Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
February 7, 2008
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, Haley Bergman, Mark Coombs, Asa Craig, Samantha Dong, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Nikki Junewicz, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steven Matthews, Guy Mazza, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Lance Polivy, Ahmed Salem, Christopher Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Sanjiv Tata, Andrew Wang

Excused: Rammy Salem

III. Approval of the Minutes

There were no corrections to the January 31, 2008 minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the January 31, 2008 Student Assembly meeting were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

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

D. Raymond, 2008, President of Cornell Minds Matter, said that Minds Matters will be holding Dining with Diverse Minds Friday, February 8 at 5:15 p.m. in the Memorial Room of Willard Straight Hall. The event will be a panel discussion on multicultural mental health. She encouraged representatives to attend and show their support.

V. Announcements/Reports

Transit Visualization System for Buses Announcement — R. Smith

R. Smith said that she spoke with Josh Cohen regarding a Transit Visualization System for Buses. The system allows students to see bus systems online during real time and to determine the times that buses will arrive at stops. She encouraged representatives to check out the system website. Such a system is used at multiple universities. North Carolina State also has flat screen TV’s in libraries dedicated to a transit visualization system. The system would also be accessible through cell phones. She said that Josh Cohen would like feedback and asked representatives to contact her with questions and comments.

Ivy Council & Ivy Leadership Summit Recap — S. Matthews and S. Dong

S. Matthews said that the Ivy Leadership Summit was a huge success and that there were a number of great speakers at the event. He thanked S. Dong who worked very hard to ensure the success of the event. He said that he just finished drafting an application for Ivy Council. He will be sending the application out to student leaders on campus in hopes of building a delegation. He said that Columbia is kind of dropping the ball and therefore that the conference may be coming to Cornell this fall.

Communications Committee Report — A. Natarajan

A. Natarajan said that the committee met earlier in the week and turned out a bunch of quarter cards for the upcoming election. The quarter cards were distributed across campus. Committee members have also been announcing the election in classes and the meetings of various student organizations. Additionally an email has been sent out regarding the election. He said that his radio show would not be happening that evening.

UA Update — C. Basil

C. Basil said that there was a lot of contention among UA members regarding President Skorton’s response to the CJC. President Skorton accepted most of the changes to the Campus Code of Conduct proposed by the CJC but changed about ten of them. A lot of faculty members were upset by his response and the UA has called an emergency meeting. He said that he personally does not have any problems with Skorton’s changes. Anyone with concerns can contact either himself or S. Matthews. He said that he will bring up concerns on behalf of the SA at the UA meeting.

Charter Test Update — G. Mazza

G. Mazza said that he has written a Charter Test that is currently on Blackboard. He said that all representatives are required to complete it by the close of the February 14th meeting. Representatives are required to get a 70% to pass.

In response to a question posed by R. Stein, G. Mazza said that representatives who failed would be required to attend a Charter workshop.

VI. Business of the Day

Internet Use Education - Tracey Mitrano

C. Slicklen introduced T. Mitrano as the Director of Information Technology at Cornell. V. Hartman suggesting having T. Mitrano come speak at the meeting regarding Juicy Campus, which he and the rest of the executive board thought was a great idea.

T. Mitrano said the first questions that have arisen in regards to the Juicy Campus website are whether or not the Cornell network could block the site and possible legal remedies. She said that she recently met with Class of 2008 representatives to talk about the website and the issues that it has generated. By way of introduction, she said that technology is neither good nor bad. It is the use of the technology that can be classified as good or bad. When evaluating technology it is important to think about social norms, market models, and the law. Keeping these factors in mind will allow the university to better analyze approaches to the issues generated by the website. She said that the most important concern of the administration and faculty is to do what is best in light of the university’s mission to teach and commitment to first rate research.

C. Slicklen asked if posts on Juicy Campus come up in Google searches of individuals. He asked if T. Mitrano knew the website’s policy regarding letting search engines crawl around the site.

