GRADUATE ASSEMBLY MEETING

May 1, 2003

SUMMARY OF THE MEETING • Awarded Jevan Furmanski, of Mechanical Engineering, as Delegate of the Month, for

participation in the GA's discussion series. • Held elections for 2003-4, and elected Jessica Quindel, President; Cintya Molina, External

Affairs Vice President; Temina Madon, Academic Affairs Vice President; elected Jevin Furmanski, Mark Ettlinger, Joe Hall, and Natasha Ong (Alternate) as the GA's representatives to the Graduate Council, elected Iyko Day as Funding Committee Chair and Takeshi Akiba as Chair, Organization and Rules Committee.

• Heard a report from the Executive Board and approved the following recommendations: approved the formation of the GA Patriot Act Committee; approved an allocation of $8,000 as the GA's share of the costs of the ASUC election; approved an amendment of the GA's vote of no confidence in the ASUC Elections Council Chair.

• Approved the Funding Committee's recommendations for Round 8 of Grad Events funding grants.

• Heard a report from the Business Office. • Heard about a contest for a new GA logo. • Held a discussion with ASUC Senate representatives concerning issues between the GA and the

ASUC, including Judicial Council suits. • Considered and approved the 2003-4 GA Budget. • Heard a report from the ASUC Senate representative to the GA. • Approved amendments to the By-laws relating to grad student group funding, as proposed by

the Funding Committee and approved by the Organization and Rules Committee. This regular meeting of the Graduate Assembly, concluding Spring Semester, was called to order by Jessica Quindel at 5:40 p.m. in the ASUC Senate Chamber. Ms. Quindel said she wanted to welcome them to the final GA meeting of the year. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Ms. Quindel called for any objection to approval of the agenda. THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING WAS APPROVED WITH NO OBJECTION. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Ms. Quindel called for any objection to approval of the minutes from the April meeting. Mr. Akiba said he mentioned the Chancellor would be meeting with Tom Ridge, and the minutes didn't record that. Delegate of the Month Award - 2 - Ms. Quindel called for any other amendments to the minutes. THE MINUTES TO THE APRIL 3, 2003 MEETING, AS AMENDED, WERE APPROVED WITH NO OBJECTION. DELEGATE OF THE MONTH Ms. Quindel said the Delegate of the Month for May was Jevan Furmanski, of Mechanical Engineering. He attended most of the discussions on the war in Iraq and brought other folks from his Department; and they really started a dialogue. She hadn't seen him speak at a GA meeting and he spoke, and she wanted to give him a lovely certificate and a prize, for being GA Delegate of the Month. (Applause) ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hall said changes he proposed to the financial By-laws were distributed. The Organization and Rules Committee was overhauling the GA's By-laws and recommends approval of the changes, which the GA should consider that evening. The rest of the overhaul will occur in the fall. The changes come from the Funding Committee. The ORC looked at them and recommended approval. Ms. McGonigal said they had a couple of hundred copies of the GA's new magazine, "The Berkeley Graduate" available to distribute. One of the main ways they plan to distribute the magazine was through Delegates, so she'd ask everybody to take five copies and give them out to people in their

classes or departments, or to put them in mailboxes of people they know. It was really important to get the news out of what the GA was doing. There were three boxes of copies, and it would be great if they were empty at the end of the meeting. She also wanted to thank people who had story ideas, were interviewed, or who helped with the issue. It turned out really well, and she hoped those who stick with the GA will continue to help in the fall. Ms. Quindel said she wanted to congratulate Ms. McGonigal for the issue. (Applause) Ms. Quindel said that if people don't have voting cards, they need to get checked off by Chris Cantor, the Departmental Liaison. Mr. Cantor said people should have five slips of paper of different colors, and three white slips. Ms. Moore said the deadline for to turn in receipts was May 9. She would ask them to please get their receipts in by then, or they wouldn't get reimbursed for this semester. Mr. Daub said that also regarding funding, any changes that need advance approval should be in by next Wednesday. If they get changes to him later than that, he couldn't guarantee they'd be approved or that they'd be reimbursed. A Delegate said the Grad Social Club was having an event next Tuesday, beer and pizza, in the Lipman Room, Barrows Hall. A speaker said she's an undergrad working with Justice for Janitors and the local chapter at UC Berkeley. Right now they're working in collaboration with the Service Employees International Union, Local 1877. On Wednesday, janitors' contract expired. At that time they have to pay a co-payment, which companies Announcements (cont'd) - 3 - are threatening to double. Most of the janitors can't afford health insurance anyway. They're asking Chancellor Berdahl to support the janitors and their request for full health insurance coverage. She had a petition to send around, and if people wanted more information, they could include their e-mail. She wanted to thank them. GA ELECTIONS Ms. Quindel said she would go over the process for the GA's elections. Each candidate will get two minutes to speak, after which there would be Q&A for five minutes. She would ask people to keep questions brief, if possible, but to ask all the questions they want. Following that, candidates and

non-GA members will be asked to leave the room for an off-the-record discussion, during which people could bring up anything they'd like about the candidates. Candidates will be asked back in and there would be a secret ballot. The different pieces of colored paper were for different positions. She called for any questions. Ms. Quindel said that since the first candidate was for GA President, she would turn the chair over to Ms. Ahn. She asked if anybody else was running for the position. With Ms. Ahn serving as Chair, Ms. Quindel introduced herself and said she was running for a second term as GA President. She felt that although she was able to do a lot, there was still so much more that needed to be done in the GA in the next year. It really takes a long time to get used to the GA's inner workings and internal stuff, and all the ASUC stuff, as well as all the advocacy and Statewide work they do, and she's built a lot of networks that year. Working with Mr. Kashmiri and Ms. Ahn has been a really great leadership team, and she hoped to have another great leadership team next year. Ms. Quindel said she would like to go over some things she felt have been good in her Administration. The quote she used last year in running for President was from Lao Tzu: "As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, people honor and praise. The next, people fear, and the next, people hate. When the best leader's work is done, the people say, 'We did it ourselves!'" Ms. Quindel said that was what the vision she wanted for the GA, where everybody had a stake and everybody did something, whether that meant coming to a meeting or reading "The Berkeley Graduate," but for everybody to feel they were a part of something. That's why she was really happy with the Grad Social Club that year. The GA appointed some amazing Chairs. They brought back "The Berkeley Graduate," which has done a great job. They've done things as a leadership team to publicize the GA. In working with the Executive Board that year, it's been the most active Board in a really long time, and has been great. One thing she could do is contribute to really facilitating that leadership team. One thing they did that she really thought was effective was having Mr. Akiba come to the their regularly scheduled meeting with the Chancellor, where Mr. Akiba talked about international student issues. As indicated in her statement, next year she wanted to support more specific efforts in departments. In addition, she wanted to work on student-parent issues and to really think about having a grad student lounge, not necessarily a quiet study space, but a place to mingle and interact. She called for any questions. A Delegate asked if Ms. Quindel was not graduating next year. Ms. Quindel said she was graduating next year. GA Elections (cont'd) - 4 -

