Aditya Gudipati as proxy for Adrienne Johnson
Billy Gallagher, ASSU Exec
Gretchen Lam, AAGSA (VSO)
Meredith Townsend, FC Internal Auditor
Sam Bydlon, FC Vice Chair
Harendra Guturn, ASHA (VSO)
Fiona Meyer-Teneel, Swiss Student Club (VSO)
William Wicki, Swiss Students (VSO)
Prithui Raj Padachuri, SIA (VSO)
Daniel says problem is that in second year there are many internships and other off-campus traveling activities, so time commitment is too high. They are friends who represent same point of view. Feel they can complement each other well. Would like to be co-representatives. If possible they would like to be co-representatives. Trevor says need to change constitution, why not just have one person proxy all the time. Daniel says why not have third option where one of them is rep for half the year and other person can be for the next half of year. Trevor says maybe, but only one person can vote at any meeting, and no guarantee the other person would become rep next year. Ashveer says can’t understand why not just have one permanent and one proxy. Daniel and Emre say because it is to give both persons responsibilities so they would both show up. Trevor explains what being a proxy is. People suggest why not be “GSB advisor”. People explain again and again why cannot give both the title. Trevor says again one take advisor title and one takes official. Heavily recommend against the one where someone takes it now and 6 months later they resign and someone else can take it. Come back to it at the end of meeting. Emre comes back around 6:20. Emre suggests Daniel take representative role and Emre will take the “advisor” role. Voting for Daniel Autrique for GSB representative. 9 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstain. Create new position called GSC Business School advisor, voting for Emre Ertan. Passes 9 in favor 0 opposed 1 abstain.
ASHA: VSO fundraising to support children in India, organizing study break next Wed 8:30-9:30, 2 locations (Huang basement, Old Union). Only food, estimating 100 ppl, first time doing study break. Applying for funds transfer from existing allocation, request for transfer $358 and this is recommended. Approved unanimously by consensus.
Swiss Club: cultural BBQ on Sunday, requesting food money. Didn’t include alcohol in budget. Asked about alcohol funding, Wendy clarifies that food money can be used for alcohol. Applied for $212.50, split into $200 into food, and $12.50 for programming, all recommended. Ateeq asks about alternative funding, they don’t have any because it is last minute. Passes by consensus.
Stanford India Association: Farewell event for seniors, will be on night of 31th from 9pm-1am. 150 students. Will include drinks and elaborate snack box. Amount on agenda is wrong. Requested $767 in new funding and $803 transferred from existing allocation. Wendy wants to make sure it will be a dinner (3 entrees). Recommendation is for full amount, waiting for quotes from PSSI. SIA says maybe $69, but cost will not be known until the event happens, but probably will not increase billing. Wendy says unless they modify request, we will recommend their application amount. Wendy says they go right up to the hard cap. Conditional recommendation is waived given that PSSI does not give quote now. So total recommended application is $767 of new and transfer of $803. No more questions. Passes by consensus.
AAGSA: Serving Korean fried chicken from Bon Chon during study break. Wendy says recommendation is $700 which is maximum lunch cap for 100 people. No questions or objections. Passes by consensus.
