minutes taken and prepared by: table of...

Great Lakes Affiliate of College and University Residence Halls

2014 Regional Conference Minutes

Indiana State University

Presiding Officer: Andrew Haugen, GLACURH Director

Minutes Taken and Prepared By: Jacob Crosetto, GLACURH Associate

Director for Finance and Administration

Table of Contents

Schools Represented……………………2

Regional Board and Special Guests……3

NCC Boardroom Minutes (Friday)…….4

NCC Boardroom Minutes (Saturday)………..4-16

NRHH Boardroom Minutes (Saturday)…….17-20

POY Selection (Saturday)……………………21-23

GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 2

Schools Represented

Ball State University

Brock University

Carthage College

Central Michigan University

DePaul University

Eastern Illinois University

Eastern Michigan University

University of Evansville

Ferris State University

Grand Valley State University

University of Guelph

University of Illinois Chicago

University of Illinois Springfield

Illinois Wesleyan University


Indiana University South Bend

Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

University of Indianapolis

Loyola University

Marquette University

Northern Illinois University

Oakland University

Purdue University

Purdue University Calumet

Roosevelt University

Saginaw Valley State University

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

University of St. Francis

University of Michigan

Western Illinois University

Western Michigan University

University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

University of Wisconsin Green Bay

University of Wisconsin Lacrosse

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

University of Wisconsin Platteville

University of Wisconsin Stevens Point

University of Wisconsin Stout

University of Wisconsin Whitewater


Regional Board of Directors and Special Guests

Andrew Haugen, GLACURH Director, University of Wisconsin Green Bay

Jacob Crosetto, GLACURH ADFA, University of Illinois Springfield

Matt Dela Cruz, GLACURH AD-NRHH, University of Illinois Chicago

D’Andra Sanders, Michigan RCC, Michigan State University

Kate Tessier, Ontario RCC, Central Michigan University

Christina Knowlton, Wisconsin RCC, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point

Ashley Stegall, Illinois RCC, Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Elliott Hendrick, Indiana RCC, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

Kirsten Hauge, Parliamentarian, University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

Abbas Hill, GLACURH Regional Advisor, Central Michigan University

Tim Reardanz, No Frills Co-Chair, Illinois Wesleyan University

Genyl Rufino, No Frills Co-Chair, Illinois Wesleyan University

Kenneth Hughes, NACURH Chairperson, Ball State University

Brad Prucha, NIC AD of Finance, University of Nebraska Lincoln

Katherine Krebs, NSRO AD of Finance, Kent State University

Mark Cordova, PACURH ADAF, University of Nevada Reno

Nathan Tack, IACURH Director, University of Arizona

Amanda Christianson, NACURH 2015 Finance Chair, North Dakota State University

Darlene Branco, OCM Representative


GLACURH 2014 Boardroom Minutes

Call to Order: 9:22 PM CST. 10/31/2014

Announcements

o Will be done by 11:45, must vacate the room before 12:00, per ISU Policy

NIC: if you still have affiliation errors or need your placards, he’ll be available afterward

to help with affiliations

Roll Call (yielded to ADFA)

Motion to approve GLACURH minutes from NACURH 2014

o Marquette University

Second by Purdue University

RBD Update

NACURH Executive Presentation - Kenneth Hughes, NACURH Chairperson

NSRO Presentation – Katherine Krebs, NSRO AD of Finance

IL-RCC: Boardroom buddies - write notes and give gifts but make sure to do it at

appropriate times

NIC Presentation – Brad Prucha, NIC AD of Finance

GLACUHO Presentation – Stacy Oliver-Sikorski, GLACUHO President

NACURH 2015 Update - Amanda Christianson, NACURH 2015 Finance Chair

Parliamentary Procedure Presentation – Kirsten Hauge & Andrew Haugen

Announcements/Questions

o NACURH Chair- YikYak, Twitter accounts; challenging the region to abstain

from GLACURH Crushes and encouraging people to use YikYak or other forms

of social media positively

o GLACURH ADFA - if you ordered pins or shirts, they’ll be available tomorrow

morning, and NSRO will be selling them as well

Motion to recess

o UW Platteville NRHH

Seconded by Purdue Calumet

Recessed at 11:41 PM until 9:00 AM

Call to order at 8:07 AM. 11/1/2014

RBD Roll Call

POY Selection

Call to order at 9:07 AM

Roll Call

o U of Michigan moves to bring MMA to floor

UWGB seconds

o Stout moves to waive reading

BSU seconds

o Proponent speech

o Q&A:


EMU: ex-officio?

