gradcpuc-members mailing list)• Representatives present • Anita Adhitya, AOS • Aleksandar Donev, APC • Sinéad Mac Namara, CEE • Jack Tinsley, CHE • Minkui Luo, proxy for Jia Su, CHM • Jessica H. Clark, CLA • Brigitta A. Lee, EAS • Jonathan Vogel, ECO • Gregory D. O'Mullan, EEB • Fei Sun, ELE • Meredith Safran, proxy for Kerry Bystrom, ENG • Valerie Dionne, FIT • Meredith Galanter Hastings, proxy for Karin Sigloch, GEO • Michael K. House, GER • Chris Wyckham, MAE • Lior Silberman, MAT • David Shrom, MOL • Michael Ludkovski, ORF • Annika Peter, PHY • Jonathan Eastvold, POL • David R. Smith, PPL • Kim Montgomery, PSY • Susan Gunasti, REL • Nicole Esparza, proxy for Debbie Becher, SOC • Leslie A. Medema, WWS •
• Delegates present • Fei Sun, Association of Chinese Students and Scholars (ACSS) • Weining Man, Council of International Graduate Students (CIGS) • Huiyan Yang, Butler Apartments • Lior Silberman, Graduate College (GC) • Radhika Wijetunge, Lawrence Apartments • Leonard F. Pease III, Off-Campus • Heather White, Women's Center •
• Councilors present • Acting Chair Eric A. Adelizzi (also assistant chair), CPUC • Parliamentary Secretary Leonard F. Pease III, CPUC, CPUC Priorities Committee • Corresponding Secretary Nicole Esparza • Press Secretary Meredith Safran • Recording Secretary João Pedro Boavida • Treasurer Eitan Bonderover • Social Chair Sinéad Mac Namara • Lior Silberman, CPUC, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee • Ian Parrish, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Leslie A. Medema, CPUC, CPUC Priorities Committee • Brigitta Lee, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Fei Sun, CPUC Governance Committee • Meredith Galanter Hastings, CPUC Judicial Committee • David R. Smith, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee •
• Others present • Lei Xu (ELE), chair of the International Students' Concerns Committee • Shirley M. Tilghman, president of Princeton University • Lisa M. Sherov, GC residence life coordinator • Beth McKeown, community programs coordinator • Jeffrey Dwoskin (ELE) • Hany Girgis (MOL), GC house advisor • Paul Calamia (COS), Butler • Tae Hong Park (MUS), Listening in the Sound Kitchen • Scott Miller (CHE), former GSG chair • Christiane I Meyer (EEB) • Ying Wang (ELE) • Mengmeng Yu (ELE) • Philo Juang (ELE), Graduate Football Club • Donna A. C. Sy (HOS), GCHC • Han Liang (CHM) •
• Representatives absent • Riaz Tejani, ANT • Karoline Cook, HIS • Cole M. Crittenden, SLA •
• Delegates absent • Aderemi Artis, Black Graduate Caucus (BGC) •
• Councilors absent • Rob Sobak, CPUC • Aderemi Artis, CPUC Resources Committee •
• Representative seats vacant • ARC • ART • AST • COM • COS • MUS • NES • POS • PHI • SPO •
• Delegate seats vacant • Hibben/Magie Apartments • Millstone Apartments •
The Assembly of the Graduate Student Government held its regular monthly meeting on October 8, 2003, at Frist 309. Acting Chair Eric Adelizzi called the meeting to order at about 6:05pm.
Parliamentary Secretary Leonard F. Pease III introduced four new Representatives: Annika Peter (PHY), Debbie Becher (SOC), Susan Gunasti (REL), Jonathan Vogel (ECO). He also announced that Patrick Gerland (OPR) had stepped down as Representative.
Recording Secretary João Pedro Boavida stated that there a was a mistake in the draft minutes for September (he had incorrectly copied the total budget for the ACSS event from the treasurer's report). Moreover, Anita Adhitya had asked for her acknowledgment of Bill Jordan's service to be recorded; Mr. Boavida deemed this change uncontroversial. There as a motion for approval of the minutes with those corrections, there was a second, and the motion carried by an unanimous vote.
Mr. Adelizzi reported that the Executive Committee had met three times since the previous Assembly meeting. The topics discussed were the CPUC, President Tilghman's visit to Assembly, the First Chance Dance, the election of a new chair, alumni relations, graduate/undergraduate relations, the restoration of the HOS seat, the graduate departmental committees, and the GSLI. On September 18 the Executive Committee had appointed its liaisons to the several Assembly committees [Standing Rules of Assembly, II.5]. Those liaisons were: Mr. Pease (to the library committee), Nicole Esparza (to the health care committee), Meredith Safran (to the campus relations committee), Mr. Boavida (to the international students' concerns committee), Eitan Bonderover (to the information technology committee), Sinéad Mac Namara (to the transportation and parking committee). On an interim basis (till a new chair is elected), Mr. Adelizzi had been appointed liaison to the housing committee and to the post-enrollment committee.
