•Representatives present• Juan Norgues, CEE • Swaroop Chatterjee, CHE • Sophia Kwon, proxy for Adam Dunn, CHM • Jake Mackey, CLA • Christian Bienia, proxy for Chris DeCoro, COS • Kristen Harkness, proxy for Xiaoling Ang, ECO • Anita Adhitya, GEO • Dan Bouk, proxy for Lindy Baldwin, HOS • Robert Harron, MAT • Marina Paul, proxy for Shin-Yi Lin, MOL • Brookes Brown, POL • Daniel Raburn, PPL • Julia Belopolsky, proxy for Cori Anderson, SLA •
•Delegates present• Dante Ricci, BUT ••Councilors present• Parliamentary Secretary Dan Raburn, • Treasurer Alex Ntelekos • Guillaume Sabouret, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Jeff Dwoskin, Facilities •
•Others present• Dean Lisa Schreyer, Graduate School • Agata Becalska, GSG Facilities Committee/Housing Sub-committee representative Eugene Brevdo, The Game
•Representatives absent• Katherine Bold, ACM • Ricky Martin, ANT • Neven Fuckar, AOS • Marion Riggs, ART • Clara Tuan, EAS • Adrian De Froment, EEB • Ilias Tagkopoulos, ELE • Megan Ewing, GER • Jesse Salazar, HIS • Samir Soneji, OPR • Steve Hassani, PHY • Susan Robison, PSY • Harvey Stark, REL • Kenneth Jamison, SOC • Frankki Bevins, WWS •
•Delegates absent• Tian Xia, ACSS • Weining Man, CIGS • Bernice Rosenzweig, BGC • Neven Fuckar, GCO • Marcelline Block, HIB • Jennifer Jordan, LAW • Steve Hassani, MIL •
•Councilors absent• Chair Shin-Yi Lin, CPUC, CPUC Executive Committee • Kellam Conover, CPUC • Leslie Hinkson, CPUC • Luke MacDonald, CPUC • Medini Pedmanabhan, CPUC • Karin Sigloch, CPUC, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee, Health and Life • Sara Nephew, CPUC Governance Committee • Diana Hill, CPUC Judicial Committee • Fatema Gunja, CPUC, CPUC Priorities Committee • Ian Parrish, CPUC, CPUC Priorities Committee • Josh Friess, CPUC Resources Committee • James Bickford, CPUC Rights and Rules Committee • Canturk Isci, Academic Affairs • Steve Hassani, Academic Affairs •
•Representative seats vacant• ARC• AST• COM• ENG• FIT• MAE• MUS• NES• ORF• PHI• SPO•
•Delegate seats vacant• Women's Center • Off-Campus Representative •
The meeting commenced at 6:02 pm.
Dan Raburn announced that the new Civil and Environmental Engineering representative was Juan Norgues. He thanked the former representative, Alex Ntelekos, for his service.
Mr. Raburn announced that we would postponed approval of the May minutes until the July meeting.
There were two funding requests -- one for the Game and one for a summer event at the Graduate College. Jeff Dwoskin recommended that we fund the Game at $500 and the GC summer event at $700.
Eugene Brevdo described the game as the annual scavenger hunt held in September. It is expected that approximately 160 people will be playing. Brookes Brown asked if there was a reason for why the Game was requesting more money this year. Mr. Brevdo replied that last year the total amount had been used up, so they were allowing for a buffer this year.
Kristen Harkness informed Assembly that the Graduate College House Committee usually hosts three events in the summer, usually pizza parties that are food/dinner-oriented. She said that there were also hopes that, since the D-Bar is closed over the summer, to hold more extended events that include dinner-type and party-type. The first event is planned for 30 June. It will be catered by Hunan at a cost of approximately $3/person, for an estimated 300 people, therefore the cost would be $900. She informed Assembly that this would take most of their budget, which is $700 from their own budget and $300 from the Graduate School. They would also like to hold a party portion that extends from 10pm - midnight. Associated costs would include procters and staff. She stated that the more funding they could attain, the better the event would be. Mr. Dwoskin noted if the recommended amount of funding was given now, they might receive less funding for future events.
Funding of The Game was approved for $500. Funding for the GC summer party was approved for $700.
Brookes Brown brought up the issue of city ordinances regarding bicycles, mentioning a rule about bicycle-riding on sidewalks. She expressed concerned that there was no other safe place to ride, especially around busy streets.
Mr. Raburn informed Assembly that over $2000 had been raised for charities, in addition to their pick-ups of mini-fridges. The Furniture Drive involves undergraduates leaving their furniture at the furniture drive as they move out. Charities are asked to take what furniture they want. Graduate students can purchase the remaining items. One issue that arose was what was the main focus of the furniture drive. A number of charities came early on the first day and waited until furniture arrived. Because of this, graduate students who were present were unable to purchase particular items, even though they were there at the same time as the charities. Mr. Raburn asked whether priority should be given to graduate students or charities. Julia Belopsky noted that this was also a problem with the bikes. Mr. Dwoskin noted that fridge priority to charities was helpful to them. Alex Ntelekos noted that it was frustrating when the charities were aggressive about which items they wanted. Mr. Ntelekos said that charity personnel had also told him to carry the furniture to their trucks. Ms. Brown asked if there might be a way in the future to help people move things, as undergraduates were leaving furniture out and not taking it to the drive. Perhaps something could be arranged with volunteers or Buildling Services? There was a general consensus that graduate students should have priority over charities.
