GRADUATE ASSEMBLY MEETING

May 6, 1999

SUMMARY OF THE MEETING · Heard a presentation by ASUC Auxiliary Director, Tom Cordi, discussing the Commercial Activities Agreement with the University, the Store Operations Board, commercial operations, and ASUC debt. · Heard a presentation by Heather Hood and Judy Chess, from Physical and Environmental Planning, on the Strategic Facilities Master Plan and working on a 20-year vision for the campus.. · Held GA elections, heard candidates' statements and elected the following as next year's GA Officers and representatives: David Friedman, President; Eli Ilano, External Affairs VP; Kimberly Miller, Academic Affairs VP; and Graduate Council reps Katie Vulic, Robb Moss, Keith Casner, and Go Chianpairot (alternate). · Considered and failed a Resolution to make salaries of GA Officers consistent with GSI salaries, and referred the matter to the Executive Committee, for a report in the fall. · Debated and approved a Resolution In Support of the TWLF and Ethnic Studies. · Approved the job description of the Funding Coordinator · Assigned to the Executive Committee approval of the Funding Committee's report and Grad Events funding allocations, and approved an exception to funding limits for honoraria.

This regular meeting of the Graduate Assembly, concluding Spring Semester, was called to order by Tomas Sandoval at 5:40 p.m. in the ASUC Senate Chamber. Mr. Sandoval said he would like to welcome them to the last meeting of the year. The GA would was holding its elections that meeting and no item of business could come before that. They'd hear Announcements and then start

the elections process. One change in the agenda is that the ASUC rep to the GA couldn't be present to give a report. Also, they had guests from Planning and Design that they would add to the agenda. ANNOUNCEMENTS Presentation by Tom Cordi, ASUC Auxiliary Director Mr. Sandoval said he would yield the floor to Tom Cordi, ASUC Auxiliary Director, who wanted to take some time to meet with the GA. Mr. Cordi said he wanted to thank the GA for inviting him and was sorry he couldn't attend their meeting last month. He was asked to talk a little about the ASUC Commercial Activities Agreement, the purpose of the ASUC Auxiliary, some projects, and the state of the debt the ASUC had. Mr. Cordi said he is the Interim Auxiliary Director, not in the position permanently, although he'd applied for it. He was asked to take the position on an interim basis by Horace Mitchell, Vice Chancellor for Business and Administrative Services. Someone was needed from the University to go into the, ASUC after the Commercial Activities Agreement was reached and to actually found and set up a new University department, the ASUC Auxiliary. At the time he was the Assistant Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at Moses Hall. He is a Political Scientist by training and teaches public administration and public law. He has a business background as well. Given the political nature of the job, it was felt the position needed someone who was sensitive to the political process. So he was asked to come in and found the organization.

Mr. Cordi said he would give an historical background on the Commercial Activities Agreement itself. As they know, years of conflict between the ASUC and the University were resolved in March of 1998 with the signing of the CAA. The Agreement set up two bodies. One is the ASUC Auxiliary, a University department under Horace Mitchell, of BAS. The other body they also report to is the Store Operations Board, on which the GA has two members. The Board has 11 members, six students and five members from the University. He is an ex officio member and doesn't have a vote. The purpose of the Store Operations Board is to set policy for the ASUC commercial Auxiliary and oversee its performance. The function of the Auxiliary is to provide administrative and accounting services to the ASUC. As a result of the Agreement, the ASUC was not allowed to have any employees. The ASUC was in the process of turning over its Bookstore to a third-party vendor, which turned out to be Follett College Stores. Mr. Cordi said he was involved in the

negotiations and implementation of that contract. He was the only University employee sent in to the ASUC, and his job was basically to either transfer employees from the ASUC to the Store or to keep them in the Auxiliary. The ASUC went from the 80 full-time FTEs to 25 presently in the Auxiliary. Their job is to provide administrative and accounting services to the ASUC and to run the ASUC's commercial operations. For a brief overview, Mr. Cordi said the ASUC has approximately seven commercial operations it runs. These include the Art Studio; the Cal Lodge, in Donner Summit; the Recycling and Composting Project, although that might change; the Underground; and Black Lightning Notes. These are operations the Auxiliary runs itself with Auxiliary employees. Most are student workers although the supervisors tend to be University employees. In addition, the Auxiliary provides accounting services to the ASUC. They had set up from scratch two parallel accounting systems, one for the University and the Auxiliary and the other that goes to the Bank of America account that the ASUC has. At the present time, the ASUC has one bank account, although the rules of the Agreement allow for the creation of another. So there's basically a dual accounting system. Mr. Cordi said that when he came on board, it wasn't known what the debt was that the ASUC had. They have since determined that the ASUC's debt was close to $6 nullion. About $2.5 million of that was debt to third-party vendors, such as publishers, that books, who had not been paid for years and were refusing to send books. One reason the ASUC had to go to a third-party to manage its Bookstore is because most vendors refused to do business with the ASUC since they hadn't been paid for a long time. In addition, the ASUC also owed a little more than $2.6 million to the University. So in total, they had almost $6 million to pay off before the ASUC could see any of the profits from its commercial activities. Mr. Cordi said he would describe the nature of the contract with Follett College Stores. As a result of this contract, the Auxiliary received $2 million, what he calls a "signing bonus," received up front just to allow Follett to come in and take over the Store. In addition, the ASUC receives $1.75 million as a minimum, guaranteed rent every year. They also receive a percentage of gross total sales if sales exceed a certain minimum level, $14.5 million. When the Store makes more than that, the ASUC begins to receive a percentage of gross sales in addition to the base rent. The ASUC also sold its inventory to Follett for $1.3 million. As a result of this income, the ASUC paid off completely all of its third-party debt to vendors, $2.6 million. They have also been paying off

the debt to the University and presently only have $1.2 million in debt, after ten months. So they're making fantastic progress. If everything goes as planned and

they the revenues they expect from their commercial operations, by the end of the fiscal year, June 30, they hope to make one more payment of probably between $5-700,000, which would reduce their debt to the University down to $5-6-700,000. And they hope to pay that off next year. So the ASUC and the GA Presentation by Mr. Cordi, ASUC Auxiliary Director (cont'd) - 3 - should expect to sere profits, probably not in the next fiscal year, but in the following year. That is really an incredible accomplishment, paying off $6 million worth of debt in that short a period of time. So he thought they were making very good progress in that regard. Mr. Cordi said the Auxiliary was doing a couple of things at the time that he thought the GA should be aware of, and about which the Auxiliary could use the GA's input, even that evening, as to what the Auxiliary should do. The Auxiliary currently has a Request for Proposal out to redo the Bear's Lair. Grads may have some feelings about the type of vendors they should have there and what it should look like, and whether or not there should be a bar. If the GA has feelings about that and would like to share them with him, he'd be glad to take them back to the Store Operations Board. In response to the RFP, on May 17 they expect to receive bids as a result of the bidders' conference that occurred two weeks ago. Nine major companies would like to serve as grand concessionaires, and then sublet space in the Bear's Lair to smaller vendors. They don't know who will come in with a bid or what the bids will be. The Board has set up some criteria and will evaluate bids on a quantitative basis. They determined percentages for different criteria and will come up with scores and decide who to invite. They'll probably invite two or three companies to come in and explain their vision, the kind of vendors they intend to sublet to, and what the Bear's Lair would look like. They hope the entire process is completed by the end of June, with a contract awarded to some company to come in and manage the food concessions. They will then become landlords, and one of the functions of the Auxiliary is to serve as a landlord to tenants. The Auxiliary will not be involved in the actual management or running of those operations, except in terms of oversight, a function the SOB will perform. So the Board could use any input that the GA has as to what kind of operation grads think the ASUC should have in that space.

