[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Council of Graduate Students Resolutions

Committee membership

Cathy Baack, Ph.D. candidate, Nursing
J. Briggs Cormier, Ph.D. candidate, Theatre, chair
Patricia R. Cunningham II, M.A. student, Educational Policy and Leadership
Brandy Ethridge, M.A. student, Sociology
Joshua Pepper, Ph.D. candidate, Astronomy

Recommendations

  1. The Council and its leadership should, on an ongoing basis, determine the appropriate balance between formal (resolutions) and informal (conversations, email exchanges, etc.) means of communicating the issues that are of importance to graduate students.
  2. The Council's leadership should determine whether or not resolutions not calling for specific action fit within their own style and agenda.
  3. When passing resolutions that do not call for specific action, those resolutions should address why they do not. Additional scrutiny should be applied to determine if they are in the best interest of the Council and its limited time.
  4. The Council's legislative agenda should be included within the Annual Goals and Priorities.
  5. Resolutions that call for specific action should contain a "resolved" clause that includes a deadline for reporting on the results of or the response to the resolution.
  6. The results of the votes on resolutions should be included on the official copy posted to the CGS website.

Committee analysis

At the November meeting of the Council of Graduate Students, President Jamie S. Depelteau responded to a request from the floor to look into the value of spending Council time debating resolutions. To this end, President Depelteau appointed an ad-hoc committee to investigate and report on the matter.

The committee looked at the 92 acts and resolutions approved by the Council since 1998-99,1 eliminating from consideration the 39 acts required by the Council’s Constitution and Bylaws on budget, calendar, and committee structure, as well as acts amending the Constitution or Bylaws and other internal organizational business. The 6 resolutions that commended individuals and the additional 6 resolutions that took general positions without calling for university action were also excluded from analysis, as they are rarely debated. This left the committee with 41 resolutions to consider. For a listing of these 41 resolutions, please see Appendix A.

These 41 resolutions were grouped into the following clusters:

 2003-042002-032001-02 2000-011999-001998-99
# of Resolutions15 3326 54 9
# of Resolutions Considered 6 11 12 2 3 7

The committee directly queried 18 administrators, staff, and faculty at the university, asking if they would share how the passage of a given resolution affected the decision-making process on that subject. We also asked if they had any additional thoughts on the importance or lack thereof of the Council formally taking positions and calling for University action. Inquiry on many of the topics in the resolutions in question were directed to the same individuals, most notably the Interim Executive Vice President and Provost, the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Dean of the Graduate School and Vice Provost for Graduate Studies, and the Associate Vice President for Human Resources. For several of the topics, multiple individuals within an office were contacted. The committee received a response to every inquiry. Appendix B lists the 18 individuals contacted by the committee.

Responses from administrators

Without exception, every administrator contacted indicated that they found resolutions very helpful, especially "when the issues are clear, the consensus is clear, or when you really want to make a clear political statement" (Director of University Libraries). In a collective response from the Provost, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Vice President for Student Affairs, an Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, an Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, and the Associate Vice President for Human Resources they wrote that they "find that the resolutions:

  1. tell us the issues that are foremost in the minds of graduate students and graduate assistants for the year;
  2. give clarity to the actions that the university should consider, informed by discussion among the CGS delegates from across the university, which gives us greater confidence in our decisions;
  3. gives administrators a common base of discussion, as we do note, trade, and discuss your resolutions;
  4. help escalate attention on such key issues as domestic partner/sponsored dependent benefits."

Even when offices take action to which CGS has voiced opposition, the feedback provided is still taken seriously. On the topic of the elimination of BRUTUS (the phone registration system), the University Registrar indicated that the great expense of maintaining two systems coupled with budget cuts as well as with the usage data collected by their office led to the decision. "That truly doesn't mean we casually regarded your feedback or your resolution. However, it was weighed against the other factors, and they 'won out.'"

Administrators within the Office of Student Affairs have asked that the student governments, including the Council, take positions on various issues so that they can better advocate for student concerns before both the Board of Trustees and the central administration. This written documentation is more trusted than oral claims of student support for a project or initiative such as the student activity fee. A whereas clause indicating that the University administration has requested that the Council take a position on a particular issue would be of benefit when the delegates consider the issue.

