princeton.edu)
•
• Representatives present • Aleksandar Donev, ACM • Anita Adhitya, proxy for Irina Marinov, AOS • Jack Tinsley, CHE • Basak Surmeli, CHM • Kellam Conover, CLA • Christopher DeCoro, COS • Jonathan Vogel, ECO • Christiane I. Meyer, EEB • Fei Sun, ELE • James Bickford, ENG • Valerie Dionne, FIT • Karin Sigloch, GEO • Michael K. House, GER • Donna A. C. Sy, HOS • Chris Wyckham, MAE • Thomas Horine, MAT • Shin-Yi Lin, MOL • Andrew Moroz, ORF • Annika Peter, PHY • Ian Parrish, proxy for David R. Smith, PPL • Kim Montgomery, PSY • Susan Gunasti, REL • Cori Anderson, SLA • Debbie Becher, SOC • Newsha M. Dau, WWS •
• Delegates present • Joshua Friess, Butler Apartments • Lior Silberman, Graduate College (GC) • Jennifer Jordan, proxy for Carolyn Mordas, Lawrence Apartments •
• Councilors present • Chair Nicole Esparza • Parliamentary Secretary Jack Tinsley, • Acting Corresponding Secretary Shin-Yi Lin • Press Secretary Christine Percheski • Anita Adhitya, proxy for Recording Secretary João Pedro Boavida • Treasurer Jeff Dwoskin • Social Chair Aleksandar Donev • Brigitta Lee, CPUC • Leslie Medema, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee, CPUC Priorities Committee • Ian Parrish, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Lior Silberman, CPUC, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee • Fei Sun, CPUC Governance Committee •
• Others present • Lisa Sherov, assistant dean for residence life and student affairs • Beth McKeown, community programs coordinator • Meredith Safran (CLA) • Sara Nephew (SOC) • George Reis (ELE) •
• Representatives absent • Peter Locke, ANT • Sinéad Mac Namara, CEE • Jane Murphy, HIS • Jonathan Eastvold, POL •
• Delegates absent • Yuan Liu, Association of Chinese Students and Scholars (ACSS) • Aderemi Artis, Black Graduate Caucus (BGC) • Weining Man, Council of International Graduate Students (CIGS) • Leonard F. Pease III, Off-Campus • Heather White, Women’s Center •
• Councilors absent • Aderemi Artis, CPUC Resources Committee • Meredith Galanter Hastings, CPUC Judicial Committee • Leonard F. Pease III, CPUC, CPUC Priorities Committee • David R. Smith, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee • Rob Sobak, CPUC • Joseph P. Valentino, CPUC •
• Representative seats vacant • ARC • ART • AST • COM • EAS • MUS • NES • PHI • POS • SPO •
• Delegate seats vacant • Hibben/Magie Apartments • Millstone Apartments •
The meeting was called to order by Nicole Esparza at 6:06pm. The meeting began with a round of names for the benefit of the Recording Secretary and the new Executive Committee.
Jack Tinsley announced several new Assembly members. New representatives are Christopher DeCoro COS, and Kellam Conover CLA replacing Jessica Clarke. Carolyn Mordas is the new Lawrence Residence delegate, replacing Radhika Wijetunge. Mr. Tinsley thanked Ms. Wijetunge and Ms. Clarke for their service on the GSG.
Anita Adhitya informed the Assembly that one correction had been made to the attendance list of the minutes of the March Assembly meeting. She noted that several other amendments to the minutes had been proposed, but that these changes had not been made as none these affected the content of the minutes and Recording Secretary Joao Boavida had been busy preparing to depart Princeton. Alexander Donev moved to approve the minutes, the motion was seconded, and the motion passed with no opposition.
Ms. Adhitya thanked Mr. Boavida for his service on the GSG and commended his work as Recording Secretary. [Alas, Ms. Adhitya did not remember to pass on Mr. Boavida’s apologies for missing the meeting and notes them in comment here.]
Ms. Esparza informed the Assembly that the Executive Committee had met three times since the last Assembly meeting. The meetings had mainly focused on learning how the Executive Committee works, restructuring of GSG committees, soliciting CPUC nominations, and filling the Recording Secretary position.
