TREASURERS REPORT
It is with great pleasure that I provide a fiscal snapshot of the Graduate Student
Association (GSA) as of our most recent ledger (9/25/2014). Collectively, I am happy to report
that the finances of the GSA are on target, and that our fiscal health is satisfactory. To facilitate
the reading of this report, I have taken the liberty of breaking my findings up into several
subsections. First, in the executive summary of this report, I will discuss total amounts, and
provide a comparison of our finances as of last year. Second, I will provide a budget recap,
informing the Assembly of changes to the budget as of the last Assembly meeting. Finally, I will
address concerns regarding a large GSA surplus, and offer suggestions which the Executive
Board is currently gathering data on. For those merely interested in year to date budget totals,
please flip to the end of this report, and view Table 1, within the appendix.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As of the most recent ledger (9/25/2014) provided by University Auxiliary Services
(UAS) the GSA has a total of $130,470.01 in our account. This includes the $91,811 surplus*
(see "SURPLUS" under the "BUDGET RECAP" section). Over the past month we have made
$54,353.25. This suggests that roughly 2,470 students have paid their $22 fee.
As of 9/25/2013 (last year) we had made $71,193.10. This means that as of 9/25, we have
made 16,839.85 less than we made last year. However, I would contend this is not cause for
concern, as this time last year UAS had given us an irregular 6th deposit in September.
Currently, at least according to the most recent ledger, UAS has only provided us with 5
deposits. When subtracting the 6th deposit, we actually made around $56,473.25 this time last
year, which amounts to a revenue decline of $2,120 from this time last year.
However, this revenue decline is to be expected, for as previously noted (see the last
Treasurer's report dated 9/05/2014) we have noticed that graduate student enrollment is on a
slow decline. Importantly, this year's total budget assumed that graduate student enrollment
would decline further, and subsequently under estimated graduate student enrollment relative to
all projections provided by UAS.
Since the start of the fiscal year (7/1/2014), the GSA has spent $18,744.31. As noted in
Table 1, the bulk of this expense has been divided between RGSOs, Grants, printing, and
mandated liability and theft insurance. The remainder has gone to pay stipends, programming,
and other internal costs (e.g., office supplies, water etc).
BUDGET RECAP
The astute observer may notice several changes from the budget included in last month's
officer report, and the budget presented here (see Table 1). The following is a list of changes as
prompted by the Assembly and internal constraints:


NAGPS: The Assembly voted to remove all but $2,500 from the National Association of
Graduate-Professional Students (NAGPS) surplus line.
STIPENDS: The former bylaws committee noted that the language in the current draft of
the bylaws in place stipulates that the Assembly Speaker, and the University Council

Representative will be paid $200 for their service. See more about this under "STIPEND
PAY".
SURPLUS: The original number UAS provided to us in their ledgers for the surplus we
are carrying over was $92,849. However, upon an internal audit, it was revealed this
number was incorrect, and the total amount of our surplus $91,811 ($1,038 less than what
UAS originally quoted us).
o SOLUTION: This error occurred because UAS provides us with ledgers which
are supposed to show expenses for the entire month. However, UAS totaled our
final report for June before the month of June had ended (6/25/2014), and
expenses which were paid out from the previous fiscal year were not reflected in
the surplus total. To prevent this mistake from reoccurring, I have requested UAS
send future Treasurers year to date reports every month, as opposed to individual
monthly reports. This way, the Treasurer will always have access to total yearly
expenses and income in all reports.
SURPLUS
At the last Assembly meeting, several fiscal savvy members expressed concern with the
GSA carrying over a large surplus from year to year. Generally, the concern regarding the
surplus was derived from the notion that if we do not spend all money the GSA has available
within a fiscal year, the graduate students who paid the fee for that year may be losing out on
benefits or services which could otherwise be offered. This is an excellent point, worthy of
discussion. As the fiscal agent of the GSA, I am taking the liberty of explaining some of the
nuances with GSA revenue, and structural issues which create a surplus. I will end this report
with a brief discussion of what the Executive Board is currently doing to respond to Assembly
needs.
