I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 7:04 PM

II. Roll Call

Eric Jurgens (English), Jason Vaughan (English), Marinus van Kuilenberg (Political Science), Katrina Blasingame (Graduate Council).

III. Approval of the Agenda

K. Blasingame moved and E. Jurgens seconded the approval of the agenda. The agenda was approved without objection.

IV. Approval of the April 27, 2004 Minutes

E. Jurgens moved and A. St. Paul seconded the approval of the minutes from the April 27, 2004, GPSC meeting with spelling corrections.

V. Officer Reports

A. President: Amy Sileven

Committee Reports

1. Traffic and Parking Committee- The committee Chair tried to claim that the vote approving the increase in priority for parking garage project taken at the previous meeting never occurred. E. Waltmire reported that the committee spent an additional $10,000 for three extra 15-minute parking spots for the ticketing office, which is twice what the athletic department asked for. The total project cost to create a parking area near the ticket office at the Arena will be $40,000 rather than $30,000. That cost will create a total of six diagonal parking spaces, one to be designated for handicapped use rather than the three parallel spaces originally proposed.

2. Affirmative Action Committee- Amy received approval for the constituencies to review the discrimination complaint procedures before the final vote on it in July.

3. Director of Public Policy Search Committee- The search is ongoing. One candidate has been interviewed; a second candidate will be interviewed next week.

4. Center for Graduate Teaching Excellence Committee- The committee looked at the RFPs for funding for pre-semester GA training. There was still no official word on how much of a budget there would be for this training, though the indication was that the budget would be cut even though it was RAMP funded. Amy expressed disappointment in the number and quality of funding requests for GA training. There was no final decision about what would and would not be funded; but recommendations were made.

5. Board of Trustees- The Board approved all of the fee increases and approved the use of revenue bond fees for Evergreen Terrace, despite USG's and GPSC's objection. The Revenue Bond Fee Committee was denigrated by Dr. Dietz. At next meeting, the Board will consider the FY06 RAMP proposals. Program Priority Request says number one priority is to recruit, retain, and reward critical faculty and staff for high priority areas, including pediatrics, for $4,543,100 for FY06. The number two priority is to recruit, retain, and reward high quality graduate assistants for $1,728,735. The quality of grad students affects the instructional quality of undergraduate programs, the level and quality of research that takes place at the university, and the visibility of the university throughout nation and the world. To enhance competitiveness for the best graduate students, SIUC request $900,000 in FY06 to increase stipends by an average of 8 percent and $838,735 to increase the number of teaching assistants. The third priority is to recruit, retain, and reward students of color with $411,745. E. Waltmire states that GPSC has passed a resolution concerning changes in university policy that seem have the effect of eliminating educational opportunities at SIUC for historically under-represented groups. The fourth priority is the SIUC cancer institute phase 2 for $2,588,000. The fifth priority is academic excellence in general education for $879,410. The sixth priority is a Bachelor of Science in Forensic Science for $440,000. The plan for operating request is general salary increases, retaining critical faculty and staff, social security, Medicare, general price increases, utility price increases, material increases, maintenance of buildings, other program requests. Capital requests for capital funds and projects include (for SIUC) transportation center, Morris Library renovation, Communications renovations, and health and safety improvements.

B. Vice President of Administrative Affairs: Eric Waltmire

1. Demonstration Policy- Dr. Dietz formed a committee to review the demonstration policy; E. Waltmire is the GPSC representative. Dr. Dietz requested that the information given at the meeting be reviewed and that the committee meet 2 or 3 times at most. E. Waltmire expressed concern about added language regarding the designated marshals required for demonstrations. Amy pointed out that the language was not added but shifted from the older draft. K. Blasingame expressed concern over the ability of the administration to deny the right to protest to individuals or groups based on the content of the demonstration. Amy expressed concern over the change of language regarding who the demonstrating individuals would contact and whether they would be required to obtain approval or just give notice.

2. Liquor Advisory Board- Board approved the individual establishments renewal of liquor licenses and recommended that the Carbondale Liquor Control Comission discuss the issue of underage drinking with establishments.

C. Vice President of Graduate School Affairs: Angela St. Paul

1. Search Committee for Director of Public Safety- The committee ranked top five candidates; that list will be submitted to human resources, who will rank the top three. The Chair of committee asked GPSC to come up with questions to ask the candidates. Angela suggested questions on issues concerning diversity and sexual orientation. Amy suggested questions concerning the candidates’ philosophy on law enforcement and how they would prioritize their cases.

2. Nostram Bucinam Canimus Conference- The Conference date will be April 7-9, 2005, which is Honor’s Weekend. There have been problems with scheduling the rooms. The budget is about $5,000, and Angela asked that if anyone would like to be on the committee, to please email her. The deadline for papers will be April 1. A roundtable discussion on graduate issues was considered as a possible event for the conference. Amy suggested getting the Public Policy Institute involved in the Conference.

3. Welcome Back Bash- The Bash is tentatively scheduled for the Thursday before the Fall 2004 semester starts from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Angela hoped to have information on all of the graduate registered student organizations available at the Bash. The first choice for event’s location is the Free Forum area.