Ms. Ahn said that seeing no other questions, she would ask Ms. Quindel to leave the room for a discussion that would be off the record. Mr. Hall said that since the discussion was off the record, anybody who wasn't part of the GA would have to leave the room. A discussion was held, followed by a vote. With Ms. Quindel resuming as Chair, she said the next position to consider was External Vice President. The candidate for the position was Cintya Molina. Ms. Molina introduced herself and said she's been on campus since '98 and has been in University programs for 13 years. She did her BA at the University of Iowa and comes from Puerto Rico. She did an MA in Comparative Literature at Arizona and this was her fifth year in the Ph.D. program in African American Studies. She finished her orals successfully and had time for the position, and would be fully into the position. She had a strong background in advocacy and has worked on Statewide campaigns, mobilizing door-to-door, knocking on doors, and getting people out to manifest that voice, and the GA would get that strength from her position. She was really excited to work on basic issues such as fee hikes, remissions, and hardcore finance. She comes from a very small Department where they don't have funding, and where people are parents and have full lives. They need very basic things provided, especially in lean budget times, so she was really interested in strongly being out there and at Regents meetings and advocating, and also just being out there in the streets mobilizing other grads to be more involved. She comes from that grassroots mobilizing background and was in this process because of people who were forceful enough to bring her in. In addition, she was a grad student representative on the Store Operations Board. Ms. Quindel called for any questions. Mr. Akiba asked what kind of advocacy work she's done before. Ms. Molina said most of it was through the Store Operations Board, organization that she thought was very neglected. It deals with commercial sites and makes decisions on ASUC commercial space. She thought it was important to have that budget and finance knowledge. A lot has happened in the SOB, and she ended up becoming convinced on the need for GA autonomy. In the SOB, the emphasis has been of undergrad vision and leadership, but really not taking responsibility, from missing meetings, missing agendas, and very narrow definitions of student needs. So the GA needs to be more watchful in such spaces, and argue for economy and educational issues. A Delegate asked why she was running for External Vice President since many things she talked about involve more internal issues, while the External VP does work for the whole UC System. Ms. Molina said she has done wider work, but it was more community-based, like Statewide initiatives, and she had links to the community that were pretty strong. She had a Statewide vision, not just limited to the campus, and thought that experience was already there. Mr. Valleé said grad students are notoriously underrepresented, and asked what ideas or vision she had to get people more engaged. Ms. Molina said she thought it took a long amount of time to bring people in, and she's had to go to particular departments, knock on doors, and go to grad meetings in departments. At this level, it was really important to contact point people in particular spaces and get those people. So that kind of network had to be established. So it's not just to have moments with the media and do columns or speeches, which was just the beginning. They have to locate people who are key in talking to groups and bringing them in, and that's the work she was willing to do, the footwork to really knock on doors, get people, and have a database and

network. Ms. Quindel called for any other questions and asked the candidate to step outside. A discussion was held, followed by a vote. Mr. Akiba said he thought Mr. Katz was also running. Ms. Quindel said he withdrew. Mr. Hall said that Ms. Quindel was unanimously re-elected as GA President. (Applause) GA Elections (cont'd) - 5 - Ms. Quindel said she would suggest amending the agenda since some representatives from the ASUC were present to talk about recent comments and J-Council cases, and to consider that item after the Executive Board's report. The motion to amend the agenda passed by hand-vote 17-11-0. Ms. Quindel asked if anybody else was running for Academic Affairs Vice President besides Temina Madon. Ms. Madon said this was her second year in the GA. She was on the Grad Council that year and learned a lot, along with being on the Executive Board, and learned about the Executive Board and the GA, and how they fit into the University. Some of her ideas that year will be to carry on Ms. Ahn's work in organizing committee members and making sure information comes from committees to the graduate body as a whole. She would also like to work on grad student health and well-being, specifically mental health, and also support grad education and research. She called for any questions. Ms. Quindel asked the candidate to step outside for a discussion. A discussion was held, followed by a vote. Mr. Hall said that Ms. Molina was selected to be the External Vice President. (Applause) Ms. Quindel said two people submitted their names for the Graduate Council and there are three positions open. Members get to participate in an Academic Senate Committee and on the Executive Board, a big job, but fun, in more of a leadership position in the GA. The people who are running are Jevin Furmanski, Mark Ettlinger, Joe Hall, and Natasha Ong. Joe Hall said they had a great year at the GA. They started with surpluses and ended with budget cuts, which was strange. They have a lot more they'd like to do as an executive team, so he'd like to remain on the Executive Board and allow for continuity that Ms. Ahn has talked about. He thought they had a great opportunity to do quite a bit as a GA, and on the Grad Council, he could effectively advocate for grads. He's been in the Astronomy Department for two years, but was changing and going to the School of Information Management Systems. He believed he was well qualified and called for any questions.

Ms. Quindel said the next candidate for the Grad Council was Mark Ettlinger, from the Linguistics Department. Mr. Ettlinger said it's been great being part of the GA that past year and seeing how much the GA could get done. He was looking forward to participating in the Grad Council and getting even more done. Part of the reason he wanted to be on the Grad Council is that he'd be there for another five or six years, so it was selfish, in that things that get decided on the Grad Council will affect his personal lifestyle for the next five years. He was at Rutgers University for his undergraduate degree, and corresponding to the Graduate Council was the University Senate, which he was on for two years, as the Engineering School representative; so he understand how the process works. He called for any questions. Jevan Furmanski himself and said he just finished his first year in Mechanical Engineering, so he was new at the GA and new to this. The one thing that emerged within his involvement in the GA recently, through the last month, was the speaking series on Wednesdays. He was interested in being in a position to act, make decisions, and be involved, and to be on top of the ball instead of waiting three weeks and coming to the GA meeting, putting in a Resolution and talking about it. He thought it was becoming more important to be involved in the decision making structure, which is more continuous than GA meetings. Getting involved in the Academic Senate and in the Executive Board are both things he was GA Elections (cont'd) - 6 - very interested in, from an activism point of view. Trying to organize grads and GA reps to use their voices was one of the big, positive things to come out of the Wednesday-night series. People showed up and talked, even if they were generally quiet, and even if they hadn't expected to say anything. A lot of people exchanged ideas, especially him, more than he used to do. Ms. Quindel called for any questions. A Delegate said that nobody was talking about any position they had, but just what they did. So it wasn't possible to tell what they were going to do. Mr. Furmanski said he didn't know yet. He would imagine it was a fluid situation and they'd see what events unfold. Ms. Quindel said that to clarify, while people can push their own issues, a lot of the Grad Council's agenda was already shaped. They have to be an adequate representative and respond, and a lot of things they can't talk about outside Grad Council meetings. Mr. Bithell said it's not out of order to have ideas about issues, but a lot of material comes sifted through various channels of the Administration that are sifted to this particular Council, which deals with issues of pertinence to grads on a number of levels, such as federal legislation that was passed and how the University would act on it. The Grad Council influences opinion such issues it addresses. It's a subset of the Academic Senate, and sends information on to the Academic Senate or other committees for further

