Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Minutes

Big Red Barn Greenhouse March 25, 2002 5:30–6:30 p.m.

Attendance: 2001–2002 GPSA Members 4/23 8/27 9/24 10/29 11/26 1/28 2/25 3/25 4/22 Shaffique Adam P P P P E P P P Virginia Augusta P P P P P P P P Pat Carr P P P P P P P P Rob Chesley A A P A A A A A Tyrell Haberkorn P E P P P P E A Karsten Hueffer P P P P P P P P Gavin Hurley P P P P P P P P Bhaskar Krishnamachari A A P P E E P P Joan Moriarty P P P P P P P P Aaron Saathoff P P P P A P P P Elisa Salas P P A P A P P P Outi Salminen P E P P P P P P John Sebastian P P P P P P P P Jeff Siegel A A A P A A A A David Toomey P P P P P P P P Others Present: L. Parson, Victoria Blodgett, Phil McPheron, and Bonnie Bailey

I. Call to Order P. Carr, president of the 2001–2002 GPSA, called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.

II. Open Forum B. Bailey reminded members that efforts to identify GPSA COR members for 2002–03 were underway. A number of fields had already responded, but many had not. She noted the deadline to submit a name to the Office of the Assemblies was March 28th and asked current COR members to help with membership identification for their fields if possible.

III. Approval of GPSA Minutes A. November 26, 2001 B. January 28, 2002 C. February 25, 2002 The minutes of November 26 and January 28 were approved as submitted. The minutes of February 25 were approved as amended.

IV. Committee/Officer Reports A. Executive P. Carr told members he recently attended a meeting with the Board of Trustees and gave a short report on the GPSA. He thought that went well. He received a telephone message asking for a grad to be placed on the search committee that is being formed to find a replacement for President Rawlings. He announced that Sunny Power was now named the Dean of the Graduate School, a move from that of Interim Dean. He asked K. Hueffer to update members on the status of the $100,000 from the GPSAFC account.

K. Hueffer reported the money has not yet moved from the GPSAFC account. Cornell accounting informed the GPSA that because the money is currently in an appropriations account that it has certain restrictions placed on it, one of which is that it cannot be moved for investment until Cornell closes its books at the end of the fiscal year. Accounting has been very helpful in trying to clarify the process to be followed. Cornell requires a plan stating what the GPSA intends to do with the money so there are no misunderstandings. There are differing reports at this point on exactly how many options the GPSA might have for investing the money. Three types of accounts keep being brought up: short-term investment, long-term investment, and funds functioning as endowment. K. Hueffer noted he personally felt the money should be placed in an account that would offer more protection; he doesn’t feel the money should be too readily available for spending.

D. Toomey asked if the money were put into an endowment if it meant the money could not be touched.

J. Moriarty asked why anyone would want to put money into endowment if this were the case.

V. Augusta replied donors find this appealing because they can give money to Cornell and their gift stays as given while the interest earned is what is used. She noted this wasn’t what the GPSA had in mind.

E. Salas asked how much money could be made with the different options.

P. Carr replied that the market has been earning roughly 5%.

P. McPheron said investment planners often devise a strategy. For example, invest a certain portion and take the payout.

J. Moriarty asked if it would be possible to split the money into different investment options when they invest.

V. Augusta replied she thought there would be an administrative cost to set up the accounts and manage them. This was true for setting up an endowment account, though she wasn’t sure of the others.

P. McPheron agreed there would be some fees involved.

J. Moriarty asked if it was a flat fee or a percentage.

P. McPheron replied he wasn’t positive, though he thought it was typically a flat fee.

O. Salminen suggested making an investment with the money, such as buying a space or business.

V. Augusta noted that if this were done it would also require much more additional responsibility to manage.

P. Carr asked members if this topic was one the GPSA should deal with at the next meeting.

K. Hueffer said it was important to him to know the sentiment of the COR.

A. Saathoff stated he felt it important to diversify. He was in favor of investing for both the long and short term.

E. Salas asked if more information could be gathered to help them make an informed decision.

G. Hurley commented he wasn’t sure if a document existed that would tell all.

J. Moriarty asked if the ad-hoc committee could find out more information. She specifically asked if answers to the yield for each account and the particulars involved for getting money out of each account could be provided.

