CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

CENTRAL BOARD MEETING Date: December 20, 2013

Venue: MVP 200 Time: 4:45pm to 8:45pm

AGENDA (underlined = to be continued, italics = postponed/deferred): 1) Approval of minutes c/o AJ Elicaño (5mins) 2) CAP c/o OVP (60mins) 3) Budget Hearing c/o Tin Andujare and DSWS (30mins) 4) Privilege Speech by AJ Elicaño (10mins) ATTENDANCE (underlined = absent, italics = late/early departure, * = non-voting): Daniel Antonio S. Remo President Ryan Carl Y. Yu Vice-President Antonio Rafael N. Elicaño Secretary-General Kristine Mae B. Andujare Finance Officer Michaella Paula M. Aldea COA President Von Vincent Rene A. Cruz ARSA President Jose Norberto V. Reyes 3 SOH Central Board Rep Nina Louise J. Atienza 2 SOH Central Board Rep Rocyl Marie Sangalang 1 SOH Central Board Rep Michael Xavier C. Tobias* SOSE Secretary-Treasurer Pamela Anne M. Gaerlan 2 SOSE Central Board Rep Camille C. Diez 1 SOSE Central Board Rep Redentor John R. Dimla* SOH Chairperson Jose Javier V. Poe IV1* JGSOM Chairperson Larisse Jem H. Mondok 4 JGSOM Central Board Rep Luis Miguel D. De Jesus 3 JGSOM Central Board Rep Ray Cristofer C. Gomez 2 JGSOM Central Board Rep Jared Matthew A. Sarmiento 1 JGSOM Central Board Rep Marvin T. Lagonera2* SOSS Secretary-Treasurer Abelardo G. Hernandez 2 SOSS Central Board Rep Samantha Nicole M. Warren 1 SOSS Central Board Rep

1 2

Proxied by Larisse Mondok. On LOA.

1

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

MINUTES Approval of Agenda Motion to move CAP to end of agenda by VP, seconded by 1 SOSE CB. Motion approved unanimously. Motion to approve agenda by 4 SOM CB, seconded by 1 SOSE CB. Motion approved unanimously

Approval of Minutes Elicaño: You know the drill. Motion to approve minutes by 4 SOM CB, seconded by 2 SOSE CB. Minutes approved unanimously. Recess for five minutes.

Budget Hearing—DSWS Lim: Loans—P1,000.00 Five USB phone chargers. Carpool—P29,400.00 Carpool signages. De Jesus: For iPhone 5 with the, the little, the small one? I've bought like three times from CD-R King, and all of them broke in two weeks. Lim: Where would you recommend? Apple is too expensive. Tobias: You have chargers right now? Lim: Also CD-R. Tobias: How has the usage been? Lim: That's why we have to buy. Reyes: If we can't ensure quality from CD-R King, we'd be okay with more expensive, as long as they survive. Gomez: If another phone model comes up that needs another charger, might be problematic. 2

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Andujare: Procedure before? Did you buy official? Lim: Unclaimed lost and found. Yu: Shouldn't iPad be chargeable with iPhone 4 and 5? Hernandez: If someone breaks it, shouldn't they pay? Lim: Yes. But sometimes it's broken when they stick it in. Motion to approve USB phone charger budget by VP, seconded by 2 SOM CB. YES – 12 NO – 2 Vice-President 2 SOH CB 2 SOSE CB 3 SOH CB Secretary-General 1 SOSS CB 1 SOM CB 4 SOM CB Finance Officer 2 SOSS CB 2 SOM CB 1 SOH CB 1 SOSE CB 3 SOM CB Budget approved. Yu: Will the carpool signages replace the current? Lim: Will add. Want to put up a sign per carpool slot. Andujare: Describe? Made of metal, right? Motion to approve by 4 SOM CB, seconded by 3 SOH CB. Objection by 2 SOM CB. Gomez: Clarification. How long will those last? Lim: Metal, will last long. Andujare: FMO, will make the signs. It will look like the signs already available. Objection withdrawn. Budget approved unanimously. Andujare: For tonight, that's all we had. We approved P30,400 tonight, it takes 68.24 people to pay for that. I hope we do make an impact to more than those. Given the coming elections, request everyone to submit proposals already. Will accept budget proposals by Wednesday, 11:59pm, hearing on Friday. Cannot guarantee quorum after that. Gomez: Did we have loans before? Have they been paid? Andujare: Did not push through with getting the money.

