Docstoc

May Board of Directors Meeting

Document Sample
May Board of Directors Meeting Powered By Docstoc
					May Board of Directors Meeting
May 5, 2007
Call to order @ 9:51 am

Roll Call
AS Berkeley--
GSA Berkeley--
GSA Davis--
AS Santa Barbara--here
GSA Santa Barbara--here
AS Santa Cruz--here
GSA Santa Cruz--here
AS San Francisco--here
GSA San Francisco--here
AS Merced
GSA Merced
AS LA
GSA LA--here
AS Irvine--here
AGS Irvine--here
AS Riverside--here
GSA Riverside--here
AS San Diego--here
GSA San Diego--here
Hastings--

Approval of Agenda
Amendments
Christine: Motion to approve
Rob: Second.

Approval of Minutes
Vera: motion to approve
Ahnika: second
Report Backs
President
Board Chair
Secretary
Grad and Prof
UA
--talking about the UC Regents Meeting

LA
--conference call about new bill
--debrief

CAC
--two conference calls
--recruitment for WOCC

Staff
Vera: motion to move it to tomorrow morning
Todd: second.

Exec
--committee agendas
--talked about systemwide committes
--meet later for steering committees

Campus Report
GSA UCLA
--new evp, recruiting LL and COD
--some continuation from the board
--May week of action: letter writing campaign and passing the budget

AS Riverside
--elections are over
--working on may week of action
--call in day
--rally

AS SB
--planning for week of action
--planning for Congress
GSA SB
--nothing to report
AS SC
--elections don‟t start until the 15th
--letter writing and call ins this Wednesday and Thursday

GSA SC
--elections
--passed the UCSA budget
--meeting with the police for police issues

AS SD
--in the process of planning for week of action

GSA SD
--working on housing for the Graduate population

AS SF
--had elections: all but two positions filled
--passed the UCSA budget

GSA SF
--passed the UCSA budget
--running a referendum to increase campus life fee

GSA Berkeley
--passed the budget


NRT Proposal Update
--Ahnika gives report
--powerpoint presentation

Foadd: 5 minute recess
Christi: Second.

**another change to agenda: leg update moved to 10:20, may week of
action moved to 10:40

Leg Update (Courtney)
--policy deadline   was April 30th: any fiscal bill that we‟ve taken a
position on is in   the transition committee now
--talked about AB   540 in committee meetings and conference calls
--hopefully we‟ll   be seeing a fee buy out or at least a fee buy down
--will be sending   out a bills list every week

Bill: does that mean a lot of the focus and pressure is toward the end
of this month
Courtney: yes.
May Week of Action: Don‟t Gamble Your Future Away
RUN THROUGH MATERIALS IN THE PACKET
--targets: Nunez
--Ruth is going to be sending out another voter voice

GRAD/PROFESSIONAL ROLE
--ideas and tips

--for the call-in day: must track
--call-in logs on clipboards
--letters: being written to Senator Scott
--may 11th due

Ruth: Berkeley had their press release and was actually featured in Fox
News
Amanda: during report backs after campus breakouts you‟ll say what your
goals are

New Business (Discussion)
Andy: motion to move leg bills to first
Second
Courtney: I just sent out an email with the leg bills that we will be
discussing about it earlier

      UCSA LEGISLATIVE IMPACT FORM (AB 1540)
UCSA Board Member Information
Legislative Committee Member: Dorothy Young
          Campus Association: UCSD AS

Basic Legislation Information
            Bill Author/House: Assemblymember Karen Bass
                 Bill Number: AB 1540
                    Bill Title: Student Financial Aid: Cash for College Program
                Fiscal Impact: Yes         No
                               Existing law establishes the California Student Aid
                               Commission as the official agency for overseeing
                               financial aid programs in California. The Cal Grant
                Existing Law: program in all forms, APLE programs and financial
                               aid relations with schools are all managed by CSAC.
                               The Cash for College program is not currently in
                               state statute.

UCSA Summary
                                 This bill establishes the “Cash for College” Program
           What the Bill Does:
                                 in state statute. It provides $3,000,000 annually, to
                               be distributed by the Student Aid Commission, for
                               programming and expansion of the Cash for College
                               program in more communities to serve more
                               families. The Cash for College program was
                               developed by chambers of commerce, elected
                               leaders and other community members to provide
                               first generation and other potential college applicants
                               that are unfamiliar with the financial aid bureaucracy
                               assistance in filling out financial aid applications,
                               education about how financial aid is packaged, types
                               of loans available for types of borrowers, and other
                               issues related to the financial aid system. Bilingual
                               assistance is also provided in many communities.
                               This program could increase the amount of
                               applicants for both state and federal sponsored
              Possible Impact:
                               financial aid, and therefore increase college going
                               rates.
               Related Issues: Cal Grant, Student Financial Aid, Access

UCSA Board Recommendation
       Staff Recommendation: Support
   Committee Recommendation:
       Board Recommendation:

Courtney: Allocates $3 million each year and put it into state statue.
This bill puts the program into state statue
No discussion.



      UCSA LEGISLATIVE IMPACT FORM (AB 1652)
UCSA Board Member Information
Legislative Committee Member:
                             `

Basic Legislation Information
            Bill Author/House: Assemblymember Sally Lieber
                 Bill Number: AB 1652
                    Bill Title: Student Financial Aid
                Fiscal Impact: Yes         No
                               Private loans are regulated at the federal level. This
                               bill is written in response to the recent allegations of
                Existing Law: New York loan officers accepting bribes, etc. from
                               loan companies in exchange for offering specified
                               loan packages for students.

