Graduate Student Government - University of Maryland

GSG Voting Representatives
Present: AMSC/2 (Samvit Prakash, Suzanne Sindi); AMST/2 (Darwin Fishman/Nicole King, Ed Martini); ANSC/1 (Kristina Heuck); ASTR/1 (Donna Pierce); BMBA/13 (David Boardman, Deanna Dicker, Kemal Karakaya, Mohamad Khorbatli, Kevin Papacek, Josh Saragovi, Chris Sauritch, Etka Vig); BPHD/2 (Sharyn Gardner); CMLT/1 (Julie D. Strongson); CMSC/3 (Aram Khalili, Adam Lopez); EDCP/5 (Heather Walton); EDHD/2 (Stephen Tonks); ENEE/6 (Zoltan Safar, Gelareh Taban); ENGL/3 (Delores Phillips, Todd Solomon); ENME/3 (Nathan Blattau, Jamie Watkins); ENTS/2 (Laks Mologa); GELS/1 (Chuck McCallun); GEOG/1 (Neil Eggleston); GVPT/2 (Ghada AlMadbouh); LING/1 (Graciela Tesan); LMPM/1 (Ryan Grim); MATH/2 (Greggo M. Johnson, esq., Kobi Snitz); MOCB/1 (Megan Heath); NRSL/1 (Carol Gordon); PHYS/3 (Mark Gubrud, Soun P. Kwon); SOCY/2 (Erika Grant, Doc Hunter); SPAP/1 (José Ramón Ruisánchez); STAT/1 (Huaizhong Ren); WMST/1 (Joyleen Sapinoso)

GSG Non-Voting Representatives
Present: Ariel Vegosen (Peace Forum/JOUR); Jesse Austwell (Peace Forum); Simon Fitzgerald; Philip Jones; Sofia Checa (SOCY)

GSG Administrative Representatives
Present: Joanne DeSiato, Maral Ersan, Jason Pontius

Proceedings

Call to Order
Assembly meeting was called to order at 1:21 p.m. by GSG Vice President for Legislative Affairs Rachel Jablon (CMLT), presiding officer.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes from the November 1, 2002 meeting were approved without objection, subject to revisions post-meeting as directed to Rachel.
Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) asked if the minutes could be made available earlier so they can be reviewed.
Rachel replied that the minutes are made available at the earliest possible time with the greatest amount of effort. She asked if the minutes would be accepted by taking a vote. One member opposed accepting the minutes, three abstained, and all other members voted to accept the minutes. Rachel stated that if anyone had any changes to the minutes to contact her.
Guest Speakers
1. Joanne DeSiato, Graduate Ombudsperson
  Joanne DeSiato greeted the Assembly and explained that she liked to speak at one meeting a year so that graduate students know her office is on campus and her role as ombudsperson. She said that she brought bookmarks that explain the role of her office, and they could be found on the back table in the Baltimore room. She explained that "ombudsmen" is a Swedish term given to the person that made sure citizen's rights were protected. She added that her function is an organizational ombudsperson. She informally talks to students, off the record. Graduate students have had an ombudsperson since July of 1999, but they are not the only ones that have an ombudsperson, she explained: faculty and staff also have one each as well.
  She assured the Assembly that talking to an ombudsperson is confidential; however, sexual harassment or racial discrimination cannot be held confidential. She emphasized that her role is to help graduate students develop options for the issues brought to her office. She explained that sometimes "just talking" is an option. She informed the Assembly that her office also mediates issues via "shuttle diplomacy," which describes how her office goes "back and forth" between the graduate student and an individual, an office, a department, etc. to discuss the matter at hand. She stated that, on average, she mediates three times a year and in almost every case the resolution has met the needs of the student.
  Last, she enumerated the problems that have been brought to her office. These problems include: administration, health insurance, issues related to academic programs, and advisor/advisee issues. She said that if any representatives wanted her to come speak to their departments' student groups then they should contact her. She reminded everyone to take a bookmark in the back of the room for her contact information.
  Rachel called the next speaker, William Hodos.
2. William Hodos, Graduate School; RE: 12-month Payout of 9.5-month GAships
  [NOTE: Graduate students who receive 9.5-month assistantships are paid out over 10 months and receive tuition remission and benefits from approximately August to May. Graduate students who receive 12-month assistantships are paid out over 12 months and receive tuition remission and benefits from August to August.]
  Dr. Hodos explained that he is on a fact-finding mission and asked the members to review the memo handed out at the door. He explained that his office received a lot of complaints in the fall semester from returning Graduate Assistants (GAs) who had problems getting their paychecks and problems with health benefits. His office investigated the cause and found that the new accounting system was making errors. He specified that when GAs leave at the end of the semester they are dropped from the record, and in the fall they are picked up again. The problem occurs when workers re-enter all the information and mistakes are made.
  To remedy the situation, his office discussed the problem with payroll; they decided that if TAs and RAs where paid on a 12-month cycle, they would not e dropped, and no problem would exist. Presently, his office is examining the pluses and minuses of switching GAs to a 12-month pay period. If GAs were switched to a 12-month pay period the pluses include: fixing the problems with missed pay checks and missed benefits, GAs would have a predictable and consistent salary for the summer months (no scramble for summer jobs), and there would be no need for the five deductions from the last pay check in the spring to cover healthcare. In addition, Dr. Hodos specified the minuses that might be felt if GAs switched to a 12-month pay period and directed everyone's attention to his memo a second time. Minuses include issues such as a decrease in monthly pay check since salary would be spread out over 12 months and the switch to a 12-month pay period would affect all GAs (the payroll office is unwilling to pay some students on a 12-month and others on a 10-month period). He asked for comments.