P. Carr suggested putting this information on the web.

A. Saathoff stated he would like to see something in writing ensuring the safety of the money.

P. Carr agreed, saying he would like to get a standing rules document in place that could cover issues such as this, along with items such as GPSA meeting times. Such a document would help clarify things so they wouldn’t become issues in the future.

B. Communications O. Salminen reported the end-of-year party planning has been on going. Finding a location has been a challenge, however it appears as though the GPSA will co-sponsor the annual barbecue held at the Big Red Barn each year. The anticipated date is May 10. She asked members to watch for more details in the coming weeks.

V. Business of the Day P. Carr asked members if they would agree to discuss the agenda items out of order. He said he felt the last agenda item could be handled most quickly and suggested they discuss that first.

Members agreed this was acceptable.

C. Paper Usage Resolution A. Saathoff told members he recently attended a meeting where paper usage was discussed. He reported that CIT recently tested the differences between “new” and recycled paper and there is no longer a discernable difference. Apparently there used to be problems using recycled paper. He commented this resolution is asking departments to take environmental responsibility.

B. Krishnamachari stated he agreed with the concept. He noted he liked the language in the first resolved clause.

O. Salminen asked how they would go forward with doing this.

P. Carr said he would communicate this to the President and then word filters down.

O. Salminen commented she had tried to encourage her department to use recycled paper and it was hard.

A. Saathoff said he felt grads could encourage their departments and help with spreading the word, but he noted this wasn’t a mandate and no one should feel forced. It is more of a statement and an effort to consciously educate people and help make them aware.

P. Carr agreed, saying it could be that people ordering paper for departments simply don’t think about it, and if they are asked to do it that they could very well be open to the suggestion.

J. Moriarty moved to vote on the resolution.

P. Carr asked members if there was any objection to passing the resolution as presented.

As there was none, the resolution passed by acclamation. It reads:

R.7 Resolution on Paper Usage at Cornell University

WHEREAS, Cornell is a large teaching and research university that encompasses a broad range of intellectual activity within and between a variety of disciplines, and

WHEREAS, Cornell’s own mission statement includes the following phrase: “We foster initiative, integrity, and excellence, in an environment of collegiality, civility, and responsible stewardship,” and

WHEREAS, the Cornell community uses a significant amount of paper every year in the pursuit and administration of such intellectual activity, and

WHEREAS, such paper usage poses an unnecessary strain on the environment and supports unsustainable logging practices and an industry that is not well known for environmental friendliness, and

WHEREAS, the technology producing 100% post-consumer recycled paper has undergone dramatic improvement in the last 5 years and has become a viable economic option, and

WHEREAS, CIT tests in Net-Print computer labs have shown no difference in the performance between 100% post-consumer recycled paper and copy paper products that are currently used, and

WHEREAS, other universities have already adopted the use of 100% post-consumer recycled paper and Cornell is in a unique position to lead the Ivy League in using 100% post-consumer recycled paper;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly strongly urge Cornell’s departments, schools, libraries, administration and all other units to make the transition to 100% post-consumer recycled paper a high priority for white paper-copying needs and to focus on making the transition in an expedient and timely manner, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GPSA urge Cornell’s administration to set a goal and timeline of exclusively using 100% post-consumer recycled paper for other copying and paper needs (where possible) university-wide, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the GPSA urge all other Cornell Assemblies and the Faculty Senate to show support for such a transition as well.

