Officers present: Assistant Chair Eric A. Adelizzi, also acting as parliamentary secretary; Corresponding Secretary Nicole Esparza, also acting as chair; Press Secretary Meredith Safran; Recording Secretary João Pedro Boavida; Treasurer Eitan Bonderover.
Representatives present: Eitan Bonderover, proxy for Sinéad Mac Namara, CEE; Eric A. Adelizzi, CHE; Jia Su, CHM; Rob Sobak, proxy for Jessica H. Clark, CLA; Brigitta A. Lee, EAS; Fei Sun, ELE; Meredith Safran, proxy for Kerry Bystrom, ENG; Bianca Mislowack, proxy for Meredith Galanter Hastings, GEO; Brendan McAndrew, MAE; João Pedro Boavida, proxy for Lior Silberman, MAT; Tamar Friedmann, PHY; David R. Smith, PPL; Kim Montgomery, PSY. Gabriel Rossman, proxy for Nicole Esparza, SOC; Kate Bartkus, proxy for Leslie A. Medema, WWS.
Delegates present: Sharon Bewick, proxy for Lior Silberman, Graduate College (GC); Weining Man, Council of International Graduate Students (CIGS). Fei Sun, Association of Chinese Students and Scholars (ACSS). Heather White, Women's Center.
Councilors present: Tamar Friedmann (PHY), CPUC and CPUC Rights and Rules Committee; Brigitta Lee (EAS), CPUC and CPUC Executive Committee.
Others present: Lisa M. Sherov, GC residence life coordinator; Jack Tinsley (CHE), CHE representative-elect.
Officers absent: Chair William B. Jordan; Parliamentary Secretary Leonard F. Pease III; Social Chair Sinéad Mac Namara.
Representatives absent: Cynthia Rudin, ACM; Anita Adhitya, AOS; Riaz Tejani, ANT; Tanjim Hossain, ECO; Gregory D. O'Mullan, EEB; Juliet O'Brien, FIT; Michael K. House, GER; Karoline Cook, HIS; David Shrom, MOL; Emily Snow, MUS; Michael Ludkovski, ORF; Patrick Gerland, OPR; Andrew Erickson, POL; Philippa Townsend, REL; Cole M. Crittenden, SLA.
Delegates absent: Huiyan Yang, Butler Apartments; Aderemi Artis, Black Graduate Caucus (BGC); Radhika Wijetunge, Lawrence Apartments; Leonard F. Pease III, Off-Campus.
These representative seats were vacant: ARC; ART; AST; COM; COS; NES; PHI; SPO.
These delegate seats were vacant: Hibben/Magie Apartments; Millstone Apartments.
Acting Chair Nicole Esparza called the meeting to order at about 6:05pm. The meeting was held at Frist 309.
Recording Secretary João Pedro Boavida noted that there were three spelling mistakes in the draft minutes. Also, Eric Adelizzi was not listed as Assistant Chair, and that had been corrected. Finally, Fei Sun had contacted Mr. Boavida, observing that he recalled (in the discussion of the judicial opinion) Bill Jordan had agreed to strike three points. At the same time, Meredith Safran supplied a detail that Mr. Boavida had not had the time to write down, and Mr. Sun agreed with that detail. So, Mr. Boavida proposed that the original paragraph
Mr. Sun asked whether the last three points (I, J, K) could be removed. Mr. Pease read the summary of said points from the syllabus. Mr. Silberman observed that at least the last point should be kept (for it is a conclusion) but suggested that points I and J be stricken. Eric Adelizzi asked a point of order, observing that (Assembly having not decided to review the case) changing the text was not within Assembly's authority. He suggested that the Executive Committee could revise the text. Mr. Boavida expressed his confusion: wasn't the text factual? There could be no harm in keeping the facts in the text. In the end, Mr. Sun just asked that it be clear what he had asked.
be amended to read as (the changes are signaled)
Mr. Sun asked whether the last three points (I, J, K) could be removed. Mr. Jordan thought that such change might be possible. Mr. Pease read the summary of said points from the syllabus. Mr. Silberman observed that at least the last point should be kept (for it is a conclusion) but suggested that points I and J be stricken. Eric Adelizzi asked a point of order, observing that (Assembly having not decided to review the case) changing the text was not within Assembly's authority. He suggested that the Executive Committee could revise the text. Mr. Boavida expressed his confusion: wasn't the text factual? There could be no harm in keeping the facts in the text. Ms. Safran asked whether Mr. Sun objected to the conclusions, or to them being presented as answers to formal requests.[In the end,]Mr. Sun seemed to agree with the second possibility, and just asked that it be clear what he had asked.
