Student Life: No report. Allocations: No report. 13 requests were reviewed at the last allocations meeting. All but three were approved. The committee is experiencing some “growing pains” with regard to forms in that groups continue to use old forms. Of the $33,514 requested, $20,915 were approved, some of them pending proper identification numbers and updated constitutions and audit forms from pervious years. Problems encountered included exclusivity (uncertainty as to whether or not the function was open to the campus or just to the organization requesting funding), beauty contests (they are not allowed), and pending paperwork, as mentioned above. Also, sports clubs was somewhat problematic in that their initial allocation was equal to other groups, but they are not eligible for the $3500 for which other groups are eligible. There was question about providing equity of funds throughout all four quarters, the issue being that all funding should not be allocated during the fall quarter so that there is not enough to fund requests throughout the year. This is not a steadfast rule on the committee, but is being evaluated as they go. It was requested that the Allocations committee provide a handout with some concrete numbers in their report next week regarding activities funding, amounts requested, amounts approved, amounts received, how this fits into the bigger CSA picture. Subcommittee A: As a regional campus issue, the Student Activities fee was discussed. ¼ of this year’s fee comes from incoming first-year students and ¾ from the President. As per last week’s discussion, this brings into question whether or not regional campus students are eligible for fee-funded events. Since they don’t pay the fee, it seems they would not be eligible. Also, in and effort to help promote a sense of campus community on regional campuses, the subcommittee wonders about the idea of implementing an “activities fee” for regional students. Also of concern is the problem of students transitioning from regional campuses to the Columbus campus in that Orientation does not seem to be meeting the needs of regional campus students. Subcommittee B: A handout, “CSA SUBCOMMITTEE B” was distributed
listing the brainstormed ideas of the subcommittee with regard to marketing
for the division of Student Life. While each item was not discussed, highlighted
items included: A question was asked about the results of the survey conducted about he Ohio Union. Tracy Stuck was in charge of this survey and not present to field questions. IPC: Nidhi Gupta reported on behalf of IPC that their organizational and diversity retreat was held in August. There are four internal committees to IPC, which include 1) outreach; 2) service; 3) diversity; 4) social. Upcoming events include flu shots, Big-Brother/Big-Sister Halloween event, canned goods drive during an IPC party, and the diversity committee is working on compiling a list of student organizations in professional schools that have something to do with diversity and brining those folks together to collaborate on some activities and events. CGS: Kerry Hodak and Jamie Depelteau reported on behalf of CGS. Approval was sought from the delegate body for the priorities for the year, such as health insurance and a resolution to sponsor coverage for sponsored dependents, as well as GA subsidies, including the health insurance subsidy. Events included the CGS Welcome Week Picnic, which was transitioned into the Union due to rain. Turn-out was good. USG: Frank Sasso reported on USG activities. They have met with OIT folks to discuss the portion of student fees that will be dedicated to student technology. Beginning in the Registrar’s Office, they would like undergraduate students would like to see the money shifted directly to the colleges for a greater direct impact. Fall sports fest is in the works for the weekend of the Michigan game. Student teams may preregister or register on site. A question was raised to ask if USG had considered sharing transportation with LateNight activities that are scheduled during the same time frame. New BusinessSponsored Dependents: The issue of insurance coverage for sponsored dependents was discussed at length. Some of the history on the matter includes the events of last year when several concerned groups on campus, including the student governments, were told that domestic partner benefits would be included in changes to be put in place for the coming year (this year). Some have heard that the university cannot provide domestic partner benefits because OSU is a state institution and other state employees don’t have this type of coverage. The point was then made that OSU has been established in the past as a separate system from the state employee system. The question was asked as to whether or not CSA wanted to ask for a separate plan for students, recognizing that it would likely not happen for faculty and staff. In response the point was made that there is a larger issue, here, and all three contingencies should stick together to provide a unite front, faculty, staff, and students. Other reasons heard for domestic partner benefits not having passed this year are that the insurance company wouldn’t allow it for students (this was determined to be false, as it has been supported by the student health insurance committee for several years) and that it is “an election year” (but the point was made that it is always either “an election year” or “a budget year”, both of which are growing old as excuses at this point). One student raised the idea that it might be a good idea to pass a resolution for students as a means of chipping away at the larger issue, but the response to this was not as favorable in that the narrowing of the market would not narrow the excuses made against the idea of domestic partnership coverage; in other words, the argument against it remains the same, larger issue alluded to earlier. The last comment here was in support of the belief that the three campus contingencies (students, faculty, and staff) should stick together. The point was added that there are certain other politically hot topics that are also not covered for state employees, such as abortion services. Another point was made about the use of “domestic partner” versus “sponsored dependent.” USAC Passed a resolution regarding “sponsored dependents” as this is a concern for university staff. The chair is willing to draft two resolutions for review next time; one in support of domestic partner coverage and the other in support of USACs resolution for sponsored dependent coverage. The observation was made that any CSA resolutions are required to go through University Senate, so this resolution should be put into place soon. In answer to the question of whether or not CSA would be allowed knowledge of the actual proposal that was put before the board, we are not. It has been handled confidentially. A motion was heard and seconded to compose a resolution and carried unanimously.
It was requested that contextual information be included in the language of
the resolution (i.e. the stance of other benchmark and big-10 institutions,
other corporations and industry, etc.). Also, the request was heard for “less
extreme” language then was contained within the last resolution regarding
free speech. As well, the Council requested an opportunity to review the resolutions
prior to the meeting on November 4th. One more item included the reminder to
consider the elements at play and to remember who it is that we are really
trying to communicate to; tailor the language accordingly 
|
|
Last modified on: Monday, June 30, 2008 1:11:08 PM If you have trouble accessing this page and need to request an alternate format, please contact the Student Life web development team.
|
| |
© 2008, Office of Student Life. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
