Absences:

Guest Speakers

Prior to the meeting, President Holbrook addressed the delagate body. Her remarks and questions from the delegates can be found here.

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:24pm, Barbara Pletz, President, presiding.

II. Approval of Minutes

Motion to approve minutes from the October 29st meeting was made by Delegate Corwin, seconded by Delegate Leston. Delegate Eggleston asked a question about an issue raised in Section 5 – this issue was incorrectly included and will be removed. Chair Fout asked for a correction to her position. With these corrections, the minutes are approved by unanimous voice vote.

III. Old Business

Act 0405-WI-012: An Act Establishing the 2004-05 CGS Goals and Priorities
Rationale:
When I became president I looked at the goals and priorities from a year ago and there were so many. I tried to streamline it to make goals and priorities that could be accomplished. Some of this was in discussion with the IPC and with undergradruate student government.

Questions for the author
Delegate Corwin: One question I had was regarding the Student Bill of Rights, what exactly do you envision being contained in that Bill or Rights and since none of the three groups has any actual legal authority, how would that be implemented?
Until the 80’s there was a student bill of rights – code of rights and responsibilities. Then it became the Student Code of Conduct. It seems like it was part of a nationwide trend. I think that we are a democratic nation and I firmly believe that we have rights and we’re trying to codify it. It will eventually go through rules to the Senate and eventually pass on to the board of trustees. Lots of universities have them around the country.

Delgate Corwin: Beyond just process, what do you see being contained in a student bill of rights?
Issues about academic freedom, rights, responsibilities. I mean, I don’t know the specifics for sure, I’ve asked Jamie to start looking at them. It will come before the body once it’s authored. It had to be broad enough to include undergraduate and professional students. If you have incput you can contact

Delegate Lucas: There’s a typo – should be “newly created fees are covered”

Del Hudson: There are broad goals for the year 2004-2005. Are you looking to do these things this year? Are you going put a date on these?
I don’t have specific dates for each thing because these are our general goals and priorities for the whole year. But if the body wants to put dates on them, we can during debate.

Debate
Delegate Hudson: For the health insurance one – I move that we date it the beginning of 06-07 year. Delegate Pearson seconds the motion.

Delegate Gray: My understanding is that this goes on our goals and priorities every year and it gets increased every year, depending on the current minimum stipend and health benefits. My understanding is that a number of these goals are priorities are rhetoric for the University. I don’t know that it’s necessary to date them for specific time periods, I guess. They are the goals for this year and they’re either done or that not.

Chair Evans: I believe the Provost’s goal for health insurance is Fall 05.

Secretary Scott: It seems to me that most of these goals are ongoing. We’re continuously working toward them, whether or not they actually come to fruition within the year. While we know timelines for some, we don’t know them for all. I mean, we could go through and date everyone, but I don’t think it’s necessary.

Delegate Adua: These are not specific objectives – we don’t necessarily need to have dates for them. These are goals, but we don’t necessarily need to achieve them for this year. We can leave them this way.

Amendment fails 19 – 14.

Return to Debate
Delegate Eggleston: My question about the compensation and benefits is that we’ve been presented with a plan that goes beyond this year to meet some of these goals. Are we expressing some negativity about the plan that we’ve supported in the past?
Vice President Baack: I think the idea during retreat was that we were happy with the package, and it was good, but to just take that and say thanks, would not be enough. Our real goal is this – what’s written here.

Delegate Eggleston: Should we add language that some of these are not realistic for this year? Why couldn’t we include a sentence like that in the goals?
Treasurer Hodak – Maybe you can offer an amendment that these are for the next 5 years.

Chair Pearson – I question again what the purpose of the demographic questions on the delegate application?
Secretary Scott: To show that CGS is as diverse as the grad student population. This helps to validate that we are representative of the graduate student population in general.

Delegate Pearson moves to strike the demographic questions. Delegate Dole seconds.

Debate on motion to strike
Treasurer Hodak: CGS, as well as all of the student governments has been the object of negative publicity for not being diverse and representative. We actually have a good record in this respect, and adding this question allows us to fend off that criticism. It’s a check to ensure that we’re representative as well.