Privilege Speech by AJ Elicaño Time check: there are two regular CB meetings scheduled before the General Elections. Then two afterwards, for transition, and then we're done. Whether we meet more times before that, we can, but the point is: the days of our administration are numbered, and the numbers are small. 3

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

It may not feel like it yet, but we need to start moving into transition mode. We have some projects left, like SOH and SOSS Week are still coming up, but for the most part, we're done. If you haven't accomplished your platform yet, either work a miracle or accept that you have failed. And that's normal; not that it should be acceptable, but people fall short all the time. The first thing we sacrifice on the altar of urgency is our platforms--an unfortunate truth, and one that should be changed, but this is the world. This is the problem of Sanggu: we do so many things, and respond to so many issues, and so we forget sometimes that we need to fulfill the projects, services, and reforms that we promised. Our first duty is to serve the student body, and we forget that sometimes. Wait, no, that's not right. Let me go again. The problem of Sanggu is that we have failed to empower students. The problem is that we keep giving them things from the top, and imposing things that they don't want, rather than giving them the tools to make great things happen for themselves. Wait, no, that's not right either. The problem of Sanggu is that we do not politicize the student body enough. We get so caught up inside the four walls of Ateneo that we forget that there is a greater world out there, and that there is a nation waiting for us to speak. In truth, the problem of Sanggu is all of these and none of these, and if you so much as think of quoting one of the above statements out-of-context and calling it the one main problem of Sanggu, then you, you are part of the problem of Sanggu. All of these, all of these and many more are things which the Sanggunian needs to address. And they are things which I, in my million billion years of Sanggu, have seen us try to address. In my freshman year, when I had no position, I saw a Sanggu that was hardly visible because it was focusing on institutionalizing a set of systems that hadn't been codified before. EDTAFs were invented then, that's how old I am. When I was sophomore SOH CB Rep, we tried to address that invisibility, and focused on externalization, engaged citizenship, getting people involved in these big nation-building initiatives. Then in my third year, we thought that was too high-concept and that we needed to focus on ground-level services, empowering the School Boards and the like. Then last year, after a year spent focusing on services at the expense of politicization, we saw a CB full of debate, with political issues like APECO, mining, criminal age of liability, and many more coming up almost every week. And this year, this year, after that year of so much intense debate, let me tell you what I have seen. I have seen a Sanggu that for the first time was able to pull together big projects quickly, in reaction to issues. We mobilized for KKK, for large-scale relief operations, for donation drives for Zamboanga and the like. We have never done that before. Previous years, we've been so stuck in debate that by the time we can pull a project together, the issue is over. This year, we solved that. 4

