Volume 119, Number 11 | November 22, 2002
Background
For many years, some of Grinnell’s custodial staff have arrived for their shift at 4 AM and worked until 12:30 PM. Not until the last two years, however, has Facilities Management begun shifting Grinnell’s entire custodial staff—including all its residential custodians—to this early shift. Employees assigned to the early shift work in non-residential buildings for the early hours and, in some cases, finish their mornings in the residence halls. Under the new system, residence halls would be team-cleaned by a pair of custodians, rather than cleaned entirely by a single permanent employee.
FM administrators who favor this new system for maintaining the dorms say it would increase efficiency, because custodians could clean academic buildings without having to avoid classes and crowded hallways, and wouldn’t have to spend the first two hours of their shift tiptoeing around sleeping students in the dorms. Proponents also argue that pairing workers would raise the cleanliness standards of the less diligent member of each pair.
These arguments may indeed imply that the new system would offer increased efficiency. Even if it would, though, the administrative decision overlooks an array of bad side-effects:
- Most obviously, custodians would be obligated to keep very different hours from most of their friends and family; employees with young children, particularly, would have a hard time finding day care services at 4 in the morning.
- A custodian may be able to do his or her job faster without having to interact with students or faculty, but that doesn’t make the job more enjoyable—and it makes it hard for the people who use the building to tell them about dripping faucets and burned-out light bulbs. Alienating custodians from the rest of the community, and vice versa, also undermines a custodians’ connection to the people who benefit from their work, and the rest of the community’s connection to the people who clean up after them.
- Finally, and perhaps most importantly to students, dorm custodians are an important part of dorm life. Removing custodians’ individual commitment to their dorms would not only undermine their ability to take personal pride in a well-maintained building, it would strongly interfere with the ability of students to develop relationships with the staff, which improve the lives of everybody involved and certainly make students more likely to respect the buildings in which they live.
Fortunately, the college hasn’t been forcing custodians to move to the early shift—but it is requiring every new custodian that is hired, and every old custodian who asks to be moved to a different building, to take the early shift. There is widespread opposition to the new policy among the remaining day-shift custodians, but many feel they have no way of voicing their concerns. Some worry that they might lose their jobs if they spoke up; even if this perception is inaccurate, the fact that it even exists indicates an environment in which custodians have inadequate opportunities to communicate with management.
Statement of Initiative
Because there are more important things in life than efficiency, the student body urges Facilities Management to maintain its traditional practice of assigning each residence hall to an individual custodian rather than moving the dorms to a “team-cleaning” system. We also ask that the college cease its year-old policy of shifting these jobs into a 4 AM-12:30 PM shift. These new policies, opposed by many custodial staff, would assign custodians undesirable hours, putting especially unreasonable demands on staff members with young children. They would furthermore undermine Grinnell’s unique dorm community by interfering with student-staff relationships and removing both the students’ and the staff’s sense of shared responsibility for the places in which they live and work.
Plan of action
As stated in the initiative, the college should suspend the shift of residential custodians to the early-morning shift and the team-cleaning system. FM was willing to create a new administrative position to oversee the transition to the new system; it should be willing to create new custodial positions for each of the new East Campus dorms.
Sponsored by Michael Andersen [andersem]
Statement of Initiative
The Grinnell College Student Body, in solidarity with other colleges and universities, including the University of Iowa, is opposed to the use of military force in Iraq by the United States. We support efforts by the United States to pursue diplomatic means to disarm Iraq of its most destructive weapons in collaboration with the United Nations. We encourage effective weapons inspections coupled with the gradual lifting of sanctions on Iraq. We do not support the following actions by the U.S. government: a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, the current sporadic bombing campaigns within Iraq, unilateral military action in Iraq, or U.S. participation in military action against Iraq without demonstration that Iraq poses an imminent threat. We advocate a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Iraq.
Background
Students Resolutions opposing the war in Iraq are being passed all over the country. Recently University of Iowa has proposed a student resolution and similar resolutions have been passed at University of Texas-Austin, Macalester College, and Ithaca College as well as others. On November 7 the Washington D.C. City Council passed a resolution opposing pre-emptive U.S. military action in Iraq. By passing this resolution the Grinnell College student body would be joining in solidarity with other universities and representative bodies in opposing U.S. military force in Iraq without proof that they are an imminent threat to the United States and the international community.
