COGS - Council of Graduate Students

Minutes
September 8th, 2005
President’s Room, Coffman Memorial Union

Minutes submitted by Isaac Kamola (Vice President for Communications).

Food served at 5pm, meeting began at 5:15.

Introduction (Sarah Kempner)
1)Introduction of the COGS Executive Committee.

2)What is COGS
COGS is the body which collectively represents graduate students (Masters and Ph.Ds) at the University of Minnesota, TC before the Graduate School, Central Administration, as well as at the Graduate and Professional Students Association (GAPSA).

3)Who are the voting members of COGS?
All members of the Executive Council, members of the Policy and Review councils, all Senators as well as Program Representatives are allowed to vote during COGS meetings. Non-voting members of COGS include the entire graduate student body which is welcome to attend all meetings but cannot vote on resolutions etc.

4)What does COGS do?
COGS represents graduate students in University wide concerns. They advise the administration on policies which would help graduate students (for example, each year we write an open letter to the administration spell out our concerns). We work with GAPSA and the Minnesota Student Assembly (MSA). It also addresses concerns and serves as a resource for graduate students.

Elections
P&R Chair for Education and Psychology
Erica R. Brumm was elected for the P&R Chair for Education and Psychology.

Senate
Bryan Gordon (Linguistics), Will Cremer (History), Aaron Windel (History), and Lisa Blee (History) were elected to the UofM Senate.

Senate alternates:
Denise Feda (Environmental Health Sciences), Chris Pappas (Sociology), Laurie Stone (Plant Biology), Wendy Clemmons (Plant Biology), and Beth Lusczek (Physics) were elected as Senate alternates.

Congrats to everyone.

Policy and Review Councils
P&R chairs were announced and the assembly broke into groups and people were encouraged to sign-up to sit on the councils.

Stadium Resolution (Kris Houlton)
I am proposing that we replace the 2004 resolution stating our opposition to using student fees to pay for an on-campus stadium with a new resolution which advocates an opt-out stadium fee.

The 2004 resoltuion was written when an on-campus stadium was only a hypothetical possibility. This resolution stated that COGS “vehemently oppose[d] plans that rely upon any student fees contribution toward the cost of planning and/or construction of a stadium and its associated projects.” This wording came out of an overwhelming belief that graduate students would not receive the “student life” benefits of the stadium but would, in essence, be taking a pay cut to fund a project they would not benefit from.

The stadium, however, is no longer a possibility but a probability. This is due to the fact that if the Twins and Viking leave the Metrodome by 2011 the University will be unable to pay rent by itself. There was an on-campus stadium, Memorial Stadium, which was torn down in the 1990s. The administration is saying that students helped pay for Memorial Stadium and, therefore, should be expected to help pay gain. Memorial Stadium, however, was paid for with voluntary contributions; not mandatory student fees. Furthermore, the University just concluded a massive fundraising effort--$1.66 billion—which widely exceeded expectation and there is no reason to believe that the University would not be able to raise money for the stadium through private giving.

MSA adopted a pro-stadium resolution last year which said that undergrads were willing to pay up to $100/year in fees for a stadium. The administration is using this resolution as proof of student support while ignoring the fact that COGS passed a resolution to the contrary. There has been considerable hostility in the administration to letting graduate students opt out of paying a student fees with some administrators saying things like, “Letting graduate students opt out would be like letting graduate students run the University.” Others have said that they are ignoring COGS’ resolution because the administration is “Looking for an organization it can work with.”

In the mean time Keith Cunnien and Chris Pappas, based on a vote in COGS last spring, went to the legislator to find supporter for an amendment which would make the stadium fee an opt-out fee. Many legislators where supportive but none would sponsor an amendment because they were voting against the stadium.

There is precedent on-campus for an opt-out fee. Opting-out would simply require unclicking a checked box when registering at the beginning of each semester—similar to “opting-in” to pay student fees to support MPIRG, for example. This would cost the Administration very little. If all graduate students opted-out it would cost the administration $17 million. From our survey last year 70% of graduate students do not support a stadium so assuming that 30% were willing to pay for the stadium, plus those opposed to the stadium who accidentally failed to uncheck the box, the Administration only stands to loose about $10 million which could easily be recouped otherwise.