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

But I fear for next year. I also see a Sanggu that has focused so much on pulling together quick projects that the everyday presence, reassurance, and service seems to have fallen by the wayside. ASCC calendars stopped coming out, regular consultations do not happen, even as we pull together mobilizations within days. People think we're only there when something big happens, and then we vanish like smoke. For everyone who may be running again, your first instinct may be to devote next year to fixing this problem. But then you fall into the cycle of Sanggunian--every year, we solve the problem of the previous year. After a quiet year, we want to politicize; after a year of debate, we want quick, decisive projects. And so, we focus so much energy on being different from the previous year that we only recognize the problem of this year, the problem that we are creating, when it is too late. There's a computer game called Alpha Centauri--it's pretty much Civilization in space, human colonists building empires on an alien planet. The twist is, the planet has this psychic fungus everywhere, and it spreads throughout the storyline. As the game progresses, you learn that the fungus is all linked, so the planet has a kind of mind, and it gets smarter as you go on. As we learn from ecology, when there is an excess of any kind of lifeform, the ecosystem can't sustain it, and it crashes. Everything dies. So as the fungus spreads across the planet, it approaches that point of critical mass. But it also gets smarter, the planet gets smarter. And this cycle repeats every few million years. So every few million years, the critical mass point, the point at which the planet is about to crash, is also when there is enough of the fungus to make the planetmind smart enough to figure out how to adjust its ecosystem to prevent the dieback. But at that point, it is out of time, and it has only a few brief moments of being smart enough to watch itself die, knowing just how to prevent it, and then the fungus dies and the planet becomes stupid again. It realizes how to fix itself exactly too late to do anything about it. This, the way I see it, is the problem of the Sanggunian. We realize the problem of the year exactly too late to do anything about it. And then we run, and promise to fix it next year, so we always solve last year's problem, when it is no longer last year. We have no historical view of Sanggu as an institution; all we have is last year, and our hatred of it, and that hatred blinds us to the long view of the past and to the possibilities of the horizon. We need to remember, and we need to remember to remember. The two are not the same. And we need to start instilling a consciousness of history into ourselves, so we can leapfrog the cycle instead of falling into it year after year. We need to understand Sanggu--both this year, and last year, and the year we changed the Constitution to accommodate the four Loyola Schools, and the year we gave feedback on the first ever AISIS, and the year we marched to EDSA, and the year we burned our records to prevent Marcos' soldiers from finding them, and the years before that. That was us. That was Sanggunian. That was the institution to which we belong, and we need to start situating ourselves in this tradition, so we can realize who we are and what is possible. Simple things. Take good minutes. Meet often enough. Prepare for transition and turnover as early as now. Pass on not just data, but metadata. Understand the return of the SOH School Board 5

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

not just as doing zero projects one year, then three, then more, with increasing rates of participation, but as a history of SOH majors dragging their friends into Sanggu, and then starting to see people run for themselves, and then building up a tradition of a School Board from nothing. Track the development of SOSE not in terms of seats filled and seats left vacant, but how interested people have been, how difficult it has been to get people to run, what gets people excited about SOSE Sanggu. I can't tell you all of how to transition. We're meeting next week as an OSG Core to throw around some ideas, particularly with my Secretariat and KM Teams--shout-out to the OSG table back there--but we can only do so much. So for the next couple of months, I invite everyone to think about what you wish you'd known when you entered your jobs, what they didn't tell you. Write it down, remember it all, pass it on, even the trivial stuff. History is as much what is forgotten as what is remembered. The problem with Sanggu is that it does not know how to deal with its problems. Vague, cyclical, but then, isn't Sanggu pretty much a vague cycle, when it comes down to it? And breaking a cycle-of apathy, of forgetting, of loss of history--has to start somewhere. People ask me why I write, and part of that is that I want to remember my story. So I invite everyone, the officers, everyone in this room, the people running again, the people not running again, the people who want to change things, the people who have given up--start writing down the story of Sanggu, as you know it. All of it, the good and the bad, the things people will need to know next year, and then the things they'll really need to know. No bullshit, no buzzwords; the time for that is past. The time we have left is two months. Let's finish strong, let's burn out brighter, let's leave a better Loyola Schools than we saw when we took these seats--and then let's remember how we did it. Remo: Traditionally, the president is obliged to do SOSA. By tradition, it's in December, as a midyear. But this year, we are doing it for February 10, the week before election day, just to add information to the election.

CAP Yu: Today is Friday the 10th. Deadline of COMELEC is two weeks before the election, which is Feb 12-24. Deadline is January 27, Monday. After today, two more CB meetings left. We can't finish on the scale that we initially conceived. Nick's original flow included major structural and vision-based changes, might not be wise to push now. Goal for now, maybe—come up with a new system. Nick did it very well. Other partner who will not be named helped as well. What we will move towards instead of a fundamental reorientation is minor alterations, minor but significant. There are some things that need little debate but have been clamored for during many administrations. These are urgent, and possible. 6