evaluation. There are a number of big issues that come through. As grad students, they participate in that process. The majority of the issues on the agenda are brought to them from above, in a sense. Mr. Furmanski said his big thing was to actually figure out what people were thinking and to try to figure out an effective way to actually advocate a solution instead of generally showing up and having ideas, but to actually have a plan of attack. If they want to know what things he personally felt strongly about, they would include the Patriot Act Committee, personal privacy and liberty, and in general, advocacy. Natasha Ong introduced herself and said she was in the School of Social Welfare and served as the Grad Council Alternate that year. She enjoyed the position and really enjoyed working with the Executive Board and with staff. She'd like to run for re-election as Alternate, so people shouldn't vote for her. Ms. Quindel asked the candidates to step outside for a discussion. A discussion was held, followed by a vote. Mr. Hall said that Ms. Madon was unanimously elected as Academic Affairs Vice President. (Applause) Ms. Quindel said the next position was for Funding Committee Chair. Iyko Day introduced herself and said she sat on the Funding Committee for one year, as an Ethnic Studies Delegate, and would be happy to take over Mr. Daub's position while he's at the South Pole next year. Over the summer and next year she planned to continue the process they started in clarifying objectives and guidelines of grant programs and to simplify the application process. She was committed to helping grad groups have access to GA funds. Ms. Quindel called for any questions and asked the candidate to step outside for a discussion. A discussion was held, followed by a vote. Ms. Quindel said the next position to elect was Chair of the Organization and Rules Committee. Takeshi Akiba introduced himself and said he was interested in the position. He was from the Department of Jurisprudence and Social Policy. They might recall him from last month, when he had the honor of receiving the Delegate of the Month award. He's always been interested in having a fair procedure for GA meetings. It sounds technical, but it was really important for everyone to have a chance to speak GA Elections (cont'd) - 7 -

equally and that no one speaks too long, and that no one was cut off. He thought procedure was really important for a democratic government to operate. So he would love to take the responsibility of ensuring that for the rest of the body. He called for any questions. Mr. Lippmann asked if the Chair of this Committee also checks Robert's Rules for the body. Ms. Quindel Mr. Hall does that for her, and that function was in the By-laws. Mr. Lippmann asked what he'd do if someone talked too long, and if he would cut them off. Mr. Akiba said they have to measure speaking time accurately instead of just letting someone go on. They have a really informal setting at the GA and just let people go. Good planning about the agenda helps ensure there's enough time, and Delegates should know how much time they should expect to meet there. Mr. Kashmiri asked if he thought he'd be able to handle taking belligerent ASUC officials outside. Mr. Akiba said he looked nice, but when enforcing a law, he could do that. Ms. Quindel called for any other questions and asked the candidate to step outside for a discussion. A discussion was held, followed by a vote. Ms. Quindel said she would like to announce two votes. The GA elected Mr. Furmanski, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Ettlinger, to the Grad Council, and Ms. Ong as alternate. Also, Ms. Day was elected Funding Committee Chair. (Applause) REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD Ms. Quindel said the report from the Executive Committee was included in the agenda packet, and the GA had a few things to vote on. She was really excited to have a full Executive Board elected that evening. This was the first year in a long time that's occurred. (Applause) She hoped many of them present that evening decide to become Delegates next year as well, since it was great to have that continuity. She wanted to welcome all the new Board members, and said they'd be meeting soon. The report from the Executive Board was on page 2. There are three recommendations from the Board that the Delegates were being asked to approve. The first recommendation was to create a GA Patriot Act Committee to deal specifically with issues around that law. Ms. Ahn said she and Melissa, also from the Law School, are on the Patriot Act Committee and realized more students were needed to work on this issue and to prepare the grad student response to the renewal of the law, Patriot Act 2. This law will severely impact grad student research and privacy. This would be an internal GA committee to work on issues related to the Patriot Act. Ms. Quindel asked if anybody was interested in being on this Committee, and said that if the GA approves its formation, they can then appoint people to it. She called for any questions. A Delegate asked if this Committee was limited for one year. Ms. Quindel said it's an ad hoc committee, so it would remain until the GA disbands it.

Ms. Quindel called for a motion to approve the formation of the GA Patriot Act Committee. It was so moved and seconded. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE FORMATION OF THE GA PATRIOT ACT COMMITTEE PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. Report from the Executive Board (cont'd) - 8 - Ms. Quindel said that for the next item, as per GA By-laws, ASUC By-laws, and the Memorandum of Understanding, the Executive Board voted that to pay one-third of the cost of the ASUC's elections. However, the Board's position was that the GA would only pay one-third of those costs, the figure they were originally given, not the amount of actual costs, after the elections fiasco that occurred. The cost the GA was originally given was $8,000, and that's what they'd pay, since the GA had nothing to do with the fiasco. The GA did not select the Elections Council Chair nor any of the people on the Council. So the $8,000 payment to the ASUC is per the By-laws, and the Board was recommending that the GA approve allocating that amount for the ASUC's elections, per the By-laws. Ms. Madon asked if there was a grad student representative on the Elections Council. Ms. Quindel said there wasn't, and there was no GA input on who the people were. Mr. Kashmiri said the elections, which he ran in, had to be extended and ended up costing the ASUC $84,000, according to a Daily Cal report, instead of the $25,000 that it was projected to cost. A Delegate asked about GA participation. Mr. Hall said the Elections Council Chair solicited grads, and asked the GA to put a grad student on that committee, but no one was interested. Ms. Ahn said the ASUC Senate appoints the Elections Council Chair and approves the Council, and the GA has no input in that process. That's also part of the historical reason why grads have not been very well included in the elections in the past. Mr. Daub asked if the results of the election were even out yet. Ms. Quindel said they weren't. Mr. Daub asked if results are counted by computer. Ms. Quindel said a lot of undergrads filed cases the Judicial Council has to hear. The final day for that was Tuesday, and results had to be reported to the Senate at its meeting on Wednesday night. She called for any other questions. A motion to approve allocating $8,000 for the GA's part of election costs was made and seconded. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXECUTIVE BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOCATE $8,000 AS THE GA'S SHARE OF THE COST OF ASUC ELECTIONS PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. Lastly, Ms. Quindel said the Executive Board felt that ASUC elections disenfranchised and disadvantaged grads, and that the GA should have a say in the approval process of the ASUC Elections Council Chair and the Elections Council before continuing to pay for future