REVENUE
As stated in the previous Treasurer's report, the GSA currently has one source of revenue;
namely, student fees. Although this fee has been mandated, not every student pays their fee in
advance. In fact, due to the financial burdens many graduate students face, and the lack of
adequate funding, many students choose to pay at least part of their bill using a University
sanctioned payment plan. As a result, the GSA revenue for the Fall semester is not static, but
rather rolls in throughout the semester.
Although there is nothing wrong with revenue being disbursed over the duration of the
semester, there are several consequences which we must consider when planning our budgets.
First, our entire budget is based on enrollment projections. As discussed in my previous report,
enrollment is declining, and has a seemingly large degree of variation from year to year (i.e., the
standard deviation is hundreds of students). This makes it hard to generate a precise projection,
and without surplus money to cushion GSA sanctioned events and grants, we would likely end
up in a deficit without at least retaining some money as a surplus from year to year.
PROJECTIONS
This discussion of revenue has suggested that the GSA needs to create a projection under
which we can pay for all available services to all available Assembly members. In order to do
this without going into debt, there are two things which need to be considered when creating a
projection.
First, we must over estimate costs. For example, although not everyone uses all of their
free printing, we need to make sure we have enough money to pay for the maximum allotted free
printing for every Assembly member. Importantly, a good budget needs to reflect potential costs
as well as direct costs. For example, we have extra money in paper, in case we are able to
increase printing. We also have extra money in office supplies should a computer break down.
These are costs which we cannot anticipate but must acknowledge.
Second, we need to underestimate our revenue. For example, this current budget is based
on a projection which assume that we will have 4,100 fee paying members in the Fall. We are
actually more likely to have 4,200 - 4,300 fee paying members. Because we will generate more
revenue than we anticipate, we are likely to end up with some sort of surplus. Because the
variation within enrollment is so high, it is difficult to predict how many students will actually
stay enrolled and pay their fee.
This year's budget under estimated costs and over estimated expenses so that we could be
95% certain that we would not go into debt. However, one consequence of being fiscally
responsible is that when things go well (i.e., more students enroll, and our equipment does not
break down), we have extra money which can be carried over.
STRUCTURAL ISSUES
The primary reason we tend to have a large surplus has more to do with structural issues,
as opposed to Executive Boards choosing to carry over the amounts. Although my predecessor,
Jess Aubrin was fiscally conservative so as not to repeat the debt crisis of 2012, carrying over
$91,811 was not her choice, but a consequence of regulations and current practices.
ACADEMIC YEAR VS. FISCAL YEAR
It is necessary to understand that the GSA is tied to the fiscal year designated by UAS.
This means that even though our academic year ends in May, our fiscal year does not end until
July 1st. This means that the summer (May - August) is actually comprised of two fiscal years. If
we spent all of the money allocated for the academic year by May, we would have no money left
for RGSO events and individual grants over the summer. Additionally, without a surplus, we
would not be able to offer traditional GSA programming events (i.e., the orientation) and may
not even have money for base operations (i.e., buying office supplies before the start of the
semester).
GRANT PRACTICES
Another reason why we have a large surplus has to do with awarding practices for grants.
Last year we provided $35,000 for grants, and had roughly $10,000 left over. Specifically, the
Assembly currently takes an equal distribution approach to awarding funds, such that the total
amount of money given to grants is divided in part by how many requests for grants we have.
Although the grants committee works hard to make sure that funding is appropriately aligned
with each request, we do not know for certain how many people will apply for grants.
Perhaps one way to consider grant requests is to think of them as a delicate eco-system. If
we have more people ask for grants, we theoretically have less money to give per person. If too
many people ask for money, no one will get enough, many members will consider that it is not
worth their time to apply for a grant. If enough students believe it is not worth their time to apply
for a grant, they will stop applying, creating more money for those who do apply, repeating the
cycle over again.
RGSO PRACTICES
Similar to grant practices, RGSOs awarding practices also create a large surplus. We
awarded RGSOs $35,000 last year, and they had roughly $15,000 left over. However, unlike
grant practices, which generate a surplus due to the uncertainty as to how many people could
apply for grants (again, as previously discussed, we need to make sure we have enough money so
ALL members of the Assembly could take advantage of our services), we know how many
RGSOs there are on a semesterly basis, and we even know how much money they tend to apply
for. Although RGSOs usually apply for all of their money, they actually only end up using $0.70
for every $1.00 we give them.