UCSA Summary
                               This bill expresses findings and declaration of the
                               legislature to more closely follow and regulate the
                               private loan industry as it relates to California
                               students. It acknowledges that private loans are an
                               important source of educational funding for
                               California students. It will require the legislative
                               analysts office (LAO) to report to the legislature by
                               January 2008 on the federal investigations regarding
           What the Bill Does:
                               unlawful payments to student loan personnel and
                               any new laws and regulations regarding payments,
                               gifts or other issues being implemented or attempted.
                               It will also require the professional associations that
                               represent student loan personnel to present to the
                               Assembly committee on Higher Education and the
                               Senate Committee on Education by January 1, 2008
                               on the Ethical Standards currently in place.
                               The bills goal is to shed light on ethical standards
                               and current actions taking place in the student loan
             Possible Impact:
                               industry in California, and to keep the state on par
                               with investigations going on at the federal level.
              Related Issues: Financial Aid, Student Loan Debt

UCSA Board Recommendation
       Staff Recommendation: Support
  Committee Recommendation:
       Board Recommendation:

Foadd: so there‟s been this issue that‟s sort of been blown wide open
with Senator Kennedy investigating loans. Essentially what‟s been
happening is they‟ve been using their marketing loans to get to
students. New Jersey is being investigated currently. There‟s an
article in the New York Times today. We should support it for leverage
over it.

Courtney: requires legislative analyst‟s office

Andy: motion for a 5 minute recess
Vera: second.
Call back to order at 10:51am
UCSA Resolution #46 – Unite UCSA/CSSA Leg Conferences (Shiebler)


RESOLUTION TO UNITE UCSA & CSSA LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCACY CONFERENCES FOR 2008
                              By: Bill Shiebler


WHEREAS: Every year the California State Student Association and the
University of California Student Association host a Legislative focused
conference in Sacramento; and


WHEREAS: the mission and work of the California State Student Association
and the University of California Student Association are very similar; and


WHEREAS: the California State Student Association and the University of
California Student Association have a great history of working together
toward ensuring access and affordability through legislative advocacy;
and


WHEREAS: there is a great need for UCSA and CSSA to work together in a
unified effort to strengthen the power and capacity of student organizing;
and


WHEREAS: if UCSA and CSSA’s Board of Directors commits to uniting the
two conferences on the same weekend in Sacramento then the staff and
board members of both organizations can begin planning and building
the success of the conference sooner; and


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: UCSA Staff, Student Lobby Conference
Planning Committee, and the Board of Directors work with the California
State Student Association to secure and host the 2008 annual Student
Lobby Conference on the same weekend as the CSSA California Higher
Education Summit (CHESS) conference as well as hosting the Student
Lobby Day with CSSA to ensure a greater and more unified presence in
Sacramento.

Bill proposes resolution
--gives us the ability to invite more people to events
--reach out to other advocacy organizations
--become more visible
--build more relationships

Foadd: does this have a potential in saving us money with speakers for
events, conferences?
Bill: possibly
Rob: my concern is it would be harder to schedule meeting time
Bill: I don‟t know if it would be harder and wherever it would overlap
then Courtney will work with them to incorporate it
Tina: how are we in transition for the next board?
Bill: the only way it will happen is we pick a day now for next board
and cssa board to do the same thing and we‟ll be in the same place
Liz: pick a date now now? Or nowww?
Bill: we can start looking for dates if this resolution passes
Teresa: I really like the idea of joining forces. If we have something
very crucial to have center stage or vice versa, how are we going to
handle
Bill: we‟re going to have to decide what our joint goals are during
that lobby day. President dynes and the governor are going to raise
fees again next year. So that maybe an issue that we can come together
on
Christi: where is CSSA on this?
Bill: I‟m not sure if they‟re going to pass it or not, but I did a
coalition workshop at their conference and
Gavi: is it really smart to have that one bigger event?
Bill: I think we‟d as an organization it doesn‟t change anything for us
because we have the leg conference anyway. I‟m under the philosophy
that we as students should bring more people up there.

Andy: motion to extend time
Rob: second.
Andy: friendly amendment for 5 minutes
Christi: second

Andy: great.
Louise: they did flake on what was their lobby day. We went and they
didn‟t.
Teresa: the idea of putting more people together it‟s a good thing.

Todd: motion to extend time 2 minutes
Ahnika: second

Todd: this needs to happen because making a joint day is the first step
to institutionalize this. The ball needs to start rolling.
Foaad: it can negative effects in this. Its possible that we put in a
lot more work on this, but I think it‟s a chance we should take.

Proposed Bylaw Changes-personnel policy changes
--there are 3 changes

Andy: motion to recess for 5 minutes
Christi: second.
Resume at 11:15am

Andy: motion to extend time 2 minutes
Christi: second.

Recess @ 11:18am
Louise: membership  strictly for knowing who will be voting with the
necessary papers. If you paid dues throughout the year then you can
vote at congress. Substitute voting, concerning elected members if the
voting member is not here. Funding in dues timely payment.   Goes
through the rest of the changes on sheet.

Discussion
Andy: motion to correct article
Foadd: point of clarification. Are we voting today?
Peter: keep the amendments effective.

