[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Council of Graduate Students - Minutes - 8 March 2002

In attendance were:

Absences:

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:38pm, Eve Scrogham, Vice President, presiding.

II. Approval of minutes

A motion to approve the minutes from January 18, 2002, was made by Executive Lowe and seconded by Delegate Knott. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

III. Committee Reports

Governance Chair Allyson Lowe mentioned that every member of the graduate faculty and every graduate student should have received a copy of the short GQUE report by now. As these reports were sent in bulk to each department, the possibility exists that some students might not have received their copies yet. She asked if anyone in attendance had not had GQUE copies distributed in their department; Chemical Physics, Sociology, Education - PAES, Germanic Languages and Literature, English, Women's Studies, Electrical Engineering, and Soil Science all reported that they had not seen copies.

International Student Concerns Chair Marie Kendall reported that the recent international student concerns focus groups were successful -- 36 students attended, compared to a projected 20. They are planning for a May 14 symposium. Fliers on tax help for international students are also available from the CGS office.

Hayes Research Forum Chair Eve Scrogham mentioned that presenters have been selected for the April 20 forum. Volunteers are still needed for the day of the forum. In particular, timers are needed; every effort will be made to match volunteers with their area of interest. The forum will take place in the basement of University Hall; volunteers should show up between 7-7:30am and will be invited to the luncheon.

IV. Officer reports

President J. Briggs Cormier was not in attendance.

Vice President Eve Scrogham mentioned that Cop-Ez is now allowing funds to be transferred from old Cop-Ez cards onto BuckIDs. Students must take their BuckID and another form of ID to the Cop-Ez desk in the main library; the transfer will take 24-36 hours to go into effect.

CGS is still in the process of gathering feedback on which vendors people would like to see on the ground floor of the new housing project. Please email the CGS president with your suggestions.

Spring quarter CGS meetings will be held in the second floor main lounge of the Ohio Union.

Because of an earlier resolution passed by council, there will be no food provided at the next CGS meeting.

Fliers were available at the back of the room asking graduate students to check the "student government contribution" box when they register. Delegates are asked to hang these fliers in their departments.

Secretary Mike Daniels had no report.

Treasurer Ed Lasseigne had no report.

V. New Business

Delegate Carlino introduced a resolution (0102-WI-021) concerning the Souder amendment; it was seconded by Delegate Lewis.

Carlino explained that the Souder amendment prevents people convicted of a drug offence who have not undergone court-approved rehabilitation from receiving federal financial aid.

Delegate Oelgoetz asked why this is relevant to CGS. He observed that the resolution appears to make several legal claims (related to double jeopardy and the fifth amendment), and that CGS should not be in the business of asking non-lawyers to affirm legal facts. He also pointed out that applying for federal aid is a voluntary process; similar questions about drug use and convictions apply when one applies to work for a federal research laboratory like Los Alamos. Similarly, double publishment situations arise in other circumstances: in many states, felons can't vote or own guns. Sex offender notification laws (like Megan's Law) also create a punishment that extends beyond the jail term.

Delegate Carlino responded by saying that background checks are an issue of national security; federal financial aid isn't. As long as a set of things is part of the same judge-issued sentence, that's not double punishment -- this isn't the same thing. Carlino also mentioned that this already passed USG.

Parliamentarian Hodak mentioned that the ex post facto/fifth amendment issues are indeed legal issues. Someone who felt uncomfortable with those clauses could make a motion to strike them, whereupon the resolution would be targeting the policy rather than the legality of the matter.

Delegate Oelgoetz so moved; Delegate Nelson seconded. The amendment was taken as friendly.

Delegate Stone mentioned that previous drug use doesn't actually disqualify someone from government employment -- the Souder amendment is the only place that singles this out.

Delegate Nelson pointed out a second issue: denying previous drug offenders better access to education is actually contrary to the societal goal of rehabilitating criminals; we should be allowing and encouraging these people to better their lives. He proposed that a paragraph affirming this be added to the resolution; after some general discussion on wording, the additional clause was taken as a friendly amendment.

The resolution passed by voice vote.

VI. Elections

After a brief introduction by VP Scrogham, Tyler Snouffer was elected Senator from the Administrative Sciences.

VII. Delegate Issues and Concerns

Delegate Lewis mentioned that there's a proposal to introduce a hard waiver requirement for student health insurance. In essence, every graduate student would be required to either purchase student health insurance or prove they were otherwise insured. This would lower the premium and help us offer a basic package. People have been asking for a cheaper health insurance plan for some time now, and it seems likely that we would only get it by accepting such a provisions. Parliamentarian Hodak mentioned that coverage on a spouse's plan would still count. VP Scrogham mentioned that this idea arose from student health insurance focus groups and would only affect 5% of graduate students. Delegate Foo Kune mentioned that this already applies to international students.

Delegate Oelgoetz asked if self-insurance would be an option? Hodak replied that the kinds of people who could afford to be self-insured tend to buy private, high-cost plans.