Ms. Esparza informed the Assembly that she had spoken to Laurel Harvey about the new identification (ID) cards. She explained the University’s current timeline: current ID cards will be deactivated in June, new ID cards will be reactivated in September. Two staff will be hired to work on the ID cards and new security system. Ms. Esparza noted that it appeared that post-enrolled students would not get prox card access to campus buildings. Ms. Esparza informed the Assembly that the University will establish a policy group to discuss who will get access to buildings, and that departments will make a list of their students. There will probably be one graduate student representative on the policy group, and it is at this forum that we should discuss the matter of building access for post-enrolled students. Ms. Esparza explained that the purpose of the new security system is to stop people from walking into laboratories and so on. She noted that the problem with giving post-enrolled students access to buildings is that they are not considered students by the University. She clarified that this issue would be not affect Degree Candidacy Continues (DCC) students, only Enrolment Terminated - Degree Candidacy Continues (ETDCC) students.
Ms. Esparza informed the Assembly that President Tilghman would be creating a task force on High Table dinners. At these dinners, undergraduate and graduate students would gather every other fortnight. It is hoped that this would promote intellectualism, and also mentoring between graduate and undergraduate students. Ms. Esparza noted that this was a project that President Tilghman was personally interested in. President Tilghman is looking for a couple of people to be on the task force. The GSG will make nominations, who will then be interviewed and selected by President Tilghman. Ms. Esparza informed the Assembly that Brigitta Lee, Chair of the GSG’s Campus Relations committee, had submitted some names. Other nominations are also welcome and should be directed to <gsg@>. Lior Silberman clarified that the High Tables in question are not related to the Graduate College High Table events.
Ms. Esparza informed the Assembly that there had been a Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) meeting on 22 March. At this meeting, she had given a 10 minute speech. Her talk had covered accomplishments of the GSG; the mix of people composing the graduate student body (for example, some students have a family); common issues that face this diverse population such as housing and post-enrolment; future plans to work with the administration and hopefully the USG; and a thank you to Dean of the Graduate School William Russell and the Task Force on Heath and Well-Being. Ms. Esparza reported that the meeting had also consisted of a speech by President Tilghman and a question-and-answer period. Ms. Esparza proceeded to inform the Assembly of the contents of the meeting.
President Tilghman had informed the CPUC that the upcoming expansion of the undergraduate body by 11% would take place in 2007, not 2006. The new Whitman College will house juniors and seniors, as well as some graduate students. Some reasons for increasing the undergraduate student body include: the high quality of applications, and a disproportionately high ratio of faculty to students due to an increase in faculty size. With the addition of Whitman College, the University can house more students and for longer; this will increase the housing options for students.
Ms. Esparza reported that campus planning for the next 10–20 years had also been discussed at the CPUC meeting. The Presidential Advisory Committee on Architecture, which meets to discuss land development, had determined that everything on campus is within a 10 minute walking radius of Frist Campus Centre. Nothing should be outside this radius, since that would break down the community of the University. However, it seems that the University considers it acceptable for graduate students to live outside of this radius. The CPUC was informed that the University will never build a campus on the other side of Lake Carnegie. However, graduate student housing might be built across the lake. Ms. Adhitya muttered a comment about Forrestal Campus. Mr. Silberman said that Facilities would be re-located to make room on main campus for academic buildings.
Ms. Esparza, continuing her report, informed the Assembly that that there two new academic initiatives: Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science Maria Klawe’s initiative for the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), and the creation of a creative arts program for undergraduates.
In the question-and-answer period at the CPUC meeting, several questions had been asked. Newsha Dau had asked what steps were being taken to increase the diversity of the graduate student body. President Tilghman had replied that the University had been less successful in recruiting a diverse graduate student body than with faculty. President Tilghman considered the issue important, and informed the CPUC of the recent approval by the Priorities Committee (PriComm) of an Assistant Dean in the Graduate School to work specifically on this matter.
Another question that had been asked was whether the increase in undergraduate student body would result in an increase in the graduate student body. President Tilghman replied that it was necessary to control graduate enrolment tightly and that it would not grow with the increase in undergraduates. One reason was that the Trustees had determined that all first year graduate students would not have to teach. An increase in the graduate student population would increase the cost of supporting graduate students. President Tilghman also felt that the University should be responsible for not accepting more graduate students than the job market has need for. In response to a question about the need for more instructors to teach the undergraduates, President Tilghman informed the CPUC that PriComm had approved allocation of money for a budget to hire Assistants in Instruction. Mr. Silberman noted that some of these Assistants in Instruction could be post-enrolled students.
Ms. Esparza reported that an undergraduate had expressed annoyance at the CPUC meeting about talk on campus relating to gay marriage. The undergraduate noted that universities tend to be liberal and suggested that Princeton, as a less liberal place, should be more conservative. Ms. Esparza reported that President Tilghman had been upset by this and had stated that universitites should be places where everyone feels free to express and discuss their opinions without cause for fear.
