Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
October 4, 2007
4:45 — 7:00 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, Asa Craig, Samantha Dong, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Austin Redmon, A. Salem, R. Salem, Christopher Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Andrew Wang

Excused: Steven Matthews, Rebecca Stein

III. Open Microphone

C. Slicklen asked if any members of the audience wished to speak about items not on the agenda.

Dahlia Raymond, Class of 2008, President of Cornell Minds Matter, said that Minds Matter and the Office of Sorority and Fraternity Affairs are co-sponsoring an event during which Ross Szabo, National Mental Health Awareness Campaign, will speak regarding issues of mental health awareness. He will be speaking on October 17 at 7:00 p.m. The presentation will be discussing issues regarding depression and suicide. She encouraged SA members to spread the word and attend.

IV. Approval of the Minutes

There were no corrections to the 9/13/2007 Minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the 9/13/2007 SA meeting were approved.

V. Announcements/Reports

Spring 2008 Elections Calendar — M. Coombs

M. Coombs said that all representatives should have a copy of the Spring ‘08 Election Calendar in their packet of meeting materials. He asked if there were any questions or concerns.

R. Lavin asked if the calendar was similar to last year’s calendar. He said that the elections appear to be occurring earlier than last year.

M. Coombs said that Spring Break falls earlier this year.

M. Asgary said that he is on the elections committee and that this is the first time that he has seen the calendar. The elections committee should be given time to review the calendar before it is approved.

E. Greenberg confirmed that the SA would not be approving the calendar until a later date.

M. Coombs said that Amy O’Donnell from the Office of Assemblies had asked him to present the calendar to the SA to solicit comments and suggestions. He said that he would be willing to further discuss the calendar with the Elections Committee.

ResLife Committee Update — R. Salem

R. Salem said that the Residential Life Committee had their first meeting of the semester. The primary topic of discussion was the possibility of a Collegetown Community Center. He said that the committee is looking into possibilities relating to an empty space of about 3 rooms on the bottom floor of Sheldon Court. The committee is currently in the planning stage and hopes to bring forth a more concrete strategy in the near future.

A. Salem said that there is a moratorium on construction in Collegetown for the next year. The moratorium is something that should be taken into consideration in the planning phase.

D. Budish said that he and some others have been working on plans for a Collegetown Community Center to be included in the Master Plan.

E. Greenberg suggested that R. Salem and D. Budish get together outside of the meeting to coordinate their activities.

Additional Announcements

A. Redmon said that the Environmental Committee met on Friday, September 27 and discussed some of the projects they would like to work on throughout the semester. The two primary projects are the Big Red Bike Project and Connect Ithaca. The Big Red Bike Project entails placing stations around campus where students can use their id cards to rent bikes for a certain amount of time. The basic idea of Connect Ithaca is to place a system of aero pods around the perimeter of Ithaca that can send individuals anywhere they would like to go on campus. A few companies have approached leaders of sustainability groups on campus regarding the program. The Connect Ithaca program would likely be a first in the country. The proposed pods will hold up to four people and be suspended on cables.

V. Hartman asked how the aero pods would affect campus aesthetics.

E. Greenberg said that it would be in the best interest of the assembly to hold off on discussing the Connect Ithaca program until a later date since the groups applying for by-line funding had arrived.

R. Lavin said that the SA Fall Retreat was very productive. He thanked all the representatives who attended.

VI. Business of the Day

The Student Assembly’s Allocation of the 2008–2010 Student Activity Fee — A. Gay (on behalf of the Student Assembly Appropriations Committee) - Collegiate Readership Program

