Hey everyone!
This post is a deviation from our normal discussions, but it is summer, so what the heck. I am doing an internship this summer involving social networking and new media. It is a really great job and I love it, but it doesn't allow for me to tweet during the day. So today I just jotted a few notes when important or humorous events occurred as if I were really tweeting. A former boss of mine called this "Twitter 1.0."
Below are my insights from the day:
8:27 AM: It’s true that GenY is overdosing on technology, as demonstrated by me now using my desktop computer and my laptop simultaneously…
11:42 AM: 3 minute dance session in my cubicle with no music--a sign that I either need more work or someone to talk to.
11:56 AM: Just took a drink out of my huge water bottle and spilled water down my face, chest, and onto my pants…I am classy!
12:01 PM: Weight Watchers’ Smart Ones Fettucini Alfredo is in the microwave! Woo-hoo, its lunch time!
12:35 PM: Got complimented for my delicate handling of opening the garbage can (the kind with the foot pedal). Had to admit that it is because I tip over.
1:45 PM: My cube looks like my purse exploded in it, no wonder many coworkers avoid my space…Two computers, iPod, pictures, PAPERS, books, food
2:13 PM: Discovered Yammer.com and love it! I shared it with the other youngins here…Wonder how long until IT blocks it…
2:45 PM: Still think about my latest epic moment—used Yammer.com to tip fellow intern off to free food for the taking. :)
3:05 PM: Getting very sleepy…wishing I could take a nap for the next hour or so. I think its probably a bad idea, so I’ll get free food instead.
4:12 PM: Almost time to go home! Lots of errands to run this evening and a City Council meeting to get too…18 more minutes and counting…
With all that said, thank you for humoring me. Also, head over to my other blog to see me *hopefully* live-blog Beloit's City Council meeting tonight. You can find that at Only in Beloit (http://onlyinbeloit.blogspot.com/). Have a great night!
Thanks,
Chynna
9efgvhnpyk
Showing posts with label live blogging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label live blogging. Show all posts
Monday, June 15, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
LIVE BLOGGING! 4/22/09 Student Council Meeting
Associated Students of Madison
Student Council, 15th session
22 April 2009
Hearing Room, Student Activity Center
6:30 p.m.
- Roll Call @ 6:32 PM (I am here!)
- Announcements
- State of the ASM address: Monday, April 27th
- Board of Regents meeting May 7 & 8, 2009
- Swearing in of New Representatives
- Open Forum
Sol G: Echoes previous speaker, saying we rushed in.
- Removal or Impeachment of Representatives, Filling of Vacancies in the Student Council and Swearing In of New Representatives
- Adoption of the Agenda APPROVED
- Reading and Approval of the Minutes APPROVED
- Special Orders
- Old Business
- SACGB Bylaws (passed once 8 April 2009) APPROVED by acclamation
- SSFC Bylaws (passed once 8 April 2009)
Main motion to approve SSFC Amended by-laws APPROVED (I voted in favor)
- External Affairs Bylaws (passed once 8 April 2009) APPROVED (I voted in favor)
- New Business
- Dissolution of the Constitutional Committee Brought to the floor by Rep. Wright. If next session wants to restructure, they can set their own course versus having committee. Committee members will be taking down the blog and codify the information there, then forward materials to archives. APPROVED (I voted in favor)
- Shared Governance 2009-2010 Appointments APPROVED (I voted in favor)
- Resolution 15-0422-01, “ASM Endorsement of the Madison Initiative”
Now going over the results from a student survey. Lots of numbers and questions.
Q7. In general, how supportive are you of the Madison Initiative?
| Count | Percent | |
| 94 | 4.50% | Very supportive |
| 305 | 14.61% | Moderately supportive |
| 828 | 39.67% | Neither supportive nor opposed |
| 473 | 22.66% | Moderately opposed |
| 387 | 18.54% | Strongly opposed |
| 2087 | Respondents | |
We just viewed the language of the draft proposal to the Chancellor.
Rep. Tackett is encouraging each member to share how they reached out to students. He suggests that if we don't know what our constituents want, we delay the vote and have a special meeting. (note, we were suppose to spend the past two weeks talking to constituents) He has spoken to his reps--2-3 e-mails to Med. School folks. Dean of his school has talked about it to students. Feedback from students is extremely positive because it improves overall institution.
Bemis (Engineering): POLYGON (sp? Engineering Student Council) voted in support of the Initiative!!!! Support because of the financial aid, against it because they are already paying a differential tuition for just engineering. He believes that as folks get more info, the number of those in support will grow.
Chair Olikara: participated in and organized a few discussion groups. Generally been support for Initiative, but concerns about how it will impact out of state and international students.
Templeton: Outreach to Fraternity and Center for First-Year Experience. Both groups supported it in theory, but wanted to see the advisory committee to be there and review the Initiative a year or two down the road.
Chair Sheka: Looking at survey results online. If you look at them date specific, going from start to end, the support grows. Still not overwhelming, but support goes. For this reason he is nervous using survey data that is two weeks old. Has been speaking to a lot of folks. People who are informed about the Initiative are in support of it, those who are not informed are against it.
Coordinator Grosskopf: He can't vote on it. We have to be careful in how we are going to get the benefits of the Initiative--we are having some students who are paying out of their own pocket for it. Wonders about the role of alumni giving.