Foadd: recess for 30 seconds.
Christi: second
Louise: back in order. Grammatical errors have them sent to Louise and
we‟ll bundle them.
Andy: there‟s a change made for board members to collaborate with
students on campus. It‟s not the staff‟s job to run
Peter: The reasons why that change was made because there‟s an adherent
conflict between campus organizations and UCSA. Granted they should be
working together but to say it‟s a requirement that campus
organizations should work on it, but if there‟s a term “collaborate”
then it would open it up more.
Gavi: im just a little bit confused by this. Is this to increase
collaboration with UCSA or something else?
Todd: it says it would recruit.
Gavi: board members having to work on UCSA‟s issues is already in the
bylaws, but the only change is to include staff
Andy: my concern is it will make board members unaccountable. Its an
issue of defining that role.
Dan: so you‟re not sure what collaborating means?
Andy: I‟m j
Peter: this doesn‟t take away from any board member the
responsibilities. This is purely providing an explicit definition
between staff and board members.
Bill: maybe you could include the clause, The responsibility of the
campaigns lies within the board.
Dorothy: could that clause say instead to make clear
Rob: would it be helpful that it‟s coordinate instead of collaborate
Andy: point of privilege.
Rob: would it help that it
Responsibility primarily to the board member
Gavi: it‟s not clear to me these are bylaws, I don‟t understand what
this adds to the bylaws. The staff is there to help us work with UCSA.
Foadd: maybe the board member votes for it but the campus doesn‟t
empower them to do so. So that‟s why
Todd: if you have recommended changes then we should do it now.
Rob: my concern is that undermines the coalition.
Ahnika: have all of these changes been compared to the charter
Louise: yes.

Andy: concern for “president responsibility to visit each member
association once per year added.” Concern that it will be a stretch
the president‟s. motion to strike article II, section C11.
Dorothy: strike
Ahnika: so, we need to pass all the amendments today.
Todd: object.

Louise: Moved into discussion
Todd: typically the president visits each campus every year. I think
its important that the Leg Councils of each organization so that there
is a face to the name.
Peter: this organization needs to do outreach to organizations. Talked
to bill already and seeing how that it already happens anyway, there
should be no reason to institutionalize it.
Long: I agree with everyone, but its placing, forcing a burden upon the
President anyway. People should be aware that the person has school
also.
Andy: straw poll of striking completely, no change, changing it to
strongly suggested
No change = 3
Striking completely = 5
If possible = 6

Christine S.: I disagree because I think that each President goes to
every organization already, but I think that
Bill: i strongly agree that board members should be built a
relationship with the organization.
Peter: point of information. No requirement to go to every single
meeting.
Ahnika: how strong effect shouldn‟t be used.
Peter: call to question to end discussion
Vote: 10-2-0
Discussion ended.

Vote to strike.
9-2-4
Motion carries.

Dorothy: creation of undergraduate and graduate action agenda. My
concern is it‟s divisive.
Andy: there have been issues with the grad committee… im not a graduate
student and it doesn‟t make sense to me to have half of the board of
directors meeting here and not have the other part available
Ahnika: the wording may be divisive and it needs to be changed so that
the two committees are working together. Even if their strengths are
different we need to make sure they are working together. We need to
also consider where staff resources are going to. I would like to
author something more specific between staff and board roles.
Long: This is divisive this shifts the responsibility onto undergrads.
We are supposed to be working collectively and this is not doing that.
Foadd: I think having a grad issue would really help turn out and raise
the stature of UCSA, which by the way it will not take the whole grad
Andy: I agree with Ahnika that it will be an issue if it comes out.
Point of clarification. Currently only seat this is a grad seat, but
an undergrad seat and grad seat will be appointed.
Peter: concern of it being divisive. It‟s divisive now, but we get
into this intense group setting that doesn‟t allow us to focus energy
on one thing. There‟s people in the grad realm that feel
disenfranchised.
Ahnika: I think its worth trying it out and if it doesn‟t work then
Rob: moved to close discussion after I state my comment.
Cindy: my problems are that the input behind this bylaw change makes
the assumption that UCSA does not do work that impact grad/prof
students. Read Naashaun‟s letter. Summarize it. I haven‟t seen much
work being done on the grad committee. Not all grad and prof students
feel the need for this. I came to UCSA because I was interested in it.
I just don‟t like the divide its creating. I do feel its important to
keep all organizations and change what it needs to. I think it sets a
very bad precedent if an organization.
Christine: yield for Brook.
Brook: I like to respond to Naashaun‟s letter. I had extensive
conversations with authors at Congress. I was told that the grad
diversity was not a part of the. It was an organizational decision,
responsible thing to do we‟re trying to let ucsa know.
Vera: its disenfranchising as a whole for one organization to say their
going to leave. We‟re not the power of 10 if we‟re not.
Brook: the reason AGs to consider a bylaw change is over 10 years of
records. It has to do with structural changes.
Ahnika: wants to amend that there will be discussion of both undergrad
and grad issues in the individual grad committees.
Liz: friendly amendment.
Ahnika: motion to amendment
Andy: second
Gavi: object
Discussion
Gavi: its not going to work because we only get one hour for committee
meetings and I think we should focus upon the object at hand.
Foadd: on this motion, in response to Gavi, us being conscious of the
action agenda items.
Danielle: agree with Ahnika. Inciting grads and undergrads
relationship.
Ahnika: the only thing is there is no specified time and it could be a
discussion. Grad committee this year dropped the ball and I‟m trying
to insure for next year that it doesn‟t happen again. Call to
question.
No objection.

Vote: 14-2-1
Motion carries.
Amendment added.

