Pau sent an email to internal about the transition timeline for the ASSU elections. Has info about voting dates, meetings with old/new GSC members, and meetings with undergrads which is envisioned to be in the Havana room downstairs. It might be distributed, with a part led by SAL, university members like Nanci Howe, break for lunch, etc. The funding is going to be split between GSC and UGS. Will also talk about the ASSU structure, SSE, etc, in the joint session between the GSC and UGS. Then we will have breakout sessions between us and the UGS. The one for the GSC will have a few points to address, such as the objectives of the GSC, committee structure, specific training for officers. People also need to update the document with their job descriptions. Also how do we fit within the ASSU, how can we be represented better (we will also talk with the new execs about this). Further down there is a banking workshop. One of the thing that is still being worked on is admin meetings. Will setup meetings with different university administrator, have them come to our meetings so that they can explain what they do and how they can be helpful for us. Terence says one of the dates might be wrong, first meeting with the new reps should be 5/3 (5/2 with the undergrads). Thinks this can also bring a better relationship between the UGS and the GSC.
Voting booth event has been set up. Gabby has also been working on grad formal. Tickets are now on sale, all early bird tickets are sold out already (200). So far we have also sold 47 regular tickets. Volunteer list is full now but Gabby is also getting some extra volunteers to help. Alcohol license is here now, originally the wrong date but now they changed the date so that it’s right. Finalized all the decorations, Transamerica tower, Golden Gate bridge, cable car, etc. The theme is so that people can take lots of pictures. Alcohol is ending an hour before the event ends. She still needs to get GSC wristbands for the grad formal with our logo on it. Still looking into whether or not can have paramedics team to be there. The alcohol has to end an hour before the event because it’s the University’s policy, office of alcohol mandates that this must be the case, and also the county has this rule. Gabby wants us to forward the grad formal advertisement emails to our constituencies. If students have financial difficulties then they can always volunteer.
Bill to Fund Rains Spring Party
Juan is here, head CA for Rains houses. The bill is for funding, in part, the Rains spring block party. Requesting $3k, largely going to the DJ that they get, part of the beer, and some snacks. This event has a pretty high turnout. They are increasing the amount of security at the party, so they are asking for increased money for that from the GSPB. They’ve also submitted the Orgsync registration thing already. Last year they got $3k from the GSC as well. This will be by the volleyball courts. The date will be Friday May 12.
Gabby has been helping Kali with this. They will have 2 election booths, one outside Tresidder courtyard and one outside LKSC. They will also pick up some Naked Juice as well with that. Also want to get 4 iPads or laptops there for ppl. Still need a few volunteers but these people should not be running for the election. At LKSC it will be at the “herb garden”. Kali says says we might not be able to tell if people are grads vs. undergrads because it might not say on their ballot. Isa says, are they both at the same time? Kali says yes. Rosie says we could also look them up on StanfordWho to figure out their status. We could use some more volunteers!
Stanford Bhakti Yoga Club:
- Have an event tomorrow called “Science of Ayurveda”. Event that will teach students about techniques of using herbs in cooking. Introduces plant-based cooking and how to live healthily, very scientific event. There is also another event for next week called “Our True Identity”, which is an intro to the ancient philosophy of yoga, will introduce some practical tips about understanding our true identity, followed by meditation. Requesting $700 each for both of these events. Event starts at 7:30 and ends at 9, will be at the EV Village center. Tianze says they have $550 left in their soft cap so we only recommend $550 for food for the first event, and no recommendation for the second event. Voting on recommendation on $550 for food, passes unanimously. Rosie motions to have an additional $150 for the event, does not pass with 3 for, 4 opposed 1 abstaining.
-Having a quarterly mixer tomorrow at the LGBT-CRC. Expect 40-50 grad students. Requesting $400 to cover food. Recommendation is $400 for food. Voting, passes unanimously.