Mr. Cordi said there are two other RFPs he should explain. Another way the ASUC commercial Auxiliary makes money is through its vending contracts, and the ASUC has the right to all vending on campus, including food, beverages, and candy machines, with the exception of athletic venues and Housing and Dining venues. Any other machine that people see on campus is an ASUC machine, more or less. The ASUC currently has a contract with Pepsi that ends at the end of June, so the Auxiliary needs to go out with an RFP in the next few weeks. They hope to have a cola "war" of some sort, a bidding war among Pepsi, Coke, and others, and come out with a better contract than they now have. They'll do the same thing they're doing with their food vending. Their current contract is with Canteen, and other companies will be invited to come in and make bids on their food vending machines as well. Mr. Cordi said these three RFPs are the primary activity the Board is involved with at that time in terms of planning future commercial ventures. These contracts will probably be for five to ten years and involve tremendous amounts of money, especially if they're able to combine with Housing and Dining and Athletics, which would allow them to negotiate, on a campus-wide basis, an exclusive contract. That money goes back into the Auxiliary and ultimately makes its way back to the ASUC and the GA as profit. Mr. Cordi said that gives an overview of the structure of the Auxiliary, what it does, the functions it per forms, the functions of the Store Operations Board, and some of its current projects. He thought he'd open the floor and would be glad to answer any questions people may have or listen to any comments as to what the Auxiliary should do with its RFPs or with the Bear's Lair. He would love to hear from them. Mr. Casner asked about the status of the Underground. Mr. Cordi said the Underground will move. As part of the deal with Follett, in addition the money he described, Follett agreed to spend $3 million to renovate the entire Store. Part of that involves setting up a new textbook center, to be located where the Current underground is. The Underground will move upstairs, into the mall area, and will be reduced in size, from 100 video games down to 50 or 55, and with 3 pool tables instead of 13. But the location will be better. A lot of people are afraid to go down to the Underground since it seems dark and uninviting.

Hopefully a location on the mall level will help. It will be located where BearBytes, Special Services, and School Supplies are, and the Store will give up that space to move the rec center there. Mr. Chang asked when the Director position will be closed. Mr. Cordi said it closes on Friday, and he submitted his application on Wednesday. Mr. Chang asked if a grad student is on the selection committee. Mr. Cordi said he believed Mr. Friedman is a member. He asked if anybody else is on it. Mr. Friedman said there wasn't, as it's a smaller subsection of the SOB. Mr. Sandoval said he made the appointment to the position. Mr. Chang asked if the selection committee was chaired by Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Cordi said it's chaired by Harry LeGrand, of Housing and Dining, since they wanted somebody to chair who was outside the ASUC and who hasn't been involved. Mr. Cordi asked if there were any comments about the Bear's Lair. Mr. Friedman said that Delegates could contact him or Ben Dahl about the Bear's Lair. The big question is whether franchises should be there, which would upset the City of Berkeley. The City doesn't like franchises and is worried about other, local stores going out of business. So the big question for the Board is whether to have Taco Bell or another franchisee, and how they balance that. If they allow one national brand to come in, they still may want local brands as well. They don't want it to just become entirely all national brands. Some students, undergrads, have asked why there isn't an 'N and 'Out Burger. They don't know whether the campus would put up with that or whether people would want a national brand. They'll listen to the proposals and see what value is added by having brands, and eventually a decision will be made as to what the mix will be of national and local brands. Mr. Sandoval said they appreciated Mr. Cordi coming and speaking to the GA. Presentation by Physical and Environmental Planning Heather Hood introduced herself and Judy Chess, from the Office of Physical and Environmental Planning. The GA may recall that Ms. Chess and Michael Yarne talked at a previous GA meeting about the Strategic Facilities Master Plan. They were present that evening to find out who could be, at the least, a contact person to the GA over the summer to help lay the groundwork for getting grad student involvement in the fall. Ms. Hood said she is a former student and former lecturer and is now a planner on campus. She loves the

campus, and she would like to find out how people in the GA feel about it, so they know if people are even committed to this. She asked how many people love the physical campus, like it, or don't like it. After a show of hands, Ms. Hood said that apparently people love the physical campus. A reason they might want to be involved is because they'll try to keep the best parts of campus intact over the next 20 years If people like the campus, they've probably got some ideas about what could make it better, or if they hate r dislike it, they probably have lots to say. What they have now is a Strategic Facilities Master Planning process that will really get in gear in August to look at how they want the campus to be in the next 20 years. Ms. Hood said this is a big question. It started off with the seismic conditions of the buildings. As people can see on the map she had, the buildings in red are either seismically poor or very poor, such as Eshleman Hall. That means that if there's an earthquake, most likely the people in those buildings would be seriously injured or might not survive. With this planning process they have a chance to look at the campus as one big, entire, whole entity, and also have the chance to include a lot of people in what its vision should be. What has happened in the past 40 years of campus planning is to look at it site by site, such as simply looking at the Tang Center or the Haas Business School, looking very closely at just one new facility. The process they're now in gives them a chance to ask about what really matters, what should be saved, and what should be new. Ms. Hood said they're going to look at four parts in the plan. The first is the physical environment. Another part is transportation issues, which she's heard Ms. Telesetsky is interested in. This deals with everything from regional transportation issues to how people get in and out of the campus. Financial strategic thinking is needed about how to actually do this. And finally, a communications strategy is necessary so all this makes sense to the campus and to their City neighbors. So things will be stirred up in the fall, and they need at least one person from the GA to talk to over the summer, someone they would ask to play a role in this. Mr. Chang said it seemed the new Haas Pavilion was in red, showing it was seismically poor. Ms. Chess said it's presently being upgraded, and as soon as it's completed, will be upgraded. Mr. Sobel asked if student housing enters into the 20-year plan at all. Ms. Hood

said that would be integral in some ways, but most housing has been retrofitted or cleared. Mr. Sobel said he wasn't sure if they were speaking about a 20-year plan for the campus or if they were being more narrowly focused on getting everything up to seismic safety. The campus is growing, and it seemed that housing was shrinking. He asked if the 20-year plan addresses student housing and availability. Ms. Chess said that one of the guiding principles of the plan in terms of land use and what it looks like includes things like academic buildings besides seismic condition, land use, such as for housing and auxiliary enterprises, parking, museum and display spaces, and location of these uses. So housing is a part of this. Even though the map focuses on seismic issues, it really does include those other things, like livability in adjacent neighborhoods. In the area of asset management, housing is an asset in short supply, and plans to increase housing have to be worked into this and expanded. One thing the consultant team will talk about, as they move into the process in the fall, is alternate ways of providing housing that might be quicker and faster to get on-line than the traditional ways things have been done. The point raised was good in terms of land use and asset management. Ms. Hood said another issue to consider is that life enhancements for students are located around campus, scattered all over the place, such as University Hall, Bancroft Ave., all over. The planning process gives people an opportunity to rethink how they see the lives of students and how that could be improved by the physical nature of the campus. Mr. Bach asked if there was a way to take down Barrows. Ms. Hood said currently Barrows is seismically poor, and they received FEMA money, Federal Emergency Management Agency money, to seismically strengthen Barrows. The good news is that they've received the money, but the bad news is that they have to fix Barrows. Ms. Hood said this allows them to determine how they value buildings, including aesthetics, historical values, amounts of people who could reasonably fit into a building. They'll want to know what students value. Ms. Chess said one issue is classroom space, lab upgrades, art facilities, and buildings that are seismically poor and aging in terms of infrastructure. So teaching issues have come up already. I they could get an official contact person from the GA, as they move forward, people might be interested in talking about this as consultants move forward and need to do focus groups or interviews. That would be really helpful to them. Mr. Chang asked about compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ms. Chess said that as buildings are retrofitted, that needs to be addressed. It's very complex and is currently dealt with on a request-by-request basis. The amount of space that's constructed on campus and the difficulty in terms of the

