Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Business Meeting Minutes

Big Red Barn Greenhouse October 30, 2000 5:00–6:00p.m.

Attendance: 2000–01 GPSA Members 4/24 8/28 9/25 10/30 11/27 1/22 2/26 3/26 4/23 Debbie Anderson P P E A Virginia Augusta A P P P Pat Carr P P P P Stefan Hames P P P P Sergei Krasulya P P P P Bhaskar Krishnamachari P P P P Krysta Levac P P P P Krista Mowry P P P P Aaron Saathoff P P P P John Sebastian P P P P Lidija Sekaric P P P P Eric Sprague A A A A Lakshmi (Vatsa) Srivatsa A on-leave — resigned 8/00 Andrew Thomas A P P A Lotus Wang P P P A Jessica Ward P P Others Present: S. Hale, T. Gwathmey, E. Doerhoff, L. Libby, A. Moore, E. Wecks, M. Gayne, D. Mahon, M. Greenbaum, U. Asonye, A. Mt. Pleasant, J. Gillespie, R. Halvorsen, M. Polhill, T. Dohmueller, J. Turca, S. Hobbs, K. Moore, M. McGuire, S. Connelly, H. Mandeville, B. Bailey, and C. Bolger

I. Call To Order

P. Carr, At-Large Representative and President of the 2000–2001 GPSA, called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.

II. Open Forum

S. Hames, Division of Biological Sciences Representative, wanted to discuss the proper use of GPSA-L. He said that he felt it was his job to primarily represent constituents from his cluster and he did not appreciate getting the bulk quantity of e-mail messages forwarded to the listserv on the subject of the fellowship disbursement.

H. Mandeville, Director of the Office of the Assemblies, said that some of that might have been her fault. The original memo did say to send comments to the GPSA and she felt it would be helpful to send it to the GPSA governing body as a group so they could have a complete picture as they make a decision.

B. Bailey, Office of the Assemblies, asked if the representatives feel that they should give approval beforehand? Is it ok if e-mails from constituents in their cluster bombard them, or do the GPSA representatives want advance notice?

P. Carr apologized and said that it would not happen again.

L. Sekaric, Vice President of the GPSA and Arts and Sciences (Physical Science) Representative, said that Sarah Thomas, University Librarian, was asking for student input regarding Library Services. There will be three forums held throughout the year. The first forum will be next Wednesday and she will forward an announcement with more details for anyone interested.

P. Carr reminded people that Election Day is next week and he encouraged everyone to go out and vote. He said an important issue affecting graduates is whether the tuition waiver will be taxed or not.

S. Hames said that in the past many students have participated in voicing their opinions about not having the status changed.

III. Approval of GPSA Minutes

Amendments were made to the following sections of the September 25 GPSA minutes:

1) Section V. Business of the Day, A. Creation of Committee to Draft and Pilot Proposed “Buddy System” was amended to read, “There was a motion to create a planning document for a proposed “Buddy System”. The matter was then referred to an ad hoc committee chaired by K. Mowry.”

2) Section V. Business of the Day, B. Creation of Committee to Draft and Pilot Proposed Panel Discussion Program was amended to read: “ There was a motion to create a planning document for a proposed Panel Discussion Program. The matter was then referred to an ad hoc committee to be headed by K. Levac.”

3) Section V. Business of the Day, C. Creation of Committee to Draft and Propose Graduate Fellows Program, was amended to read: “There was a motion to create a planning document for a Graduate Fellows Program. The matter was then referred to an ad hoc committee chaired by P. Carr.”

4) IV. Announcements and Reports, B. Student Assembly, was clarified to read: The GPSA voted to object to the Student Assembly resolution. The vote passed: 11—0.

The September 25, 2000 GPSA minutes were approved as amended.

IV. Announcements and Reports A. Student Assembly - R.15 Resolution Recommending the Certification of Non-Faculty Undergraduate Instructional Personnel M. Greenbaum, SA Executive Vice President and liaison to the GPSA, reported that he and D. Mahon, Student-elected Trustee, have been working on this resolution. The SA will most likely be voting on the resolution this week. They basically felt that standardizing TA training would be beneficial.

D. Mahon said that he and M. Greenbaum were here seeking input from the GPSA.

J. Sebastian, Arts and Sciences (Humanities), asked if there were any provisions for people who have already had prior training. He noted he had already received training through the Freshman Writing Seminar program.

D. Mahon replied that in that case they would stop at the first resolve clause. He said it is basically up to the departments to decide their standards. He felt that in this case the training mentioned would be sufficient.