T. Mitrano said that she has not done a full analysis of the website’s polices. She said that it is her understanding that the site is using technology to inhibit search engine crawlers from capturing their pages. It is a matter of law and Federal Trade Commission Policy that websites that are used for profit or to transact money must have a privacy policy. There is however no requirement regarding the content of the privacy policy. This means that Juicy Campus could start allowing search engines to access their pages as long as this information is communicated in the privacy policy.

C. Slicklen confirmed that T. Mitrano had a law degree. He asked if Juicy Campus could be held liable for slander for providing a forum for individuals to post what they are posting.

T. Mitrano said that slander goes with what is spoken and that liable goes with what is written. Defamation relates to something false said about an individual or their character. Charges against the website would be more along the lines of defamation or libel. For defamation, damages really have to be shown. If the person who defamed another individual is identified, a suit can be brought. Individuals can collect for punitive damages. Her understanding is that the website is anonymous and that it would therefore be difficult to bring a suit for libel or defamation.

E. Greenberg thanked T. Mitrano for coming. He asked what the consequences would be when something written on the site leads an individual to take action such as, in extreme circumstances, committing suicide. He asked if Cornell was considering these types of consequences. A simple solution may be to contact Juicy Campus and ask them to please remove Cornell from the list of universities on the site.

T. Mitrano said that the consequences mentioned by E. Greenberg are of primary concern to the university. Whether or not information posted on the website will be a tipping point for individuals at risk for self harm or harm to others is the first thought of all administrators. She assured the students that there are resources available for at risk individuals who are upset by information on the site. The law is not clear regarding the liability the site could have if a negative consequence resulted from its use. The law is changing and maturing in relation to internet rights. In a widely publicized incidence against My Space regarding the suicide of those victimized by what is now being called cyber bullying, the website was not sued. She emphasized that we have a common law system that relies on precedent. Therefore it does not look as if law is moving towards protecting individuals from cyber bullying. In terms of legislation, immunity is provided to internet services providers and online applications for defamation and libel. The reason for the protection at the time was an interest in the promotion the growth of the internet. She said an effort may be seen to change the law at the federal or state levels.

Stacey Katz, 2008, said that as a former leader of the Greek system, she had taken an interest in Juicy Campus because of various posts about the Greek system. The posts work against everything the system has tried to achieve in the past few years. She said that all the recruitment statistics and house criticisms personally offended her since she had worked so hard to combat such perceptions. She has met with numerous individuals to discuss the issue and has learned that the individual attacks are much more of a cause for concern than the attacks on the Greek system. Negative comments about individuals’ characters can among other things affect future professional opportunities. She said that she met with her business law professor and read all the terms of the website. It turns out that the website is tracking the ip addresses of those posting to the site. This is an important message to deliver to the student body. She outlined an incident where an individual who had posts written about them contacted the Juicy Campus website. Juicy Campus sent back a generic email saying that the individual could not respond to the email unless they were employed in a legal profession. The email basically said that the policy of Juicy Campus indicates that individuals cannot post defamatory comments but then claims that defamatory comments are opinions if someone complains. She said that she believes that the website could drive people over the edge. It is great that resources are available but she is not sure that individuals will be active in utilizing them. After a week of participating in a variety of forums, her conclusion is that the SA and administration need to work together towards the goal of combating the negative consequences of the site.

T. Mitrano said that Cornell has the ability to block the site but that doing so would be in violation of Cornell’s policy as a research and teaching institution. Additionally, blocking the site will be of limited value in that it will not prevent students from accessing the site. Students accessing the internet off campus would have access to the site. Additionally, Cornell has no power of blocking the site to the rest of the world. Although she appreciates that individuals would want the site block, it would not solve the problem. In terms of legal remedies, she said that she thought it would be interesting to ask Cornell Council if they were concerned about their trademark and reputation in such a way that would lead them to take action. Individuals could come together in an attempt to bring a suit that would at least kick off an investigation into the site.

