Minutes of the GSG Meeting, 12 June 2002

SUMMARY OF THE MINUTES

1. Call to order
2. Approval of previous minutes
   • Revised February minutes
   • May minutes
3. Officer Reports
   • Social chair's report
   • Chair's report
   • Treasurer's report
4. Old Business
   • Parking/Transportation Committee report
   • Housing Committee report
5. New Business
   • Details on Paychecks
   • Summer and Fall social events planning
   • New Graduate Student Committee in SEAS
6. Scheduling of next meeting -- July 10, 6pm, 309 Frist
7. Adjournment

MINUTES OF THE GSG MEETING, 12 June 2002

Attendance

Representatives Present: AOS Anita Adhitya, CEE Sinéad MacNamara, CHE Eric Adelizzi, CLA Meredith Safran, EAS Brigitta Lee, ELE Bill Jordan, MAE Brendan McAndrew, MAT Lior Silberman, MOL Jessica Bessler, ORFE Mike Ludkovsky, SOC Donnell Butler

Delegates Present: BGC Ade Artis, GCHC Lior Silberman, Lawrence Radhika Wijetunge

Councillors Present: CPUC Donnell Butler (SOC); CPUC Lior Silberman (MAT); CPUC, PriCom Jim Vere (ECO);

Others Present: Lisa Sherov, GC RLC

Officers Absent: Social Chair Kerry Bystrom

Representatives Absent: ANT Riaz Tejani, COM Seth Abelson, COS Robert Osada, ECO Tanjim Hossain, EEB Sarah Smith, ENG Kerry Bystrom, FRE Juliet O'Brien, HIS Joseph November, HOS Ishita Pande, MUS Emily Snow, NES David Brenner, OPR Patrick Gerland, POL Jason Casellas, PPL Ethan Schartman, PSY Cara Talaska, REL Josh Dubler, WWS Tony Fiori

Delegates Absent: Women's Centre Heather White, Butler Huiyan Yang, Hibben-Magie Nate Gleason, Millstone Matt Moore, Off-Campus Upma Sharma, ACSS Haizhou Yin

The following representative seats were vacant: ARC, ART, AST, CHM, GEO, GER, PHI, SLA, SPA

The following delegate seats were vacant: CIGS

1. CALL TO ORDER

   • The meeting was called to order at 6pm by Scott Miller, Chair.

2. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

   • Eric Adelizzi stated that the February minutes had been emailed out 20 minutes earlier! Ratification of the February minutes was postponed until the July meeting.
   • Meredith Safran made a motion to approve the May minutes and was seconded by Sinead MacNamara. The motion passed with no opposition.

3. OFFICER REPORTS

   3.1 Social Chair's Report -- Scott Miller, for Kerry Bystrom

   • Mr. Miller reported that the Furniture Drive had been successful. $1700 had been raised for charity.
   • Mr. Miller also reported that 1 of the 2 dollies used for the event had disappeared and that they were looking for it with Public Safety. If it can't be found, some of the $1700 raised will have to go towards replacing the dolly, which had been rented.

