GPSA Operations and Staffing Committee

Charter Review Meeting

In Attendance:

• Thomas Balcerski, Vice-President Operations, Chair of Operations & Staffing
• Steven An, representing Communications committee — voting member
• Nicole Baran, Events Committee Chair -voting member
• Kyle Albert, Appropriations Chair — voting member
• Bobby Hartshorn, GPSA Financial Commission (GPSAFC) Chair
• Chris Clarke, representing GPSAFC - voting member
• Marquis Hawkins, Student Advocacy Committee — voting member
• Evan Cortens, GPSA UA Representative
• Jolyon Bloomfield, representing Sustainability ad-hoc committee
• Chris Heckman, GPSA Physical Sciences representative
• Brian M. Forster, Counsel to the GPSA, ex-officio member

Meeting started at 7:10pm

T. Balcerski began the meeting at 7:10pm. He announced that there was no set agenda for the evening. As with the previous charter review meetings, the charter review group will go through the issues on order. The meeting will run as committee on the whole for debate. Any vote will be formal.

E. Cortens announced that the University Assembly adopted its new charter last Wednesday (Charter: http://assembly.cornell.edu/UA/20110209CharterDraft/print, Bylaws: http://assembly.cornell.edu/UA/20101201BylawsDraft/print).

Discussion #1: Material moved from the Charter to the Bylaws (Article 6 on committees and Article 7 on procedures).

T. Balcerski showed what material he moved out of the charter and into the bylaws. N. Baran asked for an explanation of (a) what goes into the charter vs. what goes into the bylaws and (b) whether committees should be defined in the charter. E. Cortens stated that the charter is just the document which establishes the authority of the assembly. The bylaws are the governing rules. He stated for the UA, the UA charter simply states that committees will be formed to carry out the function of the UA. It is in the bylaws where these committees are identified and their charges defined. B. Forster stated that a charter is to be prepared such that it does not need to be changed a lot.

E. Cortens noted that the current bylaws have a lot of cut and paste as far as descriptions (note: this is again discussed later on).

N. Baran felt that the descriptions of the standing committees should be included. T. Balcerski said that by removing this section, the charter will be shorter and clearer. N. Baran disagreed saying that it would not be clearer. T. Balcerski wanted to remove current section 6.02a. N. Baran stated that the charter would indicate that committees do not exist until the bylaws would be voted on.

C. Clarke stated that this would cause logistical issues. We would be electing chairs to committees before the bylaws would be approved. If the bylaws were the only place committees were mentioned, then the bylaws could be changed and the chair that was elected may not have a position. T. Balcerski said that by keeping the committees in the bylaws, then a new committee could be easily added on.

B. Forster said that he looked over the Student Assembly charter and they only mention the Appropriations committee in their charter since it is mentioned for the Activity Fee section of the charter.

T. Balcerski called for a vote of whether the committee section should be removed. The vote was 3–2 in favor of removal. The committee section is moved into the bylaws.

Sections of the bylaws regarding committees were then shown. The committee reviewed how the duplication of committee descriptions between the charter and bylaws were resolved. T. Balcerski showed sections 3.09 (UA representation) and 3.10 (committee designees). None of the members present had issues with that material.

Returning to the charter, S. An and other members questioned whether the Activity fee sections of the charter should remain in the charter. C. Heckman said it should. B. Forster said they should since the byline funding documents. It was noted that Appropriations and the GPSAFC committees are mentioned in this section, however they were not defined previously in the charter once section 6 was removed. Therefore, the committee felt that the standing committees should be listed only. The explanations and charges of the committees are still being moved out of the charter and to the bylaws. All members were in agreement of this.

B. Hartshorn reiterated the comment that E. Cortens made earlier that the committee descriptions in the bylaws seems to be a copy and paste and has material that is redundant. B. Forster explained that this was done during the last charter review where all the committees copied the Student Advocacy’s working procedures. The copying of material is due to the fact that there are some slight differences between each committee (especially in terms of the absence policy). B. Hartshorn recommended that the bylaws be edited so the redundant material (i.e. “the committee will have a chairperson”) is stated once, with the tasks of each committee then specifically defined. T. Balcerski said he would look into that possibility.

B. Forster then made edits to the Operations and Staffing committee description and the # of graduate/professional student seats on committees. There was no dissent.

Committee took a 5 minute recess.

Discussion #2: GPSA Membership, Additional At-Large Seats, Meeting Structure

The committee then looked at the material that was presented by C. Clarke and the working group. This material is based from 2009–2010 GPSA resolution R.16 to allow non-voting members to participate more in the GPSA. B. Forster asked for what was wrong with the term cabinet. C. Clarke said that he received some comments from Mike Walsh, one of which was proper terms for bicameral government bodies.