elections. Thus, the Executive Board decided to rescind their vote of no confidence and to replace it with the following statement. The Board would like GA approval, if they feel the same way. The statement would read "The GA has changed our opinion to a vote of no confidence on lack of good faith and gross negligence." Ms. Quindel called for any questions. A Delegate asked how much the ASUC wanted at that point. Ms. Quindel said that per the By-laws, the GA is supposed to pay one-third of the cost of elections. A week before the elections, the Elections Council Chair told her that the GA's cost would be $7-8,000. So the Executive Board approved the $8,000 amount, regardless of the fact that the elections cost $84,000, since the GA had nothing to do with the Council. They don't want to pay for these elections because they had no input. The Chair hasn't given her an official request. Mr. Furmanski asked to clarify "gross negligence," and asked how that applied. Ms. Ahn said it's not necessarily intentionally trying to do something wrong and just that one completely messed up and was Report from the Executive Board (cont'd) - 9 - kind of incompetent, causing intense amounts of problems for the organization. It's normally very difficult to be negligent, but going beyond the budget for elections, to $84,000, and delaying the election an entire week, which was worse than any other ASUC elections she's ever seen, called for, she thought, negligence. Ms. Quindel called for any other questions. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD TO AMEND ITS VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE ASUC ELECTIONS COUNCIL CHAIR PASSED BY VOICE-VOTE. REPORT FROM THE FUNDING COMMITTEE Mr. Daub said a half-sheet of paper with the Committee's funding recommendations was distributed for Round 8 of Grad Events funding. They really didn't have any money left. Luckily, however, several groups notified them beforehand that they weren't going to use all their funding, and let the Funding Committee reallocate the funding those groups had left, and that amount was just enough to cover everything the applications requested. A motion to approve the Funding Committee recommendations was made and seconded. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE FUNDING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ROUND 8 OF GRAD EVENTS FUNDING GRANTS PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION.

Ms. Quindel said she would like to thank Mr. Daub for his service as Funding Committee Chair, and said they'll miss him. (Applause) REPORT FROM THE BUSINESS OFFICE Ms. Dugas said she wanted to take this time to thank all the staff, who have done just an enormous job on their projects. For the first time in a long time, they have another full-timer, Shayla Moore, providing aid with finances, and she's done an excellent job trying to reach out to grads. They have a lot planned for next year. Ms. Dugas said she wanted to read something that she wrote, since this was her tenth anniversary celebration at the GA. It's been a long ten years, and she really appreciated everything the GA has given to her. She read the following: --------------- Begin note from Ms. Dugas On the dawn of my tenth (10th) year anniversary, I wanted to give a special thanks to the many staff, Officers and Delegates who have supported me in all of my endeavors. You have been great to me, as well as my family, and my daughter has now given up school and taken residence at the Pelican Building, aka The Graduate Assembly. While it would be my wish to provide each and everyone of you with all the normative time or funding you choose; make transportation and access as easy as eating your favorite pie; make the costs of Report from the Business Office (cont'd) - 10 - --------------- Note from Ms. Dugas (cont'd) professional schools free; double your GSI salaries; allow you to do unlimited research from the South Pole to Africa, or not at all; make graduate student housing affordable comfortable and close (or free); give you the advisor of your choice; make all policy makers consult you first before they make a decision, and finally, make beer, wine and pizza free for all grads, the best that I can do is be the best advisor and supporter to that I can. That is what I have tried to do in my ten years -- and I THANK YOU for allowing me to do that under the most supportive student governmental operation that I have ever experienced. - Nzingha

End note from Ms. Dugas --------------- (Applause) Ms. Quindel said a tenth anniversary surprise celebration was held for Ms. Dugas, who is one of the reasons the GA has managed so well. LOGO CONTEST Ms. Quindel said they have a contest to create the GA's new logo. Some people have been handing in just two-letters designs, saying "GA." She would pass around a sheet showing logos over the past ten years for people to take a look at, ad perhaps get inspired to redesign the GA's logo. The Logo Committee will be meeting soon. They need some more designs and might have to re-open the contest, since she wasn't sure she was ready for any of the logos that were submitted. DISCUSSION WITH ASUC REPRESENTATIVES Ms. Quindel said she invited representatives of the ASUC to the GA meeting, since Sen. Paul LaFata has filed cases with the Judicial Council relating to the GA. She would like him to address the GA in an unofficial fashion, as an act of courtesy, and she wanted to thank him for coming. She said Mr. LaFata had three minutes to speak and then one minute per question that's asked. Also present was Sens. Cliff Costa and Taina Gomez. Mr. LaFata said he wanted to thank the GA very much for inviting him to the meeting. He would apologize for this being the first time he was meeting them. Last night, Pres. Quindel was at the ASUC Senate meeting and discussed an article that was in the Daily Cal a couple of days ago. While the actions taken were not against the GA, this question was relevant to the GA. So he was present that evening to answer questions the GA had with regard to the documents in question. He's been following the GA as well as GA Executives, and read the minutes and followed the GA's activities. He's believed there was a disconnect in the information flow between the GA and other areas of the ASUC. What he meant by that is that the source of information that often supplies the GA with information from outside the GA was often very exaggerated or biased as to how it's reported. He was sorry that was the case, and this had to do with decisions made by incumbent Executives. He would ask them to be critical and cautious in how they assess information they receive. The grads who teach him encourage him to be critical about sources of information that provide opinion, and in this case he would recommend that grads follow their own advice which they often give students they work with, or address, to be critical of information. That affects everything, including the ASUC Senate, Executive Offices, the elections, everything, all the information. He would like to yield time for questions in relation to the documents.

Mr. Kashmiri asked if people understood what was going on, and said that most people didn't see the article in the Daily Cal. Sen. LaFata and Academic Affairs VP Falcone filed a couple of actions in the Judicial Council claiming that some parts of the Memorandum of Understanding, a legal document with the ASUC, were invalid and violated the ASUC Constitution, specifically, that the GA was autonomous and able to manage its own affairs and funds. The suit says that and several other parts of the MOU were invalid and that the GA was not actually autonomous and not in charge of its own funds, and that the GA was not necessarily entitled to occupying Anthony Hall. He asked if that was correct. The suit says that the GA should be treated as a regular organization under the ASUC, and that the GA should get its space in the same way that other student groups get space in Eshleman Hall. He thought it was crazy. Ms. Ahn said it would be difficult for people to understand the Judicial Council Charge Sheet. She asked if people know what the MOU is, and said it's a document that was signed by the Regents, the Chancellor, and the Presidents of the GA and the ASUC. It's an agreement born from a concern the Chancellor had that the ASUC at that time withheld funds from the GA, if it wished, and that the GA wasn't getting full funding from fees that grads paid, as is the case at most other UCs. The idea was that through the MOU, the GA would get 100% of grad student fees instead of having to go to the ASUC Senate, like any other student organization, to request funds. The Senate would consider the GA's request and give them however much it wanted. The MOU is an automatic dispensation of finances and was a legal document, and voted into the ASUC's By-laws, under Title X, which relates to the GA. What Mr. LaFata was saying is that by the very virtue of signing that MOU, the ASUC violated its own Constitution. She believed that was his argument. Mr. LaFata said that was a portion of it. Ms. Ahn said that obviously, the GA had responses. Ms. Dugas said that since she's been there for ten years, she had some historical perspective as a staffmember, without taking any side. There is a notion of the GA receiving "seven-sevenths" of the fees paid by grad student; and they were just talking about grad fees. Over the course of many years, the GA fought to receive that seven-sevenths. It had been two-sevenths. When the Store was put under the Store Operations Board and the ASUC Auxiliary was created, in that discussion it was agreed that starting from 1998, over the course of the next three years, the GA would get 100% of graduate student fees. So the GA received five-sevenths and then thirteenth-fourteenths of grad student fees, until the GA began to receive the total amount of grad fees. In addition, the agreement was for the GA to then pay a portion of ASUC election costs, the $8,000 the GA approved that evening, and that each organization would pay its own UCSA fees. That agreement came out of the MOU, a legal document, and was signed into the Constitution. Ms. Quindel called for any questions for the speaker. Mr. Hall said he realized the relationship between the ASUC and the GA was very antagonistic at that time. Mr. LaFata said the GA was part of the ASUC. Mr. Hall said he understood, but that was the situation between the GA and the ASUC Senate, or in general. Mr. LaFata said that was the case, and he had to confess that a source of that antagonism came from the leadership of the GA, which threw down the gauntlet at the first meeting of the ASUC Senate, something that made a lasting impression on the Senate. The elections controversy came because the GA caused it, and caused them to form a committee, and this actually wasn't on the Senate's agenda or vision until GA Executives brought that to the Senate's attention. So Mr. LaFata said he would say that it was true that the relationship was

