• Representatives present • Katherine Bold, ACM • Alexandros Ntelekos, CEE • Swaroop Chatterjee, CHE • Adam Dunn, CHM • Jake Mackey, CLA • Xiaoling Ang, ECO • Adrian De Froment, EEB • Ilias Tagkopoulos, ELE • James Bickford, ENG • Anita Adhitya, GEO • Megan Ewing, GER • Jesse Salazar, HIS • Lindy Baldwin, HOS • Wei Ho, MAT • Shin-Yi Lin, MOL • Annika Peter, PHY • Brookes Brown, POL • Daniel Raburn, PPL • Louis Lee, PSY • Harvey Stark, REL • Cori Anderson, SLA • Alicia Juskewycz, SOC • Daniel Harris, WWS •
• Delegates present • Josh Friess, BUT • Steve Hassani, MIL • Bernice Rosenzweig, proxy for Diana Hill, BGC •
• Councilors present • Chair Shin-Yi Lin, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Parliamentary Secretary Medini Padmanabhan, CPUC • Corresponding Secretary Danielle Osler • Recording Secretary Annika Peter • Treasurer Jeff Dwoskin • Guillaume Sabouret, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Sara Nephew, CPUC Governance Committee • Fatema Gunja, CPUC Priorities Committee • Ian Parrish, CPUC Priorities Committee • Josh Friess, CPUC Resources Committee • James Bickford, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee & Academic Affairs •
• Others present • Assistant Dean Lisa Schreyer, Graduate School • Community Programming Coordinator Tara Kitley • Yesim Tozan, APGA • Harriet Cooper, Handbell Choir • Julie Jones, Handbell Choir • Canturk Isci, ELE • Wilfred Ndifon, EEB •
• Representatives absent • Ricky Martin, ANT • Neven Fuckar, AOS • Peter Eubanks, FIT • Weifeng Chen, MAE • Samir Soneji, OPR •
• Delegates absent • Tian Xia, ACSS • Weining Man, CIGS • Neven Fuckar, GCO • Marcelline Block, Hibben-Magie (HIB) • Jennifer Jordan, LAW • Meredith Safran, OFF •
• Councilors absent • Press Secretary Susan Robison • Social Chair Megan Sullivan • Kellam Conover, CPUC • Leslie Hinkson, CPUC • Diana Hill, CPUC Judicial Committee • Karin Sigloch, CPUC, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee, Health and Life • Meredith Safran, Academic Affairs •
• Representative seats vacant • ARC• ART• AST• COM• COS• EAS• MUS• NES• ORF• PHI• SPO•
• Delegate seats vacant • Women's Center •
Chair Shin-Yi Lin called the meeting to order at 6:08 pm.
Ms. Padmanabhan introduced the many new Assembly members and thanked the exiting representatives and delegates for their service. The new representatives were Adam Dunn for Chemistry, Lindy Baldwin for History of Science, and Brookes Brown for Politics.
Ms. Peter stated that the only corrections received were to the attendance list. Assembly voted unanimously to approve the minutes.
Yesim Tozan, a 2004 graduate of the Woodrow Wilson School and the chair of the Association of Princeton Graduate Alumni's (APGA) committee on graduate students, came to report of her committee's activities. She stated that her committee was involved in organizing career mixers this academic year for the divisions of social sciences and natural sciences. She needed several graduate student volunteers to aid in the selection process for alumni speakers for the events. She was also interested in finding a someone to fill a paid position for web development for the APGA. Ms. Tozan stated that she was pleased to co-sponsor the Jorge Cham event benefitting Hurricane Katrina victimes.
Harvey Stark wanted to discuss the new DCE status, especially its impact on the humanities and social sciences divisions. He was concerned about the university's change in fellowship policy, namely that students earning an outside fellowships in those divisions would receive an extra six months of university fellowship money instead of a full year (although not all departments granted an extra year of funding; for example, the History Department did not grant an extra year). He was also concerned that the DCE tuition would be a hardship on self-supporting students. He was interested in writing an open letter to the administration, perhaps submitting it to the Daily Princetonian.