Q: What have other groups thought about the prospects of making graduate students pay for a stadium?
A: The Faculty Committee wanted more information while the committee representing the administration and faculty voted for a resolution opposing the stadium citing the hardship it would bring to bear on graduate students.
Q: What happened to the plan to role the stadium fee into the University fee (which is often paid by the departments)?
A: They are still calling at “A University fee” but it is not “The University Fee” which is waived.

A friendly amendment as added to the third whereas clause: “Whereas the administration, reflecting only the undergraduate position regarding stadium financing, is recommending a $50 per semester mandatory fee from all students to fund the stadium despite the opposition of graduate students” became: “Whereas the administration, reflecting only the MSA position regarding stadium financing, is recommending a $50 per semester mandatory fee from all students to fund the stadium despite the opposition expressed in a previous COGS resolution.”

The resolution passed 35-0 with 1 abstention.

GAPSA (Karen Buhr and Murat Bursal)
GAPSA represents all graduate students as well as all professional students (ie medical school, law school, business school, etc.). There are ten councils that make up GAPSA and COGS is by far the largest and the most actives.

GAPSA offers four types of grants: social events, academic grants, travel grants, and small grants. In addition, GAPSA sponsors social events such as bowling nights and socials in order to build community.

It is important the councils stay connected and work together. If you have any issues that need to be addressed please bring them to COGS and GAPSA so we can help address them.

Committees (Shana Watters)
Thanks to all those who have already volunteered to sit on various committees. This is the first time we have people on CLA committees and some other committees. We are very close to having 100% of committees filled. There are, however, a few openings if you would like to sit on one please contact Shana Watters. You do not have to be a voting member of COGS to sit on a committee which means that any graduate student can fill these spots.

Open Letter
In July 2005 COGS sent an Open Letter to the administration and Board of Regents highlighting the issues facing graduate students. You can read the letter and the response written by Provost Sullivan and Graduate School Dean Dubrow here. Here is a brief overview of our main concerns:

Strategic Positioning (Sarah Kempner)
The University has the goal to become one of the top three research institutions in the world. In order to reach this goal they’ve outline a set of recommendations to meet these goals known as the Strategic Positioning. COGS’ goal is to sit on the task forces responsible for implementing the strategic positioning. Part of this positioning was the Taskforce on Funding Graduate Education which recommended the merging and closing of programs. In light of what happened last year with Occupational Therapy we will be advocating for program closures to take place within proper channels.

Salary (Will Cremer and Aeleah Soine)
In December 2004 President Bruninks announced a 10% in the base salary. Unfortunately the administration did not give money to departments to fund this mandate. For example, in the History department, the base rate was increased to $15.85/hour but the fellowships were reduced by exactly the same amount. This means that, because our taxable income increased, our salaries might actually decrease as a result of raising the base. In addition, it is possible that smaller and underfunded departments might really suffer from the policy by increasingly finding themselves unable to support graduate students. The response from Provost Sullivan and Dean Dubrow simply say this is within guidelines but they do not substantially address the complaint.

Right now we do not know who is benefiting from the raise in the base pay. The survey we plan on conducting this semester will help address the impact of the pay increase.

Q: Did this pay increase have anything to do with last year’s union drive?
A: I think it did. In addition, the last time there was an increase in the base pay was right in the middle of the 1999 union drive.

Legislative Efforts (Andy Warta)
There is currently a bill in the US House of Representatives called the Higher Education Afordability and Equity Act. It would make room and board tax exempt for students (saving us around $1,000/year). It would also make student loan more tax deductible. I went to DC to lobby for this bill last Feburary and will be returning in two weeks. Keep you eyes open for the possibility of future email and letter writing campaigns around the issues.

Healthcare (Isaac Kamola)
While we recognize that we have a very good health plan, there is a lot of concern that the increased premiums, co-pays, out-of-pocket maximums, etc. putting additional stress on our already over streatched budgets. In addition, there is concern about being charged co-pays for return visits (i.e. follow-ups, scheduling errors, etc.). Also, dependent healthcare is very, very expensive. This is particularly burdonsome for international students with familities who are required to purchase dependent coverage. However, dependents often cannot work in the US because of visa issues meaning that one graduate student salary has to cover rent, food, fees, as well as hundreds of dollars in healthcare premiums a month.

