GSC Meeting Minutes from Wednesday November 7th, 2012 at 6:00pm
GCC Nairobi Room
Chair : Michael Shaw; David Hsu
Voting Members Present
H&S Natural Sciences: Michael Shaw
H&S Social Sciences: Roshan Shankar
At-Large: Hrishi Goel
At-Large: David Hsu
At-Large: Puja Deverakonda
Engineering: Asfandyar Ali Mir for Ateeq Suria
Engineering: Nate Strong for Anne-Laure Cuvilliez
Education: Ernestine Fu
H&S Humanities: Adrienne Johnson
Medicine: Eduardo Gonzalez
At-Large: Nipun Sarin
At-Large: Saad Bhamla
Business: Tiffany Abdulahhi
Voting Members Not Present:
Law: Camille Fletcher
Earth Sciences: Sjoerd de Ridder
Other Members : Johnny Giorgis, Fanuel Muindi, Brendan Hamel-Bissell, Viraj Bindra, Koren Bakkegard, Jamie Hogan, Lauren Schoenthaler, Olivia Moore, Marine Donelle
5:45—6:00 Dinner and Conversation (Jamie, Koren & Lauren)
6:00—6:03 Welcome and Introductions (David Hsu)
6:03—6:05 Approve Minutes from 10-31-2012 (Roshan Shankar)
Passes by consensus.
6:05—6:10 Thanksgiving Dinner (Marine Denolle)
750 people signed up already
Generous offer from the Vice Provost which accounts 8% inflation
Need volunteers for registering
Good opportunity for the GSC to advertise itself by talking to people in the line about coming to the meeting or volunteering at events.
Should order more promotional items.
$2000 extra which can go into Swag. Nametags and stuff for kids.
Asked for $45,000 and estimates have now lowered to $43,000
This is a donation from the Provost.
Thanksgiving food tasting at the GSC meeting one week in advance.
6:10—6:30 Discussion on the ARP (Jamie, Koren & Lauren)
Alternative Review Process. Pilot program since April 2010. Changes made in April 2011 following an review from Community Education. Friendly amendments made after these meetings with ASSU and GSC.
Here to answer questions on the alternative review process.
13 reports in 2011-12 and 12 went to the ARP
1996-2009 with 16 reports made to Office of Judicial Affairs and 3 went through the process.
Office of Civil Rights sent out a letter on the Standard of Proof from “Beyond a reasonable doubt” to “Preponderance of evidence” and now both parties now have the right to appeal. In addition, the timeline has shortened with 30 day time limit on the appeal
Reflective on the letter from the Office of Civil Rights.
Investigated and adjudicated in about 2 minutes.
Relevance of personal information like character witnesses now included into the process.
Out of character will be considered in sanction and not during the evidence.
The parties can be in over the phone. Listen and take notes with questions that they might have.
Practice goes to four reviewers.
Q. What can be changed in the ARP(Alternate Review Process)?
The Dear Collegue letter provides a bunch of guidelines.
Preponderance of evidence-> More likely than not. 3 out of 4 need to be sure that a policy was violated.
Both parties need to have same rights in the process. Timeline needs to be tightened up in 60 days.
Strongly discourage direct confrontation of the witnesses.
As Stanford’s legal counsel, we should not go against the strong recommendation.
We must follow the should and we should follow the strong recommendations.
Q. What is the timeline going to be and what role would you like the GSC to play?
Faculty senate needs to vote up or down. For that, ASSU or GSC need to vote it. Early Winter quarter when the undergraduate senate is going to consider it and the GSC shortly thereafter.
Membership from the BJA. Charter changes originally from the the BJA. Coordination from the first two bodies.
Open for feedback on any point. http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/judicialaffairs/news/what-is-the-arp
Examples where changes might be encouraged or interesting?
In the past, there’s been discussion on the number of panelists.
Unanimous decision or not.
Discussion around the format of the ARP itself.
Judicial charter calls for what is in practice extremely formal.
Office for Civil Rights doesn’t dictate how the process looks.
There is some leeway on the process can work
Look to create a balanced and fair process for the impacted party and the people involved in the process.
Proposition of the joint meeting to talk between GSC and ASSU. The pros are that this meeting could get 30 people who are making this decision in one room. Too many opinions, however, may not be constructive.
Investigation Process: A decision is made regarding whether a student is charged with violating university policy. Request can be made for evidentiary review.
Review panel to look at all the information. Should go to a panel of reviewers.
All of the evidence is waived.
Impacted party: Person who has been impacted by the certain issue. Collecting names and witnesses at that point. Notes in the meeting are sent to that person and ensure that everything was accurate. From there, everyone else is contacted.
They can submit a written statement as well. Information could be text messages, Facebook posts- basically anything.
6:35—6:40 Proposal to Build a Bicycle Repair Station at GCC (Roshan Shankar)
Proposal to install a bicycle pump in Escondido Village. This makes it easier for students biking from off campus and those living in graduate student housing in Rain, EV, Munger to repair their bikes, touch it up and fill air in their tires closer to their home. The closest one is near Meyer library which is at times not functional, after which the closest place is at Tressider.
This is a good opportunity for the GSC to get the word out on itself as well! Addy suggests that we speak to the Operations Committee of the GCC.
6:40—6:45 Request for $80 for GradQ Women’s Happy Hour (Brendan Hamel-Bissel)
Funding Request from Grad Q
Graduate Queer women on campus. Often very male dominated. Happy Hour to be funded.
$80 for Women’s Happy Hour.
The application in mygroups was not submitted. It needs to be submitted.
No recommendation from funding committee.
Goes to a vote.
6:45—6:55 Advocacy Updates (All)
Strengthen the bond between different groups of underrepresented students. Bridging the gaps between different groups for getting funds for smaller events. Looking at VPGE funds and other initiatives to do small scale events. Working on the criteria on how such a group comes up.
Moving on to bigger events and move to social and educational events.
There’s a suggestion to look at the Community Action Board(CAB)-Similar group that takes leader from different communities.
Adrienne spoke to the Head of Libraries requesting reading stands and ergonomic reading trays. He’s going to buy them soon. There are suggestions to get more stuff for left handed users. Some talk on drinking water with water fountains compatible with bottles, cups provided on location. There’s some talk on purchasing chargers as well like the GSB does.
Eduardo and David might have a meeting soon at the LGBT Community Center on Monday/Wednesday.
Saad talks about getting more events on the Facebook page and possibly using some of the Marketing money from its line item towards purchasing advertisements and other social media outlays. There’s talk about recommending it on the FC guidelines.