Ms. Lin started the discussion by stating that in Molecular Biology, most people seemed either unaware or unconcerned about DCE, but that DCE would largely be positive for her department due to its substantial international student population. Jeff Dwoskin commented that the administration knew that there would probably be some problems the first year DCE was implemented, but was committed to working through the problems. They thought it would be easier to find sources of funding for DCE students once the status was in place, especially since the conferral of student status would allow students to seek outside fellowships that require student status. Ian Parrish commented that the Priorities Committee had discussed the issue earlier in the day. Ms. Lin stated that there was some confusion about DCE. For example, the changes in fellowship policy were separate from the DCE status, but that both changes were announced the same day. Ms. Lin reiterated that DCE students funded by AIs or ARs would have their tuition paid for them by the university, so they would not have to pay the tuition out of pocket. Also, DCE would be implemented next year and would abolish the DCC status.
Ms. Lin asked Assembly what to do about the various issues. Karin Sigloch asked if the Directors of Graduate Study for the departments affected by the fellowship policy change could lobby. Several representatives assured her that they were. Josh Friess asked what the GSG was already doing, and voiced his opinion that writing a letter to the Daily Princetonian should be an action of last resort. Ms. Lin stated that the GSG was attempting to disseminate information about DCE and would be examining the Graduate School's DCE handbook during December or January. Ms. Lin asked what the major issues were for students in the humanities and social sciences divisions. Students in the social sciences stated that program lengths were far shorter than actual time to degree. Most humanities representatives stated that the change in fellowship policy affected them the most. Ms. Lin asked the representatives of the affected departments to gather information about the impact of DCE and the fellowship policy changes and to present their findings at the next meeting.
The National Association of Graduate and Professional Students (NAGPS) is an organization dedicated to lobbying for graduate student issues. The GSG had previously been a member of NAGPS but had let the membership lapse. At the previous meeting, Assembly had been unable to come to a consensus about rejoining NAGPS, and if so, at what level of membership. Mr. Stark had volunteered to research the organization further.
Mr. Stark explained that the organization does research on graduate student life, lobbies Congress on behalf of graduate students, and provides health insurance (which had previously been the main reason that the GSG had joined NAGPS) that no longer covers New Jersey. Mr. Stark stated that it had been difficult to find information on NAPGS because there was not much information on its website and no one had responded to his email request for further information (especially concerning any recent advocacy successes). However, he was able to find a chart on the various levels of membership.
Ms. Padmanabhan began the discussion by expressing concern over the political nature of the organization. The GSG Constitution specifically prohibits contributions or support for political organization in order to retain its tax-exempt status. Mr. Stark replied that the organization was bipartisan. Mr. Dwoskin added that if NAGPS was really a political organization, other universities would not have joined. Ms. Lin stated that at the Ivy Summit, she learned that NAGPS was lobbying Congress not to cut graduate student loans (which it was considering in order to fund reconstruction after Hurricane Katrina). Someone asked if we could ask student governments at other universities about their experiences with NAGPS.
Mr. Stark recommended joining NAGPS as a regular affiliate ($200 annual fee). Adrien de Froment asserted that since Assembly had only scanty information on NAGPS, the GSG should not spend a large amount of money to join, especially since Princeton could join as a developing member for $100 per year. Mr. Stark moved to join as a regular affiliate, but accepted a friendly amendment to join as a developing member. The motion passed 15-4-2.
Mr. Dwoskin stated that he had received two funding requests, from the Butler Committee and the Princeton Handbell Choir. The Princeton Handbell Choir was requesting $250 to pay a professional conductor for Princeton's Lessons and Carols Services. Harriet Cooper stated that there were fifteen graduate students in the choir and no undergraduates. They were expecting a large turnout. Several people asked if the event was religious in nature. Josh Friess stated that the Butler Committee was planning a Wine & Cheese event. Assembly voted on the funding requests separately. The Butler Wine & Cheese event was funded at the Treasurer's recommended level with 21-0-0 vote. The Handbell Choir was funded at the Treasurer's recommended level with a 16-3-3 vote.