Mr. Boavida attempted to move that the minutes be approved with all these corrections, but there was no second.
Mr. Sun stated that he clearly remembered Mr. Jordan agreeing to strike the three points, at the end of the discussion. In fact, he added, he had emailed Mr. Jordan to ask him to confirm, but he hadn't replied yet. Mr. Boavida stated that precisely because of Mr. Sun's objection, he had added the second sentence to the paragraph, and read the first two sentences again. Ms. Safran stated that she also recalled Mr. Jordan's statement, but Mr. Jordan could not have confirmed, for the simple reason that he was not email-contactable at the moment. She added that further discussion was moot, for Mr. Jordan's opinion is not binding on the decisions of the Executive Committee. Mr. Sun stated he knew the Executive Committee didn't necessarily share Mr. Jordan's opinion; he just wanted the minutes to truly reflect what happened. Mr. Adelizzi asked that Mr. Boavida reread the two sentences, and so he did. Mr. Sun stated that Mr. Jordan's intervention should be recorded. Mr. Adelizzi stated that it was already recorded.
Mr. Sun further added that he had asked a correction in another point of the minutes. It was stated, he said, that it was "always the case" that groups can come ask for more funding. However, he recalled that in March, when CIGS had approached the GSG for more funding, then-treasurer Donnell Butler had stated (in his advance report) that such had never happened. He had discussed that with Mr. Boavida, who had stated that it was up to Assembly to decide. Mr. Sun thought the Executive Committee had three different opinions on this issue. Mr. Boavida read from the proposed minutes:
[discussion and vote of funding for "The Game", at a lower level than requested] Ms. Bewick got a smile from some faces by attempting to vote against. Ms. Mac Namara asked, as a point of order, if they could always come back and ask for more funding. Mr. Pease said it was so.
Mr. Boavida then explained that this reference is not to any case, but this particular case. He repeated what he had already explained Mr. Sun by email, that it is up to Assembly to decide (for each case) what is appropriate or not. Ms. Safran added that there is no such thing as a negative precedent: the fact that something was never done, doesn't mean that it can't be done in the future. Mr. Boavida read the sentence again.
David Smith moved to table the discussion, and was seconded by Ms. Safran. The voting seeming too close, Mr. Adelizzi divided the Assembly, and counted 7 votes in favor, and 4 votes opposed. The motion passed.
As acting parliamentary secretary, Mr. Adelizzi started his report by observing that there had been some confusion about parliamentary procedure. He stated that we only need invoke Parliamentary Procedure when necessary for order, or when there is controversy and we need to assure all sides get a fair hearing. Usually the Assembly decides by unanimous consent, for if no one objects to that and all agree, we can simply proceed.
He continued, suggesting that anyone should feel free to raise questions about parliamentary procedure. If people don't want to stop a meeting, they can ask afterward, send an email, or drop by office hours. Also, he added, people shouldn't fear appearing ignorant or causing trouble. No one wants to delay meetings with discussions of procedure, but we want to make sure that everybody understands what is going on.
Then, he stated that there had been a question about the succession to the chair. The order of succession is determined by the Constitution [Constitution, V-2-a]. If the chair is absent, the assistant chair (if there is one) runs the meeting. The parliamentary secretary and the corresponding secretary are the next in line. Mr. Adelizzi observed that both the Chair Mr. Jordan and the Parliamentary Secretary Leonard Pease were absent, and that Mr. Pease had asked Mr. Adelizzi to deliver his report, and act as Parliamentarian. When Mr. Jordan had appointed Mr. Adelizzi to the honorary, non-voting post of assistant chair, they had agreed (along with the Executive Committee) that Mr. Adelizzi wouldn't chair any meeting, unless no other officers were present and willing to chair. Mr. Jordan and the Executive Committee had been concerned that members of the Assembly might object to a non-elected officer chairing the meeting. Moreover, Mr. Adelizzi had no desire to chair a meeting. Thus, Mr. Adelizzi had declined to chair the meeting, and Ms. Esparza, being the next in line, was chairing.
