No Frills 2005 NCC and NRHH Business

Meeting Minutes Grand Valley State University

“Grand Valley is the Place to be!” January 28-29, 2005

Stephen Swieton, GLACURH Director FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 2005

I. Call to Order a. Meeting called to order by Stephen Swieton at 7:08pm EST, 6:08pm CST.

II. Roll Call #1 by Ty Krueger, ADFA

III. Welcome/Review of Schedule

a. Teri Gort, No Frills 2005 Chair i. Please use the bathrooms just down the hall. Java City downstairs

is available. Beverages and snacks are right in the back of the room. Conference Headquarters is right outside of the business room to the right. Conference Staff will be in purple shirts all weekend.

b. Stephen, Director i. Schedules are going around. Room numbers for GLACURH U are

not written on the sheets. Write down room assignments when you receive your schedule. We will be doing board buddies as well this weekend.

1. Overview of schedule – No Frills 2006 Selection Site Committee will be meeting tonight during GLACURH U. Call to order is 8:00am tomorrow morning. Breakfast will begin at 7:00am. We have three conference bids to go through so we need to start on time.

IV. RBD Reports

a. Advisor Elect – Continuously transitioning w/ Marcus. Working with Katie this weekend. Communicating with SAACURH NRHH Advisor to see what they are doing in their position.

b. Advisor – Worked with Ball State University to finish their wrap up report and get everything in on time. Their report and money are in. Working with schools Advisors to get a case study together. Getting people started thinking about running for Regional Advisor. Talking to Stephen every week.

c. IN RCC – Have been communicating with schools in Indiana. Doing some recruitment with Butler and Indianapolis. Having a little trouble with retention but we are working on it.

d. IL RCC – Have been getting Illinois schools ready for No Frills regarding affiliation and such. All Illinois schools were fully affiliated at the beginning of No Frills. Have also been working on Policy Book Committee stuff.

e. WI RCC – Have been in constant contact with the Wisconsin schools and helping them with affiliation issues. Have also been working with the Awards Committee.

f. MI RCC – Went to the University of Michigan for Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Went to Central Michigan University for the D.R.E.A.M. Conference. Have been sending out info emails to NCCs/NRHHers and answering questions and getting ready for GLACURH U programs. Recognition for this weekend will be a notebook in which you all will write positive messages and pass it around. We will have a MOWII as well and pass it around to put pins on it or write your school name on to recognize each other as a traveling trophy.

g. ADIT – Working on a calendar for the website. A sheet is going around and please put down your name, school, b-day, and position to get you recognized on the website. Trying to standardize the emails and screennames of the RBD to make things easier. Working with the NIC to try to standardize the website. Updated the website with RBD info and all important documents. Prizes for crossword in the newsletter

h. ADNRHH – Have been working on OTMs and having them judged by the OTM committee. The committee still needs one more person from Wisconsin and one person from Illinois. If you are interested in serving on the committee, come talk to Katie. Worked on GLACURH newsletter which you have all received. Also worked on GLACURH U program presentations. RAD Conference was last weekend and you will hear more about it later. Prepared GLACURH report for the RAD Conference as well. GLACURH 35th Anniversary and GLACURH NRHH Pins are for sale all weekend.

i. ADFA – Have been working on monthly reconciliation reports. Have also been working on the GLACURH Fiscal Year 2006 budget. Worked to put together the Philanthropy Packet for all of you. Arranged a tour of the Grand Rapids Ronald McDonald House and also arranged to have a Ronald McDonald House representative come speak to all of you tomorrow. Have also been working on a new philanthropy project which yo uwill all get more information about tomorrow.

j. Director – Make sure to check monthlies online on the NACURH Forum. You should all be posting your reports as well on the forum. Attended Semis with Ty. Worked with Ball State University to finish their wrap up report. Did a site visit to Grand Valley State University for No Frills. Teri, No Frills Chair, has put a lot of work into making this weekend successful. About 25 minutes ago Tony was appointed as Parliamentarian. For

tomorrow, Conference bids will go in this order: 8:25am will be CMU, 8:45am will be MSU, and 9:05am will be UW-LaCrosse.

V. NIC Report

a. Janelle – The new NIC Director. Developing new names for the current positions. In the process of transitioning the office. If schools are interested in hosting the NIC, please come talk to Janelle.

VI. NRHH National Office Report

a. Travis Lane – NRHH National Office Technology Director. RAD Conference was last weekend. There have been several recent changes to the website (www.nrhh.org). National Office contact info may now be found online. New resources page has a lot of powerpoint presentations and such. We may be adding a sample documents page with sample constitutions and such. If you are willing to submit your constitution to be posted online, please let us know. Affiliation page is now in Microsoft word format as well as PDF file format. If you would like to buy NRHH apparel, find Travis this weekend because he has order forms.

VII. Standing Committee Reports

a. RCC Committee – Linda Atkinson UW Stout, Sara Ash GVSU, Jason Broomfield EMU. Committee discussed online about the possibility of switching positions to topical instead of regional. Came up with surveys with copies of constitutions from other regions that have RCCs as topical instead of regional. Please turn them in to Ryan or the committee members by the end of the conference. During the Issues Forum, you will be able to ask more questions and be able to give additional feedback then.

b. RBD Term Committee – Ryan Taylor UW-Green Bay NCC, Stacy Smith LUC NRHH Representative, Andy Harpold CMU RHA President, Nikki Overway GVSU NRHH Representative. The committee researched five other regions who have the May to May term. The committee decided that the May to May term would be more beneficial for the region because of better transitions and more people bidding. MMR is a result of the committees work.

c. Policy Book Committee – Becky Lee MU NRHH Representative, Jennifer Stofer, Cecil Gaddy CMU NCC, Katie Loberg LUC NCC. The committee reported that they are looking at current policies and found an old GLACURH policy book. The committee is looking into revisions of the current governing documents. The committee is hoping to have new policy book ready for NACURH so we can adopt it for the next year.

d. Awards Committee – Michelle Decker SVSU NCC, Ellen Mallito InSU NRHH Representative, Jaime Benson NIU NCC. The committee is trying to define the awards and make policies clearer.

e. OTM Selection Committee – Thanks to committee members that are here this weekend! Ellen Malito InSU NRHH Representative, Jason Broomfield

EMU NRHH Representative, and Shannon Sellars GVSU No Frills 2005 Staff.

VIII. OCM Presentation – Jenny Barudin a. Thea Owens, UW-Stevens Point and Jaime Benson, NIU volunteered for

game. i. THEMED PYRAMID – Things associated with care packages. ii. THEMED PYRAMID – Things associated with the residence hall

linens program. b. Dani Chan, UM and Ryan Grusenski, MU volunteered for game.

i. Things associated with NACURH and OCM. ii. Things associated with Residence Hall Associations

c. Jenny Barudin will be here for the entire conference if you have questions about fundraising and OCM.

IX. RAD Conference Report, Katie Wiese, ADNRHH a. Pieces of legislation that passed:

i. All regions are required to have their NRHH website linked to (insert region).nrhh.org. Most regions don’t have a regional NRHH website right now, but look for them after March 14.

ii. National OTM Committee has one person serving from each region. After NACURH, each region will have two and the National Office will choose in conjunction with the RADs. Members of the National OTM Committee will be judging all National OTMs.

iii. NRHH Chapter OTM will now be Organization OTM (RHA, NRHH, Hall Councils, SATS) and we will start using that category on March 10.

iv. Community OTM (Living community and Hall Councils, and RA staffs) and we will start using that category on March 10.

v. Last two changes will be started early in March for February OTMs, but do not officially change until after NACURH.

vi. The OTM timeline is now changed. Regional OTMs will be announced on the 24th of each month. We will start this process when March OTMs are due. OTMs are due to GLACURH on the 10th of every month starting in March (March 10).

vii. At NACURH 05 there will be NRHH U for NRHH Representatives and the programs will be put on by the RADs and the NRHH NO. It will be completely separate from NACURH U.

viii. Committees were formed to revise policy book and other things.

X. Conference Announcements – Teri a. If you came in late and did not register, make sure to go to Conference

Headquarters. Breakfast is from 6-8am and shuttles will start at 7am. Shuttles and will only run until 1am.

b. There are other events going on this weekend. National Policy states that you must be back at the hotel by 1am. We are not going to make you go

to bed, but we are highly encouraging it because tomorrow will be a long day.

c. GLACURH U is moved up an hour due to the fact that we are running ahead of schedule. Session 1 will start at 8pm and go until 8:25pm. Session 2 will start at 8:30pm and go until 8:55pm. Session 3 will start at 9pm and go until 9:25pm. Session IV will start at 9:30pm and go until 10:00pm. At 10:00pm, business will reconvene in separate business rooms at which point we will go into award selection.

d. Advisors will also have programs this weekend. People have volunteered to do ART sessions. Tonight Advisors will begin out in the foyer. Case study volunteers need to meet with Marcus earlier. Case study will be out later tonight and must be turned in tomorrow morning.

e. Site selection committee will be leaving first to go to their meeting room.

