Graduate and Professional Student Assembly
Minutes
Big Red Barn
January 26, 2004
5:30–7:00 pm

Attendance:

Present: Larry Boyd, Harley Etienne, Brian Holmes, Gavin Hurley, Curtis Jirsa, Dan Marques, Kurt Massey, Timothy McConnochie, Mark McGuire, Anne McNeil, Joan Moriarty, David Schmale III, Ariana Vigil, Karen Trainor

Excused: Susannah Schmid, Cate Taylor, Farbod Raiszadeh

Unexcused:

Others Present: Stephan Braig, Amy Levine, Phil McPheron, Chad Peshak, Anne Poduska, V. Blodgett, Aron Rachamim, Kevin O’Neil, Eric Cheyfitz, Tammy Bishop, Lisa Gilbertson

I. CALL TO ORDER

G. Hurley called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.

G. Hurley decided to make a change to the order of the agenda and discuss R7, the Resolution on University Position on HR3077 first.

A. Vigil explained the resolution to be discussed. She said that the resolution will most directly affect international students Vigil explained that the resolution is a response to 9/11. The problem she sees with the resolution is that it involves instituting an advisory board to reviews grants of government money to students. This advisory board is not a part of the original act from 1965. According to Vigil, this board will be an explicitly political group, not a group of peers (as it is now); this puts politics unnecessarily into education. The purpose of R7 is simply to encourage the university to hold a public forum and urge the university to take a position of the resolution.

T. McConnochie asked what constraints are put on the university about taking sides on the resolution.

Professor Cheyfitz responded to the question and explained that the only constraint put on the university is how conservative the university wants to be. He recommended that everyone look at the original 1965 act. He said that in the act the politics are kept implicit and HR3077 makes the political aspects explicit (ex: homeland security, response to 9/11). He continued to explain the negative aspects of the amendment by looking at the composition of the committee. He said that the committee will have oversight of decisions and are likely to have motives in line with the political party in power. The new amendment, he said, allows direct intervention by federal agencies such as the CIA and Homeland Security.

D. Marques asked exactly what powers will be granted to the advisory board.

Professor Cheyfitz answered by reading section B of HR3077 and explained that the board will have the power to look at programs across the board for a certain political correctness.

A student asked if the resolution gives power to the board to revoke grants.

Professor Cheyfitz answered no. He then asked the assembly to consider what the purpose of the board is and why exactly we need this oversight.

B. Holmes asked if the advisory board falls under the Department of Education.

Professor Cheyfitz answered yes.

B. Holmes commented, quoting two sources, that the purpose of the board is to curb left wing bias in the academy. He said that the assembly should consider the Patriot Act, which was not considered a big deal by many Democrats, but the problem was in the way the Act has been enforced. He said that the same sort of situation might happen in with HR3077.

A. Rachamim asked how HR3077 would reduce terrorism.

Professor Cheyfitz said that the resolution isn’t really doing that; it is trying to fit this type of academic study into a certain set of ideas. He feels it is not the job of the government to curb anything in the academy.

A. Levine explained that Asian studies students all over the country are concerned with the effects of this resolution. She said that UT, U of Arizona, and Boston have all been very active in response to HR3077. She said that people, especially in the anthropological field, are already feeling the impacts. She also said that one anthropological group has taken a position on the resolution at their annual conference in Chicago this year. She also brought up the subject of CIA ads recruiting people who can read lines of different languages on the NY Times website.

D. Marques asked if the assembly would detach the discussion from the politics and focus on the resolution and the purpose of the committee and what its effects really are.

T. McConnochie said he would like to rephrase the resolution to specifically say that the assembly is concerned with the advisory board.

B. Holmes made a point of order that the last whereas clause does that.

T. McConnochie said that he felt the wording was still not clear enough and it should say that any political meddling is a bad idea.

G. Hurley asked McConnochie if he had a specific amendment in mind.

T. McConnochie suggested that something such as “because it sets up an advisory board” should be added to the first resolved clause.

The amendment to the resolution was found friendly.

A. Vigil asked the assembly to focus on the resolution and remember that they are not asking for condemnation of HR3077. She stated that her goals for this resolution are to bring awareness and information to the university community. She said that something stronger can be considered depending on the outcome of the forum.