Rob: of course all the grads aren‟t going to be unified on a subject
that I know from personal experiences that we don‟t feel engaged. We
still think its worthwhile to
Hailey: I do agree there needs to be an action agenda for grads and
undergrads. I semi-agree with the formation of the committees said
that graduate and undergraduate issue is going to be discussed. Then I
feel that if you‟re going to talk about responsibilities to only grad
students, you‟re responsible for undergrads as well because you are a
board member on the UCSA board.
Foadd: I agree with Hailey having the two separate action agendas. But
these action agenda items, we‟re talking about specific issue, and I
think that should be a part of all groups because they serve as a
guiding light. I sort of and try to see both sides of the issue and
really, really make sure that UCD doesn‟t leave. At some point we have
to look at it from their side, what is driving associations to such a
point where nothing can be done. But don‟t say that their reasons are
invalid.
Peter: we‟re just stating that the needs aren‟t being met
Andy:
Brook: we would not remain as non-voting members if there isn‟t a new
definition for the action agendas.
Danielle: I understand the frustration but I think it retracts from our
collaborative efforts.
Long: I don‟t know what else to feel than being held hostage.
Ahnika: there have been years that not all organizations. I don‟t want
to make major changes and then find out that people are still going to
leave.

Vera: motion to close discussion.
Todd: second
Christine: object.

Vote 8-6-5.
Motion failed.
Tina: I‟m glad it‟s being brought up but will this actually help solve
any of the problems. I think there are communication issues. I think
grad students coming up with a plan. It never moved out of the
committee to the board. I don‟t know if this is going to help.
Brook: we feel that we‟ve been held hostage by UCSA
Andy: motion to extend time to 7 minutes.
Ahnika: second
No objections.

Andy: I would like to speak for everybody in this room but this is the
only solution that we have to go through. Unfortunately, there wasn‟t
a mechanism …Motion to close speakers list.
Rob: second.
Long: I think there should have been a better
Ahnika: what is worst that we don‟t try or that we try fail miserably
divide in half and start over again?
Foadd: point of information.
Cindy: I think it‟s the strength of the organization is more important.
I don‟t think it‟s the money but it‟s the representation.
Andy: motion to recess for 30 seconds.

Louise: discussion at this point will extend time until lunch arrives
Ahnika: second.

Ahnika: I would like to know who will pass as they are or not they are.
Straw poll.
12-1-3.

Peter: motion to set a deadline until the end of lunch.
Second.
No objections.

Andy: I proposed an amendment to
Ahnika: its impossible for grads.
Foadd: its impossible for grads.
Alex: its impossible for grads.
Gavi: I should point out that the Berkeley GA changed our by laws.
Vera: its not just a burden for just grads it‟s a burden for undergrads
as well. Bringing irrelevant numbers to the board doesn‟t make
Louise: its in our bylaws to have a cod and an ll. Its just semantics
for the bylaws. We need to have that flexibility
Andy: I withdraw discussion point.
Louise: no issues.

Recess for lunch.
Call to Order @

Regents Meeting Planning
Associations
GSA Davis          2
AS Santa Barbara   5
GSA SB             1
AS SC              0
GSA SC             1
AS SF              5
AS LA              4
GSA LA             2
AS I               0
AGS I              0
AS R               0
GSA R              1
AS SD              0
GSA SD             1
AS Berkeley        5
GSA Berkeley      2
TOTAL            29


Congress/ Retreat Steering Committee Appointments

 Congress Steering Committee         Retreat Steering Committee
 Appointments                        Apppointments
 Louise Hendrickson                  Louise Hendrickson
 Jeanalee                            Tina Park
 Long Pham                           Jeanalee
 Andy Kelley                         Long Pham
 Dorothy                             Oiyan Poon
 Dan                                 Andy Kelley
 Christine Eubanks                   Dorothy
 Rob                                 Dan
 Christine B.                        Christine B.
 Bill                                Bill
 Danny Mortez                        Danny Mortez
 Caroline                            Caroline
 Cindy M.                            Brent Laabs
 Christi Suchil
 Hailey Snow
Oiyan Poon

Systemwide Committee Appointments
Alex: motion to approve Louise as Student Loan Policy Advisor
Peter: second.

BOARS
Arshad Ali (UCLA)
Noah Dormady (Riverside)

Felicia: recommending Arshad Ali because he currently sits on the
committee.
Tina: Arshad has a really good relationship with all the faculty
members. Right now there are big things coming into BOARS and we
should try to keep the consistency.
Louise: Noah also has relevant experience working under the grads
office as well as for Senator Boxer. There‟s a lot of things that he
would like changed. Do we want continuation or do we want to give
another a chance?
Cindy: I think that if someone can be there for 2 years and a strong
background. Arshad is a very good candidate.

Felicia: recommendation is Rema Reynolds. She currently sits on the
Academic planning council. Do people want to talk about either
candidate?
Cindy: she‟s been very involved in UCSA efforts by attending
conferences. She‟s a really strong candidate.
Felicia: the recommendation for Katherine was to be on the committee
graduate affairs, which was her third choice.
Christine: there are some things on Katherine‟s application that
concern me a little bit. Her current work may serve well in the
finance office.

Felicia: on affirmative action and diversity committee, Cynthia
Mosqueda and Christopher Jones applied. My recommendation is Cynthia.
I recommended Christopher for the Undergrad Preparatorial information.
Does anybody have any questions or want to go more into it?

Louise: Yield to Vera to be Chair.   I motion to move Noah to BOARS.