INCREASED REVENUE
Currently Assembly members, regardless of whether they are full time or part time, pay a
fee of $22. This is a relatively new development, which has generated roughly $20,000 in extra
yearly income. Although my predecessor was fiscally conservative, we have such a large surplus
this year because the Assembly has not looked at ways to invest this additional funding.
SUGGESTIONS
The following is a list of various solutions to the aforementioned reasons as to why the
Assembly has such a large yearly surplus. Note that, certain issues may not be easily rectified
(i.e., the divergence between the academic year and the fiscal year). However, we should not
seek to resolve all of the issues. When dealing with fiscal policy it is best to tread carefully, and
experimentally manipulate practices while keeping data. So as not to put the cart before the
horse, we need to consider a data driven approach to our finances.
I do maintain that some surplus is healthy, and may even be necessary for the GSA to
thrive. However, I would like to take a moment to discuss options, and outline some of the
actions that the Executive Board is currently taking to address the Assembly concerns. It should
be noted that the Executive Board is not currently taking any action to change current policies,
but rather is brainstorming ideas which will then be submitted for Assembly vote with the needs
assessment that I am currently developing.

GRANTS: I am currently working with the Grants Chair to consider alternative models
for awarding money to students. One way we could reduce a surplus, and make the GSA
grants more meaningful, is to transition to a selective process. In other words, instead of


every student being allowed to receive grant money, the GSA could take the 35,000 in
grants and award 35 competitive research and professional development grants for $1,000
each. Note that these amounts are arbitrary, and one thing we want to consider with the
needs assessment is whether or not the Assembly, as a whole, would be receptive to
fewer, albeit larger grants.
RGSOS: I believe that RGSOs under spend for two reasons. The first has to do with
reimbursements. I am currently working with Kat to create a mechanism for direct
payments. We believe that one reason why RGSOs only spend $0.70 per every $1.00 we
give them is because graduate students are poor, and not able to spend their own money
in advance. It is our opinion that the reimbursement model of RGSO purchasing is
outdated, and no longer serves Assembly needs. However, we are working closely with
our campus allies to make sure that any direct purchasing mechanism is fiscally sound,
and within the purview of Board of Trustees policy. The second reason that RGSOs do
not spend all of their allotted money is because some RGSOs are less active than others.
Many times RGSOs may fall apart due to internal leadership concerns, and other times,
events do not occur for a myriad of reasons (e.g., a guest speaker cancels, or there was an
issue with reserving the room). Although I am not officially advocating for some RGSOs
getting more money than others, I am currently working with the RGSO committee to
consider guidelines that RGSOs can be given to help them make better budgets, as well
as mechanisms which could be used to systematically award money in a reliable and
valid manner.
INCREASE REVENUE: We have increased revenue from the fee change, and I believe
that one way we can spend some of this additional revenue is by investing in our
relationship with NAGPS. Although some Assembly members may be initially concerned
that this relationship is not worthwhile, and that it is unfair for representatives to use
Assembly money to go the several of the more important events hosted by NAGPS, I
contend that this is a relationship worth investing in, and that it would be unfair to make
those we elect pay out of pocket for something that could be vital to our growth and
development. When a person you elected, or their designee, goes to a NAGPS event, they
are going there to represent your interests. I personally believe one reason why we often
have poor election turn outs and a difficult time finding dedicated individuals to serve as
our Senators is because there is a perception that they do not matter and that the
Assembly does not support them. I am asking you to support your elected officials.
However, affect aside, I believe that by investing in this relationship, we stand to gain a
useful ally at a national level. By being an active member at the forefront of the NAGPS,
we stand to benefit from shared knowledge of best practices of student governance. If this
does not seem like it matters, consider this entire report. Look at all of the possible
changes we are looking to make. We need data, and we need organizational knowledge
which we simply do not have. I contend that this relationship will strengthen our position
as graduate students within the SUNY system. I am asking the Assembly to think about
this relationship in the long term. We cannot thrive as a graduate student government so
long as we are only known for printing. Although immediate services offered are
important, we need to think about ways that we can make being a graduate student in the
SUNY system better for future students. It is our responsibility to seek out what we do
not like, and make it better for the future.
