Graduate Student Government - University of Maryland

GSG Voting Representatives
Present: AMSC/2 (Suzanne Sindi, Samvit Prakash); AMST/2 (Ed Martini); ANSC/1 (Kristina Heuck); AREC/1 (Alexander Vialou); ASTR/1 (Donna Pierce); BMBA/13 (Deanna Dicker, Kemal Karakaya, Mohamad Khorbatli, Joshua Saragovi); CMLT/1 (Julie Strongson); CMSC/3 (Aram Khabibi, Adam Lopez); EDCP/5 (Susan Longerbeam, Heather Walton); ENBE/1 (Aisha Sexton); ENEE/6 (Benham Neekzad, Ayan Roy-Chowdhúry, Zoltan Safar); ENGL/3 (Delores Phillips); ENTS/2 (Laks Molaga); GELS/1 (Chuck McCallum); GEOG/1 (Neil Eggleston); GVPT/2 (Ghada Almadbouh, Hellmut Lotz/Fengshi Wu); MAPM/1 (Sammit Prakagh); MATH/2 (Cathy Jones, Kobi Snitz); MEES/3 (Jessica Peterson); MOCB/1 (Megan Heath); NUTR/1 (Kate Gilstad); PHIL/1 (Daniel Parker); PHYS/3 (Todd Brintlinger, Tarek Ghanem, Soun P. Kwon); SOCY/2 (Erika Grant, Doc Hunter); STAT/1 (Huaizhong Ren); URSP/2 (Elizabeth Holler); WMST/1 (Joyleen Sapinoso)

GSG Non-Voting Representatives
Present: Sofia Ceca (SOCY); Maral Ersan (BMBA); Elena Fazio (SOCY)

GSG Administrative Representatives
Present: Jason Pontius (Coordinator of Graduate Student Involvement)

Proceedings

Call to Order
Assembly meeting was called to order at 1:30p.m. by 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 Vice President for Legislative Affairs Rachel Jablon.
Guest Speakers
1. Jason Pontius, Coordinator of Graduate Student Involvement
  Jason informed the Assembly that a survey was conducted in April 2002. The survey was given to a random sample of grad students. The purpose of the survey was to examine the "out-of-classroom needs" of students. This survey was done to complement the survey done by the Graduate School, which examined advisors, the library, etc. This survey examined housing, day care, programming, and other out-of classroom needs. In other words, this survey was about life not academic life.
  Jason referred to the executive summary that was available. He explained that housing was not the main point of survey, but the Diamondback covered the housing story, so he decided to break down housing very specifically. He added that the Executive Summary is brief but it breaks downs the responses by gender, ethnicity and other demographics. He said that people should contact him if they have any questions at jpontius-=AT=-union.umd.edu.
  Rachel asked if anyone had any questions.
  Julie Strongson (CMLT) asked how the students were randomly selected.
  Jason responded that 9,000 students were selected via OIT.
  Jason asked if anyone had any questions about specifics.
  No questions were raised and Rachel proposed that we move onto reports.
Reports
1. President's, Alfredo Pérez (SPAP)
  1. GSG Executive Committee—new developments and Executive Orders
    First, Alfredo spoke about new developments of the Executive Committee. Specifically, Alfredo explained that these developments concern increasing the teamwork, communication, accountability, and democratic channels of the GSG.
    1. Communication is important because the GSG should not function like a garage band making all of the decisions but more like a government. In other words, we have committees and we want the lines of communications to flow.
    2. Similarly, accountability needs to be enforced for missions and jobs that people have accepted.
    Overall, Alfredo reported that the Executive Committee had a good meeting, and they will need to have another one soon. Mainly the topic they discussed was how to foster a GSG that embodies democratic values and grows in a healthy manner. However, instead of working on it from the inside, we want to discuss it with each other and farm it out to an external observer. This external observer will examine the following:
    1. Improving the operations of GSG
    2. Improving the democratic mechanisms such as the checks and balances and accountability of branches.
  2. Organizational Effectiveness Advisory Committee
    Alfredo has asked Jason Pontius to chair the Organizational Effectiveness Advisory Committee. If anyone wants to take part in this committee they should speak to Jason. This committee will gather information for two weeks. They will investigate the current problems and checks and balances, so that we can grow as an organization. The committee will present their findings to the Executive Committee. As the committee is working, the GSG will implement their suggestions unless there is no agreement. Furthermore, the recommendations will be published with the permission of the Assembly. Alfredo requested input as to whether the suggestions should be binding or non-binding. Furthermore, he explained that this external committee will cease to function after the specified time period has expired, unless the Assembly decides that this should be a permanent committee.