A question had also been asked about the distribution of undergraduate subjects. President Tilghman had replied that students can choose whatever majors they want, but that the University wanted to make ‘unpopular’ majors more visible.
Another question that asked was whether the University would consider lowering rents of the New Lawrence apartments. President Tilghman replied that she had been presented earlier with a division of stipends and rents. She suggested that one short-term solution is to create more space in Hibben-Magie for graduate students and to transfer more post-docs to Lawrence apartments. She stated that, “In the future we are absolutely committed to work[ing] with the GSG to make sure we plan the right kind of housing that graduate students like and can afford”.
Ms. Esparza informed the Assembly that she had talked to Vice President for Campus Life Janet Dickerson and Associate Dean for Student Affairs F. Joy Montero. They informed her of a Board of Trustees meeting a week after the CPUC meeting. At this meeting, a 15 minute discussion on the GSG had been led by President Tilghman and Vice President and Secretary Robert Durkee. Vice President and Secretary Durkee had informed the Trustees that the GSG had moved away from its GSU days. Alas, it seems that the Trustees might still view the GSG in light of the era of the GSU and its involvement in the D-Bar crisis. Mr. Silberman and Ms. Adhitya noted that the GSU had not really been involved in the D-Bar crisis.
Ms. Esparza invited questions from the Assembly about her report of the CPUC meeting. Ms. Lee asked why President Tilghman and Vice President and Secretary Durkee had been talking about the GSG. Ms. Esparza replied that it followed the CPUC meeting, at which it was seen that we were doing more than just worrying about the D-Bar. Mr. Silberman suggested that they were trying to dispel notions about the GSU. Ms. Esparza noted that, when she had asked Dean Montero to explain the D-Bar incident, Dean Montero’s reply was that she didn’t want to worry about it.
Ms. Dau asked if we could take the statement about Hibben-Magie as a policy change. Ian Parrish suggested that it seemed definite. Assistant Dean for Residence Life and Student Affairs Lisa Sherov stated that the University was waiting to see the results of this year’s room draw. Mr. Silberman noted that New Lawrence had been constructed for both graduate students and also post-docs and visiting scholars. He noted that there was also a housing crisis for junior faculty. Annika Peter noted that nothing could be done about Hibben-Magie over the next few years if Hibben-Magie is taken off-line. Mr. Silberman suggested we should keep talking to housing.
Jeff Dwoskin noted that the reason Housing is closing Hibben is due to the maintenance schedule. A long-term schedule exists for maintenance of University housing and has to be followed. Mr. Dwoskin informed the Assembly that the maintenance was for fire sprinkler safety. Mr. Silberman noted that this was due to the Seton Hall fire and is in compliance with New Jersey state law. The Graduate College, Annexes and undergraduate dormitories have/will undergone/undergo the maintenance; it is now approaching Hibben-Magie’s turn on the schedule.
Mr. Donev reported that the Executive Committee had discussed holding a summer event, something the GSG has not traditionally done. He noted that the Graduate College House Committee organises pizza parties in the summer; Mr. Silberman added that there were three of them each summer. Mr. Donev stated that there was money left over from the Valentine’s Day party. The Executive Committee had been thinking of holding an event at Frist with an outdoor movie, free food and graduate student bands on the southern lawn. There were no details yet, but Mr. Donev stated that he wanted to get an idea of what the Assembly thought and whether June or August would be best. A preference was expressed for June. Ms. Dau suggested that, if the event were held in September, incoming Woodrow Wilson School students could attend. Mr. Donev asked which departments have early starts. Jonathan Vogel stated that Economics students arrive three weeks before the beginning of semester. It was suggested that incoming students are already well-catered to by departmental welcomes. Meredith Safran suggested that Dean Sherov would be able to give an indication of how many graduate students are around over summer. Dean Sherov informed the Assembly that more people were in town in August than June or July, with the lowest number of graduate students present in July. Her estimate was: August (~250) > June (200) > July (under 200). Mr. Silberman suggested that the range was not large as a percentage, and that the apartments might undergo less fluctuation.
Mr. Silberman also noted that ice-cream socials have previously been held as a past activity, for example at Murray Dodge, and that these were easy to run. Ms. Safran said that Joe Erbe, Area Manager, Graduate College and Catering, had given the GSG a discount last time. Mr. Donev said that the GSG would run either several small events or one big event; the money was not available to do more. He noted that the Graduate College already runs social hours. Mr. Donev suggested that we could hold one big event...and that this event could include ice-cream!
