Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
April 12, 2007
4:45–6:30 p.m.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:48 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Chris Basil, Sarah Boxer, Daniel Budish, Mark Coombs, David Crockett, Shivaun Deena, Maddie Ehrlich, Danielle Fernandes, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vince Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Neal Nisargand, Remy Roizen, Sarah Santana, CJ Slicklen, Kwame Thomison, Gene Weinstein

Excused: Mazdak Asgary, K. Duch, A. Salem, R. Salem,Calvin Selth

Unexcused: Kate Duch, Grace Leonard, Jos� Gonzales

III. Open Microphone

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

No one came forward.

IV. Approval of Minutes

There were no corrections to the 3/29/2007 minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the 3/29/2007 SA meeting were approved.

V. Announcements/Reports

Residence and Campus Life Committee Update — D. Budish

D. Budish said that the creator of the Big Red Review Site has agreed to update it to include landlord and house/apartment reviews. Students will be able to search the site both by landlord and by address to obtain information about potential housing options. The committee would also like to work on creating a survey to solicit opinions from Beta House Residents. The results of the survey will hopefully aid the administration in working to improve future residence halls. He said that he will be sending the survey out over the list serve and asked assembly members to please respond with input.

S. Boxer said that there were a large number of freshman who were unable to get on campus housing in the recent housing lottery. She asked if the committee had heard anything about the issue from administrators and if anything could be done to prevent a similar situation in the future.

D. Budish said that he had heard of the problem and that the committee will look into possible ways of improving the situation.

R. Lavin asked D. Budish to clarify the purpose of the survey.

D. Budish said that the survey is intended to be a more general housing survey. Cornell is building a number of new dorms on campus and the committee is seeking input to identify ways of improving the quality of the future residence halls.

R. Lavin said that he had heard that the housing process was in a temporary state this year and that in the upcoming few years the situation of freshman being unable to get housing would likely be resolved.

D. Budish asked for suggestions as to how to send the survey out to Beta Hall residents.

SAFC Announcement — M. Ehrlich

M. Ehrlich said that the SAFC is beginning its recruiting process which occurs each semester. She said that there will be a big turnover this semester and asked representatives to encourage qualified individuals they know to apply. Since the SAFC is all about transparency, she said that any SA representative who is interested in looking at applications, attending interviews and discussing potential commissioners is welcome to. The applications are due on April 16 by noon and interviews will be occurring from 10–12 with discussions afterwards on April 21.

Updates on R. 30 & K. Thomison

K. Thomison said that R. 30 was the Resolution Regarding the Presidential Climate Commitment. The intent of the resolution was to commend President Skorton for signing the PCC and to ask for representation for students as the university moves forward in honoring the commitment. R. 40 was the Resolution Regarding Action on the Green Energy Fee Referendum. He spoke to President Skorton and VP Murphy about implementing the fee and found out that it is too late to establish a fund for the fall semester. The trustees have already voted on tuition and all materials have been sent out to incoming students. However, the administration is able to create an opt-in program and is currently investigating the best way to establish some kind of fund. He said that he should be hearing back from President Skorton or VP Murphy within a week.

VI. Business of the Day

There was a motion to move R. 38 to business of the day. It was seconded. There was no dissent. R. 38 was moved to Business of the Day.

Cornell Cinema Discussion

The Director, Mary Fessenden, and the Managing Director, Christopher Riley, of Cornell Cinema attended the meeting to represent Cornell Cinema.

M. Fessenden said that it has been a good year for Cornell Cinema. There previous budget allocation allowed them to lower ticket prices form $4.75 to $4. She said that wherever possible, Cornell Cinema made efforts to streamline their program and cut costs which they believe will result in net savings around $10,000. These changes enabled funds to be redirected towards graphic designers who created a much more dynamic and user friendly website. They continued their off campus funding efforts and received a number of grants. At this point, Cornell Cinema will break even at the end of the fiscal year. Another change enacted this year was the establishment of a Student Advisory Board. Next year, Cornell Cinema plans on creating working committees. As always, Cornell Cinema works with a wide variety of student organizations to organize showings and covers the costs of these showings. She said that even the best case scenario for next year will involve a deficit situation due to the ever increasing budget. Because of this, they should be asking for a dollar increase in their budget allocation. Cornell Cinema is willing to however ask for a fifty cents increase in exchange for the support of the SA in lobbying the VP of Student and Academic Services to reduce or eliminate rental fees for their offices and for the theater. Cornell Cinema spends over $20,000 each year to rent the facilities that they need to operate. She provided all SA members with a free pass to the cinema and encouraged all members to go to a showing.