Mr. Adelizzi further reported on a meeting with Charles Kalmbach (senior vice-president for administration), Dean of the Graduate School William B. Russel, and Laurel Harvey (general manager for administration). The purpose of the meeting had been to discuss GSG's concerns for PriComm [see Minutes 7.9.2003, IV.B]. As to safety in the Annexes, it was already planned to install prox-card access in all University buildings, and a consultant was to be hired to decide what building should be higher priorities. In the interim, door closers would be installed in the Annexes. As to the requests for sidewalks along Faculty Road, the segment from Alexander Road to Hibben-Magie would be done soon. However, the segment from Hibben-Magie to Butler was more difficult, and required more planning; they would recommend to the appropriate committee that it be considered for 2006. As to the GC parking fee, Mr. Kalmbach had stated it had been adopted in the 1980s, and that residents in the apartments had a similar fee incorporated in their rents. Mr. Adelizzi stated that this information contradicts information previously gathered from the GC House Committee records, housing, the parking office, public safety, the Graduate School, and Richard Spies (Mr. Kalmbach's own predecessor, vice president for finance and administration), and observed that the Dean had no sympathy for this cause.
Mr. Adelizzi continued his report: he had been present at a APGA board meeting, on September 13. There he learned that annual giving by graduate alumni had been up this year. Dean Russel reported that the University is discussing the acquisition of new graduate housing; and that 2 to 3 graduate students had been unable to matriculate due to visa delays or denials. (At this point, Fei Sun remarked that by now there were already 6 students in that situation.) The APGA had had a net increase of 200 members. In that meeting, the APGA's annual budget was approved. Mr. Adelizzi also reported on two questions by the APGA. First, they were trying to plan more graduate alumni events, and were considering whether they should be organized by class year or by department. Mr. Adelizzi solicited feedback, to be sent either directly to the APGA, or to be sent to the future GSG chair. Second, the APGA suggested that current graduate students could solicit donations to recent alumni, as is currently done by undergraduates (who call recent undergraduate alumni).
Mr. Adelizzi then reported on a recent development on post-enrolled students' representation: being the GSG chair, he sits ex-officio in the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) [By-Laws, V.1.d]. However, Mr. Adelizzi was currently post-enrolled. In the past, administrators had refused to accept post-enrolled students as graduate student representatives. This time, however, Mr. Adelizzi was seated—which in Mr. Adelizzi's opinion opened a precedent—and Ann Halliday (assistant secretary of the University, and ex-officio secretary to the council) thought that it would be possible to bring that topic (post-enrolled representation) to a successful close.
Mr. Adelizzi concluded his report by announcing that he had extended invitations for Dean Russel and Camilo Azcarate (the new ombuds officer) to come to Assembly. Dean Russel could only come in December; Mr. Azcarate would come in November.
It was at about this point (6:20pm) that the University president arrived. She apologized for being late; she had been under the impression the meeting was at 6:30pm...
Mr. Adelizzi welcomed University President Shirley M. Tilghman to Assembly. He told new members she was serving the third year as University president, and that since her installation there had been marked changes in administration, namely more openness and responsiveness. She had visited Assembly in February 2002 [Minutes 2.20.2002, IV], and was the only University president to come to a GSG meeting. The president thanked him for the introduction, and Mr. Adelizzi gave the floor to Ms. Mac Namara. (The presentation that followed will be on the archives, together with these minutes. In his account of the discussion, the recording secretary will focus on information not included in the slides of said presentation.)
Ms. Mac Namara observed that in that meeting, the GSG expressed concerns about the shuttle (then non-existent), post-enrollment, and housing. Since then, the shuttle had come into existence, a committee had been convened to discuss post-enrollment and DCC was the outcome, and the new Lawrence construction had started.
Moving on to the next slide, Ms. Mac Namara presented the shuttle project as an example of an excellent collaboration between students and administrators, and emphasized that it's easier for everyone if students and the GSG are involved from the early stages of a project.
Continuing to the next slide, Ms. Mac Namara mentioned the excellent relationship with the Graduate School and Dean Russel's work on behalf of graduate students. She observed that the stipend increases in the humanities and social sciences [Minutes 10.9.2002, 4] were very welcome; and also mentioned the financial support Dean Montero's office provides for social events (often up to 50% of the cost).
Moving on to the next slide, Mr. Bonderover took over, to discuss OIT's responsiveness to GSG's concerns. President Tilghman asked whether the wiring of Butler was already completed; Mr. Bonderover stated that as far as he knew it was complete, and service was mostly reliable [Minutes 9.10.2003, V.C].
As to the current concerns with visa delays for international students, Mr. Bonderover mentioned Jennifer McNabb's (international graduate student advisor, at the office of visa services) helpfulness. He took the occasion to thank President Tilghman's several public interventions on this issue. [for more discussion of these issues, see Minutes 9.10.2003, VI.A, and VII.A below]
He moved on to the next slide, the first one on housing. He stated that the housing office is very open and willing to cooperate with student representatives. In fact, the GSG is currently working with the housing office to simplify the draw [Minutes 9.10.2003, V.B]. Moving on to the next slide, Mr. Bonderover observed that the rents in the new Lawrence apartments are too high, and essentially not affordable for most students: for example, a studio rent is 40%-60% of a student's income, while the typical recommendations call for no more than 30%, and the rents at Hibben-Magie are around 25%. President Tilghman asked whether the rents in the two bedroom apartments were not affordable either. Some extra slides had been prepared with that information, and, while showing them, Ms. Mac Namara stated that although the rent was a bit lower, it was still not affordable. [for detailed discussion on this topic, see Minutes 5.14.2003, IV.B]
Mr. Bonderover continued to the next slide in the presentation, and expressed the GSG's wish to be involved in future planning as early as possible, so that the mistakes of new Lawrence can be avoided—and in this he showed the shuttle as a model for the kind of involvement the GSG is seeking. Mr. Bonderover also expressed the GSG's concern about the renovation of Butler, and the risk that the rents become to high for students.
