Nov

22

CCSC: Unanimity!

Written by

"These resolutions are good to go. Do you like my goggles?"

Brian Wagner was on the scene.

The meeting started with a brief update on the new space CUEMS had requested. GSSC and ESC voted to give them both Broadway 102 and 103, but ABC voted against CUEMS using either one of the rooms. Then, CCSC moved into the main business of the evening.

Generally, meetings start with a few requests by student groups for CCSC to cosponsor events. CCSC usually accepts the requests, though sometimes provides slightly less money than a group wants. This time, however, Bacchanal requested a CCSC consponsorship. As you know, their events tend to be a little larger and more expensive than those of the average student group. Members raised concerns that CCSC’s money would merely be a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of Bacchanal’s event, and delayed a vote until more in-depth discussions take place.

Then came the controversial smoking ban. Following the September release of Tobacco Working Group’s report, which recommended increasing the required distance between smokers and the nearest building entrance, CCSC discussed the whether to recommend a 20- or 50-foot anti-smoking force field. After checking out some fancy maps of campus with both 20- and 50-foot bans delineated, CCSC voted unanimously in support of a resolution backing a 20 foot rule.

The Good Samaritan Policy, discussed last week, was also passed unanimously. However, the council made an  important change from the version previously discussed. The resolution now includes amnesty for student organizations, as well as individuals. Some council members feared this might be abused by organizations. Perhaps people would make unnecessary calls to CUEMS for no reason other than to gain amnesty if there is fear a party might be busted. The council concluded the risk of this type of abuse was relatively low compared to the benefits of instituting the policy.

Finally, CCSC considered the creation of a Columbia Club Soccer [Team]. Club sports are technically not allowed to use “team” in their official titles; that’s reserved for varsity sports. CCSC has no power to create a club soccer team, but the resolution would show that council members support the creation of such a team. The issue isn’t a new one; the Club Sports Governing Board considered a similar proposal last year. As it stands, Columbia is the only Ivy with no club soccer “team,” leaving us conspicuously and embarrassingly absent from the annual tournament. The main problem in creating a club soccer team is the lack of practice space, but the club soccer advocate made it clear that the group would completely take up the responsibility of finding practice space. A CSGB representative mentioned that in order for club soccer to happen, the CSGB constitution would need to be amended because it currently forbids the creation of club teams that have a varsity counterpart. CSGB was concerned that allowing club soccer would open the floodgates for a surge of new requests for recognition. Still, the rep noted that CSGB would maintain strict requirements and monitor new clubs closely. Bearing all these complications in mind, CCSC voted unanimously in support of club soccer.

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Tags: , , ,

2 Comments

  1. CU-EMS  

    How did SGB vote on the CU-EMS proposal?

  2. sgb  

    voted to give room 103 to CU-EMS.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.