Student Assembly

Student Assembly Meeting Minutes
WSH: Memorial Room
4:45 p.m. — 6:00 p.m.
September 21, 2006

I. Call to Order

K. Thomison called the meeting to order at 4:52 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Carrie Bodner, Sarah Boxer, Daniel Budish, Mark Coombs, Kate Duch, Adam Gay, Roger Gousse, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Grace Leonard, Neal Nisargand, Ahmed Salem, Sarah Santana, Calvin Selth , CJ Slicklen, Kwame Thomison, Mazdak Asgary, Rachel Goldfarb

Excused:Shivaun Deena, Maddie Ehrilich, Stacey Lynch Others Present: Ari Epstein

III. Open Microphone

M. Coombs asked for comments from audience members. There were none.

IV. Approval of Minutes

K. Thomison said the members should have the minutes for 9/14/06.

C. Slicklen pointed out that Resolution 1, which is a charter amendment, only received 13 affirmative votes. Since it is a charter amendment, it would require 2/3 of the body of 23 members in order to pass. Because of this, Resolution 1 had not actually passed.

K. Thomison confirmed Slicklen’s comment.

C. Selth said that it isn’t fair to count four unfilled seats as negative votes. Votes should be counted as a percentage of the active body.

K. Thomison said they would need to raise the issue again after elections.

There was a motion to table the minutes from 9/14/06 and 8/31/06 pending corrections. The motion was seconded and there was no dissent. The motion to table the minutes was approved.

S. Boxer asked what the point of voting on anything was if they were counting 23 seats instead of the 19 filled seats.

K. Thomison responded that other resolutions (those that do not require charter changes) could still be passed by just a majority of members.

V. Announcements/Reports

Fall Election Update: N. Chadda said that the polls for freshman/transfer elections closed this morning. They only had four or five voting problems with the online system, so it was a complete success. The results of the election should be available by noon tomorrow, including the vote totals. Tonight the elections committee will hear the elections challenges. After reviewing the challenges, they have decided that only three will be heard. Elections were a complete success and they look forward to announcing and welcoming new members soon.

Blood Drive: R. Goldfarb said that only a couple people had signed up for the blood drive. Also, accepting the invitation on facebook does not count as signing up; you must email her for a specific time to attend. This is a Greek sponsored event, but you don’t have to be Greek to participate. Anyone interested should email her and pass the information along to their friends. Remember, one hour saves three lives.

Finance Update: S. Boxer thanked the three committees who turned in budgets for doing so — SAFC, Ivy Council and JAMIC. She said she’d see them on Monday. She assumes everyone else is happy with the standard budget allocation. For spending money, the chairs of committees should see her beforehand and then save receipts so she can sign off on reimbursements after purchases.

Parliamentarian Update: M. Asgary called everyone’s attention to the parliamentary procedure packets handed out. It includes a lot of useful information and a charter cheat sheet. He recommended that everyone put it in their binders. If anyone has questions, they can ask him after the meeting. Also, they will be taking their charter tests today after the meeting. Finally, they do have one resolution coming up today that will be a charter change. He reminded them that they must get 2/3 of the 23 (16) total votes in order to pass the resolution.

Retreat: E. Greenberg thanked everyone for coming to the retreat; he hopes they all got a lot out of it. For anyone who didn’t attend, it will count as half an absence. In the future, he asked that people let him know ahead of time if they cannot attend a function.

Public Relations Update: C. Slicklen said that Phi-tug is Saturday; they need six people to participate. Anyone interested should contact him. He also announced that they would be starting a new program called Coffee with the Dean, twice a month. The hotel school dean will be sitting in the lounge for students to come and talk with him. The dean will be funding it. It will be a good chance for outreach to students. Also, everyone should have received a copy of the SA Guestroom rules. The assembly will discuss them at a later date.

