[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Minutes - 7 March 2003

In attendence were:

Absences:

I. Call to order

Vice President Kerry Hodak called the meeting to order at 3:30 pm.

Delegate Clark made a motion to approve the agenda for the meeting, and delegate Pirone seconded this motion. Chairperson and Vice President Hodak ruled this motion out of order on the grounds that the meeting agenda did not need to be approved by the delegates, since the Council’s bylaws state that the Executive Committee approves the agenda. Delegate Pirone made a motion to appeal the ruling of the Chairperson, commenting that he believed Delegate Clark's intention was to offer amendments to the agenda, and that those amendments should be considered by the Council. Delegate Clark seconded the motion to appeal the ruling. Discussion of the motion to appeal followed, and the motion failed. Therefore, the Chairperson's ruling stood, and Delegate Clark's original motion to approve the agenda for the meeting was held to be out of order.

II. Guest Speakers

Ed Ray, University Provost (ray.1@osu.edu)

Provost Ray spoke before the Council to address student concerns and endorse the funding he has committed to CGS.

After his comments, the Provost fielded questions from the Council. Legislative Affairs Committee Chairman, Mike Triplett, asked what actions were being taken by the University to balance higher education budget cuts made by the state. The Provost replied, explaining that the last annual report from Central Budgets and Administration requested that each academic unit prepare to make cuts up to 4% in order to meet unanticipated state budget cuts. Further, he added, that the University has asked the state to specify what cuts will be made in order to better support needy academic units. Delegate Pepper asked whether GA stipends or positions would be reduced. The Provost responded, saying that no definitive decisions have been made, and that all measures will be investigated in order to avoid eliminating GA positions or reducing stipends. Provost Ray also assured the Council that no programs have been entirely removed and offered that the deans of each college were given the opportunity to decide wher

Kara Marshall, Graduate-Professional Student, Campus Partners Board of Trustees (marhsall.250@osu.edu)

Marshall explained that she is the representative for graduate and professional students to the Campus Partners project. Marshall summarized the Campus Partners’ progress, explaining the Jones-Lang-LaSalle had been chosen as the developer for the project. Marshall added that by the spring, architecture designs should be completed. The project, Marshall shared, will have a large emphasis on entertainment uses and retail offices. Marshall welcomed feedback on project students and offered her e-mail as a means of communication (see above) and added that all students are welcome to attend Campus Partners’ meetings. Marshall explained that the project should be completed by August 1, 2005. Marshall then took questions from the Council. Delegate Stone asked about approximate housing/rental costs. Marshall responded, offering that rental prices will be greater than average campus costs. There is no clear price range, but Marshall offered to recover this information.

III. Approval of Minutes

Delegate Pirone made a motion to amend the Council agenda and have old business follow officer reports so that the GESO representative might speak. Delegate Clark seconded the motion to have old business follow officer reports and asserted that during the February 14th Council meeting, he was the person responsible for seconding the motion to invite the GESO representative to speak directly after the guest speaker, and the minutes did not reflect this in the wording. The motion to amend the Council agenda failed. Delegate Clark made a motion to amend the meeting minutes to reflect his actions on February 14th and the motion passed. The amended meeting minutes were then approved.

IV. Old Business

There was no old business.

V. New Business

A. Resolution 0203-WI-021: A resolution concerning potential war against Iraq and its impact on OSU

Vice President Hodak introduced this resolution, explaining that President Cormier coauthored this and that the resolution asked that the university and its students maintain a tolerant environment despite the threat of oncoming war.

Delegate Pirone made a motion to divide the question: one half covering clauses 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the resolution; the remainder comprising the second half. Chairman Daniels seconded the motion and spoke in favor of it. No one spoke further on the division, and the motion was passed.

Resolution 0203-WI-021a: A resolution concerning potential war against Iraq and its impact on OSU, containing clauses 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the original resolution.