R. Irwin introduced herself as a Regional Marketing Director of USA Today. She was accompanied by one of the newspaper’s Circulation Directors. She said that the goal of the Collegiate Readership Program is to enhance the learning environment on campus, by exposing students to the news in their living, learning, and community spaces. The program is designed to promote civic literacy and global awareness on campus through students’ daily exposure to the news. Recognizing the need to provide students with broader perspectives on world and national views, and the need to create opportunities to be more engaged citizens in their local community, the Student Assembly initiated The Collegiate Readership Program in 2004. For funding years 2004–2006, the Cornell Student Assembly allocated $5.00 per student per year for the program. This allowed for approximately 1100 USA Today and New York Times to be available to all undergraduate students each day. Based on the additional demand for newspapers and as evidenced by many displays empty at the end of the day, the Student Assembly allocated an additional $1.00 pr student per year for the program, for funding years 2006–2008. This allowed for additional and more convenient locations to be added to the campus. In 2006–2007, approximately 200,000 newspapers have been read by Cornell Students. Additionally, the readership program works to bring speakers to the Cornell Campus and features Cornell students in USA Today’s Collegiate Readership newsletters. Based on current newspaper consumption she recommended a $5.50 per student per year allocation in order to provide significant newspaper presence throughout the campus.

A. Gay said that the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to fully fund the Collegiate Readership Program at their requested amount of $5.50 per student. He said that the committee felt the program is very beneficial to students and very well run. The SA has received only positive feedback from students. Additionally the budget was very straightforward and there were no concerns.

M. Asgary asked why the program was asking for a $5.50 per student allocation when they are currently receiving a $6.00 per student allocation.

R. Irwin said that she recognizes the importance of the $.50 difference. Although the organization could benefit from a $6.00 allocation, $5.50 makes sense taking into account current consumption levels and alternatives uses of by-line funding money.

In response to a question posed by M. Asgary, R. Irwin said that the readership program attempts to match supply and demand for the New York Times and USA Today. Which newspapers are left over and how many are left over at the end of the day is hard to predict and varies daily.

A. Salem said that he really respects the fact that the Collegiate Readership Program requested the amount of funding that is actually needed by the organization. This is the type of program he feels very comfortable voting to fully fund.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. There was a call to question. The SA unanimously voted to fully fund The Collegiate Readership Program at their requested amount of $5.50 per student.

The Student Assembly’s Allocation of the 2008–2010 Student Activity Fee — A. Gay (on behalf of the Student Assembly Appropriations Committee) - Cornell University Programming Board

Tara Tavernia introduced herself as the Administrative Chair of the Cornell University Programming Board. During the current funding cycle CUPB has brought Kevin Smith, Christian Finnegan, George McGovern, Bob Saget, Michael Ian Black, Dennis Haskins and Whoopi Goldberg to Cornell. Founded in 1979, The Cornell University Program Board (CUPB) is a student organization located within the Dean of Students Office and the Student Activities Office at Cornell University. CUPB is responsible for organizing major lecture and entertainment events for the entire Cornell community. CUPB also works with other campus organizations to co-sponsor various activities. The organization sponsors approximately six events per academic year including the entertainment for Cornell’s Family Weekend. CUPB strives to inspire and enrich the Cornell community by bringing artists and events that involve, excite and entertain. She said that CUPB works very hard to solicit student suggestions regarding which performers to bring in as well as to publicize events. CUPB is requested an allocation of $7.50 per student. It is CUPB’s goal to pay for the honorarium fees with ticket sales and use by-line funding money for other costs.

A. Gay said that the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to fully fund the Cornell University Programming Board at their requested amount of $7.50 per student. The $7.50 allocation level is the same amount at which the organization has been funded at during the past couple cycles. The Appropriations Committee felt that CUPB does a great job reaching out to students, providing programming and budgeting. There were no concerns and committee members supported the mission of the organization.

C. Basil said that the budget and its transparency really impressed him. He fully supports funding CUPB at their requested amount.

M. Asgary said that he believes that the group is doing a great job. He pointed out that there was an approximately $10,000 rollover and asked why it exists.

T. Tavernia said that the rollover money is a result of performer availability and better than expected ticket sales. CUPB will use the rollover money in the upcoming semester to add more shows. The rollover budget also permitted CUPB to host two as opposed to one Steven Colbert shows this semester. The rollover will also be used to purchases extra radios to be used in Barton and Bailey Hall shows. Kevin Smith ticket prices were also lowered.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. The motion was withdrawn.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote, the previous question was not called.