XI. Call to Order 10:03pm by Stephen

XII. Roll Call #2 by Ty – Do your school mascot sound.

XIII. Annoucements a. RBD Evaluations are due by the close of the conference to your RCC.

RCCs will be in both NRHH and NCC board rooms during the weekend.

XIV. Building RHA of the Year a. Pro/Con b. Discussion

i. SVSU – GVSU has made many progressions this year. ii. CMU Calls the question and UWSP objects because it should be

discussed since this is the first time it is being awarded. iii. BSU – One of the problems is the layout because it seems like it is

like reading an essay. Can definitely improve on it. iv. UWSP – Theme was really well constructed and main points were

well made. It took a lot to read. It was hard to judge because we didn’t know what they did before. It felt more like a SOY bid than a Building RHA bid. We don’t know what their goals were last year. There was a lack of history to judge against.

v. BSU calls the question. No objection. Voting by secret ballot. c. Move for a 5-minute recess made by LUC and seconded by EIU. Passes

with no objection.

XV. Call to order 10:38pm by Stephen.

XVI. Roll Call #3 by Ty.

XVII. Recognition Items a. AAFN Nominees – Joe Robinson from SIUC, Emily Ascher UWEC, Nikki

Overway from GVSU, and Natalie Wagner from GVSU. The two people to

be sponsored by GLACURH will be Nikki Overway from GVSU and Emily Ascher from UWEC. Any school may still nominate anyone from their school to be sponsored to the AAFN. It’s a great way to recognize people from your campus.

b. Building Block Chapter of the Year – Winner is Loyola University Chicago. c. Building RHA of the Year – First ever GLACURH winner is Grand Valley

State University.

XVIII. Joint Legislation Session – Everyone has speaking rights. a. Motion to bring MMR made by Carthage and seconded by Ferris. b. Reading – Move to waive the reading made by Carthage and seconded by

Uindy. c. Proponent Speech – Nikki Overway – Major points are:

i. Important to start a May to May term and would not have overlap of national board and regional board positions.

ii. Researched other regions. iii. Longer transition and will in turn strengthen our organization. iv. Will coincide with academic school year.

d. Q & A i. Carthage – Do I & K go against technology policies? Is what is

written correct with policy? The only thing that was changed is the conference that people are elected. We do not have actual technology policies.

ii. MSU – Was the RBD consulted when writing this piece of legislation? Yes. Were there any objections? No.

iii. SIUC – Is this changing bidding policy? It’s not changing bidding policy just when bidding occurs.

iv. UWSP – Did you consider the advisor? Through April we were able to contact the entire RBD except for Marcus.

v. UWW – Will everyone be able to serve an 18 month term? Yes vi. InSU NRHH – How do you feel that graduating members would

effect transition? Bidding would take place at No Frills so transition time would occur between No Frills and NACURH.

vii. Motion to extend time by 5 minutes. e. Discussion

i. NIU – This legislation is good because being able to transition is a very important thing and the time allotted will provide an appropriate transition time. We should not vote against this legislation because of a small little wording issue.

ii. UWSP – Wording probably needs to be worked at by the Policy Book committee. This would fall in the process of how we do business. It should be worded at one point to match everything we do. When the Advisor is chosen needs to be addressed because it might disrupt the flow of the RBD. It may disrupt the cohesiveness of the board.

iii. WMU – Motion to amend Section 4, Subsection I, “Any individual bidding for a position on the Regional Board of Directors shall submit a

written bid to the National Communications Coordinators and the Regional Board members at the start one month prior to of the regional semi-annual business meeting.

1. Carthage – this clarifies what I asked before. This gives NCCs and the RBD more time to read the bid.

2. UWSP NRHH – Calls the question. Objected. 3. NIU – Seems a little early. 4. SIUC NRHH – Yield. 5. UIC – Yield to Joe Morgan. Bigger issue than just the

amendment. 6. Vote on the amendment. Amendment passes 24:11:3.

iv. UIC – What if we don’t want the RBD to serve the entire 18 months?

v. GVSU – Move to strike “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: An Advisor-Elect shall be elected at the GLACURH 2005 Conference, and will serve as Advisor-Elect until NACURH 2007. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The current Advisor-Elect will take over as Advisor following the GLACURH 2005 Conference.” Seconded by Millikin.

1. Advisor – Out of town when emails were sent out. 2. NCC – Point of Information – If stricken, how would this

effect things? Taking it out would mean that the new Advisor-Elect would be elected at No Frills 2006 at the same time as the rest of the new board.

3. UM NRHH – Move to amend the amendment. Withdrawn. 4. BSU – Call the question. 5. Vote on amendment. Amendment passes 32:4:2.

vi. UWSP – Move to add Section Four, Subsection A, Advisor-Elect. 1. GVSU – Subsection C already states when the Advisor-Elect

is elected. 2. Vote on the amendment. Amendment fails 2:36:0

vii. LUC NRHH – The point of this legislation is to strengthen our organization and to have people serve a 6-month term would be two steps back instead of two steps forward.

viii. Vote on MMR with amendments. MMR passes 31:5:2. 11:13pm.

f. UWSP moves to bring MMD to the floor seconded by CMU. Passes with no objection.

g. Motion to waive the reading made by UWSP and seconded by GVSU. h. Proponent – This piece of legislation is important because there are a lot

of time constraints that go into conferences. Stephen and I thought it would be a good idea to accept legislation through email.

i. Q&A i. EMU - With email legislation how would be able to do Q&A and

Discussion? We could utilize listservs, forums, or chats. ii. UWSP – Will all forms of legislation be accepted? Yes

iii. CMU – How do you plan on getting quorum? It will be bumpy at first. People will get used to it.

iv. FSU – How long would Q&A last? v. LUC – Considering that technology is not fool proof, how do you

guarantee a fair vote? Costs and weather are not fail safes. We don’t stop all legislation because people can’t be there.

vi. Purdue – How are we going to be able to ensure that the authors respond to email? If authors don’t respond, that would be a good reason to not support that legislation.

vii. CMU NRHH – How are you going to control who is going to vote? When you register on NACURH, your NCCs info is on the website.

viii. UWM NRHH – Are business meetings here open to the public or are they closed?

ix. Move to extend by 5 minutes made by Carthage seconded by BSU. x. UWM NRHH – How would this policy change how this is done?

This is not a closed listserv. xi. Carthage – Isn’t quorum the number of voting members present?

Yes. xii. BSU NRHH – How would the legislation be posted? How would

people know there was legislation to be discussed? It would be similar to how it is done for No Frills. This only changes how you are physically voting.

xiii. UIC – Can there be time limits for email legislation because schools are on different academic calendars? (i.e. Spring Break) Yes.

xiv. NIU – Is this going to pertain to all legislation put through email? No.

xv. NIU – Are there going to restrictions on when legislation is submitted? Yes

xvi. CMU – All people who don’t vote go into the abstain category, how would you get quorum? You only need 40% of the member schools in the vote.

xvii. UM NRHH – How would this affect No Frills and the business of the region? It wouldn’t necessary affect it at all. It allows us to extend the amount of time we do business.

xviii. SVSU – Move to extend time by 5 minutes and seconded by St. Mary’s College. Motion 18:17:1

xix. WMU NRHH – How are we going to deal with making amendments? You would do that via email.

xx. UWW NRHH – How are you going to be able to deal with different technologies to gain fair access to the documents? The same way we do it now.

xxi. InSU – Is there a way to limit the number of pieces of legislation in one week? Yes.

xxii. UIC NRHH – How would you regulate? If legislation is being posted online, you would be able to see what amendments were being made.

xxiii. St. Mary’s – Wouldn’t it take a long time to clear? It can and it can’t. xxiv. BSU – How would the time be regulated if a motion gets seven

amendments? It could be amended or left up to the discretion of the Director.

xxv. UM – If this motion passes, would there be less legislation at No Frills and will it effect it? Yes.

xxvi. Carthage – Who’s going to act as Parliamentarian on the internet? Regional Parliamentarian.

xxvii. Motion to end Q&A objection by MU NRHH. j. Discussion

i. WMU – Move to amend the legislation seconded by UWO. 1. WMU – This addresses a lot of the concerns that were

brought up. 2. UIC – It says that if you amend it, it will be held until No Frills

or the Regional Conference. Disagree with it. 3. UWSP NRHH – C through G 4. UM – Would the Parliamentarian please explain the

difference of will and shall? Linguistically there is no difference.