Mr. Adelizzi then reported on changes in the composition of Assembly. Zach Riddley, ARC representative, had resigned. There had been an election for the CHE representative; Mr. Adelizzi would retire after four terms, and Jack Tinsley was the new representative, effective July 1.
Finally, Mr. Pease had asked that Mr. Adelizzi report that the Executive Committee hadn't had the opportunity to discuss any revisions to the formal Interpretation presented in the previous meeting, but would do so soon. Mr. Adelizzi added that, although as assistant chair he is an officer, he is not a member of the Executive Committee.
At this point, it seemed convenient to have a short recess for refreshments.
Treasurer Eitan Bonderover had submitted the following report in advance:
I. Advance Funding Requests (2)
1. CIGS - Summer Lunches
Request:
1_Organization_Name: Council of International Graduate Student, International
Center
2a_Contact_Person_Name: Weining Man,
[contact email removed by recording secretary]
3_Event_to_be_funded: Summer Dialogue Over Lunches
4_Date_of_event: Every Thursday during June, July, Aug. (12 times in total)
5_Expected_GS_Attendance: 20 graduates per time, 240 people in total
6_Requested_Amount: $400(or $300)
7a_PU_Account:
7b_Approved_GradSchool: Yes_Awaiting_Approval
9_Event_description: CIGS and IC will organize Summer Dialogue Over lunches,
this summer every Thur. It will be free lunch to people who participate to the
discussion. In total there will be 12 times. Different topics about
international issue and multicultures will be chosen by IC and CIGS, such as
1) to be politically correct under current US policies on homeland security and
international relations
2) common rites in various cultures and regions
3) happiness: definition, manifestation and experiences
4) academic paths and performances
5) genders: discrimination, equality, expectations
6) war in Iraq
7) SARS
...
11) civility as manifested in different cultures
12) adjusting to a new culture: Princeton, the US
The final two topics are for the final weeks in August to greet the incoming
foreign graduate students.
We will also invite experts among faculty and the administration as active
participants and in general manage their sessions.
We expect 40 people every time, and 20 of them to be graduate students. In
total there will be 12 times. Each time, at least $100 will be used for food.
The total budget will be $1200.
We are also asking the Offices of Campus Life, Religious Life and Graduate
School for money.
We hope that GSG can give $400($300) for it, because in total 240 graduate
students can participated. (if you consider one person who participate twice as
two)
Recommendation: Approve.
CIGS has organized many successful events in the past. They are asking for
$400 which is not unreasonable for this type of event and it appears to fall
within the typical guideline ($3 per person).
2. The GC House Committee - Summer Pizza Parties
Request:
1_Organization_Name: Graduate College House Committee
2a_Contact_Person_Name: Lior Silberman
[contact email removed by recording secretary]
3_Event_to_be_funded: Summer Pizza Parties
4_Date_of_event: June 18th, July 16th, August 20th
5_Expected_GS_Attendance: 1200
6_Requested_Amount: $700
[PU account number removed by recording secretary]
7b_Approved_GradSchool: Not_Yet
9_Event_description: This is the annual summer pizza parties run by the GC
House Committee, and traditionally sponsored by the House Committee, the
Graduate School, and the GSG. We request the same amount in the previous year.
We also request gsg-global publicity of the events.
About 400 people attend each of the three parties, consuming from 100 to 130
pies.
Note: The July and August dates may be revised later.
Recommendation: Approve.
The GC House Committee runs this successful event every year and the GSG also
contributes every year.
II. Tabled Funding Requests (1)
Queer Graduate Caucus (QGC) - Summer BBQ
Request:
1_Organization_Name: Queer Graduate Caucus
2a_Contact_Person_Name: Heather White (QGC social chair)
[contact email removed by recording secretary]
3_Event_to_be_funded: Summer Barbeque
4_Date_of_event: June 18
5_Expected_GS_Attendance: 25
6_Requested_Amount: $80
[PU account number removed by recording secretary]
7b_Approved_GradSchool: Not_Yet
9_Event_description: Itemized budget:
$20 hamburgers
$5 turkey burgers
$10 vegetables to grill
$10 hot dogs
$5 veggie burgers
$10 buns
$12 condiments
$8 charcoal & lighter fluid
participants will be asked to help provide drinks (including alcohol), salads,
chips, and additional grill items, etc.
plates, napkins, utensils, etc. are already purchased
Requested support:
$80 ($3.20/ per person)
The QGC is hosting a summer barbeque in Butler apartments for LGBT graduate
students, friends, and allies. The scheduled date is the evening of June 18,
and we plan for about 25 people to attend. Our last social gathering drew
nearly 50 students, but we expect fewer people during the summer. The GSG will
be acknowledged as an event sponsor pending this funding approval, and the
event will be advertised to all graduate students.
