MINUTES
Graduate & Professional Student Assembly Council of Representatives
December 6th, 1999
Big Red Barn Graduate & Professional Student Center Greenhouse
5:00 P.M.

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Pat Carr, Vice President of the 1999–2000 GPSA, at 5:05 p.m.

II. Open Forum

A member inquired about the status of a recent e-mail sent to gpsa-l by Kevin Sherper-Walker, CRP. In this e-mail, K.Sherper-Walker had brought up two cases where it was alleged that credit was not appropriately given for work performed by graduate students.

Stefan Hames, President, replied that this issue was discussed at the November GPSA meeting. He explained there is a grievance procedure that graduate students can use when they think they are being treated unfairly. A student can either file a complaint through the Graduate School or the Dean of Faculty’s office. S.Hames noted that because a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the student bears the burden of proof. Another factor that makes this type of complaint difficult is that the faculty member is often considered a known quantity while the graduate student is not. S.Hames noted that Dean Cohen appeared to be genuinely upset when these cases were brought to his attention.

Phil McPheron, Dean of Graduate and Professional Student Housing, informed members that he is currently trying to recruit Graduate Community Assistants (GCAs) to work at the various housing facilities. He distributed flyers to members that provided more information and requested that members spread information about this opportunity to their constituents.

S.Hames offered to send the information by e-mail to gpsa-l so members could pass it on to the GSA listservs.

P.McPheron agreed to get an electronic format of the information to S.Hames for this purpose.

Bonnie Bailey, Office of the Assemblies, reminded members about an e-mail she had sent to gpsa-l about the next meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee on December 13. Interested community members are invited to attend that meeting. She asked that people RSVP for the meeting so its organizers can ensure they are prepared for the numbers.

Peter Kaskan, Psychology, informed members that the UA passed the Campus Climate Statement on Diversity and Inclusion by a vote of 10–5.

III. Announcements and Reports

A) GPSA

S.Hames announced that the GPSA approved the Graduate and Professional Student Activity Fee at the levels recommended by the Funding Policy Committee at the November GPSA meeting. He reported that he also asked GPSA members to consider volunteering for the position of GPSA Secretary at that meeting.

B) Meeting with Dean Cohen

P.Carr informed members that he and S.Hames met with Dean Cohen this past week. One of the issues discussed was health insurance. P.Carr explained they were told that Gannett had evidently performed an audit and discovered that approximately fifty to seventy-five percent of all students who waive health insurance are either uninsured or underinsured. Therefore, the University is considering making the Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP) mandatory.

S.Hames reminded members that Dean Cohen is still hoping to initiate the proposed plan of including health insurance along with assistantship packages. An official plan has not yet been prepared, but hopefully one will be ready for review by the GPSA during the Spring semester.

Jean Ahn, Human Service Studies, stated that she believes the number of students uninsured or underinsured is closer forty to fifty percent rather than the fifty to seventy-five cited at this meeting. She said she will receive the final numbers at the next Student Insurance Advisory Committee (SHIC) meeting and report back to the COR. She stated that she also raised the issue of preventive health care with the SHIC. It was explained that the problem lies with limited funds and that choices regarding what to cover is directly associated with the amount of money allocated. Following this reasoning, more would be able to be covered under the health plan as more money is allocated to pay for the increased benefits. She suggested that a survey be performed to determine what areas of health care coverage graduate/professional students would most like to have. This survey could help in determining if there really is a widespread feeling that certain parts of the coverage are not as necessary as others and could demonstrate if students are willing to forego certain areas of coverage in order to get coverage in others areas, such as preventative care.

P.Carr suggested the GPSA request that a decision to require mandatory SHIP be delayed until it is determined if the proposed plan to include health insurance in assistantship packages does get implemented. He felt that if the assistantship package becomes reality that the GPSA might then request that the audit be performed again to see how the numbers of uninsured or underinsured may have changed. P.Carr requested that J.Ahn make this request at the next SHIC meeting.

Members asked who would be eligible under the Graduate School plan?

S.Hames replied that TA’s, RA’s, and those with fellowships would be covered. Unfortunately, professional students would not be included in this plan.

P.Carr added that this amounts to approximately sixty to seventy percent of all graduate students being eligible.

IV. Business of the Day

A) TA/RA Report

S.Hames explained to members that the graduate school formed a committee to examine TA/RA working conditions throughout the University. This committee was charged with drafting guidelines for recommended minimum standards that would apply to TA/RA employment. He announced that the committee recommendations were approved and are now part of the official Cornell policy. Basically, the report specifies providing terms of employment up-front so there are fewer chances for misunderstanding. It states that an appointment letter should be sent at the beginning of the semester informing the student of the details of the position. This letter should include the expected number of hours per week students should work and the pay that should be received, among other things. S.Hames stressed that these guidelines are now policy. The Academic Deans will meet with the Directors of Graduate Studies to discuss this new policy and it will be incorporated into the Director of Graduate Studies handbook and the graduate student handbook.