On the board, no voting rights

Marquette: transition period?

60 days

U of Michigan: does NRHH have to pass a piece?

No, this supersedes

NIU moves to end Q&A

Ferris State seconds

o Discussion:

U of Michigan: move to end discussion

Seconded by Guelph

Consent called, no objections

MMA passes

o GVSU moves to bring MMB to floor

Seconded by BSU

o Whitewater moves to wave reading

Ferris State Seconds

o Proponent Speech

o Q&A:

U of Michigan: What happens to the extra money?

It just gets absorbed and goes into the general fund.

U of Michigan: Do we have the funds to afford this and in the

future?

We have it in the line item already but just wanted to

promote transparency.

NIU: Does PayPal work for computers?

Audio jack only.

Platteville: Are there any droids that are cheaper?

It’s your money, but we didn’t look into it

Marquette: Is there any other large budgeted items this year?

No.

NIU: How to plan to protect the iPad?

All the laptops have the same case. So we will just pay for

it under the $50 so the director can just write a check.

Marquette: Are we getting insurance?

It is a NACURH policy that really states that we do not buy

insurance.

Whitewater: Will this be transitioned down?

Yes.

University moves to end Q&A

DePaul Seconds

o Discussion


Grand Valley feels that this is a good idea to keep professional and

private business separate.

o St Francis call to question

Vote 41-0-0, passes

DePaul moves to bring MMC to floor

o UWRF seconds

NIU moves to waive reading

Calumet seconds

Proponent Speech

Q&A:

U of Michigan: will this effect current bids?

No

DePaul moves to end

Ferris State seconds

SVSU moves to end

Oakland seconds

Vote: consent called, no objections

Passes

Ferris State moves to bring MMD to table

o Carbondale seconds

Indiana moves to waive reading

BSU seconds

Proponent speech

Q&A

Marquette: differences in POY and SALT?

Not a lot of differences, it is more specific, ended up in

tandem

UWRF: has years gone by where this isn’t given out?

Yes, a few years. People were DQ’d or none selected

UW-Lacrosse: why did NACURH get rid of it?

NACURH Chair: Lack of interest and originality. Felt that

POY replaced it

UMich: moves to end

EMU seconds

Discussion

Marquette: we are not in support, it shows differences. No point in

getting rid of award for lack of bids

EMU: feels opposite. Realizing that this is gotten rid of and there

are not enough differences. Encompassing into 1 is a better idea

IUPUI: agrees with Marquette, still can recognize on GLACURH

level.


ISU: this requires more finesse and process. This kind of program

is unique

UMich: echoes EMU, feels that this is a good award, just not

utilized. Putting weight into their opinion, in full support

WIU: in support due to redundancy, would like to see POY

restructure

UMich: call question

Purdue objects

Purdue: feels that this could be modified and kept in region, so

then we can recognize leaders

Stout: in favor of striking from documents, need something more

properly written

ISU: Moves to end discussion

Lacrosse seconds

Vote: 30-11-0, passes

o SVSU: moves to bring MME to floor

Whitewater seconds

WIU moves to waive reading

o NIU seconds

Proponent

ISU: difference in DSA and SOTY:

o Multiple years vs one

Purdue: wonders why DSA is different?

o Trying to match NACURH’s format. A little too

fuzzy. Trying to better prepare for NACURH level

WIU: only difference is legacy, explain?

o This piece is more about DSA and SOTY, just

making policies consistent

IWU: moves to end

o Carthage seconds

Discussion

o Moves to end discussion

Oakland seconds

Vote: consent, passes.

o Ferris moves to bring MMF to table

Calumet seconds

UWW moves to waive reading

o BSU seconds

Proponent

Q&A:

ISU: what format?

o Table, makes more specific


UMich: moves to end Q&A

o CMU seconds

Discussion

DePaul:

o Friendly amendment: “bid must include line item

budget and funding sources”

Amendment accepted

St. Francis calls question

o ISU objects

ISU: feels that narrative may need included

GVSU moves to end

o Second by Brock

Vote: consent, passes

o GVSU: moves to bring MMI to floor

Second by MSU

Retracted by both

o Oakland moves to bring MMH to floor

Loyola seconds

Move to waive reading by UWW

o Second by UWGB

Proponent

Q&A

Stout: any changes?