Recommendation: Approve.
The budget for this event is reasonable and shows this event is planned well.
Also, it conforms to the $3 per person rule well enough.
III. Current Balance
Cash Balance, 06/08/03: 5,752.96
Liabilites: (2.27)
Cash Balance: 5,750.06
Liabilities represent funding requests that the GSG has granted, but the
receiving organization has yet to submit receipts for reimbursements and also
income amount which have not yet be received.
The cash balance consists of:
$ 585.51 of 2002-2003 (current fiscal year) budgeted expenditures that have
yet to be spent;
$ 4,791.82 in prior year surplus;
$ 365.00 of GSG income over the budgeted (expected) amount.
IV. Reconciled Financial Position
The GSG financial statements were last reconciled to the University bank
statement date ending January 31, 2003. A budget to actual income report for
the GSG was last completed for transactions as of June 8, 2003. All of these
reconciliations may be reviewed by any GSG assembly member. Interested parties
should contact the GSG treasurer to make an appointment.
Submitted 06.08.03,
Eitan Bonderover
Princeton University
Department of Electrical Engineering
Weining Man presented CIGS's funding request. She explained the International Center will organize free lunches during the Summer, Thursdays at noon. It is open to both graduate and undergraduate students. There will be a different topic for discussion every week. They expect about 40 people each time, possibly more than half graduate students. It was starting the very next day (June 12), it would last for 12 weeks (thus, there would be 12 lunches), and they expect 20 graduate students each time. They estimated a cost of about $5/person/lunch, and thus a total of $1200 (just for food, and including both graduate and undergraduate students). They were asking the GSG for $300. Ms. Safran moved to fund by $300, and Mr. Smith seconded.
MOTION: to fund "Summer Dialogue over Lunches", organized by the International Center and CIGS, by $300. PASSED unanimously.
Ms. Man also asked that a global email be sent, and Ms. Esparza asked her to send the email to the Executive Committee.
Mr. Bonderover proceed to next request, the GCHC Summer Pizza Parties. He observed that the GCHC traditionally asked funding from the GSG, and asked Sharon Bewick to present the request. She stated she had not much to add. She observed that attendance at the pizza parties is very good. The House Committee had also asked the Graduate School for funding, and was asking $700 from the GSG. Mr. Bonderover added that the event attracts huge masses. Ms. Safran moved to fund as request, and Brigitta Lee seconded.
MOTION: to fund the GCHC "Summer Pizza Parties" by $700. PASSED unanimously.
Mr. Bonderover stated that there had been a request by the Queer Graduate Caucus (QGC) made after the 2-week standing deadline, and asked if there were objections to its consideration. There being none, he asked Heather White to present the request. Ms. White stated the QGC was organizing a Summer BBQ, and they were asking $80 from the GSG. The budget was only for the grillables (meats, vegetables) and other non-alcoholic items. Attendees would be asked to bring everything else. Although in their last event they had 50 people, they were expecting only 25 this time (for it was Summer). Ms. Lee moved to fund as requested, Ms. Safran seconded.
MOTION: to fund the QGC "Summer BBQ" by $80. PASSED unanimously.
Mr. Bonderover closed his report by announcing that he wouldn't be in town the coming week, and by announcing that, later in the Summer, the Executive Committee would start preparing the budget for next year and suggested that members of the Assembly start thinking about it and give ideas. Ms. Lee asked when the fiscal year ends, and Mr. Bonderover stated it is in October. Ms. Safran asked if the ideas sought were for GSG-initiated events, and Mr. Bonderover stated it was so, as well as other things the GSG could do. Mr. Tinsley asked if the previous budget was available, and Mr. Bonderover stated it is. Mr. Adelizzi suggested that it could be posted online, and Mr. Bonderover thought that was a good idea. (The recording secretary will use this occasion to observe that said budget was posted after the meeting.)