Respectfully Submitted,

Aaron J. Saathoff GPSA CALS Biological Sciences Representative

A. GPSA Charter Amendment D. Toomey told members he conducted a survey on the proposed GPSA reorganization because there appeared to be some unhappiness with the decision made on February 25. He summarized options and his survey results:

� 4-Physical Sciences, 4-Social Sciences, 3-Biological Sciences, 2-Humanities: 3 people liked this, 1 strongly disliked. � 4-Physical Sciences, 4-Social Sciences, 3-Biological Sciences, 3-Humanities: 5 liked this option, none voiced dislike. � 3-Physical Sciences, 3-Social Sciences, 3-Biological Sciences, 3-Humanities: 2 people liked this, 1 denounced the process, and 1 suggested devising a formula since field sizes change.

P. Carr informed members the proposed option of splitting the grad areas at: 4-Physical Sciences, 4-Social Sciences, 3-Biological Sciences, 3-Humanities was now on the floor for discussion.

O. Salminen remarked that the numbers in biological sciences would jump when restructuring is done in those fields. She suggested that if an area has enrollment exceeding 1,000 that the area get one additional GPSA member.

E. Salas asked members how large they want the GPSA to be.

V. Augusta noted that the area numbers could conceivably go down.

O. Salminen suggested specifying that the minimum number of GPSA members per area be 3.

B. Krishnamachari stated he would prefer settling on a number and sticking with it, rather than having the numbers go up and down.

S. Adam pointed out the numbers in the professional schools are high. What about giving them additional members?

E. Salas stated that vet students all have a common experience, so having 1, 3, or 5 representatives from the vet school would probably not make a big difference in what they bring to the meetings. In contrast, grad fields in each of the areas do offer a slightly different perspective. E. Salas clarified she was speaking only as the vet GPSA member, not for all the professional schools.

V. Blodgett added that the professional school students also have more autonomy. Money matters are handled differently and it is a different experience than that experienced by grad students.

P. Carr asked to direct the discussion back to D. Toomey’s proposal to add another GPSA representative to Social Sciences.

K. Hueffer reiterated concern for increasing the total membership of the GPSA to 17. The GPSA membership had been at 15, then was increased to 16 at the last GPSA meeting. Tonight it is being proposed to raise it yet again and this made him uncomfortable.

G. Hurley proposed amending D. Toomey’s amendment. He suggested giving each area 3 GPSA representatives. He suggested keeping total membership at 15 would be best. He stated that allotting 3 votes to each area seemed to work in principle and wondered if increasing social sciences and physical sciences to 4 voting members each would really make a difference since the common experience would still be obtained whether it is 3 members per area or 4.

J. Moriarty seconded this proposal.

P. Carr told members that if they chose to vote it would be on the proposed ratios, not on the Charter amendment itself.

B. Krishnamachari expressed frustration and noted this conversation seemed to be a repeat of former discussions. There are basically two perspectives on how to best determine GPSA membership and the group is still split on how to best achieve that.

P. Carr pointed out the survey was not statistically significant given the numbers responding.

D. Toomey agreed with this point, however added that one would think anyone with strong opposition would make their displeasure known.

A. Saathoff stated he was not in favor of a 3,3,3,3 split and that D. Toomey’s proposed amendment to the resolution took more of a middle ground in the opposing viewpoints of a pure population-based system or one based on experience alone. He wondered if any of the COR members present at the meeting would like to say anything on this topic.

A member stated he had responded to D. Toomey’s survey and was the one who had suggested devising a formula to arrive at GPSA membership.

K. Hueffer expressed concern with this discussion. He clarified he felt the GPSA had reached a workable compromise at the last GPSA meeting when this entire topic was discussed at length. He acknowledged that several members were not completely satisfied with the result, however it was a compromise. He stated he was therefore completely surprised to read D. Toomey’s e-mail sent to GPSA-L because he’d thought everyone had an opportunity to express an opinion at the meeting.