fractured, but it's not the fault of one body's error. Mr. Hall asked if, given his grin, this was something Mr. LaFata enjoyed. Mr. LaFata said he didn't. A Delegate said she does read the Daily Cal, and the ASUC has, almost to the point of gross negligence, lost a large amount of its money. So the ASUC was poor and wanted to get GA money to increase funds for undergrads and undergrad processes and issues. She sat on the GA's Finance Committee and knew where the GA's money goes. It goes to grads, who need teaching materials, e.g., and her student fees go to grad student material and grad events. She asked what he would propose as an alternative. Mr. LaFata said this was not a question about the GA's money. The Delegate said he mentioned it was unconstitutional for the GA to be separate. Mr. LaFata said the GA was in the Constitution and was a constituent party of the ASUC. They could have a conversation about the actual suit. The Delegate asked what his alternative is. Mr. LaFata said he was not present to discuss the alternative or discuss the nature of Executives, and he was not suing the GA, but the Executive Officers. If people wished to talk to him about the contents of the lawsuit, that would not be fruitful. On a point of order, Ms. Ahn said that to clarify, Mr. LaFata is the plaintiff in the suit. Mr. LaFata said that was correct. Ms. Ahn said the MOU says that for any action regarding the ASUC takes regarding the GA, the ASUC was required to have formal consultation with the GA. He was a member of the Senate and was bringing this charge, so he was required to have consultation with the GA. Mr. LaFata said she was welcome to come and make that point to the Senate. A Delegate said this process was a waste of time since the speaker was not answering questions. Mr. LaFata said that if people want to speak outside the content of lawsuits, that was fine. But since the GA was not a party of the suit, it wasn't relevant to discuss this before the body. Ms. Dugas said that just for people asking questions to the Senator, this question has been going on for over ten years, and the dispute between the GA and the ASUC Senate had a long history. So it didn't culminate at the first meeting of the Senate, but has been ongoing. Mr. LaFata said the specific conflict he was talking about did begin at the first meeting, and this conflict wasn't ten years old. Ms. Dugas said it was ten years old, speaking as an elder. Mr. del Peral asked about his involvement in the second suit regarding the $28,000 that the ASUC wanted to collect from the GA. Mr. LaFata said the ASUC Senate made a legislative decision, and the Constitution says the Senate had final legislative authority, and the question involved enforcing that final legislative authority. Mr. del Peral asked if the GA was involved in this discussion. Mr. LaFata said GA reps came to his Committee and to the Senate to discuss this, but that was no longer relevant because the ASUC had final legislative authority. Ms. Madon asked what he expected to come from this lawsuit, and among three choices, asked if he thought it would strengthen the relationship between the GA and the ASUC, hasten the disassociation of GA from the undergrad body, or if it will involve a long and expensive process. Mr. LaFata said it's costing nothing. Ms. Madon said it costs them time. Mr. LaFata said it might strengthen the relationship, and the suit was to clarify the relationship. If there are disagreements about that relationship, then they're disunified, or there's confusion, or disobedience in the relationship, resulting in them being disunified. Ms. Madon asked if the method he was

taking, which was kind of confrontational, was the best way to strengthen the relationship, and asked if he's considered alternatives. Mr. LaFata said he has. He didn't know if this was confrontational, and the Judicial Council was very civil, public, and clean, and would make the decision. Ms. Madon said that he didn't consult with anybody about this. Mr. LaFata said that was because the GA was a party to the lawsuit. A Delegate said it seemed they were at a time in the State where education was under drastic siege, and she found his smile frightening at that moment, and thought it was frightening that this is what either an undergrad Senate or the GA should be talking about. She couldn't believe the immaturity involved. What she would like to him to explain, as an elected Senate representative, is what it was that moved him to be a leader, and if he cared about education or about power, or a mixture of the two. She didn't mean to insult him personally, but she was insulted by the fact that he even had to be there under the circumstances of their country at that time, and that this was what he considered to be important. Mr. LaFata said he agreed, and was disappointed he had to be there in view of the circumstances of what was going on. Referring to the previous question, it had to do with clarifying and strengthening the relationship between the GA and the ASUC. He didn't believe this type of action has not occurred before. As to his motivation, it had to do with the rule of law and making sure that what the students voted for is realized by the students' elected representatives. Right now, there's disobedience in the way elected officials have been behaving, and elected reps have to be accountable to the student body. He valued education, and otherwise he wouldn't be talking to them. Mr. Hall said he realized the intent was to strengthen the relationship, but if the suit goes the way Mr. LaFata intends, he'd be gutting the Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. LaFata said there were some flaws in the MOU that have caused discordance between the ASUC and the GA. Mr. Hall said it was created during negotiations that Mr. LaFata was not part of, and there were other negotiations Mr. LaFata was not privy to that gave the GA certain things that are cited in the suit. Mr. LaFata said that Mr. Hall was welcome to bring those points to the Judicial Council. A Delegate asked what he thought would be the best outcome to come out of this, and if he wanted to erase the MOU, or to have people removed, or the GA. Mr. LaFata said he wanted the GA to be as the Constitution defines the GA. The GA would receive all grad fees, for the purpose of augmenting the experience of grads on campus. He believed the behavior of the GA, which rips the relationship to the ASUC, compromises that mission. To fix that, they have to take out the error that causes those fractures and replace it with something that augments it. The motivation was stated in the Constitution, and that's the motivation in which he was acting. Mr. Kashmiri said he should explain to the GA that he was suing the ASUC and the President, declaring that the GA was no longer autonomous and that it shouldn't necessarily have the space in Anthony Hall. He would hope Mr. LaFata would consult with the GA, even though they're not a party to the suit. Secondly, it was outrageous to claim that the GA mismanaged its money after they've run surpluses for the last ten years while the ASUC had a cost of $85,000 to run an election and also forgot to include $40,000 in return to financial aid money, and was over-budgeted. Mr. Lippmann said the premise of Mr. LaFata's suit was that the MOU was in violation of the Constitution. Mr. LaFata said it deals with a clause in the MOU. Mr. Lippmann asked if the