   3.2 Chair's Report -- Scott Miller

   • Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that there had been two Executive Committee meetings in the past month. These had been largely organisational.
   • The Assembly was informed that there had also been a meeting between the Officers and the housing representatives of Butler, the Graduate College, and Lawrence. In this meeting, the following was achieved:
     • Review of the major maintenance requests each housing group had proposed, most of which had been denied.
     • Sharing of information
     • Committments from each group to work with the GSG. This includes working with the GSG on various relevant committees, for example the OIT committee for wiring Hibben-Magie and Lawrence and the Parking & Transportation Committee.
     • The GSG and housing representatives planned to meet on a regular basis.
   • Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that he serves on the governing board of the APGA. He had attended a meeting at which Dean Wilson outlined how alumni relations are to be conducted in the future:
     • The core of alumni relations is to be moved to the Graduate School. Currently, the Graduate School has a single office of Graduate Alumni Affairs and Development, headed by MaryMargaret Halsey, who reports directly to the Dean of the Graduate School. One staff member works for her. It is now planned to separate Graduate Alumni Affairs from Graduate Alumni Development.
     • The responsibility for fundraising from undergraduate alumni currently rests with the Development Office. The responsibility for fundraising from graduate alumni currently rests with the APGA, a volunteer group of graduate alumni. A new employee will be hired in the Development Office to handle graduate alumni fundraising. This is seen as a positive step, as it is an acknowledgement by the University that graduate alumni should be treated like undergraduate alumni rather than as a separate group. For the purposes of Annual Giving, graduate alumni will be treated equivalently to an undergraduate class. The Alumni Council and other affiliated committees will be restructured to give graduate alumni proportional representation (about one-third).
   • Mr. Miller reported that there were mixed feelings about the above changes. Some felt this was a positive step that would allow the APGA to focus on other things. Others felt that it was a bad move as it takes the programme away from the APGA and may result in the APGA having less power.
   • Mr. Adelizzi stated that he had spoken today with MaryMargaret Halsey, of the Graduate School. Mr. Adelizzi had suggested that, from the University perspective, it makes more sense for fundraising to be done through the already existing structures rather than through a volunteer board of graduate alumni. That is, looking at the way undergraduate fundraising is done, the university already has a structure in place to handle alumni development.

   3.3 Treasurer's Report -- Donnell Butler

   • Mr. Butler stated that he had received a fundraising request from the Graduate College House Committee (GCHC) for their annual summer pizza party. The request was for $700.
   • Lior Silberman, who is also on the GCHC, noted that the date of the party was uncertain but that it would be either 10 or 17 July.
   • Mr. Butler noted that the request was usually for $650, and questioned the increase in the amount requested. He also queried the number of expected attendees. Mr. Silberman estimated attendance to be 350-400 people. Mr. Adelizzi noted that when 110 pizzas are purchased, all of them are eaten. Mr. Silberman estimated the cost of pizzas to be approximately $650. There would also be associated costs of running the pizza party such as drinks and renting garbage cans. Mr. Silberman said that they were asking for more but might not use all the money. Mr. Adelizzi also noted that the price of pizza had increased, and Mr. Silberman added that they were purchasing pizza from Papa Johns and not Domino's.
   • Bill Jordan made a motion to approve the funding request and was seconded by Ms. MacNamara. The fundraising request was approved with no opposition.
   • Mr. Adelizzi informed the Assembly that there would be three pizza parties. They would be funded by the Graduate College, the Graduate School and the GSG. They would be publicised as being funded by all three organisations. The pizza parties were open to all.
   • Mr. Silberman raised a reminder of the "3 month policy" implemented in April, noting that the three month cut-off for past funding requests would occur in July.

4. OLD BUSINESS

   4.1 Parking and Transportation Committee Report

   • Mr. Adelizzi informed the Assembly that the Parking and Transportation Committee was continuing to meet with Pam Hersh and others (Public Saftey, NJ Transit, etc.). The goal was to develop a town/gown shuttle that provided reliable daytime service and to help the community, especially senior citizens.
   • Mr. Adelizzi noted that the township and burrough currently have an expensive way of shuttling people: taxis.
   • An 'on demand' shuttle system was raised as a possible option. This works in Sweden, but has never been used in this country. One phones for service when it is required and a bus it sent to the caller. Mr. Miller suggested that this was like a cab. Mr. Adelizzi commented that it was a very efficient cab!
   • Mr. Adelizzi thought that the above-mentioned meetings were not addressing the core need of shuttling people from residences to campus; he did not think much progress had been made. Mr. Adelizzi announced that another meeting had been tentatively scheduled for 20 July. He informed the Assembly that there would be internal discussions so that the university would be 'on the same page'. Pam Hersh though that an internal meeting should be postponed until after the meeting with all parties.
   • Ms. MacNamara asked how serious the university was about having an 'on call' service. She mentioned that she had previously worked on a public transportation project. Mr. Adelizzi was pleased to announce that Ms. MacNamara had volunteered to join the Parking and Transportation Committee.
   • Ms. MacNamara noted that there are very few public transportation systems that make a profit. She suggested that if the service is to be good, then one should not think about making money. Mr. Adelizzi stated that NJ Transit often points out at the meetings that the university/town will have to pay for their shuttle service.
   • Mr. Vere asked about the cost of the shuttle. Mr. Adelizzi said that there was no clear idea of what the cost of the entire system would be.
   • Ms. Safran noted that the university was at least serious enough about the project to keep sending representatives, for example Charles Nouvel and Pam Hersh, to the meetings. Mr. Adelizzi noted the same of the township and borough, who are interested enough to send their mayors.
   • Mr. Jordan proposed a monorail and was informed by Ms. Safran that Vice President Wright would prefer this but did not think that the township would approve it!