Ms. Safran continued the presentation. The next slide was the first one on post-enrollment. She observed that post-enrollment had been discussed at length when the president at last come to Assembly. That discussion was the first acknowledgment by any administrator that there was some issue to be studied. Afterward, a committee (chaired by the provost) was established to study it, and DCC (Degree Candidacy Continues) status—as opposed to ETDCC (Enrollment Terminated, Degree Candidacy Continues)— was the outcome. Students are eligible for this new status (which last for one year only) if they are not employed as lecturers or researchers, and if their advisors and departments certify they are working full-time toward their degrees.
A DCC email list has been established, and the office of graduate student
life is working on establishing an ETDCC email list. The president asked
why there was a separate list, why post-enrolled students couldn't be kept
in the regular mailing lists, and whether it wouldn't be better to keep
everyone in the departmental mailing lists to ensure that none "falls
through the cracks". Ms. Safran explained that there is a global email
list, pu-grads, and the ideal would be to have post-enrolled
students there too. However, the lists is automatically updated based on
information from the registrar's office, and so post-enrolled students
must be kept in separate lists.
Ms. Safran pointed out that the policies are not uniformly implemented. The president asked whether giving an ID to DCC students hadn't solved it. Ms. Safran stated that the GSG had reports of students who were denied benefits, and added that it's important to assure everyone involved understands the procedures. Ms. Safran took this occasion to observe that Dean Russel had released information on post-enrollment. In fact, not only was he the first administrator to share that information with the GSG, he was always willing to share data with the GSG.
Moving on to the next slide, Ms. Safran started discussing some continuing issues on post-enrollment. In the first place, denying "student" status to post-enrolled students makes them ineligible for student loans, student visas, and student professional memberships. President Tilghman asked whether DCC status had solved that; Dean Russel had told her that DCC status was enough to keep a student visa. Radhika Wijetunge explained that DCC status was indeed enough to keep a student visa for one year; however, after the first year, students have to use their Optional Practical Training (OPT) time to continue their studies. President Tilghman then asked whether DCC would be enough to qualify for student loans (or to continue deferring payments). Mr. Bonderover explained that Dean David Redman (associate dean for academic affairs) wrote a letter to lenders, explaining the status, but not using the word "student", sometimes it works. Post-enrolled students without an ID have no access to libraries an facilities in other Universities. In fact, there were even reports of Public Safety making students abandon their offices (at late hours), because they can not prove their affiliation with the University.
President Tilghman asked how many people were affected by post-enrollment. Mr. Boavida stated that the total numbers are actually not known, for there is no list of these students; the most that is known is that there are about 200 students in their first year of post-enrollment. Based on enrollment and time to degree statistics, Mr. Boavida estimated there could be about 500 post-enrolled students total. The president stated it was not useful for the University not to know how many such students there are.
The next slide stated in big capitals: "We are not asking for money." President Tilghman conceded that the message was consistent: she distinctly recalled that in her previous visit to Assembly that point had been very much emphasized.
Ms. Safran moved on to the next slide. She explained that all students should be recognized by the University as "students", as long as the department certifies they are working full-time toward their degree; and should be allowed to register every year and have an ID. That would eliminate many problems, and save the University the time and money now spent in unnecessary bureaucracies.
The GSG is as concerned as the administration with keeping low times to degree. The incentive for graduate students to graduate early (i.e., lack of funding) would continue. However, there are cases of early post-enrollment, because it's less expensive for advisors, and most faculty don't understand the ramifications of post-enrollment. It would also be important that the different University offices understand the policies in place.
President Tilghman stated that DCC seemed to be a textbook case of trying to do reforms very quickly; maybe if it had not been implemented as quickly there would have been time to plan more carefully and be sure that everything worked. Ms. Safran stated that people appreciate that new policies may not work perfectly the first time. Aleksandar Donev stated that the policies are not clear, and students in his department tell him the post-enrollment handbook is too complicated. The president suggested that we should work with Dean Montero's office to make it more clear. Huiyan Yang stated that several students in her department had applied for readmission and the department denied, unlike in previous years, when people were given a grace period. The president stated that exceptions are handled on a case-by-case basis (probably by the DGSs and Dean Redman, she thought). She asked whether DCC had actually solved any problems, or was just an extension. Ms. Yang asked whether there are been no policy change then, to what the president answered there had not.
President Tilghman asked whether we thought asking the departments to certify (that a student is working full-time toward the degree) is a fair criterion. Ms. Safran answered that only the advisors know about their students' progress, and that that is a fair criterion. Mr. Adelizzi added that such certification could be made part of the annual readmission process.
Ms. Safran continued, stating there were reports of advisors taking over six months to read a student thesis and demanding changes after that; in the interim, the student gets post-enrolled. She suggested that the Graduate School would be the natural arbiter, to avoid such situations. The president mentioned the "Best Practices" memo, that had been sent to the departments: it recommended that every graduate student have a thesis committee—that way, differences of opinion between students and their advisors can be adjudicated. She asked whether there thesis committees. Some one stated that it varied widely across departments. Lior Silberman observed that even that may not be enough; in fact, the advisors write letters of recommendation, and students take that into account. The president recognized that dependence of students on advisors was a weakness of the graduate system. Mr. Silberman suggested implementing a post-facto oversight, by asking students to submit comments after they graduate. It was observed that the thesis committee could play a role in annual readmission.