VI. Business of the Day

K. Thomison asked for additions to the agenda for business of the day. There were none.
Carrie Bodner Y
Sarah Boxer Y
Daniel Budish Y
Mark Coombs -
Shivaun Deena -
Kate Duch Y
Maddie Ehrlich -
Adam Gay Y
Roger Gousse Y
Elan Greenberg Y
Vincent V. Hartman Y
Ryan Lavin Y
Grace Leonard Y
Neal Nisargand Y
Ahmed Salem Y
Sarah Santana Y
Calvin Selth Y
CJ Slicklen Y
Kwame Thomison Y

VII. Unfinished Business

R. 8 Resolution Regarding Homecoming There was a motion to table Resolution 8.

K. Thomison said that all the authors of the resolution had withdrawn their names so the resolution was tabled indefinitely.

R. 6 Resolution Regarding SA Agenda Formulation
Since K. Thomison is a cosponsor on resolution six, Executive Vice President Mark Coombs acted as chair for this section of the meeting.

M. Asgary made pointed out one change to the resolution. In section 6.7, the agenda will now be the duty of the Executive Vice President, instead of the President.

K. Thomison pointed out that this resolution will need 16 votes to pass, and there are only 17 members present. If anyone has any questions or problems, please speak up now.

The resolution was called to question and seconded. There was no dissent. A vote was taken via roll call.

The resolution was passed unanimously.

VIII. New Business

R. 11 Resolution Regarding SA Member Duties\ R. Lavin asked the members for their feedback on the proposal. He then plans to talk with the deans of each school to get their input and opinions. The resolution is pretty self explanatory; the goal is to improve the liaison relationship that college representatives have with their respective deans and administrations. The resolution calls for a minimum of 3 meetings per semester with the dean and a report at the next regularly scheduled SA meeting following the meeting.

D. Budish said he hopes all of the representatives are already doing this. The resolution will just formalize it as a responsibility.

R. Lavin added that for the colleges with multiple representatives, the representatives could alternate or attend the meetings together. He doesn’t anticipate this proposal being a problem for any of the deans, but does plan to talk with them to make sure. So far, the representatives who have been meeting with their deans have had great success.

C. Selth made a motion to suspend the standing rules and move resolutions 11 and 12 to business of the day. It was seconded. There was dissent.

M. Asgary pointed out that resolution 11 cannot be moved to business of the day because it is a charter change.

K. Thomison reminded the assembly that items under new business are open for questions and comments, not debate.

M. Coombs clarified that the sponsors of the resolution hadn’t spoken with any of the deans yet, but planned to consult them.

R. Lavin said he has discussed it with his dean; they have bimonthly meetings. However, they haven’t officially consulted all the deans.

M. Coombs asked if there is anything currently that prevents any SA member from visiting a dean.

R. Lavin answered no, there is not.

D. Budish added that schedules of the deans are the only thing that affects members meeting with them.

S. Boxer asked if the resolution is just making it mandatory for representatives to meet with the deans.

R. Lavin said yes, three times each semester.

S. Boxer commented that three meetings would be very difficult with the Arts and Sciences dean. She asked if they had taken that into account.

C. Slicklen said they did think about that and considered changing it; that is why they are asking for feedback. Maybe for bigger schools like arts or engineering where the deans are more high profile, the representatives could meet with another high senior administrator like an associate dean.

R. Lavin said they planned to talk with the Arts dean last. In that case, if he sees that all of the other deans have signed on, it might influence him. He commented that there also might be a dean in arts specifically designated for student affairs.

M. Coombs pointed out that in standing rule 17 it specifies that an item cannot be placed under new business if all of the parties affected haven’t been contacted — in this case the deans.

K. Thomison said that since the sponsors had contacted some deans, he would allow the resolution to remain on the agenda. However, he required them to contact all of the deans before they vote.

R. Lavin said they wanted some input before meeting with high-level officials, but the definitely plan to talk with each dean.

R. Goldfarb asked if there is some penalty for people that don’t comply; that would be extreme.

R. Lavin said they didn’t feel a penalty was necessary. They are just outlining a responsibility that, in his opinion, is very beneficial for both parties.