Mr. Donev informed the Assembly that a joint event with the USG was being considered for next Fall. It is a goal of the Executive Committee and GSG to improve graduate-undergraduate relations. Mr. Donev welcomed involvement and new ideas.
A return was made to the topic of a summer event timing. Fei Sun asked if the GSG wanted more people or less people to attend the big event in summer. Mr. Donev replied that the GSG would prefer to have more people in attendance. Mr. Sun stated his concern that there would be less people in June, suggesting that many students leave in June and return to campus for July and August. Mr. Donev suggested that the biggest travel month was July. Ms. Lee stated that she was in support of an event in summer. Mr. Donev suggested that early summer was better in terms of a time-line, as the GSG holds a First Chance Dance as a welcoming party at the start of the year. Mr. Silberman added that there are two welcome barbeques at the Graduate College in late August and September.
Mr. Tinsley commended Mr. Boavida’s term as Recording Secretary and informed the Assembly that there were currently no official candidates for the position. Mr. Tinsley proceeded to give some background into the current situation. He explained that volunteers were available for taking minutes at Assembly meetings, but that these ‘guest’ minute-takers would not be able to help out at, for example, Executive Committee meetings. However, the GSG By-Laws state that the Assembly can choose to leave the seat vacant. Mr. Tinsley invited candidates for the position of Recording Secretary.
John Kwong, second year PHY, indicated his interest in the Recording Secretary position. He stated that it was his first GSG meeting and that he wasn’t familiar with the issues. Mr. Kwong informed the Assembly that he did not have much experience but would like to start soon. Mr. Tinsley invited questions. Ms. Adhitya enquired into the reasons for Mr. Kwong’s interest in running. Mr. Kwong replied that he wanted to help out and that the GSG was an effective way to deal with student issues. Mr. Silberman asked if he had dealt with web sites, gathering data, or filing information, to which Mr. Kwong replied in the negative. A motion was made to elect Mr. Kwong as Recording Secretary, there was a second, and the motion passed.
Mr. Tinsley announced that Corresponding Secretary Eric Adelizzi had stepped down in the presence of another candidate. Shin-Yi Lin had been appointed by the Chair as Acting Corresponding Secretary and would now have to be appointed by the Assembly in order to be elected to the position. Mr. Tinsley invited other candidates; there were none. A motion was made to elect Ms. Lin as Corresponding Secretary, there was a second, and the motion passed.
Mr. Silberman and Ms. Esparza discharged the elections committee, whose duties had been fulfilled upon the election of a new Recording Secretary.
Mr. Tinsley introduced the Council of Princeton University Community (CPUC). He informed the Assembly that the CPUC makes a lot of recommendations and can set certain rules; it consists of a General Council and Committees.
Mr. Tinsley began with the elections for the Governance Committee. One graduate student representative can be appointed to this committee and Mr. Tinsley had received three candidate statements for the position. Mr. Tinsley asked those who submitted candidate statements to step forward. Sara Nephew, first year SOC, stated that she was interested because of her experience working with Vice-President for Campus Life Janet Dickerson and McCosh in the search for a new Director of Counseling Services. George Reis, first year ELE, said he had studied here as an undergraduate a few years ago. He said that he understood the Governance Committee as a way to have influence over the Trustees and honorary degrees. The third candidate was Guillaume Sabouret, third year ELE. He stated that he had previous experience with student governments and was interested in the position because he considered it important and interesting. Mr. Tinsley invited other candidates to come forward; none were forthcoming. Mr. Tinsley recommended that the vote be conducted by secret ballot since there was more than one candidate. A motion to do so was made by James Bickford and seconded by Mr. Donev.
There was an interlude to voting proceedings as Ms. Dau asked questions about the CPUC General Council. She was informed that the General Council meets during the academic year and is chaired by President Tilghman. The other CPUC committees are separate entities from the General Council—that is, one is not a member of General Council by being on a CPUC committee. One can serve on both, except for the Judicial Committee since the General Council decides matters that require confidentiality.
With these questions answered, voting resumed. Ms. Esparza called for objections to the motion to vote; there were none. A vote was held by secret ballot. Mr. Tinsley announced the results of the election and congratulated Ms. Nephew on her election to the Governance Committee:
Sara Nephew 14 George Reis 7 Guillaume Sabouret 3
Mr. Tinsley invited the unsuccessful candidates to run for other CPUC seats.