A. Rachamim commented that the assembly should also look at the effectiveness of HR3077; in his opinion political oversight should be instituted if something is failing, but not if it’s working, as is the case with the way grants are handled currently.

L. Boyd thanked the sponsors of the resolution for phrasing it in a way that does not take a stand on the issue.

G. Hurley asked for a vote

The assembly voted and the resolution passed.

II. OPEN FORUM

B. Holmes announced a welcome reception for the LBTG group at the Big Red Barn at 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 28.

T. McConnochie asked if the welcome reception was taking place at the same time as games and pizza.

V. Blodgett said no, it will begin right after that event.

G. Hurley passed out the new GPSA flyers.

III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UPDATES

A. Willard Straight Game Room

G. Hurley updated the assembly on the developments since the end of the semester. He said that he has met with Kent Hubble on the subject and the outcome was a decision to put off a decision about the game room. Instead, the discussion has been reopened and they also want to look at the use of all the spaces throughout the building, such as the rooms on the fourth floor (Memorial Room, International Lounge, etc.), and use them for things that students, both undergraduates and graduates, want. He also told the assembly that their reputation was on the line since they had played a major role in objecting to Kinko’s and they needed to get involved in this project. He asked if anyone was willing to be on a committee.

Kurt Massey and Joan Moriarty volunteered

B. Graduate Community Assistantships

P. McPheron director of Graduate and Professional Student Housing said he was looking for people interested in a position as a Graduate Community Assistant (GCA) for the next academic year. He said the deadline is January 30 and applications were available from him, at the housing locations, or online. He explained that GCAs like in the five graduate housing centers and are essential in making communities in Graduate and Professional Housing. He also gave information on the diversity that the experience offers.

L Boyd suggested that McPheron email him the information and he would pass it on.

R. Farbod commented that GCAs are very valuable to the living experience. He raised concerns, however, that international students are not allowed to apply for the position and asked McPheron if anything was being done to change that.

P. McPheron explained that the international students have always been represented in the GCA and although they do have a disadvantage, there is not much they can do about the situation because of the number of hours required for the position.

H. Etienne asked what the stipend for the position is.

P. McPheron said the stipend for this year was $1250 and it should increase for the coming year.

C. Other Updates

G. Hurley informed the assembly that the woman who had been taping the meeting was Jessica Lind from Ithaca Radio. He said he would contact her about the regulations for taping. He felt that she could use anything she had taped unless anyone had any objections.

D. Schmale announced that President Lehman will be present at the February 9 COR meeting and asked for suggestions on how the interaction should take place.

H. Etienne suggested that they discuss the Call to Engagement with him and see what type of feedback he has received.

D. Schmale said that he would send out an agenda call and anyone with a suggestion could send it to him. He also suggested that, at the meeting, inflammatory responses be kept to a minimum to encourage dialog with the president.

D. Schmale also gave an update on the Ivy Summit, a meeting of Ivy Graduate leaders, which will take place at U Penn on February 27 and 28. He said that they would need to gather funds and they could work on a proposed budget at the next meeting. He also said that anyone who had pertinent issues they would like to have discussed at the conference should email him.

J. Moriarty updated the Cintas resolution. She said that Cintas had admitted to creating a list of people and using it negatively. She said that Career Services has written an apology letter and they have been asked to read it at the next Student Assembly meeting. She also said that they are working on getting the school to replace Cintas with another provider and has met with D. Kraus to discuss this subject.

T. McConnochie asked what Cintas is

J. Moriarty explained that it is a uniform company that has committed major labor law violations. It is the provider used by the Statler, which is the reason they are encouraging Cornell to switch providers.

IV. BUSINESS OF THE DAY

A. R7, Resolution on University Position on HR3077

This issued was discussed at the beginning of the meeting

B. Finance Commission Report

B. Holmes said they had drafted and emailed a report and had added pie charts. He said that the February 23 meeting is the last opportunity to make changes in time for budget application.

L. Boyd suggested that everyone attend the Finance Commission meetings if they had suggestions. He said their goals are to make the process more understandable and money more accessible to students. He stated that the commission wants to finish this project and suggested an extra meeting to deal with it.

K. O’Neil said that having fewer bylines is a good idea and more fair because it restricts the movement of money. He also felt that it is difficult and unfair to require member counts. He suggested that funding to new groups be restricted. He also asked if the handbook available online is the one that is given to the groups.