A. Wang said that the organization does great work and emphasized that CUPB provides benefit to the Cornell Community through co-sponsorships.

In response to a question posed by V. Hartman, T. Tavernia said that the organization did not send any representatives to a conference during the past year but sent three people in the year prior to that. Individuals who participated covered a portion of the travel costs.

V. Hartman said that he supports the mission of CUPB but is concerned by the 35% rollover. He feels that it should at least be further discussed.

T. Tavernia said that the rollover primarily resulted from performer availability and is unlikely to occur again.

M. Coombs said that the organization has a plausible explanation to the existence of the rollover. He has never heard a bad word said about the organization and fully supports fully funding CUPB at their requested amount.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

T. Tavernia said that CUPB would like to be able to continue to bring high quality performers to Cornell at a low cost to students.

By a vote of 18 to 1 with 1 abstention, the assembly voted to fully fund CUPB at their requested amount of $7.50 per student.

VIII. Unfinished Business

Resolution 2 — Resolution Regarding Changer to the Charter — C. Slicklen and A. Redmon

A. Redmon said that the version of the Standing Rules that the SA passed earlier in the year was in conflict with the Charter. Section 2, Rule 9 of the Standing Rules states that the Office of the Assemblies must post the agenda to the Student Assembly website no later than noon on the day of the meeting. The charter states that the agenda must be made public at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Since the 2007—2008 Standing Rules contains a more reasonable deadline for publicizing the agenda, the resolution amends the Charter to agree with the Standing Rules.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By a roll call vote, the resolution passed unanimously.

Resolution 6 — Resolution Regarding the President and Treasurer’s Test for SA Representatives

E. Greenberg said that the SA will be hearing SAFC appeals in the upcoming weeks. Every SAFC commissioner and every organization’s president and treasurer must take the President and Treasurer’s Test. Since the SA has oversight, all representatives should be required to take the test as well. In order to appropriately judge whether or not the SAFC properly followed the funding guidelines, the SA must have an understanding of the rules and regulations.

C. Basil said that in the past there have been issues regarding appropriate penalties. However in this resolution, he feels that the penalty of one unexcused absence for not taking or passing the President and Treasurer’s Test is very reasonable. He fully supports the resolution feeling that it promotes accountability, a sense of duty and responsibility and enhances the system of checks and balances.

M. Coombs said that he supports the spirit of the resolution and feels that all SA representatives should take the test. However having a penalty contradicts the notion that representatives have a sense of dedication to their positions and the individuals who elect them. For this reason, he encouraged representatives to vote against the resolution.

M. Asgary said that the accrual of one unexcused absence is not the proper way to penalize representatives for not taking the test. The SA represents the entire student body and the entire student body is not required to take the test. By penalizing representatives with one absence, the SA is taking away from representatives’ ability to represent their constituent bodies. Although he believes all representatives should take the test, he does not support the resolution.

A. Salem said that he does not understand how the penalty is derived. He encouraged the assembly to vote down the resolution. Among other responsibilities, representatives are honor bound to take the test. One of the assembly’s most important responsibilities is to by-line fund organizations and they do not take a test regarding the process. Any rule that could potentially cause representatives to lose their right to vote based on arbitrary penalties is dangerous.

D. Budish said that taking the President and Treasurer’s test should not be an issue. All representatives should take the test. They represent the student body and have the responsibility to be knowledgeable regarding SAFC procedures. The general student body does not vote regarding whether or not certain groups properly followed the SAFC funding guidelines. As leaders, representatives should take the test and establish a more effective relationship with the SAFC.

R. Lavin said that it is disheartening to hear assembly members express so much concern regarding unexcused absences. There needs to be a mechanism in place encouraging representatives to take the test. The assembly needs to have away to promote accountability. Passing the resolution is responsible and appropriate.

E. Greenberg said that the SA requires SAFC commissioners to take the test. It looks bad not holding SA representatives to the same standard. The SA needs to set an example for its committee and the student body. The penalty will not cause any representative to get kicked off the SA. Getting kicked off the SA will result from a lack of commitment and accountability evidenced by 2 unexcused absences and the failure to take the President and Treasurer’s Test.