Ms. Esparza reported for the chair. She stated that the Executive
Committee had met 4 times since May 14. The topics discussed were
long-term planning, the GSLI, preparing PriComm requests, the furniture
drive, the T-shirts, the parking policies (discussed in the previous
meeting). As to the letter approved by Assembly in the previous
meeting, it had been sent on May 15 to gsg-assembly for
discussion, and the final version had been sent by the end of May 16
to the President, the Provost, the Treasurer, Graduate School Deans
Russel and Montero, and Stephen T. Miller and Patricia McArdle (from
housing). No answer had been received yet.
Ms. Esparza further reported that on May 19, Mr. Jordan and Ms. Safran
had met with professor John Fleming. On April 7, he had
written an opinion article in the Daily Princetonian,
which had motivated a joint reply by several
groups, previously circulated to gsg-assembly. That reply was published on April 16, under Ms. Safran's name, in her
capacity as GSG Press Secretary. A reply by professor Fleming was published at the same
time. While these articles were going to press, Ms. Safran had written
privately to him, suggesting that they could
meet to talk. Indeed, she added, he is an influential member of the
APGA, and the episode suggested that many things had changed over the
years and hinted at several misunderstandings about graduate student
life. So, they did meet, and the discussion was very
productive.
As to graduate/undergraduate relations, he agrees that they can be improved, by increasing residential interactions, or graduate students serving as mentors, or having joint seminars; basically, by changing some attitudes.
As to housing, he was surprised with what he was told, and was very conciliatory. In fact, his experience was a lot different (he took two years to get his degree, one of them in France; he paid $11/week for his room in town). As to Butler (which after all had sparkled the polemic), in the 1980s it was common for students to sublet their apartments at Butler at very high prices—this, Ms. Safran suggested, might have created on people who have been here for long the impression that there's no shortage of housing. He had no idea that the Lawrence construction was late and wouldn't be only for graduate students, or that there are already graduate students living in Hibben-Magie. Even being very involved with student life, he had no idea there was an housing crisis. Ms. Safran stated he seemed disturbed by this news, and that (in consultation with the Executive Committee) she had sent him a copy of the letter and tables already sent to President Tilghman.
As to post-enrollment, he expressed his disapproval. He also thought that hiring post-enrolled students as lecturers is exploitation. Ms. Safran and Mr. Jordan told him that post-enrollment is one of the reasons why there are so many bitter alumni, and housing is next.
He expressed concern with the University expansion, which has been to rapid and broad. In fact, Ms. Safran and Mr. Jordan expressed concern that the Graduate School would be left back. Professor Fleming expressed his interest in getting more involved.
Ms. Safran invited questions. There being none, Ms. Esparza closed her report by stating that Mr. Jordan had made a short presentation at the APGA (Association of Princeton Graduate Alumni) on May 30. He gave an update on current student life, which was very well received.
Ms. Esparza reminded all that the idea of the T-shirts was to have the GSG name "out there". However, they would could cost about $5/unit, and 500 would be about $2,750 total. Mr. Bonderover concurred that that would be more than recommendable. Mugs had also been considered, but the price was almost the same. However, tote bags were another possibility, at about $2/unit. Ms. Esparza stated she would look for prices for other items, and asked suggestions.
Ms. Lee suggested coffee mugs, but Ms. Esparza had already found that they would cost about $8/unit. Ms. Safran added that we had looked at this specific supplier because it is the one used by the University. However, we are not bound to use them, and they had already promised that they would match any prices we could find. Ms. Esparza added that there is still time for decisions, as the order must be placed only about 6 weeks in advance. But she added, it's better to have some extra time, so that if there is a problem with the order we have time to return it.
Ms. Sherov suggested that we could email them and ask for objects (for example) up to $2/unit and visible. She had made such requests before, and they did suggest different models of pens, cheaper, but just as nice.
Ms. Esparza closed her report, by saying that she would continue looking for alternatives. If she had news, she would email Assembly. If needed, a vote would be conducted by email, otherwise, it would be discussed in the next meeting.
Ms. Esparza then reminded all that the AI handbook would be revised in the Summer. The intention was only to include information on new resources (like Blackboard). Three volunteers are needed. It is expected to take no more than 2 weeks, with a total of 8 to 10 hours. Ms. Esparza had volunteered in the previous meeting, but it was desirable to have one volunteer from sciences/engineering and one from the humanities. Mr. Adelizzi suggested that if members of Assembly have friends who complained about the lack of resources for AI, this was the time for them to participate. Ms. Safran suggested that Representatives of the relevant departments can look for volunteers among their constituents.