Delegate Stone asked this couldn't simply be built into the university fee structure -- would the marginals be that high? Hodak replied that accounting and financial aid reasons make this difficult; as does the possibility of future subsidization.

The delegates were asked for feedback on the issue.

Delegate Lynn asked how much would this help us -- i.e. how cheaper might the resulting premiums be? No one was able to answer the question.

Delegate Eaton asked why people should be losing the right to decide what's in their own best interest? For instance, there will be some students for whom the money can be better spent on food.

Parliamentarian Hodak mentioned that prospective students would simply have to factor this into their decision.

Chair Lowe mentioned that decisions will be made in the next six weeks, not tomorrow, so delegates should email their concerns to our committee reps.

Discussion then turned to the public employees retirement system, which all GAs may sign up for.

Chair Lowe asked if any graduate students had been told about the system when they came to OSU. Has anyone seen the benefits handbook? Delegate Bailey responded that in Vision Science the information is not available from the department, but students tell each other. She had asked to be enrolled, but never was.

Delegate Eaton had also never heard of the plan, but money is being taken out of her stipend for the retirement fund. Chair Lowe mentioned that the option exists for people to retroactively opt out. Chair Lewis mentioned that the same thing had happened to him. Dean Siddens mentioned that people who do so should make sure they do not intend to retire in Ohio.

Delegate Carlino pointed out that if you leave the system, they withhold 20%. Delegate Foster asked if a student isn't informed about the plan, shouldn't the university should be responsible for the difference? She also asked if the benefits handbook is for GTAs only, and why exempt status is so hard to change. Delegate Glowacki pointed out that she had been in the system for twenty years; at another university, there was an explicit accept or decline choice. Dean Siddens noted that departments don't want the liability; one could otherwise force them to pay in thirty years later.

Delegate Nelson pointed out that in Physics, no mention is made of the program. Delegate Lindberg mentioned that in Dance everyone got the handbook, along with a waiver sheet they had to sign. Delegate Oelgoetz reported that in Chemistry, the waiver form was included with the OSHA paperwork. VP Scrogham mentioned that CGS will try to include information about this in next year's orientation.

Discussion of other issues followed.

Delegate Meadows, who sits on COPE, reported that that committee is worried about the litter problem. He asked if GTAs could ask their students not to litter the classrooms.

Chair Bossard mentioned that people may be being contacted about the 2002 class gift -- this is legitimate, and it is safe to contribute over the phone.

VP Scrogham reminded delegates of last meeting's discussion on budget changes and asked if anyone had more stories. Delegate Foo Kune asked what the result was of President Cormier's meeting with the Provost? Secretary Daniels replied that the Provost had asked CGS to collect specific examples and let him know about them.

VP Scrogham mentioned that officer nominations will open at the next meeting; the Vice President and President positions include a stipend. Anyone having questions about the election process should contact Eve.

Also, part of restructuring is that departments will pay for tuition waivers. Scrogham asked how many people would be willing to switch their residency to help their department. Delegate Rivera mentioned that the process is very difficult; there were issues with the DMV, and a foreign six-week visit excluded her. Parliamentarian Hodak mentioned that she knew someone who paid Ohio income tax for ten years, but was still considered an out-of-state student. The initial determination is based solely on your application address; part of the Registrar's office is an Office of Residency. Delegate Scheiderer mentioned that the Registrar's appeal board faces a complex maze of regulations when dealing with these cases.

VIII. Guest Presentation

Council then got the chance to speak with Ed Ray, Executive Vice President and Provost.

His remarks:

Last October, OSU received a six percent budget-cut mandate from the state. The provost asked each college and support unit to propose how they would implement the cut, and a committee was formed to recommend similar cuts in central investments. These proposals totaled $20 million in cuts. The administration also wants to give people a raise 1.5% over the average raise for similar positions at comparable institutions: this is on average a 4.467% increase. The administration is working on guidelines for units in implementing these cuts; they expect to say that competiveness should also apply to graduate associate (GRA, GAA, GTA) stipends.

Graduate and professional tuition will by default be raised by five percent, as is standard. Any units wishing exceptions to that (probably Business, Law, and maybe Medicine) must be approved by the Board (in May or June). The presumption is that students will be consulted by units wanting higher increases.

Higher education is thirteen precent of the state budget, yet it was tasked with fifty-four percent of the budget cuts. The increase in undergraduate tuition will generate between $4.5 and $5 million. That leaves $15 million to be found somewhere, and this will have real consequences in terms of positions for faculty, staff, and students. In general terms there are eight colleges that want to eliminate GA positions. But this is slightly misleading. Right now, there are no guidelines on changes to operational funds like there are for personnel. So some units put all of the loose money in a budget line called Specials. This can be used to fund grad students. Then a cut in Specials gets phrased as a cut in GA positions, even though that money might not be going to a graduate student right now. In total, seventy of the 4,643 current GA, GRA, GTA positions are proposed to be cut. It is not clear, though, how many of those seventy positions are actually filled right now. (Of staff, for instance, 240 positions are proposed to be eliminated, but only fifty people will actually be displaced.) For graduate students, no continuing student who would ordinarily get money should lose their assistantship: this is the administration's goal. So there might be tighter competition for positions, and new students might find it harder to get an appointment.