    
    Alfredo reiterated that this is an Executive Order for the Executive Committee alone. However, he asked for a vote of confidence from the Assembly because he believes that if the Assembly supports this committee, there will be more of a moral charge. Alfredo asked Rachel if he can ask for a vote now or how he should proceed to get this vote of confidence.
    Kobi Snitz (MATH) moved to support this Executive Order.
    Rachel asked if the Assembly would like to vote on this or discuss it in more depth.
    Soun. P. Kwon (PHYS) suggested that this matter be placed later in the agenda.
    Rachel pointed out that there was already a motion on the floor.
    Kobi Snitz (MATH) said that he didn't see a reason for anyone to object to an Executive Order to further democracy so the Assembly should approve it.
    Rachel asked if there was any more discussion and then moved to a vote.
    The Executive Order was supported.
  3. Graduate Council News:
    Alfredo reported that the Graduate Council met last October about the Business School because that School has special penalties for people found guilty of violating academic integrity. The Council decided that it should not farm this problem out to the deans; instead, the Council made recommendations. Specifically, the Council found that many of these cases involved a large proportion of international students, so the problems may be related to cultural differences. The Council sees this as a chance for education not punishment.
    Other items discussed by the Graduate Council were the new critical theory certificate and the housing resolution. The housing resolution was presented to the Graduate Council, but Alfredo has not heard back from them yet. He suggested that everyone talk to their deans and ask what the graduate Council is doing about it. He argued that deans have a lot of power. Consequently, he continued, if deans know they are losing students because they cannot afford rent in the area then they will do something. He reiterated that he encourages everyone to do something about this item.
  4. Graduate Pub
    Alfredo reminded the Assembly that the Graduate Pub has moved to North Woods, and he thinks this is a good thing. He asked for people to give him input about the move to North Woods.
    Alfredo also said that a Social and Sport Committee chair is needed. He jokingly asked if anyone wanted to be the chief bartender.
    Hellmut Lotz (GOVT) asked if the GSG could find a more central location for the Graduate Pub, such as the Stamp Student Union.
    Alfredo responded that the present location is best and other locations are an obstacle for dining services. Instead, he has been thinking about getting a shuttle to bring graduate students to the pub but he has realized that a shuttle is very expensive. He is looking for support from other sources because the GSG is spending a lot of its money on food.
    Hellmut pointed out that when the University has a reception, they have no trouble bringing people to the Union.
    Rachel suggested that Hellmut talk to Bob or Alfredo to better answer his questions.
    Todd Brintlinger (PHYS) asked how long the Graduate Pub will be located in North Woods.
    Alfredo said that when the weather is nice, it will be moved back to the Rossborough Inn because of the fire code problems.
    Rachel said that the Pub will be located at North Woods until sometime in March.
  5. Metrochecks
    Soun P. Kwon (PHYS) pointed out that a recent Diamondback article was printed concerning a proposal for Metrochecks and asked if the Executive Committee would support a proposal to expand pre-tax deductions.
    Alfredo said that it sounds like a good idea and the Executive Committee is looking at that; Bob would be reporting on this subject during his report.
  6. Legislative Action Committee
    Alfredo reported that the Legislative Action Committee has been in contact with two people from the School of Public Affairs, both of whom are very busy but who are trying to help the GSG with leadership via a mentorship model. He said that maybe the GSG can find some undergraduate students or people that have experience with government to help with this idea. He advised people who have interest in training or mentoring someone to let the Legislative Action Committee know as soon as possible.
  7. Committee Replacements
    Alfredo reported that he is also member of two committees, and he needs people to replace him on both. He said that his problem is lack of time because he is on ten committees.
