Agenda
1. 5:45 pm – FOOD (thanks Ray!)
2. 6:00 pm – Welcome with Introductions
3. 6:05 pm – Announcements (Justin/Jess)
i. Minutes from 2/2/2011
ii. Transition Documents Update
iii. Proxies for this week
-Xi Cheng for Ping Li
4. 6:10 pm – ROTC Question Bill (Angelina)
5. 6:15 pm – Constitutional Council Rules of Order Bill (Michael)
6. 6:20 pm – Funding (Krystal)
i. Islamic Society of Stanford
ii. Stanford Classics in Theater
iii. GradQ
7. 6:30 pm – Programming Update (Addy/Cathy)
8. 6:40 pm – GSPB Funding Approval (George/Krystal)
9. 6:45 pm – ASSU/SSE Update (Angelina/Kelsei/Raj)
10. 6:50 pm – New Business
Attendance
Missing
Minutes
1. 5:45 pm – FOOD (thanks Ray!)
2. 6:00 pm – Welcome with Introductions
3. 6:05 pm – Announcements (Justin/Jess)
i. Minutes from 2/2/2011
ii. Transition Documents Update – Justin – You got a revised transition doc. Please update it and send it back.
iii. Proxies for this week
-Xi Cheng for Ping Li
4. 6:10 pm – ROTC Question Bill (Angelina) – Bill to place an advisory bill on the ballot so that every student can express their opinion on the measure. I want the language to be as neutral as possible to provide people with a clear means to give their opinion. There are two friendly amendments place last night – changed “to” to “at” in responses. Changes “do not support” to “oppose”.
Vote to suspends the rules on previous notice 11-0-0. Passes.
Bill passes 11-0-0.
5. 6:15 pm – Constitutional Council Rules of Order Bill (Michael) – After consulting with several people who have a vested interest in how judicial affairs work, this is their recommendation. I fully support this bill.
Basically, they’ve simplified the system for evaluation. There are time limits for speaking, time-lines for cases, etc… The whole process takes 1 month at its longest.
Erik – Do you think 3 days is enough time to make a decision?
Michael – I think so because of the time they have beforehand. They have 17 days to read briefs and evidence, so when they go into the hearing they just have to hear any new arguments.
Vote to suspends the rules on previous notice 11-0-0. Passes.
Bill passes 11-0-0.
6. 6:20 pm – Funding (Krystal)
i. Islamic Society of Stanford – N/A
ii. Stanford Classics in Theater -
Erik – We’re going to go through the actual budget here because we had some questions about what the GSC would want to fund, and then we have to do some math. So this may take a bit longer than usual, just so everyone knows.
Rep – We translate and adapt a Greek drama every year. We’re requesting two categories of help. We’re requesting $575 for honoraria for choreographer and costumer for her time. The rest of the money is for E&LS. Which is $2200 for technical services and the remainder which is $3225 which is for the equipment rental. We had some difficulties on Monday because E&LS didn’t have a quote then, be now we have the quote. They are requesting $2,112.50 for labor and $6,419.43 for equipemnt – although we think we can make some savings on that for part of the equipment rental so it will only be $5000. We’re asking the GSC to fund part of that, but we’ll get the rest from the Classics Department and the VPGE.
Erik – How many grad students do you expect to attend?
Rep – 125 out of 300 total.
Erik – So there were a couple of things that we weren’t sure if we should fund, we wanted to determine what the total the GSC would be willing to fund was. Then, since only about 40% of their attendees are grad students, we could fund proportionally off that total amount.
Rep – The reason we came here first was because the people working on the adaptation and performance is mostly grad student.
Tom – Does that include the audience and the performers?
Erik – We got sent 40% – is that where that number comes from?
Rep – Actually, we were just counting audience.
Erik – Ok, so it’s around 50% then. Our issue with the honoraria was paying for a costumer. If people are fine with considering this as a service fee instead of a capital purchase, when it’s going to go towards someone producing a capital purchase, it’s fine. But this was kinda a grey area, so we wanted to kick it to you.
Justin – So this is for their skill, not the costumes themselves?
Rep – Just their skills.
Justin – Then I’m fine with it.
Jess – How much time do you expect them to spend on this?
Rep – 30 hours for the costumer, and 6 sessions for the choreographer.
Erik – We were also iffy about funding HD filming because that is a requirement for another funding source, and we don’t really see how it benefits grad students. Can you explain how much that will cost, and then we’d like to know how the GSC feels about funding it.
Rep – It’s $125 for one day and some costs for setup, which is $131.
Erik – Ok, so does anyone have an issue with it? We didn’t have a number Monday, so we just decided to bring it up now.