  Todd Solomon (ENGL) asked if the monthly drop in paychecks would be offset by less tax. Dr. Hodos replied that that was not the case. Adam Lopez (CMSC) stated that graduate students should have a choice whether to be paid on a 10-month cycle or 12-month cycle, which would give students flexibility; he believes that graduate student flexibility is more important than making the payroll office's life easier. Dr. Hodos explained that if graduate students had a choice he wouldn't be here today, but he will state our case to the payroll office, but, in general, his office does not have much leverage with payroll and the registrar.
  Julie Strongson (CMLT) stated that summer RAs receive tuition remission and asked if GAs were paid on a 12-month time period would they also receive tuition remission in the summer.
  Kobi Snitz (MATH) expanded on Julie's question and asked if this summer remission was new.
  GSG President Alfredo Pérez (SPAP) explained that "12 month people" do receive tuition remission in the summer.
  Rachel added that, at the moment, 12 month people do receive tuition remission in the summer while 10 month people do not, even if they are teaching in the summer.
  Kobi again asked if this was a new thing for the 10 month people.
  Rachel stated that she guessed it was new.
  Joanne DeSiato (Ombudsperson) explained that summer and winter classes are handled by a different organization (University of Maryland University College), which is why 10 month people do not receive tuition remission in the summer even if they teach.
  Neil Eggleston (GEOG) stated that international students do not get paid if they leave the country and asked how this would remain the same or changed if their paychecks were distributed over 12 months (i.e. many international students go home during the summer months).
  Dr. Hodos said that he would look into that as well as all of the issues brought up in this meeting.
  Rachel (CMLT) explained that this would be a long meeting and the Assembly should move to the next item on the agenda; she asked for any last comments for Dr. Hodos and thanked him for coming to the meeting.
  Dr. Hodos concluded by saying that his office did not want to "push for this change if it is going to be a hardship for graduate students," and he had not heard that this would be a hardship.
  Kobi Snitz (MATH) asked about sick leave.
  Dr. Hodos suggested he check the graduate student handbook or send him an email.
  Susanne Sindi (AMSC) stated that "hardship" may not be a question that can be answered; instead, she reiterated earlier comments: she was insulted that the University would give faculty the option (to be paid either over 10 months or 12 months) but not graduate students. She said that the optional/flexible answer is the only answer that is acceptable, and it would be ridiculous for graduate students to accept anything else.
  Alfredo concluded Dr. Hodos' presentation by telling the Assembly to email Dr. Hodos about this issue at whodos-=AT=-gradschool.umd.edu.
Reports
1. GRID 2003
  Tanya Nagle, GRID Coordinator
  Tanya opened by introducing herself as the coordinator of GRID and explained that she wanted to update the Assembly on how things are going.
  1. April 10 & 11. Stamp Student Union
    1. 2 days in response to complaints from last year GRID, Tanya said, will be held over two days, April 11 and 12, because last year (one day of GRID) was too rushed as 167 students presented. She received a lot of feedback that it is too much over too short a time.
    2. Stamp much cheaper; not more expensive to extend Tanya explained that another change to this year's GRID is that it will be held in Stamp Student Union instead of the Inn and Conference Center.
    3. Challenge finding judges for both days
    4. No networking event
      The last change from last year's to this year's GRID is that there will be no networking event.
    5. Budget = +/- $40,000, about same as last year
      The budget is $40,000, and Tanya is presently looking for donations.
      Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) asked if the cost of GRID is less this year.
      Tanya replied that it was the same.
      Soun asked about the difference in cost given that the location has changed.
      Tanya answered that they expect higher attendance and more participation, which causes the need for more catering and higher costs to get more exposure. In addition, any monies left over can go to the awards and thank you gifts, etc. She summarized by stating, "More people, more money."
  2. Aggressive new goals for attendance, participation & fundraising
    1. Attendance across campus—undergrads, general public
      Tanya said that they have created goals for attendance and fund raising.
    2. Participation—167 last year, want 180 this year
      She wants to use the media from College Park and beyond to make the event bigger than College Park.
    3. Fundraising—Destler matching all funds up to $20,000
  3. Want to gain real exposure
    1. Will begin media campaign in January
      She explained that GRID has a new website that will be up and running next week. The website has a new look and functionality, including a search function so that people can look for their friends. She plans to begin a media campaign in earnest in January.
    2. Jimmy Chang (VPPR) has offered to help
      She explained that GRID does not have funds to take out ads in media outside College Park, but GSG Vice President for Public Relations Jimmy Chang is going to help get exposure off-campus.
    3. Want to bring in academic journals, too
  4. Help
    1. Want to craft long-term vision for GRID to help guide future
      Tanya wants to craft a long-term vision for GRID. She explained that due to nature of her position, the coordinator changes every two years; it is hard to maintain a focus. She asked, what are we trying to turn GRID into and argued that GRID needs a vision. She said that a GRID topic group can be found on the GSG forum (on the web) and graduate students should post questions and ideas.
    2. Looking for ideas for keynotes
      Tanya is looking for ideas for keynote speakers. She asked people to contact her with speaker ideas; she said not to worry about how hard it would be to get the speaker to come but rather to let her worry about that.
    3. Need volunteers to work
      Last, she said that she needs volunteers to work: general help on those two days, help getting judges, etc. She concluded by offering her email address tnagle-=AT=-gradschool.umd.edu.
    4. Need help getting judges (esp. faculty)
      GSG Vice President for Financial Affairs Sharyn Gardner (BMBA) asked if a letter could be drafted in February so that graduate students could disseminate it to faculty soliciting them to be judges.
      Tanya agreed that was a good idea and said it would be done. Sharyn clarified that when she writes the letter she should give it to the Assembly.
