• Representatives present • Neven Fuckar, AOS • Jeff Dwoskin, proxy for Sinéad Mac Namara, CEE • Jack Tinsley, CHE • Basak Surmeli, CHM • Meredith Safran, proxy for Kellam Conover, CLA • Christian Bienia, proxy for Chris DeCoro, COS • Jonathan Vogel, ECO • Nicole Esparza, proxy for Christiane Meyer, EEB • Weining Man, proxy for Fei Sun, ELE • Anita Adhitya, proxy for Karin Sigloch, GEO • Michael K. House, GER • Chris Wyckham, MAE • Shin-Yi Lin, MOL • Annika Peter, PHY • Kim Montgomery, PSY • Elena Chernishenko, proxy for Cori Anderson, SLA • Hilary Levey, proxy for Debbie Becher, SOC •
• Delegates present • Chen Wei, proxy for Yuan Liu, ACSS • Anita Adhitya, proxy for Lior Silberman, Graduate College (GC) • Joshua Friess, BUT; Weining Man, CIGS •
• Councilors present • Chair Nicole Esparza • Parliamentary Secretary Jack Tinsley • Corresponding Secretary Shin-Yi Lin • Treasurer Jeff Dwoskin •
• Others present • Lisa Schreyer, Assistant Dean for Residence Life and Student Affairs • Beth McKeown, Community Programs Coordinator • Philip Gressman, IVCF • João Pedro Boavida • Marcelline Block •
• Representatives absent • Peter Locke, ANT • James Bickford, ENG • Valerie Dionne, FIT • Michael K. House, GER • Jane Murphy, HIS • Donna Sy, HOS • Thomas Horine, MAT • Andrew Moroz, ORF • David R. Smith, PPL • Susan Gunasti, REL • Newsha M. Dau, WWS •
• Delegates absent • Aderemi Artis, Black Graduate Caucus (BGC) • Carolyn Mordas, LAW • Heather White, Women’s Center (WOC) •
• Councilors absent • Christine Percheski, Press Secretary • Brigitta Lee, CPUC • Leslie A. Medema, CPUC, CPUC Priorities Committee • Ian Parrish, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Leonard F. Pease III, CPUC, CPUC Priorities Committee • Aderemi Artis, CPUC Resources Committee • Meredith Galanter Hastings, CPUC Judicial Committee • Lior Silberman, CPUC, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee • David R. Smith, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee • Robert Sobak, CPUC • Joseph P. Valentino, CPUC • Fei Sun, CPUC Governance Committee •
• Representative seats vacant • ARC • ART • AST • COM • EAS • MUS • NES • POL • PHI • SPO •
• Delegate seats vacant • Hibben/Magie Apartments • Millstone Apartments • Off Campus •
Chair Nicole Esparza called the meeting to order at roughly 6pm. She then recognized Parliamentary Secretary Jack Tinsley so that he could announce the seating of new Assembly members. Mr. Tinsley recognized Mr. Chen Wei, the new delegate from the Association of Chinese Students and Scholars (ACSS).
Ms. Esparza then moved onto the approval of the minutes. She noted that the June minutes had not been approved at the July meeting due to a lack of quorum. Since that time, she had received corrections from Josh Friess and Basak Surmeli. Mr. Tinsley submitted grammatical corrections to the July minutes. Aleks Donev moved to approve both sets of minutes with the submitted corrections; he was seconded by Jeff Dwoskin. The motion passed.
Ms. Esparza reported on the activities of the Executive Committee, which had met four times since the last Assembly meeting. They drafted all letters for the Priorities Committee, and some members met with Deans Russel and Mawhinney regarding tuition, AI funding, and stipend increases for Divisions I and II. Members of Exec will also meet with Dean of the Faculty Dobkin.
Ms. Esparza’s meetings:
Mr. Tinsley noted that in the most recent GSG officer elections, a number of loopholes in the by-laws caused lots of problems for people on the elections committee. To address these issues, a proposal for amendments to the articles will be submitted by a group including former GSG Executive Officers Eric Adelizzi, João Boavida, Leonard Pease III, and Jim Vere and will be emailed to Assembly. According to the standing rules, Assembly cannot vote on amendments until one month after they have been introduced, so these submissions may be discussed at the September meeting but not voted on until October. He further noted that in order for the elections committee to be formed in November, the amendments must be voted on in October.
