GRADUATE ASSEMBLY MEETING

December 5, 2002 SUMMARY OF THE MEETING • This meeting concludes the Fall Semester. • Shayla Moore was hired as the GA's full-time funding advisor. • Heard a report from the ASUC Elections Council Chair regarding Spring Semester's

elections. • Heard the Funding Committee's report and approved the Committee's

recommendations for Round 4-A allocations of Grad Events allocations. • Heard a report from the Cal Corps Public Service Center on graduate advocates. • Heard a presentation on fellowships from Barbara Mount, Graduate Division • Heard a report from the Executive Committee. Discussed the ASUC request for the

GA to pay a share of prior ASUC elections costs. Approved a motion to research a way to make the GA more separate from the ASUC.

• Approved Resolution to Fast Track the Construction of At Least Six Tennis Courts at Smythe-Fernwald to Replace the Existing Six Courts Atop the Lower Hearst Parking Structure.

• Approved the UCSA's Action Agenda and budget. • Heard a report from the ASUC's representative to the GA. • Held elections for various positions and approved Mandy Bachman as GA

representative to the ASUC Senate; Irene Perciali as GA representative on the Research Grants Committee; Catherine Ahn as GA Academic Affairs Vice President; Pauletta Pan as GA representative on the Graduate Council.

• Approved the Resolution to Reverse the Drop in Underrepresented Minority Enrollment at UC Berkeley.

• Discussed attendance at standing committee meetings. This regular meeting of the Graduate Assembly, concluding Fall Semester, was called to order by Jessica Quindel at 5:35 p.m. in the ASUC Senate Chamber. Ms. Quindel said she would like to make a very special introduction of their new full-time funding advisor, Shayla Moore. No longer will Ms. Dugas be the only person dealing with funding, advising, and supervising staff. Ms. Moore said she wanted to introduce herself, and thought this would be fun. She wanted to let them know that the deadline to make changes to groups' budgets will be Monday. They need to e-mail her if budgets are changed. Also, the last day to submit receipts for reimbursement is next Friday. A Delegate asked about the deadline for applications for the next funding round. Ms. Moore said it will be January 24. She said she wanted to thank them.

Ms. Quindel said they would take two minutes for an exercise, and would ask them talk to somebody they haven't talked to before, or someone they know. She would ask people to talk about their experience with fellowships, or experiences with the fellowships of people they know. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Ms. Quindel called for any changes to the minutes from the November GA meeting, and said she had a change to make. The minutes should note that the GA also gave $10,000 to Projects and Services, which should be included in the third paragraph of the summary on the first page. She called for any other changes. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES TO THE NOVEMBER 7, 2002 MEETING, AS AMENDED, PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Ms. Quindel called for any changes to the agenda, and called for any objection to approval. THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING WAS APPROVED WITH NO OBJECTION. Ms. Quindel said that if there was no objection, she would like to skip around the agenda, for people who had to leave. Report from the ASUC Elections Council Chair Ms. Quindel said that with no objection they would hear a report from the ASUC Elections Council Chair. Mr. Sciortino said he wanted to say hello and to introduce himself, and said he was the Elections Council Chair. He had a new cell phone, the first one he's had. He had big plans for the elections coming up next semester and hoped to have a totally computerized system. He was speaking to the Registrar's Office and with security consultants. He also nominated an Assistant Elections Council Chair, who will be approved shortly. He wanted people to apply for the job and hoped to get some grads involved on the Elections Council. So he posted notices around Boalt and other buildings he knew about. If anybody had any suggestions on where to post, he had a ton of fliers to post. So if there was anything he could do, he would ask them to please give him a call, or talk to him on the side. As Elections Council Chair, part of his job is to advocate for different elections reforms, and also work with the budget. He's been allocated $25,000 for the elections that year, and that won't be enough. He's talked with the League of

Women Voters, and they assured him they will not go to Albany Village that year. He was sorry about that, but it probably won't happen. If the By-laws say he has to put a poll there, he would, but he would advocate that they not have a poll that year at Albany Village. When a polling place was located there two years ago, seven people voted, and with the amount of money spent on the computers and people to staff that station, it cost about $70 per vote. He didn't think that was money wisely spent. That concluded his report. He called for any questions, and said he could take them on the side. Mr. Hall said he understood that in the election last year, 400 grads voted. Mr. Sciortino said the numbers were appallingly low. Mr. Hall said the only reason he knew elections were happening was because of undergrads he taught in his classes. Mr. Sciortino said there are many points they can learn from last year's elections, by negative example. They didn't spend money on advertising, which was atrocious, and they spent far too much on other things, including paying everyone double. People were paid $20 an hour to input ballots, and usually that paid $10. It was basically just a scam. That won't happen this year, and he won't hire his friends. He made a point of hiring an Assistant Elections Council Chair he didn't know beforehand, someone who had a great résumé. One thing they'll do is to look into getting announcements to different departments. He had e-mail lists and wanted to send that out. Also, he knew the Chancellor has an e-mail system that goes out to everyone, so he was trying to get in contact to have an e-mail sent out to remind people to vote. Additionally, voting kiosks have been computerized, and they'll have a computerized, online election, which will open the elections up to people who might not be on campus. Ms. Quindel called for any other questions and said she wanted to thank him. Report from the Funding Committee Mr. Daub introduced himself and said he was Chair of the GA's Funding Committee. The Funding Committee's recommendations for Grad Events funding, for Round 4-A, were available. Because of the money that was added to Grad Events by the GA last month, they were able to give everyone pretty much everything they were eligible for. Ms. Quindel called for any objection to the recommendations. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE FUNDING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALLOCATIONS FOR ROUND 4-A OF GRAD EVENTS FUNDING PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION.

Mr. Daub said that as some of them may know, if they attended the orientation for student group funding, was that the Funding Committee recognizes that things sometimes change in the budgets they submit. Mr. Daub said he had the authority to approve those changes. People could either contact him directly or contact the Funding and Grants Advisors of the GA, and they'd contact him. The changes that are made are due on the same day the receipts are due, the last day people could turn anything in, which is next Friday. He's been told the Business Office will not accept any receipts or any changes to groups' budgets after that. Finally, Mr. Daub said he would be out of contact at the end of next week, so if any groups want a chance to have changes approved, they should contact him with their proposed changes by Monday of next week. For anything after that, he could not guarantee it would be done. Also, people should keep in mind that for any changes they make, they still have to follow every single guideline for each funding and grant program. They can't get around any of those, in particular, the guideline prohibiting retroactive funding. He would not approve those. That's stated in GA By-laws, and groups can't get around that. The only general guideline he had on whether to approve or deny a request is whether he thought the Funding Committee, if this had been on the original application, would have approved it. If that was the case, then he'd approve it, and if not, then he would deny it. Ms. Dugas' e-mail is was listed. Mr. Valleé asked about the deadline for changes for Round 4-A. Mr. Daub said Round 4-A is in the Spring Semester. Ms. Dugas said it's the winter round. Mr. Daub said that was correct. Because there's no retroactive funding, they instituted a Round 4-A, to cover events that take place between January 6, he believed, and the day of the February GA Delegates meeting, since the first day they can fund things for Round 5 is the day after the February GA meeting. Mr. Valleé said the deadline for changes would therefore be next semester. Mr. Daub said that was correct. A Delegate asked about retroactive funding, and if they're budgeted changes and spent money already. Mr. Daub said that for any given funding round in which they receive funding, the first day they can spend any of that money, the first day groups could be reimbursed, is the day after the Delegates meeting in which that funding was approved. So if the event is in Round 4, the first day they could possibly be reimbursed for events and that are dated in that round is on Friday. Ms. Quindel called for any other questions, and said she wanted to thank Mr. Daub.