C. Slicklen said that both he and S. Katz had attended a meeting earlier in the week where the response of the Greek system was discussed. He asked her to outline what sororities were doing to combat Juicy Campus.

S. Katz said that the Head of the Pan-Hellenic Council will be going to the head of all sororities encouraging them to encourage their chapters not look at the site and not post on the site. They are hoping that discouragement will act to decrease the popularity of the site.

Nicky Mangeri, 2008, said that taking large scale action tends to draw more attention to the issues and may actually work to popularize the site. She pointed out that all members of the student body are part of smaller communities. Using the resources of these smaller communities to discourage the use of the site is a good approach to consider. As leaders, SA representatives can network with a variety of organizations and communities to make a difference. She said that anonymity is what is causing the site to grow.

C. Slicklen said that N. Mangeri attended the meeting earlier this week that he just asked S. Katz about. He asked N. Mangeri, as a communications major, to elaborate on the increasing popularity of anonymous websites such as Juicy Campus.

N. Mangeri said that anonymity brings things to the next level and allows for roll play through which people can take on multiple identities. The site also creates the opportunity for cycled reactions. If a post is written about someone, that individual may in turn make comments on the site.

C. Slicklen said that there were two editorials in the Daily Sun that morning regarding Juicy Campus. One of the editorials pointed out how a single individual could easily make a post the juiciest comment. It is important to note that a very limited number of individuals could actually be utilizing the site.

T. Mitrano said that her personal opinion is that if students stop giving the website oxygen, it will die. She recognizes however that this might not be realistic. She said that it is important to realize that the website is a for profit site. The site wants to be recognized because they are on an advertising model. She said that by accessing the site, students are contributing to the profits of its founders.

Katie O’Neil, 2009, President of the Pan-Hellenic Council, said that she knew of someone who was able to get a posting containing a cell phone number removed by contacting the site. She encouraged people mentioned on Juicy Campus to contact the site. The website is setting chapters back as they struggle to combat old stereotypes and labels. It is difficult for women in chapters to be labeled as something that they are not. Students should be proud to wear their Greek letters around campus. The Greek system as a whole has the goal of increasing positive publicity this year and the website is making it hard to achieve. The website does not bode well for recruitment next year. She would like the website to die out by the end of this academic year so that freshman will not be influenced by the information on it. She said that the council is drafting a contract for the presidents of sororities to sign stating that they will do what they can to prevent the use of the site.

R. Lavin thanked all community members for their contributions. He said that after listening to the various speakers, it appears that the student body should be focusing its efforts on the social communities on campus. Pan-Hellenic Association has provided an example of a great response. Representatives and other individuals should take examples back to the communities that they are a part of. He encouraged individuals to share their responses in hopes of generating further positive action.

R. Stein said that although the website may be tracking ip addresses, anyone can access a public computer lab. The website is anonymous and she is not convinced that it will die out despite the best efforts of the student body. The information is potentially very damaging to both individuals and the university. She knows of a girl who had terrible things posted about her on the website and that the website refused to remove the comments after she had contacted them. She asked if the university could be held liable if someone kills themselves as a result of posts on Juicy Campus. The university is obviously aware of the negative implications of the site. She wondered what would happen in such a case if no action was taken on behalf of the university.

T. Mitrano said that she hesitates to respond on behalf of university council but feels that the university is doing a lot. The site provides a lesson in character to students. For individuals who do have information posted on them that becomes searchable, it is time for American society to think of ways to balance the right of the individual to control what is being set about them will the right to free speech. The law is a living thing and students can take advantage of that.

Representatives from the audience said that they were both Communications major who have learned that there is really very little protecting individuals on the internet. Although there is a possibility for change in the future, there appears to be no benefit in keeping the site accessible on the Cornell network now. Nothing good can comes from the destruction of reputations. She emphasized that freshman may not wish to associate themselves with the Greek system which is terrible because the system offers so much to students.