terrain makes it a challenge. They have a committee that meets monthly to address these challenges. One component of this plan is to deliver this service in a better way as part of the access issue, and access is included in ADA compliance. Ms. Hood said maybe they couldn't name someone today, and she knew they were preoccupied with elections, but asked if Planning could contact the GA in the near future for suggestions. Mr. Sandoval said they could. Ms. Chess said that Ms. Hood would pass around a brochure they distributed at Cal Day giving people an idea of what Planning is doing. It includes the last description of the Master Plan project, who might be interested in other discussions, contact information, and where information is on the Web. If people have more interest they should let the office know. She wanted to thank them. Ms. Telesetsky suggested passing a sheet of paper around for people to sign if they were interested. Mr. Sandoval said he'd like to thank the speakers very much for attending the meeting. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Mr. Sandoval said he would assume everybody has had a chance to review the minutes from the April meeting, and he called for a motion to approve. It was so moved and seconded. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 1, 1999 GA MEETING PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Sandoval said they need to add a report from the Funding Committee, to be heard after the Funding Coordinator description, A.7.1. He also had a Resolution to consider after the salary Resolution, A.6.1, dealing with the Third World Liberation Front. He called for any other additions or changes to the agenda and called for a motion to approve. A motion to approve the agenda was made and seconded. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, AS AMENDED, PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. REPORTS Mr. Sandoval said all reports were submitted in writing except for Mr. Friedman's. Mr. Friedman asked if anybody would be interested in attending a meeting on Monday, noon to 1:00, regarding a proposal on next fall's ballot dealing with the athletic facilities, another fee referendum, to

address such things as building another soccer field. It's very early in this process, and this would be an informational meeting, with lunch provided. The purpose is to get views on campus recreational sports the events, such as with the RSF. Mr. Friedman said he wasn't available to attend. Mr. Sandoval said that if nobody at the meeting was interested, they'd send an e-mail out and solicit people from departments to attend. This is a big chunk of money that's being proposed, probably by the fall, to be worked on over the summer. GA ELECTIONS Ms. Baker said she sent out an e-mail about GA elections and hopefully people had time to read the descriptions. They'd go office by office, starting with the President. Candidates will give a talk of no more than five minutes and then they'd have a few minutes for questions. Candidates will then be asked to leave the room for a brief discussion and a vote. Mr. Sandoval said after voting for President, they'll do External Affairs VP, Academic Affairs VP, and the three Grad Council reps and an alternate. Ms. Baker said the person who gets the fourth highest number of votes will be the alternate. Mr. Sandoval said there is no longer an Academic Planning Board, so they don't have to elect anybody for that. The GA rep to the Store Operations Board is appointed by the President and the Funding Coordinator will be chosen in September. Ms. Heitsch said that regarding the Grad Council alternate, most Grad Council issues are ongoing, so if people think they might be an alternate, they should plan on going to all the meetings, although they won't be able to vote. But the GA would always have four representatives who are well informed about the issues. Mr. Sandoval said he would officially open GA elections. If people want to run for an office they should state their name for the record. If they're not a Delegate, they will have to get a Delegate to nominate them. He called for any nominations for GA President. Mr. Casner nominated Mr. Friedman. Mr. Sandoval called for any other nominations. Seeing none, he said the nominations were closed for President and said Mr. Friedman had up to five minutes to make a presentation. Mr. Friedman said he distributed a statement and had one quick point to add. Mr. Cordi talked earlier about paying off the ASUC's debt to the University and about income that would eventually come to the GA. Mr. Friedman said that

what he'd most like to do during the summer and next year is to make sure the GA gets a portion of that income, since currently that wasn't clear. For any profits from the Store or other operations, such as the beverage contract, the GA should technically get one-third, since they're onethird of the campus. So that was his number one goal, to get that stream of income now that the ASUC knows how to run a store. In the past, the GA didn't want any part of it, but now they do. For his second goal, as he mentioned in his statement, the GA will be having its 30th anniversary, and he thought it would be a good idea to have some event in commemoration and to make sure they are no longer under the auspices of the ASUC. He thought it was time they become the grad student body's' official government. He called for any questions. GA Elections Mr. Sobel said he would assume the GA had a fairly large surplus, which probably shouldn't be so big, since they're a nonprofit and should spend money they have. He asked if Mr. Friedman had any ideas as to programs he might want to institute to spend some of that money. Mr. Friedman said the GA has been slowly working on the idea to increase grant money, which he favored. He thought $2 per person was a little low. Ms. Dugas has also mentioned some programs the GA had in the past that sound reasonable, such as projects to improve grad student teaching, which the GA used to do. He didn't know if the GA could or should do that, due to union issues. But he would be interested in funding programs such as the Graduate Advocate. This is a program Ms. Telesetsky is intrigued with and involves lobbying on behalf of individual grads for problems they're having in their departments. Ms. Telesetsky said that position could also deal with things such as racial and sexual discrimination. The ASUC has a Student Advocate, although the Grad Advocate would not deal so much with students getting in trouble as much as having trouble with departments. Mr. Friedman said he'd be happy to hear new ideas in the fall as well. They also need to make sure that the GA changes contractual matters with the Store Operations Board. There will be a lot of money for the GA and grads are currently appointed by the undergrad Senate. So they need to change things like that. Ms. Telesetsky said she had a question dealing with academic affairs. There was a rumor that Cal may become a year-round school, with three semesters. She asked Mr. Friedman his take on that. Mr. Friedman said that rumor was a long way from being implemented. A year-round school would not be compulsory, at least according to the State Legislature. As the plan was currently formulated, it was clear

t it couldn't happen because grads need to do research and finish their dissertations in a timely manner. The same time, he could understand the Legislature's point that if the University wants more room for students, buildings are now going to waste. That's not true at the Berkeley campus, but it is a problem at other UCs that have empty buildings during the summer. The idea is not to construct buildings that are only used nine months a year. But unless there's funding from elsewhere and they ensure that grads don't have more of a workload, and that degrees aren't longer, he couldn't support that idea. Mr. Sandoval called for any other questions. Seeing none, he asked Mr. Friedman to step outside for a discussion and a vote. A discussion was held off the record. A Delegate asked if they need a majority of votes for approval, or if someone could be elected with just one yea vote. Mr. Sandoval said a majority of yea votes was needed. Mr. Sandoval called for any comments while the votes were being counted. Ms. Heitsch said she would make a final pitch for the Grad Council. If people are running, or are considering it, a number of issues were dealt with that year that will also come up next year. The most important of these is the issue of getting residency for grads. GA representatives finally managed to get the Grad Council to at least consider this. Most faculty were quite rightly appalled by what grads have to go through to get residency, and faculty consider it unreasonable. On the other hand, these provisions are not up to the faculty. As she understood it, requirements are set by the Legislature, probably in conjunction with the Regents. What is interesting is that different campuses interpret these policies in different ways. The differences primarily lie r ' - what constitutes evidence of presence in the State. She believed there are at least two or three cam puses that specifically accept things like rent bills or utility bills, or other things that seem very natural to prove that one is living here all year. But body specifically excludes some of these things. The Grad Council is trying to address this issue. One thing Grad Council reps over the summer and next year will need to do is collect a lot of anecdotal evidence about how horrible the Residency Office is and present this to the Grad Council, to be presented to the appropriate people. Ms. Heitsch said a second issue before the Grad Council is the fact that the University finally has a University Librarian. So the Library will be going

