JP Reps Meeting Agenda

Feb 22nd, 2022 @ 1:00pm

Present: CD, MJ, PN, SB, LL, CW, SW, Cynthia Becker, Meredith Bittrich

1. MIT GSU Statement (5mins)
   1. MJ: I was approached by reps from the MIT GSU to bring up the possibility of the reps writing letter of support for the GSU. BGSU has given a statement of support on behalf so there is precedent.
   2. CD: Let's open the floor to talking about this.
   3. SW: I want to know if there have been statements from the OGE saying whether they will tell us we could get in trouble with them?
   4. MJ: This is a good question. I’ve done a lot of my own research (but I am not a lawyer) and they are not allowed to retaliate. However, how they interpret this rule is something to think about.
   5. SB: We could have the OGE pull funding and they wouldn't have to tell us why.
   6. CB: I want to jump in and say right now the WHOI funded students are not currently in the bargaining unit, but those on fellowship/funded by MIT would qualify as a graduate worker.
   7. SB: Do you think a statement from us would help this?
   8. CB: It could be worth pushing for. It would at least show a student perspective on this.
   9. PN: Can you tell me where you got this info? From what they’ve been talking about on our end, that might not be accurate. Perhaps following up with other union reps or the MIT department that works with the unions could be a good source for the most accurate information.
   10. CB: A fellow union member.
   11. CW: Do we have a sense of whether the reps can write a letter like this, or do we need a vote from all the students.
   12. MJ: I would say if the reps write a letter and we vote to approve it, then we should address the letter “signed the reps” not “signed the joint program”. So to follow-up with your points Tricia, what types of questions are they asking of you? 
   13. PN: How are the various funding things organized to give them to the NLRB. All departments are being asked this.
   14. MJ: how would you say we compare in that way to other programs?
   15. PN: I don’t know if I have a perspective on that because the other program I worked on was also very niche. How would, for example, a student who was admitted without funding get funding. The answer in our program is they wouldn’t get admitted without funding, but that differs between programs.
2. Meeting format/scheduling check-in (5mins)
   1. CD: Thoughts or suggestions to adjust format? 
   2. SW: more efficient => more detailed agenda; preparing for meeting to only make decisions instead of having intro, …
   3. SB: more meetings to have meaningful discussions (one hour per month is not sufficient for expecting meaningful representation)
   4. LL: We already have a lot of topics we lack behind on at the moment. How about a half-a-day retreat to have these in-depth discussions
   5. MJ: representation would increase in quality if there is more time for input and in-depth discussions 
   6. CW: pushing more funding requests more to slack to use the time better during the meetings
   7. CD: I was thinking perhaps regularly scheduled meetings, instead of sending a doodle poll once a month that is set in stone could be more beneficial. Also, I want to be respectful of Trivia and Lea’s time so I don’t want them to sit
   8. SB: Division into two types of meetings: short-time vs. long-term goals 
   9. MJ: More long-term goals to discuss internal reps stuff; meeting with Lea and Tricia and external people during the monthly schedule
   10. SW: Would people be comfortable with an in person meeting?
   11. CD: We could make it hybrid. To summarize, what I’m hearing is we have regular meetings and we use two meetings- one that is like this, and one that is a working meeting with more of just the reps.
   12. SW: Would this be closed to just us, or is this just us?
   13. SB: would more transparency make sense; just divide more about the focus and intention of each meeting: Working meeting vs. Official reps meeting where decisions are made
   14. SW: I like that better, to make sure it seems like this isn’t happening behind closed doors.
   15. CD: I see it more as an inward facing meeting where we work together, and then this official reps business one. Both are open. Both have agendas, but one is more discussion and one is more decisions.
   16. ACTION ITEM: CD creates poll to ask about best time
3. GSC Department Scorecard Survey (5mins)
   1. CD: We all received an email about this survey. LL brought up that some questions would be worth all of us discussing. I feel like it would be worth someone going through and thinking about what be a unique perspective we can bring as the JP. Does someone want to work on this?
   2. LL: I think it would be worth going through and have everyone giving a thought on the questions. I would be happy to facilitate, but its probably something we all work on.
   3. PN: I would say this is something where it would be worth talking about the JP. I hazard you would be able to answer some of these things differently from any other department. Some of the questions would be different for someone in bio vs someone in bio and the JP.
   4. LL: The GSC seems to just want to gather an understanding of variation in the program. I think we can be honest of variation within our program.
   5. CD: for time we’re going to move on. Let’s follow up on a google doc you can create LL.
4. Possible winter retreat? (5mins)
   1. MJ: I say we push this to our “working meetings”
5. Pending action items (20mins)