APPENDIX
Table 1. YTD GSA expenses.
EXPENSES AS OF 9/25/2014
Services
Room Reservations
RGSO Awards
Grant Awards
Contigency Budget (at 5% of projected revenue)
GSA Welcome / End Year Events
Operations
BASE
AWARDS
180,020.00
2,000.00
35,000.00
35,000.00
9,020.00
4,000.00
SURPLUS
AWARDS
36,500.00
0.00
5,000.00
10,000.00
0.00
0.00
Contractual Goods and Services
Liability and Theft Insurance
2,000.00
Printer Contract / Lease
20,000.00
Software Purchase / Renewal (Office / Antivirus)
500.00
Noncontracual Costs
Paper
6,000.00
Office Supplies / Expenses
3,000.00
Phone and Fax
500.00
Water
1,500.00
Officer Stipends
Stipend - President
4,500.00
Stipend - Vice President
3,500.00
Stipend - Treasurer
3,500.00
Stipend - MCAA Chair
3,000.00
Stipend - Programming Chair
3,000.00
Stipend - Grants Chair
3,000.00
Stipend - Lead Senator
1,000.00
Stipend - Senators
1,500.00
TOTAL
AWARDED
216,520.00
2,000.00
40,000.00
45,000.00
9,020.00
4,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,000.00
20,000.00
500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6,000.00
3,000.00
500.00
1,500.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4,500.00
3,500.00
3,500.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
PAID
SUBTOTALS
18,744.31
100,020
0.00
7,906.69
2,771.49
3,295.00
0.00
1840.20
80,400
22,500
1,962.54
4,783.95
2,821.41
0.00
11,000
0.00
1,149.55
653.34
285.35
211.86
23,400
562.50
2,875.00
437.50
437.50
375.00
375.00
375.00
125.00
187.50
University Council Representative
Assembly Speaker
Office Managers
ITS Consultant
Professional Development
NAGPS
Strategic Plan Funding - President
Strategic Plan Funding - MCAA Chair
Strategic Plan Funding - Programming
Strategic Plan Funding - Vice President
Strategic Plan Funding - Treasurer
0.00
0.00
Administrative Support
23,000.00
500.00
0.00
4,500.00
4,500.00
6,000.00
0.00
0.00
200.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
2,500.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
10,000.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
200.00
200.00
23,000.00
500.00
2,500.00
7,500.00
7,500.00
16,000.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
0.00
0.00
2,028.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23,500
2,028.12
36,500
0.00
Vice President’s Report
10-10-14 Assembly Meeting
RGSO Funding and Recognition
• I received and my Committee recognized and allocated funding to 28 RGSOs for the Fall
Semester.
• After the RGSO Committee went through their first round of allocation reviews, we had
allocated over the 45% of the RGSO budget allocated for this semester. Seeing that the
Committee had chosen not to fund certain events due to lack of justification or specific
information regarding how the money was to be spent, the Committee decided to reduce
the allotment for each RGSO by 10%, split as evenly as possible across each groups
events, to reserve some money for appeals since they expected to get a few.
• If your RGSO submitted any requests for Spring 2015 events, you did not receive funding
because the RGSO Committee is only allocating for the Fall semester at this time. You
can request funding for those events when you submit your recognition and funding
application in the Spring.
Remember: Items purchases with GSA money, such as sports equipment, chairs, reusable
decorations, or any other items, become property of the GSA and must be returned to the GSA
office prior to your voucher being processed for reimbursement. Be sure to get a receipt from the
Office Manager when you return items as proof.
RGSO Training
• We held three RGSO Trainings and two make ups
o Wednesday, September 17th 9-10pm, HU Amphitheater Downtown
o Thursday, September 18th 3-4 pm and 4-5pm, GSA Office Uptown
o Monday, September 29th, 12:30-1:30 and 1:30-2:30
• Almost all RGSOs who were recognized and received funding have attended a training
• At training we covered many things including
o RGSO Requirements
o RGSO Benefits
o RGSO Events – what to do before and after
o Voucher Submission Process
o The New Strike System for failure to fulfill required documentation for
reimbursement
• RGSOs also received their funding award letters at this training.
