• Representatives present • Katherine Bold, ACM • Neven Fuckar, AOS • Sasha Meyers, CHE • Kellam Conover, CLA • Christopher DeCoro, COS • Jeff Dwoskin, proxy for Ying Wang, ELE • James Bickford, ENG • Peter Eubanks, FIT • Tarje Nissen-Meyer, GEO • Angela Holzer, GER • Jeris Yruma, HIS • Sultana Banulescu, HOS • Thomas Horine, MAT • Shin-Yi Lin, MOL • Samir Soneji, OPR • Aderemi Artis, PHI • Annika Peter, PHY • Daniel Raburn, PPL • Barbara Buckinx, POL • Louis Lee, PSY • Levi McLaughlin, REL • Cori Anderson, SLA • Nicole Esparza, proxy for Steven Shafer, SOC • Daniel Harris, WWS •
• Delegates present • Leslie Hinkson, Black Graduate Caucus (BGC) • Joshua Friess, BUT • Neven Fuckar, GCO • Meredith Safran, OFF •
• Councilors present • Chair Shin-Yi Lin • Parliamentary Secretary Jack Tinsley, CPUC • Corresponding Secretary Danielle Osler • Recording Secretary Annika Peter, CPUC • Treasurer Jeff Dwoskin • Social Chair Megan Sullivan • James Bickford, CPUC & Academic Affairs • Nicole Esparza, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Josh Friess, CPUC Resources Committee • Sara Nephew, CPUC Governance Committee • Ian Parrish, CPUC Priorities Committee • Guillaume Sabouret, CPUC • Meredith Safran, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee & Academic Affairs • Karin Sigloch, Health and Life • Lior Silberman, Facilities •
• Others present • Anita Adhitya, GEO • Deniz Akalin, ARC, International Festival • Diana M. Hill, PSY • Luke MacDonald, CEE • Ben McKean, POL • Beth McKeown, Community Program Coordinator • Manu Radhakrishnan, HIS • Assistant Dean Lisa Schreyer, Graduate School •
• Representatives absent • Peter Locke, ANT • Sinéad Mac Namara, CEE • Tyrel McQueen, CHM • Kevin Amonlirdviman, ECO • Christiane Meyer, EEB • Weifeng Chen, MAE •
• Delegates absent • Heather White, Women’s Center (WOC) • Chen Wei, ACSS • Weining Man, CIGS • Marcelline Block, Hibben-Magie (HIB) • Jennifer Jordan, LAW •
• Councilors absent • Newsha Dau, CPUC Priorities Committee • Christiane Meyer, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee • Tauna Szymanski, CPUC Judicial Committee •
• Representative seats vacant • ARC• ART• AST• COM• EAS• MUS• NES• ORF• SPO•
• Delegate seats vacant • Millstone Apartments •
The Chair, Shin-Yi Lin, called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm. Ms. Lin stated that, in an attempt to acquaint Assembly members with each other, the Executive Committee was giving each representative and delegate a name plaque to be used at meetings.
Mr. Tinsley introduced the new representative for OPR, Samir Soneji.
Ms. Peter stated that the February 2005 minutes were not complete. Lior Silberman commented that Mr. Tinsley's comments from the March meeting on the legality of staying on as Parliamentary Secretary were incorrect (see Bylaws.III.5.f and Bylaws.III.6). Assembly voted to approve the March 2005 minutes with the addition of a link to the current discussion regarding Mr. Tinsley's comment.
For a more detailed version of items discussed, please see the Chair's Report. Ms. Lin asked each new member of the Executive Committee to introduce him- or herself. She reported that the Executive Committee met three times since the March Assembly meeting. In her capacity as Chair, Ms. Lin met with President Shirley Tilghman . Ms. Lin spoke with Judd Greenstein (MUS), who presented a report prepared by the graduate student union (GESO) of Yale to President Tilghman. Aleks Donev, James Bickford, Danielle Osler, and Ms. Lin attended a Sunday brunch at the Graduate College for prospective graduate students of color. Kellam Conover stated that graduate students would soon be asked to comment on dining options at the residential colleges. Megan Sullivan, Jeff Dwoskin, and Ms. Lin met with Tom Myers, Director of Frist, to discuss dining options for graduate students since Frist will be closing at 5 pm this summer. The Graduate College dining hall will be kept open on a trial basis for six weeks this summer. However, Ms. Lin will try to persuade the administration to keep one of the cafes open for dinner during the summer. Karin Sigloch, the Chair of the Committee on Health and Life will be speaking later on issues regarding Public Safety.
Princeton University is a member of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation Responsive PhD Program. There will be a conference in St. Louis in November. Princeton graduate students attended the last conference in October 2003 with help from the Graduate School. This year, however, the Graduate School will only help financially on a minimal level if we choose to send representatives. At a cost of $800-$1000 per student, the cost would represent a large hit to the GSG budget. Since the Executive Committee failed to come to a consensus about whether or not we should go, Ms. Lin asked Assembly for input.