Addy – What play is it?
Rep – Aristophane’s Wasp.
Addy – Where is it?
Rep – Elliot Program Center.
Erik – So, to make this simple, does anyone have an issue with funding the Hi-Def camera? No. Ok, then do people want to fund at 50% as we suggested? Yes? Ok. So they’re requesting, 5912.50. At 50%, that is $2956.25.
Funding for $2,956.25 passes by consensus.
iii. GradQ – Our goal is to provide a safe space for LGBT grad students and their allies. We are requesting funds for a Valentine’s Day mixer. We’re requesting $250 for food and $40 for programming expenses. $290 passes by consensus.
Tom – What time is the event?
Alec – 9 pm on Saturday.
Tom – Will there be a noise issue?
Praveen – It’s in Munger 5, it should be fine.
7. 6:30 pm – Programming Update (Addy/Cathy) -
Justin – Do we know the date for Grad Formal?
Addy – We’re waiting to hear when it’s free.
Jess – We can chat off-line about it.
8. 6:40 pm – GSPB Funding Approval (George/Krystal) – N/A
9. 6:45 pm – ASSU/SSE Update (Angelina/Kelsei/Raj) – Angelina – I have four other things. The first is our joint-legislative meeting is coming up. Week 9 is what we’re picking because President Hennessy can’t attend week 8. I’m giving public notice that I’m giving my state of the ASSU address at this meeting. PAC 10 conference. I’ve been on weekend conference calls with other presidents in these conferences. The weekend of April 15th, there will be a student government PAC 10 conference in Boulder, CO. We have another phone call for setting the agenda for that. JAO is still undergoing their review process. We’re having a student input forum Mar. 1st, location TBA. There will be committee presentations and then a break-out session.
Ryan – Please forward Exec action grants e-mail. We’re funding up to $2500 for ideas that can be completed by the end of the school year. The ideas are in campus unity, sustainability, relationship abuse awareness, and health and wellness.
Angelina – Regarding the VP position, I’ll be bringing a bill next week.
Imeh – Is this a permanent replacement?
Angelina – Yes. Kelsei is still involved – he is still available by e-mail or skype if you need to talk to him.
Raj – We’re doing a Valentine’s Day sale. It’s a very important step for us to get into our new store. Please let your constituents know.
Have you guys heard of 23&me. We were thinking about doing a sweepstakes to get a free 23&me test. People interested? No. Won’t do that then.
Michael – Coming with bill to reform Special fees process. This is a more robust bill than last time and addresses the major aspects of the special fees process to make it better. We had some questions about the 10% mark and revisited releasing names of refundees. Office of Legal Counsel has ok’d this bill and the release of names.
Crystal – I’ve received a lot of e-mails supporting this bill. What is the biggest benefit of this bill?
Michael – Increase budget stability and reduce the refund process throughout the year. They can grow when they need to and sustainability. They can use their reserves as a rainy day fund to grow their budget without requesting additional funding from students.
Justin – Is that exactly true. Let’s say what you’re asking for is under inflation + 10%, is that exactly how that works?
Michael – It’s the total expenditures. Anything above total expenditures makes them dip into reserves.
Justin – So they can still up as much as they like?
Michael – No, they can grow 10%. And that is the maximum, not the minimum of course.
Crystal – The benefits are appealing to me. Can you explain to people this more clearly?
Michael – In the past, your reserve has been capped at about 20% of your annual reserve, so it’s not really available to help them grow their budget. It helps them grow their budget, but it’s the first the that is taken from when they request an increase.
Zack – The bill you guys got last week was a flawed bill. This is a flawed bill with window dressing. If Cruz was serious about fixing the problem, they wouldn’t have included the 10% number. What they’re doing now is decreasing the individual’s chance to refund, but still allowing these groups that have a ton of money to continue to get 10% more. If this bill was serious about what it intended to do, it would have kept the “as adjusted for inflation.” This is still about UG student groups lining their coffers.
Michael – I think the UG senate does care about this process. It passed Approps committee and is co-sponsored by Krystal, the FC Chair. Speaking about how the bill works, it’s not just window-dressing. It’s a core part of the process, but there are other changes. 10%, reserves, and release of names. This will help people.
Raj – Unfortunately, I was not in the conversation about the prior bill. I’ve been working to understand the confusion about this bill. Do you think the legal counsel is lining its coffers?
Zach – I think the legal counsel office is one of the few groups that deserves its money.
Raj – This year there is a new legal administrator, they will need additional cost considerations, and no one will petition for this bill. We will lose legal counsel. Do you believe that there are no stop-gates in place with this bill?