2. Assembly Changes
  Rachel Jablon, Presiding Officer
  1. Sign-in Cards
    You noticed that there were extra cards for unannounced new-comers, and Maral, the GSG Office Manager, checked IDs to ensure legitimate sign-in. She cross-checked people who came to collect their cards with the names listed on the most recent Assembly Member List posted on the GSG website. If, for any reason, you have to leave during the Assembly meeting, please return your sign-in card to Maral. This should cut down on disorganized voting and keep better track of attendance.
  2. Vote Record Sheets
    Some Executive Committee members, as well as Assembly reps, have expressed concern over voting procedures. Typically, votes are conducted by voice, then by hand, then by roll call, then by ballot. To document votes and ensure their legitimacy, I'd like to try various methods, including the vote record sheet, until we find a system that works the best for both the presiding officer of the Assembly and the Assembly itself. Today, please take the blue piece of paper and write your name, department, and e-mail address in the spaces provided, and for each motion, please place a check mark in the appropriate column. For any votes not included on the list, please write them in and check your vote accordingly. Please place them in the collection box when you return your sign-in cards as you leave.
    All motions need to be put on these sheets. Date and location. I'll be checking the contact info list with member list. Hopefully it will all start to work smoothly.
  3. "Voting to Vote"
    This is actually a misnomer: it's not a vote to vote, but rather, a vote to end discussion. Once discussion has ended, then we'll vote.
  4. Clarification of Bills and Resolutions
    Reps and other interested parties should refer to the GSG website for more information, including templates and samples of bills and resolutions, but in brief, a bill is legislation that calls for action, modifies rules, or calls for the implementation of policy. A bill uses action verbs. A resolution, on the other hand, is simply an expression of opinion, sentiment, or stance on a given issue. A resolution uses language such as "should."
    Aram Khalili (CMSC) stated that graduate students in each department decide who they send to Assembly meetings, and asked what would happen if sign-in cards were checked and it was discovered that a proxy was sent.
    Rachel said that this was a good point and said that representatives should send her an email (when they send a proxy) but she knows it isn't always possible. She said she is "still in the process of working that out."
    Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) asked if voting sheets can be used only when an Assembly member makes the request.
    Rachel replied that she preferred all or nothing.
    Todd Solomon (ENGL) asked her why she felt this way.
    Rachel said that the sheets would stop some of the confusion and it creates a way to legitimate the process. For example, Rachel explained that if the English department wanted to know how you (Todd) were representing them, she could show them his voting sheet.
    Mark Gubrud (PHYS) asked if Rachel intended to start a precedent today. He emphasized that in the past this scrutiny did not exist and someone in his department told him to vote by proxy today. He wanted to know if the precedent started today.
    Rachel replied that each department chooses their representatives and she is trying to manage the work for herself (as GSG Vice President) in order to keep things organized. She said that departments have sent her emails, which are useful, but things remain confusing.
    Mark again asked if the precedent started today.
    Kobi Snitz (MATH) added that what seems new to him is that if someone in the room gets confused as to how to fill out the record sheet, later the votes are recounted (on the sheets), and things do not add up. He wanted to know what happens at that point. He asked if a revote would be called for or if the vote would be overturned.
    Rachel pointed out that all votes are recorded in the minutes.
    Kobi argued that if a vote is unclear, you do a hand vote and these sheets are confusing because you must follow every motion and step correctly. Rachel stated that it was not confusing to her.
    Kobi replied that there is a chance for inconsistency and a vote could be thrown out because of confusion making this a major issue.
    Neil Eggleston affirmed Kobi's comments and asked how it could be dealt with in another way.
    Rachel said that counting the votes would not be a selective process. Also, she added that many other legislative bodies record votes into a ledger, and this is attempting to do the same thing.
    President Alfredo Pérez (SPAP) explained that a few years ago they tried to deal with the proxy rule and five people showed up. At the moment, many people are interested in the GSG, but Alfredo does not know if all these people are representatives, which raises questions about the legitimacy of the Assembly. Alfredo said it is good that rules are discussed by the Assembly, and he agrees with Kobi, this should not be a ballot box.
    Rachel said that votes should be consistent and representatives should be able to record how they voted.
    Alfredo asked for clarification as to whether this would be a ballot. He did not know whether it should be considered a ballot.
    Rachel said that inconsistency is not a problem of the system, but rather a problem with the representatives.
    GSG Vice President for Graduate Student Affairs Bob Zambon (MOCB) said that the GSG is in flux (growing) and representatives can ask for a roll call vote but that takes a lot of time. He argued that these sheets can alleviate people's need to ask for a roll call vote because all the information would be there. He does not believe every single sheet will be examined, but it is a good record; the GSG just needs to institute time saving measures and create legitimacy.
    Sofia Checa (SOCY) asked what would happen if people do not hand in their blue sheets.
    Rachel said that she would "put that back on the reps" as irresponsible. Sofia replied and clarified her earlier question by stating that people might try to manipulate the process by keeping their blue sheets.
    Rachel acknowledged that this is a good point, which is why she has also created sign-in cards so that they know who did not return their sheets and she has a way to check these things.
    Sofia asked if a hand count in the first place is a better way.
    Rachel retorted that hand counts do not alleviate the issue of representation; what does she do when a department asks how their representative has voted on an issue?
    Julie Strongson (CMLT) moved to "move on."
    Mark Gubrud (PHYS) asked for clarification as to the conditions under which Rachel would disqualify voters and votes.
    Rachel asked Mark if he was voting for Physics and stated that she could email his department. She said that if they identify him as "a proxy" then one thing happens and if they say he is "not a proxy" another thing happens.
    Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) asked for a point of order. He wanted to know if the Assembly "moves on" as requested by an Assembly member, without a resolution by the Assembly on this issue of using voting sheets, then implementation of "Vote Record Sheets" is postponed.