N. Baran asked for clarification of Nighthawk Evensen’s comments regarding whether they should be called representatives or not. B. Forster then reviewed with the committee the original basis for Council of Representatives, that they just report GPSA actions back to their fields (i.e. are they representing??). The system is such that like the SA, there are a small number of students on the voting assembly. The larger body (Council of Representatives) was for disseminating information.

C. Clarke said that appropriate names could include voting members and associate members. The committee discussed using the term associate members to replace “non-voting members”. C. Clarke said he did not want a designation that defines what a member cannot do. The committee discussed whether to call the two bodies “voting members” and “field representatives”. B. Forster asked B. Hartshorn whether professional schools would mind being referred to as a field. B. Hartshorn indicated that this would be ok. There was unanimous agreement that the two bodies would be referred to in the documents in this manner.

Discussing Article 4, C.Clarke asked whether all graduate and professional students are GPSA members. T. Balcerski said they were not. Next, the committee focused on reworking Sections 4.02 through 4.04 such that the rights of all graduate and professional students to attend GPSA meetings is stated, then leading into the rights and responsibilities of GPSA members. E. Cortens stated that he liked this set-up since the end of section 4.02 would now lead into the descriptions of the field representatives, then the voting members.

Regarding the ability to add additional “at-large” seats as needed, C. Clarke explained that it was a mechanism for individuals who want to be voting members but are not able to be elected to become voting members. C. Clarke indicated that there were some comments that this could be used by voting members to get whoever they wanted into the GPSA. B. Forster noted that one issue with this system is that we could end up with an even number of seats, complicating whether business can be completed. C. Clarke stated that the voting membership would have to first vote on whether the seat should be created. Then if that passes, open it up to everyone and have a election, in the same manner that at-large seats are elected. J. Bloomfield felt that this was not the way to have more people become involved.

There was discussion whether to increase the voting membership of each group by 1. Those present indicated that this would not be a good idea especially since it is hard to get all the original 19 seats filled.

T. Balcerski called for a vote whether to remove the floating membership clause. The vote was 3–2 in favor of removal.

The committee also decided that the statement of setting up field email listservs through CIT should be removed. C. Clarke and B. Forster agreed to move the statement to the handbook B. Forster is writing for the GPSA.

Regarding the definition of meetings, T. Balcerski recommended that instead of having the definition of what meetings be as C. Clarke originally had, that the term “alternating” be removed from the charter. K. Albert and N. Baran both felt this would be good in allowing the GPSA executive committee to have more freedom in setting the agenda for the meeting (whether it is more business focused or discussed focused). Some committee members felt that field representatives would not be interested in the business since they wouldn’t be able to vote on it. C. Heckman said that we wouldn’t be able to control that and that GPSA members will leave meetings if not interested anyway. Having this system allows them to be there for business that may interest them. T. Balcerski said that having GPSA meetings where voting members and field representatives attending would have an increased attendance. We wouldn’t be able to use the Big Red Barn. B. Forster stated that we wouldn’t even be able to use the big room in the barn since the front is used for food operations while the GPSA meets. It was suggested that there is a meeting room in Mallot Hall that could be used. S. An asked whether the budget would be affected since more food would have to be ordered. B. Forster felt it probably wouldn’t alter the budget that much.

Discussion #3: Diversity and Mental health groups.

B. Forster reviewed the comments made on the forum under “BMF comments” and the idea to not call the diversity and mental health groups as subcommittees or recommended ad-hocs. N. Baran stated that this could be viewed as a subcommittee just with a different name. E. Cortens stated that committees have the right to form subcommittees of their own members and report back to the parent committee. So then the question becomes why are we even stating it? B. Forster said that by keeping the standing committees, we are putting more and more tasks on them. By recommending a focus group, we ensure that the committee will in fact address this. Having this specifically written will make sure the committee chair does not miss these topics in their charge. B. Forster even suggested that if people still had a concern, a line stating “forming a focus group in consultation with the executive committee” be added since the executive committee would be making sure the committee completes its task. T. Balcerski did not think that was needed. E. Cortens stated that by having focus group, it allows for more participation, especially with non committee members. B. Forster stated this is exactly how the mental health group works since the university administrators and Gannett representatives on the committee consider themselves as committee members, not consultants. S. An and M. Hawkins agreed with this saying that the diversity group would be in contact with student group leaders that may not be part of the GPSA.

C. Clarke then asked if any committee can form such a group. B. Forster said yes since Robert’s Rules states a committee may form a subcommittee and that we redefine it in the charter. B. Forster went on to state that although the committee already has that power, we are suggesting it here so these two issues can be efficiently worked on. E. Cortens confirmed what Robert’s Rules states re: subcommittees.

