Duke GPSC - story - Comments

See & buy today: Sony VAIO 15.4" notebook - $200

rup — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:50:15 -0400

Sony VAIO available for viewing and immediate sale today from 10am onwards - Come and take a look! The laptop is in good working condition with no technical problems. This is a good quality and value deal especially for students. Serious buyers only please. Please call me at 919-667-8433 or just drop in at 100 Alexan Drive, Durham, NC 27707 (Alexan Place Property - leasing office)

See pic:http://picasaweb.google.com/Rpalany/SonyVAIO154Notebook?feat=directlink

Laptop Details
- Model: VGN-FS660P
- Processor: Intel Pentium 1.73 GHz
- Screen Size: 15.4" TFT active matrix WXGA (1280 x 800)
- Memory: 1 GB
- Hard Drive: 80 GB, 5400 rpm
- Integrated Features: DVD+/-RW, wi-fi enabled
- Weight: 4.4 lbs
- Included Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Office 2003
- Kensington power adapter

Amendments are not ready

mae15 — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:13:30 -0400

They're not properly worded and they haven't been accompanied by enough justification.

Not properly worded:

"The policy for distribution shall be composed by the committee in conjunction with the GPSC Executive Board and provided to the Assembly one week before the meeting in

which it is presented for the Assembly’s approval."

In conjuction with? Isn't there already conjunction? There's a liason between the BC and the EB. What more "conjunction" is needed? Specifically? Does EB just get to sit in on the meetings? Do they have "votes" in the meetings? Are there even "votes" in policy meetings, or is it done by consensus?

Not enough Justification:

The original authors of Article 9 thought that the current co-chair nomination/election system was the best available. The EB hasn't identified that reasoning and clearly explained why it's no longer valid. They also haven't addressed some of the potential downsides to having two co-chairs with no real campout experience, like a botched campout, which pisses of more students, and results in more bad legislation... surely this crossed their minds?

As for the policy creation, the EB hasn't explained exactly what is not working in the current system that needs "more input" from the EB. They claim that the GA is getting more input in BC policy creation, but in reality, the GA has no more input under the amendments than they already have.

And the BC hasn't given very good rebuttal examples for why being at those 3 meetings is so important. What is it that BC does that places such importance on knowing "how things are done" as opposed to fresh faces and innovation?

It just doesn't make sense, and none of this should be that difficult to articulate, on either side.

On a separate note, can we clear up what this is all stemming from? It's obvious that some law students (who knows how many) felt snubbed by a decision that BC made this Campout. They also felt, for whatever reason, that going to the 3 BC meetings necessary to set policy themselves was not a sufficient means of problem resolution.

It's also obvious that someone on the EB took up their cause and hastily wrote some amendments to give the EB more influence, and to make it easier (easier than showing up to 3 meetings) to nominate their own co-chairs.

Then Classical Studies rep, who stated that he opted to run for executive secretary instead of AG so that the Law School rep could be AG, tried to nullify the BC co-chair vote. Why? I have no idea, the new policy wouldn't take place until next year, and the vote passed by a decent margin, so ...?

Meanwhile, the BC people (and Fuqua?) are all up in arms, and nobody, neither the BC treasurer, nor the GPSC treasurer, can explain some $3000, which is supposedly missing from the budget, (DUN DUN DUN!) but the money that's missing is not really missing, because that number is based on the "proposed budget" from last year, instead of actual numbers, and then some other guy (I guess last year's GPSC treasurer?) said that it was just a "line-item discrepancy" and that it happens all the time? And that satisfied everyone in the GA enough that they took a vote?!

I admit, I've never been to a GA meeting before, but that was some crazy stuff. It's a good thing ER is over, because I don't know if I could handle any more drama in one night.

GPSC's Executive Board Clarification

and10 — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:40:43 -0400

It has come to our attention that some concerns have been put forth by the
Basketball Committee about the proposed bylaw changes and policy changes that
the Executive Board has asked for concerning the Basketball Committee. We
would like to take this time to address exactly why we are suggesting these
changes.

