Council of Graduate Students - Minutes - 29 October 2004
In attendance were:
Absences:
- Excused: None
I.Guest Speaker
Prior to the meeting, the body was addresses by Larry Llewelyn and Dean Susan Huntington. Larry Llewelyn was the primary speaker. He briefly reviewed the G-QUE, how it was conducted, etc. and noted that two areas seemed to be particularly important toimprove the quality of education for graduate students: health care and financial concerns. To address, these issues, the University has gone fron no health care supplement to now supplementing 64% and by next year 75%. In addition, the administration raised minimum stipend to $1000, which shows the deep commitment, especially of the provost. This is particularly true because these gains were made even difficult financial times (statewide).
As part of the 7 pt. Plan, enacted following the G-QUE, the administration has also enacted a more standard appointment process and that’s what we’re going to talk about today. Next year, they’ll be working on leave policies (like FMLA that faculty and staff have) According to Federal law, graduate students do not have this protection, but they want to make policy at the University to guarantee this. Paid parental leave was enacted for faculty and they want to do that for graduate students. This includes documenting under what circumstances leaves are appropriate and setting standard policies and procedures for graduate students.
Questions from the delegates
Delegate Lucas: Are these policies set or are they still being worked on? The appointment process that’s being discussed today is pretty well laid out, the leave policies are still being worked on.
Mr. Meagher: Do you have any idea what number of graduate students would be affected by these leave policies in any given year? According to the data, suspension of stipends occurs rarely (to only a few percent of students). Most departments do VERY well and what we want to do is codify the positive policies that are currently informally implemented
Delegate Pepper: Is there someplace on their website that we can direct other students to? The slides from last April’s meeting are currently available. But it would probably be good for us to update it and refresh it.
Next, Mr. Llewelyn discussed the letters of appointment. Currenlty there’s a short form that departments were intended to use. One of the things that came out of the G-QUE is that graduate students weren’t sure that their situation in reference to their departments was very well-documented. This letter is intended to clarify the rights and responsibilities of both students and the University. It’s standardized across the University as much as possible. It was drafted with help from officers from CGS and it’s now been sent to various deans, chairs and the student body to make sure that the specifications of the letter are appropriate. Today will only be the beginning of the discussion.
Mr. Llewelyn passed out handout with the standard letter of appointment, which will be available on the CGS website.
Questions from the delegates/I>
Delegate Hudson: I see that increase in minimum stipend is something you’re pushing for. What about increases in all stipends, not just the lowest ones? We are in the process of trying to increase compensation for all University staff, including GAs.
Deleagte Hudson: Will it be a significant increase? Well, that’s evaluated each Spring. We’re trying to meet benchmark standards. Dean Huntington added that since part of health benefits are now paid, there is more money for graduate studens to spend.
Delegate Hudson: But I guess I was thinking about actual increases in wages. Dean Huntington: The financial state of individual students depends on their particular department (at least for the level of their stipends. Budget restructuring means that some departments will be richer than others. They may increase stipends for their students. Just because the University gives a 3% increase to departments, that doesn’t mean they have to issue raises across the board. They may maintain an entry level position and use the money to pay senior students more or to reward performance. They have to pass the money along to graduate students, but not necessarily to all students.
Mr. Meagher: I think that Dean Huntington raises an important point that departments have budgets and there is some fluidity. Those choices are based on who has a strong voice within those departments.
Chair Fout: Is this directed toward solidifying the relationship between student and University as an employee? For instance, right now we’re only eligible for student health care. That has a woefully low prescription benefit and older students or those with more chronic concerns have to pay thousands in medication costs. Does this mean we’re moving toward becoming more regular staff, instead of student employees? The question of whether graduate students are employees and staff is a legal one. We don’t care what the definition is, we need to treat you with more value and competitiveness. The problem with putting you into the faculty/staff healthplan is that the costs are much more. Your premiums would be a problem. You get so much more value being a member of the student health insurance plan – it’s pretty close to faculty/staff plan, besides the prescription drug benefit. Many institutions that say they provide 100% health plan provide 100% of less valuable plans.
