Minutes
Graduate & Professional Student Assembly
Monday, March 5, 2012
Bache Auditorium, Malott Hall
5:30–7:00 P.M.

I. Welcome and Introductions, 1 min.

E. Cortens called the meeting to order at 5:34 PM

Voting Members Present: R. Adra, K. Albert, B. Alkemeyer, S. An, N. Baran, Y. Chen, J. Ciecholewski, E. Cortens, A. Elliot, C. Ferkinhoff, M. Hawkins, Y. Izrayelit, J. Keach, A. Nash, R. Robbins, E. Smith, M. Tootill, C. Wilson

Voting Members Late: M. White

II. Approval of the Minutes

1. February 20, 2012, 1 min.

Rebecca Robbins offered a correction, replacing “University Council” in her update with “University Council on Mental Health and Welfare.” There was no objection, and the minutes were so amended. James Keach noted a typo in the executive committee updates: it should read “officer,” not office. There was no objection, and the minutes were so amended. Seeing no further amendments, E. Cortens asked unanimous consent for the approval of the minutes. Seeing no objection, the minutes were approved.

III. Reports of Officers and Committee Updates, 23 min.

1. Executive Committee (E. Cortens)

• GPSA Elections Process
  • April 9: Caucus by division to elect graduate school representatives, each division is allocated a certain number of representatives. If the seats are not filled then the seat is thrown open at large, which means anyone can run for that seat.
  • April 23: Election of officers�you need to be a voting member to hold an executive position (President, Executive VP or VP of Operations) but don’t have to be a voting member or a field member to be a University Assembly representative or committee chair.
  • Both voting members and field representatives are eligible to vote in these elections.
• Trustee elections
  • C. Heckman: Trustee Nominating Committee meeting tomorrow to finalize the dates for the calendar for running for trustee. If you are interested in running there are a two of information sessions coming up next week. The calendar will be up this week. Right after spring break, March 28th is the current date set for when the initial packets will be due. This is important because if you miss the deadline you are most likely going to be disqualified.
  • E. Cortens added part of the packet is you must collect signatures from at least 200 graduate and professional students.
• Title IX/Campus Code Feedback
  • E. Cortens said to see the e-mail he sent this afternoon. He then proceeded to read a brief summary of the issues surrounding the Campus Code and Title IX. The UA’s response is detailed in their Resolution 7, which he briefly outlined. Please take a look at this and send feedback to epc44@cornell.edu by Monday March 12th. The UA’s next meeting is on Tuesday, March 13.
• Cornell sesquicentennial planning
  • E. Cortens said he sent an e-mail about this. If you are interested in serving on the committee, please send an e-mail to Cindy Grey at cmk26@cornell.edu by March 7 with a few sentences about your interest in the committee and a few initial ideas for possible event. The event takes place in 2015. E. Cortens think this is a wonderful opportunity and that this is going to be a really big celebration.
• Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching/Advising/Mentoring
  • Nicole said that this ad hoc committee will be moving ahead to start the nominations process in 2 weeks. They are looking to plan a luncheon for the winner(s).
• Exec VP Update
  • There will be a resolution for next meeting that she is working on that will basically ask the graduate school if they would allow Big Red Barn to send out a proposal to seek a dining vendor from outside of CU dining.

2. Appropriations (C. Heckman)

There are no updates.

3. Communications (S. An)

S. An reported that the committee is in the process of scheduling a meeting for the diversity focus group; there are three people who have expressed interest. He also reminded people to send blurbs for next week’s GPSA Buzz; only 4 or 5 can be accommodated.

4. Finance Commission (M. Tootill)

The final meeting will be tomorrow night to distribute remaining funds for the academic year.

5. Student Advocacy (R. Robbins)

University Council on Student Mental Health and Welfare meets twice a month, we’re the topic of conversation for the next meeting. Also, we will be presenting on the next GPSA meeting and this will be an opportunity to bring up issues you want to be discussed.

6. Graduate & Professional Student Programming Board (Y. Chen)

• Wednesday March 7th Speed Friending at the Big Red Barn 7PM-10pm
• Wednesday March 7th Grad’s Night Out at the Nines
• Friday March 9th 2nd Nerd Nite at the Big Red Barn
• Grad. Ball News: the theme is “A Night on the Big Red Carpet”, bus transportation will be provided, there will be drinks, food, dancing, and merriment as usual
  • Date: April 27th 2012
  • Leave stuffy Cornell and go to exciting Lansing!

7. Faculty Senate Calendar Committee (C. Heckman), 15 min.

C Heckman is the liaison to the faculty senate, for 2 years he has been meeting with their ad hoc calendar committee to come up with recommendations for the academic calendar and they want to hear feedback on the recommendations they’ve have made.

C. Heckman then went over the recommendations/changes for the fall and spring semester calendars. The motivation for the changes was to address some concerns around student mental health. The floor was then open for questions.