Rep. Wright: Taking a lot of time to build infrastructure to get funds from alum. The alumni giving part is not enough in the short-term to sustain this.
Kaiser: Held a townhall for transfer students living in University Housing. Large group of folks in his class wrote policy briefs against the Initiative--can't see measurable outcomes, hiring more profs is means to an end not measurable end. Wants us to force people to go back to the drawing board.
Rep. Tobelmann: Sent e-mail to grad students in his program. Questioned if grad students will have to pay increase, no. Overall were supportive. Heard lots of stories about losing lots of faculty in the past 5-6 years. Concludes that the Grad School is in support of it--Dean of Grad school sent letter in support of it. Had conversation with interim provost about if we could fundraise the money from the alum. She said the easiest thing for the university to raise funds for is scholarships, but the current form says you have to give large sum of money to give funds for scholarships. With the Initiatiave she said that it is easier for smaller donors to donate, so more fundraising.
Chair Fergus: (no voting rights) Reiterate that we all must speak on this before we go to a vote about how we outreached and how our constituents feel. He has been outreaching. Agrees with Sheka that the more folks know, the more they are in support of it. Those only looking at tuition increase are against it. Won't make things perfect, but will improve things.
Sommer: Freshmen living in Statesider. Talked to many out of state students and many seemed unconcerned about increase, even though they are paying the bulk of it. State schools are losing a lot of funding (NY Times) and cutting back. Negative press, so they would be willing to pay for quality.
Bemis (again): Personal opinion--Is there a need for this money? Yes. Is the magnitude justified? New info about who needs faculty makes sense. Allocation areas? High demand courses is the way to go. Way its been carried out? Way money is being allocated and oversight--not fully answered and appreciates Chancellor wanting to involve students, but no guarantee. Still has a few concerns: 1) only given to us six weeks ago, despite being in works since december, doesn't seem to line up with BOR requirements. Didn't go to student body before chancellor signs off on it. 2) College of Engineering differential tuition "paying double" on increased faculty. Concerned about redundancy if faculty not hired for L&S courses.
Vice Chair Karns: International Studies in support. Spoke to several Greeks. First thought that it unfairly targeted out-of-state students. Then asked by they came to Madison. 1) Came for excellent education and 2) get an experience that they couldn't get anywhere else. Initial reaction very negative, but after speaking to them about the Initiative and the holistic approach, then supported it.
Sec. Minor: Disappointed not more student involvement in crafting process. Spoke to constituents (school of education) in classes and attended their forum. Mixed results at first, lots of opposition at first. As time went on, opposition went on. be more explicit for shared gov. committee.
MORE DATA I WANT TO SHARE FROM SURVEY: (re: Tina in comments)
| Count | Percent | |
| 202 | 8.84% | Very familiar |
| 653 | 28.57% | Moderately familiar |
| 733 | 32.06% | Slightly familiar |
| 698 | 30.53% | Not at all familiar |
| 2286 | Respondents | |
Rep. Newman: Outreach in dorms to freshmen. They will be paying the most out of current students (here the longest). They are watching people graduate without job offers, so increasing the value of their degree matters to them. 90% of students plan on attending summer school or attending additional semesters here to fill requirements because they can't get in core classes and advising is not cohesive.
Olikara: Responding to the woman in Open Forum about making over $80,000. Chancellor defers to Finanicial Aid. Wants council to consider it.
Templeton: Only 19% of our budget comes from the state, even though we are a state university. In addition to that, ties into faculty retention and recruiting faculty. 33% of our faculty is retiring in the next 10 years.
Sheka: Brought this up at Shared Governance meeting. People said that 1) looking @ fundamental disagreement versus nit-picking (overall bad idea or people don't like something small?), 2) UW needs reform or will lose prestige, 3) we have programs (acadmic advising) that are broken or don't work, we need to address that. Regarding students not being consulted until six weeks ago--unfair, Chancellor was holding forums at the end of last semester asking students about what needs to change at UW. It goes beyond the money, it is a vehicle for reform. Understand that Financial Aid sucks and parents are making over $80,000. Personally in this boat, but he doesn't want his degree to not be worth as much at graduation as what he paid for it.
Rep. Tobelmann: There will be a certain pool of money being raised that will go to financial aid. Part going to offset increase for those making under $80,000, the rest is going to make up the $20 million deficit in financial aid.
Rep. Gosselin: Misconception about who is going to effected positively. People think if you make $81,000 you will be hurt by this, see what Tobelmann said. In theory realm: Policy maker makes decision to impact the most people postively as possible. This will maintain quality of our education and provide financial aid for those who need it.
Ewers: Her constituents (grad students) also wanted to know if they would be paying for it. Then conversation shifted to how grad students could benefit from it--could result in more grad student funding opportunities. Form that perspective she supports it, but she doesn't feel she has the right to support it because she is not an undergrad here.
Chair Tiernan: Last time spoke as chair of Academic Affairs, but now he will talk about interaction with constituents. Most interaction in class or in social situations. Most students didn't read beyond the tuition increase, so his role has been a lot of educating.
