[an error occurred while processing this directive]

COUNCIL OF GRADUATE STUDENTS

FIRST SPRING QUARTER MEETING

April 7, 2000 3:30 - 5:15 p.m.

University Hall 014

OFFICERS and EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS: President Ron Meyers, Vice President Jenny Pommiss, Treasurer Briggs Cormier, Secretary Christine Parker, Legislative Affairs Chair Andrew Holbrook, Compensation & Benefits Chair Melanie Cruz, Outreach Chair John Soloninka.

VOTING DELEGATES:Brian Rivera, Alyson Young, Dana Oswald, Amanda Callison, Jen Whetstone, Stanley Radzevicious, Lucy Bailey, Anil Challa, Carmie Gade, Alecia Naugle, Kelly Bradley, Kristina Secnik, Michael Daniels, Jill Coleman, David May, Art Bollman, Kim Foster, Jennifer Stoots, Lisa Morrison, Karlyn Geis, Kevin Weakley, Melissa Carpenter, Dave Carlisle, John Shea, Phil Huckelberry, Cheryl Hindrichs, Vicki Watts, Elizabeth Blake, Carrie Lamanna, Homero Cantu. (32)

NON-VOTING DELEGATES, COMMITTEE REPS, SENATORS, RGC REPS and GUESTS: Kelli Douglas (Lantern), Zena Srivatsa, Kathryn Corl, Teri Ryan, Divakar Guswami, Carol Anderson, Randall Riley.

Guest speakers:

Ruth Holt, Weinland Park Community Collaborative

"Campus Revitalization - A Community View"

Ms. Holt spoke about the effects that the campus revitalization project has been having in the Weinland Park area. The Weinland Park neighborhood is bounded by High St., the Conrail tracks, 5th Ave. and Chittenden. The neighborhood is divided by Third (Summit) and Fourth Avenues on the east side of High Street. West of Third Avenue is student housing, while east of Fourth Avenue are low-income rentals. Presently, this area consists of 80% rental properties, of which 70% are designated as Section 8 (the largest percentage in the city). The Section 8 contracts are coming up for renewal, and those in the community fear that these contracts will not be renewed. In an attempt to improve their neighborhood, the Collaborative has sent a proposal to HUD for grant support to support this endeavor. But in the meantime, developers are coming into the neighborhood in large numbers, buying properties, renovating them and selling them for significant profit. The Collaborative wants to retain the diversity that exists within the neighborhood, decrease crime, and generally clean up the area, while simultaneously keeping the neighborhood inexpensive enough that poorer people don't have to leave. According to Ms. Holt, Campus Partners is looking to purchase properties in this area and to convert them into student housing. From the Collaborative's point of view, they are ambivalent about who rents there, since their main concern is increasing home ownership by converting rental properties into single-family homes, a process which is quite difficult under any circumstances. WHAT CAN STUDENTS DO? Take a stance and understand the ramifications of policy changes on the permanent residents of this unique area of Columbus.

Dean's Council on Technology, Student Technology Advisory Committee

"Proposed Student Technology Fee"

Dean Randall Riley.1, Chair, Dean's Committee on Technology and Carol Anderson.32, who also serves on the Committee spoke about the Proposed Student Technology Fee, clarifying some of issues involved. According to the proposal, 80% of the fees students pay would go directly to the department in which a student is enrolled, and the remaining 20% would be allocated to a central pool of funds earmarked for university-wide technological needs. Departments would pay the fee for their GAs. Business, engineering students would not be required to pay additional fees beyond those they already pay. However, these departments have agreed to send $10 per student to the central pool. What would be allocated to departments depends on head count of students.

Q: What about departments with different technology needs? The Committee recognizes that different departments have different needs, but the Board of Trustees are not ready to advocate for differentiated fees at the moment. The present proposal is considered an addition to technology fee structures already in place. This issue of departmental allotment of funds also relates to the new way that the University budget will be structured in the future; essentially, more money will go back to the departments than is currently the case. The new recommendations contain more detail about allotment, details which reflect and respond to the comments on the earlier version which appeared Autumn Quarter. Drs. Riley and Anderson recommend that departments hold meetings with their faculty and students in order to determine the specific needs of the department. President Meyers expresses concern that this is a recommendation and not a requirement. The Council has received significant feedback on the fee. There is much concern over the new fee, and whether or not it will be spent to improve student access to technology. The Council has asked that departments be required to have some type of student input into how the fees will be used and to review how any new fees are allocated. In response Dr. Anderson points out that it is not really a new fee since it already exists in some colleges.