Ms. Safran pointed out another advantage for students if they are recognized as "students": access to discounted health care. She exemplified: the GSG is considering reinstating its membership in the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students (NAGPS). One of the benefits is that all GSG members (that is, all students) would have access to discounted health care. However, the University must recognize that student as a "student", which excluded post-enrolled students from that benefit.
Ms. Safran asked the president why post-enrollment had been instituted in the first place, for the GSG had never been able to find it out. The president stated she didn't know. However, she had asked and had been told that there were legal implications with "student" status; in particular, all students must be required to pay tuition. If a tuition charge was instituted for post-enrolled student, she asked, what would be a tolerable charge? Scott Miller pointed out that first year students on a first year fellowship don't actually pay tuition: their fellowship support (paid by the University) pays it; he suggested that a similar system might be implemented for post-enrolled students. Mr. Silberman observed that health coverage was mandatory for enrollment, and pointed out that post-enrollment was not only DCC students, but also lecturers and pre-doctoral research fellows. He added that there are problems with access to the library. As to the visas, he stated that the title is not important, as far as the University certifies the person is a student and the student as financial resources (which, he added, is not the problem under discussion).
As to health care, the president asked whether it was the case that all students are either DCC (and hence eligible for the Student Health Plan), or are lecturers and researchers (and hence covered by employee benefits). Mr. Boavida stated that, according to the post-enrollment handbook, lecturers and researchers were not eligible for DCC status (hence not eligible for the Student Health Plan). Moreover, the handbook further states that students can be appointed for at most three semesters as lecturers or pre-doctoral researchers, and even though at most at 50% time. The handbook also stated that they would be eligible for employee benefits only if they were working at least 50% time. President Tilghman concluded that in practice they wouldn't be eligible for employee benefits.
Ms. Safran completed the presentation. She emphasized the good relationship with many departments and offices in the University, and expressed wishes that the trend continue. She also hope that the Graduate School becomes more and more visible in the University. The happier current graduate students are, the happier alumni they will be.
Mr. Adelizzi invited comments and questions from the president. She asked to be sent a copy of the overheads, which Ms. Mac Namara and Ms. Safran promised to do. She then made several comments.
Firstly, she stated she would like the Graduate School to feel more integrated in the University. In fact, the administration is trying (through the four-year undergraduate colleges—which will have some graduate student residents—and other initiatives) to reduce the unnecessary and unhelpful impression that Princeton is in fact two separate Universities. It was a surprise for her to realize it was so, for in her department (Molecular Biology) graduate and undergraduate students work side by side; she hoped for a more vertically integrated University. (At about this point, Ms. Mac Namara stated that the GSG was trying to organize joint events, and to coordinate some efforts with the USG.) Secondly, she appreciates students' and the GSG's willingness to work with the administration, of what the shuttle was a model. She thought the fact that student representatives treat it so seriously and responsibility make such collaboration possible.
As to housing, she stated that Dean Russel was absolutely intent on increasing graduate housing. He had been conducting a self-evaluation of the Graduate School, and laid out a 10 year plan. That plan includes housing, and new Lawrence is not the end of the University's efforts. Not only the University is looking for more housing, but the plan calls for a face-lift and decrowding of the GC, as well as a renovation of the "temporary" Butler units (the older ones, from 1943). She recalled that some people had offered to give her a tour of Butler, and restated her interest. And she observed it would be completely crazy to start a 10 year plan without talking with students. She stated that new Lawrence happened because there wasn't good communication. She insisted that the University is in active discussion over several local properties, and is planning to build new low-cost housing. She recognized it would be better if students were engaged, and asked (although stating she didn't expect an immediate answer) what was more urgent: the GC? Butler? acquiring new property (and maybe including it in the shuttle route)? In any event, she stated Dean Russel wouldn't let housing slip off the table.
As to post-enrollment, after meeting with the Executive Committee in July [Minutes 8.13.2003, IV.B], she met with Dean Russel. The different options were under investigation (legally and financially). Also, they were interested in improving the relationship between program lengths and actual times to degree, and some departments would be asked to increase four-year programs to five years. She emphasized that DCC was meant as a first step, but it was important to continue figuring options out, and engaging student representatives in trade-offs. She didn't know why post-enrollment exist, but when she had first asked she had been told it was "tough love" to keep time to degree low.
Ms. Safran compared the situation with Universities such as Harvard or Columbia, where post-enrollment doesn't exist. She pointed out that what is needed is a cultural change and that vigilance be encouraged. If not only the students, but also the advisors and faculty are made accountable to each other, time to degree can be lowered. Accountability is in everyone's interest, and has the potential to create something unique and positive. She emphasized that students and the GSG are not adversaries, and that we all share the same goals.
As the president had alluded to constraints with new housing, Mr. Pease asked what was the nature of these constraints. President Tilghman explained there were timing constraints: while the GC or Butler are renovated, there will be less housing; however, the new undergraduate college will be ready before it will be used to full capacity and so extra housing will be available there. Also, there's a point on how much simultaneous construction on campus can be overseen, not to mention financial constraints. So, our input would be useful in determining priorities, and in deciding what to do in the interim. Mr. Pease stated the GSG would like to meet on a quarterly basis with the Facilities Planning Group, to help avoid more mistakes.