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Talk about this now, but two meetings is not enough. Is the CB willing to meet Mondays 4:30pm to 6:00pm? I know it's activity hour and we have org commitments, but it’s part of our responsibility as CB Reps. Reyes: Point—for the next two Mondays, next Monday is the last meeting of SOH SB before SOH Week, then after that is opening ceremony. Yu: Make a poll to see when we are most free. I'm more inclined to still holding it then, but we'll avoid important meetings. Andujare: Next few weeks are crucial for orgs. Maybe do it later in the day? CB meeting time, 6pm to 9pm? Better than taking away from the orgs. Elicaño: In line with what Juno said, we've always made way for big SB events with our meetings. Consistency. Lucero: Won't need that long. Yu: Extended CB meeting? Remo: In general, informal pulse, would people be willing to meet Mondays in order to finish the job? With none being said, we will call for it, and hope that we'll reach quorum. Yu: There is the option for proxying. Not ideal, understand that we have other commitments. But take responsibility, and also quorum. Gomez: Discuss even if not in the minutes? Yu: Things need to be on the record. Elicaño: And we can't vote. Remo: Turn the floor over to Nick. Lucero: Business points pa rin. Look into the text itself, do we accept the amendments proposed, retain the old versions, have something new to offer. Next few meetings, not today, today we will refresh, but for the next, we will try the system. One week allotted for consultation and dissemination, originally, Ryan asked me to do updates from the last CB meeting, but people might think these were approved already. Not true. So didn't push whole infographic. Will do quick announcements, then direct questions to the CB Reps. Next week: SJC's deadline for their part in the constitution, we will process those. Deadliest deadline is January 12. Hopefully we can invite the magistrates to explain. 7

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Before, we saw principles, policies, and purposes of Sanggu. Goal now is to see it with the changed parts. Each article holistically, or only the parts with amendments? Remo: Use red marks. Lucero: Article V Section 2—“Atenean community” means you include labor union rights, new point of view will be what will benefit the Ateneo community on a national scale, a global scale Section 3—sustainable development as a concept is problematic, baggage in terms of actual practice. If you make a project, do we have to keep doing it? What do we count? How about onetime projects? School nights that are parties, are they sustainable? In the context of sustainability, what does it bring to the table? Gomez: It says University thrust. If you change it, then we can't go for "University's thrust." Lucero: If you remove "sustainable," it's the same, just more vague. Hernandez: Define what projects are sustainable developments. Lucero: Keep in mind future Sanggunian's projects. We won't know their specifics, but this will make or break their approvals, their projects. Andujare: We review every two years. Is it our turn to take that out? Lucero: It's not there. This is from the 2012 commission, approved but not put into plebiscite. Hernandez: Clear difference between sustainable development and development? Lucero: No, people thought it sounded nice. People didn't consider nuances. Hernandez: Depends on your definitions. Reyes: Root of confusion is we do not know if they're using it as a technical term. Lucero: Implement rule—if we do not know what they were thinking, do not use it. Yu: Author is dead. Reyes: Use it and then define it. Lucero: Possible. Hernandez: We can put another section? Lucero: Annotations. Andujare: We have to be the ones to define. Yu: I as a SOM major would say yes to sustainable development. Future plans to make sustainability institute. University is heading there. But I also think we are taking too long to discuss this. Not minor, but we're going in circles. Do we press for a vote? Remo: One document, compile, then one reading. Lucero: Some amendments are one word. Remo: Section by section? COR ruling? Elicaño: I agree, but I don't want to waste motions on individual words. 8