Andy: is there a grievance made against Arshad?
Louise: we have two very qualified candidates but I‟m motioning to

Tina: the faculty already is sympathetic to move into action and to
have someone move into and learn everything again.

Louise: there‟s always a chance for turnover yes but potentially he
could have been leaving. If people think that Arshad should go in just
because he has already done it once. I‟m not discrediting him at all
we should

Andy: because there‟s no complaint in this.   I would in place of having

Gavi: its hard to find better qualification then finding a quality of
someone doing it well.

Andy: motion to call to question.
Gavi: second

The motion is to approve the Noah Dormady for BOARS.
Vote: 2-9-5
Motion Fails.

Tina: motion to approve the slate as is.
Second
No objections

Andy: calls to question.
Vote: 14-0-2
Motion carries.
Undergrad Appointments
BOARS
Felicia: Applied Mohammed Tajsar and Long Pham. No recommendations.
For the Board to decide.
Tina: motion to move Mohammed to BOARS committee
Second.

Vote: 9-3-5
Motion carries.
Foadd: motion to move Long and Kelly to Education Finance Model

Vote 15-0-3
Motion carries

Felicia: Rodney Nickens and Joseph Velasquez. Recommendation is Rodney
Nickens.
Danielle: my recommendation is to not move Rodney because after working
with him although he is a qualified applicant but he has some
maturation to do. It would be nice to have a UCM student on here
because we have a really wide diverse campus.
Vera: motion to move affirmative action and diversity committee
Christi: second.

VOTE: 3-0-10
Motion fails.
Felicia: Homaira Hosseini and Sally Mouakkad. Homaira Hosseini is the
recommendation for student mental health committee.
Foadd: what are her stances on mental health fee increase?
Tina: I wouldn‟t be able to speak of her stance, but her opinions have
been in line with UCSA and well connected with organizations on campus.
Christi: on CSF, I don‟t know Homaira‟s official stance. She does see
a need for fees but not necessarily to get them from students to begin
with.

Felicia: Academic planning council had 5 people applied for it.

Andy: motion to extend time for 20 minutes.
Dorothy: second.

5 minute break.
Gavi: motion to approve as given
Rob: second.
Andy: objection.

Rob: need more explanation

4-8-4
Motion fails.

Tina: are people comfortable to take it back and motion to vote
tomorrow?
Andy: I‟d like make a motion to appoint Mark Scott to UPE and ask Clark
to reapply.

Vote: 7-0-8
Motion fails.

Gavi: is the concern that these two are on the wrong committees
Andy: from personal experiences
Rob: since we can‟t
Felicia: suggestion: motion to approve everything else besides those
two appointments.

Andy: motion to approve all appointments and all those that have been
voted on except these two appointments
Christine: second
17-0-1
Motion carries.
Andy: Motion to move Mark Scott to UPE
Rob: second.
Christi: object. I‟d rather have him applied.
Andy: why?
Christi: theres no explanation for fourth choices
Gavi:
Rob: did he apply for it?
Felicia: he selected it as his 4th choice
Andy: the application

Dan: motion to extend time by 3 minutes
Second.

Dan: maybe we should open up the application again but there were
Triffeth: I agree with Christi. If we don‟t think they‟re great
candidates for their choices.
Andy: I don‟t „think Mark would reapply.
Ahnika: extend time 3 minutes.
Second.

Gavi: call to question
Vote: 0-7-6
Motion fails.
Gavi: motion to not approve Mark and Clark. And open it to reapply.
Todd: second.
Vote: 11-0-4
Motion carries.

Transition Briefing
--Dorothy, Cindy, and Amanda

strategic Planning Update
--Liz Hall
                                 “SusanL. Lubeck, J.D.
                              Organization Development
                                       P. O. Box 2763
                                  Oakland, California 94602
                                        510-206-8656
                                   susan@susanlubeck.com


                                               3 May 2007


University of California Student Association
Attn: Liz Hall, Executive Director
Tel: (510) 834-8272
Fax: (510) 834-8286
Email: ed@ucsa.org

Dear Ms. Hall,

I’m excited to respond to UCSA’s Request for Proposals for strategic planning on behalf of
a team made up of Gregory Hodge, Pia Infante, and myself. A seasoned team, diverse in
terms of age, race and background, we provide a breadth and depth of experience in
facilitation, organization development, social activism, and public policy – all of which we
believe would assist us in forming a powerful partnership with UCSA in defining your next
stage of development and accomplishing your goals.

As we read the RFP and conferred with each other to prepare this response, we found
ourselves inspired by the work you are taking on, stimulated by the challenges you face, and
eager to work with each other in partnership with you. We would look forward to engaging
in dialogue with UCSA stakeholders about such questions as:

      How you survived the constraints of the 1990s and have managed to grow the
       organization recently, despite a challenging political climate and the turnover you
       describe.
      What you currently see as the bedrock strengths of UCSA which can be leveraged.
       Your approach to decision-making and planning in a such a complex structure, with
        short timeframes, and great diversity of stakeholders.
       The nature of your campaigns, and how you currently engage members in them, and
        what “engagement” and “investment” really mean to you now and could mean in
        future.
       Whether working inter-generationally is a capacity you have and/or wish to
        strengthen.
       What kinds of coalitions you have sought to build.
       What the greatest rewards and challenges are for the staff and leaders.
       What the future of your work will look like in a future where you are highly
        successful.

