GSG - Assembly - Minutes 04.12.2006

Minutes

I. Call to Order and Assembly Business

The meeting commenced at 6:10 pm.

A. Seating of New Assembly Members - Medini Padmanabhan

Ms. Padmanabhan announced that Daniel Raburn had been reelected as the Program in Plasma Physics's representative to Assembly.

B. Approval of Minutes (February, March) - Annika Peter

Ms. Peter stated the several comments had been received concerning the minutes. Assembly approved both sets of minutes with corrections.

II. Reports

A. PACA - Anita Adhitya

Ms. Adhitya made the following report:

The President's Advisory Committee on Architecture met on March 17 to discuss: 1) Neuroscience Institute and Psychology Department architect selection, and 2) Chemistry Building design update.

Graduate student input was solicited prior to the meeting, including via GSG Assembly representatives. Those who responded were concerned about: functionality versus aesthetics; and environmentally responsible design, particularly with respect to energy efficiency. Concern was expressed about functionality of the new building; some building designs on campus have not been optimal for their intended function (for example, the new science library). Consideration of functionality, not just aesthetics, was advised. Several graduate students were concerned about environmentally responsible design. In particular, there was interest in energy efficiency. Graduate students in the EEB department were amongst those who expressed support for an energy efficient building, above and beyond who would be the architect.

Neuroscience-Psychology architect selection: The Neuroscience- Psychology complex will consist of two integrated buildings located near the Carl Icahn Laboratory. Discussion included: modern design that would integrate well with the Carl Icahn Laboratory and surrounds; design as the southern 'face' of campus on Washington Road, which may include construction of another campus entrance in the vicinity; and possible connection with the Carl Icahn Laboratory, for example to allow a shared animal facility. I conveyed graduate student concerns about functionality and environmentally responsible design; however, most of the other PACA committee members seemed primarily concerned with aesthetics and a desire to have a university building by one (in particular) of the candidates. Materials from interested candidates had been received prior to the meeting. The following architects were short-listed for interview: Raphael Moneo; Behnisch and Behnisch; and Morphosis. The short-list was presented at the March 31 meeting of the Board of Trustees.

Chemistry building update: A proposed outline of the building design was presented. However, design issues are still under study and subject to change. The proposed plans included location of laboratory space on the east side of the building and offices on the west side in 'pods', to take into account the angle of the afternoon sun; consideration of trees in the transition to outdoor space; and communal student space.

Ms. Lin started the discussion by asking if Ms. Adhitya would be involved in the selection of architects. Ms. Adhitya responded that she did not know. Someone asked if the psychology department was moving. Ms. Adhitya stated that the department will move out of Green Hall to a building next to the new neuroscience building. She stated she would notify Assembly of hiring decisions and moving dates. Mr. Dwoskin asked if there had been any discussion of a new building for the ORFE department. Ms. Adhitya said she would find out.

Ms. Adhitya commented that many members of the advisory committee seemed primarily concerned with aesthetics, which influenced the designs of the architects. However, if the university made environmental sustainability a main focus, then the various candidate architects would incorporate it into design. Mr. Hassani asked what was meant by environmental sustainabilty aside from energy conservation. Ms. Adhitya stated that choice of building materials and site were also environmental factors.

III. Decision Items

A. Exec By-Elections - Medini Padmanabhan

Due to the numerous vacancies in the Executive Committee, a by-election was held. Ms. Padmanabhan stated that only graduate students could run for Executive Committee, and all representatives and proxies were eligible to vote. Two vote counters, Guillaume Sabouret and Karin Sigloch, were appointed. Candidates would be allowed to view the vote count. Daniel Raburn, a third-year in the Program in Plasma Physics and the GC Coffee House Manager, nominated himself for Parliamentary Secretary. Chris de Coro, a third-year student in the Computer Science Department and GC Social Chair, nominated himself for Corresponding Secretary. Gautam Gururaj, a first-year student in Financial Engineering, nominated himself for Press Secretary. All were approved by Assembly.

B. Funding Requests - Alex Ntelekos/Jeff Dwoskin

There were two regular funding requests and one special request for the Social Sciences Mixer. The first was for Butler's Cinco de Mayo celebration. Mr. Friess explained that this event was held every year, and that it was very popular. The Butler Committee was requesting $400, which was higher than in previous years, because the budget for food in past years was insufficient to feed the number of people that attended the event. Assembly voted to fund the Cinco de Mayo event for $400.