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Mondok: Vote on contentious words, resolve them. Hernandez: Is that one word binding on everything Sanggu does? Is there something exclusive to it, that we will function differently with or without it? Andujare: For example, DL subsidies become problematic, because they promote photocopying, which is not environmentally sustainable. Lucero: You can do loopholes, but if people call you on it, then it happens. Yu: Ruling? Am I right in my understanding that we follow Larisse's proposal for an informal vote for contentious issues, adopt the pulse, and then ratify on formal vote. COR: Yes. Mondok: Isn't the University thrust sustainable development? Why is the University photocopying at all? Andujare: As an example, showing mindset, not hard-and-fast banning. Informal vote to keep "sustainable" in Section 2: Y—12, objection from Dan. Section 4. Lucero: Same use of "sustainable." Section 5. Remo: We deleted "The Sanggunian believes that education is a right and not a privilege." Why did we do this? Elicaño: Maybe because it’s the slogan of a particular NGO? Rephrase? Section 7. Lucero: On marginalized sectors, given multicultural frameworks, which sectors do we prioritize? Put in marginalized sectors—there is always a kind of injustice inflicted upon them. Originally, no specific sectors. But we need to choose. I ask that the Sanggunian prioritize the marginalized sectors. The definition is broad, but some are clear. If we get a particular set of agendas from sectors, it will help us prioritize. Elicaño: How might we act differently? Lucero: Not problematic with what we usually do, but it will change priorities. When DEA or CSPA look for sectors, they will prioritize them. Hernandez: For Section 5, define what part of education is a right. If we say college education is a right, some people find that problematic. High school education might be a right, but if you can't be an accountant, you can still function. Lucero: To clarify the point, Abbo is saying that we need to clarify the definition of education. You can consider tertiary education not a right. Gomez: We're a tertiary institution. By putting it there, we're kind of saying that the education we are getting is a right. 9

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Yu: To clarify, that line is there now. Pulse whether we open the discussion for that. Officially it's a vote to open discussion. Informal pulse to open discussion: Y—8, N—4. Lucero: We have to define education in tandem with our definitions of rights and privilege. Hernandez: Guiding principle. If you define it like a fact, then it's not a principle. By guiding principle, do we have no regard for current standing definitions of these words? Andujare: Philippine constitution says it's a right at all levels. Hernandez: That's why we give public education. Remo: How do we put this into practice? Sponsorship of scholars, SOSS LIPAD, sponsorship of schools. In our dealings with admin, we urge them to expand scholarship slots. Hernandez: Question remains the same. There are levels, it's open to everyone, but when we declare that it's open to everyone because it's a right but we can't give it to everyone who isn't as smart, how do we deal? Remo: We advocate as an institution to make opportunities more accessible. Elicaño: Are we okay with it also being the Pathways slogan? Andujare: Can rephrase, break it down. Yu: Pulse to determine whether we rephrase tonight. Remo: Objections to deferring rephrasing to the commission? None being, defer. Lucero: Marginalized sectors, contentions? Points? Yu: Point, the change tracking on the document is wrong. "Marginalized" is there, but "solidarity," "consonant with principles and purposes," and "particularly" aren't there. Section 8. Lucero: New, added it. Denounce exploitation, oppression, corruption inside and outside the Ateneo community. Andujare: In existing constitution, nothing that resembles this? Lucero: Not as a principle or policy. Section 9. Lucero: Changed from party pluralism to vision-oriented pluralism so it doesn't stick with political parties. We do this with things like FOI. ARTICLE VI Section 1. Lucero: Renaming to make it consistent. 10

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Yu: Urge the CB to abolish the clock for expediency to make sure we can get the most out of the night. Remo: Hard stop at 9:00. Yu: I will propose it. Motion to extend until 9:00 by VP, seconded by 1 SOSS CB. Motion approved unanimously. Lucero: Composition—Central Board, Legislative Board, Executive Boards, BCAs, SJC, COMELEC, sectoral councils, Sanggunian's special units. Section 2. Lucero: CB—President, VP Internals, VP Externals, Secretary-General, Finance Officer, SB Chairs, chairs of the Legislative Board standing committees, sectors. Gomez: Thought we wouldn't get to these yet? Lucero: Still the goal. Quick fixes next, but if we finish the new structure in full, include. Remo: Suggestion—Central Board officers first. ARTICLE VII Lucero: This part is raw. Tried to move powers of president to particular tasks. CB as new governing body. Instead of formulating policies, they will execute. A future Sanggunian, their CB could—their SB, wanting a project, the CB could halt that project. Check and balance is that the chairs are there. Looks scary, but the power balance is there. Reyes: To whom will people present resolutions? Lucero: Legislative Board forms resolutions, approves, it goes to CB for execution. Mondok: So if someone wants a policy, lobby to LB? Lucero: Yes, to their LB Rep. Remo: President isn't part of LB? Lucero: Yes. Yu: Removes ability of SBs and Top 5 to define their own policies? Lucero: Not stipulated, but it can. Going for a Sanggu that is consistent with projects. Overlaps get cut down. Andujare: Problem there is that even if all are represented, we encourage that the ideas of the projects come from grassroots levels. Maybe the clause should be to approve execution of projects. Project approval, but it still solves the issue of kalat. Lucero: They won't agenda-set, just approve. Misconception with the word "execute." The point of the amendment is to centralize the projects. Come from grassroots, go up hierarchy, get approved by CB. 11