Mr. Tinsley proceeded to the Judicial Committee elections, for which there was one candidate. Tauna Szymanski, first year WWS, informed the Assembly that she had a law background and was interested in contributing her legal skills. Mr. Tinsley invited other interested candidates to step forward. There being none, a vote proceeded. Ms. Szymanski was elected to the Judicial Committee with no opposition.
Mr. Tinsley announced the Priorities Committee (PriComm) candidates to be Ms. Dau and Mr. Parrish. Ms. Dau, first year WWS, stated that she wanted to serve on PriComm in order to advocate graduate student issues such as housing, healthcare and dining. She stated that she understood the time commitment. Ms. Dau said that she was keen to learn about the democratic process and hopes to work with democratic issues later in life, and that she had worked with budgets before prior to coming to Princeton. Mr. Parrish, second year PPL, informed the Assembly that he had served on the General Council and Executive Committee last year. He explained that his interest in serving on PriComm grew out of his service on the Task Force on Health and Well-Being: the Task Force had made a number of recommendations, a new report was coming out soon, some of the recommendations will require capital funding, and some of these can be funded through the Priorities Committee. Mr. Tinsley called for other interested candidates. Mr. Silberman stressed that the PriComm positions were the two most influential CPUC positions; Mr. Donev added that they were also the most time consuming positions. Ms. Esparza clarified that there can be two graduate student representatives on the CPUC. No other candidates were forthcoming. Ms. Dau and Mr. Parrish were each elected to the Priorities Committee with no opposition.
Andrew Moroz, first year ORF, stated that he was interested in serving on the Resources Committee because of the issues being discussed and the not-so-overwhelming time committment. Ms. Dau inquired into his guiding philosophies. Mr. Moroz stated that he thought that, because the University is tax exempt, the University cannot really take a political position and was limited in doing so. He noted that the Committee had been started with issues over apartheid in South Africa. Mr. Moroz noted that other issues were also divisive. He wanted to avoid making a statement and stated that the University does not have a right to take a stand and has to protect its tax exempt status. Ms. Esparza asked what his stand would be if the University community was, say, split 80/20 against apartheid. Mr. Moroz was asked if he was educated in political and financial issues. He replied that he was not up-to-date on all the University’s investments but does follow politics on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Moroz was asked to list investments that he would consider ‘out of bounds’. Mr. Moroz suggested that there were issues relating to ‘sweatshop’ companies. He stated that this was an example of a contentious issue because of extremely bad working conditions versus economic gain. No other candidates were forthcoming. A vote was held. Mr. Moroz was elected to the Resources Committee.
Mr. Silberman noted that the Rights and Rules committee had not met over the past two years. He explained that the committee is charged with defining the rules of conduct within the University and that the Rights, Rules, Responsibilities book codifies these. Mr. Silberman stated that he would nominally serve, and that if there Assembly wanted to bring any issues to the committee he would raise them. It was noted that we have two seats on the committee but thus far only one candidate. Ms. Esparza suggested that the GSG should try to fill both seats that were given to us. Christiane Meyer volunteered to serve. A vote was held and both Mr. Silberman and Ms. Meyer were elected.
Mr. Silberman, candidate for the General Council, stated that he had been an active student representative since arriving in Princeton. He informed the Assembly of his service on the Graduate College House Committee, GSG and CPUC. Having served on the CPUC several times already, Mr. Silberman said that he was familiar with the structure of the University and the way it functions. This would be his fourth term as councillor if elected. Mr. Silberman stated that he wants to raise issues both as representative of the GSG and the Graduate College House Committee. He noted that he knows most of the administrators.
Ms. Safran stated that she had formerly been CLA representative on the GSG, Chair of the Parking and Transportation Committee, and had served two terms as GSG Press Secretary. She stated that, having accumulated this considerable experience, she felt it was almost a duty to serve on the CPUC as she could bring much knowledge to the council. Ms. Safran said that she would then report back to the GSG, serving as a link between the CPUC and GSG. Ms. Safran stated that is was important to make that continuity between serving on the GSG Executive Committee and then on the CPUC.
Mr. Sabouret stated that he was formerly Vice President of the McGill Society of Physics Students, and was in charge of relations with administrators and other student bodies. He stated that his main motivation was to bring forward the issues that are important to graduate students. Mr. Sabouret said that he knows that the GSG committees are constantly working on these issues and these are the things that need to be voiced in this forum. He stated that he believes the most important issues this year to be housing and post-enrolment.