Tax Exempt Reminder: We are not able to reimburse an individual for tax already spent so if
you purchase something from PC then submit receipts for reimbursements you cannot get the tax
back. This is tax law and an individual cannot use a tax exempt card for this purpose. If you
are contracting with someone you can use a tax exempt number and not pay the tax.
Committee Service: Please check with your RGSO E-board to see if they have been contacted
about committee service. If not, please let me know and I will get in contact with them about
their committee.
Remember:
• Please send all GSA related e-mails to gsavp@albany.edu not my personal Albany account.
• RGSO Presidents need to send Caitlin their suggestions for Faculty Committee Service so
she can make informed suggestions for faculty to serve on faculty committees through the
Governance Counsel.
• Send all listserv announcements to gsapr@albany.edu.
Programming Chair Report – Hanna Marie Pageau





Senator and Assembly Member Appreciation Reception
o After the Assembly Meeting today
Co-Sponsored the Bill McKibben talk with Sustainability
Guerilla Programming
o Senator Ben stood outside of a recent campus event with signs protesting against the bill
HR-3393 which would revoke the Life Long Learning credit for graduate student’s
tuition.
Up-coming Programming
o More guerilla-style involvement on campus over the next few months.
o Holiday canned food drive (November)
o Co-sponsoring ISSS Thanksgiving Dinner
Efforts towards getting our ‘big speaker’ for the year
o E-mails are going out (or have by the time of the meeting) to inquire into prices and
availability for several speakers.
Grants Report – Kim Berg
The Grants Committee is in the process of evaluating applications and will be finishing those around
October 7. Shortly after, award letters will be going out and grantees can begin to submit their
reimbursement paperwork. The Grants Chair asks the assembly representatives to relay this information
to their constituents who may have applied for a grant during Fall 2014.
MCAA Chair – Amani Edwards
This summer, I was becoming more acclimated to the position of MCAA chair and continuing to
learn more about the GSA. My summer activities were minimal, however I did develop a plan
and agenda for what I want to accomplish this year. This plan includes,
1. Begin ISSS outreach by the beginning of the semester
2. Begin a draft of the semesters schedule of events
a. Thanksgiving meal
b. Various cultural/spiritual/etc. holidays
c. Possibly get the GSA word out in ISSS
3. Push the name change suggested by the GSA
4. Look at speakers to bring in
a. Preacher Moss – funny and insightful
b. Tim Wise – funny, insightful, expensive
c. Black Jew Dialogues – amazing, not sure if they are still touring
5. Review the budget and make sure everything is being appropriated wisely.
As a member of the diversity council, I have begun developing an agenda for that. However, due
to a scheduling conflict, I am not able to personally sit in the meetings, but I have held interviews
to pick a proxy that will sit in the meetings for me and report back. The proxy is Fusun Sahin
from the Educational Psychology department. These interviews were completed Tuesday
September 2, 2014. The agenda for the diversity council includes
1. More graduate student representation and events
2. Expanding our ideas of what diversity is – e.g. more than just race and gender
3. Faculty hirings/alumni panels for graduate students.
Recently, I have formed my MCAA committee. The members are Tiara Xiao, GSA President
Caitlin, Lauren Benz, Hirah Mir, and Tejas Rao. Our first meeting will be October 6th and will
commence every other Monday from then until December 4th.
President’s Report – Caitlin Janiszewski
Community/Public Engagement – We had our first major public engagement meeting of the year. I
gave a snapshot report to the Deans and Vice Presidents of what we do that is publicly engaged. I
characterized our public engagement in two ways – our community service and programming that is
executed by our RGSOs and programming committee each year and our new efforts to see the advocacy
branch of our student government as something which should engage with the entities and movements
external to the University. I gave them the example of our participation in the Legislative Action Days
through NAGPS and our work with the EIO on the Ban the Box Campaign. There are two primary issues
on the table for Public Engagement right now and that is finalizing assessment mechanisms. I have
convinced the Public Engagement people that having graduate student report public engagement through
Myinvolvement is a dead end and we are instead going to be surveyed with professional staff and
contingent faculty. They are piloting that survey soon. The other issue is communication. It is clear that
the President and the Public Engagement committee want to shift our sense of identity to be an institution
which is publicly engaged. I made the point that in order for the GSA to play a meaningful role in this
project we need better communication mechanisms instead of just blast email messages and an opt in
listserv. A final point that I have articulated to some involved in Public Engagement is that there will have
to be an incentive for graduate students (or anybody) to buy into this identity. It will have to be
meaningful and value for us, not just be imposed. After the public meetings over the summer and my
observations and communications with this committee I have emphasized to key people that constructing
and framing public engagement in a way that it supports graduate students in terms of professional
development is critical. I am trying to emphasize to them that graduate students face a job crisis and the
community’s understanding of public engagement could be leveraged to help us network in the
community. This is an evolving conversation and I will keep you posted.