S. Boxer thanked M. Fessenden and C. Riley for coming to the meeting and help sessions. She also thanked them for creating the Student Advisory Board. She is glad they took an active interest in the board and feels that it will be an important item to include in the cinema budget. She asked if Cornell Cinema’s request for an increase in funding was due to new initiatives and if they could elaborate further on why an increased allocation is needed.

M. Fessenden said that generally speaking the cost of running Cornell Cinema rises every year. Although there is a cost increase, there is no guarantee of an income increase. To address this concern, Cornell Cinema is constantly trying to think of new ways to bring in additional income. This year, Cornell Cinema held two fundraising events instead of one which they have usually done. They are currently conducting a raffle that will hopefully bring in around $1000. Cornell Cinema does receive grants however they are largely inflexible.

V. Hartman asked what the typical attendance is at a week night movie put on by Cornell Cinema and how much it costs to rent the theatre in Willard Straight.

M. Fessenden said that it really varies. Typically there are about 50 to 60 students who attend week night showings. She said that it costs about $15,000 per year to rent the cinema in Willard Straight and about $5,000 to rent the cinema offices.

V. Hartman asked how many free movies Cornell Cinema puts on a semester that are not cosponsored by other groups.

M. Fessenden said that Cornell Cinema charges admission for most of the films that they show because they have to pay for them and need to cover costs. At the beginning of the year from Sunday through Thursday, free movies are offered to new students. They also do a number of free sneak previews during the year.

V. Hartman said for the most part it appears that Cornell Cinema is putting on films that do not attract enough students to cover costs and that the SA is funding a failing thing.

M. Fessenden said no and that Cornell Cinema broke even this year. By the nature of the film industry, there will be some films that make money and some that need to be subsidized.

V. Hartman asked why Cornell Cinema showed V for Vendetta in the first week of school when the Student Union Board had indicated that they would be showing the same film on Movies on the Slope for free. Cornell Cinema showed V for Vendetta a week before the Student Union Board did and the SA funded the Student Union Board. By showing the film, Cornell Cinema was jeopardizing the attendance at an SA funded event for students.

M. Fessenden said that the guidelines in the handbook indicate that student organizations planning on showing movies must first contact the Cornell Cinema to see if they are already planning on showing the movie. When the Student Union Board contacted Cornell Cinema about V for Vendetta, Cornell Cinema was already planning on showing it. The two organizations discussed the situation and Cornell Cinema agreed to show V for Vendetta as early as possible. The Student Union Board thought it would then be fine to still show the movie on Movies on the Slope.

S. Boxer asked Cornell Cinema to elaborate on the Student Advisory Board. It seems like the Board might be helpful in lobbing Susan Murphy to provide for a decrease or elimination of rental feels.

M. Fessenden said that the board was a new endeavor this year and they are still trying to determine the best structure. This year there were no working committees but they will be established in the next year. They conducted large group meetings a number of times each semester and conducted virtual meetings. She e-mailed board members about titles and frequently solicited their suggestions. She said that the board will hold meeting more often next semester and that she liked the idea of using the board to help lobby VP Murphy.

Selection of SA Representative to the President’s Climate Commitment Steering Committee

K. Thomison said that the Steering Committee is being created because it is one of the steps outlined in the Presidential Climate Commitment. The committee will be deciding what institutional structures will be put in place to steer the university towards climate neutrality for the next fifty years. The appointment will be a two year appointment and the representative will have to provide frequent updates on activities of the committee. The representative need not be on the SA. He asked if anyone was interested in the position. Austin Redmon, Danielle Fernandes, Rammy Salem, Chris Basil, and Maddie Ehrlich are all interested in the position.

K. Thomison said that the position would ideally be for a freshman or sophomore. However arrangements can be made for a qualified and interested junior.

Academic Calendar Discussion

K. Thomison said that the representatives were provided with the proposed academic calendar for the next five years in their meeting packets. He said that the SA Charter states that before the Provost can approve the calendar, a draft must be provided to the SA so that they can provide feedback.

M. Coombs said that he has always thought that it would be a good idea to extend the Fall & Thanksgiving Breaks to each be a full week by taking a couple days out of winter break.

