This Sunday, May 4, the ASCMC Executive Board met to begin wrapping up for the year.

The meeting opened with board announcements, with Freshman Class President Cole Mora ’17 and Sophomore Class President Ben Turner ’16 noting the success of their respective class events this weekend.

Student Life Chair Chloe Zagrodsky ’17 also discussed plans for an event featuring puppies during finals week, and Dormitory Affairs Chair Elaine Sohng ’17 revealed plans for the 6:01 party next year, which is tentatively carnival-themed and may feature a Ferris wheel.

The board moved on to discussing Mr. Stag, with Executive Secretary Christine Horne ’17 noting that 200 tickets were sold but many of the people who bought tickets did not show up. The events staff began letting students into the event who had not bought tickets, which proved a point of discussion during the meeting. The board also discussed the presence of alcohol in Mr. Stag nomination video, and the consensus was that alcohol should be removed from the video.

Social Activities Chair Jessie Thomas ’16 said that Pirate Party was a success. However, Thomas noted problems with mud causing damage to the lawn, as attendees managed to acquire a hose during some point in the party. Other problems included a shortage of water, as there were not enough coolers and no ice. Broken glass was another issue, as the Wohlford window was broken at some point and a number of injuries resulted from broken glass.

In terms of the event budget, Thomas had not finished her budget analysis, but held that the $500 in tank sales will likely mean that that the event was not over budget.

Mora ’17 and Presidential Advisor Moe Abdul-Rahim ’15 then continued the discussion about their Social Contract. Abdul-Rahim shared the feedback from the meeting with the Residential Advisors to discuss the contract. This meeting resulted in the addition of a Frequently Asked Questions section to help explain the purpose of the contract. He also noted that as a result of the meeting, the timeline for the publication of the Social Contract has shifted, as he and Mora have decided to continue discussions at the beginning of next year and then introduce the contract later in the year.

Mora noted the generally negative response to the word “contract,” and that opposition to the contract has centered around two main ideas, with some students concerned that the contract needs to be more specific and detailed, while others are concerned that the document will restrict their freedom. Mora said he hopes to further obtain student feedback during events in the upcoming year, in the style of the recent discussions on social responsibility.

Abdul-Rahim also expressed a desire to have all RAs on board before the document is adopted because they will be the ones representing it. Some RAs want more rules and consequences, but Abdul-Rahim holds that the intention of the document is to function more as an honor code.

The Board also discussed the Guide to Student Life, with Abdul-Rahim commenting that the Social Contract can help reestablish the basic ideals in these kinds of documents so that the Contract. He also noted that, in combination with the Guide to Student Life and the potential Student Judicial Board, the Contract can help effect change. The Board also discussed the problems with introducing the document to freshman prior to its completion, noting that freshman are still figuring out the CMC culture and the document may lead to divisions. The Board also noted the potential for specificity and including specific examples of the ideals outlined in the contract, such as the idea that breaking glass is not acceptable.