-Jon says already passed one bill, this is second round of applicants. Have already been approved by undergrads. Bill is a list of nominations for committees. Nominations commission is 7 members, grads and undergrads, who recruit and interview students to serve on 50 University committees. Had extensive process where they interviewed more than 250 people, for first time ever they granted interview to everyone who applied, balanced best applicants with goal of having as many students involved as possible. Happy with the results, please with all the applicants. Doubled students in judicial panel pool, and as chair on judicial affairs this is good (Jon is chair of BJA). Administrators say process is thorough. Paul disagrees with process being meticulous. Says interviews were scheduled last minute on a Friday night, at interview only 2 out of 7 people showed up, and says if that’s the best the University can do then it’s bad. Jon says sent out interview options at last minute was because to make interview slots as much as possible, never had all 7 members present, if had done other way maybe Paul would not have gotten interview. Point of interview was not to add substance, was to understand demeanor, extenuating factors, wasn’t for them to hear resume all over again. Everyone who had a conflict got a personal interview at the time they wanted. Did not turn anyone down because of conflicts. Says he doesn’t think it has ever been done before. Number of student spots that has been filled in the past have been 70-80%, this year only 5 slots left until reach 100%. Says Paul is not seeing whole picture. Trevor says maybe next year have more informative interviews. Trevor adds that student members on Board of Trustee committees are actually independent members and don’t need to respond to us, but other committees are actually part of ASSU, and we should stay in touch with them because this is how ASSU reaches out to committees. For example, BJA members are representatives of ASSU. BoT process is actually “offering” nominees and not selecting nominees. Paul says this still doesn’t make this year’s efforts a good one. Jon says they actually wanted to get rid of NomCom, Jon says it was a bunch of 4 people groups thrown in to do a crappy job, and they took it from zero to confident. Paul says this is actually related to substantive part, because if there are flaws related to the nominees then we shouldn’t approve these people. Ateeq says why we don’t approve this if we’ve already approved so many. Jon says by end of year will have 100% filled, had more applicants. David asks how nominees will be linked with committees. Jon says each committee has key contact person, so these people were reached out to for student needs, and after our process and approval, these names will be sent to key contacts, and they can take over from there. Trevor asks if any of NomCom members on the committees already? Jon says yes, he’s on one of the BoT committees and is now on the board of the BJA, but he is graduating so is not serving next year. All in favor of passing bill. 10 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstaining. Passes.
Billy and ASSU Financial Manager Bill
Billy says current FM is being considered for a third term, even though not allowed under the rules. SSE board members want to do this. David asks where is the modification? Billy says joint bylaws change, next year we can change it back if we want. Undergraduate senates already passed, we haven’t looked at it yet. Ashveer asks if can add a provision for automatically changed, says no because already voted by undergrads. Paul suspends rule of order, Trevor seconds. All in favor of suspending the rules, 8 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstaining. Now no rules. Eduardo wants to flip table. Vote on organizational continuity, 10 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstaining. Passes. Rules reinstated.
Ashveer went to BBQ with kids. Just kinda hung out, did work for an hour. No other grad students appeared. Would have been nice if we had showed commitment to communication. He thinks it was a good effort by them, but then it was just them hanging out and talking. Maybe we should have said “hey I’m going, want to come too?” So people aren’t the only sketchy grad students there. Keep in mind for the future.
David says there was a case study which had accusations and observations of violations of the judicial charter. Thinks GSC should put together a resolution to ask the BJA to clarify the key accusations which are in the document in order to rebuild public trust. Billy says background on what execs have been doing. Execs met with Ottilie law, found out why they wrote the case study, met with students in and out of the case study, and about a week ago met with Chris Griffith and Koren Bakkgard. Complicated that the case is a year old and office has changed since a year ago. Jon says lots of changes were results of other reports that were commissioned by the University to improve judicial process. Daily article said that they appreciate Bob’s study, but at the end of the day he didn’t tell us much that was new. Jon says he wasn’t around and wasn’t part of the process so won’t speak to the specific case, but much of the things that are portrayed as systemic failures are definitely not the case. One of the things says that one of those reports (commissioned by the President), every year has IRP (internal review panel) go over process. Much of it overlapped with Bob’s. Asked if IRP has been going on for 3 years. It predates the whole case? Jon and Billy says case was overlapping. Trevor says there were several specific things that were very specific allegations. David says that through all of these allegations, I haven’t seen any statements from anyone about this. Someone should do something. Chris’s response to the op-ed is like this. Jon says this year ARP took a lot of time, but there are subcommittees have been working to address these things, op-ed says has been working on it. Asks about the timeline. Jon says a couple of weeks ago, BJA approved many of the procedures that were in place but were not part of the Charter as bylaws. So this is done now. Jon says maybe it would be more helpful to see what is going on. Says it is unfortunate that the amount of work that has been done has been overlooked. Billy says that Chris has been working on this and would be good to publicly address. Paul asks why Ottilie is making it public now if they’ve been working on this for so long. Billy says that he says that they tried to fix this internally first before coming public. Why are the names of the reporting party are in there, while in the Charter that the reporting party should also be protected from harassment. It seems a bit of a contradiction. Trevor cuts off discussion.