o No

UWW: moves to end

o Second by Evansville

Discussion:

Ferris State: calls question

o No objections

Consent called, passes

o ISU moves to recess for 15 minutes

Guelph seconds

Platteville objects

Guelph retracts

UMich seconds

o Vote to vote: passes

Vote on recess: 24-14-1, passes

o Reconvene at 9:30

o IACURH Presentation

o ISU moves to bring MMI to floor

Guelph seconds

o WIU: Point of Parliamentary Inquiry


Is allowing a school 3 times to get on the speaker’s list conducive?

Violates NACURH equity for more than 3

o UW-Milwaukee: Point of Information

Is this throughout all of boardroom?

No, selective, just during pieces of legislation

o NIU objected

Second withdrawn

ISU does not retract

Oakland seconds

o Discussion:

NIU: feel that MMG affects MMI

GVSU: echoes NIU, considering time, there is not enough

ISU: feels that MMG is going to take time, MMI is just times that

will be changing in the directorship presentations. We have enough

time

UMich: MMI is really only changing directorship elections

UW-Milwaukee: going to take more time than we thought, yields

WIU: since current RCC is by subregion, it coincides

NIU: yield

Oakland: retracts

ISU: retracts

o Floor open:

Purdue: moves to do PACURH presentation

IUSB seconds

o PACURH Presentation

o NBD/NNB Legislation

o Platteville: moves to recess

IWU seconds

o Passes

o Recess for Lunch

o Call to order at 1:13

o No Frills Presentation

o OCM Presentation

o GLACURH 2015 Presentation

o OTM Presentation

Purdue: move to recess for 10 minutes

o Marquette seconds

Call to order at 2:29

Roll Call

UMich moves to bring MMG to the floor

o Seconded by UIS

BSU moves to waive reading

o WIU seconds


Proponent Speech

Q&A:

o UIC: wondering how you would previously update the region?

We have the MOWII Mondays, Meaningful MOWIIs, and the

directors. Stress the fact that we need to contact us. With the

website, the updates will have every resource we have. Try to

update Facebook pages, contact, email, and get information out.

o Platteville: is there anything in the constitution or bylaws that would limit

states from multiple positions?

It does happen, but don’t foresee it as a problem. We want more

people to have an option to do things, not limit them based on

where they go to school or live. Want to be fair, give equal

opportunity and get the best of the best. Every institution votes for

everyone, it is not based on state/province. See who they are and

what they bring to the table

o ISU: in the presentation there was a concern that people only contact state

RCCs, but curious as why they can’t just find those out?

On the site it shows the contact form. It was listed as a problem

because schools most of the time reach out directly to subregional

RCC, not the focus. This would eliminate the chain. Some people

don’t go through the website, this just prevents that.

o DePaul: Wants to know if you are getting rid of the state lines?

This piece is getting rid of the subregional affiliation with the

RCCs, they are running for the focus area.

o UMich: YTR

o EMU: no limitation for number from each state, would you limit

institution?

Wouldn’t matter, since the region decides, based on criteria. We

don’t see a lot of bids from the same schools to begin with. Three

years ago, the board was predominately Michigan. This has never

caused an issue.

o IUPUI: focus areas a concern, have you thought of changing the process

of appointment?

Right now they meet with Director-elect and send in a form. Has

the potential to overcomplicate things for no reason. We would

essentially have 2 sets of elections, this streamlines the process.

o Lacrosse: YTR

o NIU: step away from assigning subregional, but will be assigning

someone?

Buddy regions is what we were thinking. Would be nice to see

what other people are doing

o UIS: what would you do with subregional breakouts?


GLACURH has chosen not to acknowledge the subregions. This

could be optional, but as of now, this would be gotten rid of.

o Purdue: can a candidate bid for more than one position?

It happened last year. You could do that and bid down. You can

intent and bid for multiple positions, but not bid from the floor.

o Oakland: YTR

o GVSU: wondering when this would go into effect?

Next election when new RCCs are elected. We would also be

transitioning these materials. You receive a transition guide for

both the position, the focus area, and the committee.

o UW-Milwaukee: whether RCC positions will be reevaluated?