Rep. Haas: I have outreached through poll on my blog, facebook event, and commments on my blog. Read quote from Luke:
Increasingly, students who belong at UW are unable to afford the rising cost; world-class faculty are lured away to other institutions that can afford to pay them and provide them with better benefits; and the staff who often put in alot of work but go under appreciated are forced to take on more and more responsibility with fewer and fewer people as positions are cut and/or not replaced. This initiative represents a way to stop this disturbing trend and once again set UW on an upward bending course. As a Badger Herald Collumnist astutely pointed out, "Perfect should not be the enemy of good." In a perfect world, we don't need this initiative, but in the world we live in, this is a good and strong proposal. It is for these reasons, among others, that I personally support the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates.Additionally addressed student who spoke at begininng--financial aid will look at this case by case. The Initiative will raise money through fundraising to fill the $20 million of unmet need. I will post more later.
Next, I'll address as a representative of CALS Students. I have spent some time talking to students in CALS and am currently trying to visit as many student groups as possible to get feedback. Generally, CALS students have been supportive of the Initiative. There have been some good and vibrant questions, but most have been about the nuts and bolts of the proposal and not philosophical opposition. From the students I have talked to thus far, I believe CALS students support this proposal. However, there was a very intersting point that was raised that I need to express. One student (who supported the proposal) asked if there was an underlying, systemic issue, particularly in L&S that was causing all of these faculty to be lost that isn't as common across campus. His concern was that this Intiative could act as a blanket to cover up a deeper issue. I don't know if Chancellor Martin will be at the ASM meeting tonight, but if you would express the desire to not only move forward with this Intiative to but evaluate closely what got us to the point of needing it so that we can take steps to avoid the same mistakes again I would appreciate it.
Coordinator Grosskopf: We have a skewed representation of campus. When a survey comes out with nearly 40% opposed of the program.
Rep. Wright: Echoed Coordinator Grosskopf. Spoke to students in classes and various orgs. We need to make sure that there is active student partiicpation on the student oversight board. Worries about the survey going out over the next couple days--we could do something counter to what students think. There could be a learning curve to the Initiative. This would make the university more accessible to a great number of people.
Rep. Ewers: Referring to e-mails of support from Chair Wiegand that were letters of support from students and faculty.
Rep. Tackett: Compares this vote to the vote on the Union project while he was an undergrad senior. This will increase diversity in the broad sense--diversity of ideas. It will take a long time to get the funding from alumni to be able to assist with instruction, we need to the tuition support for that.
CALL TO QUESTION: (i voted against it because someone opposed it, so someone wants to speak)
Rep. Stark arrived! Hi Jamie!
Chair Fergus: Objected calling to question because some people haven't spoken, so they should go on record and be accountable to their constituents.
Rep. Stark: Strongly in support of the Madison Initiative. Talked to a of the freshmen constituents and they are very much in favor of this. We understand that we need more professors and to protect the value of our degree.
Rep. Wallach: In support of the Initiative. We need to add sections, programs, and increase diversity.
Chair Vollrath: Spoken to alot of people on campus, include Schools of Engineering and Business who are paying their own differential for those schools. She is in school of Business and is paying differential. They understand that their tuition is going up, but they see the benefit of having increased faculty and courses. She is in economics and sees the need for improved quality and number of faculty there. Most students will understand, once it is explained to them, the benefit of this.
Chair Wiegand: Can't force anyone to talk. If people aren't comfortable, they don't have to.
Rep. Smith: Communicated to students in Engineering and they are hesitant. The way we are talking makes it seem like everyone we are talking to is in support of this. Even after talking to them, they still don't like the increase. Brings up survey data again.
Rep. Yang: Minimal outreach done, but invited UW friends to join Madison Initiative facebook group and fan the Chancellor (as she requested at forum). Spoke to members in RSOs he is a part of. They are supportive and he will be voting in favor of it.
Rep. Tackett: Move to add. "Be it further resolved that I have run out of speaking rights."---Non-sense motion to gain speaking rights. We are now debating the ridiculous motion... Basically we should agree to this so people who have almost exhausted their speaking rights can now speak. People tried to object to the second...not parliamentary procedure correct... Now he is speaking to the motion--------> Concerned that if we vote in favor of the Initiative, but then have students vote against it tomorrow, we are just like the last session of ASM and we have made no progress.
CALLED TO QUESTION: Voted against it because it was non-sense.
Chair Wiegand stepped down, Vice Chair Karns now chairing meeting.
Chair Wiegand: First survey sent out to 19,000 people, only 2,200 people responded. She sent reminders and results would spike. The original plan for the second survey was to put it out at the end of last week, but Chancellor Martin moved her final proposal out to after our meeting instead of the end of last week. She then moved the survey release until tomorrow. If having ASM on there is an issue, she will put her own name on it. There is no way that Chancellor Martin will put her own survey out, it is not in her best interest. She is trusting us as elected representatives of the students to vote on it. People are generally supportive, but they are not passionate about it. A lot of people are like, no we don't an increase in tuition, so survey would not necessarily be accurate. Last point--at last Council meeting people were almost ready to vote to support it and since then considerable amount of outreach has been done. If students vote against in a survey, would we all really change our minds? At last meeting we all thought it was a great policy.
Olikara: Why put Chair Wiegand's name on it?
Wiegand: To address Rep. Tackett's concern that having ASM's name on it would make us look bad if students voted against it. She would be willing to put her name on it.