    Rachel said no.
    Aram Khalili (CMSC) said it should be made a bill.
    Rachel said she did not like that idea.
    Julie Strongson (CMLT) ambiguously asked for someone to "drop their motion."
    GSG Vice President for Public Relations Jimmy Chang (BMBA) added that these sheets are a "just in case."
    Rachel said she preferred a hybrid of Julie and Aram's ideas; she would send it to the Ways and Means Committee, per the suggestion of the Assembly, with the suggestion that it be accepted by the Executive Committee. She said she did not need to waste her time for people that do not know what is going on.
    Furthermore, representatives expressed concerns about accountability, and she wanted to know why people were shirking responsibility. She restated that she would send it to the Ways and Means Committee.
    Mark Gubrud (PHYS) added that he believed Rachel's issues are legitimate but added "other things are involved."
3. Ways and Means Committee
  Rachel Jablon, Chair
  1. Meeting Schedule
    Rachel has met with each of the members of the Committee individually. The purpose of meeting with each of them individually was to accommodate for very divergent schedules and to gauge each member's views on the goals, objectives, and process of serving on the Ways and Means Committee.
  2. Posting of Decisions
    The WMC now posts all decisions of the Committee on the GSG Assembly Forum. Decisions are catalogued according to date and number of decision. Our responsibilities have grown considerably over the course of the semester, and we have learned to accommodate unforeseen challenges as they come up.
  3. Posting of Legislation
    The WMC posts all legislation considered by the WMC; our decisions on each piece of legislation, as we make them, are posted as replies; we encourage members of the graduate student community to reply with their own comments and questions.
  4. Recommendations for Time Limits
    The WMC recommends that the Assembly implement time limits on speakers, report-givers, and presenters to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. We suggest that guest speakers be allocated 10 minutes for speaking and unlimited discussion; report-givers-which include Executive Committee members, people giving reports on the activities of Committees, and other GSG-affiliates-be allocated 8 minutes for both reporting and discussion; presenters of Old Business and New Business be allocated 3 minutes for presentation and unlimited discussion; and announcement-makers be allocated 1 minute for each announcement. Lengthier and more detailed information from speakers, report-givers, and presenters can be made available through more efficient means, such as the GSG website, the Forums, or e-mail.
  5. Deadlines for Submissions
    As a reminder, legislation should be submitted no later than 2 weeks before an Assembly meeting at which the submitter wants to present the legislation, but the WMC reserves the right to postpone legislation to later Assembly meetings if need be. The WMC will not make any exceptions to these rules. Executive Committee members, GSG standing or ad hoc committees, or other GSG-affiliates should submit any non-legislative agenda items no later than the Monday before the Assembly meeting to ensure proper consideration by the WMC and appropriate arrangement of the agenda by the WMC.
  6. Adding Sponsors After Submission of Legislation
    The WMC decided that it's better to submit all of your sponsors before you actually get to the Assembly floor so you don't take up time presenting new sponsors. We did have to implement a deadline so that the GSG would have enough time to copy the legislation in its most updated, finalized form. Therefore, you can go ahead and submit sponsors' names up until the Monday before the Assembly meeting, when legislation gets sent out to reps for their consideration. Of course, however, if you want to add sponsors, you are more than welcome to do so at the Assembly meeting itself, but we just wanted to try to streamline our discussions of legislation.
  7. "Member-sponsors"
    We decided, in the name of integrity and objectivity that members of the WMC who sponsor legislation submitted to the Committee shall not participate in deliberations or vote. Accordingly, I've decided NOT to sponsor any legislation while I am chair of the Committee to maintain consistency.
  8. Posting Legislation on the Forum
    We think it's great that people want to post their legislation on the Assembly Forum to encourage discussion of the issues contained therein, but any legislation posted by anyone other than the chair of the WMC shall not be considered until received by the chair of the WMC. Following receipt of the legislation, the chair of the WMC will post the official version to cut down on confusion of who's submitting and what and what revisions are being made, etc. This decision will actually get turned into an amendment to the WMC's standing rules, which can be found on the Committee Affairs website, under Ways and Means Committee.
  9. Confirmation E-mail
    Once the WMC decides to place legislation on any given Assembly meeting agenda, the chair of the WMC will send the submitter an e-mail telling them so. However, before any legislation will officially be placed on that agenda, the submitter must reply with an e-mail that indicates that he or she understands the terms of the agenda and that that person will, in fact, attend the meeting.
    Suzanne Sindi (AMSC) asked if representatives can vote just not vote on adopting the changes.
    Rachel said that the changes do not need to be made a bill because it is only a recommendation. Also, recommendations that come from committees, and that can be approved unanimously by the Assembly, are just as legitimate as drafted bills or resolutions.
    Aram Khalili (CMSC) said that voting is nice for posterity and a paper trail.
    Rachel replied that the minutes, the memo, and the webpage serve that function.
    Suzanne Sindi clarified that this does not limit debate, but rather they are just guidelines.
    Kobi Snitz (MATH) asked for clarification as to whether this is approving new standing rules.
    Rachel replied that these are not new standing rules.
    Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) asked whether there is a need to have a vote on this.
    Rachel replied that she was asking for a "vote of confidence," much in the same way that President Alfredo Pérez did for his Executive Orders.
    Mark Gubrud (PHYS) asked if the guidelines invoke the power to "cut people off."
    Rachel said that people come with mindset that they have 8 minutes to speak and she hoped not to cut people off but she might have to do just that. She qualified her statement by saying that people can ask for an extension.
    Mark asked if she was the one that had that authority. Rachel said, yes, because she is the presiding officer.
