AGS COUNCIL MINUTES
I. Call to order
A. 5:38pm by Michelle
II. Approve Agenda (1 minute)
A. Motioned by Connor, seconded by Olivia. No objections.
III. 17-14 To vote on formal complaint about candidate’s policy violation during 2017-18
A. Shantell is ceded chair by unanimous vote
B. Ryan summary
1. Resolving complaint from recent elections. Complaints are brought to council. Last week we ratified election results as complaint was brought to council and addressed. Now we are hearing another complaint about a specific candidate.
2. Bylaws dictate we can only disqualify a candidate if they violated campus policy that biases the election. Section 900-12, Section A (Content restrictions) was the policy cited as having been violated. Today we are considering whether or not the policy was violated as written here, and whether that is grounds for disqualification. Both candidate and complainant were give the opportunity to speak, were given notification of at least a week, and were given the opportunity to submit evidence. Must decide this impartially using only the evidence at hand. Anyone who can’t do that must recuse themselves immediately. (No one recuses themselves)
C. Ryan reads complainant’s statement as he could not come to meeting (council provided with full evidence in meeting’s documents)
D. Candidate speaks
1. I followed all campus policies on electronic communications, Policy 800-15, section B says electronic forms of communications are subject to academic departments, all UC emails are public. Access is provided by the administrator. Policy912A doesn’t apply to electronic communications. This one is about the posting of materials on the physical space (printed materials, etc.). This is the policy that the complainant is referring to, but I did not disburse any printed materials. Refer to evidence 1 and 2 to see that the department administrators confirm her use was acceptable [in council meeting docs]. Evidence 3 documents a conversation between Ryan and candidate showing that time was taken to inform her of the rules. I suggest an AGS candidate manual is developed to clarify the rules of the election process.
1. Will: the complainant indicated there is mandatory candidate meeting. Did you go to this? Response: I was never told of a meeting. I did reach out to Ryan to make sure I knew the process and rules.
2. Connor: Why would designation of printed materials in another section apply to this one? Response: This entire policy of 900-12 is only referring to physical printed material being posted on buildings, etc. It doesn’t refer to electronic communications. That is why we have section 800. This was the policy I referred to when I was campaigning. I followed this policy by seeking out admin approval, they provided me permission in writing.
3. Clare: For other candidates that were here, why did you not use the list serv (if there is explicit policy)? Ryan: we are here to just judge the violation of this policy.
4. Daniel: Question about complainant’s evidence 2. If Ryan discouraged the use of list servs in the email with Ryan, another candidate (candidate B), and complainant, then would this give an unfair advantage as the email indicated it wasn’t allowed? Ryan: I consulted with UCI staff, and paraphrased this back to the candidate B. This included that ASUCI didn’t allow it, and that was all we had to go on. If I knew this would become an issue, I would’ve been sure to forward on to all candidates. Candidate: To bring back to the specific complaint, this is an issue but I didn’t violate any campus policy, and that is the only reason to disqualify me. Again, I recommend AGS has their own policies about what you can and cannot do.
5. Will: To Ryan, what does section 900-12 apply to? The specific policy that was cited was 900-12A, the section on content restrictions. This is for physical environment and properties. Will: Content restrictions for what? Ryan: Policy on posting literature an materials. Candidate: Specifically refers to printed materials posted on buildings on campus. This doesn’t apply to electronic communications.
6. Motion to extend time by 3 minutes by Richard, seconded by Daniel
7. Richard: Does 800-15 have any lines that would supersede 900-12A (specifically about political actions)? Ryan: I don’t have an answer to that, as I haven’t seen that policy. Candidate: I’d be happy to read that policy again. 800-15 B, D, and E are the ones that apply here. There is nothing that talks about list servs not being allowed to be used for political purposes (so long as they follow the campus policies 800-15).
1. Kate: Going back to 900-12 (part 2) refers to posted material. But in part 1, posted material is defined as printed material. For the issue of the wellness building, there was a petition sent out on list servs. To what extent that this is also using a digital platform for political purposes (as opposed to the issue of someone posting a physical poster). Richard: Objection to this comment as being irrelevant, and we’ve had discussions about this being inappropriate, and this was an academic body using the list serv, not a student
2. Aaron: It is clear that 900-12 doesn’t apply to electronic communications. Why other candidates didn’t use the list serv, whether Candidate B was disadvantaged by not knowing, is not relevant to this specific hearing.
