The Student Union Senate is considering changes to the way student clubs are recognized, but some members dispute how certain problems should be addressed by the Senate and one member walked out of last Sunday's meeting.

Village Quad Senator Benjamin Beutel '12 proposed a series of bylaw amendments last week intended to strengthen the Senate's ability to reject clubs that have the same goals as another club already functioning at Brandeis.

Executive Senator Missy Skolnik '12, however, used her executive privilege to move the discussion of the amendments into an executive session.

Beutel, in an interview, provided the Justice with a copy of the amendments that he drafted and proposed.

The proposals would set clearer and stricter standards for the accreditation of union organizations.

"In a nutshell, they raise the level of scrutiny for chartering clubs," said Beutel. "They give the duality of purpose rule some weight. … The way it is currently written is very open. This really gives it teeth."

Currently, the Senate bylaws state that a club must "[n]ot duplicate the purpose or goals of a currently Chartered Organization."

Beutel said that duality of purpose was a major issue because it divides resources. "If we have multiple clubs doing more or less the same thing, they are going to divide up members, they are going to divide up [Finance] Board money," he said.

Beutel's proposal would add specifications to that clause and a group's national or international affiliation would not be a factor in the Senate's decision to charter it. Senators would also be responsible for contacting other clubs to discuss any overlap or duality of purpose between clubs.

"A group whose on-campus operations, impact, and appeal would substantively be the same as that of an existing Chartered Organization will not be chartered," reads one new sentence in the proposal. "If a club intends to be affiliated with a National or International Organization, this will have no bearing in determining duality of purpose," adds another.

"It adds in specific standards for what duality of purpose means. … It does increase the workload for the Senate, … but what are we elected for? … At the end of the day, we are either doing our jobs or we are not," said Beutel.

Beutel's proposals also add specific rules for revoking the accreditation of clubs and would require a two-thirds vote to charter a club rather than the current majority vote.

Currently, clubs must go through a process of attaining signatures of support from 135 students and a signature from one senator to certify that the club conforms to the necessary guidelines set by the Union constitution and senate by-laws. The clubs also need to go to a meeting of the Club Support Committee to discuss the club and its potential accreditation.

The Club Support Committee largely handles those points of procedure, so that clubs may present themselves for accreditation at the weekly Senate meetings.

Once a club has presented its mission and goals, senators typically ask questions of the club to determine if the club abides by all the rules set by the Senate bylaws. Section one of Article VIII lists the requirements of accredited organizations, including that the club "[n]ot duplicate the purpose or goals of a currently Chartered Organization" and "[b]e open to all members of the Brandeis community."

The Senate's discussion often revolves around the question of whether or not the club in question has a "duality of purpose" with another club.

Controversy surrounding these amendments, however, reached a boiling point Sunday night as Beutel walked out of the meeting just prior to an executive session, following Skolnik's use of executive privilege to discuss the bylaw amendments in the executive session, rather than on the agenda. Beutel later returned after several senators convinced him to do so.

Beutel tried to overrule Skolnik's decision by a procedural vote, but it failed. Beutel was the only senator who voted to keep the senate in open forum. The senate can move into executive session by a majority vote. Contents of that session cannot be "broadcast," but the Senate cannot vote during that time.

Senators declined comment on the specifics of their discussion during the executive session.

Skolnik said in an interview with the Justice that she wanted to use the executive session to come to a consensus among the senators about an "intent and purpose" behind the proposed amendments.

"Ben had drafted some amendment proposals and they were by-and-large very good, but the content needed to be discussed a lot and we haven't had the opportunity as a Senate to talk about how we want to define certain things in the future. And in order to all be on the same page, I felt that it was a good idea for us to go into an executive session," said Skolnik. 

Skolnik said that she does not believe the discussion of the bylaw amendment proposals should be public at this point. "As elected officials it's our job to get things right but we should be able to talk amongst ourselves and figure things out before … making them public," she said.

Senator for Massell Quad Dean Kaplan '15, who was not present at the beginning of the meeting but attended the executive session, said, "The reason that we were debating in executive session is that there are some things that are controversial, and they might not represent the opinion of the Student Union. We don't want to cause too much uproar or controversy about things that will never make it past deliberations or quiet murmurings of a few students anyway."

"Once we come up with a solid draft of the bylaw proposals, it will be proposed … at a senate meeting, open to the public," added Skolnik.

Beutel said he disagrees with this use of executive session. "I don't like the use of executive sessions when it is actually for determining policy, as this at least indirectly is."

Skolnik said that she hopes at least some of the proposed amendments will be brought to an open session at the next Senate meeting. Otherwise, she said she would continue to use executive sessions to continue outlining the Senate's opinions on the issue.

—Emily Kraus contributed reporting.