1. Open house: handwritten notes for dept. reps, etc.
   1. CD: LL and SW do you have anything you want to add?
   2. SW: I am holding the cards. I’ll leave them in the student center. Dept. reps, grab a handful and write a personalized note. LL and I will collect and send them off.
   3. CW: where can we access the list of names of admitted students?
   4. LL: PN has this info.
   5. PN: Within a day or two, I will give you all the info from the admitted students who allowed me to share their info. 
   6. LL: Next week we will be packing boxes/swag bags. Will need help
   7. CW + SB: volunteer to help.
2. WHOI housing pet policy
   1. CD: I suggest we push this to the working meeting.
3. New safety czar, international czar
   1. CD: LL do you have an update?
   2. LL: Sean Chen is now our international czar. We don’t have one for the safety committee. We are approaching the phase where we should start personally bugging people. How should we proceed?
   3. MJ: What is the safety czar again?
   4. SW: What even are the qualifications for this? Who is the safest in the JP?
   5. LL: I think, given our talks with the APO, we should try to find a transparent way to fill these committee positions. Perhaps at the next working meeting.
4. How students are selected for committees
   1. PUSHED TO WORKING MEETING
5. Integration of Bio Oce in EAPS
   1. PUSHED TO WORKING MEETING
6. Volunteers for mailing swag to admitted students who indicate they would like a mailed gift. Tricia and I will have this info after Feb 18 but we could share the reply forms as responses are submitted (LF)
   1. (this was discussed earlier so it was skipped)

6. Funding requests (10mins)
   1. Library of Things: Shellfish Edition
      1. CD: Noa and Katie agreed on becoming czars; unsure whether equipment has already been bought 
      2. SB: Are there already any reimbursement requests? I could pass by and ask them? 
      3. CW: last e-mail encounters seem to be successful
      4. SB: ACTION ITEM - I will follow up with them
   2. Guest Lecture: Jobs Outside of Academia in Climate Management
      1. CD: Logan’s request and then there has been a personal emergency
      2. SB: still personal emergency.
      3. ACTION ITEM: SB follows up
   3. In-person OSM
      1. CD: Event starts later today. Everything seems set
   4. After the Fire Nation Attacked
      1. CD: our very own MJ organizes! 
      2. => enough voted yes! approved!
   5. Writers' Block
      1. CD: Power strips. Should they be bought
      2. MB: APO has some
      3. CW: We might want some in the student center. How about Ben buys them and they’ll stay in the student center
7. Unfair Trivia/The Price is Wet (5mins)
   1. MJ: Merged with open house trivia.
8. Open discussion
   1. SW: Are our working meetings going to be one hour?
   2. SB: I’m going to suggest at least our first one is two hours.
   3. CD: Isn’t there something we can do to make the slack more useful? 
   4. SB: can we @channel on things that everyone needs to respond to?
   5. CW: You can also set notifications to always alert you for certain channels.
   6. CW: There is a breakfast thing at a winery at $16/person. It sounds fun. Not using rep money people could buy drinks. Perhaps we propose this?
   7. CD: Sounds like a lot of fun to me (20 ppl = $500 bucks)
   8. MJ: Maybe we subsidize instead of fully fund. Could we get an exact number for planning big events?
   9. PN: Good idea. I’m guessing it's more than $18,000.