    1. President's Commission on Ethnic Minority Issues
      He said that they picked him to be a member of President's Commission on Ethnic Minority Issues (PCEMI) because he is a minority. He asked for minority students who have an interest in the topic to come talk to him so that they can go in his place. He feels that this is a good chance to meet minority leaders and become a minority leader.
    2. Fees Committee
      The second committee that Alfredo needs a replacement is the Fees Committee. He explained that the Fees Committee is selected by the President of the University to review the fees that students pay. Alfredo was appointed as an interim member of this committee. The position includes some background reading that needs to be done. He asked that students who have a background in economics or finance should come talk to him about this position.
    Lakshmi Molaga (ENTS) said that the student organization in his department is dealing with fees and asked how the GSG can help them.
    Alfredo said that they should bring their problems to the Assembly.
    Lakshmi added that his department has 126 graduate students and majority of the students are from a minority group. He said 80% of the students in his department are international students, and they have very high fees ranging from $700 to 400 [this makes no sense] in fees, which they feel is very high.
    Rachel agreed that this is an issue and suggested that Lakshmi write up a resolution.
    Bob Zambon (MOCB) said that Lakshmi should "drop him a line" because his committee needs people to work on it.
  8. GRID
    In GRID Coordinator Tanya Nagle's absence, Alfredo reminded the Assembly of the importance of GRID. He explained that GRID is a chance to present research and interact with other graduate students. He emphasized that it is not a specialized conference but rather a cross-pollination of ideas. Alfredo argued that GRID is important for the GSG because the University and graduate students will recognize our participation, and therefore our importance, on campus. Furthermore, he added that "the GSG should seek recognition, not because we are capricious, but we have something to offer" and $5,000 of Graduate Student Activities Fees are allocated to the conference. He jokingly suggested that organizers of GRID should try to obtain the services of Placido Domingo. He concluded that students interested in presenting their research or volunteering (e.g., setting up rooms, contacting chairs of departments, etc.) should contact Tanya or Yun.
    Rachel asked Alfredo if he had an e-mail address for GRID.
    Alfredo said that Tanya's e-mail address is tnagle-=AT=-gradschool.umd.edu and the web address is the www.gsg.umd.edu/grid.
2. Financial Affairs, Whitney Schott
  Vice President for Financial Affairs Whitney Schott (ECON) announced the recent recipients of funding and total amounts allocated. She said that requests range from thirteen to fourteen thousand and six thousand has been approved. She added that all of the information is publicly available so everyone should look at who is getting money, what they are getting money for, and how much they are getting.
  Whitney also talked about the Graduate Legal Aid Office budget. She spoke to the person in charge of Legal Aid-Carla Rappaport-and that person agreed to slowly increment the hours.
3. Graduate Student Affairs, Bob Zambon
  1. Parking Survey/Blue Ribbon Committee, Metrochek
    Vice President for Graduate Student Affairs Bob Zambon (MOCB) asked everyone to look at the forms they picked up when walking into room. He explained that the green form is a survey that the Blue Ribbon Parking Committee is putting together. The survey looks at how they want fees to be distributed. One option is a flat rate for population, which is keeping the fee structure the way they have it right now. Due to the problems from the last fee increase, President Mote made this Blue Ribbon Parking Committee. On Wednesday, the Committee had a meeting that was supposed to be an open forum that people might have read about it in the Diamondback. Four people spoke at the meeting. Bob explained that what this means is that if you fill out these green forms, the income tier model for faculty and staff might be approved. Bob argued that, in this instance, we want graduate students to be included in the income tier model. He explained that the faculty and staff are paying X, the least amount of money is ½X and the most amount of money is 2X. In addition, graduate students that are not Graduate Assistants (GAs) would be lumped in with a flat rate. We are fighting for that and it has been brought to the attention of the committee.
    Suzanne Sindi (AMSC) asked how students on fellowships fit into the model.
    Bob responded that in the income percentage model graduate students would be paying .005% of your income. This means that graduate students would be paying $50 and administrators would be paying $50[this also doesn't make sense]. Bob expressed that this is his favorite model. He thinks that the fees should be spread out in an equitable way. Bob added that if, for some reason, we are not part of the percentage model we will be treated on the flat rate for students. He suggested that when you fill in the form, everyone should keep this in mind.