Stanford Digital Shapers:
-Second workshop, about the future of work: what happens if we put people out of work through automation. Requested $100 for snacks and some beverages. Recommendation is $100 food. Voting, passes unanimously.
Stanford Thai Students Assoc:
- Thai fest 2017. Biggest annual cultural event. Happening at White Plaza on Apr 22 Saturday, this is the first time that they are moving the event to outdoors. They have 4 things in the event: live performance, food, games (can win prizes), culture. They are requesting $2823.83 in total. Expect the food to cost about $3k and asked GSC to subsidize it, aim to sell the food at around $3-4 price range. Recommendation is $1764 food, $1059.83 event services. This will put them at the soft cap. Isa says when they came to us they didn’t have the itemized list, but now they sent it and she has questions. She sees that they are buying 2 “mesh for tents”, doesn’t the event services provide tents? They say they talked to event services and the tent is very expensive (like $4k), so they can get the tent from someone else off campus (performance group) but they need the mesh that goes around the tent. Isa says she sees a super cheap one ($60) and one is more expensive ($100+). Tianze says that the labor for the event services is really expensive. Gabby says that for a lot of the equipment for event services they just get it from another company and marks it up by 20%. Isa says these are capital purchases so maybe the GSC can buy it and rent it out to other groups. Gabby says that tents need licenses a lot. Voting on recommendation of $2823.83, voting passes unanimously.
Materials Research Society & Stanford Polymers:
- Putting on a mixer. There is a lot of overlap in the groups but they haven’t really done anything social together. They are splitting the budget between the 2 groups, total is $320 per group for a total of $640. Per group, requesting $200 food, $120 alcohol. It’s planned in the McCullough 3rd floor, but might have it outside. Total budget for event is $640. Isa asks, would the doors to the building be open? They say yes. They estimated about 80 ppl in attendance. Voting, passes unanimously.
- Another event that MRS is putting on individually. “Art of Science” art exhibition. Thinks a lot of the scientific work they do is beautiful, invite ppl in the sciences to submit images/displays/etc and they will curate them a little bit and put them up, posters or set up tables for exhibition in Packard for the public to see. Requesting $400 food, $50 event services, open to everyone and they’ve already put out ads for submission. The actual event is May 19. Total recommendation is $450. Voting, passes unanimously.
Dutch at Stanford:
- King’s Day, hosting a BBQ at the Willis Lounge to celebrate this day. Will have alcohol and food. Have organized similar events in the past for about 60 ppl, usually about 20 Dutch students and 40 other grad students. Recommendation of $290 food, $140 alcohol, $30 event services, in total $460. Voting, passes unanimously.
Russian Students Assoc:
- Celebrating Yuri Gagarin this Saturday. Will have a BBQ. Requesting $250 for BBQ, $200 drinks, $50 event services. Recommendation is $250 food, $200 alcohol, $50 event services. Voting, passes unanimously.
Survey Task Force
Comments from GSC Members:
-Kali says her school is not on the list
-Jennie says demographics should be “select all that applies”
-Terence says make income source a little bit more clear “only from Stanford”
-Jennie says maybe have some of the demographic questions at the end of the survey
-Terence says add the word “approximate” to the taxes and other finances
-Rosie says the gender identification should be changed
-Terence says that we should add something about “everything is confidential and anonymous”, Jennie agrees. Terence says maybe add explicit statements about “you’re not obliged to answer these” or something.
-Trevor says maybe change slider to range instead.
-Terence says also have “do not want to state” or something for the finances
-Jennie says at each of the “introductory statements” at the beginning of the block, people can choose not to answer an entire block if they don’t want.
-Trevor says some sections have way too much detail, such as the “food” one. Too many options. Terence says it’s also not super actionable.
-Gabby says to the grad-wide events one, add off-campus housing session.
-Rosie says for “lack of summer funding” we should include “I have summer funding” –> maybe good to clarify
-Gabby says some of the questions should have “I don’t know”, such as for the health insurance.
