Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
August 23, 2007
4:45 — 6:30 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:43 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Daniel Budish, Mark Coombs, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steven Matthews, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarjan, Austin Redman, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Christopher Sarra, C.J. Slicklen

III. Open Microphone

C. Slicklen asked if any members of the audience wished to speak.

K. Duch, 2009, introduced herself as one of the two student elected trustees. She said that last year as an SA representative, she wished that there was more interaction between the SA and the student trustees. Now that one undergraduate and one graduate student trustee has been elected, she hopes that there will be more communication. She encouraged representatives working on individual projects to speak with her in case their projects pertain to an initiative that the Board of Trustees is pursuing. Because she is on the SA list serve, she will be aware of all the resolutions brought before the SA as well. She said that she will be coming to SA meetings fairly frequently and will present a report after every Student Life Presentation.

Amy Richter, 4th year chemistry graduate student, introduced herself as the GPSA liaison. She said that the SA will be seeing GPSA members at their meetings periodically throughout the semester. She said that it is important that the SA and GPSA communicate when issues are common and that the assemblies share a united front on large issues. She said that all the GPSA members have been undergraduates at some point and are always available if any SA representatives have questions.

C. Slicklen introduced R. Salem as the SA’s GPSA liaison.

IV. Oath of Office by Student Assembly Representatives

All representatives took the Study Assembly Oath of Office. The Oath of Office is available on the August 23, 2007 Meeting Webpage.

V. Announcements/Reports

Welcome Message — E. Greenberg

E. Greenberg welcomed the new and returning members of the Student Assembly. After going their separate ways over the summer, everyone is back and hopefully ready to come together and tackle the challenges of the upcoming months. Soon the 18 representatives gathered will be joined by 5 more representatives from the freshman, transfer, and human ecology constituencies and the SA will begin the monumental task of funding hundreds of campus organizations until the year 2010. Over the summer the executive board was hard at work, and having returned to campus has met with Dean Hubbell and many other student service representatives. This semester the SA will address issues ranging from undergraduate meal services, to legal music downloads, and will polish their relationships with the Ivy Council and other constitute groups on campus in an effort to demonstrate that the SA must be taken seriously and does in fact speak for and represent the best interests of the students at Cornell. The SA must remained focused on its fundamental charges which this year will be byline funding and student representation while remaining open and flexible to emerging issues that are likely to arise in the upcoming months. He is confident that all representatives want nothing more than the best for the organization. At an Assemblies Leadership meeting, he and C. Slicklen were delighted to see the SA being used as a model organization. Under his watch, the SA will constantly look for ways to streamline and improve effectiveness. He hopes that representatives will put their egos aside and recognize, good or bad, right or wrong, that they are all in this together. All successes and shortcomings will be shared equally by all representatives and no matter what all members must make themselves available to those that they represent and those who they work with.

New Resolution Template — C. Slicklen

C. Slicklen said that to improve organization and efficiency, he has developed a new resolution template. He said that the SA will try out this new template and if it does not work out, they can always return to using the old template.

Byline Funding Preface and Update — A. Gay

A. Gay said that byline funding will be a top priority of the SA this semester. It will be the most time consuming process that representatives will be involved with. Those on the Appropriations Committee should have received an email about the committee’s first meeting on Monday, August 27, 2007. At this meeting, the committee will be hearing from groups that have not previously been byline funded. They will hear from other groups throughout the course of the semester. The SA will start hearing from groups at next week’s meeting. He asked anyone with questions to please email him.

Clubfest and Fall Retreat Update — R. Lavin

R. Lavin said that Clubfest will be taking place on Sunday, August 26. He asked each representative to commit to being at the Student Assembly station for at least one hour. The executive board will be there for the entire time. He told members that the retreat will be occurring on Saturday, September 29 from 11 a.m. till 3 p.m. He asked everyone to clear their schedules. Having the retreat in late September allows all newly elected representatives to attend.