Mr. Tinsley informed the Assembly that the General Council consisted of seven graduate student representatives; five would be elected tonight and two were ex officio members of the GSG Executive Committee. The GSG members would be Chair Ms. Esparza and Parliamentary Secretary Mr. Tinsley. Mr. Tinsley informed the Assembly that there must be at least one person from each division of the university: School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS), science, social sciences and humanities. Ms. Safran asked if people present could be nominated. Mr. Tinsley invited further nominations.
Ms. Peter, second year PHY, informed the Assembly that she has been a representative on the Assembly this year and on her department’s graduate student committee. She stated that she was interested in serving on the CPUC because it was important for people in different University groups to talk to each other and be alerted to issues. She had had some experience with the CPUC after receiving an email regarding her departmental committee and wanted to continue her involvement. Mr. Bickford, first ENG [corrected from "ELE" 6/3/2004] who had served as representative since October, stated that he had attended the CPUC town hall meeting, was impressed by it, and wanted to become involved. He stated that he did not want to run for the GSG Executive Committee since he thought that he could not afford the time, but considered the time committment for the General Council to be manageable. Mr. Bickford expressed an interest in graduate and undergraduate relations, informing the Assembly that he had been an undergraduate at Yale, which has twelve 4-year colleges. He stated that he was also eager to talk about housing and post-enrolment. Mr. Reis asked how many times the General Council meets. Mr. Parrish informed the Assembly that the Council meets 5–6 times per year. Mr. Reis then stepped forward as a candidate. A first year ELE, he informed the Assembly that he had served on the graduate committee for his dept and was also involved in the SEAS Executive Committee strategic planning. He stated that he was impressed at how easily one could have influence in how the University treats graduate students and what is happening in future. He noted that there were currently a lot of changes taking place. Mr. Reis stated that he had been an undergraduate at Princeton and has some idea of the issues here. He was also interested in graduate-undergraduate relations.
No other candidates were forthcoming. Voting by secret ballot proceeded. Voting members of the Assembly were asked to list their preferences in order, with no restriction on how many preferences could be listed. In reply to a question about how voting preferences would be used, Mr. Tinsley stated that the method outlined in the constitution would be used. Mr. Tinsley and Ms. Esparza left the meeting to count the votes.
Ms. Lin chaired the meeting in Ms. Esparza’s absence. She called on Ms. Dau to present the dining report. Ms. Dau informed the Assembly that some members of the GSG Housing Committee and the Graduate College House Committee had attended a meeting organised by Dean Sherov to discuss dining issues. Issues discussed included carry-over meals, guest meals, nutritious meals, better labelling, and other locations for dining. The meeting had lasted two hours. Ms. Dau thought that Director of Dining Services Stuart Orefice did a good job of listening and was receptive to the ideas proposed. His office had come up with options for alternative meal plans. These had been presented in March and would be offered to a random sample of new and current graduate students. Ms. Dau noted that her classmates had been receptive to the news. Ms. Dau informed the Assembly that the new plans included semester blocks of meals that can be used anytime during semester; five of these meals can be given to guests and points can be used at Frist or any of the dining halls. Opinions were welcome. A pay-as-you-go idea was mentioned. It was asked whether the new meal plans would contain the same number of meals. Mr. Silberman replied in the affirmative and Dean Sherov added that they would be the same price. A clarificatio was made regarding late meals and points. Mr. Silberman recalled the University’s promise that graduate students would be able to use meal contract meals at Frist during normal meal hours. However, due to the way Frist had been built, this was not currently possible due to crowd control issues. Therefore, only late meals were possible. Ms. Safran asked if the new information could be posted on the web. Dean Sherov stated that the news of the new options would be sent out to graduate students.
Christopher DeCoro advocated better tasting meals. Mr. Parrish noted that nutrition information was available on-line, but that the information was not available in dining halls due to concerns about anorexic and bulimic students. It was noted that this was less of a problem with graduate students than undergraduates. Ms. Dau encouraged people to take up the new meal plan options if offered. Ms. Peter asked if there would be more vegetarian and vegan options. Ms. Dau noted that these were listed on the on-line menus. Mr. Silberman noted that vegan food was not labelled as such in the dining halls. Mr. Silberman also informed the Assembly of the vegetarian co-op on 2 Dickinson Street near the graduate student annexes. Undergraduates live there and jointly buy groceries. Graduate students can’t live there, but can become members. Mr. Silberman suggested that the food there is cheaper and tastes good.