Housing
Mr. Dwoskin said that there had been issues with housing and shuttles in the past few weeks. Agata Becalksa, a Housing Policy member, reported that we were in the middle of the housing process, with draw assignments currently occurring. She informed Assembly that leases end on June 30 and students can remain in their current housing until their new apartments become available, if they submit an extension form with Housing. This was unclear, and some students were concerned about a housing gap between end of lease and new apartment move-in date. Ms. Becalska also noted that assignments still had not been sent out to many students, which was a problem in making summer plans. She informed Assembly that the deadline for signing retention contracts passed prior to receipt of the contracts. She cited several problematic cases, including receipt of contracts for the incorrect unit type. She suggested that there had been more issues this year, specifially with people not being on the draw list or receiving the incorrect type of housing unit. She also noted that, regarding moving dates, students can be assigned their second preference if it is available but their first preference is not. Emails from Housing had apparently also confused students regarding vacating apartments. She noted that emails and phone calls were not always answered satisfactorily. Ms. Becalska also pointed out that the Housing office is understaffed. Another problem is that the system does not cater well to graduate student problems, such as graduate students being in and out of Princeton during the summer.
Dean Lisa Schreyer informed us that the planned structure is that Lisa de Paul will direct Housing, and willl oversee a Manager of Graduate Housing and a Manager of Undergraduate housing. Currently Ms. DePaul is short three staff and filling those positions with two temporary staff.
Mr. Dwoskin was concerned that undergraduate and graduate housing being grouped together might result in policies that are problematic or not applicable for graduate students.
Ms. Schreyer informed Assembly of the structure of Housing administration, with Andrew Kane being the new director of Housing as of this year.
A concern was raised about Housing understanding graduate student issues. Ms. Schreyer suggested that, since Ms. DePaul has been doing grad housing for the past year, it might not be as much of a concern as if a new person were brought in. Ms. Brown noted that, at some point, a new person would be working. Mr. Dwoskin pointed out that it would then be up to the GSG to keep administration informed of the differences. Ms. Schreyer suggested talking to Andrew Kane to raise these concerns prior to the hiring process. Mr. Dwoskin solicited housing concerns.
Chris Biena informed Assembly of his situation: he had to move out at the beginning of summer and move in at the end, and would be requiring housing over a period that a friend at the Graduate College would be away. Mr. Biena wished to sublet his friend's room at the Graduate College, which was logistically practical and would be convenient as furniture moving would be minimized. Mr. Dwoskin noted that it was different at the Graduate College as the contracts were for 10 months of the year and summer was charged separately. In contrast, the apartment leases were for 1 year and there was no provision for only renting for a short period over the summer. Mr. Biena argued that there should be logic behind the housing rules, and that subletting between graduate students should be allowed at the Graduate College.
Marina Paul informed Assembly of incidents that Molecular Biology students had faced.
Ms. Paul also brought up the issue of students who were almost finished with their Ph.D., but could not stay in university housing. Mr. Dwoskin stated that it would be desirable if renewals could be granted until the end of one's degree. This is a problem logistically, because Housing cannot assign the room for the next year. Moreover, Facilities needs 30 days to clean and prepare the rooms for the next tenant. Ms. Brown argued that Facilities didn't need 30 days in total for each apartment, but 30 days in general. Ms. Schreyer said she and several administrators had met in February to discuss this, as the Graduate School wanted to delay the date of maximum extensions so that finishing students could stay longer. Housing originally wanted an end date of July 15, but had agreed to July 22. Ms. Schreyer said one reason for this was that they did not know in advance which units would require more time for installation of new flooring, new appliances, etc. Ms. Brown suggested that an inspection would resolve this issue, as a unit requiring that much work could probably be easily identified in an inspection. Guillaume Sabouret asked how many finishing students would be in university housing, wondering if these students would already have been unsuccessful in the draw. Mr. Dwoskin stated that the number was not large. If Housing wished to fill the apartments year-round, it would be difficult to house the finishing students until, say, October. Ms. Schreyer informed Assembly that Housing had been asked by Dean Russel to keep records on how long the turnover time for preparation of each apartment was this year.
Someone asked when Housing plans to inform students about when they will be moving. Ms. Schreyer informed Assembly that she had spoken to Lisa DePaul the previous day, and reported that Ms. DePaul said she would be emailing students today. That did not seem to have occurred. Mr. Dwoskin stated that for the following year, we should attempt to mandate Housing to give students 30 days notice.
Mr. Raburn solicited other issues regarding housing. Ms. Paul asked if there were eco-friendly power options for the housing locations in which students had to pay for utilities. Mr. Dwoskin informed her that new Lawrence apartments used geothermal.