Discussion ensued over the language in the new resolution, questioning whether the language was appropriate and might imply an anti-war sentiment. Delegate Toronto called the question. This revised resolution failed.

Resolution 0203-WI-021b: A resolution concerning potential war against Iraq and its impact on OSU, containing clauses 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of the original resolution.

This revised resolution passed by unanimous voice vote.

B. Resolution 0203-WI-022: A Resolution Concerning the University of Michigan Admissions Cases

Vice President Hodak introduced this resolution, explaining that this resolution supported the university’s position in the Michigan Admissions cases, and supported the use of diversity in admissions processes as this was ruled constitutional in 1970s Bakke case.

Delegate Clark asked if the Council had information on the University’s position on the Michigan Admissions case.

Vice President Hodak replied, explaining that the University supports the idea that diversity should be taken into account. President Holbrook has spoken of being in support of Michigan and the respondent in the case. Delegate Pirone moved to table the motion until the Council could acquire more specifics. Delegate Stone seconded this motion, adding that the Council should clearly know university’s position before supporting the resolution. Delegate Abdullah responded, explaining that the university is in support of Affirmative Action and the University of Michigan.

Voice vote was taken and there was a division. A subsequent hand vote was taken and the motion to table the resolution carried. The Council will provide more information on the university’s position on this matter.

C. RESOLUTION 0203-WI-023: A Resolution Supporting "Cover the Uninsured Week"

Vice-President Hodak introduced this resolution to the Council, explaining that this resolution would result in no direct actions taken by the Council, but that it would support the involvement and efforts of the OSU community for this event.

A voice vote was taken and the motion carried.

D. ACT 0203-WI-024: An Act Amending the 2002-03 Budget

Chairman Daniels introduced this act, explaining that the purpose of this act was to amend the budget for the Council of Graduate Students for 2002-03, in accordance with Article VI, Section 1 of the Bylaws of CGS to include the $35,000 newly awarded to the Council by the University Provost. The $35,000 will be diverted to the special projects and forum lines of the budget for the year.

A voice was taken to approve the act and the motion carried.

E. ACT 0203-WI-025: An Act Establishing a Standing Rule for the Professional Development Fund

Chairman Daniels introduced this act, explaining that the purpose of this act was to establish a standing rule for the operation of the CGS Professional Development Fund.

Delegate Pirone asked the Chairman to explain why no more than forty percent of the applications received in a given year would be funded under the guidelines of the act. Chairman Daniels explained that this was an attempt to integrate the competitiveness of the award into writing. Delegate Clark asked if appeals to the committee’s award decisions were possible. Chairman Daniels explained that this would be extremely difficult with manpower available to the committee. Delegate Parker asked what was meant by the “relevance of the proposed presentation to the applicant’s professional development.” Chairman Daniels explained that "relevance" referred to the advancement of the individual’s career goals. Delegate Parker offered a friendly amendment to change the wording from "relevance" to "importance." Chairman Daniels accepted this friendly amendment. Delegate Pirone asked if the Council should have the forty percent acceptance of applications stand. Chairman Daniels replied, explaining that this was not a steadfast figure, but this would be the upper limit of the awards given.

A voice vote was taken and the act was approved.

F. ACT 0203-WI-026: A Resolution Calling for Adequate Support of Higher Education

Delegate Clark introduced this resolution explaining that the purpose of this act was to advocate for adequate support of higher education.

Further discussion will be held at the next Council meeting and no vote was taken.

VI. Unionization Report and Discussion

Vice President Hodak explained that the Council would hear from the Academic and HR Committee representative, the GESO representative, and then hold discussion.