    Another model explained by Bob was the proximity model. The proximity model means fees are assessed in relation to a parking permit's assigned lot's proximity to a building. For example, the closer you are to campus, the more you pay. Another model is proximity based on department and location of department. This model raises "zones of parking" which raises the same problem as other the proximity model.
    Bob informed the Assembly that right now he is focusing on getting graduate students separated from undergraduates.
    Bob highlighted the fact that the income-based models would leave graduate students in the same situation as they are presently but less prone to jumps in fees. He said that he is looking for input from students. He asked for everyone's input and time on this issue because otherwise, the faculty and staff get what they want.
    Bob explained that payment for Metrochecks is deducted from paychecks every month. For example, if you want to take out $100 a month from your paycheck for commuting on the Metro, then they will take it out of your paycheck before taxes. This is a tax-deductible benefit, like health insurance. Bob pointed out that the Diamondback printed an article that said Metrocheck incentives currently do not include graduate students.
    Alfredo added that it seems like graduate students are not included but maybe we will be included in a year or two. Also, Alfredo added that the way in which we are going to get included is by talking to Judy Phelps. Alfredo and Bob asked her why graduate students are left out. She told them that graduate students are not included as employees. Alfredo and Bob are going to see Dave Allen to speak with him about being included in the Metrochecks program as employees.
    Bob also argued that if this is successful graduate students will save some money in the long run, because if you are taking the Metro and you use Metrochecks, it is as if you get a very small pay raise. If you are interested in working on Metrochecks please go to our forum.
  2. Housing Meeting
    Bob said that everyone who wants information about the Housing meeting should talk to Hellmut Lotz (GOVT), the chair of the College Park Tenants' Committee. Bob tried to attend the meeting but was unable to go. Hellmut spoke to State senators and reps should talk to him if they want to stay in the loop.
  3. Graduate Student Affairs Committee Issues (Rules/Members/Website)
    Bob said, regarding the website, the Committee is concentrating on links to e-mails and topics so that they are covered. For example, if you want to talk to someone about parking you can e-mail the person who is responsible for parking issues and find out how to get involved.
    Also, Bob brought to everyone's attention that the Committee rules are pending approval by the Assembly. He highlighted two things:
    1. First, the Committee will not take any more duties than the number of members multiplied by two. In other words, they do not want more on their plate than they have the ability to get done.
    2. Second, any decisions made by the Committee or by the presiding officer of the Committee can be overridden by Bob.
  4. Add/Drop/Audit Survey
    Bob asked for people to help his Committee's mission to examine the add/drop/audit systems. Specifically, he asked for the name of the person in every department who is responsible for the add/drop. Bob cannot do it on the computer, because in many cases, this is information that is not on the individual, departmental web pages; therefore, the information about each department must come from graduate students. He asked that this information be mailed, e-mailed, or sent to him by any other means possible. The important thing is to send it to the GSG. He reiterated again that the Committee needs to know what departments are doing what.
  5. Miscellaneous: Additional information as noted Graduate Student Affairs Committee (GSAC)
    Bob said that the University Senate Student Affairs Committee, on which Andres Kwasinski sits, looks good.
  Rachel Jablon (CMLT) asked if anyone had any questions for Bob.
  Neil Eggleston (GEOG) asked how income is verified for the parking income tier model.
  Bob responded that income is assessed from payroll, which is the problem with fellowship students because income needs to be assessed through payroll. Undergraduates all want the income model, because, according to payroll, they have no income.
  Heather Walton (EDCP) asked how the flat rates for students work.
  Bob said that everyone understands that right now the flat rate is in place.
  Also, there is a stigma concerning graduate students and their separation from undergraduates. He admits that it may seem stupid but it is a big step for graduate students to be considered differently from undergraduates. The flat rate would stay the same, but if the rate increases by 50% in the income model, graduate students' parking fees would only increase by 25%, whereas in the flat rate model, if they increase the fee for one segment of the University parking community, then they increase it for all segments of the University parking community. Bob added that the people in the lowest income tier have a union fighting for them, so they will most likely get what they want. Graduate students are also mobilizing a union on campus, so maybe they would fight for us.
