Proceedings of the January 9th 2008 meeting
Agenda 1) 5:45 FOOD (thanks Anwei!)
2) 6:00 Welcome with introductions (Kristina)
3) 6:05 Announcements (Kristina)
i. Please be aware that all meetings are recorded and will be made available on the GSC website.
ii. Approve minutes from the last meeting (12/5/07) with the following change:
The reference to Financial Committee should be changed to be Funding Committee
iii. We need a volunteer to go to the Tax Seminar on Thursday, Jan 24th from 2pm until 5pm.
4) 6:10 Swearing in of new Representatives (Kristina)
5) 6:15 ASSU Update (Hershey)
6) 6:20 Programming Update (Adam and Justin)
7) 6:25 Discussion of Rules for Reserves Competition (Euan)
8) 6:45 Go Pass Discussion (Kristina)
9) 7:05 New Business
Attendance Voting members present:
At large 2: Hanna Muenke
At large 3: Kristina Keating
At large 5: Polina Segalova
Business: Rhyan Uy
Earth Sciences: Kyle Anderson
Education: Michelle Brown
Engineering 1: Melahn Parker
Engineering 2: Zeng Fan
Humanities: George Bloom
Medicine: Yana Hoy
Natural Sciences: Fen Zhao
Social Sciences: Euan Robertson
Voting members not present:
At large 1: Maxim Afanasyev
At large 4: Lan Wei
Law: Shireen Barday
Others in attendance: Justin Brown, Alex Ene, Susana Montes, Adam Sciambi, Anwei Chai, Yan Yan, Jessica Cameron, Maria Spletter
Minutes 1) 5:45 FOOD (thanks Anwei!)
2) 6:00 Welcome with introductions (Kristina)
Listen to this segment
We all shared where we spent our Winter Break.
3) 6:05 Announcements (Kristina)
Listen to this segment
i. Please be aware that all meetings are recorded and will be made available on the GSC website.
ii. Minutes from the last meeting (12/5/07) were approved by consensus with the following change:
The reference to Financial Committee should be changed to be Funding Committee.
iii. We need a volunteer to go to the Tax Seminar on Thursday, Jan 24th from 2pm until 5pm. Lan Wei was going to do this, but won’t be back in the country. George says he will be able to go.
4) 6:07 Swearing in of new Representatives (Euan)
Listen to this segment
A previous engineering representative needed to step down, so the seat needs to be replaced. Zeng Fan, who was an At Large Representative before, will take the Engineering seat, and Polina will take the At large seat opened up by Zeng. Putting Zeng Fan in the Engineering seat is approved by consensus Because she has also been sworn in as a GSC voting member, that step does not need to be repeated. Polina is sworn in to her At Large Representative seat, having been approved for this position at the last meeting.
5) 6:09 ASSU Update (Hershey)
Hershey is not present, so there is no update.
6) 6:10 Programming Update (Adam and Justin)
Listen to this segment
Lots of information about Grad formal tonight! Grad formal will be held on Saturday, February 23rd.
Adam and Justin bring blueprints of a previous event set-up at the venue, which will be similar to what they’re planning for our formal. Yay dancefloor!
Big bullet points of planning the event –
Venue – Computer History Museum in Mountain View on Shoreline Ave. Cost $12500
Tickets – On sale as of yesterday, cost $20. Are using the Stanford University Ticket Office to sell the tickets, which costs $2575. Students will be able to get tickets online or at the office. Advertising for the formal and how to buy tickets is in progress. They expect to sell 1500 tickets (the capacity of the venue).
Transportation – Renting 8 55 passenger coach busses, which will run from 8:30pm-1:30am between the GCC and the museum. Cost is $4604.
Décor – Are going minimal for this, as the museum is already an interesting setting. Cost is primarily for lights and the dance floor, given that it is a big loation. Cost is $7900.
Entertainment – Are still working on finalizing this, but have a number of options. Are looking at DJs and 90s cover bands, and social dance instructors. Plan to have social dance all night in a separate room, and have a DJ from 9-11pm and a 90s cover band from 11pm-1am in the main dance room. Anticipated cost is about $2500. The type of social dance will change every hour, teaching things like swing, foxtrot, etc.
Food: Have hired a caterer to serve some finger foods, and she will bring her own staff and do clean up and such. Approximate cost of $5000.