B. Alkemeyer: What’s the reason for not beginning the first week of classes on a Monday? C. Heckman: This is a good question. There are a lot of contingencies on the calendar and one of them was the advising period. Usually when people move into the dorms, they can move in earlier than when classes actually begin so they can move in on a Thursday for example. If they move in on a Thursday, they have a couple of days beforehand to meet up with academic advisers and academic staff. The idea was that if classes started on a Monday, that would mean faculty advisers would need to meet with students on a Saturday or Sunday to execute those responsibilities and the faculty members and the departments were not thrilled about that. As a result, we will start on a Tuesday and advising will happen on a Monday so that is the general idea behind it.

Elizabeth: Was there any discussion on the grading period? C. Heckman: No there wasn’t. The way that I view it is the grading period is quite long, you have something like 5 days usually to turn in a grade. (E. Cortens added that it is 72 hours after the exam.) But there are, I believe, faculty senate legislation and departmental regulations on this and that is not something we can really change.

Question: Are there any active policies in place for professors to not have a final on the last day of class? C. Heckman: I can look into that, I’m not exactly sure.

Aaron Gensler: Was anyone from the architecture school on the committee? Because during the study period is when the reviews take place�how will these calendar changes impact that? C. Heckman: There probably won’t be any changes taking place 3–5years out so there are plenty of departments that will get impacted by this, we will surely give them time and they will be able to adapt.

Question: Were there any undergraduate students on the committee? C. Heckman: Yes, we had two and they were very helpful and active in giving feedback.

IV. New Business

E. Cortens asked if there was any objection to switching the order of Resolution 12 and the election of the new voting member. Without objection, the agenda was so reordered.

E. Cortens notes both Resolution 11 and Resolution 12 require “prior notice”, meaning that we can engage in discussion and all other parliamentary actions (including amendments) but that neither resolution is up for a vote today.

1. Initial presentation of R.11, Amendments to the Eligibility and Obligations for Byline Funded Organizations (E.Cortens), 30 min.

E. Cortens begins by going over Resolution 11. He states that the resolution is clarifying the policy as it stands now, clarifying who can vote and who can’t vote. He continued to go over some of the changes he made. The most substantive change was in Appendix A, where the role of the liaison to Cornell Cinema is clarified, and the pricing relationship between the GPSA and the Slope Day Programming Board is enumerated.

The GPSA moved into formal debate on the resolution.

Will Kreuser disagrees with the slope day language, and offers amendment to strike “but if that proves impossible,” and insert “or shall charge no more than.” The amendment is seconded by Steve An. There is discussion on the amendment. and there is an amendment to amend the amendment to read “or failing that, shall charge no more than.” There is no objection to this amendment of the amendment seeing none the amendment is amended. Discussion moves back to the amendment. N. Baran said that we should have more discussion of the dollar figure. E. Cortens noted that the amendment on the floor was relatively minor, and suggested that, if there are no further comments on it, that we move to a vote. Without objection, there is a vote done on this amendment. With a vote of 15–2 the amendment is adopted.

Formal debate on the resolution resumes.

S. An said we need to decide if it is productive to write an exact price on the slope day portion about the maximum that can be charged for the ticket.

Chris H. thinks there needs to be a number on the document and if we put in a number we can perhaps negotiate on what that number should be.

Kyle Albert offered an amendment striking “or failing that, shall charge no more than $10.” The amendment is seconded by N. Baran. There is discussion on the amendment. C. Heckman spoke against the amendment. He said that if we don’t specify a dollar figure, then they can charge whatever they want, and if we say admission must be free, they are likely to turn down the $3.50 funding. E. Cortens said that an amendment that might better accomplish K. Albert’s goal was to instead say “The Slope Day Programming Board shall not charge admission for graduate and professional students”; but he noted that they would still have the right to turn down our funding. K. Albert said that was not his intention and that he was comfortable with his current language.

Danny asks for a clarification in which he asks, can they charge us the $10 and the $3.50. E. Cortens responds if the languages passes as is then yes they can charge us up $10 or whatever the maximum amount we want to specify, plus the $3.50 from the GPSAF. Danny then asked how was the $10 was arrived at. E. Cortens said he chose the number as a starting point, and encouraged members to offer amendments if they wish to change it.

E. Smith said that this puts the ball in their court, and suggested that it say “may not increase the ticket price without our consent,” which would give power back to this body. E. Cortens said that it sounded like he was offering an amendment, but that it wasn’t germane to the amendment on the floor, and suggested that we return to it after we’ve dealt with this amendment.

M. Hawkins spoke in support of the amendment, agreeing that it puts the ball back in their court. It makes it their decision whether they want to exclude graduate and professional students from Slope Day.

Alex Moore asked about the number contained in their original application; E. Cortens responded that this was $6, but that the number wasn’t comparable to the number in the resolution, as the former is charged of all graduate/professional students and the latter is charged only of attendees.

C. Heckman noted that last year’s committee asked for $6, but that this year’s said they’d be ok with $4.50.

Matt Holden noted that if the amendment passes, the SDPB could “seek to maintain”, but then not maintain, and still charge graduate/professional students as much as they wanted. E. Cortens agreed with his interpretation, this was his reason for offering alternate language.

Liz Newbury spoke against the amendment.

E. Cortens asked if there were objections to voting on the amendment. Seeing none, there is a vote on the amendment and with a vote of 2–13 the amendment is not adopted.