through a lot of upheaval in the next year or so. If people are interested in Library issues, which most grads probably are, this was important. The University Librarian attended the Grad Council's last meeting. One point she made is that grads have library needs that are very different from undergrads or faculty. Her impression is that faculty have less need for the library than grads do because faculty research interests are very focused, so they tend to get reprints from colleagues or already own most of the books they need for research. Grad student interests, however, are broader, and they go to the library to look up new articles and check new books. If they have to wait a week or two for books to be shipped from other campuses, that's a big problem. So that's another ongoing issue. The Grad Council also deals with departmental reviews as an ongoing responsibility. Also, for this past year they've been talking about the issue of post-docs on campus, as well as career prospects for UC Berkeley PhDs. If Delegates are interested in having a job after they graduate they should also be interested in the Grad Council because what they will try to do ultimately, she thought, was to encourage the campus and departments to be more proactive about helping grads get jobs in academia as well as outside. Because faculty are in academia and most plan to stay, it's a big thing for them to realize that their grads might not choose to be academics. This can come as a real shock to faculty, and they don't know how to properly mentor and train people looking for jobs in industry. So that's another big issue coming up in the Grad Council. If people are interested, they should consider being Grad Council representatives. Mr. Sandoval said he had the results of the election for President and said Mr. Friedman is the next President of the GA. (Applause) Mr. Sandoval said the next Office up for election was the External Affairs Vice President. People at that time could nominate themselves or may nominate others. Eli Ilano said he was not a Delegate but would like to be nominated for the position. A Delegate nominated Mr. Ilano. Mr. Sandoval called for any other nominations, and seeing none said the nominations were closed. They would move directly to statements. He said Mr. Ilano provided a statement in the supplemental agenda packet. He said Mr. Ilano had up to five minutes to make a statement. Mr. Ilano said he would be brief. Since he was sitting in the back corner of these meetings for the past couple of months, he thought he'd get up and tell them about himself. He hit on the main points in his write-up. He was involved

in the UCSA for about four years, first as a representative on the Affirmative Action Council, which became a committee, he believed, after he left, meaning it moved up in importance in the UCSA. He was a Campus Office Director for undergrads, meaning he organized the campus around UCSA issues. He was also Chair of the Student Union Assembly in Santa Cruz. In that capacity, they met with the UCSA and gave their take on things. He was also involved in a number of groups and student movements. In answer to a question on most job applications, he has a record and was arrested at a couple of protests, some of which were sponsored by the UCSA. Mr. Ilano said he would explain what he would do in the position. He thought the GA needs to look at two things, short-term and longterm projects. In the short term, he thought it was really important to get students back to Sacramento and back into the ears of legislators. He knew the UCSA has been going through a transition lately, but thought the time was ready for the UCSA to get back to and strengthen the Sacramento aspect of the student movement. One great way that was really powerful to him when he was involved was Lobby Day, which occurred once a year. Students go to Sacramento and have events leading up to that. So it was so much more than just a visit with State representatives and was really powerful, something he'd love to get started again, and getting the campus active in the UCSA and what's going on. There are lots of easy things to do, and he felt one of his jobs as an organizer would be to make it easier for people to get involved. Finally, he thought that in the long term, they really need to work on their representation as a University. He just moved here from Georgia, where he spent three years: The reputation of the University of California changed in the three years that he was away, from being a very liberal, progressive place that set the trends for the value placed on diversity. He thought a message was being heard that was being sent by the wrong people as to what defines the University. He thought the GA needs to play a more active role in defining what the University is and what people value who make up the University. He's outlined a couple of things and thought it was important to do that on a UC-wide basis. So that's his plan and who he is. He hoped to hold this job next year. Mr. Casner asked what department he was in. Mr. Ilano said he was in two departments, City & Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture. And he's studying Environment Planning. '1&. Sobel asked how long he's been a grad student at Berkeley. Mr. Ilano said this was his first year in a three-year program. Mr. Sobel asked, out of curiosity, why he was not a Delegate that year. Mr. Ilano said he wanted to get

warmed up to being back in school. He got involved with a group inside his department, Students of Color and Planning, and that's where he focused his energy. He organized a couple of recruitment days and tried to keep the Department apprised of what was happening on student of color issues around the State. Mr. Sandoval said that seeing no other questions, he would ask Mr. Ilano to leave the room for a discussion and the vote. A discussion was held off the record. Mr. Sandoval called for any discussion while the votes were being tallied. Mr. Sobel asked how the Grad Council could affect residency policy. Ms. Heitsch said the way the Council perceives it could be effective is by forcing the way policy works and is interpreted by people on campus. The Grad Council has already had people on campus talk to them, and their attitude was basically that their hands are tied by Sacramento and they were just following the law. The Council collected a lot of information from other campuses and it became clear that this policy was implemented differently by each campus. The explanation the Offce of the President gave was that this was because of the different flavor of the campuses, which makes no sense. The Office of the President seemed to think that this wasn't an issue. She has an e-mail that says the Office was not aware of any problems that grads have in getting residency and questioned why they ;re being bothered; and the Grad Council collectively laughed at that. Their plan for next fall is to bring people from the campus office back and to get them to clarify the way they implement the policy, and probably bring somebody in from the Office of the President, and let them sort it out. A Delegate asked if the Office of the President actually interprets the law, since it's not that the law needs to be changed, just its interpretation. Ms. Heitsch said she didn't think anybody had a problem with people being present in California if they claim to be a resident. Their problem is with how that's interpreted. The Grad Council was trying to sort out who has authority for this interpretation, and the usual buck passing was going on. The campus says it's not up to the campus, and the Office of the President says it is up to the campus. The Grad Council will try to pin down who has this authority. Another suggestion to improve the process is to have an ombudsman in the Graduate Division that grads could go to if they have problems with the Residency Office, and they could get better information going out from that Office. For example, one

problem is that no one really knows exactly what the standards are. People hear their best friends got totally screwed over by the Residency Office, but had no problem themselves. So there's a vast uncertainty about what's proper and what isn't. She thought the Grad Council believes it can force the Residency Office to be clearer about this and to disseminate more information about what's needed for residency. The Grad Council itself is very sympathetic to this issue and faculty have either encountered grads themselves who had problems. So it's easy to convince them this problem is unreasonable and should be changed. Mr. Sandoval said he would like to congratulate the new External Affairs Vice President, Eli Ilano. Mr. Sandoval said the next Office is for election of Vice President for Academic Affairs. No statements for this position were submitted and he called for any nominations. Kimberly Miller was nominated. He called for any other nominations, and seeing none, closed nominations. Mr. Sandoval asked Ms. Miller for a candidate's statement. Ms. Miller said she is currently the Graduate Women's Project Coordinator at the GA and has held that position for 18 months; so she just finished the last Empowering Women of Color Conference, which she did for two years. She really enjoyed working at the GA. The reason she wanted to run for this position is because she would like to reach out to more grads and have an affect on campus. She felt that not enough grads know what the GA is and the resources it can offer, and there are resources the GA might be interested in providing to grads. She wanted people to know about the GA and come in and say what they feel and what they expect from the GA. As for her background, Ms. Miller said she had an undergraduate degree in Chemical Engineering and was a Vision Science student in the College of Optometry, doing research on contact lenses. If people ever want to participate in an experiment, they could talk to her. She's a second-year grad. She's from Puerto Rico and went to school in Boston. She'd be happy to answer any questions people might have. Ms. Telesetsky said she didn't know if Ms. Miller owned a car, but parking is a big topic, and asked about her stance on parking on campus. Ms. Miller said she didn't own a car and has taken the bus to and from San Francisco for two years. She was sympathetic to car users because she liked getting rides to the City. She thought parking on campus was ridiculous and said that if people don't get to campus before a certain time, it's very difficult to find parking. She didn't think the City really appreciated the cars on campus and didn't think students were sensitive to the issues that the City faces with the number of cars