Rep. Gosselin: What we are discussing tonight is if we as elected reps support the initiative or not. Based on what people have indicated with constituent contacts and we as an informed representative body it seems clear that our opinion is there. People can abstain if they really need the survey results. He will vote yes. CALL TO QUESTION, SECONDED BY WALLACH
VOTE ON THE INITIATIVE (roll call vote see below)
Bemis: yes
Ewers: abstain
Fung yes
Gosselin: yes
Haas: yes
Kaiser: no
Marnell:abstain
Minor: yes
Newman : yes
Sheka: yes
Smith: yes
Sommer: yes
Stark; yes
Tackett: yes
Templeton: yes
Tiernan: yes
Tobelman: yes
Wallach: yes
Wiegand: yes
Wright: yes (sorry for missing you Jeff!)
Yang: yes
XI. Reports of Special Committees and Campaigns
- Bus Pass Advisory Board Seeking student input on how safe cab and bus programs have been run
- Constitutional Committee No longer exists.
- Reports of Standing Committees and Boards
- Academic Affairs Committee Students can drop books off before they leave for the summer. Working with students in the Spanish Department to look at enrollment with program majors and those with retro credits. Just had Domestic Partner Benefits Town Hall meeting--highly attended by faculty and staff, with some students. Discussed issue and how to move forward.
- Diversity Committee Had event with MCSC on Monday as part of Hip Hop Conference. Great event. Able to transition issue from one rooted in social justice movements to one concerned about education. Diversity is pat of 21st century world-class education. Involved in the MSC mission review process with ODOS, successful process. First focus group the other day, continue to help through next semester. Involved with SOAR and First Year Experience becuase they wanted feedback from Diversity Committee. L&S Diversity & Equity Committee had Steven work as a consultant about their fall retreats for student input. Now meeting with administrators to advance vision of diversity into future years.
- Finance Committee They are done with all grant hearings for the year. Now they will be reviewing policy and procedures at the next meeting. Then Rep. Fung gave a kind of strange speech.
- Legislative Affairs Committee No chair, so no update.
- Nominations Board Chair Collins is absent. Tiernan steps in. Search and Screen for two ASM advisor positions. Candidates coming in for interviews tomorrow.
- Shared Governance Committee Finished appointments and gave a shout out to his awesome, committed committee!
- External Affairs Committee Last United Council event will send 22 Madison students to Building Unity! (YAY!)
- Student Activity Center Governing Board All 63 office spaces are now full. We will start allocations again. Updated SACGB website, so minutes are online. Survey is going out to the tenants. Then general survey gauging interest for cafe space.
- General Reports
- Chair Press Conference on Monday will be where to hear general overview. May or may not be called the State of ASM Address...
B. Vice-Chair Disc[us]sion 2009 had positive feedback from students who went. Working on Move Out Night Initiative. Campus Area Housing has agreed to help supply food and staff for the event. Campus Safety and UWPD will work to provide safety. SAC is working with it. Other folks interested.
- Student Judiciary Talked about sacred deliberations... Thanked for patience last week during the election. No election complaints filed and deadline has expired. Results are finalized.
- Student Services Finance CommitteeWants SSFC and Student Council to maintain close relationship. Thinks new office will facilitate that. Wants those returning to 16th session to consider joining SSFC. You will get at $40 a week stipend to be on SSFC.
- Reports of Liaisons
- Viewpoint Neutrality Appeals
- Roll Calls MOTION TO ADJOURN, WE DID IT, WE CLAPPED!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
LIVE BLOGGING! 4/8/09 Student Council Meeting
Associated Students of Madison
8 April 2009
Hearing Room, Student Activity Center
- Roll Call (in favor)
- Announcements
- Swearing in of New Representatives
- Open Forum (funny story about this coming)
Any member of the ASM shall have the right to speak at the Open Forum, subject to the time limits specified here. Members of the Asm who are not officers of the ASM shall take precedence over officers and appointees. Non-members of the ASM may be granted the opportunity to speak by a majority vote of the Student Council. Each speaker may speak once for up to three minutes. The Open Forum is limited to 45 minutes, unless the Student Council shall by two-thirds vote to extend it.
- Removal or Impeachment of Representatives, Filling of Vacancies in the Student Council and Swearing In of New Representatives
- Adoption of the Agenda
- Reading and Approval of the Minutes
- Special Orders
- Old Business
- New Business
- ASM Internal Budget Reconsideration
Chair Fergus and Vice Chair Karns speaking against. Vice Chair Karns said we are already over the budget cap due to increase in salary for Student Print's advisor (more on this later). Chair Wiegand said that this is actually violating VPN because members are saying that certain groups should get funds because they do "good" work, but there were clarifications that this was not their intent. Chair Fergus reiterates that we are already at the budget cap and that we are inappropriately using committee's time by entertaining this motion.
Basically the issue at hand is that more groups have requested funding from the Operations Grant and have exhausted the fund for the first time in two years.
VOTE: Add $5,000 to Operations Grant. I voted against. Motion fails.
NEW MOTION: Add funds to lines 31 & 34 to pay salary for Student Print Advisor to partially compensate her new role as supervisor of SAC Floor Manager.