Additional Announcement — C. Slicklen

C. Slicklen said that over the summer, he was contacted by the SUNY Student Assembly. In the past, the Cornell SA has not had much of a relationship with the SUNY SA. He is pleased to announce that on the weekend of November 16, the Cornell SA will be hosting the SUNY SA for a two day conference. It will not be a financial strain and will be approved during the SA budget allocations. They are expecting approximately 30 people. Additionally the president of the SUNY SA will be at Cornell in the beginning of September. He is also on the Board of Trustees for SUNY.

E. Greenberg said that although it appears that Cornell has not had much of relationship with the SUNY SA, the university actually receive about $150 million dollars from SUNY each year. He said that the SA should take the relationship very seriously.

S. Matthews said that the University Assembly had their first meeting of the semester on Wednesday, August 22. The most pressing issue is the Campus Code of Conduct. The code is being finalized and is supposed to be presented to President Skorton by the end of the calendar year. It will be brought before the UA some time in November.

D. Budish asked when SA committee must have their budgets turned in to A. Gay and the Appropriations Committee by.

A. Gay said any time over the next week. The Appropriations Committee is still putting together the final budget. Many committee chairs have already given him an idea of what they’ll need and that he is referring to numbers from last year.

VI. Business of the Day

R. 1 — Approval of 2007–2008 Standing Rules — C. J. Slicklen

C. Slicklen said that he went through last years standing rules. He remembers how last year, a lot of time was spent getting rid of redundant and useless information and that overall the rules were great and very comprehensive. However, he noticed that the standing rules were not very well organized. To improve this, he grouped the rules into three sections which include (1) Attendance and Related Policies, (2) Policies and Procedures, and (3) Leadership and Oversight. The preface at the beginning reviews the foundation for the rules and the reasoning behind the rules. In the document included in the representatives packet, any text bolded or underlined has been added and any text with a strikethrough will be removed. He welcomes any feedback and is just looking to find what is best and most efficient.

M. Asgary said that it was cool how C. Slicklen divided the rules into sections. He asked if it was possible to get a copy of last years rules to make sure that they match up. If the standing rules are not approved today, it is fine because last years rules will stay in effect. He asked if representatives would be amenable to waiting to approve the rules until they could be compared to last years rules.

C. Slicklen said that he understands that representatives may not have had a lot of time to review the rules because they were sent out late. He does not see the need for last year’s rules because all of last year’s rules are contained within this year’s rules. Part of the reason that the assembly is meeting today is to approve the Standing Rules. He also included a stipulation that the SA review the standing rules at the beginning of every semester instead of just the beginning of the year. This gives the assembly the ability to change one or two little items in a timelier manner.

R. Lavin had a question about Section 2, Rule 5 in which C. Slicklen gave the majority of the SA the ability to grant time extensions during open microphone as opposed to the chair. He is worried that this will make the meeting less efficient.

C. Slicklen said that understands R. Lavin’s concern. The intention of the change was to provide individuals an opportunity to speak even if the chair does not think what they have to say is pertinent. There is really no mechanism in the charter or standing rules that enables representatives to overrule the chair and extend a speaker’s time during open microphone. If people do not support the change, it can be taken out.

M. Coombs agreed with M. Asgary. Since the standing rules are so important to the progress of SA meetings, it is important to take sufficient time in reviewing them. If the SA does not have the right rules and if people are not familiar with them, the efficiency of meetings throughout the semester will go down. He had a question about Section 2, Rule 8 which requires that representatives submit items to be placed on the agenda by 9:00 p.m. the night before the regularly scheduled SA meeting. Last year people could submit items to be discussed at the meeting at any time. He asked what the reasoning was in instituting a deadline.

C. Slicklen said that he should have been made the rule clearer. Items to be included on the agenda in the official SA email must be received by 9:00 p.m. the night before regularly scheduled SA meetings. Items can be added to the agenda at any time but if they are added the morning of the meeting, representatives may not have sufficient time to review them.

There was a motion to amend Section 2, Rule 8 to read that “The Executive Committee (at its weekly meeting) will discuss the agenda for the Student Assembly meetings. Items for the agenda must be submitted to the Executive Vice President of the Student Assembly. These items must be received by 9:00 p.m. the night before the regularly scheduled SA Meeting in order to be included in the official email to the Student Assembly. These items must be in the proper format, as designated by the Executive Vice President. Failure to follow these guidelines might result in items not being included on the agenda.”