that come in to Berkeley from the outside. Other than that, she also didn't think everybody had to drive to school, and would try to encourage people to use public transportation, especially with the passage of the AC Transit pass. Mr. Sandoval asked Ms. Miller to please leave the room for a discussion and a vote. A discussion was held off the record. Mr. Sandoval said that while the votes were being counted, he asked if people had any questions regarding any report that was submitted. He noted that the AC Transit Initiative passed by a large margin. They're still waiting to learn the breakdown and how much grads and professional students were involved with its approval. It was approved by 89%, and they had the 20% necessary on the second day of voting at about 1 o'clock. E-mails were sent out, flyers were put up at the Law School and the Business School, and they got people to make announcements in classes. There are 1,800 students in those two schools, so hopefully a lot voted. Ms. Telesetsky said for people interested in student housing, the sites at Durant and College, and Channing and Bowditch, have been approved for student housing, including grad student apartment-style housing. This will occur in several years. A Delegate asked about the GSI vote on unionizing. Mr. Sandoval said that unofficially, it was approved. Mr. Chang said he believed the results will be announced May 13. Mr. Sandoval said AGSE was very optimistic from exit polling it did. The first count is three weeks after the election and then the results have to be officially certified by PERB. People should know by the fall, and the GA will have a clear idea about what it can and cannot do, and how it can work with AGSE. There will be some way the GA has to COOP involved in a collective bargaining situation. Mr. Sandoval said he would like to congratulate the new Academic Affairs Vice President, Kimberly Miller. Mr. Sandoval said the next election was for the GA's three Graduate Council representatives and one alternate. He called for nominations. Ms. Heitsch nominated Katy Vulic, who was unable to be there that evening. Ms. Heitsch said Ms. Vulic has been a representative on the Grad Council with her and Ms. Madar and was the alternate the previous year and asked her to make the nomination.

Keith Casner nominated himself. Go Chianpairot said he would like to be nominated but was not a Delegate. Mr. Sobel nominated Mr. Chianpairot. Mr. Sobel nominated himself. Rob Moss nominated himself. Mr. Sandoval called for any other nominations, and seeing none said nominations were closed. A Delegate asked if the three reps and the alternate will be decided out of this pool. Mr. Sandoval said the top three vote-getters will be the three reps and the fourth would be the alternate. He said they would hear statements of up to three minutes from the candidates. Mr. Sandoval said he would read the candidate's statement from Ms. Vulic, and read the following: -------------

Uegin statement by Ms. Vulic Hey there! Sorry I can't be at the meeting tomorrow. If I'm nominated at the meeting for Graduate Council representative, I accept the nomination! I was happy to serve on the Graduate Council this year and I'm interested in continuing to participate. I don't know if this is much of a statement, but here are a few of my thoughts about the GC: there have been a number of issues up before the Graduate Council which I would be interested in seeing through. In think this year the Council has started making inquiries about the ways in which graduate students qualify for and apply for in-State residency. Having seen that there may be some inconsistency from campus to campus, I would like to see if the process could be made less antagonistic and the procedures for qualifying more objective. (Regardless of who is delegated to the Graduate Council, I think the in-State residency issue must remain on the agenda next year.) I am interested in representing the Graduate Assembly as the Graduate Council continues to deal with other issues critical to graduate and postgraduate education, including treatment of post-docs, institution of high-fee programs, and the regular review of departments. I would also like to continue Tony Wang's new tradition (started last year) of keeping all Graduate Council records in the Graduate Assembly office, which would function as an archive for future Delegates. i Thanks! Katie Vulic End statement from Ms. Vulic

-------------- Mr. Sobel said that considering the GA's illustrious history of voting unanimously, he would withdraw his name for the position since four people were eager and willing to fill the position, and he'd run for something else. Mr. Casner said he wrote a five-minute speech but would just speak off the cuff He had a statement that was not part of the official packet. He looked forward to working on the Grad Council and saw it as an opportunity to field a lot of innovative ideas on how grads relate to other groups on campus, such as faculty, Administration, and undergrads. A number of important issues have been taken up by current Grad Council representative and he would continue to pursue those. But it's also an opportunity to have new discussion on issues that are not being addressed as loudly. He liked the idea of having an ombudsperson, and perhaps taking that to the Grad Council. He felt it was really important, on a campus that had a lot of antagonism and antipathy between different groups, and sometimes a breakdown in dialogue and civilized discourse, to have forums with the Grad Council to discuss things in an enlightened fashion. He would be eager to do that and serve with the other GA representatives on the Council. He looked forward to representing the GA. Mr. Sandoval called for any questions for Mr. Caster. Mr. Sobel said that from prior meetings, he knew Mr. Casner was very anti-union. He asked if that position was at all flexible or if he was sticking with that, and asked if he supported other students choosing to join a union. Mr. Casner said he's spent a lot of thought on this and said it's a key issue. The most important thing is that the union will have a mandate within its sphere to do collective bargaining and represent a certain segment of the graduate population. He thought there was a tendency for groups that are the best organized, have the most organizational clout, and speak the loudest to speak for a larger community they don't necessarily represent. He wanted to be sure grads who are not part of the union or have a dissenting opinion will have a voice. The GA voted into place its official position on union issues, and while respecting the policy of the GA and its decisions, he wanted to provide an alternate voice, and that would also be his agenda. Ms. Heitsch said that he's mentioned in his oral and printed statements that other viewpoints or issues should be represented. But he's neglected to state what he thought those issues or viewpoints were, and asked if he could clarify that. Mr. Casner said there are students who may or may not be working as

instructors who may not necessarily agree with a tack the union might take in its negotiations or positions. These students need to have an alternate outlet to have their views expressed. Ms. Heitsch said that's not allowed if they vote to have a union, since it's the body that deals with the University about job issues. So outside the union, she asked what other issues he thought need to be addressed. Mr. Casner said besides the union, there are important issues about relationships between faculty and grads, grads and undergrads, and grads and the Administration that don't fall within the union's ambient, and those will be issues he'd be interested in taking up. His whole issue with the union is that he didn't think everything boils down to wages and benefits, and thought a community has to be addressed, and that's the perspective he'd continue to hold. Mr. Sandoval said the next candidate for Grad Council was Go Chianpairot. Mr. Chianpairot said he's a grad in Materials Science and Engineering. He is a resident in the International House and is an international student from Thailand. On Cal Day he organized a cultural exhibition on Thailand at the I-House. He wanted to see Thai culture represented, and in the past seven or eight years, there's been no such cultural exhibition at the I-House. They had a Spring Festival, organized every year on Cal Day. From that experience in organizing, he learned to work with people and enjoyed the exhibition of Thai culture to people in the US and Berkeley, to give them a better understanding of Thailand. He recently learned about the GA from a Delegate in his department, Jeff Han-din, and would like to make a contribution to the community. Joining the GA and being an academic representative would be a good start. So he thought he'd gain a lot of experience and could make a contribution and enhance his life at Berkeley. Mr. Sandoval called for any questions. Mr. Chang said that one aspect of being a Grad Council representative that hasn't been mentioned is that these reps also sit on the GA's Executive Committee. He asked what perspectives Mr. Chianpairot would bring in terms of the future of the GA, such as its budget or priorities. Mr. Chianpairot said that one reason he decided to join the GA is because he's interested in looking at policy issues of the University, academic issues. He hasn't really been thinking about this issue very carefully and just learned about this opportunity to join the GA a month ago. His main purpose in running for this position is to get experience in working with more professional activities and to contribute to the community and the University. He didn't know much about what he could contribute at that time, but was looking forward to it. Mr. Benadon asked if he was just interested in presenting Thai culture, or he'd