The Executive Board proposes to change the procedure through which Basketball
Committee Co-Chairs are elected in order to bring it in line with the
procedures by which all other elected positions are filled. Currently,
co-chairs can be nominated only if they qualify as an elector for the
Basketball Committee as defined by attending 70% or more of meetings the
previous year, and are selected by the other electors. Also these electors
have to run in a two-person ticket. We struggle with the argument that both
Basketball Co-Chairs are *required* to have attended 70% of the meetings the
previous year. With this definition, there are more stringent requirements on
being a Basketball Co-Chair than being elected GPSC President, or even the
Young Trustee. We can easily imagine a scenario where one Basketball Co-Chair
has been on the committee before, and complemented by a second one who has not
been on the committee, but who has significant experience planning other
events, and comes into the position with fresh ideas. We support the need for
co-chairs for this position, but this current system does not seem to be the
most effective way. The current process by which the co-chairs are elected is
entirely unique within the GPSC structure?all other elected positions are
filled through a public nomination and vote before the GA. We feel that
bringing the nomination and approval of the co-chairs before the GA will
establish a more democratic process than the method that now exists.

Since currently the power to nominate Basketball Committee Co-Chairs is vested
entirely within the committee itself, and only members of the committee are
eligible to run for the positions, in effect, the committee appoints its own
co-chairs. The GA has the power to approve the committee?s nominees, but has
no means by which to make its own nominations. This presents the GA with the
dilemma of being only able to approve or reject the nominees presented to it by
the committee. We find this to be a lackluster process, because the makeup of
the Basketball Committee does not represent all GnP students, only those who
volunteer for the committee and are able to attend at least 70% of the
meetings. While much of their budget is made up from campout fees, a large
portion of their budget comes from the GPSC budget- paid from ALL GnP student
fees. For this reason, it truly should be the choice of the General Assembly
of who the Campout Chairs should be. We are proposing to provide the General
Assembly with a choice.

The proposed bylaw change would allow for the public nomination of co-chairs
before the GA, as well as allow any graduate or professional student to run for
the position. We believe that this will improve the transparency of the
election process and allow for a more diversified slate of candidates for the
position, which will encourage innovative ideas and improvements to the campout
experience. We further believe that the GA is capable of acutely evaluating all
of the candidates for the position in terms of their motivation, experience,
etc., and to seek the advice of past committee members and co-chairs in order
to arrive at a final decision based off of their informed judgment. As the
legitimate representatives of all graduate and professional students (all
campout attendees included among those), we believe it is the right of the GA
to ultimately make this final decision with regard to whom they believe will
bring the greatest benefit to future campout experiences. This use of GnP fees
is also the reason why we are
requesting more oversight for the Executive Board and General Assembly in
generating the Basketball Committee policy.

We would like to remind everyone that the basketball ticket cards are given to
GPSC and awarded via the Basketball Committee. We have had meetings with the
basketball co-chairs regarding issues concerning campout since this past May,
and we have spoken to them about this specific issue in a meeting on March 5th,
2009. We invited the co-chair nominees to our Executive Board meeting on March
30th, 2009, and they cancelled at the last minute. Members of the Executive
Board also attended and advocated for changes in the policy at the recent
meeting. Overall, we simply want the General Assembly to have more input on
the process that designates where those ticket cards go.

The GPSC Executive Board

Clarification on some By-Law stuff

jmw23 — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:01:36 -0400

One important distinction is what does it mean to be a "member" of the Council: for that refer to Article III, Section A. All GnP students are members of the Council.

~~As well, Article XI C 2 still seems to be in place, so I read this as the BBall Committee still nominates the Co-Chairs for the election~~ (update: sorry, I got lost in all the underlines and strikethroughs to realize this actually was removed). I think this amendment was poorly worded though because it tried to 'reuse' some language that was already in the document (the same could be said if a similar short-hand method was written in on how the YT Chair was elected).

Correction re: election

rmt11 — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:06:36 -0400

The new guidelines require the basketball committee to work with the Executive Board in developing policies. Assumedly, this is to remedy the fact that some interests have not been adequately represented by the current scheme. It seems that requiring the policy to be developed by the Committee and the Exec Board will take some control out of the hands of the basketball co-chairs, reapportioning it among the Exec Board members. While anyone can go to the meetings as it is, it's clear that this scheme has a more significant effect on how decisions are made.

Article XI C 2 is no longer in place, so the Basketball Committee will no longer nominate co-chairs. The Assembly will elect basketball co-chairs from the GnP population. This renders the process more democratic, decreases the chances of nepotism, and would presumably improve the ability of various groups to have their interests represented. The Basketball Committee can still nominate co-chairs, as anyone else can. Moreover, the General Assembly is equally capable of reviewing the candidates and selecting only those nominees that are "well versed in the workings of the committee and are capable of performing the tasks at hand."