proposal was that they're contradicting the Constitution. Mr. LaFata said that was one part of the MOU, that the ASUC couldn't act in that MOU because its sphere of action was bounded by a document of its founding, the Constitution. Mr. Lippmann asked if they were not, then, in violation of the Constitution. Mr. LaFata said the ASUC, one of the parties in that agreement could not have signed such an agreement because it was bound by its foundational document, which defines the limits of its existence. When they stepped outside the bounds of the Constitution, they were no longer a party in the name of the students of UC Berkeley. Clarifying the relationship between the GA and the ASUC had to be done according to the foundational document that they share in common. Ms. Madon said she felt his narrow interpretation of the Constitution was restrictive. The MOU represents negotiations that were important. Mr. LaFata said the MOU was illegal. Ms. Madon said it's a legal document. Mr. LaFata said it wasn't legal if it was signed in an illegal context. Ms. Madon said this was like Roe v. Wade, and the suit would be taking away authority that was granted by a legal document. Mr. LaFata said Roe v. Wade dealt with women's right to choose, and the metaphor didn't apply. Ms. Ahn said she had a problem with his context that this was a rule since the MOU was signed by the Chancellor, who's a representative of the UC Regents, who override the ASUC Constitution. Mr. LaFata said that was correct. Ms. Ahn said the MOU, then, was a legal document under the Chancellor and the UC, through the imprimatur of the ASUC. The ASUC Constitution was granted by the Regents. If his J-Council suit succeeds and the J-Council determines the MOU is an illegal document, the ASUC would be in serious breach of its obligation, and this question would go to a real court of law, which is where this dispute should be taken, because the MOU is a legal document and the J-Council had no authority over this particular area of the law. The real jurisdiction lies in the Ninth Circuit Court, or another venue. Ms. Quindel said she would like to thank Mr. LaFata for attending the meeting that evening. 2003-4 GA BUDGET Ms. Quindel asked if people had a chance to look over the budget, and asked if people would like a presentation. She said they'd take a straw poll on that question, and after the straw poll, said they'd go straight to questions. She would take a list of speakers. The Executive Board approved this budget and was forwarding it to the GA for a final review and to ask any questions. Ultimately, they need to have the budget approved so the GA can operate starting July 1. Mr. Akiba said that one clarification dealt with staff development. On the budget the figure was $9,000, and in the narrative, page 9, it said $3,500. Ms. Dugas said the figure was $9,000, and the narrative had a typo. The budget itself was correct. A Delegate asked for a clarification on some things that seemed to have increased a lot from last year to this year. The main ones were under personnel for the Business Office and personnel in the Executive Office budget. Ms. Dugas said she would take the personnel question and Executives could answer the other question. The increase is due to having another full-time person. All their

salaries are paid through the University. With the increase of revenue from Prop. 2, more money was granted to grad groups, which overwhelmed the Business Office, although the University didn't really want to give the GA another position. So the GA asked to pay 50% of the salary and benefits, and asked if the University would do a 50-50 deal. So that's part of the 50% of the benefits and salary that allows the GA to have a full-time position. Mr. Kashmiri asked if the question was about the $2,000 increase. The Delegate said the question arose from simply looking at the line items. Mr. Kashmiri said that as Delegates recall, during the GA's October meeting, they approved an External Affairs office that consisted of a Campus Organizing Director at ten hours a week, a Legislative Liaison at ten hours a week, a Governmental Relations Coordinator at 20 hours a week, and a media person at 20 hours a week. They decided it wasn't efficient having two people at ten hours, and given the space limitations, things were getting difficult. So they combined positions, and with the increase in benefits, the total went up. Ms. Quindel said another factor was her running again, since there's also a mandated increase for staff who remain. Ms. Dugas said there's a step system, which is capped at three years. A Delegate asked if they got rid of research grants. Ms. Quindel said that was a pilot project, and they'd look at that again if there's a budget surplus. Mr. Hall said those grants were put in place because of the GA's surplus. The Delegate said she was worried about solar panels and asked if money for that came from the Grad Division, since it was listed as being matching funds. Ms. Quindel said the funding for solar panels came from the Coca-Cola beverage contract, and money from that source was being allocated for solar panels. A Delegate asked about the decrease of $10,000 for the childcare voucher program, and if that was due to a lack of use of the program. Ms. Dugas said they have various sources of funding, and that program was supposed to be a joint venture. However, the initial funding was decreased. As a returning grad student parent herself, her biggest issue was time. They spent six months trying to get a grad student parent into a position to head the program and couldn't get anybody. So the GA decided to do more research and see about more possibilities in terms of work schedules. So maybe they wouldn't need much initially and then, as they saw how much money remained in the surplus, they could see about revisiting this. Candidates are juggling academics and parenting, and they couldn't get anybody. But it's a commitment, and something the Officers and Executive Board are working with on, along with Dean Mason as well. A Delegate said she's heard from different people that the MOU supposedly calls for the GA to get a share of the profits from the mall, that revenue wasn't included in the budget because the ASUC never gives that to the GA, and never will. She asked if there was any way to enforce that in order to increase the budget. In looking at the total, the GA was taking a pretty big hit from one year to the next. She didn't know what the numbers are from the student mall and asked if that was something they wanted to press. Ms. Quindel said that's something they need to work on with the Organization and Rules Committee, to enforce those rules for next year. They can't guarantee receiving funds, but they're committed to that. She wrote in her statement about sharing some of the profit from ASUC commercial activities, and that was something she was personally committed to, as were other members of the Board.