Vice President Baack: We’re rebidding the plan this year. One of the options we’re considering is adding an additional, optional prescription coverage plan that you can buy into. This might help some of the more non-traditional students who have problems capping out. We did get an increase in the prescription drug benefit, that benefit helped 350 students out of 50,000. But this is under consideration.
Delegate Caron: A question about pre-tax health insurance preminums. That’s a tax benefit for people who are American Citizens. But, what about people who aren’t residents or permanent citizens? What should I tell them? Treasurer Hodak responds that all graduate students who are paid here do have to pay taxes, and this benefit does, therefore, help them too.
Mr. Peoples: I think it’s a good idea to formalize this process. But I’m not sure what exactly this means. Would we have some kind of legal recourse or way to ensure happens. Is it a guarantee? Dean Huntington: I can’t answer to legal concerns, but there is a process for disagreements and grievances. There are policies in place for the research and graduate council. We only get a few every year. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t more complaints. I’d also like to point out that it would not necessarily be a good thing if it were totally and completely locked in. For example, if you’d agreed that you were going to TA for a specific course and another graduate student becomes ill and you wanted or needed to move into that course. It’s best for this agreement to be firm within reason. We want it to be firm enough that the vast majority of students will agree that this clarifies things, but we want it to be flexible enough to deal with issues like illness, etc. It’s like the leave policies, it’s typically well-handled.
Mr. Llewelyn: Moving from a University policy to something that’s signed and returned does raise the bar in terms of your responsibility to that person. There can be activity both within and outside the University surrounding that. If we weren’t willing to handle that, we wouldn’t have put this forward.
President Emeritus Cormier: There’s no new policy in here. It’s already out there – in the handbook, etc. This is what we really wanted – to get everything in one place. We’ve always had recourse through RGC etc.
Delegatge Caesar: Something I think would be useful is to have a line here for the actual supervisor to sign to acknowledge that they are aware of the hours, pay, etc. Having the department rep sign it makes them bound to it, but that’s a good point.
Treasurer Hodak: I’d like to second that. I’m working for a new professor, and I don’t think she has any idea what her terms of appointment are and what they should be doing. Having someone read something over would be very useful for the supervisor. If they choose not to read it, that’s there choice, but I think that even in good depts. they don’t always get the information.
Delegate Lucas: This is nothing new. This is just pretty much agreeing to what you’re getting paid for a specific quarter. This doesn’t say anything about the entire course of your degree, right? We’ve had supervisors who don’t know what’s appropriate and students who don’t know what rights they have and how they can address it. What your guaranteed depends on the specific dates of the appoitment ..
Chair Gray: I’m kind of curious about the language for the paperless pay option. This language is kind of soft and makes it sound like a choice, but I think the University is pretty much making everyone go paperless. Vice President Baack: Actually, you can still choose to have a paycheck cut. But it will be mailed to you, you can no longer pick it up, so there will be some delay in getting it, beyond those who choose paperless option.
Mr. Llewelyn: In all honesty, our intent is to be completely paperless, but there is one mention of the work paycheck in Ohio State law, so we think that we do have to offer the option.
Delegate Mitra: What about the facilities fee? Can that be issued only for people who use the facilities? President Pletz: We’ve been fighting this for several years. There’s nothing we can do about it – in terms of getting rid of the fees.
Vice President Hodak: There is some movement in terms of departments agreeing to cover those. Our goal is to have it covered for all funded graduate students.
President Pletz: We are afraid that this is a backdoor way to add additional charges. There’s no point in giving us raises then adding fees. I’ll be fighting against that as president.
Del Bapat: Are there any guidelines for when appointments must be issued or sent out? This can sometimes be a problem for international graduate students. Dean Huntington: There is a national deadline (April 15) for all students who are gong to be funded. We’re trying to move that up for international students particularly. The regulations for certifying foreign students are becoming increasingly difficult. There’s no restriction for how early you can get them out, and I know that some departments are trying to get stuff our earlier to especially, international students.
One thing I’d like to add is that in my experience, over the years, whenever a new procedure or rule or law is passed, there is always a certain population that will try to get around them. For instance, when we went to the new budgeting system, we saw that. The graduate school is on the lookout for that. We’re making sure we have the data accessible to monitor these kinds of loopholes. When we first became aware, we spoke to the Provost and she charged us with finding these kinds of problems and she will back us up. We need to know about these problems and we’re trying to think like those people. We will be taking action.