The president underlined that Dean Russel was at the end of the self-study. Mr. Adelizzi observed that he would come to Assembly in December. The president stated that she would share the overheads with him then.
Mr. Miller pointed out some contrasts in how the University looks at graduate and undergraduate students. He observed that the University doesn't solicit donations for graduate student issues, in contrast, the new Whitman College is being built with a donation from an alumna. He also observed that there's always a planned surplus of undergraduate housing (as Lockhart Hall, which was being used by graduate students, exemplified); in contrast, there was always a concern with having too much graduate housing. President Tilghman stated that such concerns are lunacy: there will never be excess housing. Mr. Miller continued: it's good that the University considers acquiring new property; however, for undergraduate housing there's always an effort to have housing in central campus, as for future graduate housing it's always assumed it will be off-campus. He suggested that donations be procured. The president stated that graduate alumni could make a difference in University life. Mr. Silberman added that the GC had been funded by undergraduate alumni donations, and stated that the GSG has standing committees on post-enrollment and housing.
As to visas, President Tilghman stated she felt she situation was gradually getting better. Lei Xu said that some international students had gone home, and were delayed up to three months. Many Chinese students had been subjected to 6 weeks delays for background checks. The president stated that, to her knowledge, there were delays of up to 4 months. Mr. Sun added that the numbers (of students with visa delays or denials) the office of visa services had were not accurate, for some students hadn't contacted the office.
At this point it was 7:40pm. President Tilghman had to leave. Mr. Adelizzi thanked her for coming and for her time. There was a round applause, and the president excused herself.
Parliamentary Secretary Mr. Pease asked again for Representatives to send information on the election procedures in their departments [Minutes 7.9.2003, III.A].
In anticipation of the chair by-election later in the meeting [see VIII.F below], Mr. Pease explained the procedures [By-Laws, III.8.d]. In the first place, he would ask whether Assembly wished not to fill the position. That not being the case, he would mention the nominees and ask for further candidates. There being no more candidates, he would let them make a short statement, and the election (by secret ballot) would take place. The elected chair would take office immediately upon election.
Corresponding Secretary Ms. Esparza reported that she had asked OIT to
establish a mailing list gradcpuc-members for our CPUC
delegation. The goal was to provide a means for the delegation to
carry on discussion on CPUC issues, providing at the same time for
archival in the listservers. Moreover, any student can write to the
mailing list to contact the delegation.
Press Secretary Ms. Safran reported on campus press coverage of the "Sex Toys for Safer Sex Workshop", cosponsored by the GSG [Minutes 9.10.2003, IV.C]. Mr. Donev had called Assembly's attention to an editorial in the Daily Princetonian criticizing the event as well as GSG's sponsorship. Ms. Safran reported that two readers had written in support of the event and GSG's funding of it, and one any written criticizing the event.
Treasurer Mr. Bonderover explained that the GSG's fiscal year starts on November 1. This year, the GSG had spent in cosponsorship twice as much as budgeted, thus exhausting its surplus. He observed that now the GSG was a recognized source, but we must pay attention with future requests. He also observed that Assembly had invested a big fraction of the surplus in the GSG endowment [Minutes 3.12.2003, III.B].
Mr. Bonderover then alluded to the recent email discussion on changing funding procedures, so that funding requests are examined only once a year. He observed that most student organizations don't know now what they are going to be doing in a year. He suggested as an alternative to divide the remainder of the cosponsorship budget for the number of months left in each year. In each meeting, before the discussion of the funding requests, he'll say how much that amounts to, to serve as a guideline to Assembly, which can always spend more than that. Mr. Donev suggested that a month may be too short, and suggested allocating money on a quarterly basis (funding requests discussed every month, but the cap on spending being on a quarterly basis). He also suggested discounting the big, regular events. Mr. Silberman stated that conceding funding on a yearly basis was too onerous for small organizations; he exemplified that it's impossible to get approval for an event or reserve a room too far in advance. Ms. Safran suggested that having a cap on monthly or quarterly spending could be to restrictive for the GSG. Mr. Boavida stated that it could be a guideline for Assembly to take into account when making spending decisions, but not as a strict rule. Mr. Bonderover asked what Assembly thought better: to do that on a monthly or a quarterly basis? Assembly felt on a quarterly basis was better.
For the benefit of new Assembly members, Mr. Adelizzi explained that groups seeking GSG funding should visit the GSG's funding webpage, and submit their requests. The treasurer will work with them to get details of the event, or to anticipate potential problems. Mr. Adelizzi further explained that by standing order of Assembly [Minutes 4.10.2002, 5.1; Standing Rules of Assembly, III.7] funding requests must be received two weeks in advance of the meeting, unless, for those requests, Assembly waives the rule. He concluded this point by stating that funding requests are usually handled at this point in the meeting. However, the funding requests were all for events to happen after the end of October, that is, after the end of the fiscal year. Hence, they would be discussed only after the approval of the new budget [see VIII.A and VIII.B below].
Social Chair Ms. Mac Namara reported that the First Chance Dance, last September 19, had been well-attended. She further reported that there was left-over beer that would be used in future events, and Mr. Adelizzi added that it was safely locked up.