For more information:
* UN Sec Council Resolution 144
Plan of Action
We, the Anti-War Group, will make sure the outcome of this initiative is known by the Grinnell College faculty, trustees, administration and community. We will send the initiative to the Grinnell Herald-Register, Des Moines Register, and other media outlets across the state of Iowa. A copy of this initiative will also be sent to Senators Harkin and Grassley, Congressman Boswell, the Bush Administration and the United Nations. We will also share the results of this vote with the Student Peace Action Network (SPAN), Global Exchange/United For Peace, and other state and national anti-war networks.
Sponsored by the Anti-War Alliance [antiwar].
Background
Grinnell is one of three or four colleges and universities in the country that rely primarily on students to govern themselves. The policy is reflected in, among other things, the SA system, which relies on student volunteers, rather than legally-bound-to-report-crime salaried employees, to foster hall community; in Grinnell’s open curriculum, which relies on individual students and their advisors to lay out students’ coursework rather than applying a one-size-fits-all guideline; and in this initiative process, which provides an outlet and a forum for student opinion. Until two years ago, it was reflected in a reliance on students to supervise their own and each other’s alcohol usage. The policy has so pervaded campus life since its institution that Grinnell didn’t have a security department until 1998.
Maintaining a workable self-governance policy isn’t easy. Some students seem to disregard their responsibilities as members of the community, abusing campus bikes, contributing to excessively loud or belligerent parties, or failing to supervise each others’ alcohol use. In this atmosphere, SGA VP Devan McGranahan has suggested revising the self-governance policy to include punitive consequences, such as community service, for “actions that violate the general community.” Though such a change would effectively roll back self-governance as we know it—providing, in fact, a broader mandate for supervising students’ personal lives than any administrative decision would ever be permitted to—some students and administrators seem receptive to the idea, seeing it as the only way to prevent problems that they see as having grown in recent years.
Self-governance, as it now exists, is a defining characteristic of Grinnell. It is the cornerstone of student life. The policy should be maintained and can be maintained, but for its continued success, each student must understand it and the responsibility it implies. This initiative, therefore, has two objectives: to endorse the existing concept of self-governance rather than any system that would attempt to enforce obedience to a set of guidelines, and simply to give individuals a reason to think and talk about the meaning of self-governance.
Statement of Initiative
The policy of self-governance being perhaps the single most unique characteristic of Grinnell College, I, as a member of the student body, affirm my commitment to its ideals and my understanding of the burden it places upon each of us. As a believer in the worth of all human beings and the potential of individuals to shape a just and happy society through discourse rather than punitive enforcement, I personally pledge to respect my peers and their opinions and, whenever possible, to seek to resolve conflicts without reliance upon external authority. I likewise pledge to care for the well-being of those around me and always to consider not only my own self-interest, but the ways in which my actions influence my community.
In making this pledge, I voice my opposition to proposals being discussed by some members of the student government which would attempt to codify and “enforce” adherence to the principles of self-governance.
Plan of action
Self-governance depends completely upon each person’s voluntary choice to adhere to its precepts. Which means it can’t function if people aren’t always aware of it and willing to discuss its implications. Which means that even if you don’t think self-governance should be maintained in its current form, you’re participating in the plan right now. Perhaps you could ask your friends what they think of this initiative?
Sponsored by Michael Andersen [andersem].
Statement of Initiative
This initiative calls for the free distribution of hot water at the Forum Grill to customers who provide their own container. The results will serve as a quantification of the students who desire such a service on this campus. If passed, this initiative will provide evidence supporting the argument for free hot water when it is presented to the appropriate administrators.
Justifications for, and future of, this initiative:
According to a recent (11-20-2002) conversation with Mary Kirk, a charge of $0.15 is to be applied to every cup of hot water provided by the Forum Grill, regardless of whether the customer provided their own cup or not. Justifications for the charge include mitigation of the expense consumed in the heating of the water, human energy expended in moving the water from the heater to the consumer, and a control on the depletion of hot water availability, as hot water is a limited resource at the Grill. Also, in the spirit of being “Capitalist,” Ms. Kirk is interested in making money at the counter.