Mr. Tinsley reviewed some basics of parliamentary procedure from Robert’s Rules to help assembly work together better [slides]: motion and debate.
Mr. Donev had not attended the July meeting, and so he now reported on the Frolic at Frist held in June. The event was a big success, attended by an overwhelming number of people, including community members and undergraduates. Because there were so many people, he had to go over budget and order food on the spot. The Graduate School and the Office for Student Life contributed more money after the event, so ultimately the GSG went only $68 over budget. Mr. Donev expressed uncertainty as to whether Assembly needed to formally transfer money for that purpose, or whether the Executive discretionary fund could be used for that. Mr. Tinsley thought not to voting on that money by Assembly since it was a small amount of money. Mr. Donev also noted that the event had to be held inside because of rain, but it still went well and GSG should probably do it again.
Mr. Donev then spoke about the fall welcome event. It was meant to be early in the semester, and had traditionally been the First (or Fat) Chance Dance at the Carl A. Fields Center, as previously organized by former Social Chair Sinead MacNamara. Exec had discussed the possibility that it was time to make a change in format, to a wine and cheese social at same location. Mr. Donev felt that the event was self-explanatory. He would try to take some of the drinks outside since it’s a nice location, and suggested that this will attract a lot of students. The budget will be about $1500, being $600 to wine, $400 to food, $250 to proctor, and a special contribution to the D-Bar 70s party that will be held on the same night, September 17. The idea is for the GSG to co-sponsor the D-Bar event as an after-party for the GSG event, and this cosponsorship will be used toward paying for the D-Bar proctor and as a sign of goodwill. Mr. Donev has secured $500 from the Graduate School, and requested $500 from Assembly. He noted that some responses to funding requests are outstanding because of the summer vacation period, but he is confident that he will be able to find funding from other sources eventually. Ms. Esparza clarified that Assembly already budgeted $1000 to be spent on this event. She and Mr Donev then opened the floor to questions.
Jonathan Vogel asked how much a proctor cost. Mr. Donev responded that a proctor costs about $250. Mr. Vogel followed up by asking why the D-Bar couldn’t simply raise the price of their drinks and let those who want to attend the 70s party pay for the proctor. Mr. Donev acknowledged that the D-Bar usually takes care of its own events, and that neither the GC House Committee nor the D-Bar have asked for this contribution. However, Mr. Donev felt it would be beneficial overall, considering this a more economical way for the GSG to run its event and also to make a nice gesture to the GCHC.
Chris Wyckham asked for clarification: if the event with $1000 budget is already approved, is Exec just asking Assembly to release the money? Why does Assembly have to approve it? Ms. Esparza replied that whenever the GSG wants to spend more than five percent of its budget, Assembly must be asked. Mr. Donev added that Exec is basically asking for feedback; even though it’s a formality, it’s important to get Assemblys affirmation.
Shin-Yi Lin moved to approve the expenditure, and Chris Wyckham seconded it; the motion passed.
Recently some Assembly members had accidentally hit reply-all to messages sent out to the Assembly list instead of replying to the initial sender, and Exec wanted to know whether the reply-to function should be changed to just the sender. Josh Friess clarified that this is a change to reply to the initial sender, or to reply all. Meredith Safran clarified that this is to create an additional option to reply to the sender or to all, as opposed to the current only option to reply to all.
Mr. Dwoskin disagreed with the proposal on the grounds that this is a discussion list by nature, and it should be encouraged to use it for discussion; Mr. Tinsley seconded this sentiment. Mr. Wyckham noted that the status quo could be more complicated than necessary, with cutting and pasting etc; it would be more convenient to be able to reply to the sender only. Mr. Friess opined that this is not a big deal, it just seems redundant to have two buttons, and like a PR problem waiting to happen. Mr. Donev observed that reply-all sends to both the sender and to the rest of the list. Mr. Friess thought that the listserv is smart enough not to do that.
Ms. Lin moved to change it to reply and reply-all; Ms. Safran seconded it.
Ms. Esparza called for any new discussion; Mr. Tinsley asked whether this vote could not be postponed, if it’s not a big deal, and wondered what would happen if the whole list doesn’t see things? Mr. Dwoskin noted that it can always be changed back later if it doesn’t work out. Ms. Esparza returned to the motion on the floor; it carried, and now the default reply will be to the author only.