S. Hames asked how they would define Non-Faculty Undergraduate Instructional Personnel?

D. Mahon answered that they would be defined as undergraduate or graduate TAs.

S. Hames said that there are many Ph.D. TAs who come in to teach the introductory Biology labs. He wondered if they would be expected to undergo the training?

D. Mahon stated that the resolution targets even them and suggests that they receive the training.

S. Hames gave the example of a person who had been doing research for 20 years and was currently teaching. Would he be required to receive training according to this resolution?

D. Mahon said that a great researcher does not make a person a great teacher.

K. Mowry, At-Large Representative and GPSA Secretary, asked who would be paying for the English Summer training program?

D. Mahon said that they had talked to people and it would be up to Dean Cohen and Provost Martin to find the money.

P. Carr said that he thought there would be a problem getting money from the statutory colleges. The Statutory and Endowed Colleges handle their money differently. The Dean from the endowed colleges would probably be in a better position to help with funding this, but it could be harder for the statutory colleges.

S. Hames suggested that they speak to Walter Cohen.

D. Mahon said that he has spoken with Dean Cohen and he did not mention this as a problem. He was happy to see this problem being worked on.

S. Hames stated that he felt the resolution was somewhat arbitrary since Assistant Professors can be teaching for the first time and are not subject to this training, yet those that have Ph.Ds and are researchers must go through the program.

D. Mahon replied that they did not want to approach the faculty senate so soon. They were hoping to start with the TAs and their smaller sections as the first step.

P. Carr said that the GPSA could make its own specific plan and guidelines. They can decide how they feel applicants should be screened.

S. Hames said that this problem was discussed a couple of years ago by the Graduate School committee that worked on the development of more uniform policies for teaching and research assistants. They discussed having an oral examination for non-English speaking graduates.

L. Sekaric said that she had been working on this resolution with M. Greenbaum and D. Mahon. They are trying to target money sources. Many of these policies concerning TAs are in place but are not being enforced. If anyone is interested, they should talk to L. Sekaric to make recommendations.

D. Mahon said that the SA is looking to vote on this resolution this week. The GPSA’s version could incorporate more specific details.

A. Saathoff, Agriculture and Life Sciences (Biological Science) Representative, asked if Cornell requires the TOEFFL?

S. Hames said the problem with that test is that it is a written test. In the past, they have discussed having a conference call with students to determine English speaking skills.

J. Sebastian said that he is concerned with the wide breadth of the resolution. The Arts graduate students must take a semester long course in teaching. Many have given up things to learn how to teach. He feels that there are obviously groups who need more training than his constituents, but does not feel people in his situation should be required to do more.

D. Mahon felt that they would not be subjected to more training than they had already received.

P. Carr said that the GPSA can work on more specifics to clarify the resolution.

B. General Committee

K. Mowry, At-Large Representative and GPSA Secretary, said they had been working on the Graduate Code of Legislation and have made extensive revisions. She hoped that everyone would make time to read it and give their comments to Sarah Hale because this will affect all graduate students.

S. Hale, Assistant Dean for Financial Policy at the Graduate School, reminded the GPSA that the General Committee would be meeting on November 1, 2000.

A. Saathoff asked if comparisons had been made available so people could see what changes had been made between the old and the new code?

K. Mowry said this had not been done, but the old code was still available so one could look through it to see what was different. She also said that if anyone had suggestions that they should make them now. However, most of the changes were minor.

S. Hale said that the majority of changes were with the organization of the code. It is now easier to read through and could be better used as a reference.

C. University Assembly

K. Levac, “Other” Representative and a GPSA member on the University Assembly, reported the University Assembly had passed a resolution concerning transportation. She said she’d wait until later in the meeting to report in full.

D. Executive Committee

P. Carr said that there were two committee appointments.

Student Assembly Proxy Committee- Lakshmi Ramamoorthy
Distant Learning Committee — Kevin Thompson

E. Pilot Committees

K. Levac said that it has been an uphill struggle to organize the panel discussion. She asked if the Electrical Engineering Department has held their panel discussion?

B. Krishnamachari, Engineering, replied that they had. They focussed on the MEng program. They basically gathered a bunch of students to talk to undergraduates for the panel discussions.

K. Levac asked how it went?

B. Krishnamachari said that they had many interested students. Undergraduates mainly wanted to know about the MEng program and the panelists were MS/Ph.D.

