Transition meeting 4/22 Saturday, starting at 10am until 4pm. Pau will send out info about this. It will be at the Circle Room #302 in the Old Union. Will be a joint meeting with the undergrads, general introduction to the ASSU. Will be a few ppl from the ASSU there to present what they do and how things work. Isa mentions that you have to take the elevator up there because there’s no stairs.
2 events that Gabby is working on. Alumni assoc wanted to move speed friending from May 22 because they thought it was too close to grad formal, and especially since they are paying for the whole thing. Also want to do it a little bit different format since ppl wanted to try something diff from the BBQ, want to do a fancier mixer with wine and cheese, will have wine tickets because open bar doesn’t work. Probably white wine. Trying to choose between 2 dates right now, will announce it soon. Other event is grad formal, Gabby is now connected to the caterer event person who will stay during the event, him and her are working together to change some things on the floor plan. She is also getting decorations like Coit Tower, Golden Gate bridge, etc. She also got billing from event services, which is higher than last year, but that’s because there’s an event the day after so that all the cleanup have to be done right afterward and we have to pay overtime labor for that. Gabby says we need to sell more than 1000 tickets in total so GSC members need to forward emails out to the constituents. Terence needs to put the event on the GSC calendar. We also got the alcohol license already and Gabby is having another meeting with the sheriffs to run over the plans for the night.
Bill to Fund 2017 Rains Block Party
Tabled for now unless Juan shows up.
Fund Event with Gina Rodriguez
Trying to get an event with Gina Rodriguez, will feature her as a speaker and working with El Centro. Has appealed to a lot of depts on campus and the ASSU, they brought up the point that we are having this event to grad students, so they are also coming to the GSC for the event contributions as well. The entire event will come out to about $30k, they have raised $28k, and wondering if GSC would contribute $2k. Some funds would be for honorarium, accommodations, and event location. They think this event would be big for undergrad and grad communities on campus. The event is moving forward pretty quickly so they are hoping this can be approved soon. They are still working on drawing up the contract. The event is currently tentative, soft yes but nothing’s been signed yet. They want to confirm that the event will actually happen before signing the contract. The ticketing structure would be first come first serve on Eventbrite, anyone with a valid Stanford student ID can sign up, anyone can come. They want to emphasis community so half of the event will be taking questions for the community. Gabby wants to make sure they know how to use Eventbrite correctly. This bill is on previous notice.
Stanford Africa Entrepreneurship:
- Asking for funds for quarterly Improv Innovation Pitches. This quarter they are focusing on agriculture in Africa. Format is helping students to pitch ideas or solutions for a number of questions relating to Africa. Expecting around 40 ppl at the event, split is about 65-35 grad/UG. Asking for $125 for the event. Recommendation is $125 for food. It is in Shiram 124. Voting, passes unanimously.
Resolution to Confirm Results of ASSU Election
Paul is here, along with Kali who is Skyping in. Paul thanks us for our feedback. They want to address some of the concerns that were brought during the process. Last night the Commission presented a bill to the UGS for the certification of Undergrad ballot items, today they are here with a bill with graduate items. This elections is one of the most successful in terms of voter turnout rate, this year it was 40% which represents a 6% increase from last year. 29.8% turnout for graduate students, which has increased substantially since last year’s which was 16%. One priority of elections commission is to increase graduate turnout rate, which has usually been low and has hampered referendum and special fees like what happened last year. In terms of voter turnout this year has improved from last year. These results are all reflected in the preliminary results.
With respect to the coordination of the election process, the EC executed a new system that used Qualtrics software, EC worked on ballot design. EC released ballots on time this year and closed it on time this year. Sent out individualized links this year to all students to present enrollment as of Winter 2017. Sent out reminder emails at various times to ppl who had not completed their ballots. The individual items on the ballot linked to ASSU website for more details. Ensured all items were randomized for everybody. In the first 20 minutes, the EC received word that not all candidates were showing up on the ballot. They took prompt action and fixed it for all ballots that were opened after 20 minutes. The institutional research estimated that approximately 169 students had received the faulty ballot. These grad students were sorted, identified, included students who had already voted and those who had not, 41 of the students had not voted yet but had opened the link. On Friday afternoon the EC sent a fixed version to these students, of these ppl 83 recasted their votes. In counting their votes the EC ran through 3 simulations to see if there was a material change in outcome based on the way they incorporated the secondary grad ballot into the original ballot. In Sim A they only counted the original votes, in Sim B they replaced the 83 revotes, in Sim C they counted the orig votes, replaced the 83 revotes, and removed the remaining faulty ballots. When they ran through all the simulations, they determined that there was no material change in outcome in terms of who won the positions in office. So that’s the way the commission handled that concern. An additional concern that is currently open is that law school turnout for law school candidate was particularly low compared to previous years, so upon further inspection of the data they confirmed with institutional research that there was another glitch that disallowed some registered students from the school of law to not be able to see the school of law district ballot choices. This glitch also affected the medical school, so moving forward Paul is here to discuss the possibility of a special election for these localized districts who were affected by these additional glitches and to see additional ways to coordinate with the GSC and the representatives of the members from the school of law or medicine. Paul thinks that it’s important to note that these glitches were supervised by not only the members of the EC but also Stanford’s Institution of Research, and this glitch wasn’t determined until yesterday, so moving forward and thinking about how to fix it, they are open for inputs from the GSC.
