Interschool Meeting

#Interschool Meeting: ##Ratifying CU Governance

Attendance: Andrew Rehayem (1st year Eng.), Andy Overton (1st year Art), Mike, Caleb Wang, Bob Estrin, Che Perez, Asher Mones

BE: Discussed interschool statement started during JSC Meeting (last month)
AR: the way the statement functions is based on prob. of BOT not adressing going back to a free tuition based school
BE: Things are dif. but mismanagement has been an issue; may destroy school; focus should be pointing out specific issues in leadership and getting more student rep in the goveranance.
AR: 1. want to tell board this model is not what we consider stable going into the future. energy should be put into model which perpetuates no tuition policy
BE: 3rd party analysts gave suggestions and BOT says 50% across the board. how is this indicitative of the 2 year work the 3rd parties have been paid to complete. people who are making decisions aren’t considering the thoughts of their constituents.

analysts say that charging more than 25% is debilitating (needs to be checked)

CP: it was between the faculty and students as well
AM: would hurt the quality of applicants

BE: anyone who is applying is waying options.
competing in market of higher edu. if you raise it too much the quality of app. tapers off.

AM: Way that decision was delivered was not rep. of the advice given to faculty admin is not thinking about a mission for the school.

CP: we can argue this as an ideological issue, b the leadership sets the ideology.

AR: we need a concise statement among us. Want draft tonight.

CW: throw out everything we want to hit and then break up into groups to narrow it down

BE: started drafting doc. in the arch. school –> we have a pretty worked statement. It has been advised by prof’s.
-purpose is to frame the problem as we see it and then states what we would like to see.
-hope would be that we could work out a few things of what we would be interested in seeing which may be a more difficult convo.

We become responsible for what

Who is the audience: 1st getting signatures from students and faculty; if you had a majority then the action is stronger 2nd go to the board 3rd get media coverage; force members of the board to change these things

M: concerned that the press coverage would make it seem like the school is a mess.

BE: we need to have some visible change. Everyone is united behind something that is very precisely written

TC says we have a short term prob & long term prob. short –>cashflow longterm –> chrysler building rent being increased. tuition is not going to cover the gap that we need to manage the cashflow prob.
the rhetoric that they have been using is short term the reason they have been using tuition is that we need money now.

AR: is there a viable longterm solution?

BE: -document is to point out the incongruities in the problems that we are facing. If we had an accountable leadership then the problems with finances are solved.
-donations to the endowment that would help to sustain our finances.
-alumni auction gets snubbed by administation b/c admin wanted money from auction to go to the annual fund. -have seen messages from alumni who used to donate and now see how the BOT works.

-It may be a good idea to work on this again when we are finished w/finals. But in the mean time we should look at the Arch. doc. and figure out what we would like to add within the existing Arch. doc.

What are the missteps that the board has taken? What should have been different?
e.g. 1. forcing schools to come up w/proposals but given no agency in how they are implimented.