Regarding concerns about the fact that Article 6,G (Elections) does pertain to Executive Board elections, it seems to me that the intent is that the elections take place in conjunction with the Exec Board elections and follow the same procedure. Perhaps rather than "in accordance with," this section should say "in tandem with." But there is no intent to make the basketball co-chairs Exec Board members, as is evidenced by the fact that there is no proposed change to Article VI, A, which lists the members of the Executive Board.

I know that my constituents have had difficulties protecting their interests in the ticket distribution policies, and I think these amendments are realistically tailored to remedy that problem.

re: Article XI, C, 4

ms206 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:04:41 -0400

Does the executive board want oversight of campout ticket policy? Or, do they just want to be better informed about the policy/process, before it's voted on in the GA?

It's possible that if the amendment were *in consultation* with EB, rather than *in conjunction* (the latter implies a transfer of decision rights), then the concerns of the EB might be better addressed.

But with regards to setting policy -- it seems very clear, that if you want to be involved in that, any GnP can join the committee and have their voice heard. There doesn't appear to be a very good reason for transferring decision rights away from this scheme.

-Michael Schwartz

Objections from the Basketball Committee Co-chairs

mjt16 — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:40:35 -0400

Currently, the GPSC executive board has proposed an amendment to the GPSC bylaws that fundamentally changes the structure of the GPSC Basketball Committee. We would like to state our opposition to these changes and to illustrate the effect of said changes in an effort to explain our position. As of this moment, the policy governing the structure of the GPSC Basketball Campout is voted upon by the GPSC Basketball Committee at a policy meeting during the spring. This meeting along with participation in GPSC Basketball Committee is open to all interested graduate and professional students, and all students can be voting members of the Basketball Committee. This policy is then presented to the GPSC General Assembly, which votes to approve the policy. The proposed changes insert the GPSC Executive Board into this procedure without formalizing what their role would be in crafting the policy. The language of these changes leaves this role incredibly vague to the effect that it appears that the GPSC Executive Board can make alterations to the Campout policy without the consent of the GPSC Basketball Committee. We believe that action would be unwise. Furthermore, this change in the bylaws is redundant since all members of the GPSC Executive Board are current graduate or professional students; consequently, any changes to the policy they wish to see addressed can be brought forward by them during the current policy meeting.

The second proposed change of the GPSC Bylaws that pertains to the GPSC Basketball Committee involves a change in the procedure by which the Basketball Committee Co-chairs are elected. Currently, in order to be eligible to vote for the co-chairs of this committee one has to attend at least 70% of the GPSC Basketball Campout planning meetings. Co-chairs must run as a two person ticket, and either be eligible to vote or have been a subcommittee chair the previous year. This two person ticket is then approved by the GPSC General Assembly. The result of these policies ensures that both Co-chairs are well versed in the workings of the committee and are capable of performing the tasks at hand while reflecting the approval of the Basketball Committee and the General Assembly. The proposed changes call for the Co-chairs to be elected only by the members of the General Assembly in accordance with GPSC Article 6,G. This causes numerous problems. First, it removes the voice of the Basketball Committee in selecting their Co-chairs. Additionally, Article 6,G pertains to the election of GPSC Executive Board. Consequently, it is unclear whether this elevates the Basketball Co-chairs to Executive Board status as the following of Executive Board election guidelines would certainly imply. If so, additional changes to Articles 6 and 7 are required to illustrate that fact. Additionally, the proposed amendment implies that candidates for the Basketball Committee Co-chair position also need to become an active member of the GPSC Executive Board. These changes mean that the increased workload of this already strenuous volunteer position would make the successful execution of this position and continued progress towards graduation even more difficult. Finally, the proposed changes seem to negate the need for individuals to run as pairs as this is not address in Article 6,G nor anywhere else in the proposed changes. Years of experience has reinforced the idea that the position of GPSC Basketball Committee Co-Chair is one best shared between two students.

We are more than willing to work with GPSC on the continued improvement of Campout. We have received a number of suggested changes to the Campout Policy from the GPSC Executive Board that we are eager to discuss at the policy meeting. However, we must ask all members of the General Assembly to vote against the proposed changes to the GPSC Bylaws involving the basketball committee.