    Doc Hunter (SOCY) asked if Suzanne has Rachel's consent and stated that everyone consented. Rachel told the Assembly that this does not need to go down in record sheet
    Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) asked about the election for GSG Vice President for Financial Affairs and queried whether this process is legal and binding because there are no specific guidelines.
    Rachel said it was a good question and that the Assembly will get to that in new business. She explained that she is using a bill passed by the Assembly and the method that was used to elect the Parliamentarian and VPPR; she said it will be addressed soon.
4. Budget and Finance Committee
  Sharyn Gardner, Acting Co-Chair
  1. EFRs and Funds Awarded
    Sharyn Gardner (BPHD) asked everyone to look at the bottom of the budget sheet handed-out. She said EFRs (Event Funding Requests) equal $15,000-estimating-$15,000 were requested for events and the GSG awarded $6,300 to organizations that have requested money. Furthermore, only $2,680 has been reimbursed because sometimes people have their events and never give receipts. For example, she said one department requested $450; they had no event, and the money went back into the "pot."
    Last, Sharyn reported that the committee is looking at the interpretation of financial policies and procedures. Specifically, she explained that looking at the financial policies and procedures there is consensus that the committee does not normally give out honoraria-we do not give salaries. Also, an EFR was sent to the committee and the committee turned it down based on policy and procedures. She argued the committee was "just going on what we know." She suggested that everyone read the policies procedures and talk to the committee about them. She said that if you disagree with the policies and procedures, we can change them and clarify them, but everyone needs to read the policies and procedures so that they can work with the committee to make them better suited for whatever task or issue. Sharyn clarified that she is one of the acting co-chairs because the old person quit.
    Kobi Snitz (MATH) stated that he sent the EFR that Sharyn rejected, but she gave no information as to why she rejected it.
    Sharyn said the committee rejected the EFR, not just her. Sharyn explained that she was the one that sent the email, and she thought she answered the question. She said she would be happy to talk to Kobi about the issue.
    Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) said there is a bill in the hands of committee. He asked that the Budget and Finance Committee forward GSGA22-B6 Financial Reporting to the Assembly which has been sitting in the Budget and Finance Committee. He also noted that a financial report was prepared for the Assembly meeting, and he enquired whether the report is being presented as a requirement.
    Sharyn explained that the committee has not resolved it. She assured Soun that in the Plan of Organization, it does say something about making a report; it is in the standing rules and she is looking into that.
    GSG President Alfredo Pérez responded that he has Maral prepare and make the reports available.
    President Alfredo Pérez (SPAP) stated that, according to the Plan of Organization, the report is only once a year.
    Rachel disagreed, stating that the only person the Plan of Organization mandates to address the Assembly once a semester is the President, but possibly the Budget and Finance Committee has a standing rule about the issue.
    Sharyn said she would check the standing rules for her committee.
    Alfredo said he asked Maral Ersan, GSG Office Manager, to bring a copy of the Plan of Organization with her to the meeting.
    Rachel read from the Plan of Organization that she brought with her: Article 5: Standing and Ad Hoc Committees: Section 1: 4:
    She concluded that "as far as that is concerned the committee is doing its job."
    Mark Gubrud (PHYS) said he'd like Sharyn to answer Kobi's question.
    Sharyn said that she did reply to Kobi's question, but it sounds like she didn't answer the question to his satisfaction.
    Kobi said that Sharyn refused to answer his question.
    Again, Sharyn said that she answered his question but thinks she might not have answered it to his satisfaction. Moreover, Sharyn reiterated it was an issue of interpretation of the policies and procedures of her committee; she could not continue to go back-and-forth about it over email, and it cannot be changed based on the present interpretation. She suggested to Kobi, "if you don't like the interpretation help me amend them."
    Kobi asked why they didn't talk about the interpretation. Sharyn argued that now that the decision has been made, she will not talk about the interpretation on that decision.
    Mark Gubrud (PHYS) stated that no one said the rules need to be changed, but rather, he argued, maybe what is being said is your interpretation is wrong.
    Sharyn replied that her committee spoke to many people, like Jason Pontius, and we stand by our decision.
  2. BFC Membership
    Sharyn (BPHD) said the committee is looking for members and they want a diverse group as opposed to all members coming from one department. The committee had four people and went down to two and now is back up to three. She assured that the committee had openings for more people.
  3. $13,000 Budgetary Shortfall
    Sharyn said that there are a couple of things the committee has been working on. One thing is the $13,000 budgetary shortfall from last year. She said that she is looking into it but also pointed out that she is new to the position, so she doesn't know where everything is, and she will need time.
    Sharyn spoke to Carla Rappaport from the Graduate Legal Aid Office about the increase in budget. She said she does not think that GSG has approved her (Carla's) increase and her committee is investigating it. In addition, she spoke to Carla about not increasing her budget as much so fast, but rather to spread out the increase. Sharyn explained that she recently took over this position and she will do her best.
    Sharyn addressed the fiscal budget for 2003. She explained that GSG Office Manager Maral Ersan (BMBA) has been adding up expenditures. Sharyn stated that she is not as close to this budget as ESR, and if anyone has questions they might want to ask Alfredo and Rachel about this.
  Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) moved for GSGA22-B6 be brought to the floor in order to bring closure.
  Rachel asked if Soun wanted to vote on B6, which none of the representatives had in-hand.
  Sharyn asked for clarification that Soun seriously wanted people to vote for a bill "they don't have."
  Rachel asked Soun to wait until the next meeting.
  Soun argued that the bill was posted and sent to Assembly members two months ago, and any member that has been following the proceedings knows it calls for three requirements. . Specifically, these three requirements are that full accounts be made of all expenditures as of or leading up to the beginning of the academic year, that a revised budget be presented, and that monthly financial reports, similar to what was prepared for and presented at the meeting, be made and presented regularly.