Academic and HR Committeeman Gossom introduced the Academic and HR Report on Unionization, explaining that the committee was investigating the establishment and efforts of unions at benchmark universities throughout the nation via an electronic survey created by the committee members. Gossom explained that few responses had been gathered, but the committee hoped to present more information at the next Council meeting. Delegate Pepper asked if the purpose of the report was to understand what unionization would look like in Ohio. Delegate Gossom explained that the idea is to get as much information as possible from other unionized schools, and that the matter of what unionization would look like in Ohio depends on factors like the Ohio legislature, a factor which the surveys are not intended to look into. Gossom added that Legislative Affairs might be better suited to investigate that issue. Legislative Affairs Chairman Triplett offered that after having discussions with several General Assembly staff members, he felt that elected officials might peruse legislation gaining graduate student unionization in Ohio should the movement gain momentum statewide. Delegate Tripathi asked if "unionization" might be explained. Vice President Hodak explained that it is an institution in which workers are represented by an agency and workers pay union dues for this representation.

Graduate Employees and Students Organization (GESO) Representative Clayton Peoples (peoples.15@osu.edu)

GESO Representative Peoples introduced himself and the organization, explaining that GESO is a group of students organizing to improve the work environment and conditions of graduate student employees at OSU through unionization. Peoples stated that GESO feels the current minimum stipend of just $900/month is too low, and that a union would seek to raise that minimum stipend. Peoples stated that a graduate student employee union would seek to get health insurance fully subsidized for all graduate employees and partially subsidized for all dependents, including domestic partners and although a portion of health insurance for graduate assistants will be subsidized next year, the progression towards total subsidy of health insurance should be swifter. Peoples added that the G-QUE report found that over one-third of graduate employees spend more than the 20 hours per work week required by their position on employment duties, a situation a union would try to remedy. Peoples explained that a card drive was had partnered with an experienced union agency, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT.) Peoples explained that a union would generate contracts that would legally bind the university to agreements on pay, benefits, and other issues related to the work life of graduate employees.

Peoples then introduced Darold Johnson, Legislative Affairs and Political Organizer for the AFT. Johnson first explained that unionization is not "illegal" that the university simply does not have to recognize the union. Evidence to this effect in the form of a legal opinion was distributed. Johnson then went on and stated that more $300,000,000 has been cut from higher education in the state budget over the last three years. Johnson also explained that an agency with experience in unionization, like the AFT, is well suited to help graduate students at the university unionize and protect their interests. Johnson reiterated the words of Peoples, explaining that employee rights and healthcare benefits can only be ensured with a legally binding contract.

The meeting then turned to discussion over unionization.

Delegate Clark asked how many people had responded with unionization cards. GESO Representative Peoples replied that over 100 cards had been returned. Delegate Pepper asked if individuals would be required to be part of the union. Peoples explained that this would depend on the unionization agreement with the university. The union could decide to only require those that wanted to join to become members, depending on state law. When asked about the cost of union dues, AFT Representative Johnson offered that currently graduate student union members at the University Michigan and Wisconsin only pay about 1.2-1.5% of their stipend in dues. This figure would not be determined until after the university unionized, Johnson offered. Delegate Sosnoskie asked Peoples to explain how students that bring in funding from international schools would be responsible for union dues. Johnson offered that AFT has a world federation of teachers. Clayton Peoples added that at universities where all graduate employees have to pay union dues, they may choose whether or not to become members of the union. Delegate Clark asked Peoples if GESO has a constitution. Peoples replied, explaining that GESO does not currently have high level of organization as unionization has not yet been established.

Vice-President Hodak offered to allow GESO Representative Peoples more time to address questions following the Council’s closed session discussion. Non-delegates were excused and a closed session of the meeting began.

VII. Closed Session for Resolution 0203-WI-027: A Resolution Supporting the Student Activity Fee

No minutes were recorded, as this is not permissible during a closed session meeting.

At the conclusion of discussion a voice vote was taken. The motion to approve the resolution was carried by the Council.

VIII.Adjournment

Vice-President Hodak adjourned the meeting at 6:10pm.


Respectfully submitted,

Cristine Masters

[an error occurred while processing this directive]