The author of this initiative respects the desire to curb financial loss at every possible juncture. However, the author also views the Forum Grill as a valuable service to the College Community, and in this capacity of a service, the value of free hot water overrides the importance of covering the expenses incurred with each individual serving of hot water. This Student Initiative serves to allow the student body of Grinnell College to voice a request for free hot water at the Forum Grill to any customer bearing their own container. Such a change in policy would increase the presence of the Grill as a service provided to the College Community that is not operating strictly for profit, as well as encourage the use of reusable mugs in an effort to decrease consumer waste on campus.
Upon the approval of this Initiative by the Student Body, this proposal will be submitted to the individuals and offices that control prices at the Forum Grill. This document shall serve as a foundation for discourse regarding the trade-offs between decreased profits and the role of the Grill as a service to the College Community. Elected representatives of the student body, including the author of this initiative in his capacity of SGA Vice President, will work with administrators towards achieving the desired ends of free hot water for those who produce their own container at the Forum Grill.
Sponsored by Devan Allen McGranahan [sgavp].
Background
The underlying premise of this initiative is that the current dance program in Grinnell College does not accommodate the needs of the student body. Even though there are currently 6 student dance groups on campus, there is only 1 dance studio. The number of people who dance, make up approximately 1/12th of the student body. Many of these students, however, still feel that they are not getting a proper dance education at Grinnell College. In spite of past efforts to improve the dance program, the current dance program remains inadequate in many ways. The disparity between the interest for dance and the venues for dance instruction and performance is huge. Some of the problems with the dance program are as follows.
1) There is an urgent need to create more spaces for dance. There are various student dance groups which have difficulty finding space where they can practice. These groups have to fight over reserving the Harris Center or various residence hall lounges in order to accommodate the needs of their group. Neither of these places is adequately furnished for dance instruction or practice. Such spaces should be included in the plans for the new Student Center and the Physical Education Complex.
2) There are not enough performance and technique based dance classes. Only one or two performance classes, such as modern dance or ballet are offered every semester. In fall 2002, the only performance type dance class was beginning modern dance and many students felt that this was not nearly enough.
3) It becomes very difficult to get into such classes since the number of students who want to take these classes is large and the number of students that can be permitted to each class is very limited. As a result, the classes close during pre-registration and many students are locked out of dance classes.
4) Furthermore, only one modern dance or ballet class is offered each semester; if the class is conflicting with the students’ schedule, the students do not have the option of taking the class that semester.
5) In another vein, in fall 2002, “Ballet I” could not be offered since the instructor for the class left and was not replaced until her return next year. Although “Ballet I” was listed again in the course booklet for spring 2003, it will not be offered since a ballet instructor has still not been hired.
6) The dance program is inadequate in the variety and the progression of the performance based classes. The curriculum covers only modern dance and ballet and no jazz or African dance.
7) The dance program as it stands does not push students to reach for advanced levels of performance. Ballet and modern dance classes stop at level II which prevents students from improving their dance skills further.
8) The only opportunity for students to better their performance in dance with the help of a faculty member seems to be through the Dance Troupe. However, the troupe is an audition-based group, which also requires a serious time commitment on the part of the students. The creation of more performance groups with various levels of commitment could compensate for the lack of options in this area.
Statement of Initiative
More spaces for dance instruction or practice should be created as soon as possible, especially within the framework of the plans for the new Student Center and the new Physical Education Complex. The program should especially have a more extensive and advanced offering of performance and technique based dance classes such as ballet, African dance, Jazz dance or Latin Dance. The program should make an effort to offer classes of a broader cultural spectrum. Furthermore, the dance program in Grinnell College should evolve so that it will offer a deeper curriculum. The curriculum should reach an advanced level in each dance form that it offers; there should be more than just 2 semesters of training in a single type of dance. There should be more introductory course sections each semester. More dance instructors should be employed by the college. The Theater department should create more opportunities for students to work with faculty in dance performance and in other dance related areas.
Plan of Action
· Include spaces for dance instruction or practice in the new Student Center or the new Physical Education Complex.