  Bob suggested picking the model that they are most comfortable with.
  Heather asked if this would get rid of the Lot 5 lottery.
  Bob responded that if graduate students are separate from undergraduates then graduate students would be selected ahead of the undergraduates.
4. Parliamentary Procedure, E.L. Doc Hunter, GSG Parliamentarian
  Doc said that at the last Assembly meeting there was a procedural question raised, and he reviewed the proceedings from prior meetings to examine what procedural issues need to be addressed. Doc clarified "calling to question" and "order to end debate." Doc said that people cannot "order to end debate" or "motion to end debate." In order to end debate, a person first must say "move to previous question," then someone must say that they "second that motion," and last, the Assembly can move to close debate.
Old Business
1. GSGA22-B5: Amendment to Financial Policies and Procedures
  Whitney Schott (ECON)
  Whitney explained that this is a simple change to procedures that was not previously specified. Specifically, when something is submitted to the acting Vice President of Financial Affairs, that means it is submitted to Whitney by e-mail. If something is submitted to anyone else other than Whitney or the acting Vice President for Financial Affairs, then it has not officially been submitted.
  Alfredo Pérez (SPAP) seconded Whitney's motion to accept the amendment.
  Rachel asked for all those in favor of accepting GSG A222-B5: Amendment to Financial Policies and Procedures to vote. The amendment was accepted.
2. GSGA22-B6: Financial Reporting
  Soun P. Kwon (PHYS)
  Soun said that before the bill is submitted he would like to add a third sponsor, Maria Aranova (PHYS) and make an amendment to the bill on line 42. Soun said that line 42 should say "revised financial budget" instead of "financial budget."
  Next, Soun P. Kwon presented his bill to the Assembly. He explained that this bill is needed because the Assembly and graduate students do not have a full report. He wants to know how much money there is and where the money was spent, not just how much money has been budgeted. He pointed out that graduate students do not know how much of the budget has been spent. He wants last year's account to be made clear.
  Rachel asked, where in the bill is there a reference to last year's budget?
  Soun explained that the bill specifies the beginning of the 2002-2003 time period and that the previous budget showed in its last financial report a $30,000 surplus. At the beginning of this semester, the surplus was $17,000. Around $13,000 of GSG funds are unaccounted for. Furthermore, during the previous Assembly meeting, the Assembly was told that a revised budget would be presented but a revised budget has not been presented.
  Doc Hunter (SOCY) asked Soun who was the third sponsor.
  Soun responded that Maria Aranova of the Physics Department was the third sponsor.
  Cathy Jones (MATH) moved to vote.
  Alfredo added that he puts his support behind this bill because he believes that the GSG should be transparent and open, which should be permanent features of government.
  Whitney Schott (ECON) asked if everyone knows about the original bill and suggested that everyone read it through carefully. She asked Soun to clarify some things:
  First, she wanted to know if this bill proposed information about funding requests or the whole GSG budget. She said that her Committee does not have access to all the details and the information would need to come from another department of the University because they have expense details. She argued that this is large request. She thinks it is a fair request, but she does not know if it will be easy to implement. She suggested that maybe people should get together to write a more specific bill that clarifies what the definition of a "revised financial budget."
  Bob Zambon suggested that Whitney knows best. He added that it might be in the GSG's best interest to send this bill to review by an ad hoc committee, instead of passing the bill, in order to see what is feasible and what is not.
  Soun said that the GSG does have a previous model and that model is last year's reports. He added that this bill has been pending for over a month, and the Executive Committee has known about this for over a month.
  Rachel asked if anyone had anything else to say. She reiterated that Bob and Whitney's arguments that the bill is a good idea but things need to be hammered out. She also reviewed the Assembly's options: the Assembly could form a committee to figure out specifics, send it to the Budget and Finance Committee, pass the bill as it is, ask for revisions, or vote against it.
  Doc Hunter (SOCY) moved to send this to the BFC, so that they can write a bill. The motion was seconded.