P.Carr asked that copies be made available to members.

S.Hames replied that this report is available on the web, but agreed to bring copies to the next meeting.

B.Bailey asked when the new policy goes into effect?

S.Hames replied that some departments have already started changing their methods, but the process is still ongoing. He noted that the standards are reasonable and have become policy to help ensure that no abuses take place.

B) Diversity Statement

S.Hames informed members that the Campus Climate Committee had drafted a Statement on Diversity and Inclusion. The GPSA had a member serving on this committee last spring, but he graduated and a graduate/professional student has not filled that vacancy for this year. S.Hames informed members that the GPSA has been asked to endorse the Campus Climate Committee’s statement.

P.Kaskan said that one issue that came up at the UA meeting regarding this statement was whether this is a policy statement or a statement of sentiment. Some UA members were also concerned about the fact that other potential issues, such as free speech, were not mentioned in the statement. After considerable discussion, however, the UA did decide to pass the spirit of the statement.

S.Hames stated that he thinks that the expectation of the Campus Climate Committee was to get responses to the statement from each assembly. This statement was posted to gpsa-l and put on the web, but graduate/professional members did not provide comments or feedback.

P.Carr noted that his impression from the Faculty Senate meeting was that this statement was a statement of sentiment and not policy. The statement may also be used as a preface to additional legislation.

S.Hames suggested that the statement could be seen as a statement of intent, which is stronger than a statement of sentiment. He noted that it may be useful to have the COR vote on the Diversity Statement in order to inform the GPSA of its feelings.

Various members expressed their discontent with the wording of the statement. They elaborated that the wording used in the statement tends to be too general and vague and labeled it “fluffy”.

S.Hames replied that he believes that the wording is vague because it is a classic final product of a committee that has had vigorous discussions and deliberations over the language.

Members expressed their concern that endorsing this particular statement may be construed as endorsing action and not just sentiment. In addition, some of the wording does not seem to be particularly effective. It was suggested that if this statement is endorsed, a qualifier should be added to the endorsement to specify whether it is sentiment, intent, and/or policy that is being endorsed.

P.Kaskan stated that it is his understanding that the language will not be changed any further. He remarked that he does not know the consequences of the GPSA failing to endorse the statement.

B.Bailey confirmed that this statement has had input from assembly members with very different viewpoints. It is her belief that this statement was meant to be a starting point. She noted that, except for the Faculty Senate, all the other Assemblies have endorsed this statement. She added that this is an agenda item for the Faculty Senate at their December 8th meeting.

Members asked why was the statement made?

P.Carr explained that the Campus Climate Committee has been present for a while but the statement is, in a way, intended as a response to the biased incidents that occurred at Cornell last year.

P.McPheron stated that there was actually quite a bit of response taken to those incidents. For example, there is better lighting in areas that were very dark and new reporting procedures have been put in place if there are future incidents. P.McPheron noted that much of the debate on this general issue is between those who think that the statement does not go far enough and those who think that the statement is already too strong.

Some members suggested that the GPSA should endorse the general sentiment, but not endorse the wording because of the various concerns that were broached. It was also suggested that more information on the Diversity Statement be obtained.

S.Hames stated that the GPSA could not have voted on it at their last meeting because changes to the wording of the statement were still in process. He added that by the time the final wording of the statement was complete that the GPSA meetings for the fall semester were over.

Lynette Millett, Computer Science, stated that she is concerned that people may use the statement and any potential endorsement for something that the GPSA would not necessarily support.

Members again stressed their concern over how this document would be used. It was suggested that the name be changed from statement to something else because in its current form it implies that the entire community endorses it.

B.Bailey reminded members that because the Campus Climate Committee had asked for input earlier that things may move forward without GPSA endorsement of the statement, especially since the other assemblies have already given their endorsement.

S.Hames stated that his major concern is whether the statement is just a sentiment or an actual policy.

P.McPheron noted that there probably would be people who would want to regard this statement as policy. Before it actually becomes Official University policy, the GPSA should be contacted again for input.

P.Kaskan stated that the GPSA should specify if it is voting on the Diversity Statement with the nota bene, at the bottom of the page, attached. If it is attached, then it confuses the line between policy and sentiment.

Members noted that on one hand, it refers to a solid policy that people can look at. On the other hand, one should be able to infer sentiment from policy, and so it brings into question the purpose of the statement.

P.Carr, noting that the meeting has already run over time, asked that members consider taking a straw vote about the statement. Or, he said they could choose just to send a summary of their discussion to the Campus Climate Committee.

Members assented to sending a summary of their discussion.

B.Bailey requested members to e-mail her at bab3@cornell.edu if they have any specific recommendations for changing the language.

V. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned by P.Carr at 6:10 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Stephanie Tinsley