President’s Forum – I had a conversation with the Vice President for Student Success and she indicated
to me that President Jones intends to only have one President’s Forum this year for only graduate students
and separate one only for undergraduates. The time frame will again be 90 minutes but it will not be split
with undergraduates. We are trying to nail down a time in late February or early March. I have
emphasized that Thursdays and Fridays after 5 pm are preferable to accommodate graduate students who
work full time and those who are taking classes Monday through Wednesday. I will keep you posted on
these developments.
SUNY SA – The SUNY SA Fall Conference is approaching fast. I am using my discretionary budget to
send a proxy to represent us. I am sending Ben Mielenz one of our GSA Senators. He may present on the
Ban the Box issue as a way of raising awareness about the campaign and taking questions and concerns to
help form our resolution for the spring conference.
GOV – I want to thank all the RGSOs who responded to my request for faculty recommendation sheets to
help me do my duties on GOV. To clarify to anyone who may have been worried about what I was asking
for; my suggesting of your faculty for these committees ties them to absolutely nothing. They can reject
any request at any time. Service on these councils and committees is already an expectation of faculty in
order to be promoted. By recommending them to me, you are providing the opportunity for me to
empower them by suggesting them for important search committees like for our new provost or to serve
an honors college board, or the UAS board. These are positions they cannot get unless they are nominated
by this council. I do not usually recommend names very often on GOV because I do not know all of your
faculty very well. But your recommendation sheets will mostly help me vote in an informed way once
people have been nominated by someone else on GOV. I still have to vote on these slates of people
regardless of whether I recommended or not. I could abstain but I’d prefer that graduate students play a
role in forming these important committees. We can refine this mechanism over time.
Committees and councils- Speaking of service, if anyone has not received their council and committee’s
assignments for the semester or year please talk to me. Reminder, if you are on a non-GSA committee,
such as a Senate council or a campus-wide committee you must send a report after your meetings or your
committee service will not be counted. It is important that we have open lines of communication on these
committees. Otherwise it is a waste of everyone’s time.
President and Interim Provost Reports at Senate meetings – President Jones is looking into a
"strategic alignments" with Albany Law (and perhaps downstate medical) as we pursue one of his "stakes
in the ground" which is seeks to "expand our academic footprint". Albany Law would be financially
independent but an academic unit at Albany. Also on the agenda for “expanding our footprint” is the roll
out of a Computer Engineering program next fall which sets the stage for the development of a College of
Science and Engineering. The President suggested that he has no intention of these expansions
“cannibalizing” other programs but we await details on how he expects to construct these affiliations. Our
former Provost Susan Phillips is in charge of brokering these special affiliations with Albany Law and/or
Downstate medical. My sense is that this is an issue we should talk more about in this assembly and
consider making part of our agenda to talk to the President about at the President’s Forum. I also believe
that we should include the question of how graduate students fit in the President’s vision of community
engagement and his strategy of reciprocity. The interim Provost, Tim Mulcahy has so far brought a great
energy to Senate and Public Engagement meetings. He is one of the first administrators that I have heard
specifically breakdown graduate students as a meaningful and important constituency. In the past we have
been absorbed into “students” and overshadowed by our young undergraduate friends. I will be meeting
with Dr. Mulcahy on October 20th to discuss graduate student issues with him. He has made a couple of
things very clear this past month: 1 – he is not applying for the Provost position (to protect the integrity of
the search) and 2- that he intends to move this University forward this year, not just act as a placeholder.
Some of you may have heard the news the President has put the interim Provost in charge of reconsidering GTA stipends.
Offices – The downtown office is open!!! And the uptown office is slowly getting its makeover.