C. Slicklen said that he has just been informed that it takes approximately a half hour to take the President and Treasurer’s Test.

V. Hartman said that he just took the test and that he takes the test every year. He said that it is important for SA representatives to know the President and Treasurer’s Handbook so they can understand what is wrong with it. The SA should be able to focus on issues in the P&T handbook that they would like to fix and it is not possible to this without being familiar with it. He feels that the resolution should be amending the standing rules and not the charter.

A. Gay said having the resolution amend the charter ensures that representatives are required to take the test. The SA will look absurd during the appeals process if they are unfamiliar with the P&T Handbook. The SAFC commissioners are very knowledgeable and spend hours going over budgets. It is the SA’s responsibility to the SAFC to make every effort to be knowledgeable about the process.

M. Asgary asked how the penalty the resolution puts forth helps representatives who have not taken the test learn about the SAFC funding process. He suggested having the penalty be attending a session on the P&T Handbook. He feels that this would be a better deterrent and better encourage representatives to take the test.

R. Lavin said that you cannot fail the P&T Test. It is an exercise in forced learning.

A. Wang said that the resolution has a great intention. He pointed out that there are other ways for representatives to get involved in the SAFC process and show their support such as attending meetings or budget hearings. He feels that the penalty put forth in the resolution is inappropriate and not needed.

I. Lesyk said that he, on behalf of the SAFC, invited all SA representatives to attend budget and appeals hearings. He encouraged representatives to focus on the intent of the resolution and not on the penalty. He said that appeals coming before the SA in the near future all involve the P&T Handbook and that the SA will look ridicules if they do not know it.

L. Polivy suggested amending the resolution to make the penalty more constructive since it seems to be bothering a lot of representatives.

M. Asgary suggested requiring all SA election candidates to take the test prior to coming on the assembly.

E. Greenberg said that M. Asgary had a great suggestion. The assembly should look into this idea prior to the next election.

M. Asgary feels that the resolution should amend the standing rules as opposed to the charter. His primary concern however is that the penalty is not constructive.

I. Lesyk asked what the penalty would be for not attending an informative session if a representative failed to take the P&T test.

R. Lavin said that representatives should take the test. He suggested changing the penalty to an excused absence.

A. Gay said that the entire discussion revolving around penalties should not really be an issue because all representatives should take the test.

There was a motion to amend the resolution to change the penalty from an unexcused to excused absence. It was seconded. There was dissent.

The motion was withdrawn.

A. Salem said that mechanisms for ensuring that SA members represent their constituents exist. However the penalty in the resolution is unfair and unwarranted. A constructive penalty is more appropriate. Representatives cannot be forced to learn something that they do not want to learn.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

E. Greenberg said that the resolution makes sense and is an important step for the successful functioning of the SA as an organization. By voting against the resolution, representatives are showing a lack of commitment to the SA and the SAFC.

G. Mazza said that an unexcused absence makes sense as a penalty. The student body loses out by having representatives who are not knowledgeable about the funding process.

A. Epstein, Office of Assemblies, said that students come to the Office of Assemblies and express a lot of negative feedback regarding the President and Treasurer’s Handbook. He said that he is impressed by the idea behind the resolution and the willingness of certain SA representatives to more so engage the SAFC. He emphasized that almost every student organization on campus, besides those that are by-line funded, receive money from the SAFC. Helping the funding system function better would have a huge positive impact on student life on campus.

By a roll call vote of 12 to 6 with one abstention, the resolution failed. Since the resolution was a charter change a 2/3 majority was needed for the resolution to pass.

Resolution 3 — Resolution Requesting the Implementation of Gender-Neutral Housing in the Residence Halls — V. Hartman

V. Hartman said that the intention of the resolution is to give students more choices. As adults, students should have the option of choosing whom to live with on campus regardless of gender. No disheartening outcomes would result from the implementation of the gender-neutral housing as evidenced by the statistics he discussed at the previous meeting.

