GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENT ASSEMBLY COUNCIL OF REPRESENTATIVES NOTES

Big Red Barn Greenhouse March 12, 2001 5:00 — 6:00 p.m.

I. CALL TO ORDER P. Carr, GPSA President and Geological Sciences Representative, called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. He informed members that he would be chairing the meeting today because L. Sekaric, GPSA Vice President and Applied Physics Representative, was away at a conference.

II. OPEN FORUM A member mentioned they had received information about the upcoming GPSA elections and recruitment of members for next year and asked if it would be possible for a member to serve for half a year instead of the entire year.

P. Carr responded that this would be fine.

B. Bailey, Office of the Assemblies, asked that the Office of the Assemblies be notified about Council of Representative replacement members for next year as soon as they are identified.

III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS A. GPSA UPDATE J. Sebastian, Medieval Studies Representative, reported that the GPSA passed a resolution to make changes to the GPSAFC Treasurers’ Handbook. This resolution changes some of the specific guidelines for graduate student organizations, the funding process, and line item concept. They are still grappling with issues related to summer funding for organizations and will hopefully have figured out an acceptable, workable solution to this soon.

P. Carr commented that if some money is held back with an intent to use it at the end of the fiscal year that it should be okay to use this for summer events.

J. Sebastian said he would look into this.

B. MEETING WITH DEAN COHEN P. Carr reported he had met with Dean Walter Cohen, Dean of the Graduate School, after the last GPSA meeting. They discussed the Big Red Barn (BRB) summer schedule. Dean Cohen asked the GPSA to conduct an informal survey to see if usage would stay somewhat constant over the summer for evening programming. P. Carr asked if members thought a survey should be posted to GPSA-L or if something should be posted at the BRB. K.Thompson, Horticulture Representative, volunteered to put together a survey and take care of this. It was remarked that some departments would have higher usage at the BRB than others, but that should be expected.

P. Carr told members that he attended the Board of Trustees Meeting over the past weekend and gave a brief speech to them regarding the GPSA. He reported he has gotten positive feedback as a result of that effort. He added that he also had dinner at RPCC with the Trustees and that was an interesting experience.

C. COMMITTEE UPDATES M. Gayne, History Representative, reported that she has been keeping track of the Student Assembly Committee on Information and Technologies through e-mail. She had been appointed as the graduate student member but has not been able to attend their meetings. She said there wasn’t really anything new to report. She will continue to keep informed of their progress and will let the GPSA know if there is anything to report.

P. Carr commented that Dean Cohen had expressed that he was upset that CIT wouldn’t continue supporting older versions of Bear Access and the corresponding software. The graduate school has had to update their computers to keep up with the CIT supported versions.

K. O’Brien, Environmental Toxicology Representative, informed members that the Transportation Advisory Committee had met that day. Plans to increase parking fines and ways to more quickly penalize repeat offenders of Cornell parking/traffic violations are being discussed. She added that violators would be towed for violations sooner than is currently done.

P. Carr asked for a definition of “repeat offender”.

K. O’Brien replied that a repeat offender would be defined as someone who has received more than 5–10 tickets in a year and does not pay them promptly. She said there was also talk of escalating penalties, so if, for example, one got more than 5 tickets, the fine for the 6th one would be higher, and so on. She noted this is in the preliminary planning stages.

A. Saathoff, Agricultural & Biological Engineering Representative, asked how much money the transportation department collects?

Members felt it was a lot, but no one knew exactly.

K. Levac, Nutrition Representative and University Assembly Vice Chair, told members that that information would be disclosed when the Transportation Department holds its open forum. Open forums would be held in the next couple of months for transportation, CURW, Gannett Health Services, and the Cornell Campus Store as requested by the University Assembly. These open forums are intended to offer the Cornell community an opportunity to hear what the plans for the next year will be and to ask questions if they wish. She announced that the open forum for Transportation would be held on April 4 from noon-1:00 p.m. in G10 Biotechnology. The open forums are supposed to be publicized prior to taking place and she asked members to watch for those ads in the coming weeks.

