Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Council of Representatives Notes

Big Red Barn Greenhouse October 15, 2001 5:00–6:00 p.m.

I. Call to Order O. Salminen, At-Large Representative and Vice-President of the 2001–2002 GPSA, called the meeting to order at 5:10pm.

II. Open Forum V. Augusta, Education representative, began by asking if there was an equivalent of a women’s graduate and professional student organization on campus.

Members weren’t sure.

V. Augusta wondered if the GSPA would solicit interest from constituents to see if there’d be interest in having something like this. She discussed funding issues and power issues between males and females. She would be happy to forward an email to members on the issue.

A member asked if V. Augusta was thinking the organization would be social.

V. Augusta responded it would focus more on policy issues, such as birth control provided by health insurance, maternity leave, and tuition.

P. Carr, Geological Sciences representative, asked if it would be a sub-division of GSPA.

V. Augusta said that would make sense, but it needs thinking. She will write an e-mail and forward it, asking members to solicit input.

III. Announcements and Reports A. GPSA Update P. Carr told members that A. Pleasant, Communication representative, had brought an issue to the GPSA requesting a more defined TA title structure. P. Carr informed members he had brought this up to Sunny Power, Interim Dean of the Graduate School. She was receptive to taking this to the General Committee of the Graduate School.

A member asked why the GPSA would want to do this?

P. Carr replied it would mainly be for resumes; to show advancement. He asked for comments.

L. Fletcher, Neurobiology & Behavior representative, wondered about payment compensation if these different levels are implemented.

P. Carr replied he doesn’t think that would happen, though it’s a possibility. This isn’t an immediate action.

Meredith Re, Veterinary representative and formerly a TA, remarked that when looking for a job, one has to explain what is done. She commented she didn’t understand the point of changing titles when it gets explained anyway.

A member remarked there should also be uniformity across institutions.

P. Carr commented this may propagate change.

B. Krishnamachari, Electrical Engineering representative, stated a title difference acknowledges the difference in responsibility. It also feels better personally.

A member reiterated one could explain duties on the resume anyway.

B. Krishnamachari responded this makes the difference in distinction official.

E. Salas, Veterinary representative, commented that making a change for changes sake isn’t the best idea. She stated they should weigh the benefits.

P. Carr told members a few other items came up during the meeting with S. Power. He reported he spoke about setting the graduate and professional student activity fee and that more detail about this would be covered later this meeting. In brief, he said they are looking to move in a direction the Board of Trustees may not prefer they go. He said they also discussed Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed bill on international visas.

J. Moriarty, ILR representative, elaborated about the Feinstein Bill, which was looking to put a 6-month moratorium on all student visas. This bill would also ask the university to report quarterly on the courses international students took in case those students were learning things dangerous to national security. She stated Cornell’s ISSO was distributing information about this and students reacted with a great deal of concern. They didn’t want to fly home in case they couldn’t easily get back. Consequently, they asked in their meeting with S. Power if Cornell University would take a stand on this issue. J. Moriarty reported this bill is now dead. However, it was noted the ISSO spread panic.

A member asked if there is anything like this on the NYS level. It was wondered if the SUNY affiliated schools could say that one had to be a US citizen to get funding?

J. Moriarty thought that it could get harder to cross in and out of the United States, but she wasn’t sure how that could affect states.

O. Salminen remarked the ISSO was reporting that if people left over the Christmas break that they couldn’t return back to the US for 6 months. They also said people had to carry additional proof of funding and proof of being a Cornell student. It was noted this wasn’t accurate information.

P. Carr mentioned that the GPSA President and Vice President met with senior administrators for their monthly meeting and they asked about unionization. P. Carr reported he told them the GPSA’s position is that it is “actively/passively neutral”.

B. Funding Policy Committee G. Hurley, Operations Research representative and Funding Policy Committee (FPC) Chair, began by saying the GPSA needs to inform President Rawlings of their recommendations in December and that the total needs to be a whole, even dollar amount. He then distributed the following report to those assembled for discussion:

Funding Policy Committee Report Amounts requested:

F’00-S’02 Allocation	F’02-S’04

Request Change Cornell Cinema $7.00 $9.00 +$2.00 Concert Commission $5.75 $5.75 --- CU Programming Board $3.05 $3.05 --- Big Red Barn $4.00 $4.50 +$0.50 Cornell University EMS $1.00 $1.50 +$0.50 Intl Students Programming Board $0.70 $1.05 +$0.35 GPSA Finance Commission $17.50 $16.00 -$1.50 Athletics $6.00 $6.00 --- GPSA $1.05 $1.05 --- GPSA Club Insurance $3.30 $3.45 +$0.15 GPSA Orientation Program $0.65 $0.65 --- TOTALS $50.00 $52.00 +$2.00

P. Carr commented that Cornell Cinema currently charges $4.00 per movie. They feel raising the fee to $5.00 would result in a drop in business.

