Graduate student CPUC representatives elected for first time by popular vote recommendation with 1.6 percent turnout

Candidates for graduate student representatives on the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) were recommended by popular vote for the first time this year. The candidates were then formally confirmed by the Graduate Student Government (GSG) Assembly, which voted on the candidates Monday evening. Each of the CPUC positions were uncontested, and only 1.6 percent of the graduate student population participated in the vote. 

The CPUC, which includes undergraduate, graduate, faculty, staff, and community representatives along with administrators, is a University deliberative body that meets six times a year. It discusses and votes on broad issues concerning the University and community at large.

Dayton Ashby GS was elected to the Executive Committee, Qingyang Wu GS and Natalie Sum Yue Chung GS to the Rights and Rules Committee, Dustin Chen GS and Zoë Gorman GS were elected to the Priorities Committee, Andrew Nguy GS to the Resources Committee, Fiona Brauer GS to the Judicial Committee, and Nicole Shi GS to the Naming Committee.

Ashby, Chung, Nguy, Brauer, and Shi, the top five scorers in the election, will also serve as CPUC members-at-large in addition to the GSG vice president and president.

Per an email sent by Gorman to the GSG Assembly, only 54 graduate students voted, a comparable number to the numbers of members in the GSG Assembly. The University has around 3,365 enrolled graduate students, meaning just around 1.6 percent of graduate students voted.

No candidate ran for a seat on the Governance Committee. Gorman wrote in her April 28 email to graduate students that, if somebody were to run for this position, another election could happen over the summer.

Originally, the CPUC vote was going to take place via a direct popular vote in January, but current GSG President Jan Ertl GS objected to CPUC elections occurring at the same time as the general GSG election. Ertl had noted a GSG bylaw that states CPUC elections are to be held in April and voted on by the GSG assembly, according to a January email to the assembly obtained by the ‘Prince.’

CPUC representatives were previously selected without a popular vote recommendation by GSG’s 13-member executive board and 40-member assembly. GSG Executive Board members are also selected by popular vote from the entirety of the graduate students.

Because the assembly currently does not have enough members to change its bylaws, it cannot technically institute a direct popular vote to elect its CPUC representatives.

“Our bylaws prohibit us from changing the official structure of CPUC elections without a two-thirds approval from all Assembly seats,” Gorman wrote to the ‘Prince.’ “Unfortunately, we lack sufficient active Assembly representatives [to hold this vote].”

Dayton expressed excitement over his new role, writing to the ‘Prince’ that he is “excited to represent my fellow graduate students in advancing their interests and I look forward to working with university administration to do just that.”

Similarly, Nguy wrote to the ‘Prince’ that he is “happy to represent the graduate students on CPUC.”

Other winners did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Many GSG members expressed support for the new popular vote recommendation.

“Opening the CPUC elections to popular vote is part of a broader effort on this year’s GSG Executive Board to make university governance more accessible to grad students,” Gorman wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’ “We received enthusiasm for the change both among students during the GSG elections.”

“I think [the popular vote] is a great idea, especially as more students can get involved and participate in this governance process,” Ananya Chakravarti GS, the GSG Health and Life Officer, wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’

However, some also said the popular vote recommendation did not affect their campaigns.

Nguy wrote before the results were released that he was running because he was “curious to see what University democracy actually looks like from the inside,” although that the change to the popular vote didn’t influence his decision to run.

Wu echoed Nguy’s sentiment, expressing to the ‘Prince’ that “the shift to a popular vote is a positive step… [but] my original commitment to serving the graduate community remains exactly the same.”

Notably, Gorman’s April 20 email noted that 21 departments are missing GSG Assembly representatives. These departments include several STEM fields — including bioengineering, molecular biology, and physics, — as well as the language departments French and Italian, German, and Spanish and Portuguese.

Chakravarti wrote to the ‘Prince’ that “Assembly membership is one representative per [department] or organization,” so increasing Assembly membership is reliant upon recruiting from unrepresented departments.

Nguy expressed that a nomination and selection process is not an effective method to choose GSG departmental representatives.

“I think most graduate students are unprepared when the departments ask for a volunteer at the beginning of the year,” Nguy wrote to the ‘Prince.’ “In my experience, the nomination and selection process is haphazard and often leads to selecting a reluctant GSG representative.”

Ashby, who ran uncontested for the CPUC Executive Committee, wrote, “More people should be interested in serving on the GSG Assembly, or on the Executive Committee, or running for CPUC, but they aren’t, which only leads to worse electoral competition and worse outcomes for graduate students.”

Ashby also said that the lack of competition left him slightly disheartened. “Honestly, I hoped for more interest and competition. My hunch is that [a] lot of students have immense workloads and probably don’t have time to spare on committee meetings,” Nguy wrote.

Gorman wrote, “We have reached out to the Graduate Program Administrators as well as to all graduate students to increase representation on Assembly. As an Exec board, we have spoken with students in the inactive programmes to encourage them to serve as reps. We have seen some steady progress in filling seats and generating interest and continue to welcome new reps to the Assembly.”

Per Gorman’s communication, voting concluded April 27 at noon, although the election page stated that voting closed at midnight on April 26. Gorman wrote to the ‘Prince’ that the accurate conclusion time was April 27 at noon. Voting for the election was completed online.

“We would have loved to see more participation in this vote, but this number is still greater than the Assembly members voting,” Gorman wrote to the ‘Prince,’ attributing the lack of participation to the lack of contested positions.

Meghana Veldhuis is a senior News writer for the ‘Prince.’ She is from Bergen County, N.J., and typically covers graduate students, postdocs, faculty, and campus unions and labor. She can be reached at mv4991[at]princeton.edu.

Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.