Team Information

Below we provide biographical sketches on each member of the team, in alphabetical order.
In terms of roles, Susan would be the lead consultant overall, and the principal contact for
UCSA. The team would consult behind the scenes regularly and work collaboratively.
As we shape the project along with you -- which includes forming the partnership,
collaboratively co-designing the process, facilitating, and providing content knowledge -- we
would explore ways to get the most out of the team’s combination of expertise.

Gregory Hodge is an organizational development and community-building consultant. He
works with a range of groups from small non-profits and foundations to public agencies. He
formerly served as the Chief Executive Officer for California Tomorrow, an Oakland-based
organization that is dedicated to building a strong multiracial and multicultural society that
embraces diversity as our greatest asset. In addition, Gregory is an elected official, and was
elected to his second term as a member of the Oakland Unified School District Board of
Education in March 2004.

He previously served as the Executive Director of Safe Passages: the Oakland Child Health
and Safety Initiative, an effort designed to improve and promote the health and safety of
youth in the City of Oakland, California through community involvement and systems
reform. Safe Passages is a collaborative effort of the City of Oakland, Oakland Unified
School District, Alameda County, and community residents.

Prior to working for Safe Passages, Hodge was the executive director of the Urban Strategies
Council, where he also served as the director of a city-wide Youth Development Initiative,
managed the Freedom Schools program and worked as the regional representative of the
Black Community Crusade for Children, an effort coordinated nationally by the Children’s
Defense Fund. In 1996, he helped recruit, train and facilitate a 42-member community
building team as part of Oakland’s Empowerment Zone/Enhanced Enterprise Community
program.

Hodge has also worked as an attorney in private practice handling a variety of civil litigation
matters. His involvements include work with African American youth as a teacher and
mentor; board member and minister at Wo’se Community Church; drummer with Bantaba
Dance Ensemble; and member of the national Annenberg School District Reform Task
Force. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Northwestern University and a law degree
from Golden Gate University, San Francisco, California. He is married and is the father of
four children.

Greg’s clients include the Stupski Foundation, Portland Public Schools, Coleman Advocates
for Children and Youth, Seasons Fund for Social Transformation, Ruckus Society,
Movement Strategy Center, The Mentoring Center, Annenberg Institute for School Reform,
and numerous other youth development and educational organizations.

Pia Infante founded new ground consulting in 2002 to invite a spiritual dimension and reflective
practice into her work at the intersection of alternative education, youth development, and
social justice. new ground works in organic, collaborative process with clients to provide a
range of facilitation services, coaching, program & curriculum design, reflection & listening
practices, and guidance for intergenerational partnerships to organizations across the San
Francisco Bay Area.

Prior to founding new ground, Pia spent ten years leading many and varied educational and
developmental experiences for youth and adults, including the New York City Youth Media
Watch project We Interrupt This Message, which produced the nationally acclaimed report
"In Between The Lines: How The New York Times Frames Youth." Pia has pioneered media
campaigns for We Interrupt This Message and United for a Fair Economy, appearing on
Democracy Now!, CounterSpin, and in The Village Voice. Pia also launched the communications
strategy that brought The Global Activist's Manual, the groundbreaking book by Mike
Prokosch, to a national audience. Pia served more formally as an educator and program
director in settings that include Summerbridge Cambridge, The YWCA of Cambridge, and
University Heights High School.

In addition to directing new ground consulting, Pia is currently exploring a new relationship in
the philanthropic community as program support for The Whitman Institute, a San
Francisco-based foundation aspiring to promote cross-perspective dialogue and engaged
communication to improve the process and quality of public and private decision-making.

Pia’s consulting clients include: Community Network for Youth Development, Alternatives
in Action, Juma Ventures, Oakland Unified School District, June Jordan School for Equity,
Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, Youth-Step, On the Move, Vibrant Body
Wellness Center, Asian Pacific Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Network, and the Bay
Area Girls Center.

Pia received her B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley in Rhetoric, her M.A. in
Education from The New School for Social Research, and her teaching credential from the
state of New York. Pia's board affiliations include Sojourner Feminist Institute, in Boston
and Kilawin Collectibo, in New York City.

Susan L. Lubeck has been facilitating groups to reach sustainable agreements since 1993,
and has worked as an organization development consultant since 1999. She was trained by
Community At Work of San Francisco. A skilled consultant, coach, facilitator, and
workshop leader, she has worked with organizations in multiple sectors and arenas, including
government, union, nonprofit, professional association, scientific research, grassroots, and
business. Prior to her work as an OD consultant, Susan worked at the Urban Strategies
Council, a locally-based policy advocacy organization focused on promoting economic
justice through advocacy, collaboration, analysis, and capacity building. While there, she co-
founded the Community-Building Support Center, a national peer-based technical assistance
arm of the Council.

Susan has a particular depth of knowledge in collaborative efforts that focus on community
development, social enterprise, families, neighborhoods, public policy, peer-based learning,
and leadership development. A constant in her professional and personal work has been her
commitment to participatory values and her focus on economic justice.

Susan has taught facilitation skills to managers and leaders around the United States and in
Europe. She has also presented at the annual conferences of the Bay Area Organization
Development Network (the “Best of the West”), Community Leadership Association,
Healthy Start program, and the National Community Building Network, and at San
Francisco State University. Susan’s clients have included Goodwill Industries of San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties; Alternatives in Action; California Association of
Public Authorities; Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin County; the
National Economic Development and Law Center; California Family Resource Association;
The Finance Project; and many others.