B. Forster stated that his edit said “may form” (although T. Balcerski removed that term in his draft to the committee) in the description, it does not force the committee to form such a group. If the committee feels as a whole it can handle the charge, then it so be it. As long as the committee addresses these areas. In addition, because it is in the bylaws, if such mechanism isn’t working, then it can be edited and removed later on. B. Forster noted that the diversity group reports back to communications, not student advocacy as it was written in the bylaws sent out to everyone.

B. Forster asked M. Hawkins whether he was ok with the language as it was drafted. He had no issue with it. Committee members came to consensus that the material as written was ok.

Discussion #4: Sustainability

T. Balcerski presented Billie Gould’s (Sustainability chair) comments regarding the sustainability committee and statements in the charter:

Main goal of charter and bylaws revision regarding sustainability: Regular, annual staffing and funding of a GPSA sustainability group that supports the mission statement developed by the group in Sept. 2010:

“ The mission of the GPSASC is to provide opportunities and resources for graduate and professional students to learn about and participate in sustainability-focused activities at Cornell, in work, student life, academics, and extra curriculars. The committee will also provide a liaison between graduate students and other sustainability groups on campus.”

Proposed Bylaws text:
Section 3.02 Operations and Staffing Committee . . .

• (d) Duties . . .
• (iii) In coordination with entire body of the GPSA, ensure that the practices of the GPSA at its

meetings and campus activities are environmentally sustainable, provide a formal interface for the GPSA to interact with other campus sustainability groups, and provide a forum to support graduate student initiatives in sustainability,

• (1) To work on issues of sustainability, the committee will form a sustainability focus

group, comprised of the appointed members of the committee and other interested members.

• This focus group will hold regularly scheduled meetings to discuss issues of sustainability in the graduate and professional community. The focus group will report back to the entire

Operations and Staffing committee.

C. Heckman commented whether the GPSA should act as a conduit for sustainability and asked if we coordinate with any other group. J. Bloomfield said the as of now, the sustainability committee doesn’t coordinate with other groups. E. Cortens stated that Mike Walsh indicated that there is going to be a President’s Council on this issue. K. Albert wondered where the GPSA would be going with this by having this statement in here. He was not sure. E. Cortens asked J. Bloomfield why not wait for the President’s Council. J. Bloomfield said that they haven’t heard anything about it or when it’s starting up. E. Cortens then said that as the GPSA, we do not have any power — we can only just suggest. It seems the focus of what the sustainability committee wants to do is better off as forming its own graduate sustainability group and not has it be part of the GPSA.

T. Balcerski called for a vote to add the underlined statement. The vote was 0–5. Added line does not go in.

B. Forster then asked if the committee felt statement d(iii)(1) was necessary since it goes beyond the scope of the operations and staffing committee. Operations and staffing does not interact with any other student group and is entirely internal to the operations of the GPSA. T. Balcerski believed that there were no stake holders for this committee and it seems to be in flux. N. Baran stated that adding the focus group doesn’t fit the mission of Operations and Staffing and the GPSA. If the goal of the committee is for providing a forum for groups and individuals to meet, is that in the GPSA authority and focus?

Seeing that there was not unanimous consent to the sustainability material, T. Balcerski called for a vote on keeping the focus group statement. By a vote of 1–3−1, the focus group statement failed. Operations and Staffing will be charged in ensuring that the actions of the GPSA remain sustainable.

B. Forster recommended that d(iii) be re-written to say “In coordination with the entire body of the GPSA and interested individuals”. This was suggested since the Operations & Staffing committee is only committee chairs, it would allow those interested in GPSA sustainability to work with the committee. There was no dissent from the members present for this addition.

Discussion #5: Final edits

T. Balcerski asked whether to keep elections in Spring or Fall. All agreed to keep elections as stated in the revised documents.

S. An asked whether the proper term is division summit (as written) or area summit. Term will remain.

B. Forster asked whether a special orientation is needed prior to elections so everyone knows what would be required of them. T. Balcerski said no since Office of Assemblies would take care of it.

Final Vote:

T. Balcerski then called for a final vote of whether the committee members approved the work that was done and how the charter/bylaws stand as of now (pending his final edits based on the evenings discussion). The vote was 4 −1–0. Charter/Bylaws pass committee.

It will now be prepared as Resolution R.6 and submitted to the GPSA voting members for review/vote. T. Balcerski reminded the voting members that if they still feel something should be amended in the charter, they have the opportunity to do so in the GPSA meetings by offering it as an amendment to Resolution R.6.

Meeting adjourned at 10:00pm

Respectively Submitted,
Brian M. Forster
Counsel to the GPSA