Same number of RCCs, how this has worked in the past is not

clear, but this just so happens to work out. We can take this into

account for the future.

o POI: NIU: is this timed?

No

o IWU: YTR

o SIU-E: YTR

o UW-RF: do you anticipate confusion with more general questions?

Something we considered, we would also be creating a more

accessible RBD and have plenty of resources. Site has a form as

well that routes to right person.

o Marquette: these focus areas come from NACURH, did you look to match

them? Are there different ones?

It varies by region. There are some things that line up, sometimes

not the title, but there is no set list of RCCs. There is a lot of

overlap though.

o Stout: do you feel focus areas are more beneficial?

History of RCCs. Based on subregion, it has been hard to keep a

full board.

o WIU: move to end Q&A

Second by UIC

Platteville objects

Still have something to say

UIC retracts

UMich seconds

Discussion:

Platteville: still have something to say, people does as well

GVSU: questions are repetitive, useful to end

NIU: has a really important question

EMU: feels that this is because of the speaker’s list

EIU: feels like this is a big decision, needs more

information


Purdue: echoes, we should give opportunity

Eastern Michigan moves to end discussion on objection

o Oakland seconds

o No objections

Vote: 22-19-0, failed

Q&A:

SVSU: what does directorship think on this piece?

No comment

Evansville: move to exhaust speaker’s list

Brock seconds

Passes

Brock: wonders if RCCs could be appointed to subregion later?

Wanted to make things more streamlined, so no. We would

want to do buddy regions. It should be more of an informal

process. SAACURH assigns these informally.

GVSU: yield to NIU

NIU: how will time work at No Frills?

Needs to be looked at, most other regions still do this. This

can always be reevaluated. It isn’t something that needs to

be addressed

ISU: is it possible to have a more formal process?

It is informal, mainly if they need it. It would be too similar

to what we do now.

Platteville: by eliminating subregions going to alienate the region

as a whole?

We are really trying to push this to challenge the RCCs to

be more open. It is too easy to get comfortable, open the

floodgates. With how we are now, they may already be

alienated because they aren’t affiliated with the subregional

organizations.

NIU: YTR

UMich: YTR

Purdue: would there be future legislation to breakdown positions?

No, this is just getting rid of sub-regional aspect of the

positions

IWU: YTR

UW-Milwaukee: instead of subregions, this would open people

up?

That is absolutely correct

Stout: POI: how large is GLACURH?

Around 50 affiliated schools, third largest, hard to measure

Stout: do you feel we have enough board members?


Not too much to handle, balance it really well. Do not

believe adding more people would foster a better climate.

Based on regional research, most have between 3 and 5, use

to have another, but was removed.

DePaul: YTR

EMU: YTR

UIC: Yield

o Discussion:

o Milwaukee moves to caucus:

Seconds by ISU

GVSU objects

ISU retracts

No second

o Discussion:

o NIU: after hearing feedback from RCCs, while it would affect

organization, would totally help

o Milwaukee: though there is a concern about dissemination of material, but

can trust a formal process. This will give elected positions skills

o GVSU: supports this, opens up new opportunities, shows passion

o Evansville: feels that electing people based on focus area is important, but

needs point of contact. Would like state or province appointed after

o UW-RF: in favor of this, puts practice into policy.

o SVSU: in support of this legislation, because all RCCs supported this. If

someone was elected from the same school, we don’t believe that this is an

issue

o Calumet: If RCCs are bidding from focus area instead of subregion, it will

be more beneficial

o Guelph move to amend: “K. In coordination with the Director Elect, each

RCC will be appointed a “buddy” sub region among the 5 subregions

within GLACURH to aid in support and development.”

Umich seconds

o Proponent

o Q&A:

o Milwaukee: does this make this void?

Offers opportunity to have 1 person go to sub-regional conference

Follow-up?

ON-RCC?

o Yes, Kate.

Want it in writing, not as formal, but feels that it is necessary for

Ontario

o ISU: do you feel this supports original purpose?

Just flipping current structure

o UW-EC: what determines buddy region?


MI, ON, WI, IL, IN

o Calumet: YTR

o UIS: would authors give their opinion?

Decided it wasn’t in the best interest of the piece as a whole

o Marquette: effects of buddy?

Only positive, point-person. No negatives

o IUPUI: does this mean they are appointed into state/province?