S. Adam stated he also opposed a 3,3,3,3 split.

B. Krishnamachari agreed he also did not prefer a 3,3,3,3 split. He added that just because the GPSA hasn’t had issues that might split it along area lines in the past does not mean this could not occur in the future. As an example, he cited unionization as a potential area for disagreement. He remarked that he highly doubted engineering students would find favor with grad unionization, however other areas might. He would be unhappy if the GPSA area balance were so disproportionate that a vote on an important issue might questionably pass without fair representation by a majority group.

E. Salas noted the time and made a motion to vote if no one had additional comments.

J. Sebastian stated he would like to comment on the conversation. He stated it seemed as though those in favor of a population-based system seem to come from large areas. He thought COR existed to bring together the thoughts from the different fields and therefore allow representation through them.

D. Toomey disagreed. He stated he represents 98 students in economic. J. Sebastian represents 12 for medieval studies. B. Krishnamachari represents in the 100’s.

J. Sebastian pointed out the current cluster system hasn’t really been population-based either.

P. Carr suggested the group vote. He said he would present each of the choices to the members.

Members did not like this suggestion.

P. Carr countered that the GPSA could conduct a straw poll on the choices. The group was in favor of this method.

P. Carr noted that GPSA membership was to stay at one representative from each of the professional schools and that was not causing disagreement with the group. Therefore, he clarified this straw poll was only deciding the number of representatives for the grad areas.

P. Carr asked how many members were in favor of the resolution as passed on February 25. He noted the first option would split the grad areas at: 3-Humanities, 3-Biological Sciences, 4-Physical Sciences, and 3-Social Sciences. Three members found this acceptable, seven did not.

P. Carr asked how many members were in favor of D. Toomey’s proposal to split the grad areas at: 3-Humanities, 3-Biological Sciences, 4-Physical Sciences, and 4-Social Sciences. Seven members found this acceptable, two did not.

P. Carr asked how many members were in favor of G. Hurley’s proposal to amend D. Toomey’s amendment and equally split the grad areas at: 3-Humanities, 3-Biological Sciences, 3-Physical Sciences, and 3-Social Sciences. Five members found this acceptable, two did not.

P. Carr stated the straw poll indicated the majority of members were not happy with the February 25 split. He noted the two highest choices were D. Toomey’s and G. Hurley’s. He told members he would need a majority straw poll vote indicating preference between the two options. Another straw poll vote had three members finding G. Hurley’s amendment of 3,3,3,3 preferable and six opposing.

P. Carr asked for any last comments on D. Toomey’s proposal to amend resolution 5 and add a fourth seat to social sciences.

K. Hueffer again stated disagreement with adding another seat to the total GPSA.

B. Krishnamachari said he was going to abstain from the vote.

P. Carr pointed out that an abstention would count as a “no” vote.

O. Salminen expressed that she thought that as long as the GPSA membership stayed below 20 members that it would continue to function okay.

A. Saathoff agreed that he was okay with a membership of 17.

P. Carr asked if there was any new discussion as the meeting was really running overtime.

J. Moriarty moved to vote.

P. Carr reminded members they needed a 2/3 vote to pass because this was amending the GPSA Charter. The vote was whether to split the grad areas at: 3-Humanities, 3-Biological Sciences, 4-Physical Sciences, and 4-Social Sciences.

Resolution 5 was unanimously approved as amended. It reads: R.5 Resolution Amending GPSA Membership

Whereas, The current system selecting a GPSA from the Council of Representatives is cumbersome and does not guarantee a balanced body;

Be It Therefore Resolved, To amend the Article 4 preamble of the charter to read:

Graduate and professional students of Cornell University shall create a Graduate and Professional Council of Representatives, comprised of comprising representatives from each professional school and graduate field. The Graduate and Professional Council of Representatives shall elect and empower an operative body, the GPSA, to ensure effective and efficient operations. The GPSA shall consist of fifteen (15) seventeen (17) graduate and professional school students, of whom one (1) shall be from each of the professional schools (Law, Vet, JGSM), three (3) shall be at-large, and the remaining nine shall be distributed by graduate field clusters as follows: � One (1) from the Division of Biological Sciences and the Graduate Veterinary fields. � One (1) from Biological Sciences in Agriculture. � One (1) from Social Sciences in Agriculture. � One (1) from Architecture, Art, and Planning and Social Sciences in Arts and Sciences. � One (1) from Humanities in Arts and Sciences. � One (1) from Physical Sciences in Arts and Sciences. � Two (2) from Engineering. � One (1) from Human Ecology, Industrial Labor Relations, Hotel Administration, � Law, and Management.

and from the areas as defined by the Graduate School: three (3) from Humanities, three (3) from Biological Sciences, four (4) from Physical Sciences, and four (4) from Social Sciences. and

Be It Further Resolved, To amend Article 4.1:

The Graduate and Professional Council of Representatives may allocate not more than one of its three at-large seats to any one constituent group(s) of students which it determines to be underrepresented. Should it be determined to allocate a seat or seats to specifed groups of students, such allocation shall be in accordance with procedures promulgated by the GPSA and contained in its procedures and/or bylaws. At least one of the Physical Sciences seats shall be from an engineering field and at least one shall be from a non-engineering field. and

Be It Further Resolved, To strike “Representatives for the at-large seats are elected by the entire Council of Representatives, after the designated seats are filled,” and “seated” from Article 4.4 such that it reads:

The voting members of the GPSA will be elected in the spring, by and from the seated Council of Representatives prior to the first week in May. Representatives nominate and vote by caucus for the voting GPSA member(s) who represents their field clusterarea/professional school, as described above (Article 4). Representatives for the at-large seats are elected by the entire Council of Representatives, after the designated seats are filled. All voting GPSA members are elected to a one-year term, with no limit on the number of terms they may serve. Voting GPSA seats are not transferable. If there is no candidate either elected or appointed pursuant to the above procedure, that seat is thrown open as “at-large,” and a representative is elected by the Council of Representatives. The seat reverts to its original designation at the next regular election.

and resolved to strike Article 4.4a:

Twelve (12) representatives are elected to the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly designated seats as stated in Article 4. The elected twelve (12) Graduate and Professional Student Assembly members are to announce their affiliations and interests to the Council of Representatives. By nomination and/or self nomination for the at-large seats, the Council of Representatives members may identify groups/interests that are not adequately represented by those elected to the designated seats. The candidates running for the at-large seats and receiving the most votes shall be seated on the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly. Any seat(s) not identified to represent an under represented group/interest shall represent the graduate/professional students at-large.

and

Be It Further Resolved, To change “cluster” or “field cluster” everywhere throughout to “area.”

Respectfully submitted,

Patrick Carr Joan Moriarty GPSA President GPSA Secretary

David Toomey GPSA Representative Arts and Sciences (Humanities)

B. GPSA Charter This topic was not discussed due to time constraints.

O. Salminen interjected that she would like an e-mail sent to all new COR members prior to the April 8 organizational meeting. She’d like to outline the process and provide a list of COR names and contact information from each area. She suggested that perhaps those interested in being elected to the GPSA could write a brief message stating their interest and this could be provided to others in the area for consideration prior to April 8. She was thinking they could be encouraged to attend the April 5 TGIF so they could meet one another. A moderator from each area would be needed to help in the process for April 8. A thought was to have an outgoing GPSA member serve in this capacity. She asked if there was any objection to letting the GPSA executive committee design the April 8 meeting and asked what members thought.

E. Salas stated she liked the idea of trying to better organize the election process for new members. Meeting prior to April 8 would be good.

V. Augusta noted that some of the ideas suggested sounded as though they could be difficult to fully implement this year. Perhaps it might better to think about needs and implement next spring.

VI. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m.

Submitted,

Bonnie Bailey Office of the Assemblies