C. Slicklen said that is the SA was going to recommend reallocating days off, they should really look into providing Labor Day off. He said that Cornell has the world’s best Industrial and Labor Relations school and that it is a bit hypocritical to have class on Labor Day.

M. Ehrlich thinks the schedule should remain unchanged.

V. Hartman recommended changing the schedule to have graduation occur a week earlier or a week later so that it does not fall on Memorial Day. He said that it is more difficult to find a convocation speaker and for families to travel on Memorial Day weekend.

S. Santana disagrees with V. Hartman. She feels that travel is easier on Memorial Day weekend because a majority of people do not have to work on Memorial Day.

S. Deena believes that before the SA recommends shortening winter break they should look into how it would affect the courses occurring during winter session.

K. Thomison said that the SA does have a great amount of influence on the academic calendar and that it is important for the representatives to express their opinions. Representatives can e-mail him in the upcoming week with their ideas.

There was a motion to end discussion. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

R. 38 Resolution Regarding Climate Neutrality — D. Budish

D. Budish said that the resolution only contains issues that the assembly has already discussed. The resolution is intended for the Ivy Council and is asking that all Ivy League Schools to demonstrate their commitment to climate neutrality.

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was dissent.

There was a motion to call the previous question. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a vote of 12 to 3, the motion passed.

D. Budish asked the assembly members to please pass the resolution. The resolution was written so that the Ivy League schools could speak with a unified voice. A united commitment on behalf of all the Ivy League Schools is more powerful than a commitment on the part of Cornell or a scattering of schools.

By a vote of 12 to 2 to 1 abstention, the resolution passed.

VII. Unfinished Business

R. 36 Resolution Regarding JAFARC — E. Feldman, R. Lavin, G. Leonard

R. Lavin said that he went into the details of the resolution at a prior meeting and asked if anyone had any questions. He said that the resolution makes it so that the allocation of emergency grants from the Students Helping Students fund should be under exclusive jurisdiction of undergraduate voting members of the committee. The fund is allocated through the undergraduate Student Activities Fee and should thus be dispensed by only undergraduates.

C. Slicklen said that he believes that this is a good resolution and thanked R. Lavin for bringing it before the assembly.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The resolution passed unanimously.

VII. New Business

R. 41 Resolution Regarding ‘06-‘08 Byline Funding Deadlines — S. Boxer and A. Gay

S. Boxer the R. 41 cannot be approved today because it is a charter change. She however needs to get a reliable sense of body because she will be in touch with the groups prior to the next meeting. All budgets for the 2008–2010 funding cycle are due at the end of the semester. The charter states that the budgets are due April 25. This year, the Office of Assemblies was a little late in getting out all the budget information and it has been a reoccurring complaint of groups that they do not have enough time to complete the budgets. The budgets they submit cover a two year period and are very detailed. Additionally many groups such as the Slope Day Programming Board are extremely busy at the end of the semester and would benefit tremendously from the extended deadline. She said that the office has no problem in pushing the deadline back to May 25. The resolution is calling for the budget deadline to be changed from April 25 to May 25. She said that she could think of no reason for why the SA should have a problem with this. The resolution also seeks to strike Appendix A: IV. 3.2.1 from the charter. The clause requires that the Appropriations Committee meet to review budgets submitted by the groups. If the deadline is extended, it would not make sense for the current Appropriations committee to discuss the budgets submitted over the summer.

M. Coombs commended both S. Boxer and A. Gay for proposing the resolution. He believes that extending the deadline shows courtesy towards the groups and is sorry that the item could not have been placed on business of the day.

C. Slicklen clarified that the groups will be handing the budgets into the Office of Assemblies. He asked if it would be detrimental to the groups at all if the Appropriations Committee was not on campus at the point when they would need to hand in their budgets.

S. Boxer said that the VP of Finance does not need to sign off on the budgets. Her role is just in helping groups get their budgets together.

S. Deena asked if the Appropriations Committee just checks to see if everything was submitted properly or if the committee takes a more active role in assessing the budget.

S. Boxer said that in the past the Appropriations Committee has not met to look over the budgets. In theory she believes that the purpose of the clause is intended to help new groups determine whether or not they are eligible for funding. It would be more appropriate for the incoming Appropriations Committee to discuss the budgets because they will be the ones allocating the money.

A. Gay said that to make sure the process is fair, he will be in touch with groups applying for funding over the summer. He will answer any questions they have.