Ateeq and GHAC
Was on Tuesday morning, 900 people unassigned right now out of applied. 300 will be put into off-campus housing, so will be 600 unassigned people. Will make sure that every first year gets a place. Remaining people are priority years or strict requirements on living, so people who are flexible, they are doing all they can to put them in. They told him to stay quiet about this stuff for now. Meetings once a month on Tuesday. They are on the defensive right now so trying to figure out what to do. Will definitely put first years in housing first.
Trevor and Project Ideas
Trevor says has lots of ideas for the GSC to do. Projects are important, in addition to advocacy (is advocacy of sorts). Do want more specific things than more amorphous things. Want discrete timelines. Want ideas written down today. Go around the room and put up on the white board project ideas. Will categorize into different categories and see the list of ideas.
Trevor’s ideas: have all these RCCs (residential computing consultants), they get paid a lot, think the RCC should have drop in office hours that are a set time each week, and you can come by with computer problems that you have (can’t PDF, can’t print, etc.). This will be part of the RCC’s duties. 2: Rideshares to grocery stores. 3: Late night dining. 4: GSC sign on GCC front. 5: Vending machines selling ramen or soft drinks. 6: Bike theft (caltrain station). 7: Grad student housing locations in the campus, address the question of where is it, how much is it?
Eduardo: already working on it. LGBT / Gender identity info (admissions). Some schools in country gather info about LGBT population on campus, important because many issues are related to LGBT students (background, coming out, persecution, etc). To know how to allocate resources to the LGBT community, would be useful to have info about the population on campus. Want to know how many students are transitioning from one sex to other, can provide info to Vaden about resources, or CAPS. Would also be good to know how academic performance of LGBT students. Several proposals have been presented to registrar but have been ignored. Says there is a Community Action Board to try to address issues of diversity on campus. They are working on proposal right now, and says it would be great to have different ASSU entities or even Vaden signature behind this proposal. Their proposal mostly geared towards undergrad admissions, but Eduardo says if can use as a model to present to graduate students, then good. There is LGBT-community resource center. Eduardo wants free condoms. Why not give out GSC condoms during the GSC parties? Also, $30,000 challenge. Bus to SF.
Wendy: in terms of funding, need centralized database to record event details and attendance. In the past, had informal spreadsheet to keep track, but not sure how to use it to determine current status of group. Need database for analysis, policy decisions, informing VSOs about their status. Funding guidelines need to be reviewed because of new alcohol line item which will come into effect next year, need to decide how to set cap for that. Right now there is rule that says groups which have overlapping membership only count as one group, but have no idea how to do that. 70/30 rule is also a problem. Currently the rules say that if a group has more than 30% graduate membership but less than 70%, then any event they run will have to be prorated with the UGS. Situation earlier this year when joint event was 5 groups, and had more than 30% grads who will attend event, but group who put in application was undergrads, so had to request that they get someone else to do application. 3rd idea is to improve website and support the FOs. Currently FOs are trained by SAL and are poorly trained, put in requests for funding which are poorly organized. For healthcare, Wendy has been working with Vaden. Has three ongoing projects. 1: improving international student health and well-being in incoming students, last year only offered to women, was happy clappy only and wasn’t useful. 2: website to centralize resources for mental health, currently there is advisory committee which looks after these efforts. 3: working with CAPS to pilot graduate student peer counseling, want to start with LGBT community, want to try out different models. 4: Health insurance, therei s 9% increase, so Vaden is trying to figure out how to get students input. Want someone else to take this on. 5: For representation of ENG students, last year they ran survey of engineering students, now need to run analysis on data gotten from the survey. 6: Want more non-GSC voting members to come to meetings. Think we can do it through the VSOs (since FC has access to VSOs), maybe inviting different VSOs to come every week.