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Lucero: Scenario—usually, where do projects come from? Poe: Course reps propose, ExeCom decides. Andujare: This varies per school. Remo: Notwithstanding university projects. Lucero: Course reps, siguro from constituents. Processed by ExeCom, sends to CB. Poe: As in they approve the lineup? Lucero: Yes. Poe: On the notion of SB autonomy, part of my responsibility is to defend the autonomy of the SB. Check and balance with CB comes more in the form of budget and support from CB. How we've operated, SBs can still do their own thing. Granted, Chair is expected to do consultations, talk to others and not act as a completely independent body. Lucero: Sanggu tradition had project approvals. SB autonomy was a myth, only recently implemented. Counter-response—separate project and budget approvals. SB will have to file project approvals with CB. That kind of autonomy was only recent. Andujare: So we return to that time? Lucero: Still call of CB to have project approvals or not. Mondok: Don't understand the rationale. Para hindi kalat? But it can be done within the SB. Lucero: Sanggu has a particular detachment from each school. Each school acts on its own. What I'm trying to strive for is to mandate the Sanggunian to work organically. We don't see EOs working together. That kind of synchronization, the goal is not to limit the autonomy of SBs, but to refocus towards something more organic, allow you to call yourselves one Sanggu. Remo: Matter not of structure but of culture. Danger here is, by allowing a body to have the role of approving projects, you essentially place the burden of control of projects and budgets into one body. Concern is, it's five, ten people who will be approving all the projects? It's within the new CB. Whether they want to do it, their call, but allowing that space is slippery slope. Idea is democracy, more open space, but allowing this makes it less democratic. Closes off the system to outsiders. Two years ago, we fought against something similar. Concerned by this development. Hernandez: If I'm a CB, I can stop another SB? Lucero: This year, bawal, but constitutionally, you can. Remo: Constitutionally, CB is highest governing. Policy of this term is to respect CB autonomy. Gomez: So CB is Chairs, Top 5, four standing committees, sectors. No freshmen. Lucero: Context—how many projects do the freshmen do? Gomez: Highest decision-making body, not very representative, it's a fourth deciding for everyone. Not comfortable. Andujare: Direction of the school in accounting—one budget request for the entire year for each org. Tighter control will be necessary Remo: Becomes a political issue that needs to be resolved. Lucero: Small structural flaw that you can address in formulating the LB. 12