S. Boxer asked if anyone had serious reservations about passing this resolution.

There was no response.

R. 31 Resolution Regarding SA Proposals — K. Thomison

K. Thomison said that the intention of R. 31 is to clear up some ambiguities in the charter about what types of resolutions the SA is supposed to consider. The resolution amends Bylaw 1.3.b to read as “Proposals adopted by the SA will be reported to the appropriate officers or decision-making bodies. Adopted proposals will not be amended, reworded, or in any other way altered by those officers or bodies without the prior consent of the SA.” It is currently written as “Proposals adopted by the SA and reported to the appropriate officers or decision making bodies of the University will not be amended, reworded, or in any other way altered by those officers or bodies without the prior consent of the SA.” He also added a tenth responsibility to the responsibilities of the president which reads “Make the final judgment on whether or not agenda items are appropriate Student Assembly business.” This responsibility is to prevent situations similar to the one last year in which the assembly was discussing a controversial resolution that many felt did not pertain to the duties of the SA.

M. Ehrlich said she thinks the tenth responsibility of the president could be misused and potentially lead to an activist presidency. Although she trusts K. Thomison and understands where he is coming from, there is no way of knowing who the future presidents will be and how they will exercise their power. As is, she does not think the charter should be amended to allow the president sole discretion over agenda items.

S. Santana asked who would be the balancing check on the president’s power.

K. Thomison said that there is normally a provision for overruling the chair and that he would not have a problem adding such a provision because he understands the concern.

R. Lavin asked how the process of removing the agenda items would work.

K. Thomison said that he sees every resolution that is submitted to be placed on the agenda. He said that when representatives submit resolutions to be placed on the agenda they are actually submitted the resolution to both he and M. Coombs.

R. Lavin said that he feels that the first be it therefore resolved clause of the resolution moves in a different direction than the second be it therefore resolved clause. He feels like the first clause makes it more open to the SA whereas the second one gives the president the power to narrow the agenda.

K. Thomison said that in drafting the resolution, he was not anticipating a president who would kick agenda items off at will. The purpose of the resolution is to prevent situations like the one that occurred last year from happening.

R. Lavin suggested giving the president the power to motion to stop discussing an issue.

K. Thomison said that there is already a mechanism in place to stop discussion. Any representative can motion to table an item indefinitely.

R. Lavin said that he believes that the power to motion to table an item indefinitely was adequate as a check to prevent the assembly from discussing inappropriate items.

K. Thomison acknowledged that the resolution does create new power for the president. He said that every representative will still have the power to motion to table an item indefinitely. The power is really for situations in which the president believes that the assembly is overstepping its bounds.

S. Boxer reiterated by the point made by M. Ehrlich. She said that although she thinks the first change is great, she is hesitant about the second change. The SA discusses a lot of resolutions that are controversial among members and thus does not feel it is appropriate to limit what items can be placed on the agenda. She believes that the resolution does not clearly articulate the situations in which the president could potentially enact the proposed responsibility.

C. Basil echoed S. Boxer. He said that there is a significant amount of gray area in what can be considered to directly affect Cornell students. He wondered whether or not it was possible to change the wording to take into account this gray zone. He believes that the president should not have the right to strike agenda items if they are firmly Cornell issues.

K. Thomison said that when he was writing the resolution he had in mind that the SA had previously voted down an amendment to limit its power. He suggested changing the resolution to say that a majority vote by assembly could overrule the presidents attempt to strike an agenda item. If you cannot get enough assembly members to vote to hear a resolution then the resolution would most likely fail anyway.

E. Greenberg said that the only time the president of the assembly will be able to make this type of decision without the entire assembly coming down on him will be when the assembly is willing to table an item indefinitely. As someone who is directly affected by this resolution next year, he does not believe that the president should have the responsibility of striking supposedly inappropriate items from the agenda.

S. Santana pointed out that the resolution gives the president the power to take an item off the agenda before the assembly even sees that item. She believes that tabling indefinitely is a sufficient mechanism for preventing the assembly from discussing inappropriate measures. The resolution is making an extra rule that is redundant and needless.

E. Greenberg felt that the first part of the resolution makes sense and recommended striking the second part.

IX. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The meeting was adjourned.

The assembly went into executive session to select the SA Representative to the President’s Climate Commitment Steering Committee. Austin Redmon ‘10 was selected.