  Bob said that it would be beneficial to have examples of what is feasible and what could be presented every month.
  Alfredo added that last year, reporting was done monthly and no one understood it. He reinforced the idea that a report needs to be something that is understandable to everyone.
  Rachel said that before voting on this bill, it should be noted that the Assembly wants to know what will be reported on a monthly basis.
  Doc Hunter (SOCY) said that that is inherent in the motion.
  Soun said that if the Assembly wants to send it to a Committee, he will support the decision but only if there is a report. He pointed out that right now, graduate students have no information about the current financial status.
  Alfredo asked why this cannot be accepted as temporary order so a report can be made. He suggested that the Assembly should not get hung up on the legality of things. In other words, Alfredo said, the bill can be accepted, a report can be made while they figure out what is feasible. He agrees that it is a crime to waste volunteers' time, but a report can be made which would by its nature tell everyone what will go into the report.
  Lakshmi Molaga (ENTS) said that all of us accept that the report would not be an easy thing to do; the argument is whether this is possible. He asked that everyone vote right now on that particular thing, and whatever is agreed upon will be attempted the best it possibly can be.
  Soun asked to amend Doc's motion to send the bill to the Budget and Finance Committee with an expectation that a report will be made at the next Assembly meeting.
  Doc Hunter (SOCY) asked Soun to clarify his amendment to the motion.
  Soun said he wanted to amendment to the current motion to send it to the Budget and Finance Committee with an expectation that a financial report on the expenses and income be made available to the public.
  The amendment to the motion was seconded.
  Rachel asked for everyone to vote on Doc's original motion with Soun's amendment.
  Whitney commented that it is unrealistic to make a report if you don't know it is possible.
  Bob replied that she would just do it as much as is feasible.
  Whitney commented that if people think more details are needed before a report can be made at the next Assembly meeting, then they should vote no on the amended motion.
  Rachel asked for all those in favor of the amended motion to send the bill to the Committee with an expectation that a report will be made at the next Assembly meeting.
  Six people voted to accept this motion, and everyone else voted against it.
  Soun asked for a roll call vote to be recorded into the minutes.
  Rachel said "no," that she did not have Member List with her, and a roll call vote would be impossible without one.
  A motion was made to vote on Doc's original motion to send the bill to the Budget and Finance Committee. The motion was seconded.
  Rachel asked if anyone wanted discussion.
  Someone called the question and the Assembly voted.
  Rachel asked for all those in favor of sending GSGA22-B6: Financial Reporting to the Budget and Finance Committee for further consideration to vote. The motion was carried and the bill was sent to Whitney Schott to find out what type of report would be feasible.
New Business
1. Parking Survey
  Bob Zambon, Chair, Graduate Student Affairs Committee
  Bob said that representatives should tell everyone about the Blue Ribbon Committee and post their comments on the GSG website. He said people can print things from the website and you don't have to put your name and phone number on anything.
2. GSGA22-R5 A Resolution against War on Iraq
  Kobi Snitz (MATH)
  Kobi handed out copies of the resolution to the Executive Committee.
  Rachel commented to Kobi that the version handed to her was not the same that she had received previously and asked that action be taken to find out how the resolution was changed during the time it was last seen by the Ways and Means Committee.
  Kobi argued that the differences were only a matter of format.
  Rachel asked for Kobi to continue.
  Kobi explained that the resolution opposes United States policies towards Iraq. He said that according to the GSG Preamble to the Plan of Organization, the GSG makes decisions that represent the views of graduate students, and the resolution against the war is a view of graduate students. The war, he continued, pertains to the GSG as it is a matter of public debate that concerns graduate students and the country. Moreover, it does concern graduate students what public stance the University takes on the war, because graduate students are an important and unique part of the university. Therefore, it is important that graduate students make their own position known to the public.