Mr. Dwoskin is at work reconciling budget. He reminded groups that if they havent submitted receipts, they should do so; if it’s been longer than 3 months, they must ask Assembly for the money again. He went on to ask Assembly whether they would like to move any additional money to the cosponsorship budget. He noted that there had been an increase in requests, but the amounts granted to groups have been reduced. He estimated that somewhere between $500-$1500 remain from the GSG budget, and he recommended transferring around $500 to cosponsorhips now, and then transferring more from whatever remains at the end of the fiscal year.
Ms. Lin moved to request the transfer of $500 from the central budget to co-sponsorships; Mr. Donev seconded it. Mr. Vogel asked whether Assembly typically has money left; Ms. Esparza answered that since the GSG is only five years old, there is no typical. Mr. Dwoskin noted that last year Assembly had overspent because there was a surplus, and there had been irregularities in years prior. This year, some line-items had been underspent, like the Valentine Days Dance for which Ms. Macnamara had raised a lot of cosponsorship; less money will be spent on orientation, but there are some uncertainties from the reconciliation, so $500 seems a safe number. Ms. Esparza thought it’s a shame to tell groups that the GSG doesn’t have money and then end up with a surplus at the end.
Annika Peter asked whether Assembly was going to raise the per-person funding guidelines for the rest of the year toward the old $3 guideline. Mr. Dwoskin said there was no need to move anything because these are not official numbers, and next year will be a new budget anyway. He also noted that he had asked Butler Committee and the GC House Committee to come back this month and request more money for prior events whose requests were really cut down. Any other groups can also come back later, but there are only two months left in this fiscal year.
Ms. Esparza then put the motion to Assembly, and it passed.
Treasurer Jeff Dwoskin had sent his report in advance of the meeting.
Mr. Dwoskin announced that requests were to be presented for the ACSS Moon Festival, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship barbeque, GC pizza party, and Butler barbeque and invited representatives to speak.
ACSS delegate Chen Wei explained that the celebration of the Moon Festival was planned for October 2. It had been well attended last year, by an estimated 400 people, mostly graduate students, and also some undergrads and families. The expected cost this year is $1800, of which ACSS is requesting $400 from the GSG. They consider this an appropriate amount considering last year they received $350. They made requests to several funding sources, but the GSG is the single biggest cosponsor of their events. ACSS typically sends emails to various departments two weeks before an event to ask for contributions, but they are not consistent in their contributions. Mr. Wei noted that there was not much money left in their university account.
The next speaker recognized by Mr. Dwoskin was Philip Gressman from Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. He requested funds for their annual welcome barbeque. Usually about 30 people attend the event, which has been held in Marquand Park behind the Graduate College, but this year they will move it to Murray-Dodge, so hopefully more people will attend because it will be more visible. Typically the barbeque costs about $200, and they have asked the Graduate School for cosponsorship, and will receive some.
Anita Adhitya then represented the GC House Committee in their resubmitted request for three summer pizza parties, cosponsored by the GSG, the GC, and the Graduate School. The parties cost $900-$950 each; at the last meeting the House Committee received $300 from the GSG, and are requesting the balance of $600 now. Mr. Donev asked about the amount of the GCHC request, since last year the parties had each cost only $700. Ms. Adhitya confirmed that the parties cost more this year.
Mr. Friess, representing the Butler Committee, resubmitted their request for additional money for their event, noting that the budget is $125 more than initially requested, and another $50-$100 would be appreciated.
Ms. Esparza called for questions for the representatives.
Mr. Donev asked Mr. Wei whether ACSS had asked the Graduate School for money, and from where the money in their University account comes. Mr. Wei restated that the GSG is their greatest sponsor, and that they ask departments, not the Graduate School. Weining Man clarified that the Graduate School had funded the Moon Festival and the Spring Festival in previous years, and that they receive about $300 from Dean Montero. Other departments contributions vary each year. Departments like Electrical Engineering that have lots of Chinese/Asian students give maybe $100. Mr. Donev followed up by noting that the ACSS budget is pretty big, and inquired as to where the rest of the money besides the GSGs contribution comes from. Ms. Man replied that the total varies every year. Mr. Donev noted that it is an informal practice of Dean Monteros to match the contribution made by the GSG 1-for-1, so it makes sense for the GSG to not provide more than the Graduate School. Mr. Wei said that ACSS had not yet requested money from the Graduate School, and reiterated that they always get about $350.
Beth McKeown volunteered that since the Butler event had grown in scope, the Graduate School can provide the balance, if that were agreeable to Mr. Friess, and he could withdraw the request for additional money from the GSG. Mr. Friess agreed, and the request was withdrawn.