5. BSU NRHH – Move to friendly amend E seconded by KUA. WMU accepts.

6. LUC – Yield. 7. UWSP – The fact that we have taken away from GLACURH

because we don’t have time for it and we only do legislation at No Frills. If we hold legislation over, it will add too much to each conference. These specifics aren’t what we need.

8. UWLX – Yield. 9. CMU – With changing this amendment, this now moves

everything to No Frills. Time constraints are going to be a lot at No Frills.

10. MU NRHH – Point of Information – How are you planning on accounting for the summer months? WMU – this helps us because we don’t waste three months of the year doing nothing.

11. GVSU NRHH – Point of Information – In subsection G, what about something that is presented in January if No Frills is in February.

12. WMU friendly amends to add January to subsection G. 13. NIU – Idea of email legislation is a good idea, but if we have

this much discussion about it maybe we aren’t ready for it. 14. BSU – Having us do this is good if its something small. If

there is an issue with it, it would be brought up at No Frills. This could only lesson the load for No Frills. When NCCs are being transitioned into their position, there is a gray period and they will need to know that legislation.

15. Motion to table this legislation until we reconvene until tomorrow made by NCC and seconded by Millikin. Objected.

16. InSU – There needs to be something added to the amendment to account for the summer months. It’s not fair to those schools that need to confer with other people.

17. CMU NRHH – At the end of the school year, you are going to transition, and transitioning that aspect would be hard. The intent of the legislation is good, but it needs more work before it can be passed.

18. EMU NRHH move to table indefinitely. Objected. 19. MSU – Point of Information – How is the last friendly

amendment different? 20. UWEC – Call the question. Objection by NCC. 21. WMU – It won’t make anything longer. It puts more focus on

GLACURH. 22. SVSU NRHH – Call the question. 23. Vote on the amendment. Motion passes 26:11:1.

ii. UIC – Yield. iii. WMU NRHH – Move to postpone the legislation until tomorrow.

Seconded by BSU. Objection by CMU. iv. CMU – Just wanted to vote on it. v. GVSU NRHH – Move to rescind MMD.

k. Motion to recess until tomorrow Uindy and seconded by SVSU. No objections.

XIX. Conference Announcements

a. There is a conference inspector that will be in the hotel. Please be courteous. Shuttles will be going until 1am. Please be courteous to the volunteers in the Hospitality room. BSU, IU, MU, Paul Goldblatt, NCC, SIUE, Kip Kimberly all need to sign waivers. The following people need to go to Conference HQ. The business room will be locked, so you may leave stuff in here at your own risk. Breakfast is 6am-8am.

XX. Call to Order at 8:02am EST by Stephen

XXI. Roll Call #4 by Ty

XXII. Schedule Overview

a. The first bid will be CMU and their presentation will begin at 8:30. As long as we stay on schedule, we will be done with GLACURH 2005 selection at 9:25am. The conference site will be announced immediately following. Budget approval and GLACURH 2004 Minutes approval will follow conference site selection. GLACURH 2004 Conference Chair will give his wrap up report before lunch. No Frills transition will be during lunch. Presentation by Ronald McDonald House will be after lunch. We will then have a legislative session with NRHH followed by the Semis Report and

NACURH 2005 presentation. An issues session will follow. At 5:00pm we will be in state breakout time. 6:00pm will be dinner. NCCs and NRHH will be in different business after dinner. Advisors will have one of the ART sessions, Core #1, at 11:00am in room 104. At 3:45pm will be ART Core #4 in the same room.

XXIII. GLACURH 2005 Presentations

a. CMU i. Q&A

1. UWSP – Is the SAC activities going to be included in the delegate cost? Yes.

2. UWW – How far is the University from the hotel? #19 in list. 3. LUC – How are you going to plan for the First Time Delegate

Luncheon since you can’t tell ahead of time how many you will have? The room has a capacity of 400 people and we will gage it off of registration.

4. Your registration is October 2nd; your letters of liability is October 30th. Is that a typo? It is a typo.

5. GVSU NRHH – What do you feel would be the benefit of having an internal and external chair? We work together as a team. She takes care of internal aspects, chairs, and External will work with the RBD. It will make it more beneficial.

6. UWSP – Describe the facilities for the banquet? Seats 4700 people. It’s been used for GLACURH conferences in the past.

7. Carthage – Will you ensure that NCCs, NRHH, and RBD will be able to use hospitality on Friday night? We will stay late and make sure food is available.

8. UM NRHH – How will schools be seated at banquet? We will have reserve seating because it eliminates chaos. They will be seated at random.

9. UWSP – Can you explain why the NCC and NRHH business rooms are in separate buildings?

10. Time Called. ii. Pro/Con

b. MSU i. Q&A

1. CMU – You said you have to become a RSO on campus, how long does that take? Generally two weeks.

2. NIU – Ideal size is 720, what is the price per delegate at that number? $117 at that number.

3. SIUC – Are you seeking further sponsorship to bring the cost down? Listed in the bid is university sponsorship and not including corporate sponsors. Corp. sponsors will hopefully bring the cost down.

4. UWW – Transportation is provided for school, how are you going to accommodate everyone’s parking? The parking fee will be covered at the hotel. We have a huge lot at our institution.

5. GVSU NRHH – You are President’s of RHA and President NRHH, will you be pursuing other positions? As President of RHA, have not decided yet on a second term. The same for President of NRHH.

6. UWW – Can you explain why schools would have option of males in females in the same room? Why did you decide to do this? MSU has experience working with transgendered issues. It will also help maximize hotel usage.

7. UIC – Question #10 clarification? First time delegates over program presenters? We want equal opportunities for all attendees.

8. LUC – How strong is your RHA and NRHH? 9. Time called.

ii. Pro/Con c. UW-LaCrosse

i. Q&A 1. CMU – Can you explain the reason behind 3 conference

chairs? We all wanted the experience of doing conference together. There is more responsibility divided amongst the three of us instead one or two.

2. How will duties be divided? We are the support network. 3. NIU – Are you planning on running for NCC again? No. 4. UWSP – How are you going to organize professional staff

putting on programming? 5. SIUC – Does your budget include the regional add-on fee?

Yes. 6. UWW – Question #17. What is the purpose of leaving it up

to discretion of the school? Schools have their own policies and we want schools to be able to decide.

7. LUC – Who will be serving on the RBD all three? 8. Do you foresee any troubles with three chairs? The main

reason we decided to do this was to spread out the responsibilities. We are all good friends and we would be able to work through anything that may arise.

9. SVSU – Is there any way you would be able to lower the cost? We will be working with hotels and such to bring the cost down. We gave the highest cost possible.

ii. Pro/Con d. Discussion

i. UM NRHH – Like to briefly address the concerns about MSU not being a RSO. Some schools require you to be actually hosting before becoming a RSO.

ii. LUC – I liked how MSU had an emphasis on programming. How strong and how much support will be coming from their RHA and NRHH because burnout worries me.

iii. Uindy – As far as letters of support, CMU only had it from Reslife people. MSU had VP of Student Affairs.

iv. EMU NRHH – CMU had the First Time Delegate Luncheon and the hot breakfast on Sunday. Availability of males and females in the rooms for the other two will make dealing with cancellations a lot easier.

v. UWSP - All three schools could put on a conference. Who will put on the best conference? We really need to figure out who is organized and who is the most prepared.

vi. NIU – Yield. vii. NIU NRHH – LaCrosse’s delegation was fee and that was a con.