Adam: Campaigning for Caltrain passes for grad students.
Paul: Judicial Affairs needs GSC member to inquire into judicial affairs. He also wants to increase transparency amongst the committees which we nominate people to. When he was looking into Judicial Affair story, noticed that the BJA did not post its minutes for the entire year, and asked Koren to put up minutes and it took her 2 weeks to do it. A year is a long time. After looking at the minutes they are incomprehensible. Probably a problem with committees, want to improve. Says is problem with many committees.
Ashveer: 1: Berkeley has composting everywhere. He wants a good composting program around the University. Existing composting bins get full really quickly. Need more venues for people to put their composting stuff, want signs on what can and cannot be composted. Wendy asks about composting in housing? Ashveer says both housing and dining places. 2. Water bottle refilling stations. Ashveer has emailed before about it, they are piloting one in Hewlett or Tresidder. University says it is expensive, he thinks it is BS excuse. University needs to do this, no downsides. 3: Transparency, thinks University is so gargantuan in bureaucracy, he says he is disappointed in the ways that the bureaucracy works, doesn’t think they care about students. He wants to publically post salaries, after a certain level, maybe for admin rather than faculty, since faculty already have public records somewhere. Don’t know what bureaucrats make, want to display it to attract more people to the University. Eduardo says liberal argument is regarding custodians and other low paying members. Ateeq national amount if 55,000 dollars, so at public University they must need to do this if over $55000, but in private universities they dont’ need to do that. Says we should look at other private universities and how they deal with this. 4: Contracts. He thinks University should be more transparent about the contracts they award, whether or not it’s abuse of relationships (“X company contracted to do X things”).
Ateeq: 1. GSC video project for incoming students (especially intl students). A video we wanted to make for incoming intl students. Once students get here the orientation is great but they are so busy that they don’t care about auxiliary services. Want a video about these resources before they come here, when they are more receptive. Maybe about the GSC, GLO, other resources. Update on project is that all administrators they have talked to are very excited about this project. Nothing else more specific. 2: Power outlets in Meyer.
Bryce: 1: Across from police/fire station, there are 2 yield signs, but nobody stops there. When biking on Serra and turn in, bikes almost get hit by cars. Want stop sign there. 2 stop signs instead of 2 yield signs. Ateeq doesn’t want this because he drives. Says Studio 5 just started composting.
Susie: compile a list of grad student groups with contact info. 2: Hold big town hall to get more project ideas.
David: BBQ station in EV.
Trevor says next meeting will group into categories. Pick one person to oversee all these projects, different people to work on the different projects. Can just look on the spreadsheet to see what the projects are and the progress. Eventually want to make it public on the website, so people can know what the GSC does. Can continue adding ideas. Bryce and Trevor have been revamping the website, will relaunch before the fall. Bryce says that a lot of the trash that the GSC gets is because the website is not good. If have a better website/calendar, then people will visit. Ateeq asks about statistics about website visits, chairs say no idea. Says current website looks good but interface is bad. Wendy says about website also wants to see what last year’s GSC accomplished. Says Anne-Laure told her that in the past VPGE pays 35% of all our costs, but this year they upped it to 40%, but we don’t hear anything about it at all. This is internal arrangements between the departments and VPGE, and should be publicized so students actually know about it. Grant money is getting harder to find, having extra 5% is a good thing. Wendy says should have a list of what we’ve done that would be good even before what we do this year. Should do over summer before the new students come in. Just asking old GSC members on reports on what they’ve done.