VI. Old Business

A. Demonstration Policy Draft.

1. Member expressed concerns over the 10/01/03 draft changes to the document titled: Demonstration: Regulations and Procedures, also known as the SIUC Demonstration Policy. This document was created by a small group of administrators before Mr. Torney was charged with violating the Student Conduct Code in relation to handing out literature concerning the Iraq war in Spring of 2004 and before the creation of the current Demonstration Policy Review Committee. E. Waltmire stated that in the Committee’s first meeting Dr. Dietz distributed various documents including the 10/01/03 Draft Demonstration police. Dr. Dietz indicated that he wished the committee to meet 3 or 4 times and to have the committee’s recommendations submitted to the Chancellor before the end of the summer. GPSC members expressed concerns about the administration's desire to complete the changes during the summer when most students are not on campus. The changes proposed in the draft require that those wishing have a rally or peaceful demonstration on university property, but outside of the Free Forum Area, obtain approval from the Chancellor’s designee at lest 24 hours in advance. The current language (struck out on page 6) required only that those wishing to have a rally or peaceful demonstration on university property, but outside of the Free Forum Area, notify the Chancellor or the Department of Public Safety at least 24 hours in advance. Members were concerned the proposal language was unnecessarily restrictive and could create a situation where the administration would be able to essentially veto a person's First Amendment right to freedom of speech by refusing to approve a rally or peaceful demonstration. Also members were concerned with the “Chancellor’s designee” language. There was concern that whereas the current policy identifies a specific person or department, the Chancellor or the Department of Public Safety, who must be notified 24 hours in advance, the proposed draft removes that language and substitutes “Chancellor’s designee” as the person from whom prior approval must be obtained. It is not clear from the policy who the Chancellor’s designee is. Members were concerned that students wishing to demonstrate, reading the policy, would not know who the Chancellor’s designee was, or how to contact him or her in order to obtain approval. There was also a suggestion that all scheduling of demonstrations, including the free forum area, be handled through one office in the Public Safety department, not by the Student Center Scheduling office. Members expressed concern about the change in titles and headings in draft, for example on page 5, section VI title was changed from Free Speech Facilities, to Open Forum Facilities, also on page 5 under Open Forum Facilities the draft replaces “will provide facilities” with “provides an open forum area” for the gathering of groups who wish to have a discussion, assembly, rally, or peaceful demonstration and eliminates “without prior scheduling” from the end of that sentence. Some members also stated that the requirement that those wishing to hold a rally or demonstration provide “designated marshals who may be easily identified by an official armband and who will act to maintain and assist in the implementation of the polices contained herein,” was an undue restriction on a person’s First Amendment rights and should be removed. There was a general consensus that the GPSC was against the change from requiring prior 24-hour notification to requiring prior 24-hour approval; and the council was also against the change from a specified contact, Chancellor or the Department of Public Safety, to the nebulous Chancellor’s designee. The GPSC’s representative will take forth these concerns to the Demonstration Policy Review Committee when it next meets on July 12, 2004.

VII. New Business

A. Discrimination Complaint Procedures Draft

1. Amy indicated there was likely no prior official Discrimination Complaint Procedures. This document is intended to inform the reader how to make a complaint under the University Discrimination Policy. Members indicated it would be a good idea to discuss the underlying Discrimination Policy as an agenda item for a 2004 Fall Council meeting. As to the draft procedures at issue, Amy informed members that under the section titled “Complaints filed with the Associate Chancellor (Diversity)” language defining a concrete time frame was removed in favor of “Complaints filled...will be investigated as expeditiously as possible.” Similar “expeditiously as possible” language exists in paragraph seven under the section titled “Complainant(s).” Members favored a specific time frame in which a complainant could expect a response. Members debated what timeframe would be appropriate. Amy advised a previous draft stated “as soon as practicable, generally within eight weeks.” Members preferred this language over the “expeditiously as possible” language. Amy will pass along the Council’s desire for more specific timeframe language.

VIII. Roundtable Discussion

A. Increasing cost of Athletic Personnel Salaries as compared to Teacher/Instructor/Professor Salaries

1. M. Kuilenburg expressed disappointment with the large increase in the Director of the Athletic Department’s salary. He stated that Athletic Department salaries should not be a high priority. He said the raises show a lack of proper priory at the University. Other members questioned whether money for higher education, through, for example, payment of mandatory Athletic Fees with federal and state loan money, was being diverted from core University mission, instruction, to Athletics. Some members suggested sports should be divorced from higher education. It was suggested that higher education would benefit if the money used for athletic scholarships were used for need based scholarships. Amy suggested that this might be a policy issue of national importance that the Public Policy Institute might help with and it might also make a good roundtable discussion for the Nostram Bucinam Canimus conference. The roll of athletics in higher education will be a topic of discussion at future meetings.

IX. Announcements: None.

X. Adjournment

K. Blasingame moved and E. Jurgens seconded a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.

The next meeting will occur July 13 at 7:00 p.m. in the GPSC Conference Room on the 3^rd floor of the Student Center.