A member asked if Cornell Cinema has polled people to back this feeling up.

Another member added it seems strange to make everyone pay more instead of only targeting those who attend movies.

Another member recommended that if Cornell Cinema wanted to increase the cost of admission that it slowly raise their fee a quarter a time, not a whole dollar at once. This member also remarked that Cornell Cinema should cut its costs on advertising.

A. Saathoff, Agricultural and Biological Engineering representative, commented their debating is moot. What they should get is supporting data.

A member acknowledged CU Cinema adds to the community with its wide range of movies.

Another member agreed, remarking they are a tremendous amenity to have.

G. Hurley indicated they should move on with reviewing the FPC report. He told members the Cornell Concert Commission basically brings concerts and classical music to Cornell. Their accounts seem to be in order and they are not asking for an increase in their allocation.

He noted that Cornell University’s Programming Board brings non-musical events to Cornell. They are also not asking for an increase. He stated their accounts seem in order and their request seems reasonable.

G. Hurley reported the Big Red Barn (BRB) is asking for an increase because it wants to increase programming and events. They would like to offer more family programming and faculty programming. He noted the BRB is asking for an increase of .50 in their allocation and the committee is leaning toward perhaps raising the amount, but not granting the entire amount.

A. Saathoff commented it seems reasonable that they’d need to increase programming if the graduate population is increasing its demands. The GPSA had complained about the lack of programming in the past.

G. Hurley reported that Cornell University Emergency Medical Services (CUEMS) serves as a first-response unit in emergencies. They are asking for an increase for two reasons. First, they would like to put away money to buy an ambulance. Second, they would like to have money for training and outreach.

V. Augusta asked how much the undergrads are being asked to pay to CUEMS.

G. Hurley emphasized they are paying more but he didn’t have exact figures.

A member questioned if this increase for CUEMS was temporary. Would their amount go down after they are able to purchase the ambulance?

G. Hurley reported it was a five-year plan submitted by the CUEMS.

G. Hurley told members the International Students Programming Board (ISPB) is asking for an increase because they would like to increase the number of speakers. G. Hurley reported the FPC felt GPSAFC could help out more with this need.

E. Salas asked if the ISPB does fundraising.

G. Hurley replied they don’t that he is aware of.

A member inquired if most clubs can do fundraising.

G. Hurley replied this would be something to consider.

G. Hurley moved on to the request for an increase by GPSA Club Insurance.

S. Adam, Physics representative, questioned what Club Insurance was.

P. Carr replied it was across the board insurance for clubs. They are asking for an increase because of market fluctuation and the uncertainties related to providing adequate insurance coverage.

G. Hurley pointed out the GPSAFC is unique in asking for a decrease in funding because they have a large surplus. However, the Charter specifies that the GPSAFC should get 35% of the total of the activity fee.

P. Carr added that the GPSAFC allocates more than they have, but the groups don’t spend it. He stated the 35% amount came from the Trustee Task Force.

G. Hurley noted this presents a problem in allowing a decrease for the GPSAFC since its specified in the Charter that they have to get at least 35% of the total activity fee allocation. He said the rationale for this 35% is that it was considered to be a safeguard for the smaller groups. It’s good to give money to the larger groups but the smaller ones needed to weigh in as well.

D. Grossman, Computer Science representative, inquired if the GPSAFC is prohibited from giving money to the other groups.

P. Carr responded he thinks there are restrictions.

B. Krishnamachari questioned how strict this guideline is.

P. Carr stated he is trying to convince people under the President that the GPSAFC does not need 35% of the total activity fee to function well. He asked S. Murphy, Vice President for Student and Academic Services, and she wanted to check with the Counsel’s Office. P. Carr told members he also inquired about moving the surplus money to other places, but that does not seem to be a viable option.

