Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Business Meeting Minutes

Big Red Barn Greenhouse September 25, 2000 5:00–6:00p.m.

Attendance: 2000–01 GPSA Members 4/24 8/28 9/25 10/30 11/27 1/22 2/26 3/26 4/23 Debbie Anderson P P E Virginia Augusta A P P Pat Carr P P P Stefan Hames P P P Sergei Krasulya P P P Bhaskar Krishnamachari P P P Krysta Levac P P P Krista Mowry P P P Aaron Saathoff P P P John Sebastian P P P Lidija Sekaric P P P Eric Sprague A A A Lakshmi (Vatsa) Srivatsa A on-leave — resigned 8/00 Andrew Thomas A P P Lotus Wang P P P Jessica Ward P Others Present: Bruce Green, Sarah Johnson, Hilary Ford, Philip McPheron, Bonnie Bailey, and Courtney Bolger

I. Call To Order

P. Carr, At-Large Representative and President of the 2000–2001 GPSA, called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m.

II. Open Forum

There were no items for Open Forum.

III. Approval of GPSA Minutes

The August 28, 2000 GPSA minutes were approved as submitted.

IV. Announcements and Reports A. General Committee

K. Mowry, At-Large Representative and GPSA Secretary, said they had their first General Committee meeting of the year last week. They continued the revision of the graduate school legislation. She felt they were almost done with the revisions and were currently looking over the final draft. She reported that the Academic Integrity Board of the Graduate School needs three more graduate students to serve on their committee.

J. Sebastian, Arts and Sciences (Humanities) Representative, said he had been appointed to the Academic Integrity Board but had not heard any more information concerning the meeting times.

P. Carr mentioned that he believed students might not be contacted unless a case comes up.

B. Krishnamachari, Engineering Representative, added that he had not yet heard anything from the Student Assembly Dining committee. Bonnie Bailey, Office of the Assemblies, said she would look into that and provide him with the dining committee contact.

P. Carr reported that at the last meeting they appointed members to various committees. Among them were:

Bhaskar Krishnamachari — Student Assembly Dining Committee
Nicole Benjamin — Faculty Advisory Committee on Athletics and Physical Education
Daniel Grossman — West Campus Living/Learning Council

B. Student Assembly

P. Carr told the GPSA about a recent Student Assembly resolution the SA passed. Resolution 1, entitled, “Resolution to Preserve the Sanctity of Cornell Students’ Right to Petition for Redress”, addresses the right to petition in any university building. Many members felt that this resolution violated campus life policy and ignored safety concerns. P. Carr told the GPSA that they could make a statement on this resolution if they felt that it affects graduate students.

S. Hames, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, asked what the policy was now for people coming into the dorms to sell things, or for groups such as Jehovah Witnesses?

P. McPheron, Director of Graduate and Professional Student Housing, replied it is currently not allowed. Currently, dorms have restrictions regarding access hours. He felt the SA resolution is unclear as to whether it includes or excludes groups such as Jehovah Witnesses. It was noted that graduate housing would also be affected by this resolution. Examples mentioned were: Schuyler House on Seneca Street and Maplewood on Maple Avenue.

P. Carr clarified that this discussion only concerns Cornell—owned property. Cornell people living in the private sector are not protected against petitioning or soliciting.

L. Sekaric, Applied Physics representative and GPSA Vice President, asked if the decision to accept the SA resolution was left in the hands of the hall governments?

P. McPheron said the resolution states that democratically elected hall governments can post no-soliciting sign if they wish. He pointed out, however, that the graduate constituencies do not have hall governments as undergraduates do. This creates a bit of a dilemma.

K. Levac, Nutrition representative, asked, in that case, who could put up “no soliciting” signs in graduate residences?

P. McPheron said that technically anyone could put up signs on their own doors. However, most people wouldn’t think to post signs until they were bothered. He suggested that they might want to include “no soliciting” signs in the graduate welcome packet.

A. Saathoff, Agricultural & Biological Engineering representative, stated that he would not like unlimited petitioning to be allowed in all University building, such as in labs or classrooms.