When the Council passes resolutions pertaining to issues of shared governance and topics addressed within that system (as opposed to issues within a single or group of administrator’s purview), CGS resolutions help bolster the arguments made by the graduate students serving on Senate and university-wide committees.2

The Provost, Vice Presidents, and Dean conclude their memo by stating "as long as your resolutions remain focused on high priorities, informed by broad graduate student input rather than the experiences of the few, shaped by an understanding of realities, and respectfully delivered to help shape our decisions, we remain extremely supportive of this process."3

Formal versus informal communication of graduate student opinion

There are many different ways that the central administration and other administrators at Ohio State obtain student input when decisions are being made. Many offices are advised by committees, some of which are a part of the shared governance system (University Senate committees), others of which are local advisory groups. All of the Senate, Reseach and Graduate Council, and university-wide committees have graduate students appointed by the Council of Graduate Students who serve as full members of the committee. Some offices have their own procedures for obtaining student participation, usually through an application process they handle themselves. Administrators also talk with students working in their offices. Finally, there are the countless email and phone exchanges that the CGS President has with administrators across campus, as well as the numerous standing and impromptu meetings where s/he is asked to provide feedback on behalf of graduate students.4

While all of these are important and useful, they each rely on the voice of a single individual. Regardless how much consultation the committee appointments and the CGS President have with their colleagues, the Executive Committee, or even the full Council, the feedback provided in such informal sessions is still the voice of one. Resolutions passed on the floor of the Council are the only mechanism for all 10,000 graduate students at Ohio State to speak collectively. Finding an appropriate balance between formal and informal communication is the responsibility of the CGS President, the Executive Committee, and the entire Council of Graduate Students.

Effectiveness of resolutions

In order to measure how successful the Council has been in obtaining what it has asked of the University in its resolutions, the committee first had to remove from consideration the resolutions on legislative platforms and positions (11). The goals and priorities will be addressed separately. Of the remaining 27 resolutions, 10 of the resolutions produced the desired effect. In addition to this, 12 resolutions relate to issues that are still pending or are being addressed by administrators and committees across campus. Only 5 resolutions that called for specific action have not seen the requested action occur.

Goals and priorities

Within the past few years, the full Council has voted upon the annual goals and priorities -- a break from the past where they were set solely by the Executive Committee. Furthermore, the items on the goals and priorities have increasingly become more measurable. For example, what used to read "advocate for" became "obtain", placing more accountability on the organization. This has also led to a shortening of the list of goals and priorities (by over 50% in 3 years) and early discussions about individual responsibility for each goal on the list.

In the current year, 55% of the goals have been accomplished, with a full quarter remaining in the year. In the year 2002-03, 59% of the goals were accomplished, while in the year 2001-02, 73% of the goals were accomplished -- the former figure due to the larger number of goals where the obtainment was the goal rather than mere advocacy.

Resolutions that do not call for action

Deliberative assemblies, from national and state legislatures to city councils and university senates, traditionally express their collective opinions and positions on issues by passing resolutions that do not call for specific action or commend and honor certain individuals and groups. This is a part of the history of deliberative and governing bodies. These positions and commendations carry more weight because they come from a group rather than simply the organization's presiding officer.

Different individuals and groups will formulate their own opinions about the merit of such resolutions. The new leaders of each Council should consider how this type of resolution fits in with their own style and agenda. As always, however, any standing or ad-hoc committee and any voting member of the Council is entitled to present resolutions to the Council for consideration. Resolutions of this nature should address why no action is called for and why the resolution is necessary.

Furthermore, passing resolutions that express a position are a means of providing direction for the leaders of the organization as they advocate on the Council's behalf. They are a method for binding the leadership to a particular position based on the collective will of the body.

Lesgislative resolutions

Administrators within the Office of Government Relations find that our resolutions are useful to them because they provide the perspective of students, a helpful addition when working downtown with the State Legislature. Furthermore they indicate that from time to time, resolutions from the student governments raise issues that had not yet made it on their radar.