A. Saathoff asked if the Transportation Department has revealed why they doubled the pricing in metered lots. He commented this change took place over the winter break and he didn’t remember hearing that it would happen prior to the change.

K. O’Brien replied she wasn’t sure why this change was implemented.

J. Sebastian said he and M. Gayne recently were called to a hearing for the Academic Integrity Hearing Board (AIHB). He cited concern because the student involved had funding pulled between the time the primary hearing took place and the time the AIHB met to hear the case. He added that a change in status for the student from Ph.D. to MS had also already occurred. He said there was concern regarding how much protection there really was for graduate students.

M. Gayne elaborated that these penalties were not given to the AIHB for consideration. Although they were given some say in the penalty phase of the hearing, it became apparent that the department had even more. She wondered if the GPSA felt any concern over the event.

J. Sebastian further elaborated that the AIHB had some control of the penalty phase, but no say in what the department decided to impose above and beyond the AIHB. He said the information seemed to inadvertently slip out from the Chair of the department and the members of the AIHB felt this was disconcerting.

J. Sebastian noted this student was assigned to TA with a professor. He asked if there is protection for TA’s?

S. Hames, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Representative, noted that it sounded as though there was, in essence, a contractual agreement and felt this student should appeal to the Graduate School.

P. Carr added that the recommended procedure would be to go to their Director of Graduate Studies, the Dean of the Graduate School, and then the General Committee of the Graduate School.

M. Gayne wanted to know if there is a formal process in place.

J. Sebastian added that the AIHB felt short-circuited by the department.

A member asked if this type of situation is discussed in the Graduate Student Handbook.

S. Hames said he thought it was. He added that the TA/RA committee that he served on a couple of years ago tried to address these kinds of things.

P. Carr announced that the search committees for the Dean of Students and the Dean of the Graduate School are continuing in their efforts. There isn’t anything new to add and he just wanted members to know that things are moving forward.

A member asked if there are certain things graduate students ought to be aware of to help protect themselves.

P. Carr said there are ways that graduate students can be “kicked out” of graduate school. One is if the Chair resigns on non-academic grounds. In that case, students have a short period of time to try to find a new advisor. There are efforts underway to try to streamline the system.

K. O’Brien expressed concern about the legality of this type of situation. If a student receives a document saying they can count on funding for the Ph.D. and then it is pulled, there seems there is an issue.

P. Carr responded that if funding runs out, that efforts to find alternate sources of funding should be made.

K. O’Brien pointed out that this type of thing might be happening more than we think and wondered if there was a way to address it.

A member commented that the TA or RA appointment letter should specify commitment details.

M. Gayne wished to make two comments. 1) She pointed out that if a student loses the support of the advisor that any further level of support then seems to become moot. 2) She wondered if the GPSA was interested in how these cases move forward. She elaborated that if a department seems to have a historical problem where particular types of violations seem to recur that perhaps it may suggest a larger problem within the department. Would the GPSA be interested in knowing this type of thing?

P. Carr remarked that not too many cases involving violations of academic integrity occur.

J. Sebastian commented that there could be a trend, for example, of international students not understanding what constitutes a violation of academic integrity.

M. Gayne said that she was reluctant to say anything too specific with regards to this case, but suggested that they were told that this same problem has occurred a number of times with a particular department. Hypothetically, would members think that if the same problem occurred once a year in the same department that it was indicative of a problem?

T. Gwathmey, Physiology Representative, wondered if there was a list of academic integrity violations listed somewhere.

M. Gayne thought it is included in the Campus Code of Legislation.

J. Sebastian observed that the language in the code is deliberately vague.

P. Carr said it is vague so it can be judged and allow some leeway.

A member questioned if there was anyone speaking up on behalf of the accused student once the process began.

J. Sebastian replied it wasn’t clear in this case if the student had any allies prior to the hearing. He didn’t think so.

M. Gayne asked if the GPSA could suggest to students in these situations to contact the Dean. Would it be permissible to contact the student with this information now?