expand that to other cultures. Mr. Chianpairot said he was interested to expanding that to other cultures as well. He thought Berkeley has the advantage of international culture because a lot of international students are in the area, 4d the area is extraordinary in its broad politics and liberal political thought. There's a very high proportion of Asians on the campus, as opposed to the East Coast, so this would be a good opportunity. Mr. Sandoval said the next candidate for the Grad Council was Robb Moss. Mr. Moss said he's a firstyear doctoral student in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and would be at Berkeley for another three years. The issues he's heard regarding the Grad Council are issues he had a vested interest in. He had an opinion on those issues and would like to add his two cents. Mr. Chang said that as a Grad Council rep he would also sit on the GA's Executive Committee, and asked what priorities he would set for the GA. Mr. Moss said that since he was new to the system, he was rather naive about the issues, and if people could ask about specifics, he could express his opinion. Mr. Sobel said that it was mentioned that there were a number of issues that Mr. Moss had a vested in, and asked what one of them was. Mr. Moss said that since this was his first year there, the residency question is looming over him, and he's heard a lot of bad stories. He wasn't certain if some might be urban myths, but thought this was one of those gray areas that really needs to be defined as to who is responsible for interpreting those rules. That should be public knowledge, as well as reasons why things are interpreted a certain way. That was one of the subjects he'd get involved with. Mr. Sandoval said he would ask the nominees to step outside for a discussion and a vote. Ms. Baker said that Delegates should write their votes in the order they want, numbers one through three. Mr. Sandoval called for any comments while the votes were being counted. A Delegate asked if anybody could clarify the Administration's position on the Third World Liberation Front issue. It was not clear to him what the other side was saying and to what extent it was accurate. Mr. Sandoval said that in the Resolution, he left out most of the protesters' demands and dealt with the police evacuation more than anything else. The University claims it hasn't cut the budget of Ethnic Studies and was negotiating with Department faculty. A certain group of faculty agreed to certain things, like money for recruitment, the hiring process, and other budgetary concerns. A small group of faculty and students objected to the proposed plan, but other faculty members agreed to it;

and now they're saying the faculty members have not agreed, and the students are saying they're not in favor of it. The faculty in question, including the Chair of the Department, said they never agreed to anything and that they're behind the Department. They've been talking with the University, but would not agree to anything until the students agree to it as well. That day, one of the professors in the Department also joined the hunger strike, and at this point negotiations will begin on Friday morning at 9 a.m. with the students. A Delegate asked if the budget was cut or not. Mr. Chang said six classes were canceled. Mr. Sandoval said he believed it was eight classes that were canceled. Money was also withheld to begin searches, and competition is difficult as it is with all departments. He didn't understand the demands of the students and didn't think that was the issue. The real issue is that the University, in the budget process that has been created in the last ten years, and block grants, has set up competition among departments, and administrators are touting that they'd let everybody fight it out among themselves. He didn't think it was too controversial for people to understand and his students were discussing it that day. People of minority culture feel they'll get less than majority cultures, and it becomes a factor the numbers, which is not necessarily inherently evil. But the problem is requiring competition in the first place. The Administration is letting this happen and trying to keep its hands clean rather than address the educational experience that occurs at Berkeley, and rather than working with students and faculty to create a certain academic experience. Mr. Bach asked if there have been conflicting accounts of what the demands are, and if it was true students are demanding that Ethnic Studies be a separate Division, with a separate admissions process. Mr. Sandoval said that was one of the original demands of the TWLF in 1969, to have a Third World College, with separate admissions from the University. But that is not part of the official list of demands, although rhetorically, probably is a demand. Mr. Bach asked if the GA would be supporting the demand for separate admissions if they support the TWLF. Mr. Sandoval said they wouldn't be. Ms. Telesetsky said that when the GA discussed this earlier in the year, Ethnic Studies was going to be part of American Studies. Mr. Sandoval said that idea was discussed for a couple of years. Mr. Chang said American Studies wasn't interested in doing that. Mr. Sandoval said he would like to congratulate the three Grad Council reps and the alternate: Katie Vulic, Robb Moss, and Keith Casner, with Go Chianpairot as the alternate. He wanted to welcome them to the Grad Council.

(Applause) Mr. Sandoval said that completes GA elections. RESOLUTIONS Ms. Heitsch submitted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION ON A SALARY INCREASE FOR GA OFFICERS WHEREAS, the Graduate Assembly has accumulated a sizable surplus (approximately $85,000) over the past years; and WHEREAS, thanks to the diligent efforts of GA Officers, the GA budget will soon be augmented by the full 7/7ths of graduate student fees; and WHEREAS, the Graduate Assembly and graduate students in general rely on the Officers to represent our interests to the Administration, the campus, the University, and even the State at large; and WHEREAS, the Graduate Assembly's expectation is that the Officers will work 16 - 20 hours a week on average; and WHEREAS, this work load is on par with that of a Graduate Student Instructor (GSI); and WHEREAS, the current Officers' salaries of less than $1,000 a month cannot support the cost of living in the Bay Area; and WHEREAS, the Officers should be able to devote their time and energy to the Graduate Assembly and their academic studies; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the salaries of the Graduate Assembly Officers should be consistent with GSI salaries. Mr. Sandoval called for a motion to approve. It was so moved and seconded. Mr. Casner said he was in agreement with this and would like to offer as an option that people who want to be paid more would be required to commit for the hours, while also allowing flexibility for people put in hours, but don't want to be tied into that salary structure because they're also a GSI. He thought that was appropriate for those who do this as their occupation,. Mr. Sandoval said Officers currently get paid. Mr. Casner said that if the salary is substantially

increased, they might have more accountability. Officers should be paid, and perhaps there should be a bonus for making an hourly commitment. Mr. Sobel asked how many of the currently paid Officers were able to hold down another position, and who else was a GSI or GSR. Mr. Sandoval said he was. Mr. Friedman said Law students are ineligible. Mr. Sobel asked if there was a paid Officer not receiving a GSI or GSR salary, and said apparently none were. Ms. Dugas said the GA does not currently have the money in its operating budget for such an increase and it would have to come out of their surplus. That means that if the GA approves an increase, it would be a temporary item. Mr. Sandoval said they could have it come out of the surplus permanently. Ms. Dugas said they would always need to have a surplus. Mr. Sandoval said next year it would become permanent. Ms. Dugas said they can't budget a deficit. Mr. Chang said voting for this, then, would mean the increase would be for one year and would be temporary. Mr. Sandoval said the GA would have to work it out next year. He would propose that if people like the idea of raising salaries, that the GA assign a task to the Executive Committee to work on it over the summer, and at the first meeting of the fall, to come back with a report and a motion, with exact amounts by which to raise salaries, and for which positions, and the income streams, and to do equity. His concern was equity, and didn't think Officers should get paid more than GA staffinembers. Another concern the GA has had is with accountability. If they raise salaries, it should also come with changes in the By-laws to describe a certain workload for Officers, such as certain hours to work. Mr. Friedman said the proposal would ask people who are paid to come back with a proposal of how much more they want to get paid. It might be the lawyer in him talking, but he thought that should be done by people who don't currently get paid. Mr. Sandoval said they could take their current Officers from the scenario. He asked if that was okay with Ms. Heitsch. Ms. Heitsch said she was leaving, so it didn't matter. Mr. Sandoval said that could be an alternate motion. A Delegate said the proposal needs to be given more thought and needs to be more specific. The rationale has been stated as to why salaries should be increased. He asked if members serving as Officers were hurting financially or finding it hard to negotiate expenses. Mr. Sandoval said that's the nature of grad students.