-Terence says figure out “what are the 3 biggest things that we want to figure out from this survey” and put them towards the beginning
-Gabby says for mental health we need to have “N/A” option or skip logic
-Trevor says that stipend option should have $60k+
-Isa asks Kali if we can have money for a focus group for the survey. Probably ok.
Bill to remove Constitutional Council Members
During the hearing of the Constitutional Council case, Brian Baran acted in the way that was very unnecessary and inappropriate for the role that he was in. The role of the hearing was that it should start with a 5 min intro by the petitioners (KZSU & LSJUMB) followed by 5 minutes of question, then 5 minutes of defense from UGS followed by discussions. The petitioners had their full 5 minutes of intro and questions, but the UGS did not get a chance to use their whole 5 minutes because Brian Baran stopped UGS from speaking. Other members of UGS are here who were present for part of or all of the CC hearing. Shanta says that the screaming and accusations that took place at that hearing is something that has no place in the CC. The ideal resolution in bringing the bill forward is for both bodies to give the matter due consideration. She brought this forward is because enough people found this to be uncharacteristic behavior as to warrant Brian’s removal from the CC. Jayrant says, the CC usually talks about the relevant legal issues. Brian went on for 30 minutes during the case on a tangent and talked about a question that was not being addressed in the case. In addition, there were other members on the CC who had questions, and the questions were critical for them to decide the case, but Brian would interrupt the UGS’s answers rudely. Judges typically allow you to address a question before moving on, and in this case it was rude to interrupt the answering of the questions. Shanta says in addition, the tone and manner in which the interruptions were done was very accusatory and hostile, and he made very troubling insinuations, putting words in their mouths. At one point, he yelled at them with inflammatory accusations that don’t have any basis. Katie says, there were a lot of interrupting, many situations where Brian and the Senate were yelling over each other. It seems that many of the other CC didn’t get a chance to answer a lot of questions. Shanta says there were repeated requests from Senate to Brian for people to finish their answers to a question, but Brian did not allow them to answer questions and was screaming over people. Hattie and Shanta were representatives to the case, and immediately after the case they got an email from Jonathan York apologizing for the behavior of Brian. Trevor says, in his opinion that being immature, while it sucks, might not rise to the level of dismissal. But it was weird that they didn’t even get a chance to give their 5 minute statement. Shanta says that the leadership of the ASSU were aware of these bills, and as part of that, Jackson communicated with Jonathan York about pending actions and that they were considering this. Katie says that KZSU got closer to 3 minutes, while Senate had less than that. Shanta says there’s an outdated document for rules of order for CC hearings, but it’s generally left to the discretion of the CC how they want to format it. Jelani will be here next week and he’s served on the CC before and has a lot of information about it. Isa says, these 2 people are both law students it seems. Shanta says that she believes the transgression to be bad enough that she probably would have pursued this regardless of the outcome of the case. Unfortunately there are not a lot of impartial people who were present. Trevor asks Caleb Smith whether he agrees with the assessment given of the case. Caleb agrees that the proceedings were quite acrimonious and that there were hostile statements. He does not believe that anything at that hearing would rise to “inappropriate conduct”. Both the petitioner and respondent had additional arguments to make at the point to which they were first asked questions. Certainly the Senate was asked questions earlier. It was clear from the nature of the questions that some members of the CC had profound doubts after reading the statements that were received. In regards to the specific conduct, the questions were pointed, and there were at times indignant questions. Caleb says there were no personal insults made at the meeting, no racist and sexist remarks made, he has seen worse behavior at some Senate meetings before. He says he doesn’t believe that the actions warrant impeachment hearings. Isa says, it seems that if we vote for this then we can remove the CC members; and also since both bills were in regards to law school students, she would be hesitant to remove law students from this. Sean says that just because you are an expert on “law” that doesn’t make you an expert on the ASSU Constitution, and it also doesn’t make you untouchable. Yiren says, if you are making a case then this is an adversarial process, probably we need more evidence