Report from the Cal Corps Public Service Center on Graduate Advocates A speaker said she just wanted to let the GA know that since it's the end of the semester, their student groups in Cal Corps are recruiting for next semester's service projects, which range from Alternative Breaks, to student mentoring programs, to student internships. They could ask her about this privately. She would pass out information that people could distribute. She was working on the Alternative breaks that happen in the spring. They could also happen on weekends, and there are short-term service projects people could either head up or be a part of. She had more details. She was actually leading one that semester. If people have any questions, she'd be there at 7:00. PRESENTATION ON FELLOWSHIPS FROM THE GRADUATE DIVISION -- BARBARA MOUNT Ms. Quindel said that present that evening from the Graduate Division was Barbara Mount, and she would like to welcome Ms. Mount. (applause) Ms. Mount said she would like to thank them very much for inviting her to the meeting that evening. She would give them some very basic information on fellowships, but in order to do that most efficiently, she would like to get an idea of who they are and where they are at Berkeley. She asked for a show of hands of people who are in the sciences and engineering units; in professional schools; in social sciences; and in the humanities; of Ph.D. students; and Masters degree students. She noted that they had just about everything represented in the room. She asked for a show of hands of people who were advanced to candidacy; and who were first-year students. She said they definitely had a completely diverse crowd there. Ms. Mount said that in general, her advice was to think of their academic career as a whole. There are different kinds of support available. She was sure they knew this. There are GSI and GSR positions, loans, if they have to take them out, and fellowships. There are more fellowships at certain stages of their careers than others. There are specialized fellowships, such as for travel. So as they think about how they're going to support themselves through the entire five years or so, that they are there, they should realize that there are some years when it's better to have a fellowship. Usually, the year right before they advance to candidacy is a time when they need to study for their orals. Often, the last year, when they're just finishing their writing, is a really good fellowship year. But some years in between are very useful for teaching or doing a research assistantship.

If something falls through, or they don't get a fellowship that they had counted on, there are always loans. Those are their last resort, of course. So as they research, they shouldn't just research what's coming up for next year, but they should keep track of what they find will be good for them for the whole rest of the time they're a student. And even when they're a post doc, they'll probably run into things that are good for a post doc. They should write those things down, and make sure they keep some kind of a record so that they know when deadlines are. This will help them to go back and check things out, which they should do about one year before they want to use a fellowship. For fellowships for the fall of '03, most of those deadlines are past, although not all of them. She brought some information with her and would talk about some of those. But a lot of those have passed. So they want to work a good full year ahead when they're researching fellowships, so they can get the applications and have time to do a good job when they fill them out. There are a few fellowships with approaching application deadline dates, and she would tell them about those. There are three University fellowships for which they need to be nominated by their department. The deadline is March 6, so they should talk to their department about them. They're only for Ph.D. students. One is general, before advancement to candidacy, the Mentored Research Award. A UC Dissertation Year Fellowship is available for underrepresented students who are writing their dissertations, to support students in their last year. The Chancellor's Dissertation Year Fellowship is also for the last year, for most of the humanities and social science departments. For students in the sciences, there is an African American UNCF/Merck. There's also a post doc fellowship for students in that category. Those deadlines are Monday, December 9. So if they speak to grads who are interested, they should hurry. The Dolores Liebman Fellowship is open to any field of study, with a January 22 deadline. Grads must have financial need, but the campus usually gets one or two students. Another dissertation year fellowship is for students in the humanities. These are among the ones she just pulled off their counter because the deadlines were coming right up. She brought fliers for grad fellowship deadlines for the following year, and she'd pass them around. The ones in the front have already passed for that year, but will be available next year. The ones on the back were still coming up. As to how to research fellowships, Ms. Mount said grads are welcome to come into the office and use their material, but probably the best way to research was on the Web. So she could provide some Web sites. For fellowship databases,

Fastweb and UCLA are databases they like. She also had some fliers for fellowships available for study abroad, so if that was applicable, she could get them those, since not everybody will need them. There are also sources and places to search for fellowships around campus, different resource materials that could be found at different libraries. If people want to work with paper, they could come and get information on that. She also brought a big stack of Jacob Javitz applications. These are probably for students in their first year, not for Master's degree, but for Ph.D. students in the social sciences and humanities. The Javitz Fellowship is a multiyear award, for four years, and is quite a significant stipend. It's based on financial need. Lastly, Ms. Mount said the office is located in 318 Sproul. There are six staff there who can help grads figure out how to start searching. Staff can talk about which fellowships they're eligible for at different stages of their careers and talk about how best to structure a statement of purpose and who to ask for letters of recommendation. So she would ask them to please visit the office from 9:00 to 12:00 and 1:00 to 4:00. She called for any questions. Mr. Valleé asked about the deadline for the Liebman Fellowship. Ms. Mount said it's January 22. Applications are in the office, and people are welcome to come in and pick them up. Mr. Valleé said he knew there's a fellowship that had an odd stipulation that the recipient sign something to the extent that they don't believe in Communist ideas, and asked if that was the Liebman Fellowship. Ms. Mount said it's not for a candidate or institution that supports or upholds the doctrines of Communism. The trustees reserve the right to reject the applicant. Students at Berkeley receive this, so Berkeley is the institution. A Delegate said one thing he found differently was that for every fellowship, they need a different set of recommendations on a different set of forms. He asked if there was any effort to try to consolidate or create a database where professors can submit them, with those letters and forms automatically sent for every fellowship, so grads don't have to ask the same questions and get another recommendation. Ms. Mount said there wasn't anything like that. That wouldn't be recommended because, first, students are moving through their careers. They keep changing. Other fellowships will be different than what they're applying for, so they'd want to point out different parts of the application. Also, it's best to have a special letter written for each fellowship. If she was a professor, she would have it on Word, and maybe things would just have to be changed a little.

A Delegate said he agreed with what was said, but there is a centralized system in the Career Center for undergrads planning grad school, and could be used for fellowships. But he wouldn't do it for the reasons that Ms. Mount mentioned. A Delegate said she's had difficulty finding fellowships for people in professional schools who are getting their Masters. There weren't a lot out there, and asked if she was looking in the wrong places. Ms. Mount said there weren't a lot, comparatively, because those students' academic careers are shorter, and it's thought they'll be making more money a little faster. Many agencies want to support people who are in school for a long time. There are some fellowships out there, for either Masters or Ph.D. students, but it was correct that there are few. Ms. Mount said that if people want more information, they should go to 318 Sproul. Ms. Quindel called for any other questions, and said she wanted to thank Ms. Mount. (Applause). Ms. Mount said she would leave material at the table. Ms. Quindel said that next semester they'll have Cathy Koshland, Chair of the Academic Senate, at the February meeting; and Chancellor Berdahl will be at the March meeting. Also, since somebody wanted to hear someone from the City, she'll try to get somebody at the April meeting from City government. Report from the Educational Technology Committee Mr. Hall said they're changing the whole Cal Agenda because software they use is no longer supported. He'd send out an e-mail. GA Announcements Ms. Quindel said she had a couple of announcements. The Grad Social Club's fourth social was coming up. She only had two fliers and would ask people to pass them around. The social will be on Friday, December 6, from 8:00 to 10:00, in Pauley. There will be wine, beer, hors d'oeuvres, and live jazz. The cost is $3 and they need UC Berkeley ID and proof of age. They can celebrate the last day of classes with the Grad Social Club and the GA. Mr. Hall asked if there was an e-mail version of the flier. Ms. Quindel said that if people haven't received an e-mail version, they could send one out. Ms. Baker said she hadn't received an e-mail flier. Ms. Quindel said she would remind people to send those. Mr. Lippman said he is on the Grad Social Club committee and they're having a lot of issues with advertising, and weren't sure who was getting their e-mail announcements. If people weren't receiving them,

