Uncorrected EGO Meeting Minutes 9 September 2005

EGO Meeting Minutes - 9/9/2005

Present – Jon Senchyne, Rachel Collins, Mike Dwyer, Amata Schnieder-Ludorff, Christina Stasia, Mike O’Connor and the O’Connor girls, Brigitte Fielder Montero, Nate Mills, Jon Singleton, Corrine (what’s Corrine’s last name?)

1. Reports from Committees:

A. The Agenda and Faculty Development Committee reps have nothing to report.

B. The Undergraduate Committee: Nate Mills reports:

a. With the gradual retirement of Chuck Watson there are some changes in the management of the undergraduate curriculum.
b. Claudia Klaver is the new Director of Undergraduate Studies.
c. Jolynn Parker is the “ETS coordinator.” Nate was not clear exactly what this position entails, it may simply mean assistant to Claudia Klaver, or it might not.
d. There is some confusion about who English Department TA’s (PhD students teaching ETS curriculum) should report to. Is it Jolynn Parker? Is it Gregg Lambert? Nate will find out at the next Undergrad committee meeting.

C. Graduate Committee: Rachel Collins reports:

a. Amy Lang is the acting Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) for the Fall term only.
b. The grad committee’s goals for the year are threefold:
i. Find a new DGS
ii. Develop Syllabi for the proposed pro-seminars that are part of the revised graduate curriculum.
iii. Reshaping the graduate curriculum – including “marketing” the program to the outside, and trying to get at least one year of fellowship for all PhD students.

2. A motion was made to make Corrine the 1st year student representative to EGO. It passed on the floor. Corrine is the 1st year rep.

3. Jon Senchyne reports on his meeting with Gregg Lambert

A. Jon and Cristina Stasia will be meeting with Gregg at 1pm on Monday September 12th.
Upon request from EGO they will be sure to discuss:
a. The ETS TA office situation. There is some confusion about who belongs in what office, where Salt Hill is supposed to be, and getting computers fixed. We would like to know who is supposed to be where, we would like that clearly marked on doors, and to have the Apple computer fixed.
b. Improved communication about Assembly meetings, notably some kind of email confirmation about time and location.
B. Jon met with Gregg last week and discussed the following:
a. Gregg expressed some concern about EGO representatives on Department Assembly standing committees using their votes as a block. While EGO has traditionally used its 4 votes in unison to represent the collective will of EGO, Gregg feels that this was not the intention when voting rights were extended. He also said that he is aware that EGO will probably continue to function in this way. Jon and Rachel checked the EGO constitution and are confident that it is within our own guidelines to vote as a block when EGO reaches consensus. Mike Dwyer added that last year we did not vote as a block when we were not in consensus as a body politic.

b. The English Library. Once all of the furniture arrives the English library will be used for Graduate seminars, department committee meetings, ego meetings, “open time,” and Gregg will be holding a monthly graduate student luncheon (paid by the department) that will be open to all MA, PhD, and MFA students.
c. Gregg Lambert will be giving 2 of the old folding tables from HL 421 (the seminar room) to replace the missing TA desks in HBC wherever they are needed the most (and fit). Again this is contingent on the arrival of new furniture.
d. Jon and Gregg also discussed the place of MFA students within EGO. It is clear that there is an MFA student on the Creative Writing Committee, but that student is not administered through EGO. Rather it is done “in house” through the CW wing of the department. MFA at one time had their own student group, and according to Gregg Lambert, EGO was always intended to be for PhD/MA students. Now, however, MFA students are officially included in EGO membership. Jon Senchyne feels that in order to make EGO a worthwhile group for MFA students, EGO needs to in some way have an official stake in matters that would affect MFA students, something that is not possible without official representation. Jon Senchyne would prefer if the CW Committee representative was a position administered officially through EGO, elected by and reporting to EGO as the other 4 reps do. Amata expressed concern that EGO should only seek to administer this position if MFA students are unsatisfied with the current setup. The prevailing attitude is that EGO would like to involve MFA students more, but that we cannot, in general, figure out how to do so since EGO’s political power rests squarely outside of the CW wing. This contributes to the false divide between the student body.

4. “Issues”
We discussed the ETS TA office situation, computers and their repair, and getting the department to set up a list serv to notify students when and where the department assembly meetings will be. Jon and Cristina will bring this up at the Monday meeting with Gregg Lambert.

5. The EGO Listserv.
A. A motion was made to remove all those currently on the listserv who are no longer in the department. This means graduates, those who have gone to other departments, and those who have otherwise left the program. The motion passed. Given the passing of this motion, Mike Dwyer is now the only legitimate listserv administrator, and therefore will be responsible for removing all non-current English Department Graduate students from the listserv.
B. Amata strongly discourages current students from asking to be taken off the list. Though it is inconvenient to get email when one is not interested in EGO, the body still represents that person in the Assembly and in the department. There may also be a time when an issue affecting such a person arises and they otherwise would not have the opportunity to access EGO electronically. There was general agreement about this point.

6. Writing Program Representation

A. Jon Senchyne talked about the reasons EGO might want to officially request representation of MA/MFA/PhD students within the governing committees (specifically the Lower Division Committee) of the Writing Program. These include:
a. English Department MA/MFA/PhD students make up a significant percentage of the Lower Division Faculty. By Nate Mill’s estimate they are 30% of the Lower Division teaching staff.
b. English Department MA/MFA/PhD students are the only teaching constituency without this kind of representation. PWI’s and CCR students have representation.
c. English Department MA/MFA/PhD students are expected to teach the lower division curriculum that the LD committee develops, but have no role in developing it.
d. There is no clear grievance system when MA/MFA/PhD students are fired from the Writing Program – something that happens with minor frequency – and having political representation would assist in bringing such problems to the Writing Program’s attention.

B. Cristina Stasia said that we should alert Gregg Lambert if we are going to formally present a request for representation to the Writing Program so that he is not “blind sided” in the event that the Writing Program reacts negatively and comes to see him about it. Rachel is also going to alert Anne Fitzsimmons about this.

C. A motion was made to give Jon Senchyne permission to draft a letter to the Writing Program requesting representations for the reasons mentioned above. The letter will be brought before EGO, revised as the body wishes, and delivered after it has been approved by EGO at the next meeting. The motion passed.


These minutes are unedited and are subject to the approval of the EGO membership at the next meeting.