on the attitude on the behavior of these 2 and how they presented themselves. She has participated in a lot of oral arguments and it gets very intense but that doesn’t mean the judge is disrespecting you. For law students, because they are in such a legal environment, there are discrepancies in what constitutes an appropriate adversarial process than the layperson. Trevor asks for other procedural violations. Shanta says this is in relation to the second bill. The case for removing Jonathan York is that he did not follow the procedures. CC did not follow the Constitution in the manner in which they were supposed to adjudicate this case. This bill holds J York responsible for those missteps as chair of that body. Specifically, they found out that the case was being heard through a third party source, and the Senate was never notified. When they emailed J York about this and about the 72 hr advance notice of any hearings, he came to the Senate meeting that night and contested the fact that their meeting that they had held was a meeting that was referred to in the Constitution, and because it wasn’t a meeting they weren’t required to have 72 hr advance notice. That was the first thing. And after they decided to hear the case, Senate says that time doesn’t work for them, but CC says the time works for the petitioners and CC members, and referred to the morning meeting that petitioners went to but respondents were not invited to. In that email it says that “the scope of this meeting is limited and the meeting will be brief, and all are invited to attend if they wish”. He acknowledged that it was a public meeting and then later lied that night that this was a meeting and that 72 hr notice was required. Even if we disregard this, there was only 24 hr notice given and not 72 hr notice. Also he did not adhere to the agenda for the CC hearing that was stated out, which was also a failure on his part. The final thing is that deliberation, which is also open to the public and needed 72 hr notice because it was public, they provided a time and date when that deliberation would be held but had a TBD on the location but they never did until 1 hr before when the UGS contacted them about the location in which the deliberation would be held. It is troubling that the body that is charged with upholding the Constitution violated the Constitution. Jennie knows of other cases that J York presided over and whether or not this was a systematic mistake in handling the case, or whether this was a isolated instance. Shanta says this is his first term on the CC as is Brian’s so it is his first time. If both bodies want to censure instead of remove, that’s fine. But it seems that it was egregious in that it was a repeated violation of the same clause when the UGS had made a big deal out of the necessity of adhering to the rules. Jennie says that, knowing how well J York is connected in the institution, doesn’t know whether or not removal is necessary or if his behavior just needs to be improved. Katie says, he also sent out the opinion later than what is mandated by the Constitution. Caleb says he doesn’t believe that J York engaged in any conduct with intention to obscure the proceedings and doesn’t think that this conduct had any relation to the outcome of the case. As for the notification, thinks this was a mistake and that we should be mindful of the circumstances, this took place during dead week/ finals week. It’s also worth nothing that, because of the nature of the case, there was an element of time urgency. Petitioners were requesting access to the petition which was time sensitive. Sean says, you can say that these are improper actions, but the fact that these are violations of the Constitution multiple times by the CC who is supposed to know the Constitution, this could be reasoning to remove this person from the CC. In the aspect of “no harm”, there was intent to deceive because many people were informed on time but selective people were not, this is very open deception and shows biases for the case, because all the members should be in the room to provide their input. Going back to Brian during the meeting, Sean came about 30 minutes left in the case, and he saw Brian standing over and screaming at people. He thinks that this is behavior that is not just “adversarial” but is worse than that, especially for someone who is supposed to be impartial. Also some questions that were read, if the brief had been read beforehand, these were questions that were answered in the brief beforehand. Shanta says for example, one thing they asked was “what law collecting officer salaries would violate”, and this was very clearly laid out in the Financial Manager’s brief beforehand. Trevor says, all the talk about animosity and whatever, this would be hard for us to determine. He wants them to send out the paper trail of the list of procedural violations, such as any cover ups or anything that happened that shows that there was some. David says, instead of removing J York, can we just remove his as chair of the CC? Shanta says not sure