Yes

o GVSU moves to end

DePaul seconds

Milwaukee objects

Second not retracted

Vote on whether or not to end Q&A: 36-3-0

o Discussion:

o Marquette: moves to caucus for 10 minutes

Second by DePaul

EMU objects

Second not withdrawn

Discussion

UIS moves to amend to 5

UMich seconds

Vote: consent called

o Discussion:

o WIU: in support of this piece, this reassures a point person. This relieves

the directorship of stresses

DePaul: moved to limit discussion to 5 minute

Brock seconds

Withdrawn

Limit to 10

o Second by Ferris State

Purdue: does not support amendment, should be up to RBD’s

discretion

Lacrosse: YTR

UMich: in support, must keep it in writing

UW-Eau Claire: amendment gives best of both positon and buddy

UWRF: feels as though this may seem like the best of both, it

segregates.

UW-Milwaukee: YTR

GVSU: not in support because we feel it is just flipping the

legislation

IUPUI: even though this is beneficial, it shows that the regions

needs the subregional support


IWU: time to make amendment at later time, would be wise to

wait.

EMU: in full support of the amendment

Stout: in favor, without proper channels, this may be lost

NIU: feels that if people are not willing to reach out, they need this

Evansville: good stepping stone, could always be removed later

Marquette: still have people on regional scale

GVSU: moves to exhaust speakers list

Ferris state seconds

Calumet: in full support, benefits Ontario and GLACURH

Vote: 25-14-1, amendment fails

o Discussion on piece as it was written:

o UMich: fully supports this, all of the RCCs are behind this, they know the

jobs. This also maintains NACURH-level similarities. This also works to

streamline transitions

o DePaul: move to limit discussion to 15 minutes

Oakland seconds

Marquette objects

Discussion:

UIS moves to end discussion:

Brock seconds

Vote to limit to 15 minutes: 33-7-0

o UIC: in favor of this piece. RBD made themselves very transparent and

are able to answer all questions

o Eau Claire: in full support, nervous of equal representation

o ISU: believes that GLACURH should support subregions, not in support

o Ferris State: feels opposite, this should not be an issue. They should want

to get the job done

o Marquette: not in favor, does not see this as an issue. Turn-off of schools

who are not represented

o WIU: Call the question

Objection

o IWU: YTR

o BSU: not in support, having these contacts is important. Nervous of sub-

regions dominating. Really concerned about election process

o IUPUI: feel that this piece is not best for region at this time

o Purdue: YTR

o EMU: feels that due to the fact that the amendment did not pass, the

region as a whole doesn’t need to have representation from an individual

state/province

o UMich: comment on notions of subregion dominating. Every person on

the RBD is no longer acting interest of subregion. We owe it to


organization to dedicate time to these processes, this is adding the most

benefit.

o Marquette: believes that running for a position when strengths reside,

however some of this may be lost.

o GVSU: YTR

o Calumet: YTR

o Indiana State: Move to end

WIU seconds

o Vote: 28-12-0, passes

WIU moves to bring MMI to floor

o UIC seconds

UWGB moves to wave reading

o UWSP seconds

Proponent speech

Q & A

o Marquette: why didn’t you include RCC’s

MMG had not passed yet. RCC’s feel it is best practice.

o Ferris state moves to end Q and A

ISU seconds

o Discussion

ISU: in full support.

Oakland: moves to end discussion

U of M seconds

UW-Stout objects

U of M does not retract

Discussion on vote

o Call to question by Ferris State

o Consent has been called.

UW-Stout objects.

VOTE: 30-7-1

o Voting on Legislation

o VOTE: 38-1-0

Andrew entertains a motion to recess until banquet.

o Marquette so moves.

o Carthage seconds.

Consent



2014 Regional Conference NRHH Minutes


Presiding Officer: Matt Dela Cruz, GLACURH Associate

Director of NRHH

Minutes Taken and Prepared By: Brad Prucha, NIC Associate

Director for Finance


NRHH Meeting Minutes 11/1/2014

9:19 A.M. Call to Order

9:22 A.M. Expectations

Joining the NRHH list serve

9:24 A.M. Critiquing Matt on how he has done so far

9:31 A.M. AD-NRHH asks for a motion to move to Outstanding Member of the Year

Indiana state moves to Pro/Con list for NRHH Outstanding member of the year

Seconded by Carthage College

9:34 A.M. Pro/Con lists on NRHH Outstanding member of the year

1. Purdue

Bid does not show what a good NRHH is about

2. Marquette

Holly shows what an NRHH is about, increasing OTMs. She shows to be an effective

by increasing production, and lowering budget.

