GPSA Operations and Staffing Committee

Minutes
GPSA Operations & Staffing Committee — Charter Review Meeting # 2
December 6, 2010 — Big Red Barn

Attendance: Tom Balcerski (chair); Kyle Albert (Appropriations); Robert Hartshorn (GPSAFC); Steven An (Communications); Nicole Baran (Events); Garance Choko (Student Advocacy); Cresten Mansfeldt (Ex-officio); Brian Forster (Ex-officio); Ben Heavner; Chris Heckman; Rebecca Darling; Mary Ann Krisa; Perla Parra; Toniqua Hay; Jolyon Bloomfield; Andrew Curley; Mike Walsh

The meeting was convened at 5:37 pm by the chair. Attendance was taken via a sign-in sheet (see above).

Chair reviews the voting members; discusses the format of the meeting

5:40 PM — Changes to the Voting Membership & Format of Meeting: Chris Clarke sent out a memo. Steve An defers to Evan Cortens to speak. Resolution 16 passed last year; tabled by the GPSA. Review of the presentation. We have all come to realize, Evan says, expanding voting membership to all members of the group is not the way to go. Still, we have the disenfranchisement of the field membership. A voting body restricted to 19 members may not be big enough to accommodate all the willing participants. Perhaps we could look at University of Pennsylvania GAPSA, have super-fields, etc., more than we do. Voting body of 70. Evan thinks 35 voting members may be enough. Similar to the SA system. Steve An: allow election of the executive committee to be voted on field reps (discuss later); breakout sessions could be codified into the by-laws; Nicole: Charter stipulates that we alternate between business and discussion meetings. Idea to make meetings more integral, even with division of voting and non-voting membership. Shows non-voting members what goes on at business meetings. Allows for discussion of business more efficiently, can pass along resolutions more efficiently. Garance: expansion of voting membership very important and increasing broader involvement in the GPSA; Evan: SA gets 1,500 to 2,000 votes from undergraduate students during election of voting members; Kyle: in agreement on expansion of voting membership. Mike Walsh: UA rep, 6 years involved, concerns with discussion about the wording of the Charter; this is not a bi-cameral system; a general body with large executive committee; Charter does not use voting and non-voting members (or does it: see Charter); we already work similar to a number of other organizations; if we think of ourselves in the framework; Jolyon: Field rep without a voting seat; wants to re-structure the meetings; repeating the same items at business and discussion meetings; Nicole: better naming system could be used, using language for separate bodies; Chris: complication of terms might be used to institutional knowledge from an older system of terms; does not dislike, a priori, voting members and non-voting members; can do more in the discussion meetings, not just re-hashing the business that goes on at business meetings (in the By-Laws)

5:55 PM — Expanding the Voting Membership Nicole: expanding the voting membership to be around 30 seems reasonable; logistical arrangements about where representatives would come from. Kyle: supports expanding the voting membership; is there any value to a competitive elections process?; prefers to maintain the current system where all ppl can volunteer; is the strength of our voice impacted by how representative and self-selective we are; no firm cap on voting members; mechanism to prevent fields from being vastly over-represented. Evan: Ex) Humanities representatives have been unable to fill the seats we have been allocated; fixed guarantee at 19, expanding as necessary to a hard cap, either field basis or at-large basis; remember: the field reps need to report back to individual fields; how would we replace that function? Also field funding is tied to representation in the GPSA�what to do there? Steve: GPSA has power to define its own voting membership; we currently take the Graduate School definitions as the basis for defining voting membership; allow the GPSA to adjust voting membership as it sees fit: flexibility; Mike: we do not have ultimate power; we need to frame our discussion in that; Charter comes from President, through the Trustees, through By-Laws of Cornell University; there was some push-back from the President on expanding membership

6:00 PM — Defining membership to include Geneva Campus: Brian: Geneva students were not represented before; some changes have occurred to make this less pressing now; Geneva students do not see themselves at Ithaca students; we should mention Ithaca and Geneva at the beginning of the Charter (subject to the Activity fee); Nicole: this is reasonable; Brian: there were objections but with fields combined; Mike: fields always combined; Brian: now the departments are, too; for Geneva students to feel represented; Mike: students in Geneva are referred to these students at Ithaca.