Mr. Akiba said Grad Events funding was being cut a huge amount, from $65,000 to $40,000. He asked about the impact that would have. Secondly, last year, when he worked on the Foreign Student Affairs Committee, they couldn't make copies at the GA Business Office. If they wanted to do that, they would have needed to allocate that money somewhere. He asked if that was the policy or if that was changed. Ms. Quindel said they should do that. Mr. Daub said that first, the student group funding numbers before them are the same exact numbers that were put in the original budget for this current school year. He believed the difference between the two columns was because in November, due to the surplus, the GA decided to take some of that money and put it into some funding programs. But these were the numbers the GA had at the beginning of this current school year. Ms. Madon said she thought it might be appropriate for committee members who need to make copies to do so under the Academic Affairs budget, so perhaps that could be included. Ms. Quindel said they could increase that area if need be in the Executive office if they have a surplus. It wouldn't be a lot of money, so that would be fine, and they'd include that for Executive Officers, and if anything happens, they could come to the GA. Ms. Quindel called for any other questions on the budget, and seeing none, asked if people were ready to approve the budget. A motion to approve was made and seconded. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2003-4 GA BUDGET PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. REPORT FROM THE ASUC REPRESENTATIVE TO THE GA Ms. Quindel said the ASUC Senate representative would like to give his report early and she would ask the GA to vote on that because they talked about changing the order of the agenda earlier in the year. The motion to hear the report from the ASUC Senate representative at that time passed unanimously by voice-vote. Reporting as the ASUC Senate representative to the GA, Mr. Mata said he would apologize for asking to move his report up on the agenda, but he had a meeting at 7:00. He wanted to talk to the GA about a few things. The Senate's Contingency Fund was $261.79, which was really low. And that's after they transferred $15,000 from a different fund of theirs earlier in the semester, because they didn't want to let groups down. Secondly, the Senate had three external Resolutions they passed that week and plan to pass next week. One bill was in support of international students. There's been a couple of cases lastly in the University where professors have taken their classes on field trips to certain centers around the Bay Area but were not allowed to take international students. In one case, the professor took his class to NASA Ames, and the laboratory did not allow students from certain countries to attend. In the other case, the professor planned to take his case to the Bay Area traffic control center, and the organization said the international students couldn't go. This issue was brought up before the Academic Senate Committee on International Education, which drafted a suggestion to Executive Vice Chancellor Paul Gray. Mr. Gray issued a very strict statement and does not allow faculty to

go on with a class until the professor can find an alternative activity that would have equal educational value to the students. In one case, the faculty member decided to go on with the field trip, and the international students were unable to go. Mr. Mata said he sits on this Committee, and the Committee Chair asked him to request a bill from the ASUC Senate to see how the students felt about this issue. The ASUC Senate approved that bill unanimously and the Resolution will go to the Chair of the Academic Senate. Hopefully, they can have a permanent policy on this question. Mr. Mata said the second bill the ASUC Senate dealt with was something the GA passed, to support education. The third bill they'll discuss is in support of Assembly Bill 550, the Student Fee Affordability Act. Those three bills are external Resolutions. Mr. Mata said his third item was the ASUC's budget. They're currently discussing next year's budget, and the Senate's process was a lot lengthier than it was for the GA. The last meeting of the Finance Committee went from 9 p.m. to 5:30 a.m., and they're not even done. So it will be a lengthy process. Their budget was currently in deficit, so they have to fix that. If Delegates know people in grad groups who applied for ASUC funding, he would ask them to let the groups know that if they want to challenge their initial allocation, to please let them know that they could appeal. He knew, for instance, that the grad film group didn't get everything it asked for, and that the Berkeley Science Review was cut significantly. He'd forward the names of the groups to Ms. Quindel. They should show up next Monday at 9 p.m. so they can help those groups with their allocations. Lastly, Mr. Mata said the Senate only granted the UCSA $10,000, and according to the rules, they have to grant the UCSA $18,000 in order to have formal membership. So the Senate will make that increase so the ASUC is a voting member. Mr. Hall asked if there was any word on the Cal-SERVE ticket. Ms. Quindel said that was partisan and they wouldn't speak on that. A Delegate said she was following the debate on students who couldn't go on field trips. She asked if the Senate was saying that they should find alternatives for those foreign students who weren't allowed to go on the field trip. Mr. Mata said the bill was to support an interim policy established by Executive Vice Chancellor Paul Gray that lets faculty know what they should do. The policy says that there should not be an activity the whole class can't go on. The Delegate asked if the alternative was just for international students or if it was for everybody. Mr. Mata said the event had to be for the whole class. The problem now is that faculty have no guidelines on what to do if this situation arises. Executive Vice Chancellor Gray sent a letter to faculty saying that if they run into this situation, the last thing they want to do is to go on with the trip and not let the international students go. The ASUC Senate voted in favor of that policy. The Academic Senate is trying to come up with a permanent policy. Ms. Quindel called for any other questions and said she wanted to thank him.

BY-LAW CHANGES Mr. Hall said the Organization and Rules Committee on Wednesday looked at proposed By-law changes from Mr. Daub and the Funding Committee, examined them, and thought everything was great. If people have any specific questions regarding the changes, they should feel free to ask. Ms. Quindel called for any questions. Ms. Madon said she would like to propose an amendment, in Section 16.7.3.3, which describes Diversity Grants. The sentence was cut that says the Grant provides annual funding for student-initiated projects and was designed to benefit the educational experience of UC Berkeley graduate and professional students, by supporting all forms of diversity at the campus level. It's replaced with wording that highlights underrepresented groups. She felt that sentence might be added back because while it opens up the scope of diversity, it may be appropriate in this case. Mr. Hall said she was saying that the scope was narrowed and changed to underrepresented groups. Ms. Madon said it was narrowed so Diversity Grants could only be to promote retention, provide specific services to, or highlight underrepresented groups. It would be useful to broaden the scope of these grants, to fund anything that enhances the educational experience by drawing on diversity. Mr. Hall said definitions for Diversity Grants were also added in 16.7, so the change was not as big as she seemed to think it was. Mr. Daub said they went from having a broad statement to enhance educational experience, to having no statement or the broad definition of the Diversity Grant. He would propose replacing the sentence they you removed with one that states that the Grant is to enhance the educational experience of students by doing all sorts of diversity. Mr. Hall said that he would say that they opened it, in a sense. Now they have "any of the following," not just three instances. Ms. Madon said her worry is that projects that don't highlight recruitment or retention services or events would not get funded, and thought other projects could benefit the educational experience. A Delegate asked what things she was thinking of. Ms. Madon said one example was Women in Science, which deals with an underrepresented minority, and might like to do something that incorporates these issues. Mr. Hall start he thought that would be covered. Ms. Quindel asked if they could replace "highlight" with another word. Mr. Lippmann said the motion was to replace the language that was removed. They could keep the four points mentioned in the proposed changes, but add the broadened sentence. Mr. Daub said this was the motion from the Funding Committee. Mr. Akiba said he didn't think they had to specify preferences for the Grant. Mr. Hall said preferences have historically been specified. Ms. Madon said she wasn't advocating that, just to amend the first sentence. Ms. Quindel said the amendment would the first sentence of 16.7.3.3 to read, "The Campus Diversity Grant Program provides funding for graduate student group initiated projects… designed to benefit the educational experience of UC Berkeley grad and professional students through all