Concern expressed as to why we are adding money to this line item for the sake of "helping our relationship with Student Print." So why are we adding money to this versus directly serving students. Chair Vollrath speaks in favor because the Student Print Adviser is doing more work now than what is in her job description because she is dealing with tenant issues, etc. Chair Sheka agrees. VOTE: Adding 9% of StudentPrint Advisor salary and StudentPrint Advisor fringe benefits. I voted in favor. Motion passed.
NEW MOTION: Add the program Tenant Rating Website (lines 22-25) to the budget (Vollrath). This would fund the program that we just approved at our last meetings. VOTE: I voted in favor. Motion passed.
NEW MOTION: Vote to approve budget as amended. I voted in favor. Motion passes (14-0-6).
2)GSSF Budget Reconsideration
Chair Fergus has the floor. We are reconsidering this because Badger Catholic (GSSF org) came forward and asked to decrease budget by $70,000. Moving from event planning model, to service model. Benefits UW-Madison students. VOTE: I voted in favor of decrease. Motion passes (11-0-9)
3) Resolution 15-0408-01, ASM Position on the Madison Initiative
CONTROVERSIAL! (see previous post for language of this proposal).
Resolution calls for PARTIAL endorsement of resolution. Issues: International students will be charged the fee for others' financial aid, but they are not legally able to apply for aid. Out-of-state students could be argued to be paying fair amount based on tuition, but it depends on state you are from and what school you are looking at.
Wants to utilize expected family contribution (from FAFSA) versus the adjusted gross income for threshold of who qualifies for the grant aid to offset the increase.
Photographer buzzing around.
Questions for the Chancellor (but she is not here yet):
- What is the justification for a 50/50 split between enhanced student services and curricular and co-curricular innovations (see “outcomes” slide in presentation on website)?
- Specifically, what types of pedagogical innovations would possibly be implemented?
- Why is adjusted gross income being used as the determinant for eligibility for the hold-harmless grants as opposed to estimated family contribution?
- How will success of the Initiative be determined? What kind of input will students have in determining the success of the Initiative?
- Will money generated be used to increase enrollment at UW-Madison?
- What standard will be used to determine which classes will be offered?
- What is the Chancellor doing to work with the state legislature in order to ensure that the percentage of state funding that the University receives is not cut?
- What are the long-term perspectives for matching tuition dollars with privately-raised funds? Is the University planning on providing these dollars indefinitely?
Now onto to DEBATE! Vice Chair Karns disagrees with the clause that would switch from adjusted gross income to the expected family contribution (from FAFSA).
Chair Sheka proposes a change to the clause about the establishment of a committee. This committee can't be established unless initiative passes formally. So this committee is not final, but it must be student majority and chaired by a student (state law). Student sub-committee would see proposals for student services (i.e. advising) and then bring them to the larger committee, then it would be worked into final proposal for spending the money. Not merely an advisory group--they would have a lot of power. Motion made to the motion (yeah, get that?) by Rep. Kaiser to clarify language saying this is pending passage of Initiative.
WE ARE GETTING TECHY! We are going to project the amendment and the amendment to the amendment on the fancy overhead! My segs are being put to use! Rep. Junger is using his laptop for this, so SO to Tyler!
CHANCELLOR MARTIN IS HERE!
Okay, so the technology stuff is not working, so we are just staring at each other....
VOTE: Amendment to the amendment--adding sentence that that ASM endorsement is contingent on said shared gov. committee. I abstained from voting.
Back to debate on original amendment. Chair Olikara is discussion adding a scholarship for out-of-state students and international students as part of the Shared Gov. committee. Moves to amend the amendment to say that "the Shared Gov. committee will be charged with overseeing the impact on out-of-state and international students."
Main Amendment: Be it finally resolved, if the Madison Initiative is approved by the UW-System Board of Regents, ASM shall create a student-majority shared governance committee comprised of students, faculty, and staff that is charged with overseeing the Initiative, reviewing requests, and evaluating the success of the Initiative. A smaller subcommittee made up of only the student representatives shall receive and approve proposals regarding improvements in student services. This subcommittee shall make recommendations to the larger committee. Although the Chancellor makes the final decision regarding the usage of differential tuition, students shall have a meaningful role in the Initiative's oversight through these means.
I moved to yield 2 minutes of my time to Sec. Junger. Here he goes! Good job, Sec. Junger! Essentially he explained that students directly voting how tuition dollars is spent is not in the best interest of students and not really legal.
VOTE: Amendment to the amendment. I voted in favor. The motion passes.
VOTE: Main amendment (see above). I voted in favor. The motion passes. I agree with Sec. Junger on this issue, but if it will get an ASM endorsement, then I am in support. ASM must support this Initiative to benefit campus.
MOTION: Rep. Kaiser to change "Be it further resolved, that although there are clear benefits in terms of financial aid for in-state students, we have concerns about the financial impact on out-of-state and international students" It would drop the specifics and only say that we have concerns about current and potential students. Amendment to the amendment: create two separate clauses, instead of replacing one. VOTE: I voted in favor. Main Amendment VOTE: I voted in favor.
Rep. Tackett is brilliant--is asking us to call to question and move back to questions to talk to the Chancellor.
QUESTION AND ANSWER AGAIN!
Bemis: Questions about numbers of faculty being proposed. Why can't we do this for less? Why $1,000 per student. He only sees justification for a few classes (I am not sure why his justification matters).