Delegate Vogel: Isn’t there already a mechanism for this – aren’t we working on a diversity survey? Yes we are, but this will be much easier in terms of tracking it as people are certified. We don’t have to ask people to complete another instrument. It’s simpler and more effective, administratively, to do it this way.

Delegate Pearson: I guess my point is that I’m not convinced that having a certain percentage of students who happen to be different ethnicities makes us more or less representative. It really comes down to participation, what level of involvement, etc, and that’s not necessarily quantifiable. If we need to deflect criticism maybe we should look somewhere else not just say “we’re diverse”.

The amendment fails with 5 votes in favor, remainder opposed.

Delegate Eggleston: I move that we add the following text to Section 1: These goals and priorities will guide the Council of Graduate Students’ advocacy and actions in 2004-2005. Delegate Kinsey seconds the motion. Amendment passes 23-12.

Amended motion passes by unanimous voice vote.

Resolution 0404-WI-013: Bike Lanes
Rationale
This campus is sadly lacking bike lanes, just one of the major pedestrian problems on this campus. Lillian and I have been working on this a lot. It’s kind of hard and uncomfortable to walk around on campus and it’s kind of a no-brainer. Also, I’ve brought Dan Magestro to speak about this today – he has an advocacy group on campus and he’s been working with us on this resolution.

Mr. Magestro: I think that issues like bike lanes and bike and pedestrian friendliness are things that graduate students should feel strongly about – they tend not to live near campus. Also, a lot of you come from other schools so you may be aware of how other campuses do it. There are a few facts you should know about benchmarks too. Columbus is the largest city in the country without bike paths. It’s the only university, except Illinois that don’t have master plan that include bike paths. In the last couple of years, things have actually gotten worse for bicyclists. Ohio State and Columbus are both really behind in this. We have a website if you need more information. This is not just a CGS thing, but on an activist, community basis this is really important.

Questions for the authors
Delegate Malik: Is there an architectural plan in the works or a financing plan?
There has been a Columbus bikeways committee and there were able to secure funding to hire a consultant for the campus itself and a little bit of the surrounding area.

Delegate Leston: Do you know of any part sites that you def want bike lanes put in?
Well, when they redid Lane – no bike lanes. Medical Center – nothing. Woody Hayes – nothing. There are so many – it’s actually a paradigm issue. We have an idea to make a wish list as an advocacy group but nothing specific. We’ll email you the link to the website and you can see what we’ve got there.

Delegate Corwin: Every other resolution contains a final resolve clause that charges the president to communicate. Why is that missing here? Well, the more specific you get, the more debate, so I just tried to make it simple.

Vice President Baack: What kind of effect do you think we can have on areas off-campus? That’s why I think we need a community advocacy effort. Maybe if we turn inward and do things here it will be contagious. It’s not just bicyclists, it’s pedestrians, too.

Debate
Delegate Corwin moves to amend the final Resolved clause as per the following “Let it further be resolved that the contents of this resolution will be communicated to all relevant University entities by the Council President before the next Council meeting.”
Del Gray seconds the motion.

Rationale
We could pass the resolution and no one but us will ever know.

Motion carries by unanimous voice vote.

Delegate Caesar moves to amend the 3rd Whereas clause to add “and other places in the university District” after Lennox Center. Delegate Dole seconds the motion.

Rationale
To make it really clear that we’re looking for bike lanes for the University District entirely, not just these spec locations.

Debate on amendement
Delegate Adua: I’m concerned about extending this past the University – leery of putting anything outside of campus because it might hinder progress on getting this done.

Treasurer Hodak: The University District is something the University is keen on bringing up to larger level of development, etc. The University would be amenable to calling on others to do bike lanes. There’s a lot of back and forth and financial exchange between the University and the city in those areas.

Delegate Eggleston: That kind of work has happened regarding alcohol use – that’s a great example where the city has been very amenable to working with the University.

Del Mitra. Since the resolution is for pedestrians too, can we say something about moving lanes away from roads?

Delegate Lucas calls the question and Delegate Eggleston seconds. Amendement passes by unanimous voice vote.

Return to Debate on Main Motion
Delegate Corwin calls the question and Delegate Eggleston Seconds Motion passes 31-4.

Amended motion passes by unanimous voice vote.

IV.Upcoming Meeting Speakers