They are introducing a lot of new things. By offering an Advisor might bring in more program presenters.

viii. SVSU – Cost for delegates of UWL was a concern. Even with sponsorship it can’t go down a lot.

ix. InSU NRHH – When UWL gave their presentation, they were able to answer the questions very well and with confidence.

x. EMU NRHH – Examining the bids, any schools. First time delegate luncheon.

xi. LUC NRHH – Don’t feel confident in the tri-chair structure. It doesn’t seem the most efficient. Don’t have described positional duties.

xii. GVSU – Point of Information – The delegate price is only a $1 more than what we paid this year and they said it was going to go down.

xiii. Uindy – Nov. 4-6 may cause a problem with school’s breaks. MSU was focused on programming. Location shouldn’t be an issue when deciding. CMU had two different philanthropies, which may be hard for small schools and it might not be feasible for us.

xiv. NCC – from a school that runs on trimesters, it does not work well with our academic schedule.

xv. EMU NRHH – As far as budgets go, UWL is the highest right now. MSU’s price may be low, but they don’t have any solidified sponsors.

xvi. UWSP – UWL’s tri-chairs, having different genders as co-chairs. They are all male and I didn’t make that up. Having both sexes represented may bring in more ideas.

xvii. MU – No other schools offered shuttles beside UWL. Letters of support from Mayor for UWL.

xviii. Carthage – Yield. xix. InSU – Impressed that UWL brought their conference committee. It

not always bad to spread responsibilities around with tri-chairs.

xx. UWEC – MSU has RHA President and NRHH President may be friends so saying that it is an issue that UWL’s tri-chairs are friends is not valid.

xxi. Uindy – CMU did not have solid info on spirit and such, whereas MSU and UWL have that already laid out.

xxii. UWEC NRHH – Really concerned about Presidents co-chairing and the time commitments involved.

xxiii. CMU NRHH – Talking about transportation, UWL has shuttles, MSU hotel is 10-15 minutes away, CMU has budgeted for transportation. All schools have a lot of activities so schools will benefit.

xxiv. Regional Advisor – When having discussion about deciding on a bid, this discussion should help us get to the final outcome. Try to help each other decide by making statements about how you feel and why you feel this would be good or bad.

xxv. UWW NRHH – A couple dollars could be worth an experience of a lifetime. Saw brand new ideas and such come forward with UWL.

xxvi. Purdue – Feel that UWL was the most prepared on the professional level as well as the delegate level.

xxvii. Millikin – As a region, conference is to bring us together and having three hotels at UWL is a concern.

xxviii. UWS – UWL has advisors for first time delegates. Three hotels shouldn’t be a big deal if there are people there to help you out.

xxix. St. Mary’s – A little unsure about Presidents not being sure if they are going to run for second terms.

xxx. MU NRHH – Call the question. No objection. e. Announcement – GLACURH 2005 will be held at UWL. f. Motion to recess for 15 minutes made by MU and seconded by SIUC. No

objection.

XXIV. Call to Order 9:50am by Stephen

XXV. Roll Call #5 by Ty

XXVI. Approval of GLACURH 2004 Minutes a. Motion to approve made by Carthage and seconded by UWSP. No

objection.

XXVII. Approval of Budget a. Ty passed out budget summary and proposed budget for Fiscal year ‘06 b. Travel to professional conferences line item added in. Conference Host

site incentive will also be added in pending the passing of legislation this afternoon. If this legislation fails the money allocated will go back into the general budget line.

c. Travel will be covered for one GLACURH ’05 conference chair d. WMU moves to approve budget, seconded EIU

e. Placard Vote—38-0-0, passed at 10:07am

XXVIII. No Frills 2006 Site Selection Committee a. Looked at the fact that there is only one school bidding and a very short

time span if a site was not selected this weekend. This does give them more time prepare and more leadership opportunities while hosting this conference. The committee had a list of concerns that will be presented to SIUC that include the following:

i. Conference staff needed to be finalized. ii. Budget was not broken down specifically. Needs to be more

broken down. iii. There will be a transportation cost of $35 from the school to the

airport. iv. Room setup needed more specifics. v. Budget concern – budget needs costs for conference staff vi. Schedule for planning. Bid only had three dates for specifics. vii. SIUC had really great enthusiasm and wanted to bring people down

to Carbondale. Their facilities seemed really well planned out. viii. Need more communication among their team. ix. They need confirmation of RHA support as well as volunteer

support, housing and university. x. Two proposed dates work for a lot of different academic schedules. xi. ADA accessibility and caffeine policy. xii. Usage of campus resources. They have students available for

ASL. xiii. Fully utilizing campus security all weekend. xiv. Small monetary amount for a buffer.

b. Committee recommends that GLACURH award the conference to SIUC. c. Q&A for Committee

i. Carthage – Do you have a single doubt in your mind that they cannot host this conference? No.

ii. MU – Do they have dinner on Friday? Yes and work with RBD. iii. UWEC – Why is the cost for transportation so significant? The

airport is about 1.5 hours away from the school. d. Discussion

i. Carthage – The committee said they did not have a single doubt in their mind that SIUC would not be able to host.

ii. MU – Call the question. No objection. e. No Frills 2006 will be hosted by SIUC.

XXIX. Legislation

a. Motion to bring MMB made by FSU and seconded by GVSU. No objection.

i. Move to waive the reading by UWSP. ii. Proponent iii. Q&A

1. None iv. Discussion

1. EMU calls the question, objected by MU. 2. MU – Feel it needs to be discussed. Definitions of service. 3. Carthage – This award isn’t very fair to small schools. 4. MU – We all have different ideas of what service is. Service

is supposed to be the award for what you do. It’s a very individual thing. Are there alternate definitions of service?

5. ADNRHH – Issue of large and small school isn’t an issue with other awards such as the Commitment to Diversity.

6. UWSP – It’s hard to hard to write a bid about 10 programs. Idea is good. There is a different way to do this.

7. UM NRHH – In terms of judging a school is doing enough philanthropy, we can let the bid speak for itself. It’s quality not quantity. The bid will speak to the school’s philanthropic statement.

8. GVSU NRHH – Along with CTD, when the committee decides the winner, school size is something they can take in to account.

9. LUC – Concerned that the focus will change from doing service to do service to just doing it to win award.

10. CMU NRHH – Two concerns because it hinders schools that work with more than one philanthropy.

11. InSU – Smaller schools do not have the capabilities to fundraise that larger schools. People will focus on the award and not doing the service.

12. WMU – Schools will be able to use the bid to learn about philanthropy activity. If schools are increasing their amount of philanthropy for whatever,

13. Purdue – Yield. 14. BSU – Yield. 15. GVSU NRHH – It can be a large scale or small scale.

Philanthropy is not all about money. It is about service. 16. UIC – This award seems like it may be too materialistic.

Schools already don’t bid for awards. 17. NIU – It does say that including philanthropic programs, not

just the GLACURH related philanthropy. We do already have incentives in place; it should be taken into account that we award.

18. UWSP NRHH – Call the question. No objection. 19. Vote on Legislation – MMB fails 9:29:0 at 10:40am.

b. Move to bring MMP made by InSU NRHH and seconded by GVSU NRHH. i. UWSP moved to waive the reading seconded by GVSU. ii. Proponent. iii. Q&A

1. MU – Can you explain the main difference between the awards? Graduate students and pro staff are allowed to be both advisors.

2. UWSP – Does it then not allow full-time advisors to be up for Advisor of the Year? They would be up against grad students as well.

3. WMU – What is the distinction? 4. UWM NRHH – Point of information. 5. NCC – Currently as it stands, can a graduate student receive

the Hallenbeck service award? Not typically. 6. Move to end Q&A made by BSU.

iv. Discussion 1. SIUC – Call the question objected by UM. 2. UM NRHH – Two NACURHs are not consistant. 3. UM NRHH calls the question objected by InSU NRHH. 4. InSU NRHH – Feel that there needs to be further discussion.

Hallenbeck is a national award. We’ve been moving the GLACURH Advisor of the Year.

5. Purdue NRHH – Advisor of the Year term is not applicable. Title should be rethought.

6. Carthage – We just discussed people not wanting to bid for awards so why are we adding another one.

7. WMU – We need to recognize that these are two distinct awars.

8. LUC – It’s really important to recognize that NACURH made the distinction between Advisor OTY and Hallenback Service.

9. UWSP NRHH – Calls the question. No objection. 10. Vote on MMP – 33:3:2. MMP passes at 10:53am.

XXX. Philanthropy with Ty

a. T-shirts. Each school will get an order form. The money raised will go to the Ronald McDonald House. You can order by sending forms and money to Ty or give to your RCC at your state conference.

b. If you need an invoice, mail in your form and Ty will work on getting an invoice for your school.

c. Philanthropy Packs were distributed, one for each school. Also posted on the website.

d. Will this be different than regional t-shirts at NACURH? Not necessarily. e. How much profit do you expect? First time done, so not sure, but at least a

couple hundred.

XXXI. Legislation a. MMN to the floor, UWSP second by BSU

i. Motion to waive the reading. ii. Proponent

iii. Q&A 1. GVSU NRHH – What do you see as the benefit the NCCs

approving? We elected everyone else, we should also have a say in the Parliamentarian.

2. UWSP NRHH – Is there an application? 3. Carthage – How long would the term be? 4. Director – Who will serve as Parliamentarian up until the

point where they are appointed? Good question. iv. Discussion

1. WMU Point of Inquiry – Who was Parliamentarian before? Joe Savalle had to resign due to personal reasons.

2. GVSU NRHH – Parliamentarian has been working more with the board and not the NCCs/NRHH. The Director runs the meetings, not the Parliamentarian.

