Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly Meeting
February 8, 2007
4:45 — 6:30 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:45 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Daniel Budish, Mark Coombs, David Crockett, Shivaun Deena, Kate Duch, Maddie Ehrlich, Danielle Fernandes, Jos� Gonzales Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Grace Leonard, Neal Nisargand, Remy Roizen, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Calvin Selth, CJ Slicklen, Kwame Thomison

Excused: Sarah Boxer, Adam Gay, Sarah Santana

Unexcused: Ryan Lavin

III. Open Microphone

M. Coombs asked if any members of the community would like to speak.

No one came forward.

IV. Approval of Minutes

The chair moved on, seeing that there were no minutes to approve this week.

V. Announcements/Reports

UA Update — K. Duch

K. Duch gave a report on the UA forum that occurred Monday, February 5. She said that it was a success in that a large number of individuals came and expressed their concern regarding the proposed changes to the Campus Code of Conduct. It was unsuccessful in that there were only ten undergraduate students and three Student Assembly representatives present. Since this issue will have a large impact on students, she was disappointed to see the low attendance and would hope that students take a more active role in the future. There was an editorial in the Daily Sun about the lack of attendance on the part of undergraduates. The next University Assembly meeting will be February 28. At the March meeting, the discussion will center on what the CJC posted to the UA. At the April meeting, the proposed changes will be discussed and a report will be prepared for President Skorton. Anyone wishing to attend these meetings should speak to her.

C. Selth said that he agrees that it is important to have undergraduate representation. He had a time conflict with Monday’s meeting. He said that he was surprised that there has been only one forum due to the importance of this issue. He believes that undergraduates may have felt that some of the issues were not adequately discussed due to the different levels of familiarity that people had with the changes at the forum. He asked if the University Assembly might have the time to schedule an alternate forum or time when SA representatives and other student leaders could have an informal discussion to revive the undergraduate voice.

K. Duch said that there was a forum in the fall. She said that it might be possible to schedule an alternate forum. The UA website has a spot where individuals can submit comments. The Codes and Judicial Committee was encouraging those who spoke at Monday’s forum to submit their comments online and will read all the submitted comments.

R. 19 Update — M. Coombs

M. Coombs said that he met with Anne Kenney. She will be coming to speak to the assembly in the near future. The main issue that he discussed with her was the 24-hour library service. The library conducted a cost analysis and concluded that it would cost approximately $150,000 per year to keep Olin and Uris Libraries open 24-hours. If Uris Library is closed and Olin Library remains open 24-hours, it would cost $80,000 per year. If Olin’s hours remained the same and all portions of Uris Library were opened at night, there would be no known costs. However, there are positives and negatives to opening all of Uris. There would be 475 more seats, more computers and laptop availability. In a survey in which 1066 people responded, the main concerns were related to increased quiet study space, increased group study space, increased access to book stacks, increasing computing space, extended weekend hours and extended Olin Caf� hours. He said that he and A. Kenney ended up discussing how Olin Library has been attempting to get support for renovation that would address the concerns regarding lack of quiet study space and lack of computing space. If student support can be secured for renovation a lot of the concerns raised in the survey could be addressed.

A. Salem asked if M. Coombs and A. Kenney discussed computer accessibility issues.

M. Coombs said that they did discuss computer accessibility and that the topic of computing was heavily talked about at their meeting.

G. Leonard asked if M. Coombs and A. Kenney had scheduled the date on which A. Kenney would come speak to the SA.

M. Coombs said that they had not yet determined the date.

Dining Committee Update — M. Coombs

M. Coombs said that there was no meeting this week because he was in Washington D.C. The next meeting will be Monday, February 12 at 5:30 p.m. in Oakenshields. At the meeting, the committee will once again reevaluate the scheduled meeting time. He said that he will keep the assembly updated on the committee’s progress.

R. Salem asked what happened with the extension of Bear Necessities’ hours.

M. Coombs said the trial period occurred. It was extended a week longer than planned. There was not enough business to justify keeping Bear Necessities open for the extended time. The dining committee feels that the lack of business may have been due to inadequate advertising. There will be another trial period. He said that the committee is working with the dining administration to determine the best approach to advertising.

G. Leonard asked the committee if they have addressed or could address the issue of not being able to sign up for a meal plan for only one semester.

M. Coombs said that this has not been addressed. He said that the dining administration would be happy discuss any issues the representative had. He said that SA members should e-mail him concerns and he will place them on the agenda for the committee meetings.