On the other hand, resolutions passed by the Council seem to be of very little interest to actual legislators and their aides, both downtown and in Washington, D.C.

The Council's legislative agenda is rarely included in the annual Goals and Priorities. Inclusion here would eliminate the need for multiple resolutions throughout the year unless controversial topics were being addressed or unless new issues were to arise that need to be communicated to the central administration and the Office of Government Relations.

The nature of the deliberative assembly

Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (9th edition) claims that the term deliberative assembly was first used in 1774 by Edmund Burke to describe the English Parliament when he was speaking before the electorate at Bristol. From this point on it has become "the basic term for a body of persons meeting to discuss and determine common action" (xxv).

The very first chapter of Robert’s Rules elaborates on the nature of the deliberative assembly.

A deliberative assembly -- the kind of gathering to which parliamentary law is generally understood to apply -- has the following distinguishing characteristics:

In addition to this general statement on the nature of deliberative bodies, the Constitution of the Council addresses its mission, authority, and powers.

Article II - Mission

Section II.1: The Council is the representative body for all students enrolled in graduate programs at The Ohio State University, hereinafter also referred to as "graduate students" or the "graduate student body."

Section II.2: The Council of Graduate Students promotes and provides academic, administrative, and social programs for the university community in general and for graduate students in particular.

Section II.3: The Council provides a forum in which the graduate student body may present, discuss, and set upon issues related to its role in the academic and non-academic aspects of the university community.

Section II.4: The Council shall represent The Ohio State University graduate student body in the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students.

Article III - Authority and powers

Section III.1: The authority for the establishment of the Council of Graduate Students is derived from the consent of the graduate student body.

Section III.2: The Council is recognized by The Ohio State University and the Graduate School as the only organization representing all graduate students at The Ohio State University.

Section III.3: On all matters brought before personnel, committees, or agencies of The Ohio State University involving the interest of graduate students, the Council or its appointed representative(s) have the power to sit as an advisory agent on behalf of graduate students.

Section III.4: The Council has the power to plan and implement programs in accordance with its mission.

Section III.5: The Council has the primary authority to allocate and distribute funds from the treasury of the Council and has the power to collect fees or voluntary contributions approved by The Ohio State Board of Trustees on all students enrolled in the Graduate School.

Section III.6: The Council judges the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members and determines its own rules of procedure.

In order for the Council to "determine courses of action" and to fulfill its mission (especially II.1 and II.3), exercising its authority and powers (especially III.2 and III.3), the Council considers resolutions from time to time on a variety of issues that affect graduate students at Ohio State and higher education in the state and nation when the collective voice of the graduate students needs to be heard.

Process for putting resolutions before the Council

Since resolutions are the mechanism for expressing a position, any voting member or standing or ad-hoc committee of the Council may bring a resolution before the Council for consideration. Resolutions that have been endorsed by a standing or ad-hoc committee do not require a second from the floor. Resolutions brought forward by a single delegate require a second from the floor before they can be debated; any voting member of the Council may second the motion to consider a resolution.

Resolutions calling for action should include a deadline for reporting the results, providing increased transparency within the organization. This will help the Council understand the impact of its resolutions and the response from the Ohio State administration. Such reporting would then occur as part of the normal officer or committee reports at a subsequent meeting.

In order for all voting members of the Council to appropriately consider and vote on a resolution, it must be included in the electronic packet that is mailed in advance of each meeting. Guidelines and a template for formatting a resolution in HTML are included on the Council’s webpage. They can be found at the top of the page listing the resolutions approved by the Council under "Governance and Reports." When voting on any motion before the Council, the delegates have the right to request a division, where placards are counted, or a roll-call vote, where each voting member's name is called by the Secretary and his/her vote recorded as "aye, nay, or abstain." When anything other than a voice vote is taken, the results should be included on the official resolution.