Delegate Brian Rivera notes that the College of Engineering has oversight committees with student representatives to meet all needs of engineering students and that the committee is very successful in his opinion.

Q: Does this fee cover the costs of any technological equipment, or just communications technology? Any technology that is deemed necessary by a department can be paid for with monies from this fund.

Q: Will information about how funds are spent be public knowledge? Yes, all will be held accountable.

Q: Does this plan preclude a department from setting up their own fees? Yes.

Q: If the new fee is covered by GA waiver, will departments be able to decrease stipends proportionately? No. We recommend that fellows' fees be covered, too, so that they are not at a financial disadvantage in relation to GAs.

Q: Can this money be used to hire technological specialists? Yes.

Q: Where will the money come from to help departments pay the fees for GAs? There are two budgets: one for regular, annual expenses and a second, fluctuating fund that can be used to cover any expenses that could not be foreseen beforehand. When necessary, the colleges and departments would have to negotiate for the extra monies. In other words, departments would not have to cut programs in order to cover the extra fee waivers.

On Tuesday April 11, 2000 there will be another forum about the Student Technology Fee. Also, please contact STAC at stac@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu with any comments or concerns.

Meeting opened at 4:20 p.m.

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of CGS general meeting of March 3, 2000. Moved by Delegate Bollman, seconded by Delegate Holbrook. All in favor, no abstentions. Motion passes.

II. OFFICER REPORTS

A. President - President Meyers reports that CGS has received an unprecedented amount of positive press recently through working with both the Lantern and the Dispatch. The transition of the office of CGS Vice President and exit of our office manager has been difficult. In particular, the Office of Student Activities' support for the CGS office staff has been under discussion. Since Lisa Perry's resignation in March, CGS has been in discussion with OSA over how to best provide office support. OSA has offered to provide a Graduate Associate, a permanent staff person plus student assistants. The Executive has considered this at length, and feels that this would not be the best plan for graduate students and CGS; the CGS office requires more continuous, long-term support than that offered by OSA. CGS would prefer to have the position previously held by Ms. Perry replaced with someone who will report to us rather than to OSA. Another meeting is scheduled Monday for further discussions regarding this issue. President Meyers also discussed the activities of the Buckeyes Watch, a program initiated by President Meyers in collaboration with many groups in response to campus area crime.

B. Vice President - Vice President Pommiss presented the most recent status of preparations for the Hayes Research Forum, which will be taking place on Saturday April 15 from 7:30 a.m to 1:00 p.m. at McPherson Laboratory. An awards luncheon will be held at the Faculty Club from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Provost Ed Ray will be the keynote speaker. Interim Vice President for Research Dr. Keith Alley and Dean Susan Huntington will also speak. Vice President Pommiss reports that the Forum Committee is still in the process of recruiting judges, and that there is still a need for help (moderators, timekeepers, etc.) for the day. The Vice President also notes the following CGS committee openings:

as well as the following University-wide committee openings:

C. Treasurer - Treasurer Cormier presented the newest revised budget and reports that President Meyers has raised substantial funds for CGS. Motion to approve the revised budget moved by Delegate Watts, seconded by Delegate Rivera. One abstention, all in favor. Motion passes.

D. Secretary - Secretary Parker asks that delegates please return the Information Update sheets that were mailed to all delegates last week. Because of the turnover in the CGS office, delegate records are incomplete, particularly in regards to committee assignments.

III. COMMITTEE REPORTS

A. Graduate Research Forum - see Vice President's report

B. Professional Development Fund - Chair Brian Rivera reminds the delegates that completed PDF applications for the Spring competition are due Friday April 14, 2000 by 5:00 p.m. Incomplete applications will not be considered or else will be given very low priority. The PDF program will continue through Summer Quarter 2000 thanks to the receipt of funds left over from last year's CGS budget. Mr. Rivera notes that the best prospect for future funding for PDF is the Coke Contract, which could provide seed money for an endowment fund. If the PDF committee is successful in acquiring such monies, it is possible that it would no longer be required to request new funds annually.