he would ask them to please sign up on the e-mail list. The GSC is having events, but they're not sure if people are hearing about them. Ms. Quindel saidshe thought a lot of people heard about the other three events, but the event that was coming up hasn't been advertised as much. Ms. Quindel said the other announcement she had is that the GA considered proposals last month, and accepted some proposals for pilot projects. They got some great proposals, and the GA approved some great ideas. They also decided to do another round in February. So she was informing Delegates that if they were interested in doing a pilot project, she wanted to let them know at the Delegates meeting that they would have another round of pilot project proposals. Last time there was some confusion whether this was just regular funding and if it applied to any funding grants and other grants the GA already has. A pilot project would be like the grad disabilities project, the GA mentoring and educational support project, things that are one-year pilot projects to see if they want to continue them as projects of the GA. If people need clarification about this, they could always let her know. The GA will send an e-mail out about this as well. Also, they're going to start doing research grants. They have funding from the Chancellor and they'll have one round, with the deadline on January 31. Later on that evening, they'll vote for a Delegate to sit on that committee. The Research Grant deadline is January 31, and there are a number of grants available to people who fall under that category. Ms. Baker said the sign-up sheet was going around, and she had one at the front if anybody didn't have a chance to sign in. If they haven't done so, she would ask them to please sign in before the end of the meeting. Ms. Felarca introduced herself and said she was from the School of Education. She was also in the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and Integration and to Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary. That week the US Supreme Court decided to hear the group's case dealing with the University of Michigan Law School and an undergrad, to be heard in March or April. This was historic, and was a real opportunity for people in California, because if the group wins the case at the highest court in the land, they'd have the legal basis to overturn Prop. 209 in California. So they need grads' help. The courts are really conservative right now. They need 1 million people marching in Washington, D.C., and they hope grads will join them in that effort. The group has commitments from Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton, and they have to get UC Berkeley students out there. If grads were interested, Ms. Felarca said they could talk to her or Ronald Cruz. She would also pass out information.

Mr. Cruz introduced himself and said he would like to congratulate the GA for taking a stance last month to call on the Master Plan Committee to maintain the guarantee of UC admission to the top 12.5% of the State's students. The campaign has made progress, and a month ago the Committee that drafted the Master Plan backed off its original plan and expressed support for the guarantee. But the language concerning the guarantee was still ambiguous, and that, combined with Gov. Davis' budget cuts, means this was still being threatened. The State Senator, who Chairs the Committee, will come to the campus. So the group's campaign succeeded, and the result will be this public meeting. This is students' opportunity to raise their demands around the Master Plan, and to have the State Legislature, when it convenes, restore the clear, unambiguous language of the guarantee and take a stance against the budget cuts. The meeting where they can raise these concerns to the Committee is from 12:00 to 1:30 on Friday in Stephen's Hall, the Townsend Lounge. A Delegate said the Academic Senate held a meeting at the Boalt Hall Law School that day to discuss Code of Conduct rules. Faculty are asking to be part of a committee to rewrite the Code of Conduct rules about student demonstrations. At an earlier meeting it was suggested that a grad also be on that committee and a part of those discussions. That was up in the air and students need to move on it quickly. Ms. Quindel said the next step is to talk to the Academic Affairs Vice President, who appoints the grad representative to campus-wide committees. The Delegate there is no opening for grad students at this point. Faculty are saying there should be a grad student member, but grads need to apply pressure to be included. Ms. Quindel said she might want to consider writing a Resolution for the February GA meeting, asking to make grads' voices heard as a body. The Delegate said this will occur before the February meeting. Ms. Quindel said she should talk to the Officers and they could take this up. Ms. Quindel said she wanted to announce that the GA has new editor of the Berkeley Graduate, Jane McGonigal. NEW BUSINESS Executive Committee Ms. Quindel said the Executive Committee has three items to report. They allocated $250 a month ago to the Mario Savio Memorial Lecture, for publicity. They failed to report that at the last GA meeting. In addition, $500

was allocated for continuing research and $500 was shifted in a line item change, from Supplies to Projects and Events within the External Affairs office budget. Ms. Quindel said the other thing they had to announce was what happened last night at the ASUC Senate meeting. She believed a member of the Executive Committee, Ms. Ahn, will report on that. Ms. Ahn said that on Wednesday, after a month of stalling from the ASUC's Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee, they brought a Resolution to the floor dealing with whether or not the GA should pay for past ASUC elections for the last four years, which was a change from three years before. When that question came to the floor, she, Ms. Madon, and others from the GA, were present to debate the bill. After several minutes of debate, the ASUC decided to vote for the Resolution, claiming that the Senate had the right to freeze the GA's funds, so the GA couldn't even access them. Also, the Senate would be able to do what it wishes with those funds. This would pay for ASUC elections for the last four years, despite the GA's legal arguments that the advertising done for the elections was not equitable. That was a major component of the agreement, dealing with whether or not the GA would be forced to pay for ASUC elections. That was probably the reason Delegates saw the Elections Council Chair at the meeting that evening, because the GA has been complaining that the Elections Council Chair did not go to GA meetings. But that didn't mean the ASUC was not going to go ahead with the Resolution it approved on Wednesday. What the GA will probably do now is take the question to the Judicial Council, which is the judicial branch of the ASUC. However, in her personal opinion it seemed unlikely for the J-Council to overturn the actions of the ASUC since J-Council members are nominated by ASUC Senators, and all are undergrads. So the GA will see where that goes. If the GA approves, perhaps they could take it further, since this actually dealt with a legal contract, not just By-laws of the bodies. So the GA might have the right to seek alternatives outside the structure of the ASUC. But as it stands, the ASUC Senate froze the GA's accounts for the amount the ASUC says the GA owes it, around $30,000. The ASUC has frozen GA accounts for that amount and gave itself the right to do whatever it wants with it. This is just the opinion of GA people, but they think the ASUC believes the GA only gets the money out of the generosity of the ASUC, even though it comes from the percentage of grads who attend Cal, from the fees grads pay into the larger account. A Delegate asked why the elections cost so much, since she wouldn't have guessed they were that expensive. Ms. Ahn said the elections have to be certified by the League of Women Voters, and the ASUC has to pay the League