Bianca Mislowack asked if the dates were already known, to what
Mr. Adelizzi answered that the idea was to schedule around people's
available times. Ms. Man offered to look among TAs in her department
who received teaching awards. Ms. Esparza asked that volunteers send
email to gsg@.
Mr. Adelizzi reminded those present that in the previous meeting Assembly had discussed the administration's plan of keeping the shuttle and restricting parking. He reported that he amalgamated all ideas expressed into a concrete proposal, which was circulated in the Transportation and Parking Committee and the Executive Committee. The proposal had been sent to General Manager for Administration Laurel Harvey. She thought that the proposal considered several issues that she had never thought about (e.g., the graduate Annexes). She is looking over it, talking with the Provost, the Housing Office, etc., and will give an answer. For now, it is confirmed that the shuttle will continue next year, although it will be discontinued during this coming August.
Ms. Esparza reported on the furniture drive. Considering how much it rained, the drive was very successful. More than $1,500 were raised, which is only a little less than last year. She thanked volunteers, including Ms. Lee, Ms. Man, and Gabriel Rossman, present in the meeting. She added that Ms. Lee, chair of the Campus Relations Committee, couldn't organize the drive this year, but she will do it next year.
Ms. Esparza called for a report by the Post-Enrollment Committee.
After a few moments, Ms. Safran observed that the reason there were no
members of the committee to report was that were no more
members—active members such as Matt Fouse, Matt Hindman, and
Donnell Butler had all become post-enrolled. So, more people are needed
to continue their work. In fact, it will
be easy to understand what there is to be done, for we already have
extensive data from the post-enrollment survey (conducted in 2001),
whose reported was presented to President Tilghman and Dean Wilson
[Minutes 2.20.2002, IV]. Any volunteers should email Mr. Jordan or
gsg@. Ms. Safran emphasized that it's important to have
volunteers who are not members of the Executive Committee, for the
bulk of committee members are in fact current or former officers. So,
she added, anyone who has already passed the Generals (or whose
Generals are still too far in the future) should consider
volunteering.
Mr. Adelizzi added that the committee had indeed made some progress. After 15 years, it had eventually succeeded in convincing the administration that there is a real issue, DCC status had been created. But he added, this is the beginning, and more changes (either incremental or general) are needed. So, members of Assembly are invited to join the committee. The time commitment is variable, depending on everyone's availability. Some committees are ran by email, some meet physically, according to the convenience of their members.
Tamar Friedmann wished to share with Assembly some information about DCC status. Although the post-enrollment handbook suggests that transition into DCC is automatic, it's unclear whether that is really the case. Depending on who one talks to, unstated requirements appear. For example, in some cases students are told that departmental funding is required. Dean Redman had told her that departments in the natural sciences and engineering usually provide funding for 1 semester/year. However, that's not always the case, especially for international students. And visa status can be a problem.
Mr. Adelizzi stated that, as far as he knew, DCC status doesn't affect visa status. In fact student-visa status depends only upon the University recognizing the student as a student. He also observed that it doesn't make sense for a department to state that a student with no funding will be denied DCC status, and then students with funding will be considered staff and as such ineligible for DCC status.
Ms. Safran suggested that Ms. Friedmann document the case, and send information to the Post-Enrollment Committee. Indeed, Ms. Friedmann thought that, although she would probably be a DCC soon, she would consider joining the committee in the interim. Ms. Safran added that the Executive Committee had been told of one case where a DCC student had been refused the faculty/staff rate at Dillon gym, contrary to what had been promised. She suggested that we should try to work with Dean Russel to solve this problem, and thought that a DCC orientation could be useful. Ironically, Ms. Friedmann stated that she had suggested that to her DGS. He had thought that was a good idea, but took no concrete steps. Mr. Adelizzi added the the existence of the post-enrollment handbook constituted progress. Ms. Friedmann countered that the handbook is not followed, which decreases its usefulness.
By the end of the discussion, Mr. Sun volunteered to take part in the committee.
Ms. Esparza reported that, after Mr. Jordan's presentation to the APGA, Victoria Garcia (chair of the APGA graduate student committee) offered to come to GSG meetings, so that the APGA can be kept informed of current issues.