3. UM NRHH – Ditto GVSU NRHH. 4. WMU – Adds credibility. 5. MSU – The timeline is a concern. 6. UWSP – The Parliamentarian will be selected at No Frills

instead of at GLACURH. Timeline might fall kind of hard on some students. Something needs to happen to the timeline.

7. UM NRHH – The RBD is more than qualified to decide whether or not they have a qualified candidate.

8. UWL – Ditto UM NRHH. 9. NIU – We wouldn’t be really without a Parliamentarian. 10. Purdue NRHH – Point of information – Would it be the new

Director or old Director? Current Director 11. CMU NRHH – It is good to let the NCCs and NRHH have a

say. 12. Carthage – There is no business between GLACURH and

No Frills so there is no need to have a Parliamentarian. 13. SIUC NRHH – A lot of issues can come up. I think we can

trust the RBD to make a good decision. 14. NCC – One Director would be a appointing two

Parliamentarians. Do you want to have a Director appointing someone they won’t be working with.

15. UWSP NRHH – Yield to UWSP. If multiple people apply, would they all come to No Frills for approval?

16. LUC NRHH – It is giving the NCCs not necessarily more power or say, it is just keeping it open.

17. KUA – Call the question. Objection by LUC. 18. LUC – Has EMU created an amendment? No. 19. MU NRHH – Call the question. Carthage objects. 20. GVSU NRHH – Yield. 21. UM – Yield. 22. EMU NRHH – We keep on talking about. 23. UM NRHH – Yield.

24. Carthage – Motion to amend a. Discussion on Amendment

i. NIU – If the Director-Elect has to chose it, they will have one day to chose someone and they won’t have appropriate time to chose.

ii. MSU – Yield. iii. UWSP – How can we expect a Director-Elect

to pick someone? iv. Carthage – You should be thinking about who

you want before you win. v. UM NRHH – Yield. vi. BSU – Do you want someone to nominate

someone who they are not going to serve with or vice versa.

vii. MU NRHH – It will create a less fair application process. We trust the Director.

viii. WMU Point of Inquiry – Would it be possible to approve the Parliamentarian at a NACURH Conference?

ix. UWSP NRHH – Yield. x. LUC – If you are a Director-Elect, they will not

necessarily be choosing the day of. You have a month to decide.

xi. NCC – Would this amendment contradict itself? It closes off the position to people with what might happen at No Frills.

xii. UWM NRHH – Even though the Director-Elect would have a month to look at applications, all candidates would need to be present.

xiii. BSU – Yield. xiv. FSU NRHH – They can communicate. xv. UM – Call the question. Carthage objects. xvi. GVSU NRHH- Point of inquiry – If a position is

not bid for at the conference, are the NCCs required to approve that decision? No.

xvii. MU – Yield. xviii. WMU – Yield. xix. NIU – Yield to Carthage. xx. Carthage – Rescind the amendment.

25. MU NRHH – Yield. 26. GVSU NRHH – Yield. 27. BSU – Either way we look at this, there is no good way to

have this approved by the NCCs. We should probably consider letting this die.

28. CMU NRHH – With the new piece of legislation that was passed last night.

29. WMU – Moves to refer to committee seconded by KUA. Objected by EMU NRHH.

30. CMU – Yield to EMU NRHH. 31. EMU NRHH – Rescind MMN.

XXXII. GLACURH 2004 Wrap Up Presentation

a. BSU enjoyed hosting it thoroughly. Leadership on BSU’s campus has developed tremendously. We are doing a lot of other things now that the conference is over. We read through the evaluations and they were funny. Reports were that the hotels were awful. Really excited to give it all back. The wrap up report is over 100 pages long. It can be distributed if you want it. If you have further comments about the conference, please give them to the BSU folks.

b. Q&A i. Carthage – Was there a large amount of excess? Yes.

XXXIII. Legislation

a. UM moves to bring MME to the floor and seconded St. Mary’s. No objection.

i. FSU moves to waive the reading. ii. Proponent. iii. Q&A

1. NIU – Point of Inquiry – What does it originally state? 2. UM NRHH moves to end Q&A seconded by GVSU.

iv. Discussion 1. MU NRHH Calls the question. UM objects. 2. UM – There is wording that needs to be addressed. 3. MSU NRHH – Yield to MSU. 4. MSU – Move to strike and amend. 5. UM NRHH – Move to amend as a friendly amendment that

statement to read instead of delegates with disabilities to delegates with special accommodations.

6. WMU – Call the question. Objection by NIU. 7. MSU – Yield to NIU. 8. NIU – Move to friendly amend. 9. SIUC NRHH – Call the question. Objected by Advisor. 10. Advisor – Something to think about is our region we are

trying to be inclusive and meet everyone’s needs. Some institutions are in the process of trying to be more inclusive and meeting the needs of everyone. If a school cannot automatically do that when they are bidding, what kind of extra accommodations will the school have to make.

11. SIUC – 12. LUC – Then do you not bid for a conference because you

know your schools is not up to par with ADA? Who’s responsibility is it to pay for it or the region?

13. Advisor-Elect – Point of clarification – This legislation would make schools who are not ADA accessible ineligible to bid for a conference.

14. UM NRHH – Move to friendly amend. Not accepted by MSU. 15. WMU – Are we saying accessible means? 16. NIU – If you are bidding to host a conference, you should be

thinking about these things and if you can meet special accommodation needs.

17. Advisor – Point of Information – It is our responsibility by law to provide reasonable accommodations to those that attend our conference if they submit those needs in advance. It is a financial burden for schools to try to cover that cost. Some of the responsibility is the regions and not just the host schools. We are not held responsible if they do not close those special needs.

18. UWL – Point of Clarification – Legally schools have to attempt to make every consideration to meet everyone’s needs.

19. UWL – It should not be a requirement for all these schools. 20. Purdue NRHH – Yield. 21. InSU – There are already state and federal laws that require

buildings to be ADA accessible. 22. Carthage – Point of Information – Private schools do not fall

under that. 23. EMU NRHH – This legislation doesn’t seem necessary. 24. WMU – Point of Inquiry – Is it in our documents that we have

to abide by the law? Yes. 25. MSU – Yield. 26. Purdue – Yield to Purdue NRHH. 27. Purdue NRHH – Amendment. 28. GVSU NRHH – Yield. 29. UWW NRHH – Call the question. Objected by InSU. 30. InSU – As amended it basically states what is already in the

Constitution. 31. SVSU – We should just vote on it. 32. SIUC NRHH – We have policies that we have to follow

already. Leave it to the CCs to see if schools have these accommodations. Yield to SIUC.

33. SIUC – Accommodations need to be made otherwise we will be sued and the organization will no longer exist.

34. UIC – Yield. 35. UWSP – We are going in circles. We are not ready to

approve this and put it into our governing documents. 36. FSU NRHH – Are the forms in the constitution? We need to

have another change admitted. 37. LUC – Calls the question. MSU objects.

38. MSU – This needs to be assessed more. 39. LUC – When see “every attempt” it is a compromise. The

point is to have a form. We have the opportunity to say no to a bidding school.

40. Michigan RCC – Part of the reason this legislation was written because of how it was stated that the only disabilities that were written in the constitution are not the only disabilities that exist.

41. UM NRHH – MSU meant a lot more with this legislation than just ADA. We need to consider other accommodations and special needs that we aren’t already covering.

42. SIUC – Motion to exhaust the speakers list. Objected by CMU.

43. GVSU NRHH – Move to strike everything except for the first sentence. Seconded by MU NRHH.

a. Discussion i. LUC – How are they bound to follow anything? ii. GVSU NRHH – We already follow under the

law. iii. BSU – If we do get a form from the delegates,

we have to accommodate them. iv. UIC – Can we quit beating around the bush? v. UWSP – vi. UM NRHH – Move to amend the amendment

and seconded by MSU. 1. LUC Calls the question on the

amendment. No objection. 2. Consent called by WMU on the

secondary amendment. vii. EIU calls the question. No objections. Consent

called. viii. UWEC – Yield. ix. SIUC – Call the question. CMU objects. x. CMU – Needs amending. xi. GVSU NRHH – Moves to recess seconded by

LUC. Consent called with no objection.

XXXIV. A van is available to those that ADA. Reconvene at 1:00pm.

XXXV. Call to order 1:12pm by Stephen

XXXVI. Roll Call #5 by Ty

XXXVII. Ronald McDonald House Presentation – Lois

XXXVIII. Back into Legislation starting with MME a. Discussion

i. MSU – Call the question. MU objects ii. MU wants to see the final piece. iii. NIU – want to move this to committee because of wording issues. iv. SIUC NRHH – Yield to NIU. v. NIU – move to send this committee.