6:05 PM — Absence policy for membership and proxy voting Brian: Issue about proxy voting last year; e-mail a vote in; Office of Assemblies does not agree with any voting by e-mail; any discussion that goes on at a meeting; Evan: Roberts’ Rules says proxy�.not permitted in ordered, deliberative assemblies ordinarily; neither should be allowed or required in the case of elected bodies; Brian agrees (follow Roberts’ Rules); Kyle: there could be within reason, a need for proxy vote; trust people to use the power responsibly; Cresten: membership is one of the most nebulous and problematic issues from the POV of the Executive Committee; question on the definition of absences; protective to the Charter and By-Laws: both on the issues of proxy and attendance.

6:10 PM — Minority Student Representation Garance: the issue from the last meeting remains, 4 historically underrepresented groups (HUGS) got together and decided on what appropriate representation would be; they agreed that a committee and voting seats were important and necessary; worked with Steve to come up with the idea of the GPSADC (Diversity Commission); Steve: want to take the GPSA in the direction of active engagement; GPSA has been a responsive student government; we would like to take the GPSA in the direction of engagement, including minority representation; minorities are spread out across a number of different academic fields; proposal of Diversity Commission with 2 primary responsibilities: 1) designate which student organizations are eligible for membership (Graduate School working to make official) to form a diverse student body; forming a new super-field that would form a caucus to allow the election of new voting members; 2) engage all students groups and get their input on all matters that the GPSA is charged to deal with�represent them and get their voice in all business matters. Now, we are not saying this is not possible in the current system, but we should make a better effort at engagement; controversial but everyone should keep an open mind; Garance: any logistic questions; have already worked on language of the Charter; Nicole: Student Advocacy Committee does this? Garance: SAC looks at other things; own experience shows this is an issue requiring more attention than the SAC to be done efficiently (other issues may get lost in the process); Bobby: possible structure to allow SAC to have responsibility for minority groups, similar mandates? Garance: the SAC chair needs to be a member and DC needs to be a member as well; DC would direct racial and cultural organizations and focus on the voting members in the GPSA; Kyle: still missing the context of why this issue is becoming a pressing issue this year and not in years past, not sure fundamentally if this is no an outreach issue; we are basically a group that is inward looking already, wanted to redirect resources for communication as Appropriations Chairs; need to be careful about going forward with a Charter change; need to consult wider body. Garance: issue not brought up before because no one told the leadership to think about it; want to make sure that issues of diversity have a space in the GPSA; second issue: not a communications issue; the groups that want to be involved should do outreach in their own communities; why not expand voting membership to these specific groups? Evan: Ben’s point from the meeting, procedural objection of voting members coming from groups that receive funding from the GPSAFC; should do what the SA does; designate at-large seats who can run for that position; nervous about what makes a minority. Brian: agrees with Evan, 1) minorities in every academic field, or only student groups? 2) diversity has been brought up within the GPSA executives; 3) allocating the SAC — every chair had one item. Garance: question of diversity based on race and different cultures; ex) black students, or anyone who self-identifies of the BGPSA, would be eligible to the DC and the GPSA; no! the goal is to engage certain minority groups in the process; Evan: you can do that, too, skip requirements (Brian says: we may miss students). Mike: very concerned with the direction of this conversation; people who are disadvantaged for being engaged in the process (as opposed to minority because there are a number of other areas�like veterans, parents, older, non-traditional graduate student); giving people two ways to vote, to be involved as 3/5 th clause in the Constitution. Steve: DC will identify. Representatives from 4 organizations are here and support this issue. Garance: would be willing to change the Charter in accordance with this Charter review and add

6:25 PM Super Field Summits Tom: introduction of the issue Chris: Physical sciences had a summit this year; simplest way to give the greatest return; gives the ability to represent the people they are supposed to represent; does address the legitimacy question head on; should this be a charter change or by-laws? Continue to look at new ways to engage students.