P. McPheron agreed that Resolution 1 is broadly written and does not make any distinction between labs, offices, classrooms or residence halls.

P. Carr said that petitioning in labs would definitely be a problem and disruptive.

K. Mowry said that she would not want to deal with people interrupting her while she’s working in her lab.

S. Hames said that if there are picketers in labs, you should tell them they are trespassing and then call the campus police.

K. Mowry asked how the SA could change Cornell University policy?

P. McPheron stated that this is a broad resolution. The procedure is that this resolution would go to the President for his approval or rejection. The SA has legislative powers over Campus Life, however, the administration has a right to limit certain things in order to protect the university as a whole.

L. Sekaric asked what University policy deals with the issues of this resolution?

P. McPheron said the policy used to be contained in an activities manual. However, he is not sure of the exact name of the booklet.

L. Sekaric stated that if the policy is covered in the Campus Code of Conduct then the resolution could be in conflict with providing a safe academic environment.

B. Krishnamachari, Electrical Engineering representative, said he was concerned because if the resolution becomes a reality, one would not be able to stop people from petitioning in classrooms.

V. Augusta, Education representative, wondered what prompted the SA to write the resolution?

P. McPheron said he believed some SA members found it an encumbrance not to be able to stay in the dorms and petition at all times. He thought some SA members adhered to the policy of not petitioning in the dorms and others did not.

V. Augusta said that if the resolution eliminates the screening process required of those entering the dorms, than she is against the resolution.

P. Carr said many SA members have violated current policy in the past when petitioning to be on the SA ballot.

S. Hames said he felt the resolution was too broad and that the rights of petitioners are given priority over the rights of the rest of the community to privacy and safety. He felt this wasn’t balanced or fair.

A. Saathoff said he would like to ask the SA to put more thought into the resolution.

P. Carr suggested that the GPSA draft a response to the SA voicing their concerns regarding the resolution.

Members asked for a summary of what P. Carr is proposing to write in a response.

P. Carr suggested using the following Whereas Clauses in a GPSA response:

Whereas: The resolution it too broadly written and could potentially affect laboratories, classrooms, offices and graduate resident halls. Whereas: The graduate students living in University housing cannot decline petitioning because they do not have hall governments.

He reminded members this is referencing the GPSA’s right to dispute a resolution according to 1.11 of the SA Charter. P. Carr told members he would send a letter to Uzo Asonye, President of the SA, stating the GPSA concerns.

The GPSA voted to object to the Student Assembly resolution. The vote passed: 11—0.

L. Sekaric mentioned that if this policy deals with the Campus Code of Conduct, then the Codes and Judicial Committee, which must review the Code, would also be likely to reject the resolution.

C. Student Health Insurance

A. Saathoff asked for an update on the proposal regarding graduate student health insurance.

P. Carr stated that the Administration passed the proposal. The Board of Trustees must still pass it at their next meeting on October 22nd, but no problems are anticipated. There are currently three students on the Student Health Insurance Advisory Committee (SHIAC) and they are all COR members. These people are: Dan Demaine, Bob Serraro, and Angus Jennings. He discussed the increase in the cost of benefits projected in the University Health Insurance plan. He said that University Health Services has their own standards for health care, which are relatively high. The insurance plan will start in the Fall 2001.

P. Carr told members that he wanted to briefly speak about a couple of issues not listed on the agenda, but ones that he felt members should know about.

Recent meeting discussions have touched on graduate transportation concerns, with people wondering why parking policies are they way they are now. P. Carr was thinking of inviting Carl Cohen, Assistant Director for Commuter and Parking Services, to the next COR meeting to discuss transportation policies. He provided a handout to assembled members of a study that targeted the graduate community a few years ago. He asked that people read over the handout before the next COR meeting.

P. Carr reported that the SA keeps postponing a vote on the University Academic Calendar. The SA has set up a committee with the faculty to help work out their issues and concerns. The GPSA will wait to see what recommendations come out of this committee before they move to approve the calendar.

