GSA Council Meeting Minutes from
Attendance
Officers: Kai Pommerenke (President); Lisa Downward (Internal Vice President); Ian Dobbs-Dixon (External Vice President); Meredith Armstrong (Treasurer)
Department Reps: Amy Dexter (Phych); Carmen McDonald; Gerardo Palafox (Edu); Ignacio Solis (CE); Jesse Kirchner (Ling); Nathan Whitehead (CS); Nick Konidaris (Astro); Sara Bothwell (Envs); Sheila Willey (Music); Sina Farsiu (EE); Marina Sarran (Soc); Abhijit Sen Gupta (Econ); Berra Yazar (MCD Bio); Brian Gerstenberger (Chem); Brooke Crowley (Earth Sci); Luke Winstrom (Physics)
Others: Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (Astro); Dave Machledt (Anthro); Nicole Hidalgo (Edu); Takeshi Kaneko; Mitch Deacon; Marty Tysunner (physics); Yu Jiang (physics); Sabrina Sanchez (History);
Minutes from
Agenda approved with the following additions:
- Outdoor trips added to new business by Dave
- Parking update from TA Union added to announcements by Chanda
Announcements
Student Regent
– Cindi Edinger, the Student Regent Recruitment Coordinator gave a short
presentation on the different steps in the application process. There are two sets of workshops coming up to
help students prepare their applications.
The first of which is an orientation scheduled for Wed. Jan 12 at
10am-11:30am in the Bay Tree building, Conference Room C (3rd
Floor), followed by an application review workshop on Fri. Jan 21 at 3pm-4:30pm
in Conference Room A. The next set is
Tues. Feb 1 from 10am-11:30am in Conference Room C for the orientation and Mon.
Feb 7 from 11am-12:30pm in Conference Room A.
APPLICATIONS DUE FEB 24. For more details, visit the
Also, Meet
the Student Regents event is on Thurs. Jan 27th at
Parking Update
from
Also, union renegotiation of the contract is beginning this weekend for the 2006 contract. Chanda intends to advocate for GSHIP changes in union contract. Contact her or Luke if there are specific coverages you would like included.
New Department Reps
We approved the following new department reps and changes: Shiela Willey (Music); Ignacio Solis (CE); Luke Winstrom (Physics); and Nicole Hidalgo (Edu-alternate)
New Business
Outdoor trips – Dave offered to organize a few outdoor trips. Potential trips include a day hike, wine tasting, mushroom foraging and surfing classes, but he can’t do all, so asked for preference. There was overwhelming support for mushroom foraging. Meredith stated that there is $1600 available to subsidize the cost. A debate began about whether or not to allow non-student spouses/significant others to attend. Sina said no unless the spouse pays full price, we don’t want to spend money on non-students. Dave pointed out that several students in the past have wanted to go only if they could bring their spouses. Kai had a suggestion that we give priority to students. Let students sign up first, and if there is still space available after 4 days, spouses and significant others could sign up. Amy made a motion to accept that policy. 16 were in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention. The motion passed.
Survey results – Kai announced the survey results. We had 159 responses, about 10% of grads and nearly twice as many as the grad division survey.
Survey summary: Top 4 services important to grad students: (1) Career and fellowship database; (2) Fellowship or grant writing workshop; (3) Job fair; (4-tied) Dissertation writing workshop; (4-tied) Advising. About 50% of students were in favor of renaming the Division of Grad Students to Grad College, but only 20% said they would use their services more. The importance of having a professional ombudsman ranked 1.8 (out of 3), but only 27% of respondents said it was worth cutting services to hire such a person. 40% said they would live in a grad college if the rent was set at 47% of the TA salary. The most important feature wanted in a grad college was affordable housing, with a café as a distant second, then lounge and child care center tied for third. Almost 30% of respondents (47 out of 159) said they didn’t want any physical features at all.
Kai concluded that there is no mandate for a physical grad college. Ian, Marina, and Lisa questioned where that conclusion came from. Kai said that people only want housing. Ian said that even though affordable housing is the #1 priority, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t also want a grad college. They only want it, if it includes affordable housing. Sara asked if these results are being passed onto the Grad Dean’s office and LRDP and was wondering if these results would influence that. Kai said yes the results are being passed on. Lisa added that it might night not affect the LRDP, though, since that is mainly concerned with land use. They are setting aside land for grad housing, but not necessarily specifying what that includes. Brooke asked why move grad housing from its current location. Kai answered that the number of grad students is increasing and they will soon outgrow that location. Ian suggested that we pass this info on to our various committees, also. Kai added that the housing committee might be able to use this info to negotiate lower rents in the current grad housing complex. That sparked a discussion about why rents cannot be lowered. Kai suggested that we organize and informational meeting and invite Jean-Marie Scott to give a presentation on housing. About 10 people indicated they were interested in hearing such a presentation. Abhijit added that one needs to consider the “extras” included in the rent, such as utilities and DSL. Meredith added that it does not include any parking discount if you have a car. Lisa suggested that Chanda try to get something about grad housing rents in the Union contract. Chanda responded that with 1600 grad students and only 540 TAs (about 1/3) covered by the contract it would be difficult to argue for such a benefit. First, need to work on getting GSRs included in the contract.