6:30 PM New sub-committee of SAC: Mental Health Brian: Two GPSAs ago, President asked us to form a working group for issues related to graduate student mental health; to take away from the long list of student issues; Mental Health would remain under student advocacy, currently committee consists of graduate students and some university buy-on; permanent sub-committee status, answers to the SAC, part of that, also need to address the funding through the SAC (currently we are running on budget of $0). Nicole: The sub-committee “can of worms”, start the precedent in our own body of having sub-committees. Mike: recommend the By-Laws include how ad-hoc committees should be provided for (independent of the GPSA?); UA is shying away from this.

6:35 PM Separate Communications Chair and Redefining the Role of the Executive Vice-President Nicole: Communications Chair is a gateway to communicating with the overall graduate and professional student community, including events, outreach, and other logistical challenges, keeps a consistent communication message. Steve: EA also recently voted to separate the two positions; Mike: as a former “EVP”, this job is way too big; concern: creation of 3 new committees, already stretched pretty thin in terms of human capital; may create human resource challenge. Evan: one thing that makes this issue different is that we already have a standing committee for communications (this issue should pass); Nicole: currently some of the hesitation to take on some of the roles for jobs will be alleviated

6:45 PM New Standing Committee: Sustainability Jolyon: Last year, ad-hoc committee on sustainability was formed. Presented a resolution to become a standing committee; this year, we are formed again as an ad-hoc committee; formally charged to come up with language to the Charter to become a standing committee; we don’t want to go through the battle again, but we are for it. Nicole: Part of the hesitation of making sustainability a permanent standing committee; other forums may exist. Mike: the GPSA does 3 things: 1) represent the needs and interests of graduate and professional student body to the administration; 2) activity fee; 3) keep our house in order; how does the GPSA sustainability committee fit into this? He hopes the activity fee money will be handed out in a sustainable issue. Does not see the a full committee being useful. Does not disagree with the work of the ad-hoc committee; they will have a lot more opportunity to do work by being outside the GPSA, encouraged to become a student group and engage people outside political process. Chris: UA abolished its sustainability committee? Mike: No. In existence and Mike is the chair. Looking at combining sustainability into larger realm of facilities, transportation, and physical plant, tackled in this way. Garance: what are the duties of the committee? Cresten: To consider what its activities actually entail and to continue the sustainable efforts from last year; if you begin question sustainability, you need to question the Events Committee; independent commissions; currently very activity oriented. Steve: All members should feel knowledgeable the issues of sustainability.

6:50 PM Timing of Election of Officers Steve: should entertain the idea of allowing the executive officers and standing committee chairs the opportunity to allow field representatives for the election of these seats. Field reps may not know who these people are. Evan: This fits right into engaging the non-voting members. How will this work logistically? Right now, early April we have discussion meeting for field reps; late April meeting for execs; could we push the whole thing back a little bit? Nicole: keep as separate and discuss meetings two week apart; want to give people a chance to think.

Nicole: [Consideration of making the Events Committee a separate commission�generally in support of this idea. Mike Walsh has commented on this idea. Make Events Committee equivalent to the Finance Commission to how it gets its funding. Basically spinning off the Events; see the model in the Johnson School�always a separation between social activities and student governments; removing funding of Events Committee through political process, like Big Red Barn and undergraduate social groups, etc.; Chris agree; Evan: we already have some by-funded events committee; Events writ large as something]

6:55 PM Timing/process to review the GPSA Charter Kyle: 90% of his time has been spent on things related to internal operations of the GPSA; we spend a lot on these things; more time to spend on serving graduate students; every fourth year for the Charter Review. Garance: Agreed that we spend a lot of time on internal issues; Charter is a work in progress; the GPSA constituency changes every two years; important to have the possibility to have change; Nicole: Charter can be more permanent and By-Laws more flexible; Mike: no mandated charter or by-laws review necessary (strength, weaknesses, threats); Evan: agreed with Mike, stable document, amend as necessary; Cresten: stable document, original reason between and Charter�please remove the Charter review process.

Chair reviews quickly the procedures for the upcoming meetings.

Meeting Adjourned 7:04 pm