  Kobi summarized the content of resolution. He stated that war is wrong and the outcome will be the deaths of many, many people. He said that the proposed war is a continuation of a war that never really stopped and has been ongoing since 1990 because Iraq has been bombed twice a week. Therefore, by any reasonable description of war, war is occurring in Iraq. He explained that the damage to civilians and infrastructure is huge. Kobi added that according to the World Health Organization (WHO) the ongoing bombing of Iraq has destroyed the food distribution system leading to famine; if the U.S. government launches a second large-scale attack, the food distribution system will fail, and famine, civilian deaths, and damage to infrastructure will clearly increase. He finished by saying that the consequences of attacking Iraq are very predictable.
  Rachel asked Kobi to read the "therefore, be it resolved" section of the resolution.
  Kobi read as follows:
  Bob Zambon (MOCB) pointed out a few problems that he had with the wording of the resolution. Specifically, he argued the second "whereas" is not a fact or a credible fact, but rather it is an opinion stated as fact. Also, Bob argued that after "preemptive strikes," it should read "unless otherwise agreed upon by the U.N. Security Council."
  Kobi stated that he would accept the amendment.
  Bob then retorted that everyone is talking about the "importance of debate" which is a good idea. Therefore, he argued that it would be more appropriate for the GSG to hold an open debate or open forum where the GSG could possibly even give money for the event. Bob believed that this would be a better thing to do for all sides rather than accepting this amendment which might lead some students to ask, "why did the GSG do this?"
  Kobi replied that this would be very redundant because it already exists on campus and he felt that it would be great if the GSG would participate in these forums.
  Alfredo Pérez (SPAP) said he agreed with both options. In addition, Alfredo thinks the GSG should let everyone know what is being discussed. He said that the GSG could call for a referendum because he feels it is important and wants to know that when people come to vote they are informed.
  Rachel pointed out that there are 20 minutes left to the Assembly meeting.
  Josh Saragovi (BMBA) said that when he became a representative he did so thinking he knew how people in his department felt about parking and other issues. He thinks everyone here has a personal opinion about the war, but he questioned how comfortable representatives feel about representing their department about war.
  Megan Heath (MOCP) said that she is for the war in Iraq. Furthermore, as a graduate student representative, it makes her skin crawl to think that if this resolution is accepted it would state that she, as a graduate student, is against the war.
  Soun P. Kwon (PHYS) said that he is sure that there are members that would like to have closure on this issue, but he has not read the resolution and he assumed others had not read it as well. He added that when everyone finishes their discussion he would like to make a motion to postpone the vote. The motion was seconded.
  Kemal Karakaya (BMBA) said that he sees a major conflict between a personal view and a departmental point-of-view because there are 1,300 people from in the MBA program, and he needs to talk to them.
  Cathy Jones (MATH) stated that as sponsor of this resolution, she is frustrated with the process and she wished the Assembly would have had the opportunity to see the resolution when it was first submitted. She argued that the Ways and Means Committee should publish things before they accept or reject them.
  Todd Brintlinger (PHYS) said that his idea is unconventional, but he wanted to ask Doc, as Parliamentarian, if a secret ballet/straw poll could be taken. He argued that if the Assembly finds out that the majority is against the war it might change how the issue is handled. In contrast, if the secret ballet indicates that the majority is for the war then another course of action can be taken.
  Doc was puzzled and asked Todd to clarify if he was talking about a pre-vote.
  Todd nodded.]
  Doc replied, "it is a great idea, but no."
  Ed Martini (AMST) said that he seconded Cathy's idea to put resolutions on the web page. He said there is no harm in publishing these things because it is absurd to think that a possible resolution on the web of a student organization can stop the Pentagon. He reiterated the question; why not publish everything the Ways and Means Committee receives? Furthermore, while Ed feels safe talking for his department, he understands that other people, who do not feel as comfortable, want to be representative of their department. But, he continued, representatives should not fool themselves into thinking the GSG is a direct democracy. He reminded everyone that, as representatives, they actually bother to show up to these meeting and as representatives everyone has taken the risk and taken our time.
  Delores Phillips (ENGL) said she agreed with Ed's comment, and she believes that people should vote the way they think their department would vote. Moreover, even if the resolution passes, it does not mean that the GSG as whole, singular body support the resolution, but rather, the outcome of the vote itself can be seen as a statement about the war. For example, if the vote is 15 to 4, than that is our statement about the war.