  
  Rachel called for discussion and vote. Someone moved to end debate and bring B6 to the floor.
  Mark Gubrud (PHYS) stated that the decision, as he understood it, was that a bill would be written.
  Rachel said that a motion was on the floor to end debate.
  Someone asked how to fill out record sheet for voting.
  Rachel explained that 1 is the motion to put B6 on agenda and 2 is the motion to end debate.
  The majority voted yes to end debate, one person voted against, and two abstained.
  Rachel announced that debate had been ended.
  Consequently, the Assembly voted on the motion to put B 6 on the agenda.
  Rachel specified that "yes" is a vote to put it on the agenda, and "no" is a vote not to include it on the agenda.
  The "no" vote had the majority, and B6 was not added to the agenda.
  Kobi Snitz (MATH) said he was thinking of bringing up new business. He asked whether the meeting had moved to New Business, and to please notify when New Business was reached.
5. Graduate Student Affairs
  Bob Zambon, GSG Vice President for Graduate Student Affairs
  1. Parking
    Bob reported his participation on the Blue Ribbon panel for parking. He said he is waiting to hear a response about the decision to go with a flat rate or income-based structure. He explained that with the income-based structure, graduate students would be included, and with a flat rate, it doesn't matter, but graduate students would want to be considered students rather than employees. Furthermore, graduate assistants recommended that they get moved into another priority group where graduate students picking parking lots would be exempt from lotteries, which is a good compromise because it does not screw up parking.
    Bob reported the results from the last Assembly meeting. He stated that the Graduate Student Affairs Committee is on hiatus and the committee doesn't know how it can handle certain issues. He assured the Assembly that the committee needs to change some of its direction, but everything is still on-going.
    He argued that the Senate Student Affairs Committee is in flux and that he couldn't go because he had "prelims," and Andres is no longer a representative.
    He added that Dr. Hodos' discussion will be on the forums, but he strongly opposed the change. Bob would like to hear everyone's input on the topic of changing the pay time periods.
    Heather Walton (EDCP) asked what impact parking would have on fellowships.
    Bob replied that fellowship students wouldn't get it, and it hasn't gone through CPAC yet. Bob is hoping that each department can do a forum. In other words, he is hoping for a written response from each department, and the response should include a limited number of students. He said that fellowship students should be able to get priority, but not pre-tax benefits, while RAs and TAs will get pre-tax benefits.
    Heather Walton (EDCP) asked what Bob meant by "priority." Bob explained that "priority" would give graduate students selection over undergraduates.
    Todd Solomon (ENGL) asked how lecturers would be affected by the change as they would not want to be considered faculty.
    Bob said he spoke to a dean in English, and he heard something "weird" about lecturers. He didn't understand why lecturers are paying the full fee.
    Todd explained that it is issues of priority, and that, at present, lecturers are either faculty (paying $444) or graduate students (i.e. fighting with undergraduates on equal footing).
    Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) wanted to know if all fees could be covered under pre-tax deductions.
    Bob said that parking could be covered, but housing cannot be done because it would be a "percentage nightmare" for payroll and graduate students do not have University housing. Other fees are openly an issue, but there is no reason they should be pre-tax. Bob stated that right now it is not feasible, and, at the current moment, he does not know of any other universities that do it.
    Soun stated that informally Bob has taken action but asked for the Graduate Student Affairs Committee to bring the pre-tax deductions bill to the Assembly floor so that a formal request can e made to the University administration.
    Bob replied that fees were possible and other things couldn't be done.
    Soun retorted that the Graduate Student Affairs Committee should forward the bill to the Assembly.
    Rachel said it was sent to committee and asked that Soun allow them the time they need to get it together.
    
    Soun said that a resolution can say that "we support the change." Soun asked the Assembly to review the language and that it just requires GSG officers to present it to the administration.
    Rachel replied that it was being handled by committee, and asked if there were other questions for Bob.
6. Public Relations
  Jimmy Chang, GSG Vice President for Public Relations
  Jimmy said that the communication committee has been formed and the standing rules have been made. Presently, his committee members are Erika Grant from Sociology and Regina Chen from Public Relations. He specified their background, thanked them for joining the committee, and stated that he believes they will bring a good deal of creative energy to the committee.
  Jimmy told all graduate students that he needs information and feedback about anything they need. He said his email address is on the website for everyone that needs help with public relations. He asked people to send him accomplishment stories and testimonials, which are the kind of thing he can use to get graduate students publicity. He explained that people need to approach him because "he cannot get to all of us."
  1. Publicity of GSG Opposition to War in Iraq
    1. Two bulk e-mails sent to listservs (depending upon how many were forwarded, media impression could be between 500-1,000, estimating 4 forwards per rep.)
    2. Four articles in Diamondback (DBK has a 36,000 readership...so a 144,000 media impression)
      Jimmy explained that the Diamondback has a 36,000 person readership. Jimmy spoke with author of resolution, and they decided to compose a web-based form letter to send options to the president and congressmen. Jimmy added that the letter wouldn't force them to say certain things, but it would do as the resolution stated. He looked at form letters from Amnesty International, but he also found two other sites. These sites are soja.net and movement.org, and he will post them on the main page to the GSG website. He said that if 2,000 of 9,000 grad students send this email to the government, coming on their own accord to sign this letter and send it, he thinks the GSG would get media coverage. Jimmy said he is also looking at other organizations that the GSG can work with to accomplish these ends.
      Mark Gubrud (PHYS) said he endorses movement.org. He explained that it is an internet organization that is grassroots on a large scale.
      Jimmy said that these sites can represent anyone because none of these organizations are too "off the cuff" or "too conservative."
      Jimmy asked if anyone had any strong objections to the sites, and if so, to please inform him as soon as possible.