Mr. Llewelyn: We will begin piloting this yet this academic year. Please let us know what you hear so that we meet the shared intent that we have to improve the quality of life for graduate students.
Pres Pletz: It is our responsibility to get this information back to our delegates. If you’ve got concerns, email them to me. If there are abuses and you’re running into problems, let us know. I know it can be intimidating because you’re worried about your jobs. Please don’t be intimidated. Take this back to your delegates and let us know if they have feedback. It’s not a finalized document.
II. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 4:37pm, Barbara Pletz, President, presiding.
III. Approval of Minutes
Motion to approve minutes from the October 1st meeting was made by Chair Evans, and seconded by Chair Gray. Date changes will be made, as well as corrections to change Delegate Fout to Chair Fout and to correct Andy Vogel’s attendance. With these corrections, motion to approve passes by unanimous voice vote.
IV. Old Business
Resolution 0405-AU-006: Supporting Graduate EmployeesBecause the author’s rationale and Q & A period for this resolution occurred at the last meeting, they were not repeated.
Debate Amendment A1: Delegate Eggleston moves to strike third whereas clause, and Delegate Kinsey Seconds Delegate
Rationale
It’s a blanket statement saying that Unions have bettered the position of graduate students. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t and therefore it should be stricken.
Delegate Lucas: Can we table this until 51% of the union cards are signed?
Point of order from Treasurer Hodak: If Eggleston withdraws her motion it can be tabled or withdrawn by the author.
Delegate Eggleston withdraws her amendment.
Delegate Lucas (author) withdraws her motion.
Resolution 0405-AU-007: Advocating for Graduate Students
Because the author’s rationale for this resolution was provided at the last meeting, they were not repeated.
Question s for the Author (President Emeritus Cormier) Delegate Lucas: Was this resolution simply a response to my resolution? No. Delegate Lucas: But this came right after my resolution, and it seems like a direct response. There has been a lot of pressure on us to take a stance.
Delegate Dole: Does approving this resolution mean we can’t approve an amendment in the future? Treasuer Hodak: No. Amendments trump other positions
Delegate Kulathumani: Now that the previous resolution has been withdrawn by Delegate Lucas, my understanding is that CGS is not taking a stand. Would acceptance of this resolution mean we wouldn’t approve Lucas’ motion when it comes back? . No.
Delegate Pearson moves to table this resolution indefinitely, and it’s seconded by Delegate Vogel. Treasurer Hodak provides a point of order that if Delegate Pearson’s motion means that we can’t even consider this again. The No Position position becomes our position. This is the one way to kill a discussion in Roberts Rules of order, including pro-unionizatioin stance.
Delegate Hudson: So what happens with Del. Lucas’s resolution? Treasurer Hodak: The no-position is the position that this body would have for all eternity. Rationale
I think we stand a lot of time debating unionization. I don’t think it’s appropriate for this body and I think we should move forward
Questions for the Author Ms. Witrick: Why is it not appropriate? I don’t see why it’s necessary for this body to take a position either way. Individuals can have their own opinions.
Debate Delegate Hudson calls the question and Delegate Boomershine seconds. Body votes to move the question (25-6)
Return to the motion to postpone indefinitely. Body votes against indefinite postpone (15 – 28) Return to debate Delegate Eggleston: I think that a number of the whereas clauses are based on perspective and this entire issue is and so that’s why I think no position is the best.
Representative Gordon moves to table to resolution and Delegate Vogel seconds. A majority voice vote is in favor of tabling Resolution 0405-AU-007. Additional Old Business Chair Fout: Last year there was a visa reform resolution passed by the body that required the president to follow up and report to this body at the October meeting. President Pletz says that there has been strong legislative support from Rep. Pryce, but that she will provide a full response at November meeting.