A member said it seemed appropriate for the GPSA to take a position. There should be an advocate for students in this situation. Someone from the graduate school would be a good choice as they would be neutral.

D. Brown, Agricultural Economics Representative, asserted that the United States structures its judicial system in a way that is very different from what international students may be used to. As a non-United States person, he could understand how international students might not think to seek help, advice, or an ally. He added that a non-US student might decline help even if it is offered because the concept is so foreign.

P. Carr noted that Cornell does have several advocates for students who are defendants. He listed the Associate Dean of the Graduate School, the Ombudsman, and the Judicial Codes Counselor as resources.

S. Hames stated that it would be most helpful if an advocate was actually appointed in these types of cases to initiate contact with the accused student rather than waiting for the accused to contact someone. This independent advocate could meet with the student before the primary hearing takes place.

A member wondered if the Graduate School is informed of hearings?

M. Gayne replied that she believed the Graduate School is informed of hearing results. She commented that another issue to consider would be how far the advocate would be expected to go.

P. Carr told members he would put this topic on the next GPSA meeting for discussion. He said he would speak with Dean Cohen in between meetings and invited members to send any remarks to him at pmc1@cornell.edu.

IV. Business of the Day A. University Calendar P. Carr reminded members that the University Calendar has been discussed at many of the GPSA and COR meetings already this year. In summary, S. Piliero, Chair of the Faculty Senate Education Policy Committee (EPC), had attended a GPSA meeting and discussed options. The end result was that none of the options were any improvement and the GPSA had decided to reject the proposals and not approve the calendar. Since then, the SA also disliked the proposed alternatives, but approved the academic calendar. He wondered if the GPSA had any objection to approving the calendar now.

V. Augusta, Education Representative and GPSA Liaison to the Faculty, said the faculty have already approved the calendar. She clarified that the calendar is already a done deal as far as administrators are concerned. It doesn’t matter at this point if the GPSA approves it.

Members decided to leave things as they are and not approve the calendar.

B. Who Wants to Unionize? P. Carr informed members there have been some e-mails going around probing interest of grad unionization. He stated reporters from campus publications have contacted him on this issue as well. He said that his response has basically been that he is pro-union in his beliefs, but he would not be spending time trying to unionize Cornell grads. He felt the incentive for Cornell graduate students to unionize was low and he doesn’t know that it would be worth the effort. He asked for comments and thoughts about this.

A. Saathoff said that the situation discussed during the meeting today could be a case in point favoring unionization. A union could help in disseminating information to students.

Another member commented that the real question to be asked is whether unionization would fill existing gaps.

D. Brown told members he had informally asked people in his department about their thoughts on this topic after seeing it listed on the meeting agenda. He heard both pros and cons brought forth. He noted that one thought was that a union could help, but might also be seen as more confrontational. It might be better to focus efforts toward addressing problems within the system.

It was noted that efforts would need the support of the graduate school.

P. Carr said he felt the Graduate School was very supportive of the graduate population at Cornell.

S. Hames agreed and said that Cornell doesn’t want grievances to happen.

V. Augusta concurred and said the graduate school is very supportive in general. She felt the GPSA ought to work toward getting information out to students and help with filtering information back to administrators. She said she’d prefer not to unionize grad students.

D. Brown also agreed. He added that unionizing would not affect the entire graduate population anyway. TA and RA’s would be the affected groups. He’d like to see the GPSA working to ensure that all avenues get fully utilized.

A. Saathoff remarked that Cornell is pretty good and said that unionization might be worse. He said it would be interesting to see if unionization brings tangible benefits. Cornell is a complex place and would be a challenge to unionize.

S. Hames returned to the topic of the situation with the AIHB and said he would liked to have had the accused student approach his or her GPSA representative with the situation. The GPSA is a resource and he’d like it to be better publicized and more well known by the student body at large.

V. ADJOURNMENT P. Carr adjourned the meeting at 6.00p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Bonnie Bailey, Office of the Assemblies