Beverages: Alcohol and non-alcoholic alternatives will cost about $5000 total, a much reduced cost from previous years because we can buy our own alcohol in bulk rather than needing the caterer to serve it. Will hire students who have taken the SSE bartending course. Will also have a more professional server who will unofficially supervise.
Staff: Hiring ushers to work at the GCC, taking coats and tickets at the venue, and generally helping out. Are hiring an Undergrad group (Quinn Productions) to do this, at $100 a person. Estimated total = $1000.
Security: 10 security guards have been hired from Coleman Security for $1250. These people have worked at the venue before and are thus familiar with it. The venue also provides 2 additional security as well.
Advertising – Are planning on using Grad Events, Grad Announce, Facebook, Banners, CAs, personal advertising, etc. We’re aiming for a much bigger crowd this year, so everyone needs to put extra effort into getting the word out there! Euan will send a list again of department lists, so that we can all email our constituents.
Budget – details of budget for all these points for last year and this year. Last year’s total was 34000, this year’s total is 36000. These are offset by ticket sales.
They briefly mention a speed-dating event put on together with Lyman in the upcoming weeks, but we will hear more about this next week.
7) 6:29 Discussion of Rules for Reserves Competition (Euan, Fen and Melahn)
Listen to this segment
Listen to this segment
Reminder about the premise of the competition, which is to spend some of our reserves, while benefiting graduate students and perhaps getting some more involved with the GSC.
Summary statement (full text will be available on the GSC website): Submissions are invited to the Stanford Graduate Challenge (SGC) that provide ideas to improve the Stanford graduate community, campus, or student life but require capital outlay or time investment beyond those resources available to individual students. Funding up to $10,000 is available to winning teams to implement their schemes, which should not have a monetary profit as the main motive.
Discussion about the rule that a Stanford student must be involved seems to resolve on the fact that this is only a minor hurdle for groups, and that we like the idea that at least one graduate student must be convinced that it’s a good idea that they want to work on, even if they’re not the primary idea creators.
Rhyan wonders about the requirement that the proposed plan be non-profit, in that this might stifle ideas that do perhaps earn some money. The phrasing came from the fact that the contest needs to be in a different niche than other entrepreneurial contests such as that run by the SSE. However, SSE is looking for very profitable ventures, so there may be worthwhile projects that do not fit that need, even if they make some money. After all, we do like sustainable projects. There is a suggestion to move the sentence from the summary about profits to the rules part, because it seems a better description of what we will consider.
Discussion about whether to require entrants to be prepared to implement their proposed plan themselves, or whether we are willing to accept ideas and implement them on our own. Ideas to have incentives to motivate entrants to bring their ideas to fruition include giving prize after implementation is complete, which might help some, even if initial enthusiasm wears off at some point. George argues that we’d be unlikely to approve projects that we didn’t think people would follow through on, or couldn’t be implemented well, so perhaps leave more flexibility in the call for submissions.
We take a break in this discussion, because we are already behind schedule, so we decide to return to it after the Go Pass discussion. However, the later notes are added here despite the break.
Discussion continued at 7:19pm.
Want to finish the document as a group tonight so that it can be advertised to the community in the near future.
In thinking about implementation: Plan to remove the potential role of the GSC as implementer and just such that the winning team is expected to implement their plan. Suggestion to have the rules say that groups need to submit a timeline for implementation, but take out the enforced deadline of the end of the school year, as this would stifle longer-term or ongoing plans.
In thinking about prizes: We talk about adding a bonus at the end of implementation, as some motivation to finish the project, along with keeping the initial prize. However there is discussion that we probably can’t afford enough money for the money itself to be what motivates the students to participate and finish the implementation. Really, we need students who will be mostly motivated by their idea and having the money to put it into practice, and that the idea will make them want to put in the effort, rather than the money (like us GSC members for whom the paychecks really don’t reflect the amount of time and effort that we put in). We arrive at a general consensus to let students put their own honorarium amount within their up to $10,000 proposal, and that half of this honorarium would be given for winning (up-front), and that the other half would be given after completion of the proposed project. The GSC would have the opportunity to evaluate honorarium amounts during proposal presentations.
In thinking about deadlines: We want to see if we can fit this into a quarter, with the possibility of repeating it in future quarters, so the deadline will remain March 1st. as is currently written on the sheet. Our mental plans are to have a short list by March 7th, have groups to present to the GSC on March 12th and 19th, and notify groups at some point after making a decision and approving the minutes the week after. However, on the official document calling for submissions, only the submission deadline will be listed, with other parts of the process “occurring in a timely fashion,” in case items come up that the GSC needs to discuss in those weeks and we are unable to maintain the proposed schedule.