forms of diversity at the campus level, designed to do any of the following:" She asked if that was clear to people. The motion to amend was seconded. Mr. Lippmann said he was a member of the Funding Committee and they spent a lot of time looking at these changes. They were trying to narrow its scope, and yet increase their ability to really target use of the fund. Right now their definition was so broad that anybody could come under this umbrella for anything they want. Any grant that comes in can meet their guidelines, and therefore they have no control to really decide on what was a pressing problem, and they're trying to get to a point where they can address what the grant was about. The By-law change gives the GA restrictions for these funds and gives them the ability to put money where it should be going. Ms. Madon said she thought that as a goal, diversity had to take into account giving educational benefit, and that wasn't in the language, that the purpose of this Grant was to enhance education. Ms. Quindel said they had two people over quorum. Mr. Hall said the Funding Committee had a lot of experience with this and knew what changes were needed to better serve grads with the grants that students are given. They'd defer to Funding Committee recommendations. His motion was as Chair of the Organization and Rules Committee, not as a Delegate. Ms. Dugas said they could change things, but as an original writer of this program, the idea was to have these grants encourage diversity, in particular to underrepresented groups. However, that did not disallow other forms of diversity that might be out there and might come up as a concern. But the Grant highlighted those specific underrepresented groups that can be identified on campus, and to also recognize there may be other areas with underrepresented groups that don't fall under the traditional or historical notion. Mr. Lippmann said that in terms of educational improvement, there's another grant for education, the Educational Improvement Grants Project. The GA was trying to separate those two, so they working towards that heart of what the funds were originally created for. Mr. Akiba said he didn't see the practical effect of the change, and the same limitations would apply if they amend the wording to say that the Grant was designed to do "any of the following," and he asked what the difference was. Ms. Ahn said she agreed that the four instances for use of the Grant may not do much, but thought the connection to education was important since, to a certain extent, that's what student fees were supposed to do; and the GA was allocating student fees. From her perspective, as somebody who wants to make sure that these funds are legally protected, she thought that making things more explicit rather than implicit was better. So even if had no effect on how they fund the Grant, the wording shows they're giving grants for an educational purpose and were concerned with education. Mr. Lippmann said it did affect the way they make decisions. They tried to work per the By-laws as closely as possible. If they then incorporate education and have to start weighing grants that

could improve education through some means of diversity, that would open the scope very wide and wouldn't give them the ability to focus the grant on what it was intended for. Mr. Akiba said that if they do adopt the amendment, the practical consequence is they'd go from saying the focus would be on "the following" to focusing on "any of the following." If they change the first half and change the focus to "any of the following," it seemed like it would limit things. The motion to approve the amendment to 16.7.3.3 failed by voice-vote. Ms. Madon said she would like to propose an amendment, to add the following to 16.7.3.3: "E. Any project or event designed to benefit the educational experience of UC Berkeley graduate and professional students by supporting all forms of diversity at the campus level." The motion to amend was seconded. Mr. Lippmann said that's what they were trying to avoid, and to have the money go towards where it was originally intended. If it's for educational projects, anybody could get funding under this grant, and money wouldn't go where it should, which is towards diversity. A Delegate said she's done work on diversity and thought it was weird to have diversity for diversity's sake. It was important to tie this to education. The more people the better, but they you don't say what "better" is, and why something was "better." She asked how this ties into them all being UC Berkeley students. That's why she liked the first version, but wasn't sure about the second. Ms. Madon said she was a member of the Funding Committee for a year and was familiar with the old guidelines, and they got a lot of applications that didn't seem to fit. But they should consider those applications as well, since many times there are groups and entities that are not usually considered underrepresented minorities which would benefit grads on an educational and social level. It was important to acknowledge that. A Delegate said she was another member of the Funding Committee and they have funds for educational improvement. If there's a request for a grant, it could be funded under the EIGP, and she asked why it had to be funded under a Diversity Grant. Mr. Lippmann said that a lot of grants would merit funding that support recruitment, retention, or provides special services, things they're talking about. The proposed By-law changes would allow the GA to cut out things that are not appropriate and would take away money from groups that deserve it. Ms. Quindel said they were currently at quorum. A motion to call the question was made and seconded and passed with no objection. The motion to approve the amendment to add a new section, E), failed by voice-vote. Mr. Daub called the question on the motion to amend the By-laws, as submitted. The motion was seconded and passed with no objection. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO

THE BY-LAWS, PROPOSED BY THE FUNDING COMMITTEE AND APPROVED BY THE ORGANIZATION AND RULES COMMITTEE, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE. Ms. Quindel said that unfortunately, the Resolutions they were to consider were not included in the packet. Mr. Hall asked if anybody read the Resolution In Support of Free Software and Standards. It wasn't included in the packet, and he asked if people would like him to read it. A Delegate asked if it was time dependent. Mr. Hall said it wasn't. It just required the GA to use free software as opposed to proprietary software. Ms. Quindel said they could put this before the Executive Board. A motion to table the Resolution was made and seconded and passed with no objection. Ms. Quindel asked if people would like to hear end of the year reports, and from the response, said people could read them. A Delegate social was planned for Friday, May 23, from 4:00 to 6:00. There will be food and celebration for the work Delegates have done, and she really wanted to thank them. They'd send out a reminder about it. Also, current Delegates will be wiped off the list serve, and they had to be put on again after submitting their Delegate Certification Forms. Mr. Kashmiri said he would like to congratulate the new GA Officers. (Applause) Ms. Quindel said she would like to thank Ms. Dugas and staff. (Applause) A motion to adjourn was made and seconded and passed with no objection. This meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

These minutes respectfully submitted by,

Steven I. Litwak Recording Secretary

Present at the May 1, 2003 GA Meeting Sheryl Kane, Bioengineering Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Astronomy Gustavo Mata, ASUC Representative Kai Wang, Chemical Engineering Ikyo Day, Comparative Ethnic Studies Yatish Patel, Computer Science Vivian Hwa, Economics Mandy Bachman, Education Josh Fisher, ESPM Luke Hasty, ESPM Carl Rogers, Folklore Jennifer Casolo, Geography Kim Melton, Journalism Takeshi Akiba, Jurisprudence and Social Policy Tim Griffiths, Law Francisco Cortes, Law Cesar del Peral, Law Noura Erakat, Law Karimah Lamar, Law Jessica Owley, Law Alisa Nave, Law Vinay Pimple, Law Anik Banerjee, Law Stephanie Lacambra, Law Mark Ettlinger, Linguistics Abby Wright, Linguistics Johanna Franklin, Logic& Methodology of Science Jevan Furmanski, Mechanical Engineering Julian Lippmann, Mechanical Engineering Kathryn McElroy, Molecular and Cell Biology David Bithell, Music Lionel Prost, Nuclear Engineering Mike Daub, Physics Emily Stein, Plant and Microbial Biology Neil Abrams, Political Science Elaine Kwei, Political Science Natasha Ong, Social Welfare Manuel Valeé, Sociology Richard Bourgon, Statistics Temina Madon, Vision Science Nzingha Dugas, GA staff, Business Director Catherine Ahn, GA Academic Affairs Vice Pres. Chris Cantor, GA Departmental Liaison Jessica Quindel, GA President Mo Kashmiri, GA External Affairs Vice President