Justine Update on Accounts
We have $11,474.65 left to spend in the general fee allocations. We spent $8k on alcohol from our general fees account before this. Approving what we planned on approving tonight would leave us with $4k until the next fiscal year starts.
Stanford India Assoc:
-Organizing annual event, farewell for outgoing grad students, having an informal program in Willis with food and drinks (trad indian food). Total asked for was $200 alcohol and rest for food. Have publicized on mailing list, GSC calendar, FB event. Transfer breakdown is for $200 alcohol, $165.37 for event services. Recommendation for new application is $1030 for food, which hits their hard cap. Event is on May 23rd, it’s on GSC calendar. Voting on $1030 , passes unanimously. Voting on $365.37 in extra funding to them, vote fails. Voting on transfer, of $365.37, passes unanimously.
-Recently had transgender awareness week, panels regarding issues involving transgender issues on campus. Having a mixer at Studio 1 patio, expect around 80 grad students, May 23rd from 7-9pm, requesting $180 drinks $20 programming, $30 food. Recommendation is $180 alcohol, $20 event services, $30 food. Voting, passes unanimously with one abstention.
-End of year banquet, May 30th. Last week got funds for food, this week requesting funds for event services. Event held at Old Union clubhouse ballroom, has $133 for janitorial work order, also getting sound tech services from Stanford Concert Network for $50. Recommendation is $183 event services. Voting, passes unanimously .
Chinese Women’s Collective
-Chinese painter is coming to teach Chinese women about painting, there will be exhibition after that. Location is in GCC Havana Room, will need to pay $100 to painter, $189 to painting equipment and frames. 2 Parts, first is transfer of $11 to event services, new money is $100 honoraria, $189 in event services, total $289. Sam reminds them of hashtags in the calendar. Voting on $289 in new funding, passes unanimously. Voting on additional money, vote does not pass. Voting on transfer, passes unanimously.
-Another aperitivo May 30th 7-9:30, have string trio to play at event, offer drinks and food. Recommendation is for $1735, which is $385 honoraria, $1350 for alcohol. This is joint event with French Student assoc. David asks about turnout last time, Lorenzo says it’s about 250 ppl. Voting on $1735, passes unanimously.
French Students Assoc
-Same event aperitivo, requested $1315. Recommendation is $1350, $910 food, $90 event services, $315 honoraria. Voting, passes unanimously.
Stanford Astronomical Society
-Outreach program on May 31 at Lagunita, program from 9pm-midnight, last time there were more than 300 ppl attending, they are asking for $200 for food. Recommendation is $200 food. Voting on $200, passes unanimously.
-Graduation mixer, event held in oak lounge in Tresidder on 7:30-11:30pm on June 1st. REcommended $200 alcohol, $350 food, $96.50 event services, for total of $646.50. Voting, passes unanimously.
Stanford Queer Graduate Women
-Will post event on calendar tonight. First event, mixer BBQ, requesting $420, expecting 40 ppl, approx $20 event services, $100 alcohol, $300 food. Recommendation is for $420, which is as she outlined. Voting on $420, passes unanimously.
GSC Europe Club
June 2, farewell dinner party for membership who are graduating. Haven’t previously applied for funding, so they adjusted it down to $560 because they are expecting 40 ppl, and this is the food/alc cap. Location will be in Schwab. Advertised through calendar. Recommendation is $560,which is $400 food, $160 alcohol. Voting on $560, passes unanimously.
Pakistanis at Stanford
-Farewell on May 31st, expecting 100 ppl, 80 grad students. Requesting $1000 for food, $40 programming. Haven’t put on calendar yet, but will do that tonight. Recommendation is for $1000 food, $40 event services. Voting, passes unanimously.
Stanford Taiwanese Assoc
-They requested $535 in transfer, but violated food cap, so recommended $400 food and $50 event services transferred. Voting on $450 in transfer, passes unanimously. Voting on extra amount on top of transfer, vote fails.
Chilean Student Assoc
-They want to ask the GSC about using ticketed events to restrict attendance to Chilean students and their parents. Trevor says that this is a horrible idea and violates the spirit of the funding guidelines. Sam will tell them they can come and argue it themselves.