Committee Reports
Committee on Teaching – Berra – The main event for the teaching symposium (tentatively scheduled for Feb 17th) will be a panel discussion on methods to engage students and the use of technology in the classroom. They may need volunteers to sit on the panel. If you’ve used technology as a TA or have been in a class where technology was used and would like to sit on the panel, contact Berra.
GSR protection
– Chanda – Some have been concerned that if GSRs are included in the TA union
they might lose the ability to negotiate a salary with their advisors. Chanda stated that this in not an issue
because it can be added to the contract that GSRs can negotiate.
GSHIP– Allison – The GSHIP committee –thanks to Sara who did the actual writing- sent an email out to all graduate students to remind them of a few key aspects of the GSHIP coverage and to solicit their opinions on how the coverage is currently working. The committee is in the process of compiling those results.
The GSHIP committee corresponded with Les Elkind about GSHIP coverage, particularly the actual cost of a urinary infection.
The GSHIP committee tried to email the undergrads about who their health care rep is, but no luck yet.
TAPS – Brian – TAPS needs to find a new source of money. They have proposed the $2 night-time parking fee as a way to raise money. Brian stated that TAPS is seeking input from the campus through a survey that will only be sent to anyone who has ever purchased a parking permit. Though others can contact TAPS and request to take the survey. There was overwhelming support for encouraging ALL grad students to take the survey whether they drive to campus or not. On another note, summer bus passes have not been discussed yet, probably at the next meeting.
TAPS –Susi– December 2004 TAC Meeting Report (extended parking enforcement discussion only)
Recall that transportation staff want
to extend evening parking enforcement until
(note that the implementation date is wrong on this webpage). The proposal is being tweaked after negative reviews from grads, faculty, and undergrads. Modifications to the proposal are currently being made, and we should see a new version soon with an implementation date of next Fall. Transportation staff want grad input on how the proposal can be improved. Our strategy until now has been to reject the plan altogether. Susi has given input already on some aspects of the plan that are bad for grads. Susi also suggested that the distinction between A and B permits be dissolved regardless of the evening parking situation. Susi thinks that we may want to discuss if there are any "improvements" to the plan that we would like to see.
Here Susi’s summary of what went on at the meeting in December: Larry Paegler made a
presentation on the evening parking debate and he clarified that three reasons, previously
used to justify evening parking permits, are no longer valid.
1) Parking shortage? There is ample parking in the evening, although not necessarily in the prime spots.
2) Traffic rush at
3) Alleviate complaints from neighborhoods? We have no evidence that evening parking permits will improve or worsen the problem of students parking in Westside neighborhoods.
TAPS is now arguing the evening parking permits purely on the basis of "equity." They want to be fair to those people who paid for a parking permits by making everyone pay for evening parking. It's also new revenue for TAPS.
Some Evidence:
People without a permit do park on campus in the evening. According to a survey TAPS did, 50% of evening spaces in the core appear to be occupied by cars with no permit.
Timeframe
It looks like they are now looking for implementation in the Fall of 2005, but there is still a possibility of Spring implementation. Until then, they want to sell, sell, sell the idea of evening parking. Wes Scott specifically praised the undergrads four times for offering ideas to improve the plan (compromise), and he wishes the grads would do the same. TAPS is considering a survey, especially of people who bought their parking permits online, regarding evening enforcement. The wording of this survey is crucial so as not to bias people one way or the other. TAPS prefers to only survey the "stakeholders:" people who bought a permit online (and for which they have email addresses).
Susi’s Favorite Input
One of the undergrads wanted to know how long the "free" evening parking in the remote lots would last. Given that OPERs plans to put in a giant facility (if students in the Spring approve the enormous increase in fees in order to pay for it). If this massive events facility goes in, Wes admits that parking would no longer be free there. So where are we headed? No more free parking.
Travel Grants – Lisa – Very few applications were received in Fall, only 13 applications, totaling $3173.06, a little more than half what was budgeted for. Meredith suggested that the department reps inform their departments about the travel grants as most students do not know about them.
Social Committee – Nacho – Social committee wants to plan a party for winter quarter. Last year, we had a Valentine’s party. Meredith said that there isn’t a line item for a winter quarter party, but there is money in other places in the budget. This discussion was tabled until the next meeting, to give Meredith more time to reconcile the budget and the expenses. Chanda reminded us that the GSCGB has money to contribute for events held in grad commons. Also, another game night is being planned.
Tax Seminar – Nacho – Nacho reminded us that it’s tax time again. Nick is going to schedule the tax seminars. We’re aiming for 2 seminars, plus 1 dedicated to international students.
Title IX –
Officer Reports
Pres – Kai is
part of a “Chancellor Transition Team” for the new Dean Denice Denton who is
scheduled to take over in Feb.
EVP – Ian
reminded us that the Student Regents are visiting on Jan. 27th. It is a great opportunity to tell them about
UCSC. Come meet them at
Meeting
adjourned at