      Delores Phillips (ENGL) asked Jimmy if she could come to him with other internet sites.
      Jimmy said she should contact me and he would meet with her.
      Rachel reminded everyone that there was only 15 minutes left until the end of the meeting.
    3. Seventy-five actual responses on the two forums that we established
      Jimmy said that the Iraq resolution was posted on the site and 75 posts were made on the President's forum and on whether GSG should be political.
    4. Tracking of the number of hits on the website since the announcement
7. President's
  Alfredo Pérez, President
  1. Decision on the Resolution Against War in Iraq
    Why did I let it stand? We need to sort out our identity as an organization that represents over 9,000 people. The unspoken question: "who owns the GSG?" My answer is: not the executives, not the habitual members—we all do.
    The question is: can we foster political activism among our members? Does this need to mean a rift between the graduate student bodies? Certainly, it is easier to build consensus on housing programs than on political & philosophical matters. But does this mean that political activism should be banned?
    In our policies, we need to build consensus at the same time that we protect and encourage the diversity of the graduate student body. We need to prevent the tyranny of the majority, and also the tyranny of the minority.
    Alfredo believes that student affairs and external political matters don't need to be mutually exclusive, or even to interfere with each other, if they are given their proper place in the process. He said that we cannot alienate graduate students from their GSG; we need to make a place at the table for everybody. While we may have ideological and political differences, we need to treat each other with respect and with the understanding that the GSG is not a zero-sum game, but that the more the GSG does the more the GSG can do.
  2. OEAC
    Alfredo asked Jason Pontius to make a report.
    Jason explained that the OEAC addressed the concerns people have had. He specified that differences between a constitution, a plan of organization, and bylaws are not stated. He stated that his committee would make suggestions not policy. For example, he spoke about training representatives in parliamentary procedure, creating an appeals process, and creating GSG election rules, which, he said, are non-existent.
    Rachel informed the Assembly that 4 minutes remained.
    Alfredo said that these issues should be published on the forum to make these issues available to the Assembly so that people can craft bills to fix problems.
  3. Presidential Veto
    The latest crisis also called the question of the presidential veto. Alfredo has warned that he will use this veto power when he thinks that legislative decisions are either impracticable by executives or a threat to the survival of the GSG. However, many of these things are subjective and need proper justification. Alfredo will not abuse his veto power, but there needs to be some clear rationale for its use, for him and for the future.
    Alfredo would like to have a brief Q&A to hear everyone's opinions, on the veto-what should be the rationale for its use? He stated that the GSG seemed to have borrowed its policy from the U.S. Constitution:
    Article I, Section 7:
    The rationale for the veto was this:
    1. Protection of other branches of government from legislative aggression.
    2. Protection of the rights of people.
    3. Prevention of laws "unwise in their principle" as well as "incorrect in their form."
    4. Prevent popular or factious injustice.
    Alfredo would like to achieve some consensus on what constitutes a fair rationale for veto in the GSG, used wisely and not abused.
    Alfredo also wanted to know if anyone had heard from Sachin, because it might be necessary to ask him to resign, or the GSG might have to impeach him; he has been missing in action. Alfredo drew a parallel between Sharyn and Todd working as co-chairs for the Budget and Finance Committee and the similar action needed to replace Sachin.
    Acting Co-chair of the Budget and Finance Committee Sharyn Gardner (BPHD) moved to extend meeting by 15 minutes, and someone moved to end debate.
    The motion to end debate was carried and the meeting was extended.
    Rachel asked if anyone had any questions for Alfredo.
    Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) moved to move to agenda item V.D. Appeal: EFR 123 Graduate Issues Forum; Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS), CSR Graduate Students. The motion was not seconded and the motion failed.
New Business
1. Election of GSG Vice President for Financial Affairs
  Rachel directed the Assembly to focus its attention on the election of GSG Vice President for Financial Affairs. She explained the situation and told the Assembly that Whitney Scott had resigned from the position. Two people volunteered, Todd and Sharyn. Rachel explained that Sharyn Gardner and Todd Brintlinger have presidential endorsement and that she was taking nominations from the floor for this position.
  Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) nominated himself for the position.
  Rachel summarized the candidates for the position by introducing Todd, Sharon and Soun. She explained that the candidates would have two minutes to present, and then they would leave the room, so the Assembly could have an open and free discussion. Rachel called Sharyn to speak first, since Todd was not present.
  1. Sharyn Gardner (BPHD) explained that she and Todd agreed to co-chair the position during the interim between Whitney's resignation and the election of a new GSG Vice President for Financial Affairs. She said they have been sharing the responsibility and it has been working well. Sharyn explained she has been active on this committee for 2-3 years. She summarized her work on the committee. She helped to amend the standing rules and write the FPP. She stated that she is open to changing policies and procedures. She said that the BFC's interpretation is not satisfactory, and she is willing to talk about that as well.
    Mark Gubrud (PHYS) asked Sharyn about the grounds under which she denied the Peace Forum's request for funds. He argued that funding was not going to an organization that endorsed a specific legislation or candidate. He added that her interpretation of the policy was so broad that it excluded an organization that sought to stimulate debate on campus in many ways. He argued that the Peace Forum took a position on one thing-Iraq-but they never supported a candidate or any other legislation.
    Sharon replied that the Budget and Finance Committee made a decision about Peace Forum, not she alone. Furthermore, Peace Forum seeks to educate students about war on Iraq, which is taking a position. She added that policies supporting campaign or specific state or federal legislation cannot receive funding.
    Rachel informed the Assembly that time was up and Soun Pil Kwon would speak.
  2. Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) told the Assembly members that they are familiar with him. He said he is not that popular, but no one can say he is not just. He stated that he does use fair judgment and wishes to make things clear and public.