V. New Business
Act 0405-AU-008: Establishing the 2004-05 Standing Committees (Revised) Rationale This replaces an old resolution from summer after revisitng the issue in retreat and meetings with others. Basically, we need to break HR and student affairs into two separate committees, and we are currently in the process of establishing a Graduate Compensation and Benefits Committee that will reside in the University Senate. There will be 7 students (including the chair), 3 faculty, 3 administrators. An ad-hoc committee was formed by Pres Emer Depelteau that helped with the letter of agreement etc. This is a formalization of that ad-hoc committee. Questions for the authors Dean Clark: There are committees of faculty and students that deal with compensation, etc. Why have you opened this to everyone in the entire campus who may have no experience with GAs etc? Treasurer Hodak: Point of order. This doesn’t pertain to the resolution. Bring it up in Delegates Issues and Concerns.Delegate Eggleston: Why did the issue of GCBC (ad-hoc) committee come up in reaction to this? President Emeritus Depelteau; Last year, we decided that it would be appropriate to put items related to GAs into a more permanent University position. At that point, I formed an ad-hoc committee. I felt that it was more appropriate to create a specific committee that focused on HR concerns. Debate Delegate Pearson: I think it’s important to hear from chairs of committees that would be affected.
Chair Evans moves to amend this to only deal with the student affairs issue at this point. Delegate Pearson seconds this motion. Rationale
This act proposes to take off HR and have it reconvene in January as an ad-hoc committee. What happens until then?
Treasurer Hodak: 70% of president’s time (or more) is addressing GA and compensation issues. Regardless of whether or not we have a chair we will address the issues even before GCBC is formed. Further, once the ad-hoc committee was created, the chair of Academic and HR policy wasn’t doing HR stuff anyway. There’s no way we’re not going to do it.
President Emeritus Depelteau: The committee does exist on an ad-hoc basis. This committee has been around for 8 – 10 months now. Even if HR is taken off of the Academic Policy and HR title, human relations issues will still be considered in the ad-hoc committee.
Delegate Hudson calls question and Representative Gordon seconds. The body votes unanimously to move out of debate. Return to consideration of amendment A1: Changes Academic Policy to Academic and HR policy. Body votes to amend (20 –13) Return to debate on original resolution Delegate Pearson: Many of us don’t have real clarity on the effect of the change, regarding student affairs. President Pletz: Anything student affairs oriented could come through this committee to Council on Student Affairs.
Del Pearson: So this would be a sep group that could bring to council of student affairs? President Pletz: Yes, things like safety etc.
Representative Gordon moves question, motion passes with no objection to consent.
Body votes to pass the resolution with a majority vote.
Resolution 0405-AU-009: Respect and Fair Treatment Rationale
This was wrote in response to Sikh student who was yanked off a campus bus a couple of weeks ago. The resolution speaks for itself. Questions for the authors Delegate Corwin: Can I have more information about this event? President Emeritus Cormier: There was a Sikh student carrying a ceremonial knife and using a counter to pray on the bus, several students saw it and one took a picture with her camera phone. The picture was circulated to bus drivers, and the student was spotted on bus, arrested and interrogated for 2 hours by campus police and by FBI. We’re just reiterating our position that all students deserve protection
Delegate Fine: How do you define Middle Eastern? Treasurer Hodak: We’re really talking about people’s perceptions, not what nationality they really are.
Delegate Kulathumani: Is there a reason why you chose to mention Middle Eastern descent? It appears to be a religious issue not a racial one. President Emeritus Cormier: I don’t believe those people saw anything religious about this person, but rather that it was racial
Del Pepper: what substantial result will there be, if this position has already been taken? President Emeritus Cormier: I would hope that they would implement the educational programs called for. Treasurer Hodak: There is also some question about whether or not this ceremonial knife is legal.
Debate Sec Scott: I think it may be true that some of us, and some of our peers would make the distinction between religious and ethnic identities, I don’t think most Ohioans most of the time make those kinds of distinctions and I think this probably did occur because they perceived this student as middle-eastern, as erroneous as that may be.
Delegate Dole: Why do we need to single out a particular group if this resolution is about the equal treatment of all people?
Delegate Dennis: I would argue that a particular example is necessary because a particular student was singled out.
Delegate Hutchinson: Was the University response insufficient that this needs to be brought forth? Delegate Hodak: I think that most people are not aware of these differences and educational programs are still necessary. It restates our earlier position about equal treatment.