Chancellor: Trying not to pre-determine where funds will go because other students think all our decisions have been made. L&S has lost 66 faculty in last 7 years, entire campus has lost 75. The number is as many as we can afford to balance with financial aid. Several students don't get into Spanish, econ students who can't get courses except through TAs, bio-med students can't get in, etc. She could come up with the need of several hundred faculty. She is happy to make more information available, but they have not finalized decisions.
Tackett: Moves for Brittany to ask our 8 proposed questions without interruption.
ASM Questions:
1) What is the justification for a 50/50 split between enhanced student services and curricular and co-curricular innovations (see “outcomes” slide in presentation on website)?
Chancellor: Not a good justification, but--difference between these services is blurry. Mistake to draw line there and say it is 50/50. It sounds like a semantic problem. Not an absolute division between her understanding of difference versus other individuals' understanding, but there is a blurred line. "What I want to do is provide what we need."
2) Specifically, what types of pedagogical innovations would possibly be implemented?
Divide into two different categories. 1) Technology assisted learning--we've had great success with technological innovations already. Spread across other disciplines. New technology developing, but we don't have enough staff to translate our needs into the services. Fund delivery methods. 2) Set of curricular changes in content and pedagogy. Students consider FIGS successful, other options like FIG light that other schools have. We need to bring students into contact with tenure and tenure-track faculty. More field and internship opportunities. Provide on a conditional basis funding to departments and programs that are willing to change curriculum to catch up to science and technology.
3) Why is adjusted gross income being used as the determinant for eligibility for the hold-harmless grants as opposed to estimated family contribution?
Chosen on the basis for clarity in effort to be as clear as possible. Not evident to her that it is the best choice. Question for Financial Aid staff.
4) How will success of the Initiative be determined? What kind of input will students have in determining the success of the Initiative?
No resistance to the group of everything. Not only a group, but even the website up showing the expenditures. Open to students being involved in decision making. What concrete benefits to students. How many more students can get through what they need? Study students of different pedagogical methods, etc. but need revenue to get staff and faculty to make info available.
5) Will money generated be used to increase enrollment at UW-Madison?
Would consider increasing enrollment, but none of this funds from this supplement would be used for this. Governor wants increase because of demand.
6) What standard will be used to determine which classes will be offered?
Bottlenecks that exist in key areas. Deans and departments will need to provide data on an on-going basis. Standard really is where student need is. Make funding for departments contingent on departments/programs funding tenure-track faculty, seeing plans to build diverse pools for possible candidates before they are authorized to search, do many things to make sure that hiring faculty really benefits campus in a way that is holistic. Its potential for hiring really great faculty should also play a role.
7) What is the Chancellor doing to work with the state legislature in order to ensure that the percentage of state funding that the University receives is not cut?
She added up hours at Capitol--70-80 hours meeting with legislatures on both sides of the aisle. Doesn't count her reception for legislatures at her home. We have to continue to apply pressure to the state. We have to be out there aggressively and persuading citizens of our state and other states of the importance of higher education. Show them what public will receive as a result of funding higher education.
8) What are the long-term perspectives for matching tuition dollars with privately-raised funds? Is the University planning on providing these dollars indefinitely?
Yes, we need to combine endowment funding with annual giving--no strong program here yet--a lot of potential to build this campaign that will be on-going as endowment payments are. Best possible outcome of all of this is that we more students of more financial need here. Will this always go 50% to financial need? Yes, hope that more lower income students will enrolled so need is there.
Chancellor: I needed to know if our Big Ten peers use tuition dollars for need-based aid. Not new, almost all our peers do this. Discount rate--what percent of tuition does any university use to pay need-based aid. Now have the data. Our peers use a lot of tuition dollars to cover need-based aid, some peers even up to $60 million a year, we only want $10 million. We need to use it or we lose some quality.
Sheka: Describe what Chancellor sees oversight committee being. What extent recommendations will have on her final decision.
Chancellor: Most cases I will do what committee wants. It is my job to use my judgment and view of the whole to do the right thing. Will always refine recommendations that I get. Anticipated an oversight committee that will be made up of faculty, staff, and students. The thing is, you all don't know me yet. I have a long history of working with groups at Cornell collaboratively. I would work with any committee in good faith and take a different route only if I felt it was really compelling or committee wasn't really representing views of campus.
Chancellor: Out-of-state income had ever gone above median of our peers? It has in the past gone above median of our peers, neither applications nor enrollment went down during this period. This Initiative will keep us still below the median of our peers.
Bemis: another questions about engineers...
Chancellor: Engineering students take 45% of their hours in L&S.... UW-Madison should get the pricing right so that it is still affordable (creating financial aid), but we add faculty that benefits everybody. It is about the quality of UW-Madison. She disagrees with Bemis' assertion that engineering students would be "doubling-up" on tuition increase. This proposal is designed to go the heart of where we are educated, which is L&S. We have to be very careful and strategic because the greater benefit to the greatest number of students if fixing some problems in L&S.
Chair Collins observed that Chancellor Martin looks great in her black and red jacket this evening. I agree.
Chair Fergus: What feedback are you getting in total about services you are funding?
Chancellor: Problematic academic advising is in pre-major years, how seriously career advising is need. Another thing is programs students would like to see--peer mentoring programs, etc. How will we want to think about adding staff, traditional advising, in addition to doing other things students think would be more effective.
