pres: I mean yes, but that would disturb the plans for the entire weekend. That is one of the perks of membership. I mean I think it is worth it. Moreover, we have decided that people will get in with a card, membership or registered.

Speaker: About signing in, you do not have to enter the room. This could happen on Saturday, as it would happen on Tuesday.

CIP: Considering that many alumni paid registration fees and then discover that it was retroactively applied, though not intentionally, ... I would like to give that perspective. Plus the Dawkins debate was supposed to be a great membership draw. However, this is not a major maladjustment to chief whips.

Pres: Please remember that this is still the Alumni Board's event, not ours. We can change this, but nothing too radical.

l There is a motion that the Yale Political Union hold a debate on Saturday October 24, at 2:00 PM, in the Art Gallery, with the topic "Resolved: Leave government to the experts," co-sponsored by the Alumni Board, restricted to members only. It carries sans objection.

Pres: Okay, that was productive. And thank you, Chair of Ad Com for that option.

Pres: DD, why do you not give us all the fun stuff.

DD: Nothing really ... Band, food, alcohol.

Everyone: Wait? ... Alcohol?

CPR: Price of disbursements?

DD: I shall get back to you about that on Tuesday. I mean Tuesday because I shall send an email with our budget. My priority is to ensure that this does not cost the Union, so I cannot look at disbursements yet.

FLR: Final numbers tomorrow?

DD: Yes, final numbers are in the making. Then I have some extra things to figure out. Hence, Tuesday, I shall get back to you.

Pres: I think what will happen is that disbursements will be reduced.

CTP: We discussed carding at the door. Has that been fixed so people have enter, if not drink.

DD: So on Friday, we shall hold the event at the Blue Pearl. About getting people younger than twenty-one in, I do not know. If that is not possible, that reception is a bit more open than we had previously. For Saturday, Yale dining hall employees will be checking identities aggressively, but ...

CIP: I am wondering when the final schedule of events will come out. And if that does not happen now, can we have something partial up?

DD: So I shall upload the latest schedule I have, in addition to emailing it.

Pres: Anything else? Okay ... But let me say this event has been an event in the making for years. Dozens of alumni will come! We have our professor guest lecturers. There will be a ball ... But also, please encourage people to buy memberships.

TELLER: So far I have only distributed two packets. But may I sell memberships at the door?

Pres: If it is qualling, then sure. So please bring your stuff.

CLP: Is there anything else which the parties need to do? You know party affiliation is primal; and for others it is the Union first.

DD: I mean I was not expecting much of a party presence. Of course, show up to the Friday reception. Hmmm ... I did not think about that. Hmm ... Good thought.

Pres: So nothing?

Mr. Manners-Weber, the Boy Wonder: These are top, top Yale professors. It would be disrespectful to these professors if the lecture halls are not packed. Plus there is the art gallery.

Pres: I do not think the art gallery is too important, but ... There is the State of the Union? (The Secretary is puzzled and amused that the President is so tickled with this "State of the Union" address.) Yes, no. (The Secretary shakes her head.)

CIP: A final plea for more logistical information. I really want people in my party to come. Also, please send out whatever party chairmen need to know.

Pres: Thank you, everyone, for sending your Friday debate and Saturday lunch locations.

CLP: Maps? (Maps? No, I believe in compasses, moss on trees, and other things that I probably write in official minutes.)

Pres: Yes.

DD: AYA designed custom maps.

Pres: If we all are okay with that, we shall commence with the Amy Goodman debate. She is a radio journalist for Democracy Now. She won the Leftist equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize, though why there is a Leftist equivalent I am not sure. (Obviously, the traditional Nobel Peace Prize, now presented to individuals for "achievements" far removed from peace, is not Leftist enough.)

Speaker: Okay we have three resolutions. Personally, I like the military topics.

CIP: I like the second one. However, I am worried about the split. I know several liberals who would not be happy slashing the defense budget.

FLR: Yes I like it. However, there could be some theoretical, wonkish people who will talk about facts and figures of the defense budget. (The Secretary is intrigued by this word "wonkish.") But I am wondering what portion of the speeches should be around numbers.

CPP: Is this more philosophical or more for stats?

Pres: This is very broad. That is good. You could have many speeches, but we would need to ensure that we flush 1 string before going on.

CCP: I want to see very few numbers. Statistics do not make for good debates. That is my biggest fear.

Speaker: I would assure the chair that I would never docket a person who talked about which fighter jet is better.

CIP: I think it is an important question. However, there are going to be people who will not be okay with a debate lacking in facts. So I suppose it depends on whether she wants to talk facts. I think a student should give a general factual overview in a neutral tone. That could perhaps be first aff.

CTP: Given the broader national debate, I doubt people's minds will jump to spending on a new sort of jet or whatever.

Speaker: Okay there was also "Resolved: Reduce the size of the U.S. military."

FLR: That was my idea. Given that the enthusiasm of eboard for this one is high, I am okay with that. But just know that Brad and I will work sedulously to ensure we do not have a numbers debate.

CTP: I agree. Besides you will still have problems with wonks with the "reduction" wording.

Pres: Okay it seems that the second resolution is best. Any last comments? Now, brief update from Mr. Okay then, Mr. Manners-Weber?

Mr. Manners-Weber, the Boy Wonder Sure. (passing out a worksheet) We have been brainstorming projects. We found that eboard makes it hard to think about the long term. So we decided that Ad Com would work with ideas, present them, and see if you like it. And yes, there are some "bad ideas," which are not consensus-based. Plus we do not want to set up a precedent for consensus. So can I take questions?

FLR: What about the time? Was this composed during the spring?

Mr. Manners-Weber, the Boy Wonder: I mean it was written a while ago. However, it is a good predictor of debates. ... Plus we decided not to do Ad Com evaluations before the 75th since things would be busy. But we are thinking to do evaluations on November 1. If that does not work, then see me. Those are confidential. Then after those, there will be broader suggestions. But if there are concerns that officers have, then if you provide a heads-up, we could begin thinking about those issues.

Pres: So what is on the list, if we are interesting in discussion in eboard, email me. Then we could bring it up next weekend.

l The CPP moves to permit dueling on the eboard panlist. Seconded and objected. Pres: Well, here is the matter. We try to do real business on the list, so we want people to read the emails. I think dueling may prevent that from happening. But if people want to duel, then we could have a separate dueling eboard panlist. (The Secretary shakes her head because the President has missed the point entirely.) The vote on whether to have a separate panlist devoted to dueling fails. "The Secretary extends her sincerest apologies to the following illustrious duelists from the past: Aubrey de Montdidier, Richard de Maquer, Montdidier's faithful gray hound Verbeau, Jean de Carrouges, Jacques le Gris, Julie d'Aubigny le Maupin, Evriste Galois, the Comtesse de Saint-Bellmont, les Mignons, Manet, Aleksander Pushkin, Catalina, Joseph Conrad, Pauline Metternich, Athos, Porthos, Aramis, the Vicomte de Valmont, Alexander Hamilton, Raoul d'Argentile le bien-aimé ...)

l The CIP moves to approve all outstanding minutes as amended. It carries sans objection.

l The CPP moves we adjourn. It carries sans objection.

This meeting of the Executive Board of the Yale Political Union is adjourned at 5:10 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nikki Singh

Secretary of the Yale Political Union