Mr. Friedman said he would recommend tabling the Resolution or reconsidering it. Another concern is that the Grad Division is looking into whether to allow people in the GA to get paid as a GSI because of the 50% work time rule. Mr. Sobel said that as a GA Officer, he asked if they were employees of the University. Mr. Friedman said they weren't, but they want to revisit that issue. Mr. Sandoval said that rather than tabling the proposal, he thought they should assign it to the Executive Committee to deal with over the summer. A Delegate asked if this would be a motion to refer the matter to the Executive Committee. Mr. Sandoval said it would be to deal with the issues involved in a salary increase and come back in September with a report or a motion. Mr. Moss asked about the interest level in bringing this up. Ms. Heitsch said she first brought this up in March. For the past couple of years the GA has had a bit of a problem in generating interest in people to become a GA Officer. One way to address that is to make the position more financially attractive. That point was now moot, for another year, so she thought the urgency in addressing this issue was less and this was something the GA might want to consider in depth next year. Now that they elected Officers for next year who were willing to serve regardless of the financial reward, it didn't matter, and she didn't think there was any point in arguing about this at that time. If they want to deal with it next March, that would be the time to do it. Mr. Sobel said that if part of the reason they're raising pay is to attract more people to the position, that should be mentioned in the Resolution. Secondly, he asked if the GA Officers who were mentioned included the President and the two Vice Presidents. Mr. Sandoval said that was correct. Bach asked if the GA could get some figures, and asked how much Officers were currently paid compared to GSIs. Mr. Sandoval said they're currently paid $918 a month. There's a $200 difference in that with GSI salaries. Ms. Heitsch said Step 1 GSIs receive $1,333, she believed. Mr. Sandoval said that GA Officers are paid, then, one-third less. Ms. Heitsch said GSIs also get a fee remission and GA Ofcers don't. Mr. Sandoval said the motion would be to table the bill, if no one wanted to amend it. Mr. Sobel asked if the GA had to vote the Resolution down in order to have the Executive Committee prepare a report over the summer. Mr.

Sandoval said that was correct. Mr. Sandoval called for any other discussion on the matter.. The motion to approve the Resolution failed by voice-vote. Mr. Sandoval called for any related motions. Mr. Sobel moved to refer this question to the Executive Committee for a report in the fall on the issues that were discussed. The motion was seconded. Mr. Sandoval called for any discussion. THE MOTION PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION TO REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE THE QUESTION OF A SALARY INCREASE FOR GA OFFICERS, FOR CONSIDERATION OVER THE SUMMER AND A REPORT TO BE MADE IN THE FALL. -'The following Resolution was submitted by Mr. Sandoval: Resolution In Support of the TWLF and Ethnic Studies - 19 - I RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE TWLF AND ETHNIC STUDIES WHEREAS, the Ethnic Studies Department at UC Berkeley has been a vital part of the campus community for nearly thirty years, contributing to the betterment of the academic environment of all students on campus as well as the intellectual environment of the nation at large; and j WHEREAS, the recent decline of the Department in terms of funding and FTE replacements has rallied students to reinstate the Third World Liberation Front and the accompanying strike which began more than thirty years ago, seeking to improve their Department and, by that, our educational institution; and WHEREAS, Chancellor Berdahl called for the arrest of these protesters earlier this week in a manner which presented the campus community with examples of police abuse and the repression of freedom of speech in our public university; and WHEREAS, the Administration of the University of California has increasingly

sought budgetary processes which pit departments against one another for the availability of scarce funds while rarely respecting the input of students in these processes; and WHEREAS, the Graduate Assembly has been an active supporter in its thirty-year history of the cause of the TWLF, the inclusion and strengthening of the Ethnic Studies Department, and of ending the factionalism that turns education into a freefor-all competition; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the GA supports the Ethnic Studies Department and the cause of the TWLF strikers. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GA condemns the tactics of the University in using the police to repress speech rather than using their power and resources to support the free flow of ideas on our campus. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the GA stands in solidarity with the effort to create a better university, where all the interests and viewpoints of all students are included and valued, and where all departments are supported, regardless of political considerations. A motion to approve the Resolution was made and seconded. Mr. Sandoval called for any discussion. Mr. Moss asked if Mr. Sandoval could put some context to this question. Mr. Sandoval said everybody knows what's going on with the Third World Liberation Front protest occurring on campus at that time outside of California Hall. He tried to write a Resolution that the GA could approve and which would support the protest. Early Tuesday morning Chancellor Berdahl requested the police to arrest the protesters because he felt things were no longer getting anywhere and decided the protest should end. The police did so at 3 a.m. so they wouldn't get in the next day's newspapers and so there were no news cameras around. Mr. Sandoval said he thought this was appropriate for the GA about as was mentioned, some of the people who originally started the GA were people from the Third World Strike, grads who felt that the ASUC was too conservative as a student government and wasn't representing issues that those grads were involved with. So this is part of the GA's tradition. Mr. Bach said that as a point of discussion, the matter didn't start on Tuesday at 3 a.m., but a couple of days before then. He asked if there was support to

include a call for both sides in the struggle to come to a peaceful settlement. While he didn't agree with the way Chancellor Berdahl handled the issue Tuesday morning, he also didn't agree with how protesters locked out people in Barrows, or smashed windows. The GA didn't have to assign blame to one side or another, but could call for a peaceful process. If the GA takes a position, they'd be coming down on the side of Ethnic Studies, but could support peaceful and civilized conduct. He thought that was important to include as something to address to both parties. Mr. Casner said he's spent quite a bit of time hanging around the strike and really got involved. When the protesters camped out by California Hall, there were very disturbing posters and banners, including a burning cross, which to him was one of the most hateful images in the country. And there were images of Berdahl and Christ as demons, and other depictions, as well as hateful speech and language. He thought the Ethnic Studies Department is a core part of the Berkeley identity and cannot be sacrificed to other interests, and they have to continue to keep it at the top of other ethnic studies departments across the country. It's central to this campus. But he's taken a lot of issue with the way the protest has been conducted. To him, those issues are quite separate. He believed in the Ethnic Studies Department and in the research and teaching that goes on there, but didn't believe in the speech and actions of many, although not all, of the protesters. He's had a number of discussions with members of the Third World Liberation Front, some of whom have agreed with him with the symbolism and imagery being inappropriate. -Mr. Sandoval said there's been a lot of internal discussion. Mr. Casner said he realized it's not monolithic. There's been a lot of real hate and personal invective against individuals, especially people who, in their capacities as public servants, can't really respond as individuals to defend themselves. Those things, to him, take the debate outside the boundaries they should want, as members of an academic community. He thought they need to address both sides of the issue, making clear that Ethnic Studies, as a department, must be supported by while not supporting some of the things going on. Mr. Sandoval said he knew this is a concern among students who are involved. He felt it would be useless to write a Resolution to micro-manage the protest, and it's not their place, as a student government, to do that. It's not in the GA's interests. The Resolution would support the cause of the Third World Strike, the mission, as been published by the Chair of the Department and the students. The GA would be supporting the underlying questions. He didn't think they'd find anybody completely in favor of every tactic of either side. But people are