Tackett: Financial Aid be specifically earmarked to undergrads?
Chancellor: Yes.
Tackett: "Hold harmless" would it be as currently proposed or estimated family contribution, idea of percent difference? Specifically percent currently would be "held harmless"?
Chancellor: She has data, but can't give specifics off the top of her head. She would be happy to send it to us. Would know difference in data soon--Financial Aid office is working on it.
Ewers: All students are subsidized to some extent because we don't cover the cost of educating ourselves. You won't be increasing enrollment through the funds that are generated, increased enrollment will only happen if students "pay for themselves."
Chancellor: No, separate two funding sources. Funding from this initiative will take care of problems we have for current students. To increase enrollment targets, we would have to use tuition to pay for the costs required to educate them. This would be net the financial aid of these students would pay for what we need in additional resources.
Olikara: Preserving and increasing value of UW degree. Envisions that as impacting decision-making of high school seniors and faculty to come here. For students two major factors are costs and perception. Potential scholarship to offset cost, as well as getting exceptional students here.
Chancellor: Merit-based aid that exists in colleges. Could we use this to encourage merit students? I don't know if Madison wants to go that route. Do we need more merit-based aid? Yes. (clarified versus seeking several, but increasing it somewhat)
Tobelman: There are a lot of students that are apprehensive of lack of specifics. As these revenues role in and are applied, how will you deal with student sentiment that it isn't being applied where they want. Accountability.
Chancellor: We need to put in place some of the things we know that works, using data.
Tobelman: Would you be able to communicate to people that if a program is failing that funding can be pulled?
Chancellor: I agree with you and I think there are more things at the University that need sunset clauses. Regarding specifics, I could lay out with you the ways I would spend the entire amount of money and maybe I should then the committee could decide if that is right. Its not that we don't have specifics in mind, but we want input if this is the right way to go, but also we don't want to fix everything and pretend that there aren't unintended consequences. There are unintended consequences to all policy initiatives.
BACK TO DEBATE!
Chair Sheka: Series of amendments...yeah.
Though confusing and choppy, here is what I have for you on the series of amendments:
"Be it further resolved, ASM's endorsement of the Madison Initiative is contingent upon a written agreement between the Chancellor and ASM to create a student majority oversight board for the Initiative, as described in the following clause.
Be it resolved, the shared governance committee shall review all continuing funding on a yearly basis, to evaluate the improvements to a program and recommend a cessation of funding if measurable improvements are not seen.
remove "the"
Be it finally resolved, if the Madison Initiative is approved by the UW-System Board of Regents, ASM shall create a student-majority shared governance committee comprised of students, faculty, and staff that is charged with overseeing the Initiative, reviewing requests, and evaluating the success of the Initiative.
-The shared governance committee shall also be charged with CHANGE TO (reviewing) the impact of the Initiative on out-of-state and international students.
Chair Fergus seconded the motion, but he moves to strike the language that says ASM's support is contingent on a written agreement. Instead added language that would make it so ASM would work with Chancellor to create committee, no demand for majority of committee.
Now we are being encouraged to vote this amendment to the amendment down, then propose a new amendment. VOTE: I voted against. Motion fails (intentionally).
Sheka new amendment to the amendment--striking stuff, changing stuff, not worth writing here right now.
I just spoke and said that I feel we are wasting our time discussing the very specific details of this committee. We are losing the essence of what we are suppose to be discussing, which is the whole Initiative and our concerns that need to be addressed. I brought up the fact that we will be revisiting this issue in two weeks and reconsidering a full endorsement.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: I voted in favor. Motion passed.
MAIN DEBATE: Rep. Wright not a fan of a partial endorsement is an oxymoron. We have received answers to our questions. We should either table this to next meeting or vote on full endorsement.
Tackett: #1 We need to talk to our constituents and then vote at next meeting. #2 Interested in how $80,000 was determined in current proposal or how estimated family contribution. #3 I hate to bring this up, but "hold harmless line," if we moved from $80,000. This debate could get us to a point where only a small portion of campus is paying this increase, so what does that do to campus climate.
Wiegand: Understand that partial endorsment is oxymoronic, but we are our student government and people want to know what we think. We need to indicate how we feel about the initiative, we are the way to get student feedback. I want to know our concerns. It would be a change to the campus climate, but I think it would positive change.
Fergus: We need to keep sight in what we are doing today. You have had weeks to talk to your constituents and the people you are serving.
Haas: Brought up that it is absolutely essential that our unversity shows it is committed to economic diversity. ALL students will benefit from this proposal through increased student services and tenure track faculty, etc. I will share more info on this in an upcoming post.
Wright: Supportive of Initiative because it benefits the whole campus, we need this to maintain the quality of our education. This is not a new things, tuition is often used to fund need-based financial aid. Comfortable with full endorsement or partial endorsement.
Minor: Agrees that we should make full endorsement or not endorsing at this point. Feels that we should be endorsing. Agrees with Fergus that we have had ample time to get beginnings of constituencies thoughts. Talked about School of Education.
Bemis: Wants to go on record that he understands everyone, including engineering is getting benefits. Upper level class funding doesn't benefit engineers. Sorry I am not listening anymore to the engineering argument...