Delegate Cunningham: It doesn’t matter how many resolutions we have to write. All students deserve equal treatment. We should be supportive of any student that this happens to. I would hope that if I were this person that we would write something. I don’t think there’s any reason for debate. This is stupid.
Delegate Pepper: How will we know if this works? Treasurer Hodak: We can see if there are workshops to address these issues. We can track other situations like this. Student affairs was not happy with the way this was handled, from the police officers to the cab drivers and the students’ behavior.
Delegate Kulathumani moves to amend the motion by striking out “individuals perceived to be of middle eastern descent” and replacing it with “individuals who are perceived be middle eastern due to an association with a particular ethnic or religious background”. Delegate Dole seconds the motion. Rationale
My personal experience is that it’s not just the association with particular ethnic background, but I think it’s the religious affiliation that encourages these events. It’s too specific to say just middle eastern descent.
There were no questions for the author
Debate Delegate Popielinski: this whereas clause refers to a specific incident, so I’m not entirely certain how accurate it would to make this particular amendment.
Delegate Gray: There are various groups that are being discriminated against across times and places and I think it’s important to acknowledge that at this particular time and place it’s people who are suspected of being of Middle-Eastern descent. This amendment weakens the resolution because this even specifically refers to an event that occurred due to our post-911 paranoia.
The delegate body votes against the amendment (21 – 17) Return to debate on original motion Delegate Fout calls the question, and Delegate Lucas seconds. The body passes the resolution by a majority voice vote. Resolution 0405-AU-010: State Ballot Issue One Rationale This would have a direct input on benefits that we fought for for 12 years and just recently received. Not written in stronger manner because we can’t lobby for people to vote.
Questions Treasurer Hodak: Isn’t it true politicians on both sides oppose this issue?. Yes, one of the most interesting broad based coalitions in a long time
Delegate Pepper: Hasn’t Pres Holbrook already come out against this issue? . Yes and no, she made broad-based educational statements, which is what we’re doing here.
Pres Pletz: And IPC and USG have made similar resolutions, right? I’m not aware of IPC, but USG has.
Delegate Pepper: What’s the point if the election is in three days? Whoever reads it will read it. I recognize this is just around the corner but I think that it’s important to make this statement because of our history of domestic partner benefits?
Del Best: Have there been any other resolutions that support this? On the last clause, isn’t the president always charged with this duty? Is this necessary? Isn’t that her job? Treasurer Hodak: Not constitutionally.
Delegate Dole: If State Issue 1 passes, is the University obligated to take away benefits for domestic partners? My guess is that a statement would be issued but I don’t know for sure.
Debate Delegate Dole: If State Issue 1 passes, I don’t think it dictates by law that the University has to take away to benefits we have now. This would potentially be a positive benefit of the resolution.
Treasurer Hodak: I disagree. It says that state may not take upon benefits for anything that looks like marriage but isn’t. It would include heterosexuals living together, old people who don’t marry because they don’t want to lose SS benefits. The University might resist and not go back, but they will be subject to lawsuits. This probably will not happen.
Delegate Corwin moves to amend the motion by inserting (after the 3rd whereas) “Whereas some members of the graduate student body believe that marriage is an inherently religious word and institution that should not be defined by any civil document or agency. “ and Delegate Pearson seconds
Rationale Everything in this deals with practical issues and not the real issue 1. Those in favor of Issue 1 see these issues as completely subordinate. The main issues is that marriage should be defined by churches, synagogues, temples, etc.
Questions for the author
Unknown Delegate: Doesn’t this prohibit those who want to be married in a secular marriage? My response is that those are not marriages. That’s not what this is about. It shouldn’t answer these religious questions.
Del Pearson: this wouldn’t have any impact on civil unions? They would be the only thing allowed. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the state.
The body opposes the amendment (13 : 15) and the motion fails.
Delegate Vogel calls question, and is seconded by an unknown delegate. The resolution passes by unanimous voice vote.
Delegate Cormier moves to adjourn the meeting and Delegate Berntsen seconds. Motion passes by unanimous voice vote, and the meeting is adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amanda Scott
CGS Secretary