in support of the meanings and goals behind these things. Mr. Bach said this didn't just involve hate against ofcials, but also some of the language used on posters. Two or three weeks into the Kosovo conflict, to talk about the genocide done on the Ethnic Studies program was a disgrace to anybody who has experienced or lived through genocide. He's talked to people about this. It's not just with Chancellor Berdahl, but other uses of terms, and things have to be put in perspective. These are valid concerns, but this was not an incident of genocide and shouldn't be treated as such. QDelegate said that throughout history, this has been a matter of genocide. He didn't really disagree with sing imagery of genocide in this context because that's been the case throughout history, with the quote "whitewashed version" of history taught in American high schools, or at least his high school. It was a revelation to come to Berkeley as an undergrad, take Ethnic Studies classes, and learn about the difference between the way one is taught history in high school and the way history happened. He didn't agree with the hateful language that the TWLF uses. He did agree with the cause and thought the Resolution would be acceptable to more Delegates if it was amended to say they agree with the cause but not with hateful or personal attacks on administrators. If they could make some distinction between issues and people, it would be more acceptable to Delegates. A Delegate said she thought the Resolution was worded very carefully to not address any specific issues. It was important that the GA make a statement in support of Ethnic Studies and the TWLF. There's been a lot of misinformation. The GA began its history with the Third World Strike, so it was important to make a strong statement. She'd like a stronger statement than what has been presented, but understood it was important to get it approved. Mr. Sobel said he has not seen the protests because he was off-campus, but if the message and the methods of the TWLF are really as strong and as offensive as people have reported, he would question whether the GA should support them. He did not support ad hominem attacks as a method of supporting a department. He thought Ethnic Studies was a very valuable part of the campus, but hearing what's going on with the TWLF, he wasn't sure he would support them as an organization, and the end didn't justify the means. He had to find out more because he was ofd campus and would like to hear other people's response to that sentiment. Mr. Sandoval said such comments would be out of order, and comments on a motion have to be germane to the motion. Mr. Sobel said the question deals with the TWLF. Mr. Sandoval said the Resolution was

not phrased to support it as an organization and it wasn't the GA's place to take a position on that group as an organization. As a student government, the GA can express an opinion on the cause apart from the organization. Ms. Telesetsky said the cause of the strikers wasn't clear in the Resolution. The Department released a list of demands and the Resolution should be clarified, since there are multiple causes depending on the agenda one looks at. A motion to end debate was made and seconded and failed by hand-vote 9-8-0. Mr. Casner said that if they want a motion to pass, it would have be to support the Department and they would have to expunge reference to the TWLF, given the polarization and the spectrum of opinions of the TWLF itself. The wording would have to be specific to pass something. If they don't address the methods being used by the TWLF, it was inappropriate to address the methods the University used. That would imply an imbalance of their evaluation of what's going on. Mr. Sandoval said he thought about that and didn't see the value of symmetry when discussing these issues. Mr. Bach suggest including a paragraph after the first Resolved Clause stating, "Resolved, that the GA calls on both parties to proceed in a civilized and peaceful fashion." THE AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED WITH NO OBJECTION. Mr. Casner moved to strike the third Whereas Clause. The amendment was not accepted as a friendly amendment. A Delegate asked why that amendment was requested. Mr. Casner said that if they get into who has violated what aspects of civilized discourse, it was inappropriate for the GA to address one party's deficiencies and not the other's. There have been numerous violations on both sides. A Delegate said other paragraphs would have to be removed. Mr. Casner said he would make further amendments.

Ms. Heitsch said the Chancellor has all of the power of the University and in some sense should be the most responsible and culpable for peace and stability, and should be the first to be called upon to have appropriate behavior. And she felt this was appropriate. A Delegate said that while talking about civilized discourse, they have to recognize that the discourse is not by equally powerful parties. Mr. Sandoval called for any further discussion on the amendment. The motion

to strike the third Whereas Clause failed by voice-vote. A Delegate moved to strike the second-to-last Resolved Clause. He didn't think it was necessary to condemn the University without condemning the ofensive behavior of the TWLF. The amendment was not accepted as a friendly amendment. The motion to amend was seconded by Mr. Casner. A Delegate said people were ofended, but he would ask if they were talking about the organization or about individuals. On the other side, they were talking about the University and Chancellor Berdahl. The motion to amend the Resolution by striking the second-to-last Resolved Clause failed by voice-vote. A motion was made to end debate. An objection was raised. The motion to end debate passed by voice.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, AS AMENDED, PASSED BY HAND VOTE 132-2, RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE TWLF AND ETHNIC STUDIES. Description of the Funding Coordinator Position Mr. Sandoval said he wrote the job description of the Funding Committee and they could approve it at that time. -------------

Begin job description of the Funding Coordinator The Funding Coordinator (FC) is responsible for organizing and chairing the meetings of the Graduate Assembly's Funding Committee. The FC is responsible for maintaining up-to-date funding policies of the GA and making recommendations to the Delegates for changes in those, along with the concurrence of the Committee. The FC must also assure that the Committee regularly practices the official funding policies of the GA. The Funding Coordinator will, along with the Committee, oversee the disbursement of GA funds for the Projects and Services, Grad Events, Diversity, Student Activism, and Community Service Grants programs. The FC will assure that no group is discriminated against for the purposes of funding

The Funding Coordinator is responsible for making the Funding Committee reports to the Delegates when appropriate. In general, the FC should keep the Delegates and the GA Officers informed of the need to advertise the funding programs and work in conjunction with them to do so.

i

The Funding Coordinator will be chosen by the President of the GA from the Delegates in September and be approved by a two-thirds vote of that body. The FC will be compensated for their work through a stipend in the amount of $450 per semester. End job description of the Funding Coordinator THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE JOB DESCRIPTION OF THE FUNDING COORDINATOR PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION. Mr. Sandoval said the GA will appoint this person in September. Report from the Funding Committee Mr. Sandoval said that with no objection, they would assign the Executive Committee to consider and approve the Funding Committee's report and the allocation of Grad Events funding. THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO ASSIGNING APPROVAL OF THE FUNDING COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

Mr. Benadon said he's the Director of the Berkeley Music Project. This group receives funding from the GA and has a concert on Saturday. There's a limit of $150 for honoraria. However, two composers have been hired and will end up doing twice as much work and will also be playing. As a result, he was forced to go over the funding limit by $50 in one case and $100 in the other case. He didn't see that as violating the limit but as an exception, because the people would be doing twice as much work. But he needed approval of the Delegates. It was so moved and seconded. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXCEPTION TO FUNDING LIMITS FOR HONORARIA PASSED WITH NO OBJECTION.

This meeting, concluding Spring Semester, adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

These minutes respectfully submitted by,

Steven I. Litwak

Recording Secretary

Present at the GA Meeting of May 6, 1999 Jillian Sandell, English John Koo, EECS Mark Spiller, EECS David Bach, Political Science Douglas Finkbeiner, Astronomy Robert Schneck, Logic and Method. of Science Robb Moss, Civil and Environmental Engineering Kimberly Miller, EWOCC and Graduate Women's Pjt. David Friedman, VP for External Affairs Eli Ilano, City Planning Shih Chang, Departmental Liaison Eleta Trejo-Cantwell, Spanish and Portuguese Heather Hood, Planning, Design & Construction Fernando Benadon, Music David Sobel, EECS Amar Chaudhary, Computer Science Go Chianpairot, Mat'ls. Sci.&Mineral Eng'g. Kevin Bartoy, Anthropology Christine Heitsch, Mathematics Keith Casner, Asian Studies Tomas Sandoval, President Anastasia Telesetsky, VP Academic Affairs Nzingha Dugas, Business Director Victor Holmes, MCB Judy Chess, Planning, Design & Construction