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 State 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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 3
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 Minutes | 4
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:
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 5
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 6
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.
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 7
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 8
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 9
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 10
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 2014 Minutes | 11
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 12
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?
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 13
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?
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 14
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 15
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 16
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 17
Great Lakes Affiliate of College and University Residence Halls
2014 Regional Conference NRHH Minutes
Indiana State University
Presiding Officer: Matt Dela Cruz, GLACURH Associate
Director of NRHH
Minutes Taken and Prepared By: Brad Prucha, NIC Associate
Director for Finance
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 18
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 19
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 20
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
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 21
Great Lakes Affiliate of College and University Residence Halls
2014 POY Selection
Indiana State University
Presiding Officer: Andrew Haugen, GLACURH Director
Minutes Taken and Prepared By: Jacob Crosetto, Associate
Director for Finance and Administration
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 22
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.
GLACURH 2014 Minutes | 23
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