The second request came from the Princeton Pro-Choice Vox to run a viewing of a documentary called The Abortion Diaries. There was some discussion as to whether this event was political in nature, and whether the discussion following the documentary would represent a variety of views. Mr. Dwoskin commented that the Constitution prohibited funding for political events, but that the Executive Committee was responsible for determining whether or not an event was political. Mr. Friess stated that he thought there was a difference between funding a political party and funding an event that might discuss a politically sensitive topic. He was concerned, though, that the organizers of the event were requesting their full budget from the GSG, and thought it might mark the event as an explicitly GSG event. Several people asked whether funding could be determined after the event, so that if the event turned out to be political, the GSG would not be seen as endorsing it. However, others argued that this would be impractical and reeking of censorship. Assembly in the end voted to approve $200 in funds for this event.

Mr. Dwoskin recommended funding the Social Sciences Mixer (a mixer run in collaboration with the APGA and the Graduate School to inform graduate students about non-academic career options) out of the "Other Events" budget instead of the co-sponsorship budget since this was a GSG-initiated event. Assembly voted to approve $400 for the Mixer from the "Other Events" budget line.

c. CPUC Elections - Medini Padmanabhan

The Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) is the university's highest-level committee assembled from representatives of the various ranks at Princeton, and whose purpose it is to consider university policy and the standards of behavior for those within the University community. Every April, the Graduate Student Government elects graduate representatives to the General Assembly of the CPUC and to the various subcommittees of that body.

Descriptions of the subcommittees and duties of its members are detailed below, along with the candidate statements and results of the elections. There was somewhat of a discussion as to how to run the elections because no procedure was proscribed in the GSG Constitution. Ms. Padmanabhan decided that each voting representative to the GSG Assembly would have one vote per position available, and that candidates with the most votes would win.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Seven graduate students representatives are sent to the General Assembly, which meets six times per academic year. The GSG Chair and Parliamentary Secretary are ex-officio representatives, which meant that five additional members needed to be elected by the GSG Assembly. There needed to be at least one representative from each division in the graduate school: humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and engineering. The following graduate students were nominated for General Assembly:

Kellam Conover: Mr. Conover stated that he had been involved in several university taskforces and was interested in being involved in this committee.
Jeff Dwoskin: no statement.
Andrea Gottlich: no statement.
Aaron Levine: no statement.
Ben McKean: Mr. McKean stated that he had been involved in the university, and had been on the university's LBGT taskforce.
Jesse Salazar: Mr. Salazar was interested in getting involved and had been on a similar committee at the University of Pennsylvania. He also commented that he had founded the first Latino student organization at Princeton, and was generally concerned about diversity on campus.
Karin Sigloch: Ms. Sigloch had been on the Rights, Rules and Responsibilities subcommittee the past year. She stated that the General Assembly meetings were important because graduate students could have good informal discussions with various administrators.

Assembly elected Mr. Conover, Mr. Dwoskin, Mr. McKean, Mr. Salazar, and Ms. Sigloch to the CPUC General Assembly.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

The Governance Committee's purpose is to decide who should be awarded honorary degrees from Princeton. One graduate student representative would be elected to this committee. The candidates were:

Aaron Levine: Mr. Levine was a third-year graduate student in the Woodrow Wilson School.
Joy Sinderbrand: Ms. Sinderbrand was a first-year master's student in the Woodrow Wilson School. She had experience recruiting, and in nominating people for honors in the non-profit sector. Mr. Hassani asked what her criteria were in deciding honors. Ms. Sinderbrand responded that she would be guided by her work for non-profits.

Ms. Sinderbrand was elected by Assembly.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

This committee considers cases of honor code violation. The candidate was:

Sharon Bzostek: Ms. Bzostek stated that her undergraduate institution, Rice University, had an honor code similar to Princeton's.

Ms. Bzostek was approved by Assembly.

PRIORITIES COMMITTEE (PRICOMM)

The Priorities Committee advises the President on the annual operating budget of the university. This is the most time-intensive committee, involving several meetings per week between October and January of the academic year. In the past, graduate student representatives on the committee had successfully lobbied on behalf of graduate students. The candidates were:

Chris Bienna: Mr. Bienna was a third-year graduate student in Computer Science who was concerned with the status of graduate students and their priorities. Ms. Lin asked what his criteria would be in assessing budget requests, and asked what his time committments were. Mr. Bienna answered that he thought graduate students did not have high priority within the university, and sought equality between undergraduates and graduate students. He stated that he was not taking any courses in the fall, and generally had a flexible schedule. Ms. Adhitya asked what the main issues were for the university. Mr. Bienna stated that he was heartened by the pub initiative for Chancellor Green, and thought that healthcare was important to all members of the university.
Jeff Dwoskin: Mr. Dwoskin was a fourth-year graduate student in Electrical Engineering, sat on the Butler Committee, was the outgoing GSG Treasurer, and was the Chair of the GSG Facilities Committee. He stated that he had worked with a lot of administrators, and had experience in budgets (he also owned his own business). He stated that he would weigh each budget proposal on how it would affect graduate students. Noting that the budget had been tight the past year, he stated that he would try to balance the various proposals and consider where the money would have the greatest impact. He stated that he had flexible time commitments. He thought the university was discussing childcare on campus, campus safety, and the cost of energy.
Andrea Gottlich: Ms. Gottlich was a first-year student in the Woodrow Wilson School, and was not present to make a statement or consider questions from the Assembly.
Adam Keith: Mr. Keith was a first-year master's student in the Woodrow Wilson School, and had a lot of experience in the non-profit sector. He stated that, if elected, he would weigh the budget proposals not just as how the proposals would affect graduate students, but on how the proposals would affect the university as a whole. He anticipated a normal course load for the fall. He stated that the university was moving in the right direction with the pub initiative.

After two rounds of voting, Mr. Dwoskin and Mr. Bienna were elected.

RESOURCES COMMITTEE

The Resources Committee was to consider investment policies for the university. The candidates were:

Josh Friess: Mr. Friess was the current graduate representative to the Resources Committee. He was a fourth-year student in Physics, and also had strong interests in ethical investment. He stated that in the past year, the Committee had been considering investment policy with respect to the conflict in Sudan. The Committee was also seeking forums to gauge the university community's interest and opinions on investment.
Ben McKean: Mr. McKean was a second-year student in Politics. He stated that he had been involved in formulating responsible business practices at Harvard, and had experience in communicating and working with corporate executives and university administrators (including Harvard's recently departed president). He was interested in involving the university community in discussions on investment.

Mr. Sabouret asked about forums for discussing investment policy. Mr. McKean stated that at Harvard, there was a committee consisting of undergraduates and graduate students who advised the Harvard Corporation on proxy voting for stocks, and stated that most universities participate in proxy voting. Mr. Friess stated that the discussion on proxy voting had started the year before, but that the undergraduates who were leading the discussion were graduating. Mr. Friess thought that proxy voting was a less effective method to change the practices of companies than in engaging in direct dialog.

Mr. Friess was re-elected to the Resources Committee.

RIGHTS, RULES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

This committee is responsible for amending the Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities document defining standards of behavior for members of the university community. Two graduate students were to be elected to the committee. The candidates were:

Aaron Levine: Mr. Levine's statement was the same as his previous ones.
Karin Sigloch: Ms. Sigloch was currently on the committee.

Both Mr. Levine and Ms. Sigloch were elected.

D. GSG Exec Election Guidelines - Shin-Yi Lin

Ms. Lin asked Mr. Raburn to continue his inquiry into acceptable Executive Committee endorsements and actions during elections and referenda.

IV. New Business

Ms. Sigloch stated that the Rights, Rules and Responsibilities Committee was considering changes to the Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities document, and Ms. Sigloch wanted graduate student input on the matter. She stated that the document contains a section on respect for others within the university community. It lists several people groups that ought to be respected, and the university was considering adding gender identity and expression as things that should be respected in the university community. While the list was not supposed to be comprehensive, many thought that it was important to include gender identity and expression because it was under attack, and that it tied into programming at the LBGT Center. Mr. Salazar stated that it was important to add gender identity and expression because it would give students facing harassment a firm policy to point to in their defense. Mr. Harron asked how it was decided who to include in the list of those who should be respected. Ms. Ang asked if gender identity and expression were defined in this statement. Ms. Sigloch stated that a memo would be sent to everyone in the university community to define these concepts. Mr. Raburn asked if there was a comprehensive list somewhere in the university of employment policy. Ms. Sigloch stated that such list existed in the employment and admissions offices at the university.

V. Department Reports

A. Religion

Postponed.

B. Butler Apartments - Jeff Dwoskin

See the Chair's Report.

VI. Officer Reports

Chair/4-Year Residential College - Shin-Yi Lin

Due to time constraints during the meeting, Ms. Lin opted to send out the Chair's and Social Chair's Report after the meeting.

Social Chair/Furniture Drive - Megan Sullivan