   4.2 Housing Committee Report

   • Ms. Safran informed the Assembly that the Executive Committee had met with Director of Physical Planning John Hlafter and Director of Community and State Affairs Pam Hersh to discuss housing. The topics discussed were:
     • new Lawrence apartments construction,
     • plans for moving Springdale Golf Clubhouse, and
     • an outline for future construction
   • Ms. Safran informed the Assembly that the university had filed the application for the new Lawrence construction in the first week of April. The township has 45 days to review the application. If, after 45 days, the township does not reply, then the application is deemed complete by default and proceeds to the next step.
   • Ms. Safran reported that the application for the new Lawrence construction had been deemed incomplete. One of the reasons given by the township for the rejection of the application was that the plans were considered unclear. Mr. Miller noted that the plans had been drawn by the town, and Mr. Adelizzi noted that the plans contained a very detailed list of all the trees on the site. These details included, for example, the size of each tree. Aderemis Artis pointed out that not all trees would have been listed, as only trees that exceed a certain size are counted.
   • Ms. Safran informed the Assembly that approval of the plans was a two-step process. First, the plans had to be approved by the Site Plan Review Advisory Board (SPRAB). SPRAB is a subcommittee of the Planning Board that reviews technical details (including environmental concerns). Ms. Safran reported that John Hlafter is hoping that the plans will be approved by SPRAB by August so that they can proceed to the second step, the Planning Board review. John Hlafter is hoping that the plans will be reviewed by the Planning Board in September. If this timeline is met, then it may be possible to start construction by the end of October and have new apartments ready by September 2003.
   • Ms. Safran noted that it was unclear as to whether or not the construction would proceed on time and Mr. Silberman added that, with the above time restrictions in mind, there was not much room for error if ground was to be broken by October.
   • Mr. Miller reported that, in his meeting with Tom Miller, Director of Housing, he had learnt that Housing's plans all relied on Lawrence being completed on time. Mr. Miller noted that there appeared to be no contingency plan.
   • In response to a question from Brendan McAndrew, Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that all of the existing Lawrence apartments would be open during the construction; no units will be 'taken out'.
   • In response to another question, Ms. Safran stated that, at the GSG level, Parking and Transportation and Housing were indeed talking to each other as they were both GSG committees. Within the university, there was no office devoted to transportation since there is none!
   • Mr. McAndrew noted that the longer housing is delayed, the worse the parking problem becomes.
   • Mr. Jordan mentioned a rumour that there was to be a parking garage built by the stadium? Mr. Silberman stated that the university had tried for many years. However, they could not get it approved and this is why the parking garage is where it is. Ms. Safran said the trustees of the eating clubs did not want it at the proposed site because it was too close to the clubs. Mr. Silberman noted that the eating clubs were quite powerful.
   • The second item discussed in the meeting with Jon Hlafter and Pam Hersh was the Golf Clubhouse. Ms. Safran informed the Assembly that there was a proposal to move the Clubhouse and driving range to near Lawrence. The driving range would be immediately north of Lawrence.
   • Ms. Safran reported that, at the meeting, it had been stated that this proposal was separate from the Lawrence construction proposal. However, Ms. Safran noted that in the past it had been discussed as though the two plans were linked.
   • Ms. Safran reported that former Vice-President for Finance and Administration Dick Spies had spoken to the Clubhouse about moving and the Clubhouse was receptive to this. If it moves to the proposed site, there will be a paved road behind Lawrence instead of packed dirt. Mr. Miller added that the driving range would be outside Lawrence. He also noted that, if this was the case, there would be only a thin line of trees and a net, as opposed to woods.