Tuition and Fees (Meghan Warren)
It is important to remember that only about 50% of graduate students at the UofM get tuition waivers. This means that tuition increases can have very serious impacts for many of our collegues. In addition, fees have been raising steadily. This is particularly troubling since there is very little transparency councerning where our student go. For example, many fees remain vague and poorly defined--"Collegiate and Technical Fee" and the "University Fee." As a result, it is easy to increase these fees annualy. We want a break-down of where our fees go built into Onestop. We are also opposed to the manditory imposition of a stadium fee--see above.

Teaching (Aeleah Soine)
We are currently at an impass with the administration over this issue. They seem to thing that we do not work as much as we do and, therefore, we should not be concernd about workload issues. However, growing class size and no clear guidlines for how many students warrant at 25% or 50% appointment mean that many TAs, instructors, and assistants find themselves with mounting workloads. Furthermore, there is an increasing tread toward replacing TAs with Teaching Specialists (more info here and here).

International Students (Joao Boavida)
The University cannot change visa requirements but they can, for example, remove the $60 International Student and Scholar Service fee and a $6 "Emergency Fee." We argue that international student services should be part of an international University, not a "service" international students need to pay for. In addition, the University requires international students to provide health coverage for their dependents without giving them the means to pay for it.

Research, Funding, Grants (Andy Warta)
In the 2004 Open Letter we stated that it would be great in the University consolidated all its grant and funding information in one place. As a result, the University created a centralized funding website. The University is also looking for additional funding for travel grants.

Response by the Administration (Sarah Kempner)
In August we recieved a response letter. While some of the issues were covered, we found many of our key concerns were not addressed. Furthermore, the conclusion of the letter suggests that primarily our letter was basically just complaining about money and not addressing other important issues such as quality of eduation. When we were writing our open letter, however, we really struggled with this and, in the end, decided to focus primarily on economic concerns becasue many of the other issues--quality of life, time to degree, etc.--are tied to having enough money to fund ourself as we teach and research. We are currently in the process of writing a survey which will go out to all graduate students this semester in order to gather more data about what the general body of graduate students is concerned with.