to sit there. In addition, the ASUC recently computerized the system and had to pay for computers at every station, as well as walky-talkies and the little golf carts the Elections Council uses to drive around campus. People are also paid stipends for working on the election, which was understandable, since they have to work. But all that costs money. There are also a lot of people on Elections Council committees. Last year they paid themselves $20 an hour, as the current EC Chair reported that evening. In addition, they take out ads in the Daily Cal, which cost $250 a day. So it gets to be a lot of money. That's why the ASUC wants the GA to pay for it, because the ASUC clearly has no money, as the Senate allocated much of it in the first semester. That's why they're speaking this money from the GA. A Delegate asked if Delegates would get a list of representatives who voted for this. Ms. Ahn said it's all in the minutes. People from the GA asked for a roll-call vote, so the name of every person who voted for and against the Resolution was recorded. She believed the vote was 9-7-1, with three Senators absent. Ms. Quindel said that the argument that Senators made was interesting, that "equal" was the same as "equitable." She had to say that "equal" means "the same," and "equitable" means "fair and just." Senators didn't buy that because they think that just because fliers are posted around campus, grads know they can vote, even though many grads come from campuses where the grad and undergrad governments are different. GA reps brought that up in the arguments. People sitting on the side at the meeting that if this had been a debate, the GA reps would have won. She called for any other questions or comments. Mr. Hall asked if it seemed essential for grads to have representation on the Elections Council and the Judicial Council. Ms. Ahn said the ASUC Senate, not the GA, votes for these positions. Mr. Hall said the GA, though, was subject to their decisions. Ms. Ahn said the question was whether, technically, they should be able to come in and take the GA's money; and they shouldn't. The GA is autonomous and has rights to control funds and affairs. But the ASUC thinks it has the right to exercise eminent domain, and the GA's accountant is the same as the ASUC's, if they want to put it that way. Because the GA's financial affairs have to go through the ASUC, these officials can freeze the GA's funds. Ms. Ahn said she didn't think they were able to do that, but the Senate thinks it can, and passed the Resolution, and is ordering ASUC accountants to do that. Their salaries are paid by the Senate, and in the end, the Senate is the accountants' official boss. Ms. Dugas said those staff are paid by the Auxiliary, through commercial activities.

Mr. Kashmiri said he recalled doing the math, and the ASUC wanted $15,000 for the 400 students who voted, and was therefore requesting $38 a vote. A Delegate asked if grads are allowed to run in ASUC elections. Ms. Ahn said they are. The Delegate asked if they can request a re-vote on the Resolution when all the Senators were present. Ms. Ahn said that would be a recall election, and to do a recall would require 100 signatures per person who's recalled. Ms. Quindel said he was asking to re-do the vote on the bill that the Senate took. The Delegate said the vote was 9-to-7, with three abstentions. Ms. Ahn said those seven votes were the largest number of votes they'd get. Senators held up the debate until they could be sure they had enough votes to pass the Resolution, since the Chair is an undergrad who wanted the bill to pass. That's why it took a month. The Senate had to do this on Wednesday since that was the last Senate meeting of the semester. The other three Senators were unlikely to vote with the GA since they're in the same political party that raised the bill in the first place. A Delegate said the GA has Law students for this. Ms. Quindel said the GA has a case that was prepared, which they'll submit on Friday, written by a Law Delegate. Mr. Lippman asked about recalls of the Senate. Ms. Ahn said it would take 100 signatures per Senator. If one was so inclined, a recall of those Senators would need 900 signatures. It would take a lot of work. Last year a disgruntled undergrad who didn't like how student fees were being allocated threatened a recall. He didn't do it, but it scared people. Mr. Kashmiri said they've been collecting postcards for the student fee battle and got 350 that day, by putting out a table and giving out candy. He just wanted to throw that out. A Delegate said the GA could theoretically do a recall on those nine Senators, although it would be more harassment than effective. A Delegate asked if it was possible to restructure the GA in such a way that the GA was more autonomous. Perhaps they shouldn't have the same accountants, and maybe the GA should think about making itself more separate from the ASUC. Ms. Ahn said that's something she's been thinking about. The Delegate asked if that was an issue of rewriting the By-laws. Ms. Ahn said they could discuss this more, and she didn't want to take up too much of the meeting. If it

was done through the By-laws, the same Senators who voted on the bill would have the vote on any separation as well. So they wouldn't be able to use ASUC By-laws for that. Ms. Quindel said there might be other ways. Right now, people on the GA's Organization and Rules Committee could vote for the Committee to work on that, if people would like to put that motion forward. A motion was made and seconded to revise the By-laws to figure out a way to make the GA more separate from the ASUC. Ms. Quindel called for any objection to approval. THE MOTION TO RESEARCH A WAY TO MAKE THE GA MORE SEPARATE FROM THE ASUC PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. Mr. Daub asked if the suggestion was to disassociate completely from the ASUC. The Delegate said she wasn't suggesting that. Mr. Daub said that's what it sounded like, and he believed that's been attempted a few times in the past. He thought the Chancellor basically had the final say on that, and in the past, has rejected that. The Delegate asked if he recalled why that was the case. Mr. Hall said it was because the Chancellor believes this is a financial squabble. It was framed as the GA not having control over GA money; and as a financial squabble, the Chancellor said they should work it out. A Delegate said that if it's that unfair and unjust, the GA should take it to another level, and take this question to court. Ms. Quindel said a report on this can be heard next week. A Delegate asked if there has been an effort to settle this question. Ms. Quindel said people from the GA went to ASUC committee meetings twice about this, and both times the ASUC shut the GA down and wouldn't let the GA speak on the record because the author of the bill refused to show up. Ms. Quindel said she pulled the author out of her meeting and said she really wanted to talk to her. In the ASUC By-laws, it says the Senate was supposed to talk to the GA about anything that affects the GA. But the author of the bill refused to talk to her and was hostile, and kept arguing in a fairly hostile manner. It was clear that this was strictly about the money, and not anything else. The merits of the author's argument was being considered by the Constitutional and Procedural Review Committee, and not the Finance Committee. And even at the Senate meeting last night, Senators had no arguments about whether there was equitable publicity to grads. The Delegate asked if the GA would be willing to pay for some part of the publicity. Ms. Quindel said the By-laws and the Memorandum of Understanding say the GA

doesn't have to pay if the elections aren't advertised to grads, and it's clearly laid out how advertising should be done. For the current year, the GA was fine with this, since the Elections Council Chair was attending GA meetings. But in the past, the Elections Council publicity coordinator, who has specific duties per the By-laws and MOU, did not do that. Ms. Baker said they need a motion to extend time for New Business. A motion to extend time for New Business by ten minutes was made and seconded and passed with no objection. A Delegate asked about the procedure for recalling Senators, and when the last time that happened. Ms. Ahn said she didn't recall the last time there was a recall. The way the ASUC got rid of Officers in the past was to reject them through false absences. Based on her experience with the disgruntled undergrad she mentioned, they have to go through petitions would have to be gathered and get then would have to be certified by the J-Council, and the Elections Council would have to hold another election. Financially, it would not be the best way to do this because it would cost the GA more money, since the ASUC would say the GA would have to pay for a recall election as well. After a period of advertising, another election would be held. The whole thing would probably take a lot of money and at least a month, if not two or three months. A Delegate asked how much the GA would give to the ASUC per student. Ms. Quindel said that in the past, the ASUC received all of the mandatory student fees that each grad student paid, $27.50 per semester. That amount used to be $10.50, but was increased recently with Prop. 2. The ASUC used to allocate those fees to the GA. But since 1998, the GA has slowly been gaining autonomy over those fees. At first the GA was got four/sevenths of those fees, and that amount kept increasing until last year, for the first time, the GA received 100% of mandatory grad student fees. So 100% of the student fees grads pay go straight to the GA. The ASUC would be taking those fees. Part of the '98 agreement dealing with those fees said the GA should pay for one-third of election costs since grads are one-third of the student popu-lation. That's interesting because they don't negotiate over how much is spent on the elections, but the GA has to pay one-third. So that's how funding works. She called for any other questions. People could also send an e-mail or call. She wanted to thank Ms. Ahn for the update.