P. Carr also brought up the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) report. He was sent a copy of this report and was not sure what to do with it. He thought the GPSA could ask the faculty to approve the report. He asked if anyone knew exactly what the AAUP does?

H. Ford, Assistant Dean of the Graduate School, said that the AAUP is a group that monitors University behaviors. This could, for example, include tenure procedures.

P. Carr suggested they send it to the Dean of Faculty to make sure that he is aware of the document.

P. McPheron was the person that sent the report to P. Carr. He told members he found it on the webpage for higher education.

K. Levac said this might be a little redundant since the report was just discussed at the TA meeting.

V. Augusta asked what the purpose was of sending it to the Dean of Faculty?

L. Sekaric mentioned it would simply outline the practices, which Cornell should adhere to.

S. Hames said that if departments do not follow the requirements, there could be sanctions.

V. Augusta said she would bring it up at the next faculty meeting since she is the GPSA liaison to the faculty.

P. Carr brought up another issue that has come up in the graduate school. A former graduate student saw his dissertation for sale by UMI. He asked the University Council to look into this. Apparently one must be very careful about reading the fine print when submitting a dissertation. A memo explaining how to protect their work was sent to graduate students via Director of Graduate Studies and Graduate Field Assistants as a response to this incident.

L. Sekaric asked for the memo to be forwarded to her since she had not received it.

V. Business of the Day A. Creation of Committee to Draft and Pilot Proposed “Buddy System”

K. Mowry stated that she would be working with her department on piloting a buddy system program. First, she will meet with the graduate students in her department to decide if they want to take on the pilot project. Assuming it moves forward, they will then be contacting the undergraduate student committee to try to match undergraduates with graduate students in her department. This will involve talking to students in an informal setting about careers in nutrition and life in graduate school. If it works out, they will try to branch out to other departments and schools. Right now, K. Levac and another COR members are helping with the program. They are hoping to work on organizing the program this semester and implementing it in a more widespread manner next semester.

B. Bailey asked if there would be an application process similar to the Shadows program?

K. Mowry said that was too early in the planning process to say for sure how it would work. The graduate students would decide the process. They will see as they go along what interest there is among the students and what structure the program will take. They will need people to help draft the final document.

There was a motion to create a planning document for a proposed “Buddy System”. The matter was then referred to an ad hoc committee chaired by K. Mowry.

The motion carried.

B. Creation of Committee to Draft and Pilot Proposed Panel Discussion Program

K. Levac said that this project has a shorter timeline than the buddy system. They are hoping to have it ready by November of 2000. She summarized that there will be a panel of 8 to 10 graduate students from the nutrition department who come from a variety of backgrounds. They will be inviting anyone interested to attend the discussion, although, they will be gearing the program towards juniors and seniors. They are going to draft a list of topics such as living, academic life, and funding, and have graduate students on the panel pick one topic to discuss for about 10 minutes. They will then open the panel to questions from the audience and end with a mixer.

B. Krishnamachari said that he took this idea back to the Electrical Engineering graduate students and they hope to also try it in their department. He will to work with K. Levac to see what works well in the Nutrition pilot program.

There was a motion to create a planning document for a proposed Panel Discussion Program. The matter was then referred to an ad hoc committee to be headed by K. Levac.

The motion carried.

C. Creation of Committee to Draft and Propose Graduate Fellows Program

P. Carr said that he has contacted a few people to be on this planning committee. It will be comprised of Residential Life administrators, faculty and graduate students. Planning will take place this year and the program itself would not begin until next year. He thought that the GPSA could fund the original initiation money and then ask Residential Life to fund later years. He would like to meet to discuss the program within the next couple of weeks.

H. Ford mentioned that Kris Corda had implemented a similar program in the Big Red Barn and might be a good person to talk with.

There was a motion to create a planning document for a Graduate Fellows Program. The matter was then referred to an ad hoc committee chaired by P. Carr.

The motion carried.

VI. Adjournment

P. Carr adjourned the meeting at 6:10p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Courtney Bolger, student clerk