Susan serves as a board member for the community organization, Transformation Through
Education and Mutual Support (TEAMS), in Oakland, California. She is a facilitator for the
Stanford Graduate School of Business’s Interpersonal Dynamics Course. In addition, Susan
co-founded the Study Group on Social Change and Organization Development, in
partnership with the Movement Strategy Center. She is also involved as a leader in
congregation-based community organizing, with the San Francisco Organizing Project.

Experience With and Approach to Strategic Planning and Facilitation

Collectively, clients whom we have supported in strategic planning include: Y-Step;
Goodwill Industries of San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin; Lutheran Social Services of
Northern California; the Community Partnership for Families of San Joaquin County; and
Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth. In terms of our approach, long experience has
taught us not to subscribe to any one prescriptive, pre-defined approach. Too often
strategic planning becomes an exercise focused on producing a document, whereas we
believe that strategic planning should produce a set of guiding decisions and the capacity to
implement them. Therefore, two foundations of our approach include (a) partnership with
you and (b) focus on results and implementability.

Long essays (or books!) could be written on each of these foundational principles. In brief,
though, our experience is that a partnership between consultants and organization is critical to
change – and a prerequisite to your ability to implement whatever decisions you make
through this process. The kind of partnership we envision is one where you, and not the
consultants, make the decisions, and we support you to engage the right stakeholders in
decision-making, and to make grounded, wise decisions. We also support you to make the
critical distinction between high-stakes decisions, which require more time and resources,
and lower-stakes decisions which can be made quickly. In co-creating the process with you,
we bring an outsider’s compassionate curiosity, and perspective from our range of
experiences, and we share our skills to build your capacity. In terms of results and
implementability, we would help you make wise decisions about strategic direction, consider
capacity and relationships as key dimensions of this, along with alignment of purpose,
strategy, and structure.

In all likelihood, as is the case with most clients we’ve worked with, designing the process –
including who is in the room making key decisions, versus who “signs off” in a more formal
way, versus who informs decisions – will be an important part of the early work. Given
UCSA’s emphasis on investment and engagement of stakeholders, the large number of
people involved, the built-in turnover in your system, and the geographic dispersal of board
members and other stakeholders, we imagine that clarifying who does what will be
particularly important, and that there will be tradeoffs to make as you weigh the value of
broad inclusion on one hand, and the need for in-depth deliberation by a consistent group
on the other. We would recommend establishing a small group of “heavy lifters,” say six to
eight people, who would work together consistently and engage the larger set of stakeholders
(in any number of creative ways), and do the bulk of the substantive thinking, with support
from us. Another asset we bring is depth of knowledge regarding design of these kinds of
processes, including (a) key elements needed to support a high-functioning thinking team,
and (b) broad knowledge and skills for processes to engage larger groups.

Our approach to facilitation is something else about which we feel strongly and could write
about at length. In brief, though, we strive to show respect and support to all participants;
support high participation across diversity of views and backgrounds; build shared
responsibility; and support constructive disagreement toward meaningful conclusion. We
will help you make sure the mechanics of decision-making are clear, and also make sure we
understand the goals of any given meeting, which is necessary in order to engage people
respectfully and effectively. Our approach includes the ability to attend to a wide range of
group dynamics and dimensions, not just the thinking dimension. We have the inclination
and capacity to attend to issues of diversity and power; the internal struggles of individuals,
including leaders; to inter-personal dynamics; and to the emotional/spiritual life of the
group.

Project Description and Budget

If you engage us, we will work with you to:

   Make sure the overall goals of the work are clear (to us and to your key stakeholders) and
    compelling.
   Identify the existing strengths you can build on, the “givens” that will guide the scope,
    and any challenges to engaging in the planning or implementing its results.
   Design the project based on those goals, your strengths and challenges, and the breadth
    and intensity of stakeholder involvement you need/desire.

In designing the project, there are many options you may want to consider. For example, it
might make sense to do one or more of the following:
   Gather information from “customers” about how they perceive UCSA and what
    communications and activities most generate their investment and engagement.
   Otherwise obtain data – quantitative and qualitative – about the effectiveness of UCSA’s
    current campaigns, programs and events.
   Since turnover of stakeholders is built in to the UCSA organizational “system,” as a
    result of the student lifecycle and yearly elections, it might be worth investigating how
    similar organizations gave navigated this built-in problem of constant turnover.
   Hold an “Open Space” retreat, built on the principles of self-organizing systems, to
    surface issues, get evaluative input, and stimulate bottom-up action by participants.
   Have UCSA board members or Strategic Planning Committee members interview each
    other and, with support from the consulting team, generate an assessment of key
    strengths and leverage points for change.
   Determine whether your current mission is descriptive and compelling, or needs to be
    reconsidered.

In addition, the project would almost certainly involve:

   Assessing the external environment in terms of opportunities and threats, including
    establishing possible scenarios regarding current funding sources and possible additional
    sources.
   Identifying your core competencies, and what your “market niche” is in relation to other
    entities that compete for engagement and investment by the UCSA stakeholders.
   Considering whether your structure – how work is organized – aligns with your purpose
    and strategic direction, and make adjustments if necessary.
   Translating your strategic direction into action plans with specific groups, people and
    timelines identified.

Given our fundamental approach and the variables above, at this stage, we do not believe it
is possible or would be responsible for us to offer a budget for this project. However, we
would imagine the cost would be upward of $25,000, but please understand this is a very
rough estimate. In addition to the variables above, other variables include:

   The complexity and difficulty of coming to closure – that is, will your big questions be
    easy to resolve meaningfully, or difficult?
   How much behind-the-scenes data-gathering, and document and project work you
    would like us to perform for yourselves, versus have us do.
   Whether additional steps or interventions are needed beyond strategic planning.
   To what extent we draw on all three team members at events, versus limiting “face time”
    to limit costs.