RESOLUTION Mr. Daub moved to amend the agenda, to move to item 7-D next. Ms. Quindel said that with no objection, they would consider the Resolution on the tennis courts. Mr. Daub said the Resolution was on the second page of the agenda packet. The following Resolution was sponsored by Mr. Daub: RESOLUTION TO FAST TRACK THE CONSTRUCTION OF AT LEAST SIX TENNIS COURTS AT SMYTHE-FERNWALD TO REPLACE EXISTING SIX COURTS ATOP THE LOWER HEARST PARKING STRUCTURE

WHEREAS, graduate students consider the continuing superior quality of outdoor student life an important determinant in their choice of UCB for their studies; and

WHEREAS, tennis is a sustainable life-long sport, practiced year-round, with the flexibility to fit into busy academic schedules and with universal appeal, which constitutes an important element of outdoor student life; and

WHEREAS, however, over the years, there has been an ongoing diminution of all student recreational space, but in particular of tennis courts; and

WHEREAS, consequently, in 1992 the Graduate Assembly protested the removal of the six lighted tennis courts in the then Strawberry Canyon Recreation Area; and

WHEREAS, nevertheless, the Strawberry Canyon Courts were demolished, but six existing courts atop the Lower Hearst Parking Structure were refurbished to act as replacements;* and

WHEREAS, in 2001, these replacement courts were, in turn, slated for removal;** and

WHEREAS, the Graduate Assembly again expressed its concern over the proposed action; and

WHEREAS, under CEQA, the University committed to the Mitigation of building six replacement courts at Smythe-Fernwald; and

WHEREAS, the Smythe-Fernwald courts (at least six) would constitute the indirect replacements of the six lighted Strawberry courts. These may yet have to accommodate players that in the future may be displaced from the remaining Southside Recreational Courts -- nine at Channing and six lighted ones on Bancroft;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Graduate Assembly urges the campus to comply with its mitigation obligation in a timely manner by fast-tracking the

replacement project to ensure a seamless transition from the LHPS courts to (he new ones at Smythe-Fernwald.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Smythe-Fernwald courts be equipped with lighting from the outset, for needed nighttime use.

* -- Letter, Graduate Assembly to Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien, December 17, 1992 ** -- Letter, Graduate Assembly to Chancellor Robert Berdahl, October 26,2001 Mr. Daub said some people present to talk about this. Senta Pugh Chamberlin introduced herself and said she was present with a grad who is a tennis player. Her connection is as a faculty wife and mother of two alumni. She was very concerned about the situation with tennis at Berkeley, having observed it for a long time. The courts have been diminishing over the years, going way back. And at the present time, more courts will be taken away. That's why, at that point, they're talking about fast-tracking the replacement of the courts that will be taken away that spring. She brought a list of officials involved. As to why grads should be interested in tennis courts, as far as playing, it's relaxation and a life-long sport. It's clear to her that people who are not tennis players also benefit from Berkeley offering good outdoor facilities. It's a quality-of-life issue for everybody who will be there for five years. Also, she knew for a fact that some pretty good faculty have decided to choose Berkeley despite being offered more money at other places because of the outdoor facilities that existed. Some people definitely love tennis. So this is an issue that should concern grads, because they want good faculty. As for the situation to replace the courts that will be going, by the housing on Ridge Road, housing Zimbabwe, under that parking structure there are six courts. They're in miserable shape, but at least they're courts. They'll be taken sway, and a lot of other courts have already been taken away. The replacement they want is supposed to be at Smythe-Fernwald, which is grad student housing at the present time, located at the end of Dwight, high up, behind Clark Kerr. It's not usable for anything else and is too seismically compromised. A daycare center had to be removed and can't be used for housing, a daycare center, or anything else. Tennis is an excellent land use and the location is close enough. Ms. Chamberlin said they also need to consider that in the future, the courts they still have at Channing and by the Art Museum, which are very, very much used, will be going at some point because Channing that will be housing at some point. So they have a situation, and at the present time they're going to keep the momentum up and they want to make sure they quickly replace lost courts, without a big break, because a big break of one-year, e.g., was too much of a timespan if someone is there for five years. So she would ask the GA for

their support. She wanted to thank Mr. Daub for sponsoring the Resolution. Ms. Quindel called for any questions. A motion to call the question was made and seconded and passed with no objection. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO FAST TRACK THE CONSTRUCTION OF AT LEAST SIX TENNIS COURTS AT SMYTHE-FERNWALD TO REPLACE EXISTING SIX COURTS ATOP THE LOWER HEARST PARKING STRUCTURE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE. Ms. Chamberlin said she would like to thank them very much. (Applause) UCSA ACTION AGENDA AND BUDGET Mr. Kashmiri said that since they only had 25 minutes left, he would keep his discussion really brief. The UCSA is the parent organization that's made up of each GA and undergraduate student association throughout the UC System. The UCSA has a Board and a full-time lobbyist, an Executive Director and a Field Organizer. This year they've decided to hire a full-time University Affairs Coordinator to do more research on issues. This is the body that helps the GA do Statewide organizing, so students are coordinated, and does campaigns so they're more effective. Every year the various campuses have to approve the Action Agenda, which was decided upon by a Congress at the beginning of the year, when they decided the collective issues that students want to work on, and approved the budget for the organization. As a procedural matter, the GA needs to approve the UCSA's budget and approve the Action Agenda items. The Action Agenda was on page two of the agenda packet. The budget was supposed to be included on page three, but he gave the wrong file to Ms. Baker. So he passed out 25 copies that evening. Since people haven't seen this before, he would give them a chance to look it over and would table this. At the end of the meeting, if people have questions, they could be answered. Mr. Hall moved to table consideration of the UCSA budget and Action Agenda until the end of the meeting. The motion was seconded and passed with no objection. ASUC Report Mary Boktor introduced herself and said she was an ASUC Senator, and was not one of the sponsors of the bill asking for the GA's money back, and was one of the seven Senators who voted against the bill. Nine people voted for it and one person abstained. At that point, this was the major issue the GA would be