The individual joining the previous speaker said that the suggestions for combating the sight previously mentioned probably will not realistically be successful in decreasing its popularity. Individuals who suspect that something might be written about them would have trouble not looking at the sight. She pointed out that besides attacking individuals and the Greek system, racist and anti-semantic posts have been made. These posts bring society back hundreds of years and reflect extremely badly upon Cornell. Although postings are not searchable, the site requires no login and can be accessed by anyone. A more active approach is needed now. Mental health resources for students pushed over the edge are more of a reactive approach. Although she recognizes that Cornell may not be able to completely eliminate the site, small active steps can be taken.

Grayson Fahrner, 2008, said that he first looked at Juicy Campus after seeing it advertised on Facebook for a month. He suggested going to Facebook. Facebook is the reason that many students know about the site. Since Facebook is facing its own battle regarding privacy, they may be responsive to feedback sent by students. Letters could indicate that students continued participation in the Facebook website is dependent on how much privacy is respected. Allowing such sites as Juicy Campus to advertise on Facebook goes directly against this goal.

A. Gay thanked Grayson and said that he had a great suggestion. He appreciates everything that has been said at the meeting thus far but recognizes that many of the comments may be dissatisfying because students still have no recourse. He asked if there was any discussion requiring students to login in at computer labs if ip addresses are being recorded. This may be a tangible step towards preventing anonymous posting on sites from locations on campus.

T. Mitrano said that the university previously debated the issue of keeping track of which users are accessing computer lab computers at various times. Many people at the time opposed tracking logins because they valued the opportunity to post anonymously thinking in terms of political speech. This question remains important. She said that Cornell can track user ip addresses when they access the Cornell network through a wireless connection. Public computers labs are not tracked. The issue could be raised but she feels that a lot of librarians, IT people and faculty would oppose tracking individuals’ usage. She feels that the university would be giving sites like Juicy Campus far more power than they deserve if anonymous political free speech is eliminated as a result.

In response to a question posed by A. Gay, T. Mitrano said that she has contacted university council regarding their opinions of the effect of Juicy Campus on Cornell’s trademark and is waiting for a response.

A. McGovern said that she agrees with a lot of what has been said. Although she is sympathetic towards those individuals who have been affected, the point about protecting free speech is important. Blocking the site may make it more tantalizing. She emphasized that gossip happens regardless of the existence of Juicy Campus and that the site is being given a lot of weight. Small groups can internally be doing a lot to combat the issues raised by the site especially regarding racism, homophobia and other such issues.

C. Slicklen said that 45 minutes had passed. R. Lavin motioned to extend the discussion by a half hour. It was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Salem said that although he appreciates the issue many opinions regarding it have been discussed. The assembly and community will continue to explore issues relating to Juicy Campus and it is important that the assembly attend to other business.

After hearing how many people were on the speakers list and confirming that the chair would limit speaking time, A. Salem withdrew his motion.

P. Nahernak said that the site is despicable and that small steps can be taken to combat it. Action can be taken by small groups of individuals and the Greek community can organize to discourage use. He suggested that Greek organizations post pro-Greek rhetoric on the site.

J. Haimi, 2009, said that although gossip occurs anyways, the site feeds on it and allows role play. She said that publicizing that ip addresses are traced will only encourage students to access the site in the public computer labs meant for academic purposes. Using Juicy Campus in computer labs compromises the purpose of the lab. Just because gossip happens does not mean in should be allowed in computer labs.

D. Jones, 2010, said that prior to this SA meeting he had never heard of Juicy Campus. Everything that has been said at the meeting serves to feed the flames. The SA could be making better use of their time. If people want to go Greek they will go Greek regardless of what is said.

A. Craig thanked audience members for their attendance. He asked T. Mitrano what would happen in the case of threats made on the site.

T. Mitrano said that threats posing imminent harm are never protected by free speech. Law enforcement would need to be contacted in cases of threats.

M. Asgary, as a computer lab supervisor, said that the server capacity to track each individuals’ computer usage is not available. Computer labs are public and can be used for any appropriate purpose. He emphasized the importance of taking actions that do not increase the appeal of the site.

