VOTING FORM

that he voted no on the September 28 minutes pending consideration of suggested edits.

The FCE paragraph "The committee is also looking into the merits of putting up the following facilities study spaces for students in the east side of the National Campus, near the classroom buildings to better facilitate student learning," is a tad wordy and confusing. The line also attributes this effort to the committee, and that is not actually the case. Maybe that line could be improved:

"The committee was informed that the administration is looking into locations for constructing study spaces for students on the east side of the National Campus. These facilities, described as open air but roofed, would be near the classroom buildings in support of student learning."

One other note is that the names are still in the minutes. Bear in mind that I prefer to have my name in the minutes as I agree only partially with anonymous minutes. I think that decisions and policies often only make sense in the context of knowing who developed, supported, and deployed a particular decision or policy. Reading minutes from twenty years ago can be confusing unless one knows who was at the table and the personal views they brought to the committee at that time. My preference would be to keep rank and file members anonymous but name the officers.

That said, I know that the push is to make the minutes anonymous. If that is a goal, then names should be replaced by "The chair of the FCE committee noted..." and other such constructions.

The minutes are accurate, my only concern is that the council of chairs is the only formal inter-committee communication venue and no inter-committee information has been shared during November. I would note that we need to share information but do so concisely. There are nine-some standing committees that have to report in well under an hour, plus other business of the council. This virtually demands that the chairs keep to maximum of five minutes per presentation, questions and answers included. I would suggest targeting a three minute summary of matters that will impact or come before other committees - e.g. the facilities fee ought to be considered by PRC and Finance. Just my two cents, meant in the spirit of good will and constructive commentary!