Resolution on Divesting from Fossil Fuels
Sam asks about the study they sent out. Thought it was weird that they took the portfolio of 3000 companies, and then took out the coal companies, seemed to understate the risk. They offered their explanation. Bryce says, if this is voted for or against, what do they intend on doing with that vote? They’ve been told by administration that it’s important to have support of all aspects of the Stanford community, having clear grad student support will let them know we support this. It is difficult to show that grad students support this. Alumni have now sent in over 500 individually written letters, this would be the grad student equivalent. Bryce says what’s the opposite, what if we vote against it? They say the overwhelming number of grad students is in support of this, so they are still going to work with what they have. James B asks, why waasn’t this question posed to the grad students in the election? They said, the grad student portion of this movement started later, so they didn’t manage to get it on the ballot. Sam wants to ask, last week he asked for distribution of faculty support in departments and schools, wondering if anyone else had insight about this. Michael is the faculty liaison for the group, there’s a letter that’s been passed around to faculty, started in English and Biology, a lot of humanities departments have come around it, the history department, linguistics, theatre and production studies. In each dept around 50% of professors are willing to sign on. Also other depts in sciences, chem has been somewhat lackluster, physics and woods institute both have been strong, etc. Some econ professors as well, some took offense with certain numbers used in the letter, GSB have been reticent, they don’t want them to solicit their professors. Sam wants to add a note that there’s only 8 voting members today. James B said, he did studies on the groups in the info, they are fossil-free supporters, wants to know if they have looked at more neutral groups. Second question is, googled “Chevron and Stanford” and found that they made a huge contribution to the GSB recently, have they thought about these auxiliary funding streams that might dry up if we do this. They say, with regards to the first part, it’s largely groups that are sympathetic, hopefully there will be more research. About second question, a number of professors have brought the issue to them, so they went and talked to civil and environmental engineering dept, they suggested that these big fossil fuel companies enjoy a lot of benefits by donations to Stanford, so they have little incentive to stop that, they also have some say in what research is done, they also want to have a picture of what research is being done, so it’s unlikely they will pull that funding. Exxon in 2007 started putting Stanford’s logo on their advertising, Stanford told them that they couldn’t do that, but they kept on donating. James asks, have their been universities which have divested from this? They say 11 have. David wants to say, the university will figure out the investments portions, we should not concern ourselves too much with the financial aspects of the divestment. If the university does calculus and doesn’t think it is a good idea, they will not do it. Bryce says that just because we divest, it doesn’t mean that we are in support of the environment. He told them last week that oil and fossil fuels are different, they need to consider this. Moving forward, they need to show that oil and gas are different than coal, regardless of what they are portrayed as in the media. Mike asks, have they done enough to prove that graduate students have supported this measure? He feels that the undergrads have shown support of this, grad students haven’t. Eduardo says, we sshouldn’t be thinking that our stand won’t affect the university. Also when you take a stand against something, it always come with a price. Regarding divesting from environment, there’s 2 ways, one which is to stop supporting the harm, the other is to directly support environmental effects. In response to proof of grad student support, they can’t go beyond the personal experiences, but undergrads did support it and they think grad students will too. They think that the poll that they suggest would be helpful. David suggests that they do petitions, they did try a petition with the undergrads, and got around 2500-3000. Sam says he agrees that if this is a bad financial move, but we should still consider it. Regarding petitions, he thinks we should do a more in depth paragraph for grad students to inform them more about this issue. David says that he thinks that undergrads will be more affected than grad students. Sam says that he’s talked to many students and we should consider on behalf of Stanford and not just grad students. James says that all the money that is accessible to grad students, like the law school’s endowments is managed by the Stanford endowments, so for professors who are endowed then it would also be affected. Trevor asks, why can’t Stanford used their investments to affect how these companies operate, as shareholders? They say that history has shown that this is unable to happen, for example the Rockerfeller foundation. Stanford does have a policy on environmental shareholder policy for decades, and it hasn’t made a difference. Sam asks, can they confidently say that removing their investment would have minimal effect on Stanford’s portfolio? They say it’s impossible to say for sure, fairly confident it will have minimal impact, they will take that into account when they make their decision. There was a school where the administration chose not to divest because they said it was a financial issue. James want to say that this is the great way to run a campaign, with facts and stuff. Bryce wants to play devil’s advocate, says when you divest from companies, you are saying that you don’t believe that these companies provide services for humanities, but we are going to use fossil fuel ourselves, how do we reconcile this? They say they don’t not believe that these companies shouldn’t exist, but they can choose where to put their support. It is more important to guide the future development of technology. David says maybe should postpone the vote to get more info about grad student support or neutral analysis on how divestment will affect the portfolio. Chairs ask them what they want to do regarding the vote, do they want to delay it or not? Mike says if their rational is to get more data, then maybe that’s a good idea, if the rational is to get more people to vote yes, then maybe not a good idea. Their decision is to wait until next week.
Buffer Fund Policies Bill
Last week, they discussed the importance of establishing good policies about how to use the buffer fund. They want to create a group to talk about how to manage the buffer fund, this committee would help create recommendations on how to use the buffer fund. Senate last night says they prefer, instead of having the chair of the senate, they would be able to select who they would choose. Joint group between UGS, GSC, and ASSU Financial Manager.
-Bryce has a design, it’s $5.50 per shirt. There are 20 different colors to choose from . Lots of discussion about logo.