	Home About COGS Current Issues Meetings Publications Getting Involved Representatives The Endowment Resources and FAQs Contact COGS		Minutes September 8th, 2005 President’s Room, Coffman Memorial Union Minutes submitted by Isaac Kamola (Vice President for Communications). Food served at 5pm, meeting began at 5:15. Introduction (Sarah Kempner) 1)Introduction of the COGS Executive Committee. 2)What is COGS COGS is the body which collectively represents graduate students (Masters and Ph.Ds) at the University of Minnesota, TC before the Graduate School, Central Administration, as well as at the Graduate and Professional Students Association (GAPSA). 3)Who are the voting members of COGS? All members of the Executive Council, members of the Policy and Review councils, all Senators as well as Program Representatives are allowed to vote during COGS meetings. Non-voting members of COGS include the entire graduate student body which is welcome to attend all meetings but cannot vote on resolutions etc. 4)What does COGS do? COGS represents graduate students in University wide concerns. They advise the administration on policies which would help graduate students (for example, each year we write an open letter to the administration spell out our concerns). We work with GAPSA and the Minnesota Student Assembly (MSA). It also addresses concerns and serves as a resource for graduate students. Elections P&R Chair for Education and Psychology Erica R. Brumm was elected for the P&R Chair for Education and Psychology. Senate Bryan Gordon (Linguistics), Will Cremer (History), Aaron Windel (History), and Lisa Blee (History) were elected to the UofM Senate. Senate alternates: Denise Feda (Environmental Health Sciences), Chris Pappas (Sociology), Laurie Stone (Plant Biology), Wendy Clemmons (Plant Biology), and Beth Lusczek (Physics) were elected as Senate alternates. Congrats to everyone. Policy and Review Councils P&R chairs were announced and the assembly broke into groups and people were encouraged to sign-up to sit on the councils. Stadium Resolution (Kris Houlton) I am proposing that we replace the 2004 resolution stating our opposition to using student fees to pay for an on-campus stadium with a new resolution which advocates an opt-out stadium fee. The 2004 resoltuion was written when an on-campus stadium was only a hypothetical possibility. This resolution stated that COGS “vehemently oppose[d] plans that rely upon any student fees contribution toward the cost of planning and/or construction of a stadium and its associated projects.” This wording came out of an overwhelming belief that graduate students would not receive the “student life” benefits of the stadium but would, in essence, be taking a pay cut to fund a project they would not benefit from. The stadium, however, is no longer a possibility but a probability. This is due to the fact that if the Twins and Viking leave the Metrodome by 2011 the University will be unable to pay rent by itself. There was an on-campus stadium, Memorial Stadium, which was torn down in the 1990s. The administration is saying that students helped pay for Memorial Stadium and, therefore, should be expected to help pay gain. Memorial Stadium, however, was paid for with voluntary contributions; not mandatory student fees. Furthermore, the University just concluded a massive fundraising effort--$1.66 billion—which widely exceeded expectation and there is no reason to believe that the University would not be able to raise money for the stadium through private giving. MSA adopted a pro-stadium resolution last year which said that undergrads were willing to pay up to $100/year in fees for a stadium. The administration is using this resolution as proof of student support while ignoring the fact that COGS passed a resolution to the contrary. There has been considerable hostility in the administration to letting graduate students opt out of paying a student fees with some administrators saying things like, “Letting graduate students opt out would be like letting graduate students run the University.” Others have said that they are ignoring COGS’ resolution because the administration is “Looking for an organization it can work with.” In the mean time Keith Cunnien and Chris Pappas, based on a vote in COGS last spring, went to the legislator to find supporter for an amendment which would make the stadium fee an opt-out fee. Many legislators where supportive but none would sponsor an amendment because they were voting against the stadium. There is precedent on-campus for an opt-out fee. Opting-out would simply require unclicking a checked box when registering at the beginning of each semester—similar to “opting-in” to pay student fees to support MPIRG, for example. This would cost the Administration very little. If all graduate students opted-out it would cost the administration $17 million. From our survey last year 70% of graduate students do not support a stadium so assuming that 30% were willing to pay for the stadium, plus those opposed to the stadium who accidentally failed to uncheck the box, the Administration only stands to loose about $10 million which could easily be recouped otherwise. Q: What have other groups thought about the prospects of making graduate students pay for a stadium? A: The Faculty Committee wanted more information while the committee representing the administration and faculty voted for a resolution opposing the stadium citing the hardship it would bring to bear on graduate students. Q: What happened to the plan to role the stadium fee into the University fee (which is often paid by the departments)? A: They are still calling at “A University fee” but it is not “The University Fee” which is waived. A friendly amendment as added to the third whereas clause: “Whereas the administration, reflecting only the undergraduate position regarding stadium financing, is recommending a $50 per semester mandatory fee from all students to fund the stadium despite the opposition of graduate students” became: “Whereas the administration, reflecting only the MSA position regarding stadium financing, is recommending a $50 per semester mandatory fee from all students to fund the stadium despite the opposition expressed in a previous COGS resolution.” The resolution passed 35-0 with 1 abstention. GAPSA (Karen Buhr and Murat Bursal) GAPSA represents all graduate students as well as all professional students (ie medical school, law school, business school, etc.). There are ten councils that make up GAPSA and COGS is by far the largest and the most actives. GAPSA offers four types of grants: social events, academic grants, travel grants, and small grants. In addition, GAPSA sponsors social events such as bowling nights and socials in order to build community. It is important the councils