Appendix A: Disposition of Council Resolutions

Annual Goals and Priorities (3)

Domestic Partner Benefits (6)

Issues pending and actively being pursued by the University administration

Governance (2)

Accomplished Not Accomplished

Graduate Associate Compensation and Benefits (4)

Accomplished (1) Issues pending and under discussion (3)

Legislative Platforms and Position Statements (11)

Miscellaneous (15)

Accomplished (7) Issues pending and under discussion (3) Not Accomplished (4)

Appendix B: Individuals Contacted for Input

Appendix C: Listing of Individuals Who Regularly Receive Council Resolutions

President’s Cabinet

Council of Deans

Office of Academic Affairs

Office of Government Relations

Office of Student Affairs

Office of University Relations

University Senate

Faculty Leadership

Staff Leadership

Student Leadership

Miscellaneous

Appendix D: Text of Memo from the Provost's Office

TO: J. Briggs Cormier
FROM: Eric K. Busch
Assistant Vice President, Student Affairs

William H. Hall
Vice President for Student Affairs

Richard A. Hollingsworth
Associate Vice President, Student Affairs

Susan L. Huntington
Dean, Graduate School

Larry M. Lewellen
Associate Vice President, Human Resources

Barbara R. Snyder
Interim Executive Vice President and Provost
DATE: March 2, 2004
SUBJECT: CGS Resolutions

We received a group of emails from you, inquiring as to the effect that CGS resolutions may have (or not have) on the decision-making processes of the university. We would like to answer this in a consolidated response, given that we all work closely together on graduate student issues.

If we weren't extremely interested in the welfare of our graduate students, we might be inclined to critique the value of these resolutions. After all, the resolutions do call for action and challenge us to respond to very difficult issues...often outside our comfort zones. However, we are united in our belief that these resolutions are valuable. We find that the resolutions:

For one example, I believe you now know that we have amended our nondiscrimination policy to include gender identity, as outlined in your Resolution 0102-SP-027. Your resolution was extremely helpful to the Office of Human Resources to decide to undertake this revision as part of a total review of the nondiscrimination policy.

For another example, we have been in quite intense discussion about the compensation and benefit issues outlined in Resolution 0304-AU-011 7 during this academic year, and will be working with GCBC to communicate our next phase of improvement in graduate assistant compensation. We hope you will see a high correlation with your compensation and benefit priorities in the resolution.

One of your newest resolutions (0304-WI-017) calls for us to better inform graduate assistants of their pay schedule options. Until you had advised us how little known this seems to be, and how impactful the options are to the life of a graduate assistant, we would not have known to act on this. Now we know we need to find a way, going into next year, of better communicating with the broad graduate assistant population about this year.

You have a number of resolutions regarding domestic partner coverage, for student insurance, for graduate students, and for faculty and staff, the most recent being 0304-AU-010, we believe. These may give you the greatest doubt of your resolutions' effect on the university, and may make you decide to stop issuing resolutions on this subject. We believe that would be a dire mistake. There are issues, like this one, which are larger than the administration, and larger than the university, and we need strong voices to continue to make strong statements about this. If we lose energy now, we will never find the opportunity to make this happen. We need your voice to continue to be raised.

If we need to respond on other examples, we would be happy to do so.

We hope this is responsive to your request for feedback. As long as your resolutions remain focused on high priorities, informed by broad graduate student input, rather than the experiences of a few, shaped by an understanding of realities, and respectfully delivered to help shape our decisions, we remain extremely supportive of this process.

Thank you for asking our opinion on this.

Original signed memo is on file in the CGS Office.

Notes

1. Current year, plus the preceding 5 years.
2. These graduate students are appointed to these committees by the Council of Graduate Students through its Organization and Elections Committee.
3. A copy of the entire memo can be found in Appendix D.
4. Traditionally the CGS President seeks advice from his/her fellow Executive Officers, the Executive Committee, and the delegates at full Council meetings on the various issues s/he is asked to comment on throughout the year. This happens informally through conversations and formally through time on the Executive Committee agenda and the Delegate Issues and Concerns portion of the agenda for the full Council.
5. At this time, the Office of Academic Affairs is considering reinstating a portion of the funding that the Graduate School will be able to administer in a similar process to the former PEGS program.
6. Prior to her appointment as Interim Vice President for University Relations and then Interim Executive Vice President and Provost, Barbara Snyder held this position within Academic Affairs.
7. Resolution number in original incorrectly identified. Clarified via email exhange with Larry Lewellen.


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