On health benefits: the administration was quite surprised to find OSU so low relative to other universities. The schedule of partial subsidization of health insurance announced last year will continue as planned ($30/month in 02-03, and then $50/month in 03-04). We might have to slow down our approach to the goal of 50% subsidy.

On PEGS: while it is true that PEGS was recommended to be eliminated, it should be kept in mind that third-year funding for existing PEGS-sponsored programs will still be funded, and that central commitments will have to be considered next year; PEGS will still be on the table then. In this way it is similar to the suspensions of Selective Investiment and Academic Enrichment. But right now, it has to be characterized as a necessary sacrifice.

On Cop-Ez: after CGS had contacted him on this issue, he spoke to Vice President for Finance Bill Shkurti; old Cop-Ez balances may now be transferred. He agrees that this was an absurd situation.

On fee authorizations: all current fee authorizations will still be there next year - departments can't steal from them without the provost's approval. As mentioned before, 4,643 assistantships will be going to 4,573. Two colleges are providing most of those seventy cuts; they are going to have to re-defend those decisions. So the final number of eliminated positions will probably be less than seventy.

On domestic partner benefits: the issue of diversity came up in a recent dean search; with this issue, our public policy doesn't reflect the value we place on diversity (unlike other minority issues). The President and Provost appreciate that CGS keeps passing resolutions in support of domestic partner benefits.

Questions:

Why was Taft so upset about tuition increases (re-proposing tuition caps) when he was the one who approved the budget? Price controls have never made any sense, but they're popular in an election year. So this was ultimately a political deal. But I think the governor does really understand the importance of higher education in his heart. Forty percent of the state budget couldn't even be considered for cutting, based on the De Rolfe case. So we'll see what happens in the next biennium. Interestingly enough, in 1987, the ratio of state instructional support to tuition was 2 to 1, now it's less than 1 to 1. But we don't even know what's going to happen with De Rolfe. The court could order another $1.2 billion be diverted to primary and secondary education. So it's likely that the legislature will raise taxes and cut other things to scare voters (us, prisons, etc.) into accepting a tax increase.

What about threat from State on reducing funds if we fund domestic partners? Over the last ten years, we moved from a situation where we would never have gotten the votes on the Board (regardless of state law). Now, it's not clear what people would do without the threat of legislative retaliation. I personally think the board will soon be trying to argue to the state legislature that this is bad for business. So soon, our trustees may become quiet advocates for this.

With any renogotiation of PEGS, there will be some downtime, right? The problem is that it takes so long to find out what the budget is actually going to be -- the initial announcement is in January, the House votes in March, the Senate in April or May, and a final vote happens by June. So we can only guess during those first few months. Effective planning is thus based on our ability to predict the state's behavior. It would be wonderful if we didn't have a down year, but there's really no way we could avoid it -- it would be based solely on finding spare money within the Provost's budget.

Does state law prohibit DP benefits? State law doesn't actively prohibit it, but nor do they recognize it. So the Trustees have traditionally wanted to wait until the state recognizes domestic partners (as that guarantees that there won't be any retaliation). Here, business is ahead of public policy -- they were aware that a lack of domestic partner benefits was bad for business a long time ago. So it makes sense for our board to start pushing this -- many of their own companies offer these benefits.

What's the deal with the decentralization of tuition waivers? What we're doing is as if we've given them the money for tuition waivers, and then making them pay for those waivers. The added constraint is that units can't use that money for non-GA things: they have to explicitly request deviating procedures. And we will still be monitoring this.

What are the two colleges that want to reduce GAs? I'd rather not say, since I'm first asking them to not do that.

Are there good resources that explain the university's budget in some overview? Yes, Lee Walker makes such a report, and when the Board approves the budget, we release that. What you've been hearing about is discussion of proposals, not the actual budget. What used to be called the red book is available.

In closing, I want to say thank you for all you do -- the Research Forum, Buckeye-thon, and so on. My instution didn't separate undergraduate and graduate government, and so it's good to see people who care about other students' welfare.

IX. Announcements

Parliamentarian Hodak mentioned that fliers advertising the OSU legislative intern program (if you know someone graduating) are available from the CGS office.

X. Adjournment

A motion to adjourn was moved by delegate Knott and seconded by delegate Carlino; it passed by unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 5:29 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Daniels
CGS Secretary
Warning: Unknown(): Unable to access 3;/usr/local/webs/SESSION/cgs in Unknown on line 0
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


Warning: Unknown(): Unable to access 3;/usr/local/webs/SESSION/cgs in Unknown on line 0