Individually, our standard fees are $1,200-1,600/day for each consultant, for direct
work/communication with clients. A portion of our behind-the-scenes preparation time is
included in those rates. We are willing to negotiate a moderate discount on these fees to
make it affordable to have two to three of us in the room with you when that will add
particular value
When we are working behind the scenes to gather or analyze data for you, or produce
documents for the project, our rate for that work is lower: $125/hour or $1,000/day.
Again, we would talk through together the wisdom/feasibility of our team or your staff
doing this with support from us. $125/hour would also be the rate we would charge, per
consultant, for behind-the-scenes consultation time for the team each month, so that you
could get the benefit of all our expertise even when only one of us is in the room. If you
engage us, we would build in -- and cap -- a certain amount of hours per month for team
consultation. If you desire to have us provide administrative services (e.g. production of
meeting notes, arranging meeting logistics), we would negotiate this with you. Our rate for
this work would be $45/hour.

Finally, once we work together to refine the goals and establish more fully the design of the
project, there may be portions of the work which we could price on a project rate basis, i.e. a
flat rate.

References

   Lisa Russ, Associate Director, Movement Strategy Center, 510-444-0640 x308 (has
    worked with all three of us)

   Leticia Alejandrez, Executive Director, California Family Resource Association, 916-338-
    6633 (has worked with Susan)

   Stewart Wakeling, Senior Program Officer, Haas Jr. Fund, 415-856-1400 (has worked
    with Susan)

   Warren Simmons, Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University, 401-863-
    7675 (has worked with Greg)

   Ntanya Lee, Executive Director, Coleman Advocates, nlee@colemanadvocates.org, 415-
    406-1975 (has worked with Greg)

   Fern Kruger, Alternatives in Action, 510-748-4314 x 315 (has worked with Susan and
    Pia)

   Shane Safir, Executive Director, June Jordan School for Equity, 415-730-0831 (has
    worked with Pia)

   Bill Conrad, Executive Director, Research, Assessment & Accountability, Oakland
    Unified School District, 510-879-8143 (has worked with Pia)

If you are interested in exploring a working relationship with us, we would be more than
happy to meet you in person. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,
Susan L. Lubeck, JD”

Into discussion.
Extension of time.

Andy: motion to extend time by 2 minutes
Peter: second.

Campaign Yearlong Debrief
Bill: debrief

Groups divided

Todd: move to adjourn.
Dan: second.

Adjourned at 6:53 p.m.

Sunday, May 06, 2007
Call to order @ 1:30pm
Roll Call
AS Berkeley--here
GSA Berkeley--here
GSA Davis--
AS Santa Barbara--here
GSA Santa Barbara--here
AS Santa Cruz--here
GSA Santa Cruz--here
AS San Francisco--here
GSA San Francisco--here
AS Merced--here
GSA Merced
AS LA--here
GSA LA--here
AS Irvine--here
AGS Irvine--here
AS Riverside--here
GSA Riverside--here
AS San Diego--here
GSA San Diego--here
Hastings--

Committee Reports
UNIVERSITY AFFAIRS
--discussed Regents meeting in two weeks
--opened up whiteliners list
--looking for students primarily who could speak on diversity

LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
--assessed the positives and negatives for next year‟s board
--recommendations to next year‟s committee:
    accountability issues
    more lobbying
    follow ups
--whats left to do on the legislative cycle
GRAD/PROF
--what works for grad students
--spent sometime talking about NRT
--in the process of meeting with UCOP
--spent sometime on diversity messaging for grad students
--brainstorm ideas

UNDERGRAD
--went over elections from each campus
--brainstormed ideas of what we could be doing next year

CAMPUS ACTION
--went over week of action on the different campuses
--a lot of the things are concrete and planned out already
--went over positives and negatives from the committee

STAFF
--go around really briefly of the goals for the week of action

Old Business
UCSA Resolution #45 – Unite UCSA/CSSA Leg Conferences (Shiebler)
UCSA Resolutions # 46-48– Legislative Bills (Leg Com)
Proposed Bylaw Changes-Personnel Policy Changes
Congress Steering Committee Conformation
Retreat Steering Committee Conformation

Andy: Motion to bundle resolutions 45-48.
Alex: second
No objections.

Vote: 13-0-4
Motion carries.

Andy: motion to approve the by laws
Todd: second.
No objections.

Vote: 17-0-0
Motion carries.

Andy: motion to approve congress steering committee.
Second.

Vote: 17-0-0
Motion carries.

Oiyan and Christi added to Retreat steering committee.
Andy: motion to approve retreat steering committee
Second.

Vote: 17-0-0
Motion carries.

New Business
UCSD Bid for Board retreat

3 minute recess.

Back in session.
Alex: motion to accept bid.
Andy: second.
Christi: consensus.
Consensus.

Announcements
Tina: powerpoint presentation of budget uploaded.
Liz: If you haven‟t introduced the budget please let me know if it
passes or fails. The budget is now ratified with 1/3 of the
associations passing it.
Louise: thanks to the board.
Bill: I wanted to reemphasized to everyone to have has many people as
possible to the retreat and congress.

Motion to adjourn
Second.
No objections.

Adjournment @ 2:07pm

				
DOCUMENT INFO