COR Notes September 16, 2002

Welcome G. Hurley introduced S. Adam, J. Moriarty, R. Willer, H. Mandeville and T. Bishop.

Open Forum	There were no speakers.

Introduction	J. Moriarty introduced T. Tsuei as the clerk.  She explained that the GPSA is the voice of grad students.  Work will be done in committees and reports will be brought back to GPSA/COR.  She encouraged COR members to return and to also attend GPSA meetings.

F. Maduka introduced herself as the student trustee.

Announcements and Reports J. Moriarty said that at the last GPSA meeting goals were set. Some goals were to become more visible, look at processes, and gain access to services available to undergrads. She also spoke about the Fall Advance, where how to strengthen committees and the Assembly system were discussed.

C. Jirsa talked about the recruitment funds for grad schools. $300 is being offered as an incentive to recruit new students. In addition, an issue with external fellowships is the coverage of health insurance; they are going to try to find room in the budget to provide health insurance for students receiving external fellowships. In regards to foreign language theses, one can write it in a foreign language as long as it isn’t your native language. He wasn’t sure how the issue was resolved because he had to leave the meeting, but he will find out.

R. Willer reminded the group that there would be a GPSAFC meeting after the COR meeting.

V. Augusta reminded the group that the Faculty Senate is sponsoring a debate on unionization on 9/18, Wednesday, at 4:30 in Kennedy Auditorium.

� Business of the Day Unionization G. Hurley said that last year the GPSA passed a resolution announcing its neutrality on the issue. He said that it is important that the GPSA is active. They were working on the idea of a debate between both sides of the issue. He suggested a website, and a proposal was circulated. The website would act as a neutral host for arguments for and against. The pros and cons of unionization from CASE/UAW and the administration/?, or to open the argument up to the public are options A and B.

B. Preston asked that if option B is chosen, does the GPSA have the resources to internally handle it, and would be a published or living document?

G. Hurley said that a committee would be put together and that it would be published.

Someone suggested that they make a list of questions for people to respond to.

H. Wynder said she liked the idea of having a rebuttal gathering.

A student asked if any student groups were involved, because they heard that www.atwhatcost.org helped students at Brown.

D. Agruss (Comp lit) said that it is hard to understand how absolute neutrality would occur in option A. If it is decided what parties are on each side, then there will be accuracy on facts on each side.

T. McConochie said that column A might not be feasible if the administration isn’t allowed to argue. It would also be difficult to identify an anti-union voice.

J. Moriarty said that we can’t have the administration versus pro-union because it would be us against them. It is illegal for faculty to make statements and it would be questioning the authenticity of neutrality. In this case, G. Hurley is neutral.

S. Adam asked for a sense of the body regarding the question of whether or not the website is a good idea?

K. Hueffer asked would it jeopardize the GPSA’s ability to negotiate having the GPSA’s president quoted as calling the President a liar in the Daily Sun?

G. Hurley said that he would do the negotiations. He said that since the GPSA is an elected body, questioning its integrity is unfair.

S. Adam said that J. Moriarty is trying to step back on controversial issues.

G. Hurley said that many people wanted to know who should be the anti group.

A student said that the website is a good idea because a lot of misinformed people are out there.

B. Holmes said that they need to identify groups who can answer questions, and maybe include the GPSA.

S. Adam said that they should go to department fields and find out what questions they have, and then post to the GPSA list serve to see if they can find the answers.

A) College of Art, Architecture & Planning J. Moriarty said that Cornell is planning on dissolving the school and putting the three departments elsewhere. It is a matter of democracy because Cornell claims it’s open for debate.

S. Lozano, a Masters student from City Planning said that there is no Art rep on COR. She made an effort to try to get as much information as possible. In mid-July, President Rawlings and Provost Martin sent the Dean a letter suggesting reorganization due to budgeting and lack of intellectual cohesion. In August they put together a task force to discuss. In September a meeting was held to discuss information. On Sept 5 the President and Provost met with the departments’ faculty. On Sept 9 student leaders in the schools met and an open forum was held in the evening. There was an even distribution of undergrads and grad students attending. They talked about minority affairs to put together a memo for Rawlings and Martin to meet with students. However, there has been no update on that. They came up with 3 options: A) disband the college and put Architecture into Engineering; B) disband the college and put Architecture into its own college and C) keep the college together and work on issues raised by Rawlings and Martin.

R. Robles said that educational needs need to come first. The decision came at a bad time because it distracts the faculty and the students. The administration failed to provide evidence for realignment and hadn’t even examined scholarship. The rankings for the school are top notch and the administration needs to make a clear case on the advantages of realignment and dissolution. They need to examine tenure, loss of existing students, drop in applications, and loss of faculty.

S. Lozano said that students want to keep the college together until something definitive is decided. She talked with J. Moriarty and they want to meet in a smaller group to discuss it.

F. Maduka asked if alumni were contacted about the issue?

S. Lozano said that no official effort has been made to recruit alumni. They have received many letters because alumni’s professional reputations rests on it.

F. Maduka asked how will it affect construction of the new Architecture building?

S. Lozano said that that is another issue that the administration hasn’t officially addressed.

D. Agruss asked if they are trying to garner support to keep the school together or for the democratic process?

S. Lozano said that they are disturbed by the administration making arbitrary decisions, just like they did with the Russian Department. Students are trying to garner support for the democratic process.

K. Massey from Landscape Architecture said that it affects other colleges because of where schools might go. For example, it may affect ALS or ILR. There needs to be more thought and consideration.

V. Augusta said that this issue came up at the Faculty Senate meeting and it may be the issue of a research institution versus a professional institution and how it is disjuncts from the school’s mission. They need to keep this disjunct in mind and it may just be a restructuring issue.

D. Schmale asked when is the proposed realignment going to take place?

S. Lozano said that it is scheduled to be decided at the Trustee meeting in January.

A student asked how many students and faculty are there in the 3 schools?

S. Lozano said about 500–750, it is the smallest college.

Goal Setting G. Hurley said that they will be deferring goal setting to the next meeting.

� Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:35. Respectfully submitted, Tyng Tsuei Office of the Assemblies