interested in talking about. If people have any questions on this, she could answer them before reporting on other things. A Delegate asked if there was any party affiliation with the vote. Ms. Boktor said there was, and the vote was pretty much split down the middle. The bill was initiated by a specific party, and the party voted together for it. Ms. Ahn said that party kept pushing back the time to consider the bill to make sure everybody was there. The meeting last night was crazy, and a lot of people were absent, with people walking in and out because of finals and other commitments. So the bill kept being tabled until the party had enough people, and then it was brought to the floor. The Delegate asked which party voted against the GA. Ms. Boktor asked if it was appropriate to answer. Mr. Hall asked if she could give the GA a brief profile of the different parties and their orientation. Ms. Boktor said there are a lot of independent parties, such as The Goatmilk Party. She said Gustavo Mata was also present that evening, and is a Senator as well. She and Mr. Mata are members of the same party, and he could help her in answering questions. There are three major parties, with Student Action and Cal-SERVE the two main ones, along with APPLE. She was in Cal-SERVE. She didn't really know what Student Action stood for, and the party goes across the spectrum, mostly to the right and the middle. Cal-SERVE was left and progressive, and stands for "Cal Students for Equal Rights and a Valid Education." It is the oldest political party on the Berkeley campus, since 1984, born out of the South African apartheid divestment movement. Cal-SERVE was founded by Pedro Noguera, who is now at Harvard's Department of Education. APPLE is another major party, that's combined others. A Delegate asked if this discussion was legal. Ms. Boktor said she wasn't running for re-election. She said APPLE was comprised of Engineering students and other majors. To make it clear, the two major parties butting heads were Student Action and Cal-SERVE. Ms. Ahn said that the Defend Affirmative Action Party was not mentioned. The question was who voted for what. It was partly self-explanatory. The minutes are public and people can pick them up. There was a lot of debate and Delegates could see who voted how and who said what, and what the arguments were, thanks to Mr. Litwak. (Applause) A Delegate asked if it considering a recall of Senators would have an impact. Ms. Boktor said it might. Senators don't really take the GA very seriously, something she's noticed and what's always been the case. They're trying to get back money from four years ago, all of a sudden. People could try to reach students on the 2nd floor of Eshleman, where all the Executive Officers have their offices, and where Officers and Senators have their mail boxes. There's also asuc.org, which is where they could get every Senator's e-

mail address. She didn't think they have minutes online yet, but the goal was to have them online by next semester. Ms. Boktor said the Senate's Contingency Fund is done with. That's another thing to keep in mind. The Contingency Fund is where people get money from when they make request for things throughout the year. They started the year at $19,000 and are now at $6-7,000. So that shows the need for money at that time. Ms. Quindel asked if the $28,000 requested from the GA would go to the Contingency Fund. Mr. Mata said the bill that was approved last night was amended and a clause was added saying that money would be given to the Finance Committee to allocate however it wants. Ms. Boktor said it would probably go to the Contingency Fund. Mr. Mata said that addition made the bill a financial bill, requiring more votes to approve it, which would mean the vote to approve the Resolution failed, since financial bills need 14 votes for approval. GA ELECTIONS Ms. Quindel said they have a number of really exciting positions to elect that evening, and hoped they were gung-ho and ready. The first is for a GA rep to the ASUC. She, Ms. Paster, and Mr. Kashmiri have been going to ASUC meetings. That's difficult for them and they'd like to get someone else involved. The GA's By-laws say the GA is supposed to appoint someone as the GA's representative to the ASUC. At that point she would ask if anybody was interested. The position entails going to ASUC Senate meetings at least twice a month, to report on what the GA is doing, and to give the ASUC minutes and Resolutions, since the Senate has veto power on things, unless those items are specific to grads. Tennis courts wouldn't be such an item, but fellowships would be. The GA needs to forward everything to the Senate. She called for any nominations. Ms. Baker said they'd send out an e-mail to the Delegates list for people who aren't there who might be interested. A Delegate asked how long meetings last. Ms. Quindel said they're long, but the GA rep can come in and ask to give the report. Mandy Bachman said she was interested in the position, and noted that she's a first-year grad in Education.

Ms. Quindel called for any objection to approval. MANDY BACHMAN WAS APPROVED AS THE GA REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ASUC SENATE WITH NO OBJECTION. Ms. Quindel said the next election was for Academic Affairs Vice President. She didn't know if Delegates read the note, but Ms. Paster has resigned. Ms. Paster said people probably received her e-mail. She really did enjoy the work and was sorry to have to leave. It's mostly just for personal reasons and to do her research. She would like to encourage people to consider running for the position. Ms. Quindel called for any nominations for Academic Affairs VP. Ms. Smith nominated herself. Mr. Hall nominated Ms. Ahn. Ms. Quindel said that each candidate would have one minute to present themselves and then they'd have a couple of minutes for questions. After that, they'd ask the candidates to step outside for an off-the-record discussion, after which people would vote by secret ballot. She called for any questions about the procedure. Bridget Smith said she's a first-year Law student and was serving on the Campus-wide Committee on Teaching. She's done a lot of work in the past working with student governments and organizing students. She's served two years and had experience dealing with University administration. She's done a lot of work trying to get more universities to sign on to the campus compact and more involved in doing community service on campuses. She realized she was getting very active and busy and she felt she was missing something. Catherine Ahn said she wanted to hold this position because being on the Executive Committee, she was really up to date with what's been going on with Officers in the GA. She felt this would be a good way to continue in Ms. Paster's place without doing a lot of re-education, since Ms. Ahn said she's been there the entire time. In addition, she was the ASUC Academic Affairs Vice President last year, and a lot of the overlap includes working with the Academic Senate, CAPRA, and the Student Code of Conduct. Last year she initiated Academic Senate interest in sponsoring events about the Middle East and representing students who protested at Wheeler. She felt like she had a lot of experience, but her real concern was to make sure that the new person was up to speed and wouldn't have to do a lot of re-education, since there's one just semester left. That's why she was running for the position.

Ms. Quindel called for any questions. A Delegate asked about the departments they were in. Ms. Quindel said both were from the Law School. A Delegate asked about the responsibilities of the position. Ms. Paster said the primary duty is to appoint grad student members to campus-wide committees. Responsibilities within the GA include serving on the Executive Committee, chairing the GA's Academic Affairs Committee, and sitting on the GA's Organization and Rules Committee and the Academic Senate's Committee for Academic Planning and Resource Allocation. Other GA responsibilities include going to GA staff meetings and other things that she's taken on, and her predecessors have taken on, such as like Coffee Hour and social stuff that isn't part of the job description per se. Ms. Dugas said she's been there a very, very long time, and she really wanted people to understand that the position was not a "job," but a leadership position; and they can't quantify leadership since it's a quality of the work they do. She rarely says anything during, but since she's been in the GA for ten years, she wanted those who come into the GA to understand that their responsibility is leadership for their constituency, which is paramount for their jobs. So it's a leadership position and not a job where they clock in and clock out. A Delegate asked Ms. Ahn if this would spread her time too much, since this would be her second committee. Ms. Ahn said that if elected, there would be an opening on the Executive Committee. Ms. Quindel said the question concerned the Ms. Ahn's membership on the Executive Committee, and if Ms. Ahn was elected VP, there would be another election to fill Ms. Ahn's vacancy on the Graduate Council. Ms. Quindel called for any other questions or comments, and hearing none, asked both candidates to please step outside for a discussion off the record. A discussion was held and votes were cast. Ms. Quindel said the next election was for the Research Grant Committee representative. This position sits on a committee for two meetings, to decide selection criteria. They'll work with two faculty members, one person from the Executive Committee, and the Business Manager, to allocate Research Grants. They need to elect a Delegate for this position. Meetings will occur

early next semester. Mr. Lippman asked how much money was in that account. Ms. Quindel said there's $20,000. Irene Perciali nominated herself. Ms. Quindel called for any other nominations and called for any objection to approval. WITH NO OBJECTION, IRENE PERCIALI WAS APPROVED AS GA REPRESENTATIVE ON THE RESEARCH GRANTS COMMITTEE. OLD BUSINESS Resolution Ms. Felarca moved to go to Old Business. The motion was seconded and passed with no objection. The following Resolution was submitted by Ms. Felarca and Mr. Cruz: RESOLUTION TO REVERSE THE DROP IN UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY ENROLLMENT AT UC BERKELEY