L Sekaric said that the Codes and Judicial Committee is looking for another graduate member. This committee makes changes to the Campus Code of Conduct and interviews students for the Hearing and Review Boards. One item they may be discussing is the application of the Campus Code of Conduct to students who are off-campus. The CJC meets on the first Monday of the month from 11a.m. to 12p.m.

V. Augusta, Agriculture and Life Science (Social Science) Representative, reported that she was the GPSA liaison to the Faculty Senate Committee. She forwarded the AAUP report to Dean Cooke as requested by the GPSA. She summarized that the purpose of doing this was to address the inconsistencies seen between fields. She said that the Dean said he would take it under advisement. However, it is not known for sure if the Dean of Faculty planned to distribute it further as the GPSA had originally wanted.

V. Unfinished Business and General Orders A. R.1 Resolution Regarding the Proposed Scheme for Disbursing Graduate Fellowship Checks S. Hale spoke to the GPSA regarding the proposal to change the method of fellowship disbursement from semesterly to monthly direct deposit. She said that if the GPSA decides that they do not want their checks to be dispersed on a monthly basis or by direct deposit, then they would honor that. They would continue to do a semesterly dispersal, however, they do not think that it is the best method. In the past, some students have had trouble budgeting and it should not be the graduate school’s responsibility to provide alternative sources of income for them. One can argue that it is not the graduate school’s responsibility to control students’ budgeting.

P. Carr agreed that some people do go to the graduate school for loans because they have run out of money.

K. Mowry asked how often that happened?

S. Hale said that on average they see 20 to 30 people per year. They also see students who come in and ask for advances. She mentioned the other problem was that the government does not like to pre-pay. She said another problem is that there are always a few people who come to pick up their checks and then withdraw from Cornell . This takes money away that could have been used for a legitimate graduate student. She also mentioned the fact that it is not an easy matter to retrieve money that was dispersed. The bursar’s office has expressed concern about money going out that isn’t used and cannot be collected. It therefore becomes bad debt.

She said she hoped the GPSA would make an informed decision. This process would begin in Fall 2001. Students would receive 30% of the stipend check on the first day of the registration. They would then receive 13.5 % on the first Tuesday of the month during each of the following months. She also said that the graduate school does not earn interest on the graduate students’ money.

S. Hames asked if they would be able to automatically remove income tax?

S. Hale said that Cornell decides not to hold back this money. It is not a computer issue.

M. Gayne, CoR member for History Department, asked if it would be possible to add an option so students could choose whether to receive the payments semesterly or monthly?

S. Hale said that the problem with that is that there are two different codes for semester versus monthly dispersal. Therefore, someone in the office would have to go through and pull out the various students who want to have a different method. This would be too time consuming and she is concerned they do not have the administrative manpower to do this. She would worry about the accuracy as well.

M. Gayne said that if they decide to stay with the semesterly plan, the graduate school would not be expected to take care of students who have not appropriately budgeted. What would happen to those who still experience financial trouble in the future?

S. Hale said that they would not kick them out. However, they would expect that they look at all possible options such as taking out a loan on their credit cards or speaking to their families first. Currently, the Graduate School has handled the situation very liberally.

A. Saathoff said that the graduate school should not be expected to take care of students who have not budgeted properly. This is a personal problem. However, he wondered if the graduate school could put together a comprehensive list of things to do before asking for money?

S. Hale said that they have recommendations on where students can cut corners. She said that the GPSA should think of the poorest graduate students who receive the smallest amounts of money. It can be very difficult to budget money when you are receiving so little.

A. Mt. Pleasant asked why they decided to distribute the checks the first Tuesday of the month? Many times bills are due the first week of the month?

S. Hale said that they didn’t really think of that, but it would be possible to bump it up to the last week of the month.

E. Doerhoff, German Studies, asked if direct deposit would be available to foreign banks?

S. Hale replied that it would not. Also, it is not possible to do a transfer between a US bank and a foreign bank.

B. Krishnamachari asked what the spread of the fellowship amounts was?

S. Hale said that students in the Humanities may receive $13,250 over 9 months and those in the physical sciences can receive $20,000 over 9 months. It is a large spread.

L. Sekaric asked why the graduate school decided to switch from monthly to semesterly dispersal several years ago?

S. Hale answered that before, the graduate school office had to downsize and this caused them to lose a staff member. Therefore, in an attempt to reduce the workload, they went to semesterly dispersal.