3. UW –Milwaukee

Shows the pillars of NRHH through her work and the service to her Chapter.

4. UW-Platteville

Representing pillars and being involved in her community.

5. Carthage

Yield to redundancy

6. Indiana State

Calls the Question – Secret ballot

First vote unsuccessful – revote with UIC, No, abstain

Second vote unsuccessful

Third vote successful

9:47 A.M. AD-NRHH asks for a motion to move to Outstanding Chapter of the Year


Purdue Calumet moves to Pro/Con on NRHH chapter of the year

UW-Stevens Point Seconded

9:50 A.M. Discussion on NRHH Outstanding Chapter of the Year

1. Eastern Michigan

Both institutions are deserving, Saginaw State is more deserving of the award.

2. Indiana State

Both schools are deserving, SVSU’s bid is more involved and better prepared bid

3. UW-White Water

Both wrote strong bids. SVSU is well thought out and more deserving of the bid.

4. Purdue

Both deserving, Saginaw is a more personal recognition for each person. UW is

more well-rounded recognition.

5. Carthage

Note the Index in each bid for the differences in the chapters and monetary

means.

6. Illinois Wesleyan

Calls to question.

7. Indiana State

Wants more time to consider Carthage’s point.

8. UW- Milwaukee

Both schools are deserving, SVSU’s bid is very well put together.

9. UW – Milwaukee

Call to question

Successful First Vote

10:01 Snow ball fight – Pairing Activity

NRHH reps have to meet up with their same number

Meet and exchange contact information to get to know each other and other

NRHHs better


10:28 A.M. Return to seats (Order)

10:30 A.M. Diamond Duos discussion and questions

What do you do in Diamond Duos?

It’s an NRHH “pen pals”. It’s for NRHH members to meet and talk with other

members of NRHH at different institutions.

10:32 A.M. Open Forum

Are we not doing OTMs?

Matt- They will be found

UW –River Falls moves to adjourn

SIUC - Seconded

10:36 A.M. Adjournment



2014 POY Selection


Presiding Officer: Andrew Haugen, GLACURH Director

Minutes Taken and Prepared By: Jacob Crosetto, Associate

Director for Finance and Administration


Marquette University

Pro Con

Presentation

Visuals

“What does it mean to be human?”

Q&A:

WI RCC: have you seen any students get excited for future?

o Yes, seen social media interaction based on this program. RAs were “amazed” by

walks of life and disparities

IL RCC: Why the Human Experience?

o Advisor recommended it; flow through the programs

IN RCC: Biggest changes saw in revamp?

o Documentary addition, every RA staff made own posters in past; did not flow.

IN RCC: larger influx of students?

o Did not take attendance year before. Want to say at least 50% increase since year

prior

WI RCC: Struggles on staff?

o First meeting was during finals week. Each assigned tasks, but did not get them

completed. Spent Sundays working as a team

ON RCC: adaptation?

o Find something in community or on National scale, i.e. sexual assault

IL RCC Moves to end

o WI RCC seconds

Northern Illinois University

Pro Con

adaptability

Inclusivity

Awareness

Q&A:

IL RCC: Negative comments; how did you deal?

o Residents and faculty respected and kept this positive

ON RCC: overall time range?

o Facebook page up for around 1.5 months, saw large influx in one night. Able to

be adapted by making the page available longer

Started slowly

WI RCC: conflicts?

o Getting everyone to post selfies in the beginning.


Used a comfortable atmosphere

MI RCC: How would you instruct the institution if they run into negative comments?

o Having a monitor/filter to ensure that comments are not negative. Posting fliers,

reminders reinforcing the point of the program

Better way is to prevent problem

IL RCC moves to end

o WI RCC seconds

Overall discussion:

ON RCC: both presentations were great, both hold merit, but believes that NIU program

is easier to adapt

ADFA: NIU bid was better in the bid, despite that the presentation could have been better

IL RCC: hard to make decision because they both provide different levels

ADFA: was hoping for clarity for Justice for Java, did not receive it

IN RCC: moves to end

o MI RCC seconds

NIU Selfie Perspective Selected as 2014-2015 Program of the Year

minutes taken and prepared by: table of...

Documents