   • Ms. Safran reported that it seemed that this proposal was more expensive than was anticipated and that it may not come to pass.
   • Ms. Safran suggested that a concern was that, if the proposal to move the Clubhouse goes ahead, it would restrict the growth of Lawrence in the future. However, Mr. Hlafter seemed to think that the Lawrence site will have reached its capacity given its residential zoning once the new apartments are built.
   • Ms. Safran noted that the university has a stake in the moving of the Clubhouse -- the university has reviewed possible spaces for new buildings and one possible site is the corner of College Road and Alexander Road. It seemed that the university might like to build an undergraduate residential college there; the current Clubhouse could be the Master's residence. There are two obstacles to this proposal: the university does not own all the property on the corner, and the are zoning restrictions. The time frame for this possible proposal is about 25 years.
   • Radhika Wijetunge stated that Lawrence residents had traffic concerns relating to the moving of the Clubhouse. Mr. Silberman suggested that it was unclear as to how much traffic there would be. Brendan McAndrew suggested that the traffic would be loud for a residential area.
   • Ms. Wijetunge also stated that there was no real play area in Lawrence, and that children play on the street (there is a dead end up to Karin Court). It was Karin Court that first raised the issue of traffic.
   • In response to Mr. Jordan's question, Mr. Miller stated that the university owns the land and that Springdale has a long-term lease. Mr. Miller noted that people associated with the university can join the club more easily.
   • In response to a second question by Mr. Jordan, Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that the new Lawrence apartments would be 3-5 stories high.
   • The third item discussed in the meeting with Jon Hlafter and Pam Hersh was other potential sites. Ms. Safran informed the Assembly that one possible site for future housing that had been discussed was West Windsor, across the canal. Extension of the dinky line to West Windsor and a second stop there were being considered in conjunction to this site. The housing could be apartmental in style, as opposed to a residential college such as the Graduate College. Research buildings (and anything but undergraduates) were also being considered for a West Windsor site. Ms. Safran pointed out that these ideas, however, were purely conjectural as yet.
   • Ms. Safran informed the Assembly that another site being considered was Stanworth. It may be easier for the university to build graduate student housing at this site as the neighbours were institutional, which may make it easier to build higher density housing.
   • Ms. Safran reported that other sites being considered were Butler and Broadmead.
   • Mr. Silberman noted that the sites being considered for graduate student housing were relatively far (compared, for example, to undergraduate housing) from campus. Mr. Miller reported that concentric circles, centred on the centre of campus, had been marked on the maps shown at the meeting. None of the graduate student housing fell within the first circle. Undergraduate housing, however, did.
   • Mr. Adelizzi noted that at the meeting it had been stated that undergraduates were housed on campus for the community aspect, as opposed to purely educational reasons. It was for some reason assumed that graduate students were not in such need of community.
   • Mr. Adelizzi added that it seemed that the university now realised that additional housing was needed and was looking at prospective locations, type of housing, how much housing was required etc. He contrasted this to the situation a few months ago.
   • Mr. Silberman noted that it should be the Graduate School that should be approaching the university about building graduate student housing, and not the GSG putting pressure on the university, stating: 'we can't tell Jon Hlafter to plan'. It was noted that the matter of housing should be discussed with the new Dean.