Mr. Bickford suggested that we ask APGA for money. Chris DeCoro asked if we chose to send someone, would the money come from the co-sponsorship budget? Mr. Dwoskin said it would not, that the money would come from surplus funds. However, there would only be enough money to send one graduate student.
Meredith Safran asked how other schools fund their contingent, and if we can get money from the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. Ms. Lin said that she is not sure that they would fund us. Leslie Hinkson pointed out that the Foundation paid for Princeton students to attend the Ivy Summit.
Josh Friess asked that we move the discussion to New Business. Ms. Lin said that this was not necessary because she had gotten all the feedback she needed: 1) Assembly agreed that we wouldn't spend more than $250-300/delegate to the Leadership conference 2) She will ask both APGA and WWFF for help with funding.
Ms. Osler said that she was preparing globals for point.princeton.edu and the shuttle.
Mr. Dwoskin updated the GSG website with information on our new funding rules and guidelines. Mr. Silberman asked that we declare officer vacancies. Ms. Lin said that this would be discussed during New Business.
(Ms. Osler proxied for Mr. Harris until the CPUC Committee votes)
In October 2004, Assembly charged a committee with drafting a new version of By-laws.III, in part to deal with the problems of the last elections.
This committee returned with a draft for new by-laws. Mr. Tinsley suggested that Assembly make
a main motion to take action on the by-laws, with new motions for each sub-item. Mr. Friess motioned to approve the by-laws with the
first of the three recall options. Anita Adhitya asked if we could vote on the by-laws at the next meeting because we just got the text of the
by-laws by email. Mr. Tinsley pointed out that Assembly needs a large attendance in order to pass the by-laws, and that it was
unlikely we would have a large turn-out at the next meeting. Ms. Adhitya motioned to table the vote till the next meeting, and the motion was
seconded.
Mr. Friess said that the changes sent out on Monday were very minor, but the main part of the text was the same as sent out two weeks ago. Mr. Silberman suggested that at the very least we should have the discussion at the current meeting, and wanted to make a point of order about voting. Mr. Bickford asked how many people beyond quorum were present at the meeting. Mr. Tinsley said that 24 voting members were present, and that 21 were necessary to pass the by-laws. Aderemi Artis pointed out that the by-laws were important in implementing a true democracy, that many people had put a lot of time into drafting the by-laws, and asked that we vote at the current meeting.
Ms. Lin directed Assembly to consider that Ms. Adhitya's motion is the one up for discussion. Ms. Safran suggested that Assembly go into a quasi-committee of the whole. Mr. Tinsley suggested that Assembly vote on the amendments submitted on Monday before entering the committee. Ms. Safran amended Ms. Adhitya's motion to enter the committee.
During the quasi-committee of the whole, Ms. Safran asked that Assembly discuss the by-laws so that everyone understood them before voting on them. Mr. Raburn asked about the two recall options. Ms. Safran stated that the recall option was the one issue on which the by-laws committee could not reach a consensus. We are now in a quasi-committee of the whole. Mr. Tinsley asked to discuss the recall options at a later time. Ms. Hinkson asked if there were printed copies of the recall options. Mr. DeCoro asked if anyone had objections to the main text of the by-laws except for the recall options. Mr. Silberman said he had objections but would bring them up later. Assembly voted to move out of the quasi-committee of the whole.
Mr. Silberman said that he did not think Assembly could table the vote. Assembly voted down Ms. Adhitya's motion to table the discussion.
Next, Assembly discussed amendments to the original motion of passing the by-laws with the first recall option. Mr. Silberman moved to ammend the motion by replacing recall option one with recall option two. It was seconded. Mr. Artis and Mr. Silberman explained the difference between the two options. The difference between the two options was that the first option has a clause that the Graduate Student Body can recall a member of the Executive Committee even if, during Judicial Proceedings, Assembly did not remove the officer.
Mr. Friess added that Judicial Proceedings must precede any popular recall. This clause was put in because the by-laws committee did not think it was feasible to hold a recall election as well as a regular election. For a popular recall, the charge and a response of the accused would have to be printed on each page of petition sheets. The by-laws committee was concerned with enfranchisement, and several members preferred a popular recall option because some Assembly representatives do not attend Assembly meetings and other seats are simply vacant; this disenfranchises some students during Judicial Proceedings.
Assembly voted 4-14-4 against changing the motion to include recall option two instead of recall option one change option one to option two.