1. Vote on sending it to committee. 23:15:0. Motion passes at 1:51pm.

b. Move to bring MMA to the floor made by UM and seconded by GVSU. i. UWSP move to waive the reading seconded by UWGB. ii. Proponent. iii. Q&A

1. UWO – There is not a specific date listed in the legislation. Is that going to be set? No, it would be left to the

2. WMU NRHH – Why all three (ADFA, Director, Advisor)? 3. SVSU NRHH – How would the ADFA hold them

accountable? iv. Discussion

1. Carthage – Not a big of a fan of this. Monthly reports seem unnecessary. Expecting them to submit during the summer months seems like we are asking a lot.

2. MSU – This is a reasonable piece. It provides a good set of checks and balances. Conference staffs are expected to work during the summer months.

3. GVSU NRHH – If the budget has not changed, it will be easy to submit a report. GLACURH does not stop during the summer months.

4. WMU – Call the question. No objection. 5. Vote on MMA – 36:2:0. MMA passes at 1:58pm.

XXXIX. Semis Report

a. Ty and Stephen both attended semis January 3-8. Semis is the Semi-Annual business meeting for the NBD. We voted on several important pieces of legislation. The USA Today contract was voted on. They did a presentation and the NBD decided not to renew the contract. NACURH has been in contact with other companies/corporations who could be possible corporate sponsors. There was not a really large benefit to having them as a NACURH sponsor. Another big thing is the changing of policy for NACURH 4 Year Service Pins. A letter from the RHA Advisor is no longer required. One piece of legislation that was passed dealt with how the break-even point is set. Conferences that return large excess have a contingency plan now. They are now able to raise the break-even point to 85% if needed. Talked a lot about ADA and how we are going to avoid being sued. Every region would need to set up an ADA savings account. It sets up a safeguard for ADA needs. We will build up this fund

by adding an additional add-on fee until this fund is up to $10,000. The decision on what the add-on fee would be will be discussed later. Passed two pieces of legislation dealing with international issues. Both deal with budgets for conferences and NACURH being shown in all currencies that member schools would use. It must be made available. The NBD passed legislation on changing the NIC re-bidding process. NBD selected SALT and POY winners. GLACURH had no nominations for SALT and one nomination for POY.

b. NACURH 2005 Presentation

XL. Issues Sessions a. Formulate plans of action. Meet back in an hour.

i. ADA – Pere Marquette ii. Future of the RBD – NRHH Board Room iii. Bidding – 142 iv. Living the Mission – 004

XLI. Call to Order 3:56pm by Stephen

XLII. Roll Call #6 by Ty

XLIII. Report on Breakout Issues Sessions

a. ADA – Earnest, MSU, i. Current issues

1. Non-PC language/non-inclusive 2. only talks of housing facilities

ii. What we want 1. Drop term disabled – focus on special needs 2. Sensitivity 3. Host school to accommodate pre-disclosed needs 4. Needs to be general 5. Go beyond housing 6. Forms 7. Acknowledgement of needs by host school 8. Show proof of being able to provide 9. Schools attempt to make accessible/all inclusive 10. Host school, region, delegate, and delegate’s school

responsible for accommodations b. Future of the RBD Session – Jason, EMU NRHH

i. Talking about RCC position and looked at different ways in which we could use our RCCs. Would it strengthen us to make both state and positional. Make specific job duties beside that. Make a good start to get stronger in the future with what we have.

ii. Also talked about a specific NRHH Advisor. Having Advisor-Elect in the NRHH board takes away from transition time. They aren’t in

the NCC board room all the time. The NRHH Advisor could attend RAD Conference.

c. Bidding – Many things were discussed including why aren’t schools bidding to host conferences, why people aren’t bidding for RBD positions. The group also discussed what is discouraging people from bidding, what are fears involved in bidding. A lot of feedback was given not just from NCCs and NRHH representatives, but also from Advisors who were present. The feedback and suggestions will be given to Stephen and the rest of the RBD. The group also briefly discussed electronic bidding and issues that arise with it.

d. Living with the Mission – Millikin, Ryan, MU, SIUC NRHH i. What do we need improvement on in program etc.

1. Academic programs a. Have it in program criteria to fulfill programming

mission (RBD, Conference Staff) b. Have programming sessions based on academics,

etc. and set a cap c. Have a GLACURH set a list of what can be presented

or limit on presenting (what programs are deficient) 2. Cultural/Diversity

a. We do not discuss cultural differences/races enough b. Broaden view on diversity c. Give definitions, don’t explain/act on it d. More advanced cultural/diversity programs (different,

participation more depth, diversity) e. More experienced veteran delegates presenting

(veterans track, level programming, target audience of program that most useful for)

f. GLACURH sponsored campus programs (taking program ideas and making own)

g. GLACURH sponsored acitivity with letter of sponsorship like labeling GLACURH on canisters for pop tabs, etc.

h. 1 event schools do annually to support philanthropy i. Run woodstock, battle of the bands, regional

competition, activity for current charity here

XLIV. State breakout time with your RCC

XLV. Dinner☺

XLVI. Call to Order at 5:49PM by Stephen

XLVII. Roll Call #8 by Ty

XLVIII. Announcements a. NRHH reps and NCCs will be coming back to different boardrooms. If you

are a NRHH rep and have written legislation, you will need to be in the NCC boardroom. Do not use your cell phones. Save your cans. Back at 7:15pm to reconvene.

XLIX. Case Study

a. Thanks to advisors for participating and judging. Thanks to Becka and Jamie from NIU, Amy and Dani from UM. The Winners are Amy and Dani from the UM.

L. Motion to recess made by WMU and seconded by UWEC. No objection.

LI. Call to order at 7:17pm by Stephen

LII. Roll Call #9 by Ty

LIII. Announcements

a. Please make sure to fill out conference evaluations that are in the folder. RBD evaluations need to be turned in to your RCC.

LIV. Legislation

a. WMU moves to bring MMQ to the floor. No objection. i. NIU moves to waive the reading seconded by EIU. ii. Proponent iii. Q&A

1. MU – Did you find any problems where people said they wouldn’t do it? No, because I was not on RBD. It should be in the constitution.

iv. Discussion 1. UIC calls the question. WMU objects. 2. WMU moves to amend to MMQ seconded by EMU NRHH. 3. UIC – If you do not submit in paper form, how will you know

if the letters of support are forged. A hard copy should be brought to the conference.

4. St. Mary’s – Bids submitted in paper form is kind of fail safe. 5. CMU – Letters of recommendation being forged shouldn’t be

an issue because people should be honest. 6. WMU – Some schools do not get copy charges covered. It

is easy to do on the website. It shouldn’t be an issue to print.

7. SIUC – Ditto CMU. 8. NCC – If schools can afford to send a delegation, they can

afford one copy of a bid. 9. Carthage – This was discussed two years ago at No Frills.

Technology problems arise with technology. It causes a

problem with creativity. We need to stray away from going completely with technology.

10. UWSP – In most of the constitution we refer to No Frills as the business meeting. Can we keep it consistant?

11. EMU NRHH – Move to friendly amend the amendment. 12. MU – If we realize the time frame, we can fix it later. 13. BSU – Proposes a friendly amendment to the amendment. 14. Regional Advisor – Some awards must be narrowed down

after submission due to high number of submissions. 15. LUC – One of the main concerns that was brought up before

was about the risk of technology. 16. UWW – You call it a regional semi-annual business meeting,

can it be consistent? 17. CMU – The NIC is in the process of scanning all old bids and

making it more paper free. Switching it over to completely electronic is completely wonderful.

18. Motion to amend the amendment made by SIUC. a. NIU – This makes a lot of sense. b. MSU – Call the question. BSU objects. c. BSU – The reason that the no later than 10 days was

added. We should put the no later than. d. UIC – Yield. e. EMU NRHH – It could take 10 days. f. LUC – Yield. g. EIU – Call the question. h. Vote on the amendment. Consent called without

objection. 19. WMU – Another reason is that if bids get there the day

before or of the conference. 20. SVSU – Moves to friendly amend to three weeks. 21. EMU NRHH – Calls the question. Objected by Uindy. 22. Uindy – Point of Parliamentary Precodure. 23. NCC – Couldn’t we make K easier and leave it up to the

discretion of the advisor? It’s good to leave it up to the discretion of the advisor.

24. UIC – Ditto NCC. 25. St. Mary’s – How long would it take the RBD to narrow it

down? They are due typically four weeks earlier. 26. EMU NRHH – Move to amend letter K of the amendment.