Mr. Dwoskin stated that it came to the Shuttle Committee's attention that there was severe overcrowding on the green line shuttles at night--that people had even been turned away from the last shuttle of the night. University Services was providing an extra shuttle for the morning rush and for late nights. The GSG Transit Committee was meeting with consultants on further shuttle schedule modifications. Mr. Friess stated that he thought part of the reason the shuttle was so crowded was that there were a lot of non-students riding the shuttle. Mr. Dwoskin opined that many of those people were faculty and staff, but that if we knew for sure that those people were not members of the university community, then perhaps there could be some enforcement. He also stated that most of the crowding was on the GC end of the shuttle line, not at Butler.
Furthermore, the Transit Committee was working with the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) and University Services to launch a pilot program to run weekend shuttles to the various shopping centers on Route 1. University Services was paying for two pilot shopping days in December, with stops at Dillon Gym, the Lawrence Apartments, and the Graduate College. Anita Adhitya asked why University Services was considering running a shuttle since New Jersey Transit provides similar service. Mr. Dwoskin stated that the University shuttle would be more convenient, but that this was just a pilot program. If there was demand for a shuttle, the GSG Transit Committee would work hard to implement a permanent shopping shuttle.
Assembly voted 21-0-2 to commend University Services on its work on the shuttle programs.
There were several people interested in being committee chairs: Jesse Salazar for Campus Relations, Steve Hassani and Canturk Isci for Academic Affairs, and Karin Sigloch for Health and Life. Ms. Lin asked Mr. Hassani and Mr. Isci if they were willing to be co-chairs. Both assented. Ms. Lin stated that there was no official rules ofr electing committee chairs, so she aksed if Assembly would be willing to approve all candidates in one vote. Assembly voted unanimously to approve all candidates.
It was necessary for Assembly to vote on which amendments to put to referendum (please see the link for the full text of the amendments). There was some initial discussion of the how to set annual fee increases. Mr. Friess suggested that the first amendment might be more likely to pass if Assembly had to approve the Treasurer's recommendation for annual fee increases. Swaroop Chatterjee recommended that the determination of the annual fee increase (ie, to tie the increase to inflation, stipend increase, tuition increase, etc.) be done in a transparent manner and that the language on the referendum ought to be clear.
Mr. Salazar asked if the GSG had exhausted all other options for increasing its budget. Dean Schreyer explained that the undergraduates paid a large student government fee, on top of class fees (this alone being $700 annually) and residential college fees. She stated that the Graduate School did help co-sponsor events, but that it would not be appropriate or affordable for the Graduate School to provide the GSG's budget. Ms. Lin stated that Vice President Dickerson was willing to provide matching funds if the graduate student body approved a GSG fee increase. Ms. Adhitya asked if Assembly could increase the GSG's budget just through the endowment. Mr. Dwoskin stated that if Assembly wanted to double its budget, the endowment would have to increase to $200,000.
Louis Lee asked if people would want to fund events with a fee increase. He asked, in general, what the extra income would be used for. Ms. Lin said that there were three different referenda for fee increases, so that the graduate student body could decide how big to make the GSG's budget (the options being to tie the fee to inflation, increase the base fee to $10 and then tie that fee to inflation, or to give Assembly the power to determine the fee). Ms. Lin was concerned that the current $5 fee was losing value every year, and that the GSG at least needed to be able to cover its administrative costs. Megan Ewing asked why the second amendment called for raising the base fee to $10. Ms. Lin stated that this would bring the fee up to the purchasing power of 1989 when the $5 fee was set, and that it seemed unlikely that students would vote to increase the fee more than that. Wei Ho stated that the math students were upset about the third amendment, the one allowing Assembly to set the annual fee. She asked if the university would pay the fee, just like it pays the tuition for students on AIs, ARs, or fellowships. Dean Schreyer stated that this was unlikely. Ilias Tagkopoulos stated that when he was an AI at Columbia, the school covered the student government fee. Mr. Friess responded to Ms. Ho by saying that the GSG is a representative body, and so it was not so unreasonable for Assembly to be allowed to set the GSG fee. Ms. Lin stated that the third referendum was suggested because the Constitution currently makes changes to the fee extremely cumbersome, and so this amendment would make fee changes in the future easier. Mr. Dwoskin pointed out that Assembly did not have to approve all referenda.
