The CHE Cafe Collective has reviewed the Draft Proposal of the GSAUCSD Ad Hoc CHE
Committee. As our response, and because it now seems likely that the GSA committee and the
AS committee will jointly develop a single proposal for both councils to adopt, we incorporate
by reference our proposed amendments to the AS Committee's Draft Proposal (attached), and we
offer the following comments specifically addressing the current Draft GSA Proposal.
GSAUCSD Ad Hoc CHE Committee Proposal
Article I: Purpose
The CHE Committee Proposal (Proposal), submitted by the CHE Ad Hoc Committee under
the Graduate Student Association at the University of California, San Diego (GSAUCSD),
details recommended actions regarding the Cheap Healthy Eats Cafe (CHE Cafe) and
associated Collective (CHE Collective).
Article II: Proposals
Section 0 – GSA Resolution Decertifying the CHE Café be Rescinded and Dispute Resolution
Requested on May 20, 2014 be Granted
According to the Graduate Student Bill of Rights and general principals of fairness and in light
of new information gathered and provided to the GSAUCSD since the resolution, this resolution
cannot stand due to factual inaccuracies and interference with process and representation by
University administration and campus counsel.
Graduate students who are in support of the CHE Café or who are members of the Cooperative
were not provided fair notice or opportunity for governance in the University in this regard
without the coercion of administration and staff.
Further, when dispute resolution was requested, a primary responsibility of the GSAUCSD under
both its own governing documents and the Cooperatives Master Space Agreement lease it was
ignored and denied.
The Bill of Rights provides:
e in fair governance of the University.
a. The graduate student population reserves the right to form and maintain a governing body
that is free from coercion.
b. Graduate students should have representatives on all campus-wide administrative
committees that affect graduate students, with voting privileges where appropriate
according to the guidelines of shared governance.
c. The graduate student representative body should be given charges to these committees
once a year and be informed when new committees are formed.
d. All departments and graduate programs should include graduate student representatives
in the decision-making process where appropriate.
-faith consultation and mediation if their rights are
infringed.
a. Students with grievances should be given the opportunity for full-faith consultation and
mediation before actions are taken against them.
b. Students deserve to defend themselves at the hearings.
The GSAUCSD should grant and not ignore the CHE Café’s request for dispute resolution. The
underlying matters directly pertained to and led up to the lease termination. The CHE Café is
entitled either a reinstatement and grant of the option to renew the Master Space Agreement
lease, a renegotiation or the lease, or a full and fair hearing on the issues of dispute which caused
the “GSA decertification resolution” directly led to the termination of the CHE’s lease by the
University.
Section 1 -New Lease Agreement Interim and Long-term
GSAUCSD supports and will sign with ASUCSD and the Cooperatives a new Master Space
Agreement lease and urge the UCSD administration to sign it on behalf of the Regents.
GSAUCSD recognizes the value not only of the tremendous student support the CHE Café
currently commands but also what it has provided for students academically and in its diversity,
particularly for students in historically underrepresented groups in the near 40 years of existence
and it’s improvements and connection to that space. Therefore, GSAUCSD proposes a long-term
ground lease of the facility to the CHE Café non-profit as in the best interest of all graduate
students, particularly the students from historically under represented groups.
Without any lease in existence which provides for and prescribes dispute resolution or other
rights of the GSAUCSD as to the CHE Café facility, the space is not a graduate student property
under the GSAUCSD Constitutional jurisdiction and the GSAUCSD has no authority to form a
committee or enact any regulation, appoint any officer or representative, or create any role for
itself as supervisory or ombudsman between the cooperatives and the University.
Section 2 – Alternative Proposal to 4C Committee and Other Additional Proposed
Responsibilities
The GSAUCSD is charged in its Constitution with representing the interests of graduate students
at the University. Therefore, the CHE Cafe Collective feels it more proper for the GSAUCSD to
have representation in the Cooperative Union or at the CHE Café meetings rather than the other
way around.
To address the Proposals in the GSA Committee's item 2.2, the CHE Café has and is open to
other uses of the space and reservations and programming by other individuals and groups and it
has occurred. However, there is a simple and standard internal process for making such requests.
The facility has been leased to the CHE Café. Like any commercial tenant situation, the CHE
Café as a non-profit corporate entity is responsible for the lease terms and for any subleasing or
uses of the space. That would not properly be the purview of any other organization or
committee, though the membership has always been open and welcoming of proposals for events
and use. The radio station has hosted events there, Darkstar was housed in the facility and hosted
events, plays were put on and poetry readings occurred on the initiative of individuals who
proposed such events. Please take the approach and regard towards this entity and facility that
you would the La Jolla Playhouse. Both are very similar in that they are arts and music
performance spaces with adjoining cafes. What is the role that the GSAUCSD is taking up with
the Playhouse in representing graduate student interests there?
Further, as to draft Proposal 1.2, the University is claiming it does not have money for repairs of
the CHE facility, therefore the CHE Café finds it impractical and unwise to propose additional
staff members to supervise and liaise with the Cooperatives unless those persons be staff to carry
out upgrades and repairs or unless they be cooperative members or an independent party that
would manage and supervise compliance with lease and other legal obligations. It is
unreasonable to encumber full-time students who are already volunteering in their running the
Cooperatives with additional requirements and responsibilities without pay, which in itself is a
full-time endeavor. The University staff and GSA cannot reasonably expect students to fulfill
meeting and other compliance requirements without pay that would equal more than one fulltime job on a volunteer basis. This is the real source of many of the miscommunications, defaults
and problems. The regulation requirements, excessive meetings and other obligations are
unreasonable if not compensated or otherwise accounted for in the time requirements and
expense.
Clear delineations of responsibilities, powers and obligations should be properly set forth in a
new lease to the cooperatives as to the Cooperatives being accountable to the student body.
UC Davis encountered from 2010-2012 a similar situation with its Cooperative Dome Housing at
Baggins End. Student Government and the University resolved the matter of liability concerns
and expensive upgrades and repairs it claimed were necessary through a simple lease of the
facilities to a housing non-profit, who would take on the property management role and operate
as a better ombudsman and broker of the relationship between the students at the Domes and the
University. The CHE Café believes this provides a superior model to what the GSAUCSD is
currently proposing. While the CHE Café itself is a non-profit and could be leased to directly, the
Beyster Institute, National Association of Student Cooperatives Organization (NASCO), US
Federation of Worker Cooperatives, CO-Fed, the Democracy at Work Institute or the California
Center for Cooperative Development, or other non-profit cooperative organizations could also be
involved as far better positioned and equipped organizations to fill the role of supervisory,
compliance and management and dispute resolution brokers.
Section 3 - Find out what the University and Legal Safety Requirements Are
The CHE Café will comply and continue to operate within all legal safety regulations. The CHE
Café is legally safe as acknowledged by the Fire Marshall and administrators Ratcliff and
Gonzalez that it is safe and approved for occupancy up to 170 people inside and 49 people in the
courtyard. The GSAUCSD proposes to allow programming and occupancy until any
maintenance work, repairs or upgrades are funded and begin.
If the University disagrees with the facility being safe for occupancy it will provide a legal or
non-arbitrary, non-discretionary basis for the safety mandates upon which they are attempting to
assert and impose compliance with and a certification or written proof from the Fire Marshall or
other appropriate authority charged to deem such so.
The University will be required to abide by the State and local fire and building regulations
which it has adopted and apply them uniformly as well as obey and follow all UC policy and
procedures.