All we’re doing is limiting the amount of work to get through a process that has a lot of stop-gates. It’s making things more efficient. Inflation this year is 1.5%, any adjustment will require a petition during finals week. I’m deeply concerned about the confusion that’s coming out about this bill. There are still plenty of stop-gates – there is an entire flow chart on the elections web-site that describes this. If you have any adjustment to your cost, you have a huge burden added to your plate right during exams. I’m deeply concerned about the representation of this bill. We’re trying to make the process smoother, not make it easy to get money.
Zach – Two remarks. I don’t think the exception to the rule should be held up as a reason to modify the rule. If you’re asking for a significant amount of money, it’s another measure to make groups go through a process in order to get money. The governing bodies have dealt with extraordinary measures, and if OLC has to be dealt with that way, we can.
Erik – Every group applying for funds has to go through both the committee and the ballot, correct?
Michael – Yes.
Erik – In that case, this just seems like it’s forcing students to do redundant tasks. And frankly, there are so few students that are willing to volunteer for stuff, that if you make them petition on top of everything else, they will just burn out and organize fewer things, and we’ll have a less vibrant campus life. I really do not find this argument making sense to me.
Secondly, I think it’s good to have a larger reserve because it gives groups the opportunity to try for joint fees if they want and, if they fail, they still have enough money to operate at a reduced level for a year before applying again.
Tom Spahn – I agree with the budgetary part of the bill. I’m concerned about a privacy issue. If I want a refund from this group, they get access to my name, SUID, SU number. Is that something we want people to have access to?
Michael – We’re working with GLO to give privacy to students. The way that we’ve indicated that is two-fold. 1) If you are refunding, we make a statement that asking refund limits privacy. 2) Only the officer core has access to the information.
Raj – It’s always been in the bylaws that student groups should not provide services to people who ask for refunds. This is just providing a mechanism.
Erik – Also, if I’m paying into the system, I have a right to know that other students aren’t gaming the system. And we have to weigh that against privacy concerns.
Tom – I agree with that – and I agree that there are competing interests. But I think that privacy is worth more than the loss of the small amount of money from a small number of students gaming the system.
Addy – I still see petitioning as a form of publicity. I don’t know how many people know legal counseling exists. If they feel that they can’t go through the petitioning process. I think the group should have to do that to get an increase in budget above inflation. There are grad students who aren’t strongly involved, they don’t care. I also have a problem with the way the information is going to be stored – I think there should be more done with how it’s distributed or shared in order for this system to work as far as privacy concerns go.
Ryan – Minor amendment to change Article 6 Section 7 part b, can we change it to say in the joint bylaws.
Raj – Groups would only see the refundees for their group. We can add things if people want to. There is also a secure and encrypted e-mail service that we can use.
Erik – Publicity is a bad reason to have petitions. There are a lot of groups that students don’t need to know about until they need them, and then they go talk to GLO or an admin or there CA. That resource doesn’t have to reach out to every student, that’s why we have a system to disseminate information. I don’t see why adding inefficiency to a system is a good thing.
Addy – I know CAs who don’t know about legal counseling.
Erik – Then don’t hire them next year or train them better.
Angelina – Is there something on here that the FO and president sign when receiving this info?
Michael – When they receive this information, they get a confidentiality statement that they have to obey.
Angelina – Can I propose a friendly amendment that that is included in the bill?
Michael – In part G then, I will add a clause regarding the honor code and confidentiality.
Bakke – I have a question about the 10% and the safety. What was the reasoning behind 10% instead of twice inflation or decreasing the number of petitions.
Michael – The reason we didn’t change the petitioning process is that they are part of the constitution. This way, we can avoid the lengthy and difficult process of modifying the constitution. I picked 10% because that was the previous and, although we did see reductions in the special fee, we also saw problems introduced.
Bakke – I’m worried that with larger organizations, you’d have to give out this list. You’d also have to screen out student for financial reasons.
Angelina – People on complete financial aid are covered on this.
Justin – We have to vote on this next week. Everyone, think about this and read the bill.
Imeh – So can you object to particular portions of the fee?
Erik – Yes, you can object to specific groups, such as, oh, Stanford Wind Ensemble, and only take money back from them.
Tom – Again with privacy thing, giving a list of names, no one is going to check. I think it’s better to put the burden on the person who is opting out by reminding them that it is a violation of the Honor Code to use the service.
10. 6:50 pm – New Business
Jess – Really quickly, for those of you who signed up for the retreat, I will be sending an e-mail organizing things.
Justin – Anyone want to flyer with me for the party?
Erik – Is it possible to come with multiple versions of the bill so we can make at least some decision next week?
Michael – Yes.
Meeting adjourned.
Tags: Minutes