SAFC Announcement — M. Ehrlich

M. Ehrlich said that the budget hearings are occurring from February 8-February 10. It is just the normal spring budget. There are only minor issues resulting from switching from annual to semester budgets. She said that the process seems to be going smoothly. She invited representatives to attend the budget hearings.

K. Thomison announced that the assembly will be going into executive session after the meeting to do committee and liaison reports.

VI. Business of the Day

Kyoto Now! Presentation — M. Perkins

M. Perkins asked if there was a projector because he had prepared a presentation.

E. Greenberg apologized that there was no projector. The SA had requested one. Realizing that M. Perkins had put a lot of effort into the presentation, E. Greenberg asked that M. Perkins e-mail him the PowerPoint so that he can e-mail it to the SA representatives.

M. Perkins spoke on behalf of Kyoto Now. He is a junior engineer and has been involved with Kyoto Now! since he came to Cornell. He is proposing a referendum to be added to the spring ballot. The questions Kyoto Now! would like to see on the ballot are (1) Should the Student Activity Fee include an option to pay a $5/semester renewable energy fee? a yes b no, (2) If implement, should this fee be: a mandatory b optional, and (3) If optional, should this fee be: a opt-in b opt-out. He said that he would be willing to change the wording of the questions. He said that he would like to provide some information from a report published by the intergovernmental panel on climate change which is the global voice for this issue. The panel reported that this is an issue that threatens every species and human. Air and water temperatures have increased significantly and snow fall has decreased over the past few decades. He discussed Mount Kilimanjaro which was covered in snow in 1993 and by 2000 82% of this snow was gone. An Inconvenient Truth shows around 50 mountain ranges that have also lost a significant amount of snow. He said that although snow in the mountains doe not directly affect our lives it is happening. In 2001, the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol a program, participated in by 168 nations, that is attempting to reduce emissions by 7%. After the United States withdrawal, there were no universities committed to this program. However, one university made national headlines when students got the administration to commit to the program. This university is Cornell. Cornell is a leader in sustainability is on track to meet the protocol. Reducing emissions by 7% is not really a very aggressive goal and does not really address the issue of climate change. Other universities have developed further guidelines. Cornell recently received a B- grade in sustainability. Kyoto Now! feels that this referendum is step towards keeping Cornell in pace with peer institutions. Kyoto Now! wishes to ask the proposed question on the ballot because a positive response will allow the SA to enact what the students want and because the administration is very ulikely to do something unless there is an overwhelming student response. Petitions with 3000 students name on them have done little to sway the administration. Asking the student body on the SA ballots will provide the support the administration needs to see. M. Perkins said that he had talked to the financial aid office and if the fee is implemented, financial aid will cover it.

K. Thomison said that right now the assembly does not have the option of providing a check off box on the Bursar Bill for the student activities fee.

N. Nisargand said that the bursar had previously said no to placing a check off box on the bill. He asked if M. Perkins had spoken to the registrar again.

M. Perkins said that he feels that this is an important enough of an issue to create a check box. If the student body shows their support for sustainability by voting in favor of the referendum the administration will potentially be more likely to cooperate.

K. Thomison said that as of right now the option is not available to have a check off item. In the past, the administration has been pretty steadfast regarding this; however, if Kyoto Now! wishes to pursue the check off issue, they are welcome to.

C. Selth said that he has been aware of Kyoto Now! and the issues they support since he first came to Cornell. He has witnessed their efforts over the past three years and is concerned that nothing has been done with. The SA has remained inactive in supporting Kyoto Now! He said that in the past four years, climate change has become more a more heavily discussed, mainstream issue that must be addressed. It is important to keep Cornell at par with other peer institutions. He said that he believes that placing referenda on the election ballots is a great idea in that it is a simple way of ensuring that students’ voices are heard. The members of the SA need to come together to push through the bureaucracy that has prevented Kyoto Now! from moving forward. A number of items are indirectly interfaced with the bursar, and if there is referendum that indicates strong student support, he thinks that the administration would be willing to work with Kyoto Now! and the assembly. If the fee is implemented, he asked whether Kyoto Now! was proposing opt-in or opt-out as the default status.

M. Perkins said that the question C. Selth just asked is question three on the referendum. A decision will be made based on the student responses.

C. Selth asked what Kyoto Now’s preference was.

M. Perkins said that he would really like for the students to decide. He said that opt-out seems preferable.

K. Thomison said that after the Kyoto Now! discussion, representative C. Slicklen will solicit ideas for referenda to be placed on the ballot in the upcoming election.