C. Diversity - no report today.

D. Compensation and Benefits - Chair Melanie Cruz reports that the Health Insurance Forum took place March 30th in the Ohio Union lounge with approximately 50 people in attendance. Comments from the forum were taken to the committee meeting the following day. Ms. Cruz awaits a formal report from the Health Insurance Committee about which company has received the contract. Even after the contract has been assigned, negotiations will continue regarding benefits and payment plans. Any comments that delegates may have on these issues may still be forwarded to the Committee for consideration.

E. Outreach - John Soloninka reports that CGS has worked with USG and IPD to use student set aside monies to establish a $35,000 fund, the University District Student Involvement Fund, to improve the campus area. Specifically, such funds are to be awarded to student-led initiatives, to fund programs of their choice. A committee of five students (three graduate students and two undergraduate students) determines who should get the funds. They have reviewed two rounds of applications, and as of today have given out approximately $27,000. CGS has had two projects funded through this fund. The committee will soon meet again to allot the last of the funds.

IV. OLD BUSINESS

CGS Comments on University Budget - In response to a question from the floor concerning the budget process, President Meyers offers a very brief description of the budget process. This past January, Executive Vice President of Finance Ed Ray and the President develop procedures for determining the budget. They then sent these to the Vice Presidents with instructions for drafting budget proposals. The deadline for submission of these proposals was most likely mid-March. The proposals are considered by the administration, who consults with many before recommending allocations. The administration's draft proposal is reviewed by the Senate before being sent to the Board of Trustees in May or June for voting. CGS is not consulted in this process, though we are sent notification at some point asking for our opinion. This tends to occur too late for our comments and concerns to have any significant effect on the process. The undergraduate student government is in a better position to affect change because it has significant input into how approximately $1 million in student set-aside funds is spent. President Meyers has been working with Vice President Ray to get CGS more involved in the process. In the meantime, President Meyers reminds the delegates that we still have a say in budgetary matters through CGS representation in university committees.

V. NEW BUSINESS

Delegate Soloninka moves for a non-binding vote in regards to the proposed student technology fee. The motion is seconded by Delegate Bollman.

Q: Is this a sneaky way for the University to get around the 6% cap on tuition increases? From monies gained from a 4% increase, 1/2% would go to student programs. In the case the increase is 5-6%, 1% would go to student programs. The tuition increase plus the technology fee would total about 8%. As a result, a number of committees and boards would have to vote to pass it, including the Board of Regents and the Legislature.

Q: Why is this not a part of tuition? OSU does not get the same kind of funding for technology that other institutions do. It is necessary to raise it in another way.

Q: What about the fee level for part-time students? There has been some misinformation sent around on this issue. Part-time students would pay a smaller fee determined by a sliding scale, which would depend on the number of credits enrolled.

Q: Is there a source we can go to for more information on the technology fee? The STAC web site has general information available at: www.osu.education/units/stac

Delegate Carpenter calls the question. Vote: 8 for, 9 against, 7 abstaining.

VOTE: On a resolution to support a change in Senate rules that would include student representation in those committees that deal with student issues. Moved by Delegate Holbrook on behalf of Executive Committee, with slight amendment: he suggests adding the word "University" before the word "President" to the 8th WHEREAS. Delegate Huckelberry suggests the apostrophes in the 5th WHEREAS to be stricken. Motion seconded by Delegate Rivera. Delegate Holbrook calls the question, seconded by Delegate Bollman. Motion passes unanimously with no abstentions.

CGS ANNUAL ELECTIONS: Delegate Brian Rivera runs the nomination procedure. Nominations for each office were received in the CGS office prior to the deadline. No nominations from the floor are heard. The nominee for Secretary is Christine Parker, for Treasurer is Briggs Cormier, for Vice President is Jenny Pommiss, for President is Ron Meyers. Delegate Huckelberry moves, Delegate Holbrook seconds motion to close nominations for the May 5th elections.

VI. DELEGATE ISSUES AND CONCERNS

VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Next meeting: Friday, May 5, 2000, University Hall 014: Elections.

Center for the Study & Teaching of Writing has Graduate Associate Positions for 2000-2001. Applications are due April 21, 2000.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

In the absence of quorum, meeting ends at 5:50 p.m.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]