WHEREAS, black, Chicana/o, Latina/o, Native American, and underrepresented Asian American students are underrepresented by more than half at UC Berkeley, compared to the number of black, Chicana/o, Latina/o, and Native American students graduating from high school now In California; and

WHEREAS, this fact, taken together with the attacks on affirmative action in the UC System, have created a hostile environment for black, Latina/o, and Native American students at UC Berkeley and other campuses; and

WHEREAS, the UC Berkeley Administration failed to take the initiative that other UC administrations took this year to increase underrepresented minority student enrollment in its undergraduate freshman class. In particular, UCLA and UC San Diego; and

WHEREAS, UCLA and UC San Diego used affirmative action strategies, including reviewing applicants more comprehensively, taking into account hardship, and giving priority to students from disadvantaged, predominantly-minority schools. In doing so they succeeded in achieving modest increases in underrepresented minority student admits in their undergraduate freshman classes this year; and

WHEREAS, if UCLA and UC San Diego can increase underrepresented minority student admissions, so can UC Berkeley; and

WHEREAS, on May 16, 2001, students succeeded In forcing the UC Regents to reverse the ban on affirmative action in the UC System. This victory presented the

administrations of UC Berkeley and other campuses with the mandate to increase underrepresented minority student enrollment; and

WHEREAS, this campaign to make the victory of reversing the ban on affirmative action in the UC System real at UC Berkeley can bring about an increase in underrepresented minority admits to UC Berkeley's graduate schools as well; and

WHEREAS, the Graduate Assembly must join the fight to lead UC Berkeley away from the post-209 resegregation of our campus and the UC System; and

WHEREAS, where UC Berkeley goes, so will the rest of the UC System;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Graduate Assemble endorses the attached petition titled "Reverse the Drop in Underrepresented Minority Enrollment at UC Berkeley."

Ms. Felarca said she would like to amend the bill. The following would be substituted for the Resolved Clause: "Resolved, that the GA will send a letter to the Chancellor, calling on him to reverse the drop in underrepresented enrollment at UC Berkeley through increased recruitment, admission, and retention programs." Ms. Quindel asked who from the GA would write the letter. Ms. Felarca said it would be the Office of the President, and she would add that to the amendment. The Resolved Clause would read as follows: "Resolved, that the GA, through the Office of the President, will send a letter to

the Chancellor, calling on him to reverse the drop in underrepresented enrollment at UC Berkeley through increased recruitment, admission, and retention programs."

Ms. Felarca said she understood there was some debate last time and in terms of questions about politics and political matters. The intent she and Mr. Cruz had in bringing this up was to make sure the GA spoke out about the drop in minority enrollment. While they object to some slanderous things that were said at the last GA meeting, their hope was to unite together on this issue. The motion to amend was seconded. Ms. Quindel called for any objection to the amendment. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ON RESOLUTION TO REVERSE THE DROP IN UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY

ENROLLMENT AT UC BERKELEY, AS AMENDED, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE-VOTE. Ms. Quindel said she had the results of the election for Academic Affairs Vice President. It was close, but Ms. Ahn was elected Academic Affairs VP. The GA therefore needed another election for a Grad Council representative. Ms. Quindel called for any nominations for GA representative on the Graduate Council. A Delegate nominated Ms. Smith. Ms. Quindel called for any other nominations. A Delegate asked if it was possible to postpone the election until their next meeting since she didn't think people knew this was going to occur, and people not present that evening might be interested. Ms. Quindel said they could do that, but person who's elected would need to get up to speed on the Grad Council, and the best time for that would be over the break, as opposed to the middle of February. The Delegate said it would be worth it to have more people aware of the opening. Ms. Ahn said that if they don't want to vote, they should probably appoint a substitute representative. Ms. Quindel said there was an alternate rep position that would fill the spot. A Delegate moved to postpone the election of the GA Graduate Council representative until the next meeting. The motion was seconded. Mr. Hall said he thought the GA should make the selection that evening. A Delegate said the room was looking empty, and thought it would be better if there was more of a selection. There weren't a lot of people present who might want to run. Mr. Hall said he would withdraw his objection. Ms. Quindel called for any other objection to postponing the election of the Grad Council rep. Objections were raised. Ms. Quindel called for discussion on the motion. A Delegate said the Grad Council alternate was not present and wanted to run. Ms. Quindel said she just walked out, so she wasn't sure. A Delegate said there were many people present were interested and willing to volunteer that time. Mr. Lippman said it was the end of the year and the meeting was poorly represented, so it would be a good idea to postpone the election.

Ms. Smith said she would like to think about the position more since it just came up. The question was called and debate closed. The motion to postpone election of the Grad Council rep failed by hand-vote 11-15-0. Ms. Quindel called for any other nominations. Ms. Smith said she would withdraw her nomination for more of chance to think about it. Ms. Quindel called for any other nominations. She asked Mr. Bithell to discuss the position. Mr. Bithell said the Grad Council is a University-wide committee comprised mainly of faculty, with representation from the Administration as well, and it includes three GA reps. The Grad Council deals with grad student affairs at academic and administrative levels. It sets a lot of policy, oversees a number of subcommittees, and comments on actions that relate to grad student activities. The time commitment involves one meeting a month, usually the Monday after the GA meeting, usually from 2:00 to 4:30. In addition, the Grad Council representative is a member of the GA's Executive Committee, which generally meets two times a month, on either side of the Delegates meeting. A Delegate asked if those were definitely the hours. A Delegate said they were. Ms. Ahn said this is a great opportunity because they'd represent the grad student voice to faculty who make decisions on grad student life, and not just quality of life, but fellowships, qualifying exams, and the agenda for grads' need. It's a very, very important committee of the Academic Senate. If people want a lot of influence in changing things related to grad student life, without a lot of time commitment, this is the best way to do it. She would highly recommend it. A Delegate nominated Ms. Pan. Ms. Quindel said that each candidate would have one minute to present themselves and the GA would follow the same election process. Ms. Killian said she was also a first-year at Boalt. She was interested in trying to get to know as much as she could about the University, and has made a lot of effort trying to do that. She had a lot of experience advocating for her

constituents on a panel of faculty members and found it was an invaluable experience. Pauletta Pan said she's a first-year Law student in the School of Information Management and Systems Management, a technology program, which has allowed her the opportunity to interact with students in the Business and Engineering, as well her School. She was interested in having more student involvement and doing what she could outside the GA to try to get things going. She felt that was very difficult without more official backing and thought this was a great opportunity. She was currently the grad rep on the Committee for International Education, where she advocates the grad student side for international students at Berkeley, for opportunities for grads to go abroad, and to increase fellowships. Previous experience includes heading up efforts for the grad intern council for interns at Sun Micro Systems. Chris Cantor introduced himself and said he was a fourth-year grad in Vision Science, a program that includes psychology, neuroscience, optometry, and the CS Department. He's been through a lot of the things that will be discussed by the Grad Council and was also fairly politically involved on campus. He noted that he was in a two-year program. Ms. Quindel called for any question for the candidates, and hearing none, asked the candidates to please step outside for a discussion off the record and a vote. A discussion was held off the record and a vote was taken. UCSA Action Agenda and Budget Mr. Hall moved to return to consideration of the UCSA budget, which the GA tabled earlier. The motion was seconded and passed with no objection. Ms. Quindel called for any objection to approval of the UCSA budget and the Action Agenda. THE UCSA BUDGET AND THE UCSA ACTION AGENDA WERE APPROVED WITH NO OBJECTION. REPORTS Officer's Reports Reporting as GA President, Ms. Quindel said the question of student fee autonomy wasn't in her written report. The GA gets money from student fees, and allocates that through funding, such as with grad events. Every seven or eight years, UCOP does a review process, and this year they're trying to take