Mr. Tinsley moved to go into a quasi-committee of the whole, Mr. Dwoskin seconded it, and the motion passed.
Ms. Lin opined that is was fair to only fund the Intervarsity welcome barbeque for no more than $50 because the number of people coming is so few relative to the other two events. Mr. Donev disagreed, stating that the purpose of the government is to protect and foster minorities, so you can’t use the same criteria to judge all events, and small groups shouldn’t be treated the same as the pizza party. He thought that $100 was reasonable. Kim Montgomery agreed that they should spend $100, since Assembly just sent $500 to the cosponsorship budget.
Mr. Vogel asked for clarification on whether all requests are discussed together, and Ms. Esparza confirmed this, as it facilitated coming to a decision about each one.
Ms. Man returned to Mr. Donevs point that it would be fair for small groups to get a little more. She stated that events with large attendance should get more money because more people go to them.
Annika Peters asked whether Assembly only has to consider requests for September for this quarter. Mr. Dwoskin replied that the quarter extended until October.
Mr. Donev proposed $300 for ACSS, $100 for ICF, and $200 for GC. He clarified that he chose $200 based on the number of people attending. Mr. Dwoskin observed that these suggestions left $390 for events in September and October. Mr. Donev noted that ACSS traditionally asks for the largest amount of money because they have a lot of members, and they will not have another event until after November, to which Mr. Wei agreed.
Ms. Lin suggested moving out of the quasi-committee, but Mr. Tinsley reminded her that Assembly needed to come to a consensus first.
Ms. Adhitya asked the IVCF representative if receiving only $80 instead of $100 would scuttle their event. He replied that they had a small amount of money left from last year, and they are getting money from the Graduate School, so it wouldn’t kill the event if they didn’t get the requested amount. Ms. Man asked about why the GSG should give the pizza party $200. Mr. Donev replied that it was to increase the total GSG contribution from $300 to $500. Ms. Man proposed to give ACSS $350. Mr. Donev volunteered to withdraw his proposal, since spending more than $700 in this term was not recommended. He changed his suggestion to $350 to ACSS, $50 to IV, and $200 to the GC. Ms. Adhitya volunteered $350/$75/$250. Mr. Tinsley said he would rather give $250 than $200 to the GC, but there was not enough agreement by hand vote.
Ms. Esparza moved to fund $350 to ACSS, $75 to Intervarsity, $200 to GC Pizza Party; it was seconded, and passed.
Mr. Tinsley then took the floor to discuss the ratification of letters to be presented to administrators who make requests to the Priorities Committee. Mr. Tinsley noted that the letters, which he distributed as handouts to attendees, contained the same text, with amendments, as those that were presented at the July Assemly. Mr. Tinsley then read from the email sent by Ms. Esparza after that meeting, on July 16.
Dear Assembly,
At the July Assembly meeting we did not meet quorum and therefore could not conduct GSG business. However, according to Robert’s Rules "where an important opportunity would be lost unless acted upon immediately, the members present can, at their own risks, act in the emergency with the hope that their actions will be ratified by a later meeting at which quorum is present."* After discussing the predicament with Assembly, I decided to deem the PriComm proposals an emergency decision item since the letters for PriComm have to be written, edited, and mailed by early August. We obviously could not make this deadline if we waited until the August meeting. It would have been a shame to miss this once-a-year chance; furthermore, various representatives and committees put effort into coming up with topics and reading the proposals. Taken in its entirety, I felt that it would be unfit to let our PriComm letters for graduate student issues fall through the cracks.Assembly had 11 voting members present and it was decided that I should report our decisions to Assembly as soon as possible.
The link below is the list of approved proposals (including amendments) and non-approved proposals. Most non-approved proposals were merely deemed inappropriate for PriComm but would be addressed through other venues. Assembly discussion of theses and other topics mentioned on the gsg-assembly listserv will be available once the draft July minutes are distributed.
Thank you again to the representatives who gave input and worked through the proposals.
http://www.princeton.edu/~gsg/2004/Assembly/07/PriComm [This link is no longer posted. See Minutes 7.14.2004, III.B]
Sincerely,
Nicole Esparza
GSG Chair
*Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th edition. (2000) p. 337: lines 19-23.