Ms. Mac Namara stated that she wanted to plan a joint social event with the USG, and she would meet with their social chairs to discuss the idea. She thought it would be worth to have more joint events, and she already as some ideas (e.g., someone suggested her an outdoor movie showing). She observed that the events needn't be huge, and alcohol can not be served in undergraduate events.
She completed her report, by stating the planning for the Valentine's Party was underway. As she had reported on a previous occasion [Minutes 8.13.2003, II] this year it would be a joint GSG/QGC event, to avoid holding two events at the same time.
Brigitta Lee, committee chair, reported that the committee had met recently, and was planning in joint activities with the USG and post-doctoral fellows.
Mr. Adelizzi called for volunteers for the committee.
Ms. Esparza, committee chair, reported that the task-force on health and well-being [Minutes 8.13.2003.V.A] had already started working, and that two graduate students were serving.
As to the health care committee, she stated that the committee was still looking for members and a chair.
Mr. Adelizzi had no report. He stated that he would post the committee minutes online.
Mr. Xu, committee chair, reported that the survey on the English Language Program and the Princeton Oral Proficiency Test [Minutes 9.10.2003, V.D] was over. Participation had been high: 96 out of 121 students filled the survey. Most of them were second years, and rated the program fair or good. In their opinion, a lot of time was devoted to presentation skills, and the students are not familiar with the grading criteria. Students also state they use other opportunities (besides the program) to improve their English. Mr. Xu concluded his intervention by saying that he would provide a more detailed report.
The committee had recently elected David Shrom as its chair, and Mr. Shrom reported on the committee's plans. He explained that the committee had been originally formed [Minutes 11.13.2002, 4.4] to investigate the new science library. However, the committee had since then realized there were a lot of possible improvements in the other libraries as well, and would like to expand its scope and membership. The committee is especially in need of members in the humanities.
Ms. Mac Namara, committee chair, reported first on the shuttle. She stated the schedule had been recently changed (on Monday, September 22), and that two new changes were coming (which she would try to have happen at the same time), in response to students' requests: the whole schedule would be moved back 5 minutes (as it was until recently), and the switch (from inbound to outbound) would be moved from around 11:30am to 2pm. She also explained that it was not possible to have a period around noon where shuttle stop at Lawrence and Hibben/Magie both ways, for otherwise the service would be delayed the whole afternoon.
There was a suggestion of stopping at Forbes (in the afternoon) both ways, because some people in the apartments would like to stop at the Dinky. Ms. Mac Namara would investigate. Chris Wyckham recommended against adding stops: some of his constituents had told him that (from the GC) the shuttle was slower than walking. Meredith Hastings pointed out that even though, it was better than being outside in the snow. Ms. Mac Namara stated that in the future the route would possible change: the shuttle would start at Lawrence, and go to the GC along Springdale, thus avoiding the traffic in Alexander Street. Ms. Wijetunge adverted that the connection from West Drive to Springdale was not in good condition; Ms. Mac Namara explained that improvements were under discussion, but there were legal complications. Mr. Wyckham also reported that some of his constituents had told him that bike parking at Lawrence is inadequate, and suggested that might be easy to solve. Ms. Wijetunge explained that the Lawrence committee was already working with Beth McKeown (community programs coordinator) and housing to clean the old bike racks, and get additional ones.
Ms. Mac Namara then reported there would be a ZIPcar [Minutes 9.10.2003, V.G],in the GC in the next month. Lisa Sherov mentioned reports that the car at Butler was not very popular. Ms. Mac Namara stated that the advertising must be more visible; Ms. McKeown stated that ZIPcar representatives had been invited for the next Happy Hour at Butler. Ms. Hastings stated that two Butler residents thought the price was too high, and suggested that it be emphasized that the cars are rented by the hour. She also suggested that Butler was maybe not the best place to start, because many residents already have a car; maybe it would take an year for the service to become popular (for new residents, who already know about the ZIPcar, can move in). Ms. Esparza reported that people don't understand the parking spot is reserved for the ZIPcar, and park there. Donna Sy reported that the ZIPcar by the Dinky had been moved behind the bushes, and was not very visible.
Ms. Mac Namara then discussed the parking appeals committee [Minutes 7.9.2003, V.F]. Two students had been told about the committee, but declined to provide any documentation to support their appeals. There was a totally frivolous appeal, that was unanimously denied by the committee. There had been no more appeals, and the system seemed to be working. Ms. Mac Namara had reports that special cases (like childcare) were being given special permits by public safety, as had been agreed. There had been requests from people leaving off-campus to be allowed to park overnight at lot 21; that would not be possible, but those students were given the choice of parking in lot 19 (the GC), if they are willing to pay the fee. Gregory O'Mullan reported that the hang-tags didn't work for motorcycles, and that people are getting parking tickets even if they use the hang-tags. Ms. Mac Namara will look into it. There were some questions on the policies for handicapped students, or with health problems; Ms. Mac Namara recommended contacting Dean Montero. Ms. Mac Namara closed her report by observing that some members of the appeals committee would leave soon, and asked Assembly's permission for the transportation and parking committee to appoint replacements. There were no objections.
Ms. Lee and Ian Parrish, the graduate student representatives to the CPUC Executive Committee, had asked to report in a GSG Assembly meeting. Mr. Adelizzi asked whether they wished to report. Considering how late it was, they offered to report in the following meeting. So, Mr. Adelizzi moved on to old business.