Mr. Adelizzi explained that the CPUC Priorities Committee (PriComm) had faculty, staff, graduate, and undergraduate representatives. He reminded Assembly that we nominate the two graduate student representatives. The committee meets during the Fall till January, and writes the University budget. In particular, they recommend how to use any surplus. They listen to proposals by senior administrators (such as the Deans, the Vice-President for Student Life, or the Director of Health Services). These administrators present their wish-lists, and the committee asks questions, and then votes. Although we can not make requests directly to PriComm, we can ask the heads of departments during the Summer. Our representatives (Leslie Medema and Mr. Pease) will defend our requests. So, we need to think about what we want to ask.
In previous years, we asked the housing department to ask for more staff for graduate student housing. Although PriComm decided to deny funding, the housing office did use our letter in support. We told Dean Russel that there were no cost of living increases in the stipends, which was especially problematic in the humanities, and he succeeded in securing small stipend increases for the humanities. We asked Dr. Daniel Silverman, director of Health Services for increased Summer service. The request was denied by PriComm, but he brought it there.
So, Mr. Adelizzi asked for suggestions, either in the meeting, or by
email to gsg-assembly or gsg@. He observed
that most requests were informal, and wouldn't need a formal Assembly
endorsement.
Ms. White suggested that we ask again for better Summer hours. She also suggested that we should ask for an increase in services, including mental health. Ms. Safran observed that we could again request better access to physical therapy.
Mr. Boavida proceeded to the next topic in the agenda. He observed that the GSG had become more and more active. So, the Executive Committee thought it was a good time to start planning, so that everyone interested can actively contribute. He added that the Executive Committee would meets once per week, and would discuss several topics during the Summer.
The first topic would be GSG internal affairs. This includes organizing the committees so that they don't depend so much on the Executive Committee (as Ms. Safran had observed earlier, the bulk of GSG committee membership was in fact GSG officers), and improving communication between Assembly, the committees, and the Executive Committee. Also, all standing rules would be organized, so that we can always know what they are, instead of depending on people's memories.
The second topic would be the PriComm strategy for next semester. This had just been discussed.
The third topic would be what role we want to play in the University, how to better work with the Graduate School and administration toward solving our problems, and how to better make our case.
The fourth topic would be GSG outreach. This includes reaching current, incoming, prospective students, and attracting interested students to help. It also includes how to reach to other people in the University, and the departments. Graduate student representation in different University committees and boards would also be discussed. And press relations would also be planned.
Mr. Boavida added that the Executive Committee wanted to work more closely with the APGA and the USG; in fact, informal contacts had already been made.
Another topic, which was not referred here but had been already pointed by Mr. Bonderover, would be preparing the budget.
So, Mr. Boavida concluded, it will take at least a month discussing all
these topics. The Executive Committee would strongly appreciate
hearing suggestions from Assembly. Those could be given either in the
meeting, or by email to gsg@, or by starting discussion
in gsg-assembly. Another possibility is coming to office
hours in that week.
Mr. Tinsley asked when are the office hours. Mr. Boavida stated they are on Mondays, 11:30 to 1:30. Ms. Safran added that the office, shared with the USG, is at Frist 204, and both the GSG and the USG have signs on the door. Mr. Adelizzi suggested that weekly emails be sent to Assembly, reminding the topic for the following week.
There being no further business, Mr. Adelizzi wished to address Assembly for the last time as Representative. He observed he had served as a Representative for four terms. That made him not only the longest serving Representative (by over a year), but also the only one left from the Graduate Student Union. Observing that all faces were indeed new, none in common with those of four years ago, he asked some moments to share some historical facts with Assembly.
He proceeded to argue that the organization had done a lot in the past four years. As examples of direct results he listed DCC status (for first-year post-enrolled students); the optional dental and vision plans; ethernet for Lawrence, Hibben-Magie and Butler; the daytime campus shuttle; cost of living increase for students in the humanities and social sciences; and credit union membership. Less direct results include ethernet in the Annexes; prox-card access to undergraduate colleges; and a second graduate alumni in the Board of Trustees. He agreed that none of this was done in isolation; for as an advocacy organization the most we can do is ask and care about things. We are lucky that the present administration is willing to consider our requests and complaints, and respond positively to a high number of them. For instance, Dean Russel forcefully pursued the cost-of-living increases after the GSG brought the matter to his attention, shortly after he had taken office.