Sarah Crider & Mickey TeKippe

2008 Basketball Committee Co-chairs

Locating a Pharmacy or the Tiered Drug List

hgl — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:04:06 -0400

I might be repeating some information that was already posted, but if you go to the Medco website http://www.365wellst.com, you can use the Pharmacy Locator on the lefthand menu without logging in. I had the same trouble logging in with our 7-digit member number. However, I then realized that I didn't necessarily need to log in unless I wanted to set up the mail-order service. Also, the list of drugs in each tier is posted at: http://healthydevil.studentaffairs.duke.edu/insurance/.

That's not the problem I'm referring to

esudduth — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:55:40 -0400

I understand that. However, if you logon to UHCSR.com and go to "View Prescription Plan Information" that takes you to a page titled "National Prescription Drug Plan" which then asks you to Login to your online Prescription Plan account which is a link to to the Medco webpage (it's linked as http://www.365wellst.com from your UHCSR account)

That is the website that most of us cannot access. It contains all of our prescription information on any prescription we've with purchased UHCSR insurance from any vendor (including the Student Health pharmacy and local retail pharmacies) and including things like suggestions of cheaper drugs that might be used in place of the ones we might take.

I assume that all these links suggest that we are supposed to be able to access this page, but as far as I know we cannot (because of this issue with the length of our member numbers). That is what I was asking about.

Please see attached instructions

dmk16 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:08:55 -0400

Attached is a pdf containing the forms and instructions for ordering prescriptions by mail. You cannot order prescriptions online - only refills.

How to use MedCo's webpage

esudduth — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:57:39 -0400

There seems to be a problem with us using the MedCo webpage to access our prescription information--UHCSR has them keep all information about prescriptions is there, including those filled at Student Health or a local pharmacy, not just those filled through MedCo.

When I tried to create an account, I was unable to because MedCo expected a 9 or 11 digit member number, whiles UHCSR has 7 digit member numbers. In the forum, I posted the solution I used--call MedCo web support and get them to bypass their page and set up an account directly.

If someone could find a better solution and post it on your how to page, that would be great for everybody else.

If you still have questions

dmk16 — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:00:21 -0400

Contact Student Health at:

Telephone: 919-681-4912
E-mail: DSHS_Immunizations@mc.duke.edu

How to check your status

dmk16 — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:55:44 -0400

To find out if Student Health has your record:

Go to: http://healthydevil.studentaffairs.duke.edu/Immunization_Requirements.html
Click on "login to our secure website" which is in the text of the first paragraph
Log in with your NetID and birth date
Click on "Immunizations" on the left side of the page
The list that appears should show verified immunizations

If the immunizations don't appear then Student Health has not received your online immunization form or your back-up copy. The turnaround time for the back-up copy to be verified is one business day at this time. So if you sent everything in more than a day ago, contact Student Health, or better yet, bring them the hard copy yourself.

Why is this the first you've heard of this?

dmk16 — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:54:54 -0400

Unfortunately, we don't know the answer to this. It appears that the announcement that was sent out by Student Health over the summer did not reach many students.

Wednesday morning Student Health requested that GPSC use its network to attempt to reach the approximately 200 new students that had, at that point, not filed any immunization records. Since this was a requirement of the State, not the University, the deadline could not simply be moved. That is the reason for the very urgent message sent out on Wednesday afternoon.

In an effort to determine the cause of this, please let us, GPSC, know if you hadn't heard about it; specifically, why you think you did not receive or read the e-mail that was sent to your @duke.edu address. E-mail your responses to david.kahler@duke.edu. Your responses will be kept private, we would just like to advise Student Health on what they could do better next year to get the word out to students.

Re: Grills

nbk — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:10:29 -0400

A commercial propane grill is probably fine. I'm not sure what "full sized" means, but if you have room for it then you should be OK. What we look for in unsafe grills is an excessive or open flame. Gas grills are preferred, if you are going to use charcoal its best if you have a way of getting them started without creating a huge flame (like a charcoal chimney). Open fire grills (using stones or the like) and lighting charcoal or wood on the ground is prohibited.

Outside of this all I can say is that if it looks unsafe you may be asked to turn your grill off, so use common sense.

I hope this clarifies that rule for you.

Nathan
Campout Logistics Chair '08