Terence asks, the School of Law and Medicine are both uncontested races? Paul says yes. Kate asks what is the extent of the glitch for students of these districts? Because she has heard various accounts from diff ppl. Paul says that Institutional Research said, the number of registered law students that voted was a little bit over 90, but Ryan Roberts who was the sole uncontested candidate in the school of law only received 4 votes. These 90 students were only able to see the Exec slates, could not see their district candidates, special fees, or graduate amendments. Yiren says that Ryan mentioned that for some ppl they could not see his name on the list. Nanci says maybe they were a dual degree member. Jelani says that it seems, either ppl couldn’t see Ryan Roberts on the School of Law representatives list, or they couldn’t even see that page. Paul says that the number of medical students has not yet been confirmed as of right now. Isa asks about the special election, this would also affect the At Large vote, because she received a lot of complaints from ppl in her department that they had received the new ballot and found it unfair to revote, and also since both law and med school didn’t vote, that’s a lot of margins in the voters. Isa also said when she got her updated ballot (after the ballot error), the ballot was weird because it first showed the 5 at large, some space with writing, and then the rest of the candidates, which would have meant that the At Large list were not randomized. Paul is suggesting to allow registered students from the school of medicine and law to vote on the entire ballot. They ensured that all the choices were randomized which included the write in choice. Seems that the At-Large options were not randomized. Kali wanted to clarify how Qualtrics handled the resent ballots, do we think it might only re-randomize the new options rather than the first options that were presented? Isa says her friend opened the ballot after 12:30 but still saw the thing with the 5 at large, write in, then the other candidates. Terence asks if we can check that really quick? Paul says he cannot check it right now but they would have to consult with Institutional Research, because the way that they designed the ballot was for each choice to be randomized, it sounds like there may have been a technical discrepancy that Institutional research should have more insight into. Rosie says, wants to confirm that for Med School and Law School they also didn’t see At Large candidates? Paul says yes. Rosie also asks about the timing of the special election, how this would impact who might be elected at large, how will this impact the GSC going forward timeline wise. Paul says this is a good question, this is why they want to work with the GSC. So we can address this issue, potentially opening another 48 hour period this Sunday-Monday is an option, allowing EC time on Tuesday to review the results, and present again next Wednesday. This is one possibility. Jelani says, the other consideration there is that by Week 5 it is expected that there would be a transition to the new GSC (according to Joint Bylaws – someone should check this), the other thing is more flexible and certainly if members of the GSC are willing to serve the additional week or 2 then that would make the transition much smoother. Someone asks, they had the top 5 candidates at large, write in, and bottom ppl who might not have might not show up, and these 5 ppl were the final 5 that were eventually voted in which would be a weird coincidence. Yiren says another issue she heard is that there is a lack of back button on the last webpage, which would have allowed ppl to reviewed their votes and they cannot change their votes anymore after they entered this page. Paul says he checked with Institutional Research and they resolved this issue in the time when the secondary ballot was sent out. Yiren just wants to address this question, because of this issue many ppl probably did not end up voting at the end, how do they ensure that these ppl received this new voting webpage, because she has heard that some ppl didn’t vote because of this. Kali confirms that this person came to her for help, but there was only a short amount of time to fix this issue and thinks the EC would be hard pressed to fix everything in this short time. Paul says the system collected all incomplete ballots, even if they didn’t click “submit”, their choices were still clicked, then that would count towards a vote for the particular thing they selected even if they did not click submit. Yiren says that a lot of ppl didn’t vote for the secondary ballot because of the time constraint on the new ballots. Jelani says that this should be treated as the absolute amount of time because ppl will have issues with whatever time they are given, thinks that 6 hours is a good faith attempt by the commission. Isa says she disagrees, these are grad students who probably ended their days at 5:30. Terence says the question right now is about certifying the election. Paul says we can also partition the election results, such as what was done in the UGS yesterday, which certified all the results excluding the senior class presidents. Terence asks what is the EC’s recommendations here. Paul says they are open to dealing with the localized problem of Law and Medicine addressed, and open to the GSC about how to address it, thinks right now best option is for special election for students in these districts to revote on all the ballot items that are relevant to them including the Execs and Special Fees and Referendum. Kali wants to comment that we are all concerns about ppl who didn’t choose to revote, but even if we considered everyone who revoted to all the candidates then we need a huge proportion of ppl to change their votes to change their votes, if we do a revote then maybe we would have a much number of lower voters in total. We would need 72/86 of the ppl to change their votes in order to change the results of the At Large candidates. Isa says, the At Large ballots were not randomized, previous election results show that the ppl who win in the At Large section are from the district of engineering because they have the most number