away GA autonomy and tell the GA it can only fund specific educational items, but is really vague. She was going to meet with ASUC President Gabriel and Mr. Kashmiri and go over this matter with Vice Chancellors on Friday. They're trying to take away student autonomy in use of student fees, and students will fight against it. Everything else was included in her written report. Reporting as the former Academic Affairs Vice President, Ms. Paster said she was sorry she had to resign. Everything was in her report. She really enjoyed working for the Delegates and wanted to thank them for everything. She was sure she'd see them next semester. Ms. Quindel said she would like to thank Ms. Paster, who did an excellent job, and said Coffee Hour has never been so good. Reporting as the External Affairs Vice President, Mr. Kashmiri said his report was included in the agenda packet. He would also like to thank Ms. Paster and was sad she was leaving. She did a great job. Everything else was in his report. Reports from Standing Committees Reporting for the Organization and Rules Committee, Mr. Hall said he would like to extend an invitation to anybody to help them out. They're doing good work and he could fill them in online. Ms. Quindel said it's a two-way tie and it was between Ms. Pan and Mr. Cantor, so they'd have to vote again. A Delegate said he had a question dealing with External Affairs, and asked about the hunger strike, and who was doing that. Mr. Kashmiri said that's an idea of Jimmy Bryant's, and nobody else was supporting it. They'll see what happens. A Delegate asked what the hunger strike was for. Ms. Quindel said it's for low student fees. Mr. Kashmiri said that's a grad student issue because if fees are raised, there's less money for fellowships. Ms. Quindel said that attendance at standing committee meetings has been a little sparse, and she wanted to remind everybody about something they'll enforce next semester, having at least one Delegate from each department sit on a Standing Committee. That's part of Delegates' requirements. There are many Standing Committees that exist and many departments don't have representation on any. These committees only meet once or twice a month and need to be active. She'd remind Delegates about this next semester, and

perhaps have a sign-up sheet go around again. A Delegate said that there's so much turnover that opening membership in Standing Committees would be a good idea. Ms. Quindel said that some Committees have been more active in the past. She knew a there are lot are GSIs and GSRs, and nobody has gone to that issue. This is part of their requirements, and maybe they'll send out an e-mail at the beginning of the semester on when each committee has its first meeting, and explaining what the committee does. Mr. Daub asked what the penalty would be if a department doesn't have a Delegate on a Standing Committee. Ms. Quindel said that's something the GA's Executive Committee would have to decide. It's in the By-laws that such membership is a part of Delegates' requirements, and it makes a more effective body. She said the GA would talk about that in the Executive Committee and raise this in February, and talk about a penalty. Ms. Quindel said they had a winner for the Graduate Council representative, Pauletta Pan. (Applause) She would like to congratulate Ms. Pan on being their new Graduate Council representative. Ms. Quindel said she would entertain a motion to adjourn. It was so moved and seconded and passed with no objection. This meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

These minutes respectfully submitted by,

Steven I. Litwak Recording Secretary

Present at the December 5, 2002 GA Meeting Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Astronomy Carmel Levitan, Bioengineering Meredith Metcalf, Bioengineering Kai Wang, Chemical Engineering Aimee Storm, City and Regional Planning Irene Perciali, Public Policy Ronald Cruz, Education Yvette Felarca, Education Suzanne Mills, Education Antoinette Chevalier, English Josh Fisher, ESPM Luke Hasty, ESPM Carl Rogers, Folklore Jennifer Casolo, Geography Esther Byun, Health and Medical Sciences Deborah Pederson, Indus'tl. Eng'g. &

Ops.Research Erin Amweg, Integrative Biology Christine Petersen, Integrative Biology Aileen Feng, Italian Studies Catherine Ahn, Law Brooke Killian, Law Bridget Smith, Law Abby Wright, Linguistics Marc Ettlinger, Linguistics Johanna Franklin, Logic& Methodology of Science

Julian Lippman, Mechanical Engineering

David Bithell, Music Chad Kretschmann, Neuroscience Jessica Quindel, GA President Mary Paster, GA Academic Affairs VP Mo Kashmiri, GA External Affairs Vice President

Laura Pedretti, Philosophy

Mike Daub, Physics Trevor Lanting, Physics Elaine Kwei, Political Science Vanessa Lee, Public Health Nannette Stamm, Public Health Marc Wolf, Public Policy Christine Prince, Public Policy Pauletta Pan, SIMS Natasha Ong, Social Welfare Lily Sinayuk, Social Welfare Manuel Valeé, Sociology Sonia Montes, Spanish Lynn Purkey, Spanish Nzingha Dugas, GA staff, Business

Director Suzanne Baker, GA, Departmental Liaison Wendy Davis, GA Graduate Advocate Humberto Cruz, Co-Coordinator, GMSP Dori Takata, Co-Coordinator, GMSP Rae Perigoe, Theater, Dance, and Performance

Chris Cantor, Vision Science

Jane McGonigal, GA staff, "Berkeley Grad" Editor

Richard Bourgon, Statistics

Eugene Chou, Indust'l. Eng'g./Operations Research

Giovanna Giuliani, Business

Jenafir House, Social Welfare

Final language of approved Resolution, as amended: Resolution to Reverse the Drop In Underreprcsentcd Minority Enrollment At UC Berkeley

Whereas, black, Chicana/o, Latina/o, Native American, and underrepresented Asian American students are underrepresented by more than half at UC Berkeley, compared to the number of black, Chicana/o, Latina/o, and Native American students graduating from high school now In California; and

Whereas, this fact, taken together with the attacks on affirmative action in the UC System, have created a hostile environment for black, Latina/o, and Native American students at UC Berkeley and other campuses; and

Whereas, the UC Berkeley Administration failed to take the initiative that other UC administrations took this year to increase underrepresented minority student enrollment in its undergraduate freshman class. In particular, UCLA and UC San Diego; and

Whereas, UCLA and UC San Diego used affirmative action strategies, including reviewing applicants more comprehensively, taking into account hardship, and giving priority to students from disadvantaged, predominantly-minority schools. In doing so they succeeded in achieving modest increases in underrepresented minority student admits in their undergraduate freshman classes this year; and

Whereas, if UCLA and UC San Diego can increase underrepresented minority student admissions, so can UC Berkeley; and

Whereas, on May 16, 2001, students succeeded In forcing the UC Regents to reverse the ban on affirmative action in the UC System. This victory presented the administrations of UC Berkeley and other campuses with the mandate to increase underrepresented minority student enrollment; and

Whereas, this campaign to make the victory of reversing the ban on affirmative action in the UC System real at UC Berkeley can bring about an increase in underrepresented minority admits to UC Berkeley's graduate schools as well; and

Whereas, the Graduate Assembly must join the fight to lead UC Berkeley away from the post-209 resegregation of our campus and the UC System; and

Whereas, where UC Berkeley goes, so will the rest of the UC System;

Resolved, that the GA, through the Office of the President, will send a letter to the Chancellor, calling on him to reverse the drop in underrepresented enrollment at UC Berkeley through increased recruitment, admission, and retention programs.