B. Holmes answered yes.

K. O’Neil commented that he found the handbook very straightforward and easy to follow.

H. Etienne raised his concerns about removing the line item for things like periodicals. He felt that since the library has stopped purchasing many of these items, the groups should have the option of purchasing them with their funding.

L. Boyd explained that the committee is redoing the guidelines to be more flexible to take care of instances like that.

H. Etienne said he would like to see the break down, on the pie chart, of the “all other groups” category by field or school.

L. Boyd said that that type of breakdown is very difficult because many groups span across schools and fields.

G. Hurley suggested that this be done offline.

K. O’Neil asked if taking away the byline for books and periodicals would keep the groups from buying them altogether.

B. Holmes answered no. He also said that only 2 out of 183 groups even used that byline and often groups get money in this category and then transfer the funds.

T. McConnochie said that he felt it is ok that specialized school groups (vet, law) get the most money because these groups are more motivated in organizing events for the students to participate in and that this should not be changed. He asked to what extent the GPSAFC is allowed to use their judgment and suggested that their role be more clearly defined.

K. O’Neil said it would be useful to include a list of clubs on the FC website to make these clubs more open to students.

D. Marques added that they could also publish hosted events to make those more accessible.

D. Schmale said that this money should be considered as a prize and given to clubs with very good proposals. He felt that money should not be taken away from those who work hard just to give it to someone else because they applied. He said that if people realize they need to work to get their funding, the proposals would keep getting better.

A. Rachamim said he felt it is a very good idea to have a website and publish events.

B. Holmes said that he has been working with Tammy Bishop and Hope Mandeville on a website and email box for that purpose.

T. Bishop said that it is also possible to access the Cornell Calendar for this purpose.

H. Etienne said the thinks there should be a limit on the amount of money groups from a specialized school can receive based on how much money the students in that school contribute because if money is just given to the best proposals, the new students who take over a group will be at a disadvantage if the students before them did a bad job on their proposal.

L. Boyd said that the GPSAFC has to deal with two types of groups, those who are very established and predictable and do the same events year after year and those groups who are newer or unpredictable and are very active some years and not others. The commission needs to have a way to handle both types of groups. He said he is concerned with setting hard limits because it reduces flexibility.

M. McGuire suggested a website of an undergraduate group that might serve as a model. This group gives out money after an event has been completed which eliminates the excess funds that some groups end up with. He also suggested that the old groups mentor the new groups to give them a more fair chance to write a good proposal.

K. Trainor offered a possible solution that the groups who fail to meet the requirements could be given the opportunity to revise their proposal.

B. Holmes said he is against hard limits on professional groups and suggested, instead, that the commission limit their income from the Activity Fee in the spring of 2004. He also suggested that the student assemblies of each professional school review budgets first and then give them to the GPSAFC. He said that no limit should be placed on special project requests during the year.

C. Jirsa asked if the allocations are proportional to the amount of money requested from each professional school.

L. Boyd said that the amount of money requested is not a good statistic to look at because groups often request a lot of money knowing they will not receive it all.

C. Jirsa asked if the volume of requests is a better number to look at.

L. Boyd answered that the allocations are really based on the number of groups, allowing flexibility, which is a good thing.

D. Schmale said that this process should be handled like any grant request, on the quality of the proposal. Bad proposals shouldn’t be given money at the expense of better proposals. He asked how exactly it is handled now.

L. Boyd explained that the proposals are prioritized by amount of information and timeliness.

B. Holmes said that currently there are no rules on who deserves money.

L. Boyd said that last year allocations were made and then reviewed and cuts were made. Currently, the process is fairly arbitrary and looks at how well the groups meet the requirements.

T. McConnochie suggested that the commission would not look just at the quality of proposal to protect groups against having one proposal be detrimental to the group. He said that the arbitrariness in the process could be taken care of with a good set of flexible guidelines. He asked what is the next step.

G. Hurley said that people with additional ideas and comments should get them to L. Boyd and B. Holmes

L. Boyd said the next step is to work with B. Holmes and work on writing down suggested guidelines for the process.

C. Other Business

There was no other business

V. ADJOURNMENT

G. Hurley adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Gilbertson