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Remo: But it’s a minor flaw in the main deciding body. Lucero: Make LB a parliament? They vote for their own LB chairpersons. Mondok: If the objective is to address centralization, do it in other ways? Through departments? The cons seem to outweigh. Lucero: Only a higher body can centralize. Remo: Stakeholders are the student body, problematic risks. Hernandez: EO might look like utusan of CB. Lucero: Different entities, following your analogy. Mediating body between the two is the new CB. Remo: Westminster-style government. Poe: Considering that the new CB would have representation by the Chairs, I'm more comfortable with this being a responsibilities. There are a lot of pros. If you're trying to protect SB autonomy, as a Chair, I'd like to say that I do consult with other top officers, as an individual, I would appreciate it to be a responsibility of the top body. Elicaño: Org analogy—is Sanggu an org, or are the SBs orgs and Sanggu a council of orgs? Don't know how people would prefer, but maybe that's a helpful way to think about it. Hernandez: Avenue for us to question to value of a budget, not just its amount? Remo: In practice, in this administration, yes, we leave decisions on this to the individual units. Contentions through PMS, denial of budgets. Yu: This means FO has no say over how budget will be allocated? Lucero: Dynamic changes. Remo: FO becomes an administrator. Lucero: Power of budgets has to stay with LB, FO is not part of this body. To consider is how the mandates of positions will change. They have to have a hold. Yu: Clear separation of powers versus sort of fulfill the constitutional mandate of Top 5. Lucero: Same argument as from two years ago. Should Top 4 have votes in CB? Will we let the Top 4 fulfill their mandate and enter LB, or clear separation of power and have them out? Remo: Brought this up two years ago. Proposed that Top 4 not be in legislative body. Double power—dictate what the policy will be, and how you execute it. Myself, AJ, Ryan, Moses, and Alvin, as CB Reps, said that it was too much. We can tell CB Reps to do this, and also tell EOs what to do. We don't want so many powers given to so few people, idea is to expand it. As the person who brought it up two years ago, I still believe that you have to have Top 5 in both legislative body and executive body. For purposes of alignment, and to avoid irregularities. Andujare: FO can have no vote in LB, as long as there be a constitutionally mandated CFP. CFP ensures that, if the problem is to review and adhere to certain procedures in school and all, the CFP can answer that. FO can do without a vote since LB is a formal vote on how things should go, as long as there is CFP. 13

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Elicaño: I am in agreement with Tin. My only issue with the set-up was FO's role, but given that that can be addressed, I know as Sec-Gen that I don't need to be in legislation. My policies are administrative, communication, data, for all of Sanggu not just legislation. Yu: As VP, role is to fulfill roles of and back up President. So dependent on President. Remo: Chief officer has to be there. Hernandez: When congressmen legislate, president can't vote. Difference between being there and voting. Remo: President as prime minister. Have to lobby. System as it is now, I have no vote but I have a veto. You have to be there because in my experience you are the representative of the student body. Andujare: Good point—if we want to replicate national government in structure. But every office in school, we're part of Ateneo, all the administrators go straight to Dan. Unless we establish something else just to cater to that. President has to know how decisions came to be. As president, he needs to know. Remo: To counterbalance, right now, he has to go, and he has no vote. Elicaño: Give president a presence analogous to current observer status for SB chairs in CB? Lucero: President as voteless presider? Remo: President currently can only break ties and veto. No vote as presider. Gomez: LB is representative, school balance. Mondok: To reiterate, danger with this proposal is if we centralize, SB autonomy gets compromised. Remo: Yes. Andujare: Danger is, LB can pass a proposal, CB can overturn as executing body? Remo: Yes. Andujare: So there is still a veto. Lucero: Checking and balancing in the new CB. Everything culminates. Yu: Paradigm shift. Right now, this should be ECA, but right now, it's Top 4 as direction setters right now is more towards the CB giving the SBs autonomy. This proposes that T5 will not be involved in LB, except arguably President, but will have almost total control over the SBs. Lucero: If an LB resolution passes and then gets overturned by CB, it shows that it still has power in LB. SBs can propose as many projects as they want, but it rests in CB. Contentions are politics. Remo: Revoking our concept of SB autonomy. Lucero: And also LB autonomy. Gomez: Back to composition. Chairs, committee heads, sectors, and committee heads will be elected within LB. Not necessarily per school. The Chairs are voted by everybody at large, within 14