NAGPS LAD – Given that I have already expressed my support for us investing in the NAGPS I will
refrain from commenting on the Legislative Action Days, and offer Ryan Gregoire and Kathryn Procknal
a chance to speak on their experience at the meeting. My only comment is to say that I strongly believe
we should continue participating in their programs.
Lead Senator Report – Klil Neori
Dear Assembly representatives,
The first Senate meeting seems to have gone on well in my absence. Highlights included:
President Jones's report focused on the Albany Law cooperation, as discussed by our President.
The Interim Provost's report focused on the CNSE to SUNY IT transition timeline, to which Senators
were generally favorable.
The Senate Chair's report related that President Jones has signed approval for Graduate Certificate
Programs in International Health and Human Rights, and in Teaching Composition, which were
previously voted on by the Senate, as well as an undergraduate major in Biomedical Instrumentation.
Letters of intent for a new major in Human Development, and more importantly for the College of
Science and Engineering, one in Computer Engineering, have been drafted and were approved by UPPC,
as that Council reported later.
SUNY Senators' report: The Fall Plenary Session of the University Faculty Senate will be at SUNY-ESF
in Syracuse, Oct 23-25. Elaboration on issues to come later. SUNY Office of Diversity and Inclusion and
the UFS will host “Making Diversity Count: Ensuring Equity, Inclusion, Access and Impact” on Nov 1213 at Albany Marriot, 189 Wolf Road, Albany. More information can be found on the website:
www.suny.edu/makingdiversitycount.
SA report: Included status of various events. Those which to me seem to be of interest to GSA groups are
the National Coming Out Reception and Festivities, with Reception on Oct 23, as well as National
Diversity/LGBTQ History Month, where they are still planning events with Multicultural Affairs. They
also have media contacts, including with the Times Union, which is worth considering for future
cooperation.
Councils and committees:
CAA: Our representative was put on the Academic Program Review Committee.
CoR: The meeting focused on addressing disagreements regarding faculty awards last year. The
Committee resolved to make the process faster and more transparent, so as to make it easier for faculty to
apply for them, and plan accordingly. Both Senator Tucker and myself were placed on the Subcommittee
for Graduate Research Grants, while I was also put on the Committee on Research and Governance
Issues.
CPCA: Reports low representation from the Sciences, wishes to rectify through recruitment.
GAC: Already had planning meeting on Sep 9 which did not include our representatives. Standing
committees were formed and have had chairs elected. Expecting full docket this year, including new and
changed graduate programs and grievances.
GOV: Covered by our President.
UAC: Committees already organized, agenda approved. Approved change of major name from Public
Policy and Administration to Public Policy and Management. Several Gen Ed plans were approved,
others returned to departments for revision. Competencies plan approved for Environment Sciences
major.
UPPC: Interim provost Dr. Timothy Mulcahy was introduced, Sue Philips (former Provost) updated on
the transition of CNSE to SUNY IT. Approved initial proposals for Computer Engineering and Human
Development majors, as discussed above.
CAFFECoR, CERS, LISC, ULC: Nothing to report. We do need a new representative for LISC.
I reiterate my encouragement of Assembly and GSA members to get in touch with me, whether through
email, or through my office hours, if they wish to share any concerns they believe can be addressed
through the Senate.
UAS Report – Lisa Cassidy
- Stephen Pearse (Executive Director) reviewed the status of some services on campus and
indicated that the Hydration Zone has been a success. There are some functional things that need
to be fixed but they are well used up to this point. They are also changing from paper to plastic
cups because it will not only be cheaper but also be more in line with the idea of the hydration
zone, which is to discourage the purchase of bottles water.
-We also talked a bit about infrastructure changes with the new campus center coming in.
Apparently, students will not be able to use their meal plan to swipe into the campus center
anymore. There are a lot of issues surrounding this so they may designate a small "Meal Plan"
committee to handle these issues until construction ends and the transition to the new addition is
complete.
-The company, Argo Tea, is going to be added to the dining options in the Campus Center
- Apparently, CoccaDotts is doing extremely well. People buy the cupcakes for staff meetings
and such.
-One of the student board members went on a bunch of tours of other universities to check out
their dining services and will be giving a presentation on that at the next meeting.
University Council Rep – Nothing Reported