Mr. Tinsley requested a motion to ratify the letters that had been presented however, he noted that ratification was not necessary, but rather serves as advice to Exec. He had asked for comments in advance, and reported that he had received no serious comments. Ms. Safran objected that she had sent in comments, but Mr. Tinsley opined that they would not change the requests for the purposes of ratification. Ms. Esparza noted that she had answers to Ms. Safrans questions. Mr. Tinsley continued that Assembly members who now had objections to letters should simply vote not to ratify them and offered that such persons could submit objections in writing.
Ms. Lin moved to ratify the letters as proposed at the July meeting. Her motion was seconded, and it passed.
Ms. Esparza then reported on Ms. Safrans questions. Regarding a request for more maintenance staff, Facilities Committee Chair Lior Silberman was looking into where in fact more staff was needed, as in Hibben-Magie and in air conditioning. Mr. Silberman was reported to be very busy on numerous tasks. Ms. Esparza also reported that Ian Parrish, a graduate student representative on the University Taskforce on Health and Wellbeing, found out that 55% of graduate students are unsatisfied with housing on quality, cost, just about everything. With respect to sidewalks, last year Exec had asked for sidewalks to be paved linking Hibben-Magie to Alexander Street, and in the other direction down Faculty Road. University Facilities said that the University would do so, and yet they still have not paved anything. Ms. Esparza has received an email from Director of Facilities Mike McKay relaying his interest in meeting with the GSG to talk about the various requests.
Mr. Tinsley then took the floor to propose creating a task force on the GSG budget. He noted that Assembly spends a lot of time going through cosponsorship requests, and that while for some groups it makes a big difference, on the whole the discussions concern a relatively small amount of money. He asked whether there is a better way to address this matter, including outside of Assembly. He observed that it could be good for group as a whole.
Mr. Tinsley asked for volunteers to come speak to Ms. Esparza at the end of the meeting or volunteer now, and he set out a timeline. Mr. Tinsley put forth a motion as distributed in written form:
Questions regarding GSG Budget and sponsorship:How should funds in the GSG Annual Budget be distributed between co-sponsored events and (solely) GSG Initiated social events?
Should the GSG Annual Budget be increased? If so, how?
Assembly spends valuable time debating the approval of relatively small amounts of money for co-sponsorship. Can this be changed by formation of a separate committee or by another means? Give recommendations.
I move to commit the aforementioned questions to a special committee (Special Committee on the Budget) to be chaired by the Treasurer of the GSG and whose members shall be members of the GSG Assembly or other qualified members of the graduate student body. The Chair of the GSG Assembly shall appoint members of the special committee. Assembly members may request to be appointed and are encouraged to do so. The deadline for volunteering shall be determined by the Chair of the GSG Assembly upon adoption of the motion.
The committee is charged with recommending answers to the committed questions to the Assembly at the October meeting, including recommendations for changes to the By-Laws, Standing Rules, or the Constitution. At that time, if changes to the By-Laws or Standing Rules are required, these shall be prepared for presentation at the November Assembly meeting. A vote on the proposed changes to By-Laws would then take place at the December meeting (Const. VI.10). For proposed changes to the Constitution, the Chair of the GSG Assembly shall establish a timeline for amendments at the September meeting. In addition, the Chair of the GSG Assembly may appoint additional individuals to the special committee to help draft such proposals (to the Constitution, By-Laws, or Standing Rules).
He was seconded by Mr. Wyckham. Ms. Esparza then asked for discussion on the motion. Ms. Man said that she thought an important question to consider was how to distribute money to cosponsor other groups events versus the GSGs own events. She noted that it is difficult to get GSG people to sign up to help sometimes, but the GC has more regular members to organize events and it may be better to just give them the money, for example. Ms. Esparza then invited Ms. Man to join the task force. Ms. Man did not respond to the offer but rather continued her recommendation about the GSG not running its own events. Ms. Esparza clarified that she, Mr. Dwoskin, and Mr. Tinsley will be on the task force. Mr. Tinsley then reminded everyone that Assembly still had to vote on this task force; the motion passes.
Ms. Esparza then called for volunteers. Mr. Donev volunteered. Mr. Tinsley encouraged some Assembly members to join. Mr. Dwoskin added that this will be informal and not a big time commitment. Ms. Man asked how often it would meet. Mr. Dwoskin answered that this needs to be decided by people on the task force. No one volunteered. Ms. Esparza reminded those present that they can email her later.
Ms. Esparza then called for new business. Hearing none, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10pm.