Mr Ntelekos raised his concerns and disapproval for the 3rd referendum. He stated that that the decision of how much money graduate students are going to take out of their pockets for the GSG fee, is a decision of the graduate student body only and not of this assembly. Additionally he pointed out that such a referendum would create a negative feeling towards the GSG assembly. Several others concurred. Ms. Padmanabhan stated that she thought a good reason to vote against the third referendum was that not all students are represented in Assembly--a full eleven seats on Assembly are vacant, and several other representative have spotty attendance. Danielle Osler asked if the referendum text were clear. Mr. Friess stated that he thought the referendum text was clear but that the amendments to the by-laws (that would enshrine the outcome of the referenda) needed some clarification. Ms. Adhitya pointed out that the University's fee increase is not necessarily tied to inflation, to which Mr. Dwoskin stated that tying the GSG fee increase to the University's fee increase was the simplest thing to do, that finding the annual inflation rate of the dollar was more difficult. Mr. de Froment opined that the text ought to be shorter. Ms. Lin asked how many votes were required to pass a referendum. Mr. Dwoskin explained that 3/5 of those voting must approve, and that those must represent at least 1/3 of the graduate student body. Sara Nephew stated that this fact ought to appear in the preamble of the referendum so that people would know how much their votes mattered. Several people voiced opinions that they did not expect any of the referenda to pass.
Assembly voted on which referenda to put to the graduate student body. It was a roll call vote for public record.
| Representative | Amendment 1 | Amendment 2 | Amendment 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANT | absent | ||
| ARC | vacant | ||
| ART | vacant | ||
| AST | vacant | ||
| CEE | yes | yes | no |
| CHE | yes | yes | yes |
| CHM | yes | yes | yes |
| CLA | yes | yes | abstain |
| COM | vacant | ||
| COS | vacant | ||
| EAS | vacant | ||
| ECO | yes | yes | abstain |
| EEB | yes | no | no |
| ELE | yes | yes | abstain |
| ENG | absent | ||
| FIT | absent | ||
| GEO | yes | yes | no |
| GER | yes | yes | yes |
| HIS | abstain | abstain | yes |
| MAE | absent | ||
| MAT | yes | yes | no |
| MOL | yes | yes | yes |
| MUS | vacant | ||
| NES | vacant | ||
| ORF | vacant | ||
| PHI | vacant | ||
| PHY | yes | yes | abstain |
| POL | yes | yes | yes |
| PSY | yes | no | no |
| REL | yes | yes | no |
| SLA | yes | yes | no |
| SOC | yes | yes | yes |
| SPO | vacant | ||
| WWS | abstain | abstain | no |
| ACM | yes | yes | yes |
| AOS | absent | ||
| HOS | yes | yes | no |
| OPR | absent | ||
| PPL | abstain | yes | no |
| BGC | yes | yes | no |
| WOC | vacant |
The first two amendments were to be submitted to referendum but not the third.
The Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) advises President Tilghman on the goings-on in the University, and the Executive Committee of that body (of which Ms. Lin and Mr. Sabouret are members) set the agenda for the meetings. Among the priorities of the Executive Committee for the current academic year were to persuade Dean Russel of the Graduate School to discuss the new DCE status. Mr. Sabouret asked Assembly to email either him or Ms. Lin suggestions of what to put on the agenda for the next year.
Mr. Sabouret stated that he and Ms. Lin were interested in adding a section to the university's Rights, Rules and Responsibilities a larger description of the GSG. The USG has a large section in that document describing the body and its rights, but the GSG has approximately one sentence. Beyond enlarging the section of the GSG, Mr. Sabouret and Ms. Lin were interested in enshrining the GSG's right to elect graduate students to the CPUC. However, it appeared that this right was already delineated in that document. Assembly would have to approve of any changes to the text regarding the GSG, and as such, there would need to be a committee to draft the language for the changes. Mr. Raburn volunteered to help draft the changes.
This report was postponed.
This report was postponed.
This report was postponed.
This report was postponed.