    Kobi Snitz (MATH) asked Soun to speak about student groups and how they receive funds.
    Soun said that if a student group is recognized by the university as a student group they should receive some support, but how much is a different matter, because all graduate students pay fees and the GSG should spend appropriately. Soun emphasized that all funds should be accounted for.
    Mark Gubrud (PHYS) asked Soun if he was familiar with the decision not to give funds to the Peace Forum and whether he agreed with the interpretation of the policies.
    Soun said that he does not agree with the interpretation made by Sharyn Gardner on the Financial Procedures and Policies that were used by her to justify her position. Soun emphasized that he believes differently.
    He said he has experience on these committees and all judgments should be just.
    Ed Martini (AMST) moved to extend the meeting 15 minutes.
    [The discussion that took place after the candidates' statements was not recorded.]
    Rachel returned with the counts from the election. She counted 41 votes total and announced that Sharyn Gardner won with 19 votes.
    GSG Vice President for Graduate Student Affairs Bob Zambon (MOCB) moved to move to agenda item V.C. GSGA22-B11 Repeal of R5 and Establishing Focus; Sharyn Gardner (BPHD)
    Mark Gubrud (PHYS) argued that it would take too long, and it is not needed.
    Bob withdrew his motion.
    Sharon moved to table GSGA22-B11 to the next Assembly meeting. The vote passed with one abstention and two nays.
2. GSGA22-R6 Collective Bargaining Rights
  Ed Martini (AMST) moved to extend the meeting "just long enough to get through this next agenda item." He argued that the resolution should be voted on today for two reasons. First, the rights of employees are not being adhered to. Second, given the climate throughout this country (i.e. University of Illinois just passed a union and the overall national climate), while graduate students at this university are both students and employees, makes graduate student issues "slip through cracks." He argued that a union or an employee organization can fix both of these issues. He added that the resolution does not promote a union or state that it is for or against forming a union. The resolution does not even mention GALOL. He said it is about democracy, fairness, and graduate students' right to form a union. He read the resolution:
  THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Graduate Student Government of UMCP supports the right of graduate employees to decide, through an election, whether or not to authorize a union or some other employee organization to bargain collectively on their behalf; AND
  THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Graduate Student Government of UMCP calls upon the General Assembly of the State of Maryland to amend current state law which denies graduate students the right to self-determination on issues of collective bargaining and establish the conditions under which an election can take place;
  THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the administration of UMCP acknowledge that graduate students who are also employed by the University are in fact state employees and, as such, should have the right to collectively bargain; and that UMCP officially adopt a stance of neutrality on the issue of graduate employee unionization; and
  THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if a union or other employee organization can demonstrate that a majority of graduate employees have authorized the group to bargain collectively on their behalf, the administration of UMCP should agree to bargain with that organization in good faith.
  Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) moved to postpone debate but the motion failed.
  GSG Vice President for Graduate Student Affairs Bob Zambon (MOCB) asked how many students want a union.
  Ed responded that he would prefer not to give a number because it all depends on how you define the bargaining unit and such.
  GSG President Alfredo Pérez (SPAP) explained that as Dr Hodos' presentation demonstrated, graduate students have no leverage on issues like payroll. Alfredo said a union would help us gain this leverage. Alfredo said he was involved in GALOL, but didn't like leadership; the leadership has changed and now it is a good organization. Alfredo endorsed this resolution.
  Rachel pointed out that there were only 2 minutes left.
  Julie Strongson (CMLT) stressed that GALOL is not mentioned in this resolution, but rather, this is a resolution about graduate students having the right to determine whether they form a union or employee organization. She emphasized that presently the university does not think we have the right.
  Josh Saragovi (BMBA) asked Ed about his intention after this passes.
  Ed said that everyone has the right to form a union, but presently, even if everyone on campus said we want to bargain, the university might not recognize that. This resolution recommends that we do have the right to collectively bargain. Ed continued to explain the if you have the right to collectively bargain a union needs 30% of the people to sign cards which would allow elections down the road.
  Suzanne Sindi (AMSC) explained that even if this resolution passes today there will be another election to unionize at a later date.
  GSG Vice President for Graduate Student Affairs Bob Zambon (MOCB) added that an election would include any group that wanted to do something about workers issues, not just GALOL.
  Soun Pil Kwon (PHYS) said that he believed that the sponsors of this resolution are serious; they want a union. However, it is his impression that this question will go to the student body on an individual basis, in which case a referendum-like vote will have to take place. Soun said he would like to suggest, as far as the resolution is concerned, calling for a vote, but splitting the resolution into 1) a referendum, and 2) everything else after the bill. His recommendation was not accepted by Ed.
  Delores Phillips (ENGL) moved to end debate. She was told that she cannot motion while someone is talking.
  Rachel asked if there were any objections to voting. A vote was taken and the resolution GSGA22-R6 Collective Bargaining Rights passed with one abstention.
  A motion was made to adjourn.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:00 p.m., by Rachel.
Supplemental Documents:
1. Minutes from November 1, 2002
2. VPFA Ballot
3. GSGA22-R6
4. GSGA22-B11
5. EFR 123 Appeal Materials

Submitted by: Michael Danza (SOCY) and presiding officer Rachel Jablon, GSG Vice President for Legislative Affairs

Date of Approval: ________________________

GSG Home | Contact Us | UMD | Search

Graduate Student Government - 22nd Assembly December 6, 2002 1:20p.m.-3:30p.m. Baltimore Room, Stamp Student Union Minutes

Attendance:

Proceedings

Graduate Student Government - 22nd Assembly
December 6, 2002
1:20p.m.-3:30p.m.
Baltimore Room, Stamp Student Union
Minutes