Discussion is tabled to move on to the election without objection.

Discussion on the resolution resumed after open forum.

Bryan Alkemeyer offered an amendment following up on Erik’s point, i.e., “The Slope Day Programming Board shall not charge graduate or professional students without the express approval of the GPSA.” E. Cortens said that the immediate consequence will be the SDPB coming back at the next meeting to request approval. Steve An seconds the amendment.

C. Heckman spoke against the amendment. When SDPB asks for approval for a specific ticket price, we only have the option to vote it down and remove their funding. Whereas under the current resolution language, we say that it can’t be more than this, and we make the discussion occur in the SDPB executive meetings. The amendment puts us in a strategically disadvantageous position.

Matt Holden asked if it was possible to have both a dollar cap, and also require the approval of the GPSA. E. Cortens ruled that this amendment would be best treated separately from the amendment on the floor.

E. Cortens asked if there was a motion to extend the meeting by ten minutes. Moved by Bryan Alkemeyer, seconded by Erik Smith. Without objection, the meeting is extended to 7:17.

Erik asked what weight putting a dollar figure in the resolution had. E. Cortens explained that if the Slope Day Program Board then sought to charge more than the dollar figure, we could take their funding back.

YJ Chen asked if this was a temporary measure. E. Cortens clarified that the byline procedures and criteria documents expire on May 31, 2014, and so the discussion will have to happen again.

S. An asked for clarification on the dollar figure. E. Cortens said that there were basically two options: 1) shall not charge graduate students without express approval; 2) shall charge no more than $10. In the former scenario, the GPSA then has to vote in a meeting to accept or reject the SDPB’s request. In the second situation, we save ourselves continuing this debate, instead giving them a maximum to work within.

Carl Ferkinhoff spoke in favor of the amendment. He said that he didn’t know whether $10 was appropriate, and that this decision needs to be made in the context of what they’re offering. E. Cortens said that we owe it to slope day, the same as to any other organization, to give them budget certainty for a given fiscal year. We can’t force them to wait until Spring 2013, when they know what the program is.

John Ciecholewski spoke against the amendment. He said that it gives us leverage going into the discussion.

C. Heckman said that we don’t negotiate prices yearly with any other group. The group wants to charge as little as possible so that they can maximize attendance.

Marquis Hawkins asked how the GPSA would monitor how they are “seeking to maintain” the policy of not charging graduate students. E. Cortens said that this is part of the purpose of a liaison to the SDPB executive.

Sean Murphy spoke on the amendment.

Kyle Albert called the previous question. Seconded. No objection. The amendment is voted on and with a vote of 8 to5 the amendment is adopted.

M. Hawkins moves to adjourn the meeting and Carl seconds this, there are no objections. Seeing that there are no objections the meeting is adjourned.

2. Election of an at-large voting member position, 10 min.

Everyone with a placard (i.e., voting members and field representatives) gets to vote. Nominations are made for the position of an at-large voting member.

• Erik Smith nominated Giovanna Turano and she accepts.
• Chris Heckman nominates William Kreuser and he accepts.
• Marquis Hawkins nominates Jonathan Hill and he accepts.
• Sean Murphy nominated Mitch Paine and he accepts.
• Stephanie Masiello nominates Elizabeth Newbury and she accepts.

Seeing no further nominations, nominations are closed. Each candidate is recognized for one minute to speak about themselves. After they finish voting by secret ballot begins. While the ballots are being counted, discussion moves to Resolution 12. After the counting is complete, the winner of the position is Elizabeth Newbury.

3. Initial presentation of R. 12, Updating the Role of the Appropriations Committee (C. Heckman), 15 min.

C. Heckman introduces Resolution 12 and goes over it. The resolution consists of an entirely new section that is added to the bylaws and some small changes to other various sections. C. Heckman goes over what this section does. The purpose of the resolution is to make sure the GPSA accurately tracks its internal expenditures, aligning our internal procedures with recent changes in the accounting system. Afterwards, the floor is open to questions. YJ Chen asked about the “read only access” to the accounting system; C. Heckman responded that the Office of the Assemblies has already agreed to this, and the reason it’s here is so that the Appropriations Chair knows they should have it. E. Cortens noted that the motivating reason for some of the changes is that the new accounting system allows us to track expenditures on a per committee basis. N. Baran asked about what it means for the office to “provide institutional memory.” C. Heckman clarified that this language is already in the bylaws.

C. Mansfeldt made a motion to extend the meeting by ten minutes (to 7:07). Seeing no objection, the meeting is extended.

Seeing no further comments on Resolution 12, the Assembly moved to open forum.

V. Open Forum, 10 min.

1. Comprehensive Planning Committee student input session (M. Paine), 5 min.

David Kay from the Cornell Community and Regional Development Institute discussed the City of Ithaca’s comprehensive planning committee. There will be a meeting on March 26th at 7:30PM and students are strongly encouraged to come. Details about where the meeting will be will follow via e-mail.

Resolution 11 is taken from the table.

Respectfully Submitted,


Melissa Arguinzoni