Seconded by UIC. a. Discussion on amendment.

i. UIC – this pretty much settles letter K. ii. BSU – Calls the question. No objection. iii. Consent

b. CMU – Calls the question with no objection. c. Vote on amendment passes 34:2:1.

27. EMU NRHH 28. WMU – Calls the question. 29. Vote on MMQ is 35:2:0. MMQ passes 7:53pm.

b. MSU moves to bring MMG to the floor seconded by EIU. No objection. i. NIU moves to waive the reading seconded by GVSU. ii. Proponent iii. Q&A

1. BSU – Article IX, Section 2, Subsection G it isn’t stated his/her.

2. WMU – Point of Inquiry is there a way that this can be changed to

3. CMU – Point of Inquiry – Can the RBD just change this as grammatical errors?

4. WMU – Calls the question. 5. Vote on MMG is 0:36:1. MMG fails at 7:58pm.

c. ADFA will change all instances of “him/her” o “the individual.” d. GVSU moves to bring MMC to the floor seconded by EMU NRHH. No

objection. i. KUA moves to waive the reading seconded by GVSU. ii. Proponent iii. Q&A

1. NIU – Has there been a big problem with getting schools to turn in their wrap-up reports? Yes.

2. CMU – In the whereas, it doesn’t say when it should be turned in by. When would it be?

3. MSU – Have you thought about paying for the host schools add-on fees? It might not be feasible each

4. SVSU – Who determines an acceptable wrap-up report? iv. Discussion

1. WMU – A host school puts a lot of work into a conference. We can definitely afford.

2. Carthage – Move to amend to add in “on time”. a. Discussion

i. BSU – This is just a safeguard. ii. NIU Calls the question. iii. Consent called and amendment passes.

3. BSU – This is not a lot of incentive, this is still a good thing to do.

4. CMU – Call the question. No objection. 5. Vote on MMC is 37:0:0. MMC passed at 8:05pm.

e. EMU NRHH moves to bring MMF to the floor seconded by EIU. i. CMU moves to waive the reading. No objection. ii. Proponent. iii. Q&A

1. WMU moves to end Q&A seconded by GVSU. iv. Discussion

1. Carthage calls the question. 2. Vote on MMF is 36:1:0. MMF passes at 8:07pm.

f. UWSP move to groove for 5 minutes seconded by UWP. Motion passes.

LV. Roll Call #10 by Ty

LVI. Legislation a. SIUE moves to bring MMH. 20:14:3. b. Director yields gavel to ADFA c. Move to waive reading WMU, seconded by GVSU d. Proponent e. Q&A

i. Move to extend by 5 minutes SVSU. No objection. ii. Move to end Q&A. Without objection.

f. CMU move to amend. g. WMU: RBD would pick the candidate, that the Director is overseeing the

process. Director should pick, and have RBD approve because then you get someone the Director can work with.

h. BSU: yield i. CMU: we all elected RBD and put confidence in them and they can pick

the parliamentarian we can all work with. j. NCC: comes down to whether or not director should appoint. RCCs

represent us. Parliamentarian doesn’t just work with Director because of the effect on the way business is conducted.

k. GVSU NRHH: the parliamentarian would be selected by rbd with director but parliamentarian works with director so director should pick.

l. EMU NRHH: Can we show what amendment will state if passed? m. Marquette: what we struck is the approval of the RCCs so there would

have been RCC approval anyway n. WMU: Move to amend. Second by BSU

i. St Mary’s: yield ii. WMU: yield iii. CMU: this is basically the same as an appointment iv. UWSP: big difference is the application, other people can apply v. GVSU NRHH: amendment doesn’t clarify anything at all and

doesn’t account for when parliamentarian resigns vi. NIU: yield vii. WMU: application process is important to say, application gives

proof, why would we pick a director who would be unethical viii. Kettering A: Call the question. GVSU objects. ix. UIC: yield x. SIUE: move previous question. Second by BSU. 28:7:2. xi. Vote on amendment: 17:19:1 amendment fails

o. CMU: calls question. Kettering A seconds. 10:27:0 Amendment fails p. CMU: yield q. EMU NRHH: move to amend. Second by UIC.

i. EMU NRHH: NCCs should have final say over who gets it. Odds of not confirming are low. Already have final say on everyone else. No need for parliamentarian between conferences.

ii. GVSU NRHH: If someone is not elected at business meeting, then NCCs don’t get final say. Why would exofficio position need to be approved but a full position would not need to be approved.

iii. CMU: we elect the board of directors to make decisions for us. We don’t need to directly vote because we elected RBD.

iv. NCC: friendly amendment. Accepted by EMU NRHH. v. BSU: if we do not vote to approve can Director appoint? vi. WMU: if we trust RBD to make decisions, then why are we even

here? vii. BSU: what happens if we do not approve parliamentarian? viii. UWSP: question for RCC: would you feel comfortable approving

parliamentarian? 1. IL RCC: we saw bid, it wasn’t that we had no info, if we don’t

feel comfortable with it, would we put him in front of this group? No. I feel completely comfortable.

2. WI RCC: when we approved we had time to read application and there was plenty of info and we got to ask Stephen questions as to why he appointed Joe.

ix. MSU: call question. Without objection. r. Time. s. SVSU: move to extend by 5 minutes. Second. Consent. t. Back to vote on amendment. 0:36:1 u. EMU: yield v. MSU: call question. Without objection. MMH passes 32:5:0 at 9:09 pm w. ADFA yields gavel back to Director.

LVII. Recognition

LVIII. Legislation

a. CMU moves to bring MMI to the floor seconded by St. Mary’s College. b. UWSP move to waive the reading seconded by FSU. c. Proponent d. Q&A

i. CMU – Do you actually believe it reads feasible at the closing banquet or at the end of No Frills? The RBD works with host schools to make sure plaques to be ready.

e. Discussion i. WMU – Calls the question. No objection. ii. Vote on MMI is 35:0:1 with LUC was absent from the vote. Motion

passes at 9:18pm. f. Carthage moves to bring MMJ to the floor seconded by St. Mary’s

College. i. FSU moves to waive the reading seconded by UWGB.

ii. Proponent iii. Q&A

1. BSU – moves ot end Q&A. Objected by MSU. 2. MSU – Is there actually a difference being put in there? Isn’t

it already in there? 3. Say you were 21, and you wanted to go to the bar after this,

how would this effect? 4. EMU NRHH – Isn’t your sentence saying the same thing? 5. BSU – Would they be following the rules of the RBD and not

the host school? 6. UWSP – Was “or not” the only thing that was added? Yes. 7. FSU – Is it really changing anything? 8. InSU – Did you check the current policy? 9. GVSU NRHH – Move to end Q&A. 10. Time called.

iv. Discussion 1. SIUC – Calls the question. Objection by Manchester 2. Manchester – That includes to and from. It’s not really clear

whether travel is considered part of the event. 3. WMU – It may be redundant, but it is important to say. It just

makes it clearer. 4. UIC – She just changed two words, so let’s vote. 5. GVSU NRHH – Calls the question. No objection. 6. Vote on MMI is 23:13:1. MMI fails 9:29pm.

g. GVSU NRHH move to bring MMK to the floor seconded by St. Mary’s College. No objection.

i. FSU moves to waive the reading seconded by EIU. ii. Proponent iii. Q&A

1. EMU NRHH – When are NACURH bids due? April 15 2. UM – Who collects votes? Parliamentarian 3. MU – Who would come back to present? The delegation/bid

presenters. 4. SIUC – How does this system make it any easier? We

would be sitting down and discussing. The procedure would be more fair.

5. Carthage – Where do you plan on putting the discussion time? It needs to be amended.

6. MSU – Yield. 7. GVSU NRHH – How do you perceive affecting the quality of

the bid that is submitted for NACURH? I don’t think it will affect the quality.

8. WMU – What was it you forgot to say? What happens at the end of the conference is unconstitutional.

9. SIUC – You still want to keep the bid GLACURH to GLACURH, TIME.

10. Motion to extend Q&A by 5 minutes made by KUA and seconded by BSU. No objection.

11. NIU – How was it unconstitutional? We should open it back up to the floor. Just rethink the process.

12. UWS – How would this change it and why is it important? 13. Motion to end Q&A

iv. Discussion 1. SIUC – Calls the question. Objected by CMU 2. NIU – We listen to the bids. You should have enough time

to decide. 3. GVSU NRHH – It severely cuts down the time a school has

to prepare a bid for SOY. 4. NCC – It’s not a bad idea to consider the SOY winners

again. 5. UWSP – It is in the constitution. We do not discuss it in the

board room so it can be a surprise at the banquet. We should be prepared enough to vote at the end of the night.

