Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Minutes

Big Red Barn Greenhouse September 30, 2002 5:30–6:30 p.m. Attendance: 2002–2003 GPSA Members 8/26 9/30 10/21 11/25 1/27 2/24 3/24 4/21 Shaffique Adam P P Daniel Dadoyan P A Gerod Hall P P Gavin Hurley P P Lauren Mangiola P E Kurt Massey A P Timothy McConnochie P P Andrew Miller A P Joan Moriarty P P Bryan Preston P A Daniela Raik P P David Schmale III P P Andrew Schpak P P Nab Sharif A P Ariana Vigil A P Robb Willer P P Heather Wynder A P Others Present: Roberta Robles, Sarah Lozano, Victoria Augusta, Hope Mandeville, Tyng Tsuei, John Sebastian

I. Call to Order J. Moriarty called the meeting to order at 5:40.

II. Approval of Minutes The approval of the minutes was tabled because they were unavailable at the time.

III. Approval of Committee Appointments A. Schpak asked if many people got to be on more than one committee?

J. Moriarity said not many.

A motion was made to approve.

It was 2nded.

The committee appointments were approved.

IV. Committee Reports R. Willer said that GPSAFC had their first meeting and gave out money to the clubs asking for it. He asked the members to talk to him after the meeting for details.

J. Moriarty asked if anybody else went to any other committee meetings?

D. Schmale said that he attended last week’s UA meeting and they talked about linking all of the assemblies together.

T. McConnochie said that he wanted to address the points brought up at the Fall Advance. The other assemblies didn’t meet yet before the UA met so they couldn’t do much without input from the other assemblies. One point that was brought up was to review how campus government works.

V. Business of the Day S. Lozano talked about the overview given at the last COR meeting. She talked about the reasons given for dissolution and the reasons it shouldn’t be dissolved. The resolution asks the GPSA to support a more equitable and democratic process.

J. Moriarty read out loud the resolution. She said that they should start off by deciding if this is the general position that the GPSA wants to take and then they can work on word changes.

K. Massey said that he wants the resolution to say something about flying in the face of shared governance.

T. McConnochie said that the whereas clauses might be true but he doesn’t know since there is nothing to back it up.

D. Schmale said that he wants somebody to talk about the pros of dissolution since we have heard the cons of dissolution. He heard that the architecture students are actually excited about realignment. He feels that they need to understand all concerns of all grad students.

R. Robles said that they only wanted the resolution to address the process because right now there are issues with it.

R. Willer said he supports the idea of engaging students in public debate and it is better for the GPSA than taking a side. He thinks that they should go through each clause.

P. McPheron said that the intention seems to be to ask the Trustees to reject the dissolution of the school. The spoken words at the meeting versus the written words on paper are contradictory. The proposal may be to extend the time to review.

G. Hurley said that the issue of dissolution was raised at the leadership meeting and the official position is that there is no position.

D. Raik said that there should be something about the stakeholder engaging process in the resolution.

R. Willer said that they should elaborate on the word “analysis” more to include grad student involvement.

P. McPheron asked if the resolution was directed to the Trustees or the administration?

J. Moriarty asked why can’t we address both groups?

N. Sharif said he agreed.

A. Schpak said that if they are asking for more information, then it is dangerous to proceed because we are ambiguous about what we want.

S. Adam asked if the GPSA can accuse them of making a decision if they haven’t made a decision?

D. Schmale said that we need to formulate what we want to request and if the requests aren’t met then this is what we’re going to do.

R. Willer said that we need to get the document out without any specific suggestions because of time sensitivity and it is the best for the AAP and administration to decide what is best.

S. Lozano said that the school went through a self study last year (an external and internal review) for the CRP.

K. Massey said that it was only done for department re-accreditation, not for the entire school.

The members went through each clause and made the appropriate word changes.

H. Wynder asked was one of the proposals not to dissolve because she heard that the faculty was meeting.

R. Robles said that no real proposal was set forth and the administration did say that they will dissolve. They haven’t said how, or given destination departments.

J. Moriarty said she talked with Ken Rudin and the administration had created a proposal post-announcement to make it look like there was discussion.

T. McConnochie proposed that they strike clauses 3–8.

K. Massey said that striking the rest of the whereas clauses would be bad because they need to address what the administration is and isn’t doing.

A motion was made to keep the whereas clauses.

R. Willer said that the clauses make the resolution stronger for conclusion. They need to make sure that the facts are really facts.

S. Adam said they need to make the clauses stronger to show that people are upset.

A motion was made to strike “potential.”

J. Moriarty said that potential colleges should have a say.

R. Willer said they should strike “stakeholder” because the administration is a group and it invalidates that clause.

G. Hurley said he supports clause 9 and they need to find out the truth about the facts.

J. Moriarty said they were going to keep 1, 2 and 9.

D. Schmale said he moved to make a new clause and strike out what isn’t needed.

A vote was done to strike out all the clauses, 4–6.

J. Moriarty said she wanted to strike clauses 5, 6 and 7.

R. Willer asked why?

J. Moriarty said because they are not sure of its factuality.

G. Hall said don’t we need the clauses to show why the administration is being arbitrary?

A motion was made to close discussion and move to a vote.

Clauses 5, 6, and 7 were voted on and passed.

K. Massey said that the administration continually said they’re not academically integrated and the school wants a chance to integrate.

Clause 4 was voted on and passed.

R. Robles said that Clause 8 is publicized fact on the website.

K. Massey said that it is an official timeline on public record.

H. Wynder asked if we need the dates?

K. Massey said that the November date is necessary.

A. Schpak said he agrees.

J. Sebastion said it sounds like the clause is put in there for the resolve clause’s purpose and they should first decide what the resolve clause is.

Clause 8 was tabled.

R. Willer said the resolution is all about there not being enough adequate discussion and we need to debate if we agree with the decision.

A motion was made to keep clause 9 and passed.

A. Schpak said that arbitrary is a rude word to use.

H. Wynder said to add unilateral to the 9th clause.

The amendment to clause 9 passed.

D. Schmale said that it sounds like we’re taking stands (re: 1st resolve)

H. Wynder asked what are we asking for?

R. Willer said that resolution could be made stronger if we make a statement that this is a bad idea.

The 1st resolve clause was approved.

There was discussion on the 1st and 2nd resolve clause.

The 2nd resolve clause was approved.

R. Willer said we should include the GPSA opposing realignment.

A. Schpak said we need to add how we feel and address it to everyone.

G. Hurley said that the final resolve clause repeats previous clauses but thinks that it’s fine.

H. Wynder thinks the last resolve clause is unnecessary because we already stated our side in the previous two.

R. Willer said he opposes Heather because the 3rd resolve clause summarizes.

The 3rd resolve clause was approved.

J. Moriarty said that they need to go back to the 8th clause.

The 8th whereas clause was approved.

J. Moriarty read the entire newly revised resolution.

The resolution passed.

S. Lozano thanked the GPSA for spending their time on the resolution.

G. Hurley said that something needs to be said about the committee appointed for unionization. S. Adam has been gathering questions and the committee’s been meeting. Please contact him or G. Hurley for more information.

A motion for the GPSA committee to put information on the website on behalf of the GPSA was made and approved.

D. Schmale moved to reconsider the motion because he feels they should review the information before it is made public.

H. Wynder said that if people care, they can talk to Gavin. It would be a mistake to send everything out via the list serve.

G. Hurley said that there is lobbying in DC to make fellowship stipends non-taxable and email him for more details.

A. Schpak said that they should talk about the Advance priorities at the next COR meeting.

X. Adjournment

A motion was made to adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Tyng Tsuei

Office of the Assemblies