R. 12 Resolution Regarding Academic Bill of Rights Referendum

V. Hartman asked if the assembly members were supposed to have a copy of the Academic Bill of Rights.

Ari Epstein said the document wasn’t attached to the documents for today’s meeting. He said it was a technical difficulty.

A. Salem said the Academic Bill of Rights has been an issue under discussion for a last time amongst our peer institutions; Princeton passed it recently. Because it is such a heated issue that impacts students directly, the authors feel the best way to take a ruling on the issue is through a student referendum. This resolution is not taking a stance or opinion on the bill, just recognizing it as an issue of students concern. Also, a referendum would improve the relationship between the students and the assembly, bringing good publicity to the SA.

C. Slicklen agreed with representative Salem, emphasizing the PR this referendum would bring to the assembly and the positive press it would receive in the Sun. It will show that the SA is willing to listen to its constituency. He said they would email a copy of the bill later for those who haven’t seen it.

A. Salem said this is not supposed to be a contentious resolution, it just allows them to hold a referendum.

S. Boxer asked them to clarify what a referendum is.

C. Slicklen said it is a vote taken by the student body on whether they agree or disagree with the bill of rights. It will be run through the office of assemblies. They also plan to have a lot of publicity and get information out to students so they will have an informed voter population.

C. Bodner asked if they had talked to the Sun about whether or not it will be possible to run a point/counterpoint article for this issue. They are very busy and there might not be room.

C. Slicklen said that the SA has access to the Guestroom column on Tuesdays and Fridays when there is room. He would give them plenty of advance notice that they would need the Guestroom to publish an article about the bill of rights, so it shouldn’t be a problem. Also, the Sun will realize how much press this topic will generate.

M. Coombs asked if they could have more information on how this passed at Princeton — who passed it? Was it contentious?

A. Salem said that it was very contentious. That is why they are proposing a referendum, so that it won’t be 23 students deciding the opinion of thousands.

M. Coombs asked if this issue had been brought up at Cornell before.

A. Salem said yes, it had, but failed to pass by one vote.

M. Coombs asked how asked how they would determine what “both sides” of the issue were. He also asked if the authors of the resolution if they feel academic freedom at Cornell is lacking.

A. Salem said they would work with the executive board of the SA and the vice president of communications to identify both sides of the issue. In response to his second, the resolution is not meant to take a stance on whether or not academic freedom is lacking, just that it is an important issue to students.

V. Hartman asked for clarification on what it means that the referendum would not be costly because it is administered by CIT.

A. Salem said thy think it is within their ability to pay. Unlike debates in the past about holding reelections, the price for this referendum will not be $6,000. He did not have the specific numbers, but was addressing concerns that could have come out of discussions from past years.

C. Selth said it is a very interesting idea. He suggested having a forum with a panel of government professors to publicize the issue and get information out to students about the referendum so their votes give more accurate responses. He commented that for next week they should include a packet with specific info formation about the costs and what has happened at the other Ivy schools.

S. Boxer asked where the money is coming from. She agreed that they should look into a panel; that would also help gauge student interest. A referendum like they are proposing can still cost thousands of dollars to accomplish, so she encouraged them to look into other options in case the referendum proves too costly.

V. Hartman asked if this resolution would affect graduate students.

A. Salem said no, they are an undergraduate body. A similar resolution would have to be passed by the GPSA separately. However, they haven’t consulted the GPSA.

C. Slicklen added that the results of the referendum would be sent to the GPSA.

V. Hartman asked if the bill specifies in its language “undergraduate students” or if it just refers to “students.”

A. Salem answered that it says “students,” but for their purposes it would be kept to undergrads.

M. Coombs mentioned that there is a discrepancy between the wording in the title and the wording in the resolution. One refers to Academic Bill of Rights, while the other says Student Bill of Rights. What’s the difference?