6. EMU NRHH – Move to amend MMK. Seconded by CMU. a. Discussion

i. EMU – We should have time to talk about who we want to be our representative.

ii. CMU – The only thing that disagree with is that we should just move into a discussion instead of sitting through Q&A again.

iii. InSU – Yield. iv. WMU – Move to strike the 5 minutes

presentation on the amendment. 1. Discussion

a. WMU – We can’t know that other people are going to be professional. We should just go into discussion.

b. UWRF – It will still be a surprise who will be the national representative.

c. CMU – Think we should call the question.

d. SIUC – Yield. e. SVSU – Yield. f. WMU – Calls the question. No

objection. g. Vote on amendment is 29:6:1.

Amendment passes 9:51pm. v. CMU – Move to amend to say there will be a

10 minute discussion period. Rescinded. vi. LUC – Yield.

vii. SVSU – Yield. viii. UWS – Yield. ix. SIUE – Call the question. No objection. x. Vote on amendment is 24:9:4. Amendment

passes 9:53pm. 7. EMU NRHH – Calls the question. 8. Vote on MMK is 27:8:2. MMK passes at 9:54pm.

h. Move to groove for 5 minutes made by UWSP.

LIX. Roll Call #11 by Ty

LX. Recognition

LXI. Legislation a. FSU moves to bring MML to the floor seconded by SIU.

i. Motion to waive the reading made by WMU and seconded by UWGB.

ii. Proponent. iii. Q&A

1. WMU – Move to end Q&A. iv. Discussion

1. UIC – Call the question. No objection. 2. Vote on MML is 37:0:0. MML passes 10:13pm.

b. EMU NRHH move to bring MMO to the floor seconded by Uindy. CMU objects to bringing it to the floor. Placard vote 20:12:5 and passes.

i. WMU moves to waive the reading seconded by GVSU. No objection.

ii. Proponent. iii. Q&A

1. WMU – How if at all does this criteria differ from the national SALT award?

2. GVSU NRHH – Point of information there is a whole subsection missing and it is not word for word with national policy.

3. UWSP – If the timeline is for the national award, 4. CMU – We can already as a region bid for this award? Any

school can bid, but no GLACURH school can bid as a GLACURH representative.

5. KUA – TIME called 6. SVSU moves to extend time by 10 minutes and seconded by

BSU. Motion fails 6:30:1. iv. Discussion

1. EMU NRHH – Rescinds MMO. c. MSU – Motion to reconsider MMK and seconded by GVSU NRHH.

i. MSU – What would we be doing during this discussion? ii. Discussion

1. UM – Calls the question. No objection. 2. Vote on reconsidering is 31:4:2. Motion passes at 10:28pm.

We are going back to the original speakers list. 3. EMU NRHH – Yield to MSU. 4. MSU – Motion to amend seconded by UM.

a. Discussion i. WMU – Calls the question. No objection. ii. Vote on the amendment. Consent called.

5. LUC – Yield. 6. SVSU – Yield. 7. CMU – Call the question. Objection. 8. UM – Call the question. Objection by SVSU. 9. UIC – Yield. 10. WMU – Move to amend MMK. No second. 11. Advisor – Talking about a closed discussion and then

announcing it of who will go on. 12. LUC – If we want clarification, we need to watch sentence

structure. 13. SIUC – Moves to amend the sentence seconded by

Carthage. a. Discussion.

i. BSU friendly amends and is accepted by SIUC. ii. NRHH Reenters the room. iii. LUC – Moves to amend the amendment by

striking the first two sentences seconded. 1. EMU NRHH – Challenges the decision

of the Parliamentarian. 2. UWL – Calls the question. NCC objects. 3. NCC – There is not just grammatical

errors. 4. LUC – Results of the decision who are

the size category winners are announced to spark discussion on who will be the representative.

5. UIC – It now goes in order. 6. UWL – Calls the question. NCC

objects. 7. MSU – Yield to NCC. 8. NCC – This second one doesn’t call it a

closed discussion. The second one doesn’t say as clearly as the first one.

9. SIUE – Move to previous question. No second.

10. LUC – Yield to NCC. 11. NCC moves to friendly amend. LUC

accepts.

12. LUC – Call the question. No objections. 13. Vote on amendment is 34:2:1.

Amendment passes 11:02pm. 14. InSU – Yield. 15. Carthage – Call the question. No objection. 16. Vote on motion is 34:2:1. MMK passes 11:03pm.

d. Uindy moves to have a 5 minutes move to groove seconded by EIU.

LXII. Call to order at 11:09 by Stephen

LXIII. Roll Call #11 by Ty

LXIV. Announcements and Recognition a. Ditto Card Competition – EIU b. Conference Staff Announcements – 11:30-1am is hospitality. Pool is open

until 1am. There are events in the field house (inflatables, casino night). Evaluations may be found in your folders and turn them in at checkout. Breakfast starts at 6am. Pop cans may be put under the table in the back. Please clean up under your table. To check out, just go to the front counter of the hotel. Latest checkout time is 11:00am. Staff will be there from 6:00am until 11:00am to collect evaluations.

c. If you have not filled out your RBD survey yet, give it to your RCC by the end of the night.

d. Clean up the room. e. You need to be back at the hotel by 1:00am. Sleep! f. Shuttles stop at 1:00am. g. Final snaps!

LXV. Adjournment a. Motion to adjourn made by GVSU and seconded by SIUC. No Frills 2005

is adjourned at 11:30pm.

NF05 ROLL CALL School RC #1 RC #2 RC #3 RC #4 RC #5 RC #6 RC #7 RC #8 RC #9 RC #10 RC #11 RC #12

Alma College

Augustana College

Ball State University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Carthage College x x x x x x x x x x x x

Central Michigan University x x x x x x x x x x x x

DePaul University

Eastern Illinois University x x x x x

x x

x x

X x x

Eastern Michigan University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Ferris State University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Grand Valley State University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Illinois State University

Illinois Wesleyan University

Indiana State University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Indiana University- Bloomington x x x x x x x x x x x x

Kettering University - A Section x x x x x x x x x x x

Kettering University - B section

Lawrence Technological University

Loyola University Chicago x x x x x x x x x x x x

Manchester College x x x x x x x x x x x x

Marquette University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Michigan State University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Millikin University x x x x x x x x

North Central College x x x x x x x x x x x x

Northern Illinois University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Purdue University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Saginaw Valley State University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Saint Mary's College x x x x x x x x x x x x

Southern Illinois University Carbondale x x x x x x x x x x x x

Southern Illinois University Edwardsville x x x x x x x x x x x x

St. Norbert College

University of Evansville x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Illinois at Chicago x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Indianapolis x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Michigan x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Southern Indiana

University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Green Bay x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - LaCrosse x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Platteville x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - River Falls x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point x x x x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Stout x x x x x

x

x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Whitewater x x x x x x x x x x x x

Valparaiso University

Western Illinios University x x x x x x x x x x x x

Western Michigan University x x x x x x x x x x x x

NRHH

Ball State University x x x x x x x x x

Central Michigan University x x x x x x x x x

Eastern Illinois University x x x x x x x x x

Eastern Michigan University x x x x x x x x x x x

Ferris State University x x x x x x x x x

Grand Valley State University x x x x x x x x x x x

Illinois Wesleyan University

Indiana State University x x x x x x x x x

Loyola University Chicago x x x x x x x x x

Marquette University x x x x x x x x x

Michigan State University x x x x x x x x x

Millikin University x x x x x x

Northern Illinois University x x x x x x x x x

Purdue University x x x x x x x x x

Saginaw Valley State University x x x x x x x x x

Southern Illinois University - Carbondale x x x x x x x x x

St. Norbert College

University of Illinois - Chicago x x x x x x x x x

University of Michigan x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Green Bay x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - LaCrosse x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Platteville x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - River Falls x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Stout x x x x x x x x x

University of Wisconsin - Whitewater x x x x x x x x x

Western Illinois University x x x x x x x x

Western Michigan University x x x x x x x x x

OTHER

NIC Rep x x x x x x x x x

NRHH NO

OCM x x x x x x x x

Director x x x x x x x x x x x x

ADFA x x x x x x x x x x x x

ADNRHH x x x x x x x x

ADIT x x x x x x x x x x x x

MI RCC x x x x x x x x x x

WI RCC x x x x x x x x x x

IL RCC x x x x x x x x x x

IN RCC x x x x x x x x x x x

Advisor x x x x x x x x x x x x

Advisor-Elect x x x x x x x x

Parliamentarian x x x x x x x x x x x x