G. Vote on legislation 17-14
1. Yes if she did violate, no if she didn’t
2. 0-22.5-2 Motion fails
H. Motion to yield chair back to Michelle, unanimously approved
IV. AGS Election (30 minutes)
A. Approve minutes from previous meeting (1 minute)
1. Moved by Connor, seconded by Aaron, no objections
V. Executive and Committee Reports:
A. President Division (3 minutes)
1. Met with Napolitano about the audit. Chancellor agrees with LA Times Op-Ed that the audit is not just showing the $175 million slush fund, but it has actually already been earmarked. There is $39 million left which is small for a reserve fund. The other presidents agreed that we increase transparency. Going forward, there will be briefings from the president published to UCI.
B. Internal Division (2 minutes)
1. Generally if you applied an extension to your lease as you aged out of the program, you would be granted it. Now, we’ve brought in more students, and there is not space for this. Incoming cohort who accepted the guaranteed housing is up 30% from last year. People are guaranteed year to degree minus 1, so it is those who are past this who are affected. Meeting with UCI housing office this week to find out more and what course of action we can take. If anyone has issues with this or knows anyone, be in touch.
2. Working with law school to develop legal services for undocumented students for those affected by travel restrictions
C. External Division (2 minutes)
1. Met with Napolitano last week. Talked about graduate standards of living. UCSA has brought forth a proposal of what that means. Asking Napolitano to endorse the proposal. She basically does, but is adding a few things before she signs it. Also discussed GSR protections. In the process of defining what an employee is. Also talked about sanctuary campus protections for undocumented students and their families; this is a work in progress. We will be working with UCOP legal team to provide legal advisement to campus student governments if they are in need to support themselves against any external threats. Talked only briefly about the audit.
2. UCSA Meeting in Berkeley last week. Met new system-wide Title IX coordinator. She will be coming to each campus to set up meeting with AGS. Mentioned the resolution about preponderance of evidence standard, and she supported this. Also discussed possibility of reorganization of UCSA by grad students. Voted that going forward we will become bicameral with undergrad and grad and come together when agendas overlap.
3. Working with ASUCI to figure out housing problem with city council.
D. Financial Division (2 minutes)
1. No new updates
E. Social Division (2 minutes)
1. Karaoke Night May 20
F. Administrative Division (2 minutes)
1. Remaining elections results can now be processed and released
2. Already notified winners of released results and recruited write-in vote winners to participate in AGS Council next year
3. Last two meetings (May 23 and June 6) are typically reserved for joint Council meetings, so stay tuned for messages about those.
G. International Committee
1. One World Concert, please help invite people on Facebook and please attend
VI. SOAR Presentation (10 minutes)
A. Not present
VII. Climate Science Discussion (5 minutes)
A. Very preliminary, but starting to work with groups on campus that are concerned about climate issues. Petitioning politicians about climate issues, namely Rohrbacher and Walters. Rohrbacher refused emails from UCI professors and challenged these professors to a debate. But to avoid a policy issue being made about this, the professors hope to schedule a discussion hosted by students. Possibly scheduled for next Fall, contact Richard if you’d like to get engaged.
VIII. New Business (10 minutes)
A. Castro from ICS department (guest) – discussing the issue of housing for 5th year students (normative minus one year). Many lab mates and folks in the department have to worry about housing as they finishing dissertations. Requesting help from AGS because the housing office has not been receptive, already setting up meetings with Connor. Can someone in Internal find out why it is Normative minus one year as far as timing? And ask about the variance among departments? According to the website it states “normative time to degree”, but their might be differences in normative time amongst departments. Has this ever been mentioned in CGG meetings? It’s been mentioned that numbers were higher and a crunch might be happening, but only as potential shuffling amongst housing complexes. PVRC has also mentioned that this was eventually possible.
B. Student Center Board – Kate will be serving as Secretary (likely) next year.
IX. Zots (5 minutes)
A. Everyone who attended today
B. Ryan for handling election procedures
Adjourn at 7:00pm moved by Richard, seconded by Connor