Final check of planned changes to the document:
General requirements: Include in line 4 that in addition to no elected GSC members, nobody with a paid role in the GSC are allowed to participate.
Proposed Plans: In line 4, change the wording to say that the proposed plan must not have monetary profit as the main motive.
Selection of Winning Proposals: In line 6, remove that the GSC may in exceptional circumstances enact the plan. We expect that entrants will make plans for the implementation of their proposal.
Documents and Deadlines: For the 5th, 6th, and 7th bullet points, the specific dates about notification during the choosing process will be removed. For the 8th bullet point, the requirement that projects must be implemented by June 30th 2007 (a typo, intending to be 2008) is replaced by a requirement that submissions include a timeline for implementation.
Prizes: Instead of the dining voucher, specify that honorarium can be part of the proposal budget, and that for winning proposals, they will get half of the honorarium upfront and half at completion of project.
With the changes as detailed above, the rules of the competition as written are approved by consensus.
The announcement for the contest will go out on Grad Announce shortly, and will also be otherwise advertised.
8) 6:54 Go Pass Discussion (Jessica Cameron)
Listen to this segment
Jessica is the leader of GO Pass Action Committee, and is giving us an update on what their committee has been up to.
Some history of the Go-Pass: It was first available in 2005, and was free to Grad students, funded by the Provost’s office, with the expectation that we’d find a way to pay for it the following year. A ballot measure in 2006 wanted to charge all grad students $100 and also added some benefits for on-campus students. This measure did not pass. In 2006, the Go-pass cost the full $100, but the Provost’s office paid for the costs of permits that were not picked up. In 2007, there was a ballot measure (voted on by all on and off-campus students) that would charge all off-campus students for the full cost of the Go-pass (100) in non-refundable fee. This measure got 61% of vote, not enough to meet the 66% requirement that the GSC had decided would constitute necessary support. Based on that percentage though, the Provost feels that students have indicated an interest in having the Go-Pass, and has presented another proposal for funding in 2008 and beyond. The current proposal from them is to charge a $45 yearly fee to all graduate students (both on and off-campus), and that off-campus graduate students could then pick up a free Go-Pass. This would need to be given as a fee, not as an increase in tuition. This fee would be mandatory for everyone, and there would not be an option for students to get refunds. The offer stands such that the Provost would implement the fee on the recommendation of the GSC, and if this recommendation is made, the Go-Pass would be available for 2008 in the near future.
Some points brought up in discussion:
- Stanford would not be paying for the Go-Pass at all – the cost burden would be taken on by the students.
- Rhyan points out that only 630 people thought it was worth the $100 to buy the Go-Pass this year (2007). Obviously, if it were free, more people would get it, but the point is that only 630 thought it was worth it to pay for, and there would be a lot more students that would be charged for it if we recommended the fee.
- Neither of the two referendums that have been put on the ballots, one for charging all students and one for charging off-campus students, passed with the required supermajority.
- We talk about whether it is appropriate for us to make this decision on behalf of all students. While legally, the bylaws don’t prevent this, morally, some don’t feel it’s appropriate to place that financial burden on students without giving them a direct voice in a referendum. Polina brings up the point that the GSC members are likely more knowledgeable about this issue than the general student body, and that we are elected with the purpose of representing the student body, yet the consensus seems to be that this is not a decision that we should make without direct student input.
- Jessica’s sense from her meeting with the Provost’s office was that they were unwilling to make this decision, and are therefore punting the responsibility of deciding on this fee to the GSC instead. The Go-Pass committee seems to also feel that a fee applied to all students is not the best solution, particularly based solely on the decision of the GSC to apply this fee. They will continue to work with the Provost’s office with the goal of funding the Go-Pass for Graduate students in a more similar fashion to how it is funded for faculty and staff.
- Depending on where the Go-Pass issue stands when the election comes up, we will consider putting another referendum on the ballot.
As a result of this discussion, we decide to send the Provost an email or letter, with the contents stating something along the lines of: “We do not make a request to impose a student fee for the Go-Pass on all students.” Sending this statement passes by consensus.
9) 7:44 New Business
Listen to this segment
Polina announces that the GSC reservation system for the projector and sound system is up and running on the GSC website, with a link on the left of the main page. The karaoke system will be up there shortly too, after Polina finishes tagging the equipment (it has arrived though!).
|
