Lexington (MA) High School Senate

LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT-FACULTY SENATE

2002-2003

Moderator Muhammad Dhanani, Assistant Moderator Lawrence J. David, Secretary J.T. Scarry

<http://lhs.lexingtonma.org/senate>

Agenda

For the March 20, 2003 meeting

1. Announcements

2. Committee Reports

3. Resolution by the Student-Faculty Senate Concerning the Proposed 2003-2004 Schedule

4. Voter Education Bill

Minutes

>From the March 13, 2003 meeting:

[Quorum reached, 7:52 AM]

[Minutes Approved, 7:52 AM]

Inouye: I move that the Agenda for this Session of our Body be amended that there might be inserted, before the Voter Education Bill, yet after Committee Reports, a Discussion of the Resolution by the Student-Faculty Senate concerning the Proposed 2003-2004 Schedule. We tabled the issue to make a resolution, and at this very moment there lies before us a resolution.

[Thus was it Amended]

[Amended Agenda Approved, 7:54 AM]

Announcements

Rehman: The Junior Class Council wishes to send out a message on the subject of blankets. You might have noticed these‚Ä¶blankets. They are still available to the students and the faculty.

Vachani: At the School Council meeting, the Stress Committee presented to us on the subject of stress as LHS. They want a series of assemblies to report upon their findings. Dr. Seasholes and the Committee have taken up the issue of grade distribution and want us to talk about it.

Committee Reports

Bogart: The School Climate Committee met today and we are getting clarity on the recycling problems at LHS. We need to figure out how we can get recycling barrels in the lunch rooms, and to figure out how all that recycling can happen.

Gingrande: The Policy Committee met on Tuesday and created the Resolution by the Student-Faculty Senate concerning the Proposed 2003-2004 Schedule, which shows that we are not being consulted on these matters.

Resolution by the Student-Faculty Senate concerning the Proposed 2003-2004 Schedule

Inouye: This resolution is what we said it would be last week. It says that we are dissatisfied, but now that [the schedule] is created we wish to implement it effectively.

Josh Gee: If you are unsatisfied with the way [the schedule] was brought about, the strongest way is to not pass the schedule, thus sending the message, "Don't be messin' wid us, foo'!"

Vachani: I know that I am not dissatisfied, and I do not support a resolution predicated upon a lack of satisfaction. Dr. Seasholes's way of informing us is what is under discussion. To the best of my knowledge, the schedule is still temporary and is not necessarily to be used. The real issue is the schedule itself, rather than the process.

Bogart: I am confused. I thought that we were told that this [schedule] is a done deal, and is not up for discussion. I am hearing a different message. What is true? What is not true? What is truth?

Inouye: I know that Dr. Seasholes has been here, but he has not asked for an assessment of homeroom. The schedule is not within our jurisdiction, and we have no power over that. Does anyone on the Executive Committee know anything?

Dhanani: I was under the impression that it is temporary in name, but pretty much solidified in fact. While we could change it, and offer an alternative schedule and try to get that through, it would be a difficult process.

Kafrissen: He never passed out 'Model 2003 D' and asked us what we thought of it. I have been to department meetings, and I am not able to find out if this is carved in stone. I have no problem with the proposed change, but process is, in fact, the most important part of the discussion. If we are to have any input, any input at all, the schedule should have been floated earlier. I do not suggest a pre-emptive strike, nor do I suggest an alternative schedule. This is exactly the kind of thing we should be able to talk about so that they can get feedback from the students in this body. I like the schedule, but that is not the issue.

Fiveash: I agree with Senator Kafrissen. Process is everything. I do not have a big problem, but the resolution creates a document that is appropriately assertive. Next year is Dr. Seasholes's last year, so whatever stone receives the carver's chisel‚Ä¶ never mind.

Collins: This resolution is a very good idea. Take it a step further; why not pass a bill saying that it is flagrantly illegal to pass a new schedule without the Senate's approval? It can't hurt us.

Williams: Is this Resolution good to amend? [Executive Committee confirms that it is so] I want to suggest dissatisfaction, which suggests that homerooms are bad, and that the Senate is decided. Can wording be thought up, leaving off "more effectively" or some such? Maybe we could improve on it.

Murphy: I would agree with Senator Collins' idea, and it is a good idea to see that Dr. Seasholes could see what we feel on this subject. If he thinks that we do not have the right to have this much power, fine. If he thinks we do have the power, he could say yes.