A. Gay asked who of the senior administration V. Hartman has spoken with since the resolution relates to a major change in school policy.

V. Hartman said that he has spoken with Joe Burke, Director of Residential Programs, student representatives from West Campus housing and Dean Hubbell. Dean Hubbell said that it was not appropriate to speak with VP Murphy yet.

A. Gay said that V. Hartman has not completed the process of speaking with senior administrators. He asked what quantitative data V. Hartman has to support his claims that a gender-neutral housing policy would not cause any detrimental effects.

V. Hartman said that he has spoken with six universities who have implemented similar housing policies and that there have been 0 incidences of increased sexual assault or rape.

In response to a question posed by A. Gay, V. Hartman said that Dartmouth is in the process of cementing a gender-neutral housing process.

A. Gay emphasized that V. Hartman has not provided any conclusive data. He feels that more research is needed and that more discussion is needed before such a policy can be implemented. The university has an obligation to make sure that they are creating the best possible environment for all students.

M. Coombs said that the role of the Student Assembly is to speak with students and represent them. It is not the role of the assembly to speak with administers regarding feasibility of policies but rather to communicate students’ desires and needs. The question should be whether or not the resolution is acceptable to the students and not whether or not it is acceptable to administrators. He emphasized that representatives do not have the capability to gather large amounts of data. He said that last week he had concerns regarding superfluous whereas clauses that seemed to encourage students to live in gender-neutral housing. However he said that he has no reason to oppose the form of the resolution currently presented.

C. Slicklen said that he appreciates the changes that V. Hartman made to the resolution. It is now a more professionally worded document. He said that he is still concerned about the issue of discrimination on campus because the resolution only applies to upperclassmen. He said that he does not understand what fundamental change occurs between freshman and sophomore year. He said that he is in favor of gender-neutral housing but not in favor of the resolution.

V. Hartman said that he excluded freshman because they are not all legal adults. In terms of feasibility, gender-neutral housing would at least initially be easier to implement on West Campus. He confirmed that the gender-neutral housing policy outlined in the resolution applies to all upperclassmen dorms.

S. Dong said that she appreciates the intention of the resolution. She said that she doubts of the need of the resolution since it only applies to upperclassmen and a large portion of upperclassmen choose to live off campus. Chaos could result if couples break up. She is also concerned by the lack of definitive data. She suggested having a gender-neutral housing policy apply to special theme houses instead of every upperclassmen dorm.

A. Wang said that he went to the SA Committee on Residential Life Meeting. The committee discussed a lot of positive feedback that has resulted from discussion regarding a gender-neutral housing policy. He encouraged SA representatives to vote for the first part of the resolution and not the second part. Student choice is very important.

It was confirmed that representatives could motion to divide the question.

A. McGovern echoed M. Coombs regarding the responsibility of the SA to be accountable to students. Personally she feels that the conversation of rape and abuse occurring at the meeting is narrow way to view gender and sexuality. Same sex couples have disputes, currently live together and can experience rape. She emphasized that there is no data indicating incidences of increased sexual assault or rape. She pointed out that there are currently gender-neutral bathrooms on campus. She emphasized that it is important to give students autonomy. Students have the ability to make the choices that are best for them and it is not the SA or the administrations role to prevent them from doing so. She also pointed out that the resolution is not that radical. It is a good first step and she would eventually like to see gender-neutral housing in all dorms. Gender-neutral housing makes it easier for transgender students.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote, the previous question was not called.

G. Mazza said that he does not feel that gender-neutral housing is such a great idea. The SA should consider the views of parents whose children are applying to Cornell and how the policy influences the wider community’s view of Cornell. He said that if the SA starts doing whatever it would like to do, its relationship with the administration could be compromised leaving the assembly in no position to satisfy the demands of the student body.

V. Hartman emphasized that it is important to not push students off campus. Gender-neutral housing helps make living in a dorm more comparable to living in Collegetown.