Ms. Percheski informed the Assembly that she, Leslie Medema and Ms. Esparza had met with administrators involved in the Annual Giving campaign. She reported that the University is eager to get graduate students involved. Ms. Percheski informed the Assembly of an email from Deborah Fiori. Undergraduate giving rates are very high and the University is very proud of this and wants to see graduate student alumni giving too. Ms. Percheski noted that it was not just the amount that mattered but the act of contributing—the University wanted increased participation, which they saw as a sign of loyalty. Ms. Percheski informed the Assembly that number of contributions from graduate alumni has been growing each year. The current challenge is to raise the amount closer to $1,000,000. This is a fraction of the undergraduate contributions, but an important marker. Ms. Percheski noted that this had become an important issue recently because an anonymous graduate alumnus has agreed to match donations.
Mr. Reis, formerly an undergraduate here, noted that he had received phone calls soliciting donations just six days after graduating. He explained that for the younger classes, participation was important.
Continuing with her report, Ms. Percheski informed the Assembly that there had been discussion regarding how to involve current graduate students with Annual Giving, how it would make sense for graduate students to participate, and what kind of incentives we wanted. One idea was to hold a series of phone-ups, during which the University would provide pizza and beer. The University is also looking for a number of individuals who will the lead, possibly for pay.
Mr. Silberman suggested that the undergraduate experience at Princeton was one in which they felt the University had helped them a lot and that they should give back to Princeton. He suggested that this was a contrast to the situation for graduate students, where many graduates leave bitter and therefore do not give money. Mr. Silberman recalled hearing stories of unfriendly responses received by phone callers. Mr. Silberman suggested that there was a feeling within the University, in part because graduate students don’t give as much, that decisions be made favouring undergraduates. Mr. Silberman noted that money that graduate student alumni gives to the general fund does not necessarily go into graduate student projects in the same proportion. He suggested that giving to the general fund helps us in the long run, but noted that giving restricted funds for particular project means that the money will go to that.
Ms. Lee suggested that graduate students could participate in the life of the University in other ways than just by giving money. Ms. Sy informed the Assembly that this had been discussed at a recent APGA meeting. Some ideas included: participating in a networking event day for the benefit of current graduate students, coming to speak at events, and participating in social events directed towards graduate alumni to create more of a sense of community among graduate alumns. Ms. Sy informed the Assembly that the Princeton Swing Club, a graduate student organisation in which she is involved, is planning a large-scale swing dance to be held at Frist on 9 October; graduate alumni and undergraduates would be welcome.
Mr. Bickford asked if undergraduates who call were compensated for their work. Ms. Esparza informed him that they were paid an hourly rate. Ms. Percheski said that some call throughout the year, for example committing 6–10 hours per week as a regular student job. As well as that, there were ‘phone-ups’. Mr. Bickford asked which was being considered for graduate students. Ms. Esparza reported that she had suggested that the pay offered was low, being approximately $9/hour, and that graduate students would be unlikely to do it for money. Ms. Percheski added that it was a commitment of several semesters involving, for example, six hours per week for six weeks. Ms. Esparza said that she had indicated to administrators that this would be an overwhelming time commitment and that a commitment more like once per month would be more reasonable. Ms. Percheski noted that these were just their initial opinions.
Ms. Sy suggested that, instead of paying the graduate students, perhaps the money could go to a fund for graduate student organisations. She noted that graduate student organisations currently do not get funding from the Graduate School. Considering this idea, Ms. Esparza suggested that, for example, there could be a Butler phone-up, a Graduate College House Committee phone-up and so on. Ms. Esparza noted that she did ask Ms. Fiori some negative questions about Annual Giving, such as why graduate students should raise money for undergraduates. Mr. Reis stated that undergraduates here knew that alums give a lot of money to give them things and that they would be paying for it later. He noted that negative responses to phone-ups were not limited to only graduate student alums—he knew people who would call happy undergraduate alums and get similarly negative responses. Ms. Lin suggested that maybe it would be useful for us to participate in phone-ups at least once: if we get negative feedback, this can be used to improve things. For example, if the cause of the unhappiness can be identified, then it can be used as incentive for the issue to be addressed so that future graduate students will want to give back. Ms. Lin suggested that this can be used as a survey mechanism for why graduate students are unhappy. Ms. Safran noted that as soon as graduate students obtain their Masters degree, they are considered alums. She suggested that maybe we can get people used to giving. Ms. Esparza stated that at the May meeting, Ms. Fiore and/or Alyssa Miksis from the APGA will be visiting to talk about the annual fund. Ms. Esparza asked the Assembly to come prepared with questions. For instance, one could ask why graduate students should give to them and not to the APGA.