A. Salem said there is a slight difference. The Academic Bill of Rights is the original version and the Student Bill of Rights was the version that was slightly changed and passed by Princeton. The resolution should read “academic” in all cases, and they will change it to do so. The versions aren’t contradictory; they go hand in hand. Also, if you want to read the bill, it is online at studentsforacademicfreedom.org. He said looking at it online would save paper and be more environmentally friendly,

D. Budish said it is hard to get students excited about something that sounds tedious and academic. Do the authors have any ideas for publicity to get students excited?

C. Slicklen said they’re working on that. They plan to chalk, quartercard, and write letters to the editor. There are a number of forms they can use to get students excited and get information out — such as the forum.

S. Boxer asked if an action by the SA could be viewed nationally as some sort of partisan effort or campaign. If the assembly is getting behind it, even in terms of publicity, is there any concern that it may be viewed as a partisan issue or the assembly would be associated with one party?

A. Salem said it is no secret that the bill of rights was written by David Horowitz, who is a member of the Republican party. However, there are a lot of liberal supporters as well as opponents, and there are also conservative opponents. It’s an issue in its own right, not affiliated with any party. Princeton is a liberal institution, and they took a referendum on the issue without getting labeled as anything. He said to kill an idea because it was created by one party or the other is not fair. If the assembly were to take a stance and publicize it as something they agree or disagree with, then it would be a problem. It is a valid concern to worry, but the issue is important in its own right.

S. Boxer asked if they felt the text of the bill has any undertones to it.

A. Salem said no, there is nothing in the text that suggests that its partisan.

N. Nisargand asked if they were going to take the text straight off the website.

A. Salem said yes. They will look through it again to see if anything jumps out or if they get a feeling of something underlying the text. They also have the option to produce their own version and use that text for the referendum.

C. Slicklen said they could include the actual text in the resolution and approve it, if they want.

E. Greenberg said the university would have to sign on to legitimize the students’ decision. He asked if they had consulted with the administration yet.

C. Slicklen said a referendum is a vote of the majority of the student body undergraduates at Cornell. Whether or not the administration is open to it, it is important for them to know how the students feel. It is possible to consult them to let them know it is happening.

E. Greenberg asked if they would put the referendum forth without support of the administration.

C. Slicklen said yes, they would.

C. Selth asked if they planned to propose a resolution after the referendum, based on the results.

A. Salem said no, the referendum becomes an action of the SA.

C. Selth pointed out the low percentage of students that vote in online elections. He asked if there was a certain number of undergraduates they would look to have participate before considering the results valid.

A. Salem said they have no control over who actually votes. Voter apathy is a problem, but throwing out the results because of it disregards those who did vote.

A. Gay said it would be fair for them to do a few chalking and have only ten percent of the students turn out to vote, maybe just friends of the members. What does it mean that it doesn’t matter if only a small percentage of people vote and that’s that?

A. Salem said it just means 3,000 or however many people voted. They can’t make sure everyone votes. Just because an Arts representative only receives 400 votes, we don’t tell them that they aren’t representatives of student opinions to the assembly.

K. Thomison asked the members to keep their questions to the merits of the resolution and refrain from debate.

V. Hartman asked what the bill of rights does.

A. Salem said it is a statement from the student body about whether or not they think it’s an important issue at Cornell.

There was a motion to end discussion. It was seconded. There was dissent.

S. Boxer asked if there is anyone remaining on the speakers list.

K. Thomison said yes, representatives Coombs and Greenberg are on the speaker’s list.

A vote was taken via hands. With a vote of 11–6−0, the motion to end discussion passed.

R. 13 Resolution Regarding SA Purview
K. Thomison said the resolution either needed a cosponsor or the author would need to get petition signed by 100 students before presenting it.

A. Salem said he would be the cosponsor.

M. Asgary asked the members, in the interest of time, to read the resolution over the weekend and it will be under new business again next week.

IX. Adjournment

The meeting moved into executive session at 5:46 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Gilbertson
Student Assembly Clerk
Office of Assemblies