K. Mowry asked if people still came for loans when the monthly plan was in effect?

S. Hale said that she did not know. However, she knows concerns were voiced when they switched last time. Students complained at that time that semesterly dispersal could create a problem for some students. It was essentially a similar response for the opposite method.

S. Krasulya asked how often people come to get their checks and then withdraw from Cornell?

S. Hale sees it about two times a semester. However, these are only the ones she sees. The registrar system does not always inform them of students who have left mid-semester and she believes the numbers are larger.

B. Krishnamachari introduced the GPSA resolution. He said he knows there was a flood of e-mails concerning this issue. He personally read through most of them received on gpsa-l and noted that concerns spread across a wide range of fields. He noted that two students calculated the money they would lose if they did not receive their money disbursed semesterly. One student estimated that he would lose $300 and another had an estimate of $100 per semester. The current payment method gives students flexibility. He noted that many respondents felt there was a problem with the survey used by the graduate school earlier this semester. Many felt that it was not presented correctly and said office staff told them, “If you want direct deposit, sign here….” Many of the respondents said it wasn’t made clear that the proposal would combine monthly dispersal with direct deposit.

Motion was made to continue debate. The motion passed.

S. Hames told members that the GPSA sent a survey to the graduate field representatives last spring. The response to this was low and was essentially a 50/50 split. He noted those in his field are in favor, particularly if taxes can be withheld as there was a concern about filing income tax.

L. Sekaric pointed out the second whereas clause. She asked if one could consider it an inherent right to receive interest on the money?

B. Krishnamachari said that some students specifically noted that they would feel cheated if the ability to earn interest on money from a lump sum payment was taken away from them.

L. Sekaric said she would be abstaining from the vote because she had only received one response. She wasn’t sure if there were not a lot of students on fellowships in the physical sciences.

S. Hale said the highest percentage of students on fellowships were in the humanities.

M. Gayne, History, said that the questionnaire S. Hames referred to came out around April 18th and was not forwarded on to History students. History students have since voiced concern over their rights to interest on Cornell money or their own money which they have invested. Also, those who are out in the field are facing issues of currency exchange and foreign transfer of money. None of these people have been polled. Also, it is ignoring plane ticket costs and housing which must sometimes be paid before they get there.

S. Hale said that they advance money to students who are on external fellowships.

J. Sebastian stated that the biggest concern was being abroad and the currency exchange.

K. Mowry said that those in the field are registered as in absentia. She wondered if it was possible to make an exception to them?

S. Hale said that it would be possible. However, these students would probably need to fill out a form and send it in early (fall semester - July 10th and spring semester - Nov. 1) so that it is processed.

A. Saathoff said that many members in his field receive fellowships. Some people did not care about this issue, yet others had very emotional appeals towards keeping the semesterly method. He also argued that the nature of the survey was that it was not conducted in an appropriate manner. Perhaps a survey could be designed that discussed the pros and cons. He also said that switching to a monthly disbursement system could cause some people more financial difficulty. They will not be able to pay large bulk sums that are often required up-front. Some people mentioned that they are required to pay for research expenses early in the semester and are reimbursed later. This will be harder for people if they do not receive semesterly payments. He felt it important to keep in mind the best way to serve fellowship graduate students.

S. Hale commented that lump sum health insurance payments would not be a concern next year.

J. Ward, At-Large Representative, said there are people in her field who are expected spend money for their lab.

A. Moore, History department, felt that international credit cards are not a realistic option for many graduate students. The machines for these cards are usually located in hotels and are situated for the convenience of tourists and business people. These are not typically areas where graduate students are working.

E. Doerhoff said there are several days of delay for processing money in foreign countries.

One CoR member said that the beginning of the semester is when students are hit with large bills for things such as utilities, housing, etc.

B. Krishnamachari said that he would like to thank S. Hale for her letter, which discussed the pros and cons of this system. He said if it was an option for in absentia students to opt out of the system, then could other students do this as well?

S. Hale said that in absentia students are only a small subset of the community. Allowing all students to have this option may not be within a realistic scope of their capabilities.

S. Hames asked how this is handled at other institutions?

S. Hale said that she did not know, but based on transfer students it seems that the payments are distributed monthly.

B. Krishnamachari noted that at Stanford it was on a semesterly system.

J. Sebastian returned to the topic of the poll. He does not defend people who do not read what they sign. However, many people who signed the poll from his department were new and did not have experience from last year to base their opinion on.

