Black Grad SA:
Discussion and dinner surrounding what it’s like to be a black grad student on Stanford campus. Friday starting at 6:30. Expecting $500 food $50 event services $75 alcohol. Recommendation is $550 food, $75 alcohol $50 event services. On the calendar it says “BGSA”, can they spell it out? Voting, passes unanimously.
Armenian Student Assoc:
-This year have a lot of grad students who joined the org. Want to plan events tomeet other grad students. Have 3 events for the month of April-May. INclude a games night, a dinner to commemorate the armenian genocide, and a welcome dinner as well. The recommendation is $1040, which is $100 honoraria, $940 food. Right now there are at least 20 grad students in the org. All the dates are currently TBA, Bryce asks them to make sure that they are on the GSC calendar. Sam says they are on the GSC calendar, Sam told them to put them there as proxy events first. Voting on events, passes unanimously.
Russian Student Assoc:
-Submitted request for event on Mar 6, 7pm. Celebrate international women’s day, which is a big holiday in Russia/Europe. Applied for $400 in funding, which is $25 in utensils, $150 alcohol, $250food. Recommendation is $400, which is $250 food, $125 alcohol, $25 event services. Voting on $400, passes unanimously.
Turkish Student Assoc:
-Ministry of Technology of Turkey and President of the NSF of Turkey is visiting Bay Area. They are giving talks, which are about funding resources from Europe area, Turkey gvt and USA. The event is on Mar 20, will be in Alumni center, currently room they have is for 60 ppl but they are expecting more. It will be open for all Stanford students, there will be no food. Asking for room reservation fees. It is on the GSC calendar now. Recommendation is $470 for event services. Wendy asks if the talks are going to be in English. They said they are not sure at the moment. For the Chinese New Year Gala they had English support. They agree to summarize all the major points in a brochure in English so that English speakers will have access to the resources which are being presented, even if the presentation is not in English. Gabby outlines the possibilities here. First, they can bring a translator. Or, they can have an ad-hoc solution wheer someone is typing out the main ideas on a projector during the presentation plus the brochure. So we will vote to fund them with the condition that there is some kind of English support for the event, whether it is a translator or brochure in English or something. Voting on $470 with the condition of translation, passes unanimously.
Adam and Shireen from the Board on Judicial Affairs
In December they met with leadership of GSC/UGS/ASSU execs to discuss how they can get input from student leadership about some of the modifications they are considering for Stanford judicial processes. That group decided that they would come to GSC twice to give an overview about the ideas and answer questions, and come back the next week to get feedback. They are going to tell us about 2 bylaws that they are considering. Still in draft stage. Judicial process at Stanford runthrough. Starts when a complaint is filed, can be done by anyone but usually a professor/TA, etc. Someone tells Office of Community Standards that they have a concern. OCS goes to investigate the concern, if they decide that there is a basis for concern, they will move forward to a hearing. 2 parts to a hearing: First part, determine whether a violation has occurred. Panel composed of 6 members. Second phase is determining the appropriate the sanctions, if a violation has occurred. After, all cases go to Vice Provost for StudentAffairs for review. Bylaw changes regarding charging decision. On a policy level, Sec. 3 Part E, Sec. 3 Part I. They are clarifying things that already exist in the judicial charter, instead of amending it. In the charging decision, it says the judicial officer has 3 actions, how do they choose what to do is worded in part E. Their goal is to clarify what “sufficient evidence” is, and to see that standards for charging are actually high. In sample bylaw language, The charging standard is that the fair minded panelist could find the allegations to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. The second changes is regarding the the 2 phases of the panel’s hearings. Regarding the relevant evidence that can be presented at each phase of the hearing. They want to clarify the purpose of each phase of the hearing, and the meaning of “relevant evidence”. Wants to affirm that the first phase is a fact-finding phase, and second is sanctioning. Make sure that everyone knows that. To codify this, they are clarifying that the fact-finding phase is solely focusing on whether the Responding Student is responsible for the charged violations. Reputation and character evidence are not relevant to determining responsibility and consequently shall not be considered in the fact-finding phase. However, such evidence may be considered in the sanctioning phase. Trevor asks if there’s anything new regarding “attornies” etc that are happening. Wendy asks, in the “reputation and character evidence” portion, she wasn’t thinkin about past charges, so they should change the language to explicitly mention past charges. Would suggest a clarification that previous charges are not included in this portion. Arushi asks, has the policy been seen by professionals like lawyers, etc? Sometimes there’s technical language etc. They say there’s an ex-officio seat that goes to the general consul. They also happen to have 4 lawyers who are on the BJA. Second question, have there been any complaints and that led to this? They say not specific ones, these are just commonly occurring hiccups. With that case of what evidence is relevant, it’s common that people want to introduce character evidence. In the fact-finding phase, there is no character evidence. Character evidence can only been included in the sanctioning phase.