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 Article II: Proposals Section 0 – GSA Resolution Decertifying the CHE Café be Rescinded and Dispute Resolution Requested on May 20, 2014 be Granted According to the Graduate Student Bill of Rights and general principals of fairness and in light of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.