B. Krishnamachari remarked he would be in favor of reducing the GPSAFC request even further.

A member suggested leaving the activity fee total as is and not give groups their increased requests.

B. Krishnamachari remarked it seems ok to have GPSAFC get less than 35% this one time as an exception since they are sitting on such a surplus.

P. Carr commented that another possibility the FPC considered was allocating nothing to the GPSA since it is also sitting on a surplus. However, the concern with this is that when the fee is set again in two years that people will not remember this was supposed to only be a two-year situation.

A member asked if the amounts the groups are asking for from the activity fee could instead be asked of the GPSAFC. That would take care of the surplus and also not raise the activity fee.

P. Carr responded there are restrictions on the ways GPSAFC money can be spent, but they are trying to consider all possibilities.

G. Hurley summarized by saying the FPC would like to reduce the GPSAFC allocated amount and they would like to keep the activity fee total at $50.00.

J. Carroll, Real Estate representative, suggested that the Funding Policy Committee Report should show increased statistics on the various groups such as % change, budgets, and total funding.

G. Hurley acknowledged this information would help. He added the FPC would look at Cornell Cinema again and find out what they can do regarding fundraising.

A. Smith, City and Regional Planning representative, questioned if the GPSAFC funding amount could decrease to $14.00.

P. Carr said he was not sure.

A member inquired about the negotiability of athletics. If the GPSA gave them less money through the activity fee, would students then have to pay a small fee for tickets instead of nothing? Maybe this would be considered a good trade-off since many students don’t even attend athletic events.

J. Carroll expressed his opinion that the CUEMS ambulance is a good cause, however a huge increase is being asked.

P. Carr stated groups might be asking for more than they need to allow room for them to bargain.

A member commented that a large number of people don’t ever attend events.

Another member pointed out that if not for the activity fee, some of these groups wouldn’t exist.

P. Carr reminded everyone this issue would come before them again.

A member announced a need for more information. These increases seem so arbitrary.

A member questioned whether they have any place in the decision-making process. Do they have access to more in depth information?

B. Bailey, Office of the Assemblies, told members the Office of the Assemblies has a few extra copies of this information in detail and people are free to come to 165 Day Hall to read it. Members of the FPC and GPSA have been provided with their own copies as they are charged with having to assimilate the information and vote on it.

P. Carr agreed, saying the FPC is reviewing the information in depth. He clarified that G. Hurley is just asking for input as they are the committee appointed to come up with recommended numbers.

Another member stated G. Hurley is just trying to communicate to the group about the requests by the groups and get a sense on what members think about it. He stated everyone is welcome to attend the GPSA meetings and listen to the process and provide input.

V. Augusta also noted that most of the GPSA members are present at this meeting and hearing this information and the concerns of the group.

The meeting was running over-time at this point and O. Salminen stated she would like to briefly touch on the items listed under “Business of the Day”.

IV. Business of the Day A. Fundraising for Disaster Relief O. Salminen stated V. Augusta was on the committee for this.

B. Future Events to be Organized by COR/GPSA O. Salminen stated people are suggesting there should be more than just TGIF’s. Dancing was suggested.

C. Graduate Student Housing O. Salminen remarked that students are paying a fee for information and not getting help. The housing process consists of students applying for housing in March, which costs $45.00. Apparently people who don’t get housing aren’t getting called back.

P. McPheron, Director of Graduate and Professional Student Housing, responded it is highly unusual for anyone not to hear back and this is not the norm. He asked if those people could be referred to him.

Another member added that it has happened to her too.

P. McPheron acknowledged it is not uncommon for students to call back for updates. Graduate student housing is complex and his department may not have a complete picture on the exact number of vacancies due to changes in student situations such as funding. He reiterated that anyone having a problem could contact him and he would do what he could to help.

D. Student Health Insurance O. Salminen continued that the university should provide information on alternatives. Gannett doesn’t provide information on other health insurance plans. Vet, Law, and JGSM students can choose their insurance plan, but all others are mandatory Cornell insurance. She noted that the ISSO office does have alternative information and someone in ISSO does check to make sure alternative methods are accepted by Cornell.

E. Information Distribution by COR/GPSA O. Salminen said the Communications Committee would continue working on this. She encouraged comments and input from members.

V. Adjournment This meeting adjourned at 6:16.

Respectfully Submitted,

Margaret Heavey Office of the Assemblies