By Andrew Thibaudeau, Contributing Writer
Officer Reports
President Miranda Zamora ’23 and Treasurer Hannah Repole ’25 gave an update on the Student Senate budget resting at over $12,500. The executive board emphasized the importance in establishing a rollover fund floor during this meeting.
The board also mentioned that elections will begin in the near future and underscored the value in advertising for each office.
Student Concerns
Zamora initiated the conversation by discussing a lack of space throughout the campus to place posters. She said she would be having conversations with staff members to ensure that postering became an easier process and welcomed suggestions for where new bulletin boards may go.
There was mention of an increased police presence on campus over the past couple of weeks. Some felt intimidated by this and stated that Campus Safety was too active for their liking, and enforcement was putting too much pressure on students. Zamora backed this and agreed to speak with the college in the near future about the issue.
A strong push was made for student wages on campus, which currently rest at a minimum of $7.25 per hour. The overwhelming majority of senators agreed that this was far too low, considering current inflation. Students mentioned that the state of Pennsylvania is considering bringing the minimum wage up to around ten dollars. Students voiced a desire for significant change with college wages, given the state’s shifting stance and the current economy.
Finally, there was a brief mention of a controversial Gettysburg Times article. Zamora stated that she had already been notified of this and was unable to find it. The issue was quickly dismissed.
Budget Discussion
Senator Jack Murphy ’24 motioned to set the floor of the rollover fund at $10,000 but was denied. Shortly after, a proposal for a $15,000 floor was made and was quickly ratified. This gives the Student Senate the ability to spend around $20,000 for the rest of this academic year.
Amendments
The vast majority of the night was spent debating three proposed amendments.
The first amendment was proposed by Dominic DiLuzio ’26. DiLuzio said he believed that BMC could provide financial aid for students wanting to participate in club trips. For example, should a student need money to attend a Mock Trial trip, they would notify club leaders. Then, the leaders could fill out a form stating that the student needed financial assistance from BMC to go on the trip.
There were proposals to adjust the format so that the students would be able to directly input the information into the form themselves, and there was consideration of direct BMC-to-student connection. This specific provision was denied. Students in need will be assisted by their club leaders and BMC, and they will be able to attend trips at a reasonable cost. This will all be done without having to submit any financial information, grounded solely in the integrity of the students and the club representing them. This amendment was tabled for the next meeting.
The second amendment was a proposal aimed to adjust Senate-approved funding for the gas required to bring guest speakers to campus. This would halt all funding if the speaker elected to drive their own vehicle and would only permit funding should the Senate be notified of a college-approved automobile and driver. There was only one adjustment on the floor, which was done for clarification of wording, and did not effectively change the intentions of the original amendment. This amendment was tabled for the next meeting.
The third amendment was proposed by EJ Gill ’23, who wanted to outline the process for barring a member of the Senate from a committee. This process allows Committee Chairs the ability to temporarily suspend members of the Senate with the exception that it could be overturned by the executive board. An idea was then presented that permanent suspension of members would have to be voted upon by the entire Senate.
This amendment follows the recent suspension of former BMC member Carl DeMarco ’25, who was cited as being disrespectful to Senate procedures and members. This amendment sparked debate on the floor.
Parliamentarian Joey Labrie ’25 and Zamora gave further context to the situation. They said the executive board became aware of a group chat DeMarco participated in that disparaged members for how they voted and claimed he was prejudiced towards specific clubs. Zamora met with DeMarco to discuss this conduct, and then the executive board received anonymous screenshots of DeMarco disparaging his conversation with Zamora. DeMarco was called upon to detail his experience.
DeMarco said, “That week I was lied to. I was texted twice by the executive board. I had text messages concerning Executive Board members telling me that I was not in trouble, but that they wanted to have a conversation.” He concluded by saying that he did not appeal because he “knew that the things were stacked against him.”
The executive board disproved this claim. Labrie and Zamora stated that they would have let DeMarco appeal, and that they would have given him another chance despite past misbehavior.
As Labrie was presenting his response to DeMarco, Senator Chris Miller ’25 repeatedly interrupted him. Murphy additionally tried to motion for the impeachment of Labrie, which was not allowed by the rules. Zamora attempted to regain control by reminding the Senate to be respectful of one another, and DiLuzio called for a reading of the Oath of Office.
The Senate motioned to push the topic of the third amendment to the next meeting.
This article was edited at 5:15 p.m. on February 8, 2023. An earlier version of this article misrepresented the conversation about Carl DeMarco ’25 and incorrectly stated that the first two amendments had been passed, rather than tabled. (- K. Oglesby)