Vachani: There are two issues, whether the process is appropriate and whether the schedule is set in stone. Different people are hearing different things. The process was not dissatisfactory. On January 30th Dr. Seasholes came to speak to us about it, and thence it was our responsibility. We did not choose to insert a period for discussion at that time. I have next, on February 13, that we had ample time, but we chose not to on that day.

Allison Burson: I do not know if Moderator Dhanani has shared with you from Mr. Kelly, but the past three or four times the schedule was changed there was no student input. We are talking about being dissatisfied rather than being productive.

Bogart: In a January meeting, Dr. Seasholes brought up the schedule and the idea of two homerooms. It was supposed to be evaluated, and I was assuming that was what the process was going to be. I do not believe that he came to discuss just the one homeroom, but to discuss the two homerooms for next year.

Catsouphes: To echo Senator Bogart, the main dissatisfaction was that when he came on the 30th we were being shown a final product; we were not consulted, but informed. We would like to be part of decision-making, not merely informed.

Kafrissen: In the long and checkered career of the Senate, we have never been able to say that anything was "illegal." There are two tracks of policy; Administration can make policy, and Senate can make policy. They have the veto over us, but we have in no wise any veto over them. We have time to pass bills that modify or reverse their policies. We have a tremendous amount of power, but they are still in the driver's seat. A legal Armageddon would have a real legal body say "you have no power."

Murphy: Looking at the agenda for when Dr. Seasholes was [here], he did not say whether [the schedule] was permanent or not, nor whether it was set in stone or not. There is no way to tell.

Wong: I move to call the question.

[Motion Fails]

Shield: So, I assume that when we talk about dissatisfaction with the schedule, we are referring to the homerooms, not that D Block comes first on this day, et cetera, et cetera. This comment may seem weird, but if we just had some bill to call homeroom "down time," instead of homeroom, it would make more sense. Instead of saying HR on a schedule, it would say DT. Announcements and handouts would just be things that happen during down time.

Kim: I think that this resolution contradicts itself. I do not think that there is anything preventing us from having a discussion right now, and >from consulting with Dr. Seasholes to change the schedule for next year.

Vachani: The major issue with the resolution is still that I see [the schedule] as a proposition. Whether it is a proposition or set in stone, I think that the problem is that to make a proposition, no discussion is needed. On homerooms, with the first year to discuss it, they probably discussed it and found it favorable.

David: We've got a proposal, with no debate over it among the faculty, no formal discussion; it is along the lines of "Dr. Seasholes made the homeroom, and he saw that it was good." We need to go back; whose responsibility is it to actually gather the information and see if it is in fact good? Ours, or the administration's? In this day and age of assessments, maybe they should be accountable, and get a sense from the Senate, "Hey, maybe this was not done." In the previous resolution, we said that we would accept it for a year as a trial. While it may seem that it is paradoxical, saying that we are agreeing but would like it to be better is not paradoxical.

Burson: I have been amused by any suggestion that it was ever set in stone. Once LHS tried to do ninety-minute blocks in the year, and then just changed it back. We have a history of trying something and then changing it if it does not work..

Bogart: To what Ms. Burson just said, that trial was already set to be done as a one semester trial, and that was decided at the end of the previous year. As much as I appreciate Senator Vachani's passion to defend the principal, in continuing to say that it is our responsibility, but he put [this year's schedule] in place by saying that we would, as a school, re-evaluate the homeroom. It is his responsibility to set [the evaluation] in motion. A third point: the Program of Studies has gone out, courses are being recommended, and the scheduling process is beginning. If the schedule is just a proposal, just a proposition, and is fluid, there is a very small window for us.

Colarusso: I have a question to the Chair to the author of the bill: what became of Senator David's proposal to call it a "proposed schedule"? My thought would be that if you refer to it as "proposed," we would eliminate the problem that Senator Vachani has brought up, and also change 'approval' to 'consultation.' If someone wants to make that amendment‚Ä¶

Inouye: I move to amend the Resolution by the Student-Faculty Senate concerning the Proposed 2003-2004 Schedule that the first sentence might include the word 'proposed' and that the second paragraph would, in the pertinent section, read "without a school community's assessment of the 2002-2003 homeroom." This clarifies the points of Senators Vachani and Bogart. The intent [of this amendment] is to say that there was no initial assessment [of homeroom].

[Amendment Passes]

Wong: The majority [of student Senators] is dissatisfied with the process, and it appears that much of the faculty is also dissatisfied. We have this proposed resolution, but we need to do something more. I am not sure what we should do, and I don't know how much this will show the administration [what we can do].

[Senate Adjourns]

Senate Absences, March 13, 2003 (* denotes excused)

[No Absences, or at least the absent cleverly hid their tags]