of ppl. Thinks the non-randomization disadvantages other candidates on the ballot. Rosie says, her first concern is procedural for the future and wants to point it out to the EC, if ppl couldn’t use electronic devices on Friday night because of the Sabbath then they wouldn’t be able to vote. Second thing is that this election there was a coalition of students running together and might be some of the reason for some of the discrepancies, but she is very concerned about the biases due to the ordering of the candidates on the ballot which leads her to not have much confidence in the results. Megan says, it seems that there are lots of issues, such as ballot error, ballot ordering, she believes that there should be a complete reelection again. Paul comments on the duration of the elections, according to the Joint Bylaws Appendix I, the polling at computers should begin at midnight of the first day of elections, and must end at 11:59 of the second day, so we have 48 hours in the duration. Jelani wants to remind ppl that even a special election that involves a redo the entire election is not costless, now ppl know who their competition is and how well they do, these things might have a material outcome as well. The question should be how do we localize the minimum level of impact. Wants us to think about the potential impacts to the Executives. Gabby says that #1 that everyone should come to Grad Formal. She agrees that we should keep the effects isolated, especially because our funding referendum passed. Trevor wants to argue that the election shouldn’t be redone, thinks we would be lucky to get 50% of the people who voted in the first time, would be a huge cost to running a reelection. Kate asks, in calculating the # of students who voted for the special fees or financial amendment, did they take into account law and medicine? Jelani says they would have been “abstain” so they wouldn’t have affected the yes/no ratio and probably shouldn’t change the effects unless they vote extremely differently. Kate says also there are no issues with the President/Vice President of the election, so we could remove that from any possible revotes? Paul says yes. He wants to clarify that what he meant for allowing medical and law students to vote, this does not include the exec. Kate says, she wants a practice ballot to every possible constituent identification next year before the elections. Nanci wants to piggy back off of Trevor’s point, thinks it was so great in seeing the increase in the number of grad students voting this year, thinks we have an opportunity to build on more engagement with students now. Number 2, some of the inaccuracies in the ballot this year existed in past years, thinks the remedy is to fix them moving forward and not retroactively. Kali wants to thank Paul and Khaled, despite these issues this is the best EC she has seen in the GSC.
Terence asks, is there agreement that there is no issues with the special fees or constitutional amendment? Paul says yes. Terence says are we in agreement on not touching the execs? GSC seems to agree. Melanie brings up point that at-large candidate voting would be contaminated by the knowledge of the district elections. Isa asks if we can re-issue a completely new survey to people for them to adjust their vote? Kali says we could but the EC would not be interested in doing this by hand because Qualtrics does not have that capability.
Terence makes some suggestions:
- 1. Vote to redo entire ballot minus execs (ballot would include special fees and constitutional amendment, their district candidate, and at large candidates) for the people in the schools of law and medicine who did not get the right ballot, starting on Sunday and finishing on Monday. The At-Large list would include all the candidates regardless of their district candidacy. Terence motions, David seconds. Voting, 5 in favor, 7 abstentions. This passes.
- 2. Isa motions to also include the 87 ppl who did not re-submit the second corrected ballot. These people would get the entire ballot minus the execs. Jennie seconds. Voting, 3 in favor, 2 opposed, 7 abstentions. This one passes.
- 3. Kate motions that we open the At Large vote to all grad students, with proper randomization of the at-large list, to ensure a fair vote between Sunday and Monday. Yiren seconds. Voting, 2 in favor, 2 opposed, 8 abstentions. It does not pass.
- 4. Isa motions that we re-send the ballot with only the At Large candidates to all people who voted to “update their choices” if they so wish, if they don’t then it retains their original votes. Justification: this might change the choices for people who couldn’t press back button. Voting, 2 in favor, 2 opposed, 8 abstentions. It does not pass.
Paul offers the EC’s help in spreading the word to all Law and Medicine students. Kate wants to clarify that there will be no campaigning between now and Sunday.
Transition and Officer Roles
Closed Session with Jelani
Session is closed. This is to discuss the ASSU fiscal year budget 2017-18. The results of the closed session is that the GSC votes to approve the ASSU budget for 2017-18. There was also some discussion of improving MyGroups. Meeting is opened.
Constitutional Council Bills (Brian Baran, Jonathan York)
Bill is tabled because it was not passed in the UGS.
-Pau emailed the new elected members. Some of the new members do not seem interested. Pau is worried about GSB members.
-David will have working session on Sunday after 12:30pm for survey construction.
-Gabby says bubble tea event for elections went great.
-David says it would be great if the Elections Commission had better transition documents so we can combine the lessons that were learned this year and bring it forward into next years.
-Isa says for next year’s election, would be great if there was a short blurb that was visible without clicking on a separate link for the special fees (and maybe other voting options too).
-Caleb asks about one of the undergrad amendments. Kali says he should ask Paul because she doesn’t know.
-Kate asks whether it is possible that someone was written in AND selected on the ballot. Kali seems unsure. David asks for Kali to make sure of this for next week.
At 9:53. A little late.