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

the schools. Chairs, EOs, but the LBs have no counterpart for Chairs. Two degrees, dilute representation. Andujare: Not discounting representativeness. Chairs represent schools. Committee chairs represent issues. It won't be diluted because it'll be covered. As a CB now, you go out of your constituency when you decide. Remo: It's creating a central committee with an absolute veto. Quite scary. Andujare: You can come up with a CIP. Remo: But there, the Constitution remains supreme. We're a democracy. Elicaño: Constitution now has CB as supreme body. We have that power. Given that, I'd rather have a supreme body that was more representative of all of Sanggu than one made up entirely of legislators as we have now. Lucero: Absolute power on top and on the bottom. Can create veto spaces with the grassroots, HOR, elsewhere. The moment you start airing concerns like this with the student body... Remo: Student body as ultimate site of power, but we only have one year in our terms. If we bring every issue to them, we'll run out of time. Yu: Recap where are we now? Lucero: ARTICLE VII, Section 1b. Trying out the dynamics of the whole new proposed structure. Yu: Paperwise? Lucero: There. Yu: Call to everyone. Point of these is to help us try to understand the holes in the system. Think it would be good for all of us to speak up. Can we minimize the little murmuring in between? Have things on the record. Mondok: A freshman can present a project to CB. Not chair for them. Warren: So after passed to SB, person presents to CB? Lucero: Can, but not necessarily. Chair can. Warren: So let’s say we freshmen have a project together. INTACT Culmi Night. Remo: The freshie project. They talk amongst themselves. Now for it to become policy of entire Sanggu, go to CB. CB can approve formally, or just keep saying yes. If approved, back to BCA, formulate budget, go to LB, present. If approved, the project takes off. Warren: Two proposals, one to CB, one to LB. Remo: Adds a step two. Lucero: Additional layer is to critique the project. Warren: So it's like the PMS forms. Remo: Nick saying it's for alignment. Wait for explicit approval. Yu: Role of Sec-Treases? Remo: Bureaucrats, administrators, vice chair. Chief bureaucrat of each school. Yu: Radical change. Final say with projects will lie with the new CB. If the issue is procedures, you will be subject to the CB's processes? 15

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Lucero: No more Sec-Treas. Warren: Clarify—LB has no say in project? Remo: No say in concept and implementation. Lucero: LB has say in budget. Mondok: Can we vote on whether we do further discussion? Sarmiento: Current CB divides into LB and CB. LB has money, CB has project. Tobias: If we accept this, will the thing about Sec-Treases be implied, or is it a different amendment? Lucero: Different. Reyes: In line with what Toby said, if we vote against removal of Sec-Treases, we can go back to this, right? Lucero: Yes. Remo: Pulse on whether to defer? Lucero: Will be for the next session when this will be discussed. Yu: We agree that we will meet at least one more time before Friday? Nick is anticipating the arrival of the amendments from SJC, so based on last year, minimal contentions, so we go back to that. What we informally agreed—wait, after discussion, for voting until the next week to give CB Reps enough time to consult. Not formal decision, still up to you. Pulse to defer discussion: Y—11, N—3 Remo: Close this part of CAP.

Announcements Andujare: Remind everyone, those who need budgets, will wait until Wednesday, 11:59pm. Can't promise that we'll convene again after. Reyes: For YES reports, get to know the orgs. Three orgs are missing people —LEAPS, COSA, and LEX. Sign up please. Remo: First off, as I said, we will hold SOSA Feb 10. Elections are Feb 12-14. March 7 is the turnover of our terms. For seniors, please disseminate—last day for seniors is Feb 28. Grad practice is March 22. March 28 and 29 is grad exercise.

16

CENTRAL BOARD

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com

Sanggu is part of grad committee. Josh Agpoon, our Father and Mother Senior, will be in charge of implementing them. Undergrads will be in charge of ushering for Baccalaureate Mass and graduation ceremony. Lastly, there are proposals on shifting the academic calendar, been a lot of rumor. Update —we are not shifting next year. Earliest if ever is two to three years from now. Still amending. Reyes: SOH Week is Jan 20-24. Abbo: SOSS Week first week of February. Yu: Thank you for the very insightful, productive night. Once the presentation is out, please share. Talk to your reps, constituents, think about these issues. Please think about them in light of the bigger issues, Sanggu being irrelevant, not working with the orgs. Remo: Five CBs going on LOA. Motion to adjourn by 1 SOSS CB, seconded by 2 SOSS CB. Motion adjourned unanimously, meeting adjourned.

Prepared By: Miguel Franco Ignacio M. Hamoy Secretariat Team Office of the Secretary-General Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila Antonio Rafael N. Elicaño Secretary-General Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila Jan Nikko I. Dela Paz Secretariat Head Office of the Secretary-General Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila

17