Ms. Wijetunge reported that the committee had prepared a letter about GESO's petition [Minutes 9.10.2003, VI.A]. However, the letter was very long, and she thought it would be better to send it to Assembly, and asked whether it was possible to conduct an email vote [Constitution, VI.5]. There being unanimous consent, Mr. Adelizzi determined that such vote had been allowed by Assembly.
Mr. Sun stated that ACSS wished to endorse the letter, and asked that the details on how to do it be sent to him.
Ms. Safran explained that the Rules of the Faculty and Rights, Rules and Responsibilities stipulate that each department should have a graduate student departmental committee, to be consulted on decisions related to the academic programs. However, many departments don't have such committees. Before the Summer, the Executive Committee had met with Dean David Redman (associate dean for academic affairs) to discuss it. Deans Russel and Redman also thought that the departments should be in place, and started pushing the departments. She explained that the Executive Committee would like Representatives to ascertain whether their departments had received any information, and whether the committees existed or were being established. She would send additional details to Assembly members, by email.
Mr. Bonderover introduced the next topic: the approval of the budget for November 2003–October 2004. He had sent the proposed budget in advance, and asked whether there were questions or objections. Jack Tinsley asked whether the numbers for 2002–2003 were the budgeted values or the actual expenses; Mr. Bonderover clarified that they were the actual expenses (except in the case of approved cosponsorship whose receipts have not yet been submitted). Mr. Bonderover added the Executive Committee discretionary fund had been increased, in order for the committee to be able to support standing committees in small expenses—the committees should consult with the Executive Committee when they need such support. Ms. Mac Namara and Mr. Pease moved to approve the budget.
MOTION: to approve the annual budget for 2003–2004. PASSED unanimously.
After the budget's approval, it was time to discuss the funding requests. In accordance with what had been discussed before [see V.D above], Mr. Bonderover stated that we had $660 for November, December and January. As to the funding requests, Butler had requested $300 for their wine and cheese event, and the Graduate Football Club (GFC) had requested $100. There was also a late request; Mr. Bonderover asked whether there were objections to its consideration. There being none, he stated that the organization of a music festival had asked $2,000 (in a total budget of $18,000). The details of the requests had been sent in his advance report.
The first request was for the "Butler Cheese and Wine" event. Huiyan Yang explained the event would be held for the third time. However, they had asked for GSG's funding only the second time, last year, when they asked $400. They had been expecting 150 people, but only 100 came, so this time they were asking only $300. Mr. Parrish asked whether Butler had any income from house fees, Ms. Hastings stated that they had only a small fund provided by Dean Montero's office. Ms. Safran observed that $300 was more than we could give. Annika Peter asked what other events the GSG typically has to fund. Mr. Bonderover stated that he would provide a full budget report in the next meeting, but he didn't have all data yet. Heather White suggested that because the funding criteria would necessarily have to change, it would be useful to have a recommendation from the treasurer. Mr. Boavida reminded Assembly that not long ago the guideline was $1 per graduate student. Mr. Parrish suggested that maybe we should handle all requests for a quarter at a time. Someone asked whether that would be a heavy burden for groups. David Smith stated that he had never seen funding for groups being handled that much in advance. On the other hand, Mr. Parrish stated that at MIT funding was decided for an year at a time. Ms. Peter stated that whatever we decide along those lines, we should warn groups in advance. Mr. Bonderover stated that according to his records, most requests seemed to concentrate in January and February. However, he added, GSG's records don't go very far in the past.
Ms. Lee moved to fund as requested provided there's a more detailed report next month. Mr. Smith seconded. Someone suggested whether it was possible to discuss this request by email. The vent is being held on either November 13 or November 16. Someone moved to table the pending motion, and there was a second. That motion did not carry. It was suggested to divide the motion in two, for Mr. Bonderover would present a more detailed report anyway. Ms. Lee accepted, and Assembly consented. Someone moved to fund the event by $200, and Ms. Peter moved $150. There were no seconds. Mr. Adelizzi put the standing motion ($300) to a vote; the motion did not carry. Ms. Esparza seconded the motion for $150, Mr. Boavida suggested to modify the motion so that Assembly reserves the right to increase this amount in the next meeting, in light of the budget report. This modification was accepted. Ms. Yang pointed out that that would be too late for the Butler Committee to be able to plan, and observed that the committee might be able to get $50 from the Graduate School.
MOTION: to fund "Butler Wine and Cheese" at $150, reserving the right to increase it in the next meeting. PASSED.
Mr. Bonderover asked Philo Juang, from the GFC, to present the next request. Mr. Juang thanked the GSG for its support in the past [Minutes 4.9.2003, VI.A]. The group was asking funding for a set of uniforms. They offered to print the GSG's logo in the jerseys. The uniforms would be property of the club, and would be cleaned by volunteers. The GC House Committee had given $100, and the Graduate School another $100. They were asking $100 from the GSG. As he was also the treasurer of the GFC, Mr. Bonderover excused himself from providing a recommendation. Pointing out that it was not an event without a specific date (so, there was no urgency), an that it was not yet clear whether we had the money to fund this initiative, Mr. Boavida moved (and was seconded) to table any discussion on this request till the next meeting.
MOTION: to table discussion of the Graduate Football Club's request till the next Assembly meeting. PASSED.