A. Salem said that he appreciates the spirit of the resolution but does not see the need. He does not see the benefit of the resolution and recognizes potential costs relating to sexual assault. In situations without concrete benefits and potential detrimental effects, the harm should be avoided. He does not support a gender-neutral housing policy.

V. Hartman said that allowing opposite genders to live together creates understanding between genders.

M. Asgary said that he supports the resolution. He emphasized that if the SA passes the resolution, it will not be implemented tomorrow. Passage will be an indicator of the SA’s support for gender-neutral housing and the student body’s interest in the policy. The administration can further examine the nuances of implementing the policy. When President Skorton reviews the SA’s activities, he does not receive the minutes. The only thing he will see is that the SA, as representatives of the student body, voted in favor of a gender-neutral housing policy or not. The policy can always be stopped if problems result.

R. Smith said that she thinks the resolution is a really good idea. She said that a lot of freshmen are over the age of 18 and that denying them the opportunity of living with members of the opposite sex is unfair. The resolution is a good starting point but an effort should be made to implement the policy in the all dorms. Since it is an important issue she said that it was important to pass a resolution supporting the policy in some form.

A. Craig reiterated what R. Smith said. He is 18 and feels that he deserves the opportunity to select who he would like to live with as do all freshmen. If students are under the age of 18 they can discuss housing options with their parents to determine the best living situation. He said that gender-neutral housing is not that radical. Opposite gendered individuals live across the halls from each other and share bathrooms currently.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote, the previous question was not called.

A. McGovern said that not all students can afford to live off-campus specifically students on financial aid. They should have the same freedom to choose who to live with as students who can afford to live off-campus. She said that even if representatives do not want to live with members of the opposite sex many of their constituents might want to.

A. Wang emphasized that expedience is important in that the housing resolution begins shortly.

There was a motion to divide the question. The first division would include the first and third be it therefore resolved clauses and the second division would include the second be it therefore resolved clause. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote, the motion to divide the question failed.

S. Dong said that said that she agrees with the other freshman representatives in that all students should have the opportunity to choose their living situations. She is concerned that by allowing students to live with members of the opposite sex opportunities to live with members of the same sex would be diminished for those students who want to. She therefore suggested implementing the policy only in certain house.

V. Hartman emphasized that the resolution would not force students to live with members of the opposite sex. The option of living with members of the same sex would not be diminished.

R. Lavin said that the SA should be as strategic as policy. Implementing gender-neutral housing would very much be a pilot program. He feels that as a strategy, the SA should first limit the implementation to certain houses.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Craig recognized that the SA’s need to be strategic but said that being strategic does not need to involve alienating the freshman class. He motioned to amend the resolution to strike non-freshman from the first clause of the first be it therefore resolved clause so that it reads “(1) All participating students are over the age of 18,” to strike non-freshman from the first clause of the second be it therefore resolved clause so that it reads “All participating students are over the age of 18” and to add “and will additionally research the implementation of such housing in first year residence halls” to the third be it therefore resolved clause so that it reads “Be if finally resolved, that the SA committee on Residence and Campus Life will further study the implementation of gender-neutral housing in the 2008–2009 academic year and will additionally research the implementation of such housing in first year residence halls.’

The motion was seconded.

V. Hartman said that he would like the policy to apply to freshman but the implementation of the policy is easier for upperclassmen housing.

There was a call to question on the amendment. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By a hand vote of 9 to 5 with 2 abstentions, the amendment passed.

Dean Hubbell said that when he went to Cornell housing was completely segregated by gender with men living on West Campus and women living on North Campus. In the late sixties and early seventies housing became much more coeducational and less segregated. He feels that the Cornell may be in a similar climate right now having come to a point in its life as an institution where it can take a further step forward. He pointed out that many of Cornell’s peer institutions are considering or have implemented similar policies. He feels that among administrators there has been no large outcry against the idea. Most people seem to share a variation of his opinion. He said that there is no question that the housing policy would be experimental. He supports implementation of the policy and feels that it could be enriching for everyone.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By a roll call vote of 9 to 2 with 5 abstentions, the resolution passed.

VIII. New Business

There was no new business.

IX. Adjournment

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