stay connected and work together. If you have any issues that need to be addressed please bring them to COGS and GAPSA so we can help address them. Committees (Shana Watters) Thanks to all those who have already volunteered to sit on various committees. This is the first time we have people on CLA committees and some other committees. We are very close to having 100% of committees filled. There are, however, a few openings if you would like to sit on one please contact Shana Watters. You do not have to be a voting member of COGS to sit on a committee which means that any graduate student can fill these spots. Open Letter In July 2005 COGS sent an Open Letter to the administration and Board of Regents highlighting the issues facing graduate students. You can read the letter and the response written by Provost Sullivan and Graduate School Dean Dubrow here. Here is a brief overview of our main concerns: Strategic Positioning (Sarah Kempner) The University has the goal to become one of the top three research institutions in the world. In order to reach this goal they’ve outline a set of recommendations to meet these goals known as the Strategic Positioning. COGS’ goal is to sit on the task forces responsible for implementing the strategic positioning. Part of this positioning was the Taskforce on Funding Graduate Education which recommended the merging and closing of programs. In light of what happened last year with Occupational Therapy we will be advocating for program closures to take place within proper channels. Salary (Will Cremer and Aeleah Soine) In December 2004 President Bruninks announced a 10% in the base salary. Unfortunately the administration did not give money to departments to fund this mandate. For example, in the History department, the base rate was increased to $15.85/hour but the fellowships were reduced by exactly the same amount. This means that, because our taxable income increased, our salaries might actually decrease as a result of raising the base. In addition, it is possible that smaller and underfunded departments might really suffer from the policy by increasingly finding themselves unable to support graduate students. The response from Provost Sullivan and Dean Dubrow simply say this is within guidelines but they do not substantially address the complaint. Right now we do not know who is benefiting from the raise in the base pay. The survey we plan on conducting this semester will help address the impact of the pay increase. Q: Did this pay increase have anything to do with last year’s union drive? A: I think it did. In addition, the last time there was an increase in the base pay was right in the middle of the 1999 union drive. Legislative Efforts (Andy Warta) There is currently a bill in the US House of Representatives called the Higher Education Afordability and Equity Act. It would make room and board tax exempt for students (saving us around $1,000/year). It would also make student loan more tax deductible. I went to DC to lobby for this bill last Feburary and will be returning in two weeks. Keep you eyes open for the possibility of future email and letter writing campaigns around the issues. Healthcare (Isaac Kamola) While we recognize that we have a very good health plan, there is a lot of concern that the increased premiums, co-pays, out-of-pocket maximums, etc. putting additional stress on our already over streatched budgets. In addition, there is concern about being charged co-pays for return visits (i.e. follow-ups, scheduling errors, etc.). Also, dependent healthcare is very, very expensive. This is particularly burdonsome for international students with familities who are required to purchase dependent coverage. However, dependents often cannot work in the US because of visa issues meaning that one graduate student salary has to cover rent, food, fees, as well as hundreds of dollars in healthcare premiums a month. Tuition and Fees (Meghan Warren) It is important to remember that only about 50% of graduate students at the UofM get tuition waivers. This means that tuition increases can have very serious impacts for many of our collegues. In addition, fees have been raising steadily. This is particularly troubling since there is very little transparency councerning where our student go. For example, many fees remain vague and poorly defined--"Collegiate and Technical Fee" and the "University Fee." As a result, it is easy to increase these fees annualy. We want a break-down of where our fees go built into Onestop. We are also opposed to the manditory imposition of a stadium fee--see above. Teaching (Aeleah Soine) We are currently at an impass with the administration over this issue. They seem to thing that we do not work as much as we do and, therefore, we should not be concernd about workload issues. However, growing class size and no clear guidlines for how many students warrant at 25% or 50% appointment mean that many TAs, instructors, and assistants find themselves with mounting workloads. Furthermore, there is an increasing tread toward replacing TAs with Teaching Specialists (more info here and here). International Students (Joao Boavida) The University cannot change visa requirements but they can, for example, remove the $60 International Student and Scholar Service fee and a $6 "Emergency Fee." We argue that international student services should be part of an international University, not a "service" international students need to pay for. In addition, the University requires international students to provide health coverage for their dependents without giving them the means to pay for it. Research, Funding, Grants (Andy Warta) In the 2004 Open Letter we stated that it would be great in the University consolidated all its grant and funding information in one place. As a result, the University created a centralized funding website. The University is also looking for additional funding for travel grants. Response by the Administration (Sarah Kempner) In August we recieved a response letter. While some of the issues were covered, we found many of our key concerns were not addressed. Furthermore, the conclusion of the letter suggests that primarily our letter was basically just complaining about money and not addressing other important issues such as quality of eduation. When we were writing our open letter, however, we really struggled with this and, in the end, decided to focus primarily on economic concerns becasue many of the other issues--quality of life, time to degree, etc.--are tied to having enough money to fund ourself as we teach and research. We are currently in the process of writing a survey which will go out to all graduate students this semester in order to gather more data about what the general body of graduate students is concerned with.