Mr. Bonderover asked Tae Hong Park to introduce his request, for "Listening in the Sound Kitchen". He explained it was a music festival; it was intended to be a biennial event. In 2001 the music department totally funded the event. This year, the music department who fund with $6,000, the computer science department with $2,000, and the USG had already granted $5,000. The event is open to the whole community; there will five concerts, six table discussions, several talks and presentations, and there will be a night music concert at Terrace, where refreshments will be served. The event will on November 13, 14 and 15. Mr. Bonderover had explained Mr. Park that the GSG can not fund with $2,000, and that the typical guideline was $3 per graduate student attending. As 150 graduate students were expected, Mr. Park was happy to reduce is request to $450. As Butler had been funded at half their request, Mr. Boavida moved (and was seconded) that we do the same in this case and fund the event by $225. Mr. Tinsley observed that in a total budget of $18,000 whatever the GSG could provide would be very small, and would only amount to the advertisements having to mention the GSG has a sponsor. He asked Mr. Park whether any funding the GSG could provide was worth recognizing the GSG as a cosponsor. Mr. Park said he would be happy to accept any funding we could provide and recognize us as cosponsors, and stated that the previous discussion had made it clear that the GSG can not provide large amounts of money. Mr. Pease proposed that we fund at $150 ($1 per graduate student); which proposal Mr. Boavida took as a friendly amendment and was consented by Assembly. Mr. Parrish observed that with this additional funding, in one meeting we'd have spent almost half of our budget for three months, and asked whether the GSG was willing to fund quasi-academic events, when our funding can make a real different for smaller groups. Mr. Smith stated this was the kind of event the GSG should be willing to get associated with. Ms. Hastings stated that characterizing the event as quasi-academic was unfair.
MOTION: to fund "Listening in the Sound Kitchen" by $150. PASSED.
Ms. Esparza stated that the GSG had been asked to endorse three new policies that SHARE had prepared. However, she had not yet received the third policy, and suggested tabling the discussion till we have further information. Assembly agreed.
Mr. Adelizzi stated that the students in HOS had asked Assembly to restore the HOS Representative seat. Ms. Sy came on behalf of the students, and explained the program used to have a seat. She offered to detail the circumstances in which the seat was removed. Mr. Adelizzi explained that the seat had been accidentally removed upon approval of the GSG Constitution, and that had only been noticed recently [Minutes 4.9.2003, IX.C]. Mr. Pease explained that the change required a By-Law amendment [Constitution, IV.2]. The amendment consisted in changing By-Law I.3 to include History of Science among the recognized programs. A one month waiting period was required before voting on the amendment [Constitution, VI.10].
Mr. Pease introduced the next topic. The GSG doesn't know a lot about the needs of students with children and other dependents, so, the idea had arisen of establishing a committee to investigate and address those issues. He observed that this was an opportune time, as the recently established task-force on health and well-being [see VI.B above] had been charged, among other things, with addressing any needs in childcare. There were already 5 students willing to serve, so he moved that Assembly establish such a committee and change the Standing Rule of Assembly II.1 to reflect that decision, by adding a new point:
The Children and Dependents Committee is charged with studying and addressing the challenges faced by graduate students with minor children or other dependents.
There was a second to this motion. Mr. Tinsley suggested that such a committee should work closely with the health care committee, for according to the draft GSLI report the cost of health overage for student with dependents are double.
MOTION: to establish the Children and Dependents Committee, with the charge described above, and to update Standing Rule II.1 accordingly. PASSED unanimously.
Upon Bill Jordan's resignation, there had been a call for nominations for chair [Minutes 9.10.2003, VI.B]. Mr. Pease had explained the procedures for the by-election earlier in the meeting [V.A]. He first invited a motion to not fill the position; there being no such motion, he proceeded. He stated there had been 8 nominations, 5 were turned down. David R. Smith and Leslie A. Medema had accepted the nomination. He stated Mr. Parrish had been nominated too, but had not yet confirmed, and asked whether Mr. Parrish was running. Mr. Parrish stated he was not. Mr. Pease then asked whether there were other candidates, and ask them to make themselves known. There being no additional candidates, he asked Mr. Smith and Ms. Medema to make their statements.
Mr. Smith stated that he had talked with Messrs. Adelizzi, Bonderover, Jordan and Miller, and understood the responsibilities the position entails. He stated he had no particular agenda, and he thought a good idea is a good idea independently of who proposed it, and that he would be willing to listen to people's ideas. He would be happy to serve the remainder of Mr. Jordan's term.
Ms. Medema stated that she had been reading through the website, and had been quite impressed by GSG's past accomplishments. She understood the time commitment; although she was already a part of it, she wanted to be a bigger part of it. At the last minute, she decided she would be able to do it. Considering the other members of the Executive Committee, and that she knew she would be backed, she did want to accept the nomination.
Mr. Pease admitted that both were wonderful candidates for the post. He stated that there had been a request for the candidates to leave the room while the election takes place. He circulated the ballots, and Mr. Smith and Ms. Medema left the room. After the candidates returned and the votes were counted, Mr. Pease announced the result: 8 votes for Ms. Medema, 5 votes for Ms. Smith, and 2 abstentions.
Mr. Pease announced Ms. Medema was the new chair, and she took office immediately.
Ms. Medema asked whether there was any other business. There being none, she asked unanimous consent to schedule the next meetings on November 12, December 10, January 14, February 11, March 10, April 14, and May 12, all at 6pm. There were no objections. The November, December, and January meetings will in Frist 309. She then asked consent to adjourn the meeting, and the meeting adjourned at about 9:10pm.