we have the power to determine who is internal chair in the CC, but we have the power in the constitution to remove the person, especially since they violated the Constitution. Shanta says Jackson met with Jonathan York to say that this is coming and he has the option to just resign instead of going through this public process. Anything is on the table, these violations are just troubling enough that the GSC and UGS should have conversations about this. Yiren thinks, if we really want to focus on this impeachment, we should not focus more on the merits of the case (what questions the judges as), because what he asks is in his/her discretion. She thinks the problem of attitude, as long as it doesn’t constitute person insult or threat, it is difficult to make a case. So thinks Shanta should focus on how many Constitutional violations there are, and if he violated them even after receiving warnings, that’s what we should focus on. Jayant says that impeachment is a drastic move and some people in the UGS is unsure about this as well, just thinks it’s important to stay in communication with that in regard. It’s not attitude that is the big thing, it’s that his attitude interfered in the presentation and procedure of the case. Terence closes by saying, if we want to go forward with the impeachment, the paper trail seems to be most important. Asks what Shanta is thinking about the voting of the bill. Shanta says about half of UGS were in the room for the case, thinks that the senators have seen for themselves first hand the behavior, and a lot of them co-sponsored this bill because they thought this was egregious enough. Thinks there is good potential for it to pass, even with the higher voting threshold. Terence says he wants to see how the vote goes in the UGS first before we have it up for a vote in the GSC. Jennie says she would still want a packet of paper trails in the mean time. Shanta says she thinks that the UGS will probably vote at the next meeting, and at that point we will know how the Senate voted. The 4/5 passing mark is mandated by the Constitution.
- Terence says the remaining meeting schedules, next meeting will have introduction of the bill to confirm the results of the ASSU elections. Will also have fiscal year budget coming up, will start talking about officer roles. Next meeting will be the “shadow” meeting, that’s on the 19th. The 26th we will confirm the results of the elections, then we switch into new GSC with voting on new chairs and officer roles.
- Isa says there was an undergrad who was here to advertise an event they have called “An Evening with Gina Rodriguez” on May 6. She is asking us for $2k from the GSC. This will be held at CEMEX tentatively. Isa has heard this speaker before, who has a good story about breaking into Hollywood as a Latina. The $2k would be honoraria and venue expenses. David asks about the other sources of funding. Current the VPUE is contributing $8k, School of Eng $5k, Comparative studies $200, Theater $500, ASSU Senate $9300, ASSU Execs $5k. This is an event that she imagines that many grad students, especially in the Latina population, would be interested in going. Capacity of CEMEX is 600.
-Tianze says the funding committee came up with a spreadsheet of funding that’s been given out, seems like we’ve spent around $150k on VSO funding.
Section 3K: Event Services. Voting, passes unanimously.
- Added draft of what quotes should look like (aka. pinatas).
- Clarified car and van rentals, added that we will fund up to $30 for car or van rentals.
- Added statement that if over $30 then quote is required.
Section Notes: Definition of Soft Caps. Voting, passes unanimously.
- In the past, soft cap of VSO is floating over time and that depends on how their events went. Now we have a new simple way to calculate that. Soft cap of VSO is still $30 per person, the way we calculate the money they spent under their soft cap is that, every time they have an event, we divide the amount of money we give them by the attendance of the event, which will give $/person, which is added to their soft cap. For example if they spend $1k for 100 ppl, then it’s $10 per person, so if they want to reach their soft cap they can do the same event 3 times which will be 3x $10/person, or they hold another event with $2k spent on 100 ppl which is $20/person, so they have reached their soft cap. Encourages people to scale the cost of their events with attendance.
- Links were updated.
- Added 2 new lines. One is reminding VSOs that they can request off-campus fundraising from SAL. Another is saying that if they serve departmental or interdisciplinary interests they are encouraged to apply for funding from their departments. Added links for SPICE grants too.
Section 4b: GSC auditing and penalties for violation: voting, passes unanimously.
- Added penalties such as refusing funding to the VSO for the rest of the year or in the future.
Terence says they should put together a bill for the document for the completed funding guidelines as we approved line-by-line in the last week and this week.