5. NEW BUSINESS

   5.1 Details on Paychecks

   • Mr. Jordan stated that he intended to talk to the relevant university office -- most likely Payroll or Student Accounts -- to request that details of deductions be clearly itemised on the student paychecks from which they were taken, instead of being quoted as an unelightening lump sum.
   • Anita Adhitya asked if students were not already given the details of deductions from their pay. It was later clarified that details were given on a separate statement [but were not very clear] and that the payslip contained no such details.
   • Some discussion arose as to whether this would be possible, for example whether Payroll had the relevant information. Mr. Butler stated that it should be possible for them to do this: he noted that when students call them, they are able to talk students through the details. Thus, they must have them!
   • Jessica Bessler suggested that it would require too much paper. Mr. Miller suggested that the details of student accounts could be made available online.
   • Mr. Adelizzi noted that people sending out paychecks are not given deductions, only the lumpsum figure. Mr. Adelizzi also noted that sometimes adjustments were made to accounts to correct errors, and that these were a source of confusion.
   • Mr. Silberman stated that details should come with each paycheck, and Mr. Jordan added that he would like the details to be clearer and more comprehensible.

   5.2 Summer and Fall Social Events Planning

   • Mr. Miller suggested the budget surplus be used to host an event in summer. He proposed a barbeque in early July, perhaps before the 4th July or sometime after, and asked for feedback. Mr. Miller also stated that the annual First Chance Dance would be held in about September. A discussion of summer ideas ensued...
   • Mr. Jordan asked if there would be free food. Mr. McAndrew suggested that something other than just food should be offered as, for example, there would already be 3 pizza parties. Mss. Safran and Lee suggested that a band might be possible.
   • Ms. Safran suggested that it would be possible to obtain co-sponsorship from, for example, Frist, the Graduate School and Vice President for Campus Life Janet Dickerson.
   • Ms. Bessler suggested a more centralised location than the Graduate College, proposing Poe Field as a possible site. Mr. Miller suggested the main part of campus would also make a good venue, proposing Frist or the area near Whig Hall.
   • Mr. Silberman suggested that co-sponsorship from Frist might be possible if the event were to be held outside Frist. Mr. Miller noted that Frist will be holding summer events, and that the GSG event might seem like a Frist event.
   • Mr. Silberman noted that in a past event, the music had been so loud that people could not talk. He suggested that it would not be good to have loud music.
   • Mr. Jordan suggested that one of the ensembles Adrian Banner performed in might like to perform. The Klez Dispensers, for example, would be quite appropriate.
   • A discussion of possible dates followed. Mr. Silberman suggested around July 10 or 17, depending on when the pizza party was (not) scheduled, or around mid August; Ms. Safran suggested that first week of July; and Mr. Butler suggested that week of 22 July. It was noted by Mr. Miller that an early July event would only allow 3 weeks to plan and prepare the event. Lisa Sherov noted that it would be easier to get a band for a later date. Mr. Miller suggested that the event be held on a Monday or Tuesday. A date was not fixed.
   • The issue of cost and funding arose. Mr. Butler stated that the Salsa had cost more than $5000, of which the cost to the GSG was about $2000. Mr. Adelizzi suggested approximately $1000 from the GSG for the summer event and the rest from co-sponsorship. Mr. Silberman suggested that more would be needed for it to work. An amount to spend on the summer event was not fixed.
   • Mr. Miller noted that attendance was approximately 400 at the pizza parties held at the Graduate College, and estimated it to be higher for a main campus event with offerings other than pizza.
   • Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that he had had an offer from the School of Engineering for co-sponsorship of events in the E-Quad. He noted that the intention of this was to make the E-Quad more 'central' a part of campus.

   5.3 New Graduate Student Committee in SEAS

   • Mr. Miller asked if there was any other new business. Mr. Adelizzi stated that a new Graduate Engineering Council had been formed in the School of Engineering and Applied Science and suggested that Mr. McAndrew might have further information. Mr. McAndrew stated that elections had been completed for departmental representatives to the GEC, an organization dedicated to bringing the six engineering departments together on matters of common interest.
   • Mr. Vere asked if the GSC was a social or political institution. Mr. McAndrew suggested that it would be more political and would deal with issues such as parking, post-enrollment, career services and office space. Ms. MacNamara added that it would also have input into the new wing that was to be built. She also noted that engineering students constituted a large percentage of the university and that they had specific concerns. Mr. McAndrew added that there were differences in the expectations of Directors of Graduate Studies (DGS) and that students were unclear as to what their DGS could do for them. Ms. MacNamara said that it was hoped that students could be surveyed.

6. SCHEDULING OF NEXT MEETING
   • The next meeting of the GSG was scheduled for either Wednesday 10 or 17 July 2002, 6pm, in Frist 309. The uncertainty of the date was due to the uncertainty of when the GC Pizza Party would be. [The next meeting will be Wednesday 10 July].

7. ADJOURNMENT
   • The meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm.
   
   
   Respectfully submitted,

   Anita Adhitya
   Recording Secretary