Mr. Tinsley announced the successful candidates for the General Council: Ms. Safran, Mr. Silberman, Mr. Sabouret, Ms. Peter and Mr. Bickford. Ms. Esparza and Mr. Tinsley serve ex officio. Mr. Reis serves as an alternate, in the case of a vacancy [added 6/3/2004]. Mr. Tinsley requested that the newly elected General Council stay after the Assembly meeting to elect who among them would serve on the Executive Committee. One of these people would be Ms. Esparza by default if there was no opposition.
Ms. Esparza invited questions about the proposed new committee structure. Mr. Silberman asked about the time-scale. Ms. Esparza replied that committee leaders would be elected at the May meeting and that today a vote would be taken on the proposed committee structure.
The following motions were presented by Ms. Esparza:
MOTION to suspend Standing Rules of Assembly II.1 (on the list of Standing Committees) and II.2 (on the appointment of Committee Chairs), for the purpose of reorganising the committee structure (under rules to be set after experimentation) without disrupting the ongoing activities of the current committees.
MOTION to appoint four people, in May, to help coordinate the committee restructuring.
Mr. Parrish moved to approve the first motion, was seconded by Mr. Bickford, and the motion passed. A motion was made to approve the second proposal, there was a second, and the motion passed.
Mr. DeCoro asked when members of the new committees would be elected. Sign-up lists were circulated so that those interested in being on a committee could register their interest. Mr. Tinsley noted that the lists were non-committal.
Ms. Esparza informed the Assembly that Associate Dean for Academic Affairs David Redman had asked for feedback about the facebook. This year, a facebook listing first years had been given to all incoming first year graduate students. This is the first year that this has been done. Ms. Esparza said that she would be meeting with Dean Redman to give him feedback, for example as summarised by Ms. Safran and Mr. Sun earlier on the gsg-assembly mailing list. Ms. Esparza summarised the comments that had been circulated thus far: it seems that most think that it is a good idea, objections include privacy concerns, and it had been proposed that the facebook be on-line. Advantages of an on-line facebook include: being able to remove anybody who did not wanted to be listed, capability to correct errors, password protection, and feasibility of a colour version. Disadvantages of an on-line facebook include: non-physicality and non-portability. Mr. DeCoro asked if the facebook will be replaced with an on-line facebook. Ms. Esparza informed him that this was feedback only. Mr. Bickford asked if stalking was an actual problem or a hypothetical concern. Ms. Esparza did not know the exact numbers. Mr. Parrish noted that the numbers are noted annually by Public Safety. It was asked whether a paper version would be available if an on-line version was. Ms. Peter suggested that a paper version be made available, but not given out automatically to all students. Ms. Safran suggested having the money that would otherwise be spent on printing the facebook go toward events where graduate students could actually meet each other and socialise. Mr. DeCoro inquired into the cost of the facebooks. Ms. Safran did not know, but from her previous experience in printing suggested that the cost was high. Mr. DeCoro suggested that he would rather have a more ‘permanent’ facebook than a social event. Ms. Esparza suggested that another advantage of an on-line facebook would be its searchability. Ms. Medema stated that she could not remember the cost but that the number had been a surprise to her. Costs include labour. Ms. Adhitya suggested asking students whether they wanted a facebook prior to printing and only printing the required number of copies; this would be more environmentally friendly. Ms. Safran suggested that there might ben an optimal cost per copy number. Ms. Esparza said she would meet with Dean Redman and raise these ideas. She also noted the issue of “place of origin”, for example as brought up by Mr. Sun, and said she would ask Dean Redman to change it to “state, country, region”. Mr. DeCoro asked what the issue was, to which Mr. Sun replied that there was dispute as to whether some places were actually countries. Ms. Sy noted that the locations listed in this year’s facebook were more accurately most recent residences rather than places of origin and Thomas Horine suggested that a more general category heading should be chosen.
Ms. Esparza invited discussion of any other matters. Mr. Sun raised the issue of visas of international students going home. He stated his interest in talking to the Graduate School about what will happen if a student who goes home isn’t able to return due to visa problems. He wanted enquire about what the University could do to preserve student status if a student was forced to remain home for a period of time (for example, a month or a year...), and what the University could do during that period. Ms. Esparza attempted to clarify whether Mr. Sun wanted the ‘authority’ to open these discussions with the University on behalf of the GSG or if he was asking the GSG Officers to do something about this matter. Mr. Sun recalled that there was previously an International Student Concerns Committee, but was unsure of who he should go to given the new committee structure. Ms. Safran suggested that Mr. Sun and the Executive Committee discuss this after the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned by Ms. Esparza at 8:04pm.