M. Asgary thinks that amendment just made was a good idea. He however feels that the last sentence contradicts the spirit in which the amendment was made and should be stricken.

C. Slicklen said that the intention of the last sentence was more so to make sure that representatives submit resolutions in the proper format.

There was a motion to amend Section 2, Rule 8 by striking the last sentence “Failure to follow these guidelines might result in items not being included on the agenda.”

E. Greenberg said that Section 2, Rule 8 now reads “The Executive Committee (at its weekly meeting) will discuss the agenda for the Student Assembly meetings. Items for the agenda must be submitted to the Executive Vice President of the Student Assembly. These items must be received by 9:00 p.m. the night before the regularly scheduled SA Meeting in order to be included in the official email to the Student Assembly. These items must be in the proper format, as designated by the Executive Vice President.”

A. McGovern said that she agreed with the way that C. Slicklen changed Section 2, Rule 5. Representatives should have the ability to extend speakers times during open microphone. It will take maybe 3 seconds to conduct a hand vote.

D. Budish suggested adding a statement saying that extensions may be granted at the discretion of the chair or, if specially requested, a majority vote. This way a hand vote would not have to be taken every time.

E. Greenberg said that the rules should really be as consistent and unambiguous as possible. Time extension should be granted either by the chair or a majority vote every time.

R. Salem said that he does not agree with the way that C. Slicklen changed Section 2, Rule 5. Although it may only take a few moments to conduct a majority vote, the time adds up. The system worked well last year and he sees no need to change it.

R. Lesyk asked a question about Section 3, Rule 17 stating that the Executive Vice President shall keep time during the meeting. The chair has previously kept time. He said that it seems like time keeping should remain the duty of chair since the chair is responsible for running the meeting.

C. Slicklen said that this rule was added to allow the chair to focus all of his attention on overseeing debate and more effectively monitoring the meeting.

D. Budish asked about Section 3, Rule 19 which describes how an SA member can go about overruling a decision by the Executive Committee. He wondered if the Executive Committee would be able to vote when determining whether or not they should be overruled.

C. Slicklen said that Rule 19 stems from Rule 18. As for voting, he thinks that it will be up to the discretion of the executive committee.

M. Asgary said that understands the concern in allowing the executive committee to vote on whether or not they should be overruled. Although the executive board has special duties and responsibilities, they still hold the same voting power as any other representative. He recommended changing the statement requiring a 2/3 majority of the voting membership to be reached to overrule the Executive Committee to a simple majority. As it stands the rules are already inconsistent since a simple majority is required to overrule the chair and a 2/3 majority is required to overrule the Executive Committee.

There was motion to amend Section 3, Rule 19 to read “Any SA member may attempt to overrule a decision by the Executive Committee by submitting their challenge in the format of a resolution at the next regularly scheduled meeting. A simple majority of the voting membership must be reached to overrule the Executive Committee at any time.” There were no objections.

C. Slicklen asked if voting membership could be changed to members present in the previously amended rule.

M. Asgary suggested striking “voting membership” from the rule because if it is not explicitly stated, “members present” is assumed.

There was a motion to amend Section 3, Rule 19 to read “Any SA member may attempt to overrule a decision by the Executive Committee by submitting their challenge in the format of a resolution at the next regularly scheduled meeting. A simple majority must be reached to overrule the Executive Committee at any time.”

R. Lavin objected to this amendment. He said that it should be voting membership and not members present. When voting to overrule the executive committee it is likely to be an important topic that pertains to all members and not just the occurrences at one meeting. Voting membership is more appropriate for long term decisions.

E. Greenberg said that the Executive Committee will be meeting Tuesday, 28 at 7:15 p.m. in Statler 395. Since there are issues of consistency, he recommended that everyone look of the rules and bring the issues they have to the meeting.

There were no objections to this suggestion.

VII. New Business

There was no new business.

VIII. Adjournment

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