Mr. Silberman wanted to make several amendments to Mr. Friess's motion. Mr. Friess accepted as a friendly amendment Mr. Silberman's amendments to clauses 3.d.i and 7.i. Mr. Tinsley asked to add the words "to the Office of the Chair" after the word "succeed" in the amendment to 7.1.i. It was moved and seconded to discuss Mr. Silberman's last point after Mr. Friess did not accept Mr. Silberman's amendment to clause 6.i. The discussion concerned the one month stay to do a fact-finding mission if a member of the Executive Committee is charged with malfeasance. Ms. Lin asked that a member of the by-laws committee comment. Mr. Artis said that the issues regarding recall were discussed at length. Mr. Bickford asked Mr. Silberman if he would accept an amendment to clarify that it would be the Parliamentary Secretary who would do the fact-finding. Mr. Silberman declined.
Mr. Friess accepted as a friendly amendment Ms. Adhitya's suggestion to have a "by lots" provision in clause addressing balloting by assembly during by-elections (clause 6.g.3.c).
Mr. Silberman made a friendly amendment to clarify the line of succession in clause 7.1.i, which Mr. Friess chose not to accept.
Mr. Tinsley moved to hold an informal poll to determine if the by-laws had enough votes. One person did not feel comfortable voting yet. Mr. Silberman said that by the Constitution, the by-laws should be introduced at one meeting and then voted on at the next. Mr. Tinsley stated that Assembly heard the proposed by-laws in October 2004 but chose to commission a committee to revise the proposal. Mr. Silberman motioned to vote on the by-laws at the next meeting. Mr. Friess again stated that attendance at the May meeting was likely to be insufficient to vote on the by-laws. Assembly unanimously voted to vote at the present meeting.
Assembly unanimously voted to approve the by-laws with the first recall option and with the friendly amendments. The approved version of the by-laws can be found in this directory.
Assembly thanked the by-laws committee for its hard work.
GENERAL COUNCIL
Five candidates declared themselves for the five seats available on the General Council in addition to the Chair and the Parliamentary
Secretary (who are ex-officio members). In addition to their candidate statements, the candidates each spoke briefly:
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
Three candidates declared themselves.
Assembly reelected Ms. Nephew to the Governance Committee.
RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Three candidates declared themselves.
Mr. Silberman asked how the candidates would separate their personal views from the consensus of the University community.
Assembly elected Mr. Friess to the Resources Committee.
PRIORITIES COMMITTEE
There were three candidates for two positions. The candidates were:
There was a long debate as to how to vote. Upon deciding that each voting member should vote for two people, Assembly elected Ms. Gunja and Mr. Parrish to the Priorities Committee.
COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS AND RULES
Two candidates declared themselves for two positions.
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Three candidates declared themselves for one position.
Assembly elected Diana Hill to the Judicial Committee.
Please see the CPUC Elections summary for detailed elections results.
There were two funding requests, for the International Festival and the Butler Cinco de Mayo Celebration. Assembly unanimously voted to approve the Treasurer's recommendation for the funding of the two events.
Ms. Sigloch provided Assembly with a timeline of events related to the March 30, 2005 arrest of a graduate student in connection with a hair-cutting event on a shuttle on March 11, 2005. This person confessed to dozens of hair-cutting drink-tampering incidents. Ms. Sigloch asked Assembly if the main concern members had were substantive or with regards to communication. She asked what Assembly would like her to discuss with Public Safety.
Mr. Silberman was concerned that Public Safety did not send a crime report until after the person in question was arrested. He said that the dining services staff called Public Safety to report an incident in 2002, and contacted the Graduate School. His point was that the University had known about at least one suspicious incident in the past three years, but there was no action. Some Sociology graduate student wrote a letter to Public Safety with their concerns, but had not heard back before the current Assembly meeting.
Mr. Sabouret stated that one of his friends had been victimized by the accused at Fine Library. When she went to McCosh for testing, she asked if there had been any other incidents reported, and she was told there were no related incidents.
Mr. Raburn wanted to make sure that the various groups responsible for dealing with incident such as this did their jobs properly. Mr. Silberman added that there should be better communication between the various groups.
Mr. Tinsley asked why Public Safety even bothered with a bulletin after the suspect was arrested.
Katherine Bold, the ACM representative (and also the program in which the suspect was enrolled) said that the students in her program did not find out about the arrest until they were contacted by a reporter for comment.
Ms. Osler wanted to know what criteria Public Safety uses in deciding to alert the community. Ms. Buckinx was concerned about the lack of communication all around. Ms. Safran thought that the GSG should contact Public Safety and also request that they send a representative to explain to Assembly how the organization works.
Assistant Dean Lisa Schreyer said that the October 2002 incident in the Graduate College dining hall was not as cut and dry as others made it out to be. She said the information the Graduate School received was very vague, that the victim did not provide much information. Any information the Graduate School received about the various incidents was also vague. No one associated the drink-tampering with hair-cutting.
Jeris Yruma read an article in the New York Post about the arrest.
Ms. Safran stated that there are still outstanding questions regarding pedestrian safety on campus (especially on Faculty Road).
Mr. Harris stated that we should move the constituency reports to the beginning of the meeting. He and Ms. Lin agree to postpone his report until the May Assembly meeting.