Then, he observed that there had been internal progress too. The name change, from Graduate Student Union to Graduate Student Government, gave us more respect and trust both from the administration and from the Graduate Student Body. A new Constitution was passed, more appropriate to a democratic student government, more flexible, and less confusing. We asserted the right to make appointments to the CPUC and its committees, which gave us a louder voice in the larger University community, and the ability to influence policy through the Priorities Committee, the Governance Committee, etc. We established an endowment, which will give us a permanent income stream, independent of the dues. Being a student government, we are asked by the administration to send representatives to several committees in the University, which not only gave a little power to Assembly, but more importantly provided a mechanism for the exchange of information and better communication.
Mr. Adelizzi also saw change toward professionalism. In his first meeting, there were half a dozen people sitting in a room; now there are more filled seats and more active representatives that he had ever seen. Minutes are complete and comprehensive. University administrators, up to and including the President, visit us when asked. The Dean of the Graduate School asked a few months ago to attend a meeting to tell us about the rents for the new Lawrence Apartments; which if primarily indicative of Dean Russel's great interest and concern for graduate student life, is also indicative of the respect the administration has toward us.
So, he asked, how to sustain and build on these successes?
Firstly, we need to maintain professionalism; we need to understand how the University and its institutions work, and interact with them thoughtfully and respectfully. A protest march, for instance, is a last resort; a request for an administrator to ask something to the Priorities Committee is a first step.
Secondly, we must sustain the support of the Graduate Student Body. He wished to advise Assembly against associating itself with controversial or political causes. There are so many uncontroversial issues (e.g., post-enrollment or housing) that need to be solved, that we should not squander our efforts on projects that will divide the Assembly or cause resentment on part of the Graduate Student Body. There are also dozens of political organizations on campus designed to pursue extra-University political goals. We need not waste our time, nor should we squander our prestige or support, by engaging in national or extra-University political causes while there are other organizations who could achieve the same effect. Our institution as an important purpose: advocacy of graduate student concerns to the administration; we also organize some social events. Always be mindful of the purpose of institutions.
Lastly, we need to make sure we have a coherent message and remember the work of our predecessors. Few problems can be solved during the service of one GSG representative. Mr. Adelizzi's four years of service is much longer than the average, yet it is not enough. The administration has one advantage over us: they stay in office for longer than we do. The University's time scale for anything (budget, renovations, etc.) is measured in years. Our time scales are all-too-often measured in months. We must threfore build upon the work of our predecessors and—and this is very important—document what we do very well, so that our successors can continue our projects. The minutes are of great importance. So are notes from committees and meetings; letters and email. We must preserve our records and use them. A couple of months ago, Donnell Butler suggested members of the Assembly that they should read the Constitution. Mr. Adelizzi agreed, but thought that it is more important to read old minutes. They are online. He suggested that members see what has been done in past years and so realize what we still have to do. He urged all to become engaged with GSG's work, not only in the months each one serves in Assembly. He observed another important aspect of documentation. The administration has, in the past, ignored many complaints from students on the grounds that the complaints are as ephemeral as the students: in a few years, the complaining students will be gone and their complaints with them. A new set of students will come and a new set of complaints will arise. Why do anything? By good record-keeping, by annual updates to the Graduate Student Life Initiative, by a full understanding of our discussions with the administration, we can assure that our ideas and complaints have a continuity. Our statements will be given a higher degree of respect; we will have a higher chance of getting things done.
George Will once said that our civilization is assaulted every year by billions of barbarians—in the form of babies. They are ignorant of civilization and must be educated before they can build on the achievements of the past. Similarly, Mr. Adelizzi said, in Graduate School, we, as students, continue the process, we must understand our fields in order to make new contributions. Here, in the Assembly, we must understand what our predecessors have done before we can make further progress.
A student government is, by its very nature, a very fragile institution. The progress of years of work can be destroyed in weeks or months, by members who do not respect the institution or desire to effect radical change on a short time scale, or who may want to use the GSG as an institution to ends that are not related to its purpose. Mr. Adelizzi would be around, he continued, for another month or two, in the honorary, non-voting position of assistant chair. But as he stepped down has a voting member of Assembly, he asked all to guard our institution, guard our institutional memory, build upon the successes of the past, and document our work.
He thanked all for their attention, and was retributed with a round of applause.
Ms. Esparza reminded all that the next meetings would be on July 9 and August 13, in Frist 309, and adjourned the meeting. It was about 7:15pm.