Medhini Padmanabhan asked about the mandatory June 30 move-out date. Ms. Schreyer noted that, when she contacted Housing, she had similarly received information that everybody had to move out on June 30. The problem was mis-informed staff. Ms. Schreyer mentioned that Bonnie Brown had left Housing.
Sophia Kwon asked about why the rent was different between summer and the remainder of the year; Kristen Harkness noted that there were different sized rooms, but that everyone paid the same rate over summer. Ms. Brown noted that costs would also be lower in the summer, as there was no heating.
Mr. Ntelekos raised a complaint about entry into Graduate College rooms without notice, or mis-informed notice, in non-emergency situations.
Someone asked if everybody had to submit an intent to vacate notice. Ms. Becalska replied that everybody moving out had to fill out this form.
Shuttles
Mr. Dwoskin informed Assembly that there was a new shuttle schedule for the summer. Lawrence residents were upset that the route was too long, following route changes due to construction at the Graduate College. Mr. Dwoskin informed Assembly that a stop at the Dinky station was still desirable. He also mentioned that routes that did not always stop at each residence were being considered. Mr. Dwoskin stated that there were issues with drivers using cell phones, leaving stops early, etc. He asked riders for reports with dates and details.
Since Shin-Yi Lin was not present at this meeting, this report was postponed.
Jessica Salvatore informed Assembly that she and Kuni Cherenack had been working on off-campus housing information sharing. Students would be able to rate off-campus landlords and leave feedback, in a system similar to the restaurants page on Point. Point administrators were receptive to the idea. In response to questions from Julia Belopsky, she clarified that only those with Princeton email addresses would be able to log on, and that there would be guidelines. She confirmed that it would be intended for people who had lived in off-campus housing to post. Ms. Salvatore suggested that this system would also be incentive for landlords to provide good service.
Mr. Dwoskin informed Assembly that the GSG writes up a report, the Graduate Student Life Initiative, about long-term issues and needs facing of graduate students. This report is sent to administrators to keep them informed for long-term planning purposes. He solicited input.
Mr. Raburn added that there was an upcoming letter writing campaign, which would involve writing to administrators asking that they submit requests to Priorities Committee. The letter writing campaign would be about specific requests for which funding, usually larger expenses, was desired. He informed Assembly that in the next meeting we would be discussing and selecting which requests the GSG would be writing letters about. Mr. Dwoskin noted that ideas could be discussed with administrators even if they weren't written up as letters.
Someone noted that the distinction between weekends and weekdays was less pertinent to graduate students, and suggested that amenities such as late meals would be desirable over weekends also.
Ms. Becalska supported the campus pub idea.
Ms. Paul suggested a shuttle service in the dark. She mentioned that lighting was low on the route to Lawrence. Mr. Biena noted that the intersection of College Road and Alexander Road was a dangerous intersection due to traffic. Mr. Ntelekos stated that the fork in the road by the Graduate College was also dangerous.
There was some question about how much previous requests had been funded, including AIs for graduate students.
Looking at issues from previous years, Mr. Raburn wondered if the Firestone locker-space request had been resolved. Kristen Harkness said that there were rooms in Firestone, but the key was the same for all rooms. She suggested that there was this was less secure. Ms. Harkness also noted that a reason for having the same key was that reserve books were kept in these rooms, and having the same key allowed students taking classes across different departments to access these books.
Mr. Raburn stated that, before the next meeting, requests would be taken for discussion at that next meeting. He stressed that this would be more preferable to spending meeting time on raising new ideas.
Mr. Ntelekos noted that, in the past, groups would have to go to various offices and there was no clear and unified way for graduate students to obtain money. He said that the GSG had met with Tara Kitley and Ms. Sherov. One possibility is to create a Projects Board in which a committee allocates funding that comes from various sources, say on a monthly basis. This would reduce the administrative load for student organisations seeking funding. Mr. Ntelekos mentioned that this was similar to the way in which the undergraduate groups were allocated money. Julia Belopsky wondered if this might create more separation from Assembly. Mr. Raburn clarified that this would serve the student groups, not necessarily Assembly.
Mr. Dwoskin said that we could start with guidelines about how a funding source's money could be used. He noted that it might depend on which sources were contributing and how much input they wanted in how their money was spent. Ms. Schreyer informed Assembly that the way the undergraduate system worked was that most of the funding would come from the general USG and undergraduate office sources, and specific funding sources would be used when a relevant request arose. That specific source would then be informed if their money was being allocated. Mr. Raburn suggested that GSG guidelines could be changed if it seemed that our money was not being allocated appropriately. Mr. Ntelekos clarified that the GSG would be the main source of money, and there could also be contributions from the Graduate School and other sources. But, in advertisements, the funding source would be the Project Board, not the "GSG". Ms. Schreyer suggested naming the 'board' appropriately to reflect GSG involvement. Someone raised a concern about, say, the Projects Board rejecting a request that the GSG would like to fund. Mr. Raburn noted that the student organization could still apply to the GSG.
The meeting adjourned at 7:19 pm.