A. Salem said that the possibility that this referendum will make it on the spring ballot is uncertain. It may be more likely that this referendum will be placed on the fall ballot. He said that he thought that the point about charities seeking to obtain referendum if Kyoto Now! was able to place a referendum on the ballot was a valid argument.

M. Perkins said that this is an issue that Kyoto Now! has been working on for several years and is one that many people care deeply about. He said that it is the SA’s decision whether or not to place sustainability on the ballot mentioning that it is an extremely important issue to our generation. Allowing this issue to undergo referenda will push Cornell towards being a sustainable campus on par with peer institutions.

A. Salem asked if Kyoto Now! has considered holding a forum for students to discuss the issue of sustainability at Cornell and to determine student responses to proposed courses of action.

M. Perkins said that there is a sustainability hub each semester. He feels that there is honestly not much left to discuss. They will continue to have sustainability meetings throughout the semester.

M. Coombs asked what specific actions N. Nisargand would take if the referendum were to pass. He also asked M. Perkins what Kyoto Now! would do if the referendum failed.

K. Thomison asked M. Perkins if he would like the assembly to vote on approving the referendum today.

M. Perkins said that would like the SA to vote on this today.

M. Coombs asked what Kyoto Now’s response would be if the student body votes down the referendum.

M. Perkins said that he had not really considered Kyoto Now’s course of action if the referendum were to be voted down. Statistically speaking the chances of the referendum being voted down are extremely slight.

M. Coombs clarified that Kyoto Now expects the resolution to pass overwhelmingly.

C. Slicklen said that the check box has been presented as a primary concern. He feels that President Skorton, as an energy conscious administrator, would have enough pull in the University to get a check box placed on the Bursar Bill. He recommended that Kyoto Now! discuss this issue in their meeting with President Skorton on February 9. The main concern the assembly should focus on at this point is getting the referendum on the ballot and getting students to vote for it. C. Slicklen asked M. Perkins to tell the assembly more about the Kyoto Task Team. If the referendum is passed, there will be $130,000 to allocate. He asked what kind of representation the SA would have on the task team.

M. Perkins said that Kyoto Now! task team was created in 2001 by the CFO and a VP of Cornell. The team is chaired by University Engineer and the University Energy Chair. It is composed of Kyoto Now! students and various other faculty members. They currently spend between five and ten million dollars per year in retrofitting the buildings on campus to be more energy efficient. Because the committee is experienced in allocating large amounts of money, there is not a concern regarding the use of money obtained through the student fee. He said that SA representation on the committee can be easily created if the referendum passes.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly should give Kyoto Now! their fullest attention. They are the first organization to approach the assembly about placing a referendum on the ballot. At the moment there are no other charities seeking to place referenda on the ballot and the SA should deal with the task at hand.

K. Thomison reminded the representatives that they can make amendments or motion to call the previous question.

V. Hartman clarified that presently Kyoto Now! is seeking a statistical measure of campus support for the issue.

M. Perkins said the referendum Kyoto Now! is proposing to add to the ballot this spring is seeking data. They would be willing to come back when the assembly is doing byline funding to figure out the exact financial situation pertaining to the issue.

K. Thomison said that the assembly is not bound by what students say. Their responses can be viewed as recommendations.

M. Ehrlich asked the time and the place of the sustainability meeting.

M. Perkins said to contact drk5@cornell.edu to figure out the meeting times and locations.

K. Duch said that she thinks this referendum is a great idea. She is hesitant about including question three: “If optional, should this fee be: a. opt-in or b. opt-out” on the ballot. She feels that although students may be indifferent they would most likely automatically chose option a to avoid more mandatory fees. It may be possible for the administration to then use this response against Kyoto Now! She said that question two is appropriate.

M. Perkins said that there is no way of knowing how the students will vote. This same questions was asked at Harvard and students there supported it. He favors keeping in question three but feels that K. Duch has a valid point and is comfortable with either option.

There was a motion to strike question three from the referendum.

K. Thomison said the assembly would debate whether or not motion three should be stricken from the referendum.

M. Coombs said that he is in favor of this referendum in general. He would like to leave in question three. Regardless of how individuals feel about the cause, he thinks that students should have the option of determining whether the fee should be opt-in or opt-out.