  Soun P. Kwon (PHYS) moved to postpone the vote and the motion was seconded.
  Hellmut Lotz (GOVT) asked to amend the motion to postpone by adding "postpone the vote with the present support of the resolution."
  Doc Hunter (SOCY) replied that that is like passing the resolution.
  Hellmut pointed out that it would be an endorsement until the vote, but it would not make it a law.
  Rachel stated that once the Assembly supports a resolution it becomes part of the GSG body of statutes.
  Hellmut argued that that is opinion.
  Rachel said that Hellmut was out of order.
  Alfredo said that it would be a nice exercise in democracy if every representative went back to his/her dept and brings a vote to the next Assembly. He suggested that it would work like an electoral college, and it would be more representative and informative to the whole campus. He said he would feel more justified, on an issue as decisive as this, if the vote was done in this way. Alfredo said he recently received a letter from a graduate student in Engineering who said he was mad because his fees were going towards the Peace Forum. He reminded everyone that graduate students are a large group, and not everyone is here today to discuss it.
  Heather Walton (EDCP) said that in theory, the Assembly should vote today because another long debate will ensue next month if the vote is postponed. Similarly, she added, while in theory, representatives should talk to their constituents, she still does not know everyone in her department.
  Lakshmi Molaga (ENTS) agreed with Alfredo but said he would like to add one point. He said that representatives should ask their constituents what they think about bringing these types of issues to the GSG in the future.
  Maral Ersan (BMBA) said that amendments should be put on the webpage so that people can read it.
  Rachel reminded everyone that there is a motion on table and it has been seconded.
  Alfredo said that he amended the motion so that representatives go back to their departments.
  Soun, who made the original motion, accepted the amendment to his motion.
  Rachel said that 5 minutes were left, and she asked whether people wanted to discussion more or move on to the vote.
  No more discussion was generated, so Rachel moved on to the vote.
  Rachel reminded everyone that "Yay" meant they wanted to table the resolution to the next Assembly meeting with the intention of taking a vote at the next Assembly meeting after representatives talk to their constituents.
  Rachel announced the results of the vote: 13 people voted to postpone the vote, and more than 13 voted not to postpone the vote.
  Bob Zambon (MOCB) moved to vote.
  Rachel Jablon (CMLT) asked whether "Yes or no?", and Doc pointed out that a motion to end debate is not debatable.
  The motion was seconded by Deanna Dicker (BMBA).
  Rachel Jablon reminded everyone that "yes" is a vote to end debate and vote on the resolution right now, while a "no" is a vote to continue discussion. She asked if that was clear.
  Rachel announced that 24 people voted to end debate an d to vote on the resolution now, and that the Assembly would now vote on resolution GSGA22-R5.
  The result of the vote was 20 in favor of the resolution, 15 opposed, and 3 abstentions. GSGA22-R5 A Resolution Against the War in Iraq was approved.
  Rachel for the people that voted who did not have cards to identify what departments they were from. The representatives replied that they were from Library Science and Philosophy.
Announcements
1. Next GSG Assembly Meeting: Baltimore Room, Stamp; Dec. 6, 1:20p.m.
  Rachel apologized that the locations for meetings keep changing and she asked if anyone else had any other announcements. She reminded everyone that the Business School is having their Oktoberfest.
2. Grad Pub: Now until March at North Woods!
  Rachel asked if anyone did not know where North Woods is located and explained how to get there.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned after 3:30p.m., by Vice President for Legislative Affairs, Rachel Jablon, presiding officer.
Supplemental Documents:
1. Minutes from October 4, 2002
2. Parliamentary Procedure at a Glance
3. GSGA22-B5
4. GSGA22-B6

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

Date of Approval: December 6, 2002

GSG Home | Contact Us | UMD | Search

Graduate Student Government - 22nd Assembly November 1, 2002 1:20p.m.-3:30p.m. Multipurpose Room, Nyumburu Cultural Center Minutes

Attendance:

Proceedings

Graduate Student Government - 22nd Assembly
November 1, 2002
1:20p.m.-3:30p.m.
Multipurpose Room, Nyumburu Cultural Center
Minutes