Tiernan: As Chair of Academic Affairs Committee, worked with many people working on accessibility. Out of all the students and administrators he has meet with, this is one of the best ways to improve the quality and accessibility of our education.
Kaisers: Represents rural students from Wisconsin and transfer students. Went to community college, first gen. student out of concern on sticker shock value. Our peer group is not the Big Ten, but is other state schools. Can't support because it could discourage low-income students.
Ewers: Phrase tonight not equal-giving, but equal-sacrifice. Percentage you can afford--$20,000 a year versus $20,000 a year.
Olikara: Main concerns: what happens once initiative is passed and concerns from specialized schools.
Sheka: Another amendment idea, Tiernan assists. Amendment passes...blah blah.
BACK TO MAIN DEBATE:
Wiegand: Shouldn't do full endorsement, still have questions. We lose leverage and create disconnect with student body. We have opportunity for two weeks to look through questions and find areas of concern.
Tobelman: Grad students support because they reap benefits without paying. He will abstain from vote so undergrad voices heard. Need student oversight, but endorse vote of yes so we can hash out details later. Lots of discussion on differential burden, this means discussing costs, but fundamentally this initiative is about value not just what we are spending. How much more valuable your education will be.
Fergus: Motion to strike "partial" from first "Be it resolved" clause. Lots of conversations against it, you know the deal. I voted against amendment. Motion fails.
CALL TO QUESTION!
VOTE ON ENTIRE RESOLUTION! I voted for the motion. The motion passes (12-1-5).
10 MINUTE RECESS!
4) SACGB Bylaws
And we're back...
We just approved the SACGB by-law changes by acclamation, now onto SSFC by-law changes. Carl is going over all the changes for us. VOTE ON SSFC BY-LAWS: I voted in favor of the motion. The motion passes.
5) SSFC Bylaw Changes
Now onto the Operations Grant decision. Over 99 groups applied for funding, 41 appealed their decision.
On an unrelated note, I got breadsticks and a pop during the break and I now feel great!
6) Operations Grants
Now onto debate of the Operations Grant decision... but we apparently entertaining make line item changes for a group? Legally we can do it, but I don't like this precedent of side-stepping Finance Committee. AMENDMENT: Require that public record reflects budget alterations and budget changes. I voted against this motion. Motion failed.
QUORUM CALL! I am present. And quorum is present!
Back on main motion for Operations Grant. Call to question. VOTE to approve Operations Grant: I vote in favor of the motion. The motion passes.
7) Domestic Partnership Benefits Townhall Co-Sponsorship
Now onto Domestic Partner Benefits Townhall resolution to co-host event. VOTE: The resolution is approved by acclamation.
8) Now onto Tenant Rating Board Appointments. This would be appointing Rebecca Newman, Bryon Eagon, and Kurt Gosselin. I asked how they were selected--they expressed interest to the creators of the website. VOTE: I voted in favor of the amendment (to remove Erik Paulson at his request) and in favor of the appointments. Both passed.
9) Reconsidering agenda to add at 10.9 to consider External Affairs by-laws that apparently went missing. This passed, now we are adopting the amended agenda.
10) Now onto By-law Amendments for External Affairs Committee (what we just voted on). Passed by acclamation.
XI. Reports of Special Committees and Campaigns
- Bus Pass Advisory Board
- Constitutional Committee
Bantor between Rep. Minor and Rep. Wright about power of allowing folks getting money to be sitting on committee that advises org that gives money. Referenced my previous committee proposal.
- Reports of Standing Committees and Boards
- Academic Affairs Committee-- Day of Action of UW schools in Madison lobbying legislatures, 60-80 students calling legislatures.
- Diversity Committee--Collaborating with MCSC and other orgs on April 20 (7-9 PM) event. Will be series of performances, then Steven will be keynote speaker for event. At Historical Society. MSC mission review process, Steven will have more info. Contact him if interested in voicing opinion about MSC.
- Finance Committee-- Heard Operations Grants the past couple weeks. At least two people interested in chairing committee next year.
- Foundation Hiring Committee
- Legislative Affairs Committee
- Nominations Board-- Search & Screen for new ASM Assistant Director and Campus Organizer, as well as Organizing Advisor. ASM FOun
- Shared Governance Committee-- Chancellor approved PA position for one more year, then look into it and get back to us with more info on a multi-year commitment. She said she would do a 3-year commitment with an evaluation period after that (just found out as the Chancellor was leaving our meeting).
- StudentPrint Board
- External Affairs Committee
- Student Activity Center Governing Board--See memo about limited Easter weekend hours. Also set additional holiday hours. On August 14, the SAC will possibly be open to address homeless night.
- General Reports
- Chair--Milwaukee SC members can arrange to go to BOR meeting.
B. Vice-Chair
Homeless Night is taking off to secure free parking lots, can probably use SAC. Things coming together.
All campus forum is next Wednesday--GO, BRING PEOPLE!
- Student Judiciary
- Student Services Finance Committee--GSSF groups are hiring! APPLY! Also, several large GSSF events coming up. Additionally, ASM folks will be presenting the segregated fee budgets to the Chancellor tomorrow. Seg Fees are going to go up 14%, 11% caused by Wisconsin Building Project.
- Reports of Liaisons
- Viewpoint Neutrality Appeals
- Roll Calls
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