· Expand dance performance class offerings as to include Modern Dance, African Dance, Latin Dance, Ballet and Jazz Dance.
· Bring in part time or full time dance instructors (Dance instructors from nearby universities, which have dance programs, might be an option).
· Have a progression of each type of performance class (e.g. Modern dance I, II, III, IV)
· Offer more sections for each introductory course.
· Develop similar alternatives to the Dance Troupe, which will require a variety of time commitments and will not be audition based.
Sponsored by Nazli Eginlioglu [eginliog], Sophie Walker [walkerso], Shira Fagan [fagan].
Background
Whereas Grinnell Students are reputedly intelligent people.
Whereas campus bikes function less effectively when hurled off the loggia.
Whereas vandalism for no reason is obnoxious and vandalism for a political cause is obnoxious.
Whereas no hallway is an acceptable receptacle for fecal matter.
Whereas ice cream is less appealing when smeared across the loggia.
Whereas the mess that you make will not just go away.
Whereas loggia pedestrians live in fear of those who prefer other modes of transportation.
Whereas lounge televisions are happier in their native habitat.
Whereas recreational vomiting is not an acceptable social activity.
Etc…
Statement of Initiative
Be it resolved that the Grinnell student body should be less dumb.
Plan of Action
Think; take responsibility for your actions; be less dumb.
Sponsored by Brooks Brunner [brunnerb] and Kate Ottesen [ottesenk].
Background
Last semester, over 900 students signed a petition requesting that ITS “increase student access to computers by providing more labs with more computers in more locations.” The administration reacted to this by preserving existing dorm labs, but did not add any computers.
24 hour access is currently limited to 37 public computers across campus for the entire student body. The YMCA’s computers, which are slated to be dispersed, could be better used providing a useful and convenient resource for students in the residence halls. Dorm labs are also frequented by those without computers and those who find it difficult to work in their rooms, as well as by those who need software for classes. North Campus in particular needs more convenient computing: it has the most students and the lowest public computer to student ratio.
Statement of Initiative
We, the students of Grinnell, recognize that dorm labs are still a necessity for students, and accordingly request that ITS place at least two 24-hour dorm labs on East Campus and one in Gates Pit using the YMCA’s computers. The other dorm labs should be preserved.
Plan of Action
The YMCA’s 24 computers are not currently available 24 hours a day; this plan simply calls for the redistribution of these computers to those areas where they will be available to students at all times. Gates Pit will be losing all of its loggia-side rooms anyway, and the primary cost is that of moving computers from the YMCA since network cables, furniture and space on East Campus are already budgeted for. Bill Francis, Director of ITS, has said that the cost of more dorm labs is not the primary constraint. Students would thus gain greater access to the computing resources they require at minimal cost.
Sponsored by the Student Academic Computing Committee [SACC] and Alejandro Oyarzabal [sgaprez].
Just the basics:
1) go to Blackboard,
http://blackboard.grinnell.edu anytime next Tuesday, that means midnight to midnight.
2) Log-in. Remember that your Blackboard password isn’t necessarily the same as your regular webmail/NT storage password. (more on that later)
3) Click on SGA Election link on the bottom right hand corner of the “Welcome” window.
4) Vote.
What if I’ve never used Blackboard before?
This is where it gets a little more tricky. Your Blackboard password isn’t the same as your regular Webmail/NT storage password. If you’re not a first year or a transfer student, until you change it, your password for Blackboard is automatically set for the last seven digits of your ID number including some of those leading zeros. However, if you are a first-year or a transfer student, until you change it, your password is the number after you drop all the leading zeros. All of them.
I don’t get it. Who can help me?
For help logging into to Blackboard or with the ballot itself, contact Liz Allan, SGA administrative coordinator at x4310 or the Help Desk at x4400. The Help Desk is only open until 10.
Where I can I get full text of the initiatives?
They’re available on the S&B’s website at www.grinnell.edu/sandb. They will also be available on Blackboard with the initiatives on election day.
News | Arts | Features | Opinion | Sports | Staff | Archives | Email the Editor | Email the Webmaster
* Names given to the initiatives to allow for easier identification.The S&B does not assume any responsibilty for the same.