C. Selth said that he agrees with K. Duch. He does not feel that question three should be left on the referendum because there is the potential for the administration to twist it into something negative. Since this referendum is not binding, it will not actually determine the structure. The choice to opt-in or opt-out can be added later in the process.

There was a motion to move the previous question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

K. Duch said that she is afraid that in the future the administration would use question three against Kyoto Now! and the assembly based on the student responses.

There was a hand vote. The motion passed.

E. Greenberg made a motion to move the previous question.

C. Selth made a point of order. He is adding himself as a signatory to the resolution.

M. Perkins thanked the assembly for listening to his presentation and for the comments they offered. He believes that approving this referendum will keep Cornell on par with other universities.

N. Nisargand does not think that the concerns raised about the Kyoto Now! referendum causing a revolving door of referenda will be a problem. He said that the point of having referenda is to address different issues each year.

There was a call for acclimation. There was no dissent. The resolution passed.

K. Thomison said that C. Slicklen will conduct a conversation about referenda ideas. This item was not on the agenda.

C. Slicklen said that there is only one referendum on the ballot for March and that he would like to solicit ideas for other referenda that students could vote on. The spring election has higher voter turnout so it would be more effective to place referenda on the spring ballot. If there is an issue that a representative would like to be placed on the ballot, they could hold forums and hearings resulting in great PR for the assembly. Representatives who have ideas for potential referendum should contact him. He said that in the past, one of the ideas was related to establishing a service provided by Cornell for legal music downloading. He said that last semester, he and A. Salem had discussed a resolution about the academic bill or rights. He is not interested in pursuing this resolution further.

K. Thomison said that the discussion is a brainstorming session and comments should be directed at C. Slicklen.

D. Budish suggested asking a question about the Collegetown Community Center. He said that although the project is being pursued, he is uncertain of the timeline.

C. Slicklen asked D. Budish if he thought it would be helpful to have student feedback about the Collegetown Community Center.

D. Budish said that depending on the administrative response, he thought it would be helpful.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly can develop a list of questions to be voted on in the near future. The ballot is not going to contain a large quantity of questions. He would like to focus on three or four important questions.

A. Salem said that he is still interested in pursuing the resolution regarding the Students’ Bill of Rights referendum. He thinks that it is a very important issue. On the last day of last semester, there was an article in the Daily Sun that discussed how the author was discriminated against in the classroom. A law school student also wrote a similar article. Academic rights for students is an issue should be of great concern at this point. He is still interested in pursuing it. The second issue he wished to discuss what that of legal music downloading. He said in the past, Napster was used. He said that he thinks it would be a good idea to ask questions regarding which provider students would prefer to use and whether or not they would pay a fee. It is good timing since byline funding starts next semester.

K. Duch suggested creating a list of professors that the students nominate. Mao Ye would like this to go in affect this spring. There will be more action on this soon.

R. Salem suggested setting up wireless internet access in all residence halls.

C. Slicklen thinks that there would be an obvious response to this question with all students supporting setting up wireless internet access in the residence halls.

R. Salem said that the outpouring of student support may cause the administration to act more quickly.

M. Asgary said that he is an employee of CIT and that setting up wireless internet access in the dorms in not a current priority. All individuals living in dorms currently have internet access and there is a large cost associated with putting a wireless infrastructure in place.

C. Slicklen said that cost should not affect the decision of the assembly to ask the question on the ballot.

V. Harman suggested asking if the student assembly president should be popularly elected.

There were no further suggestions so the chair moved on.

VII. Unfinished Business

R. 24 Resolution Regarding Bulk E-mails — M. Coombs

M. Coombs said that after thinking about the issue and what other representatives said last week as well as looking up the specific mission of the Communications Committee, he decided that bulk e-mails will not be required to go through the Communications Committee. To make it a requirement for e-mails to go through the Communications Committee would make the process longer than it currently is. As the resolution is written, the door is left open for the Communications Committee to have a role in that representatives wishing to send e-mails can solicit advice and secure support. He did not change the resolution from last week.

C. Slicklen said that in regards to the standing rules, it would be more effective to have a charter change. If the assembly continues to send out bulk e-mails, the same debate will occur every year. He recommended changing the resolution to reflect a change in the charter.

M. Asgary said that the resolution would have to be reformatted.

There was a motion to table the resolution until next week. It was seconded. There was dissent. There was a hand vote. The motion passed.

VIII. New Business

There was no new business.

IX.Adjournment

The chair called the meeting into executive session.

The assembly went into executive session.

The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully Submitted,
Liz Patrun
SA Clerk