M. Gayne said that she had a question about the final whereas clause. She said that it addresses the vote of the GPSA last year. It seemed to be a unanimous decision. Why did the graduate school continue to pursue this issue? To her, it seems that it is undercutting the GPSA.

S. Hale said that they did not mean to undermine the GPSA. However, e-mail responses that showed 49 for the proposal and 51 against, was not an accurate reflection of the graduate population. Therefore, their survey was their attempt to gain an idea as to what a larger group of people really felt.

S. Krasulya asked what the problem was with direct deposit?

S. Hale said that there are government problems as well as regulatory problems with students who say they are coming and do not come. Paper checks ensure that the students are at least coming to campus.

There was a motion to vote.

K. Levac asked what the relevance was of the whereas clauses?

P. Carr said that they are attached to the back of the letter regarding the resolution, which he sends to the President.

K. Levac said that she did not feel that the survey was misleading if you read it.

B. Krishnamachari said that they basically meant that the process was misleading, not just the text.

A. Saathoff made an amendment of the fifth whereas clause stating “regarding the way the survey was conducted”. He said that it is relevant because it was brought up by a number of his constituents.

There was a vote on the amendment. The amendment passed: Yes - 6, No - 3

P. Carr then suggested that the second whereas clause that discussed earning interest would not sway the Dean since it is not an inherent right.

S. Hames said that Cornell fronts the money to students until the checks come to them.

There was a motion to strike the second whereas clause.

B. Krishnamachari defended the clause and said that many students brought this up as a concern.

A. Saathoff reminded them that graduate students do not make much.

V. Augusta replied that earning interest was not an entitlement. A fellowship is provided for those who do research.

K. Levac said that they are far from the sole beneficiaries for their work. It is not a strict employee-employer relationship, however, in a way it is.

S. Krasulya, Materials Science & Engineering, said that they should add the word “some” so that the final resolve clause says to permit “some” graduate students…

There was a vote on the motion to strike the second whereas clause. The motion passes: Yes - 7, No - 3

E. Doerhoff recommended that they add “foreign banks” after universities to the fourth whereas clause.

There were no objections against this. It was added by acclamation.

J. Ward asked if anyone was concerned with part A of the final resolve clause. It should be amended to say “directly deposited”. How long would it take people to get their money if they direct deposit it into the wrong account?

S. Hale said that she meant wrong account in terms of a student who did not attend the university.

V. Augusta said that now would be the time to include the in absentia option in case this resolution fails.

P. Carr said that someone else could write a resolution to address the issue of in absentia students.

K. Mowry said that in her department, the main concern is people in absentia.

There was a vote on the amended resolution: The resolution passed: Yes-5, No-2, Abstain—3 The text of the resolution is as follows:

Resolution Regarding The Proposed Scheme For Disbursing Fellowship Checks

WHEREAS, the graduate school has recently proposed to disburse fellowship checks with the option of direct deposit over multiple months during an academic year instead of a single check each semester, and

WHEREAS, such a change will deprive graduate students receiving fellowships the flexibility of making their own financial decisions such as paying off larger amounts of insurance, making large purchases at the beginning of a semester, or from making appropriate currency exchanges at a suitable time (if working abroad), and

WHEREAS, such reduced flexibility will result in graduate students actually increasing their financial expenditures due to “convenience” fees, interest rates, and other charges that are generally assessed by companies, universities, foreign banks, or other entities when a multiple-payment option is chosen, and

WHEREAS, some concern has been expressed by graduate students regarding the way the survey was conducted by the graduate school regarding the current proposal, and

WHEREAS, although many graduate students receiving fellowship checks are eager to receive them via direct deposit, most would rather not have the availability of direct deposit inextricably tied to the payment being divided into multiple smaller payments each semester, and

WHEREAS, the 1999–2000 Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (GPSA) rejected a motion supporting the said proposal by a vote of 0–5−2;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the GPSA strongly urge the Graduate School to take one of the following steps:

a) modify the said proposal so that graduate students receiving fellowship be allowed to have a single check directly deposited to their bank accounts each semester, or b) modify the said proposal to permit graduate students receiving fellowships to opt out of the direct-deposit-with-multiple-checks scheme, or c) rescind the said proposal.

Respectfully Submitted,

Bhaskar Krishnamachari GPSA Engineering Representative

Aaron J. Saathoff GPSA CALS Biological Sciences Representative

As approved by the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly on October 30, 2000 by a vote of 5–2−3.

VI. Adjournment

P. Carr adjourned the meeting at 6:50p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Courtney Bolger, student clerk