M. Coombs said that blocking the site will increase individual’s nervousness and concern. People have mentioned compromising the purpose of the computer labs. He said that the purpose of the Constitution would be compromised if the website were to be blocked. He encouraged individuals to let the website die and to stop discussing it.

A member of the audience said that he went on Juicy Campus for the first time a few days ago because was curious to see the amount of activity of the various Ivy League schools. Brown had a half a page of comments, Princeton had 4 pages and Cornell had 31 pages.

J. Intravia, 2008, said that she had strong ties to the Greek community but that the site involves the entire Cornell community. The Cornell community needs to address the issue and she does not feel that blocking it would accomplish much. A cycle of similar websites could result. Even though only a handful of people may be on the site, that handful of people is affecting the entire community.

E. Call said that she received a personal threat on Juicy Campus. She emphasized that she was not a member of the Greek community and has no available recourse. The police came to her townhouse the other day because of a similar threat received by her roommate. The people being attacked on the site face real consequences and comments are difficult to forget. The issues need to be addressed and need to be addressed on a level higher than the Greek community. The site is reflection of how Cornell students value each other.

A. Salem thanked E. Call for sharing her story. He said that if an employer turns to Juicy Campus for information about candidates he would not want to work for that employer. The site is obviously not based on truth. He stressed that although people are suffering the site is not the end of the world and will die down.

A. Wang said that two approaches have been mentioned being an aggressive response and a quite response. He suggested being aggressive in a quiet manner.

C. Miller said that a previous community member had suggested writing positive comments on the site. She said that she feels that it has been made clear that going to the site promotes gossip and advised against the idea.

A. Salem motioned to end discussion. It was seconded. There was no dissent. Discussion was ended.

C. Slicklen thanked everyone for attending.

Approval of CU Tonight Constitution and Commissioners - Claudia Castelino, et al.

C. Castelino said that prospective commissioners fill out applications and interview. They must among other things indicate their motivations for joining the commission. Seventeen, of which half are new, commissions have been selected. The list of commissioners was provided to SA representatives. She said that the Constitution was changed to include a definition of discrimination regarding the appeals process. The definition was taken from the Student Activities Office website. Some of the financials were also changed at the bottom of that page. The roles of the SAFC and SA liaisons were also modified. She asked if the SA would like to maintain these positions.

A. Salem said that SA liaison was probably required since CU Tonight is a by-line funded organization.

A. Salem called to question on the Constitution. It was seconded. A. Wang dissented.

A. Wang said that he had a question regarding a name in the document.

By a hand vote, the previous question was called. By a hand vote of 16–2−0, the CU Tonight Constitution and Commissioners were approved.

VII. Unfinished Business

Resolution 12 - Direct Election of the Student Assembly President and Executive Vice President � Vince Hartman and Mark Coombs

M. Coombs said that the Resolution was introduced at the previous meeting. The sponsors made only one rhetorical change to the first whereas clause. The resolution would change the SA Charter setting two of the eight at-large seats aside for the President and Executive Vice President positions. Individuals opting to run for these positions would be running for the office and for the at-large seat. The sponsors are against selecting the highest at-large vote getters for President and Executive Vice President since these individuals may not want the positions. He and V. Hartman believe fundamentally that the President and Executive Vice President should be popularly elected. Although there is risk involved, those who lose the presidential election have other avenues of involvement. Another proposal at the previous meeting was to have separate elections. A revote was needdc a few years back due to tabulation issues and voter turnout declined dramatically. Those who speak for the people are best chosen by the people. He said that with this resolution, the SA is playing catch up with Ivy League peers.

C. Basil said that he supports the resolution in principle. However, he views the SA President position as more administrative and internal. Although he recognizes that the President acts as the voice of the students to the university administration, he feels that more safeguards should be added into the resolution. The SA relies on the President to keep the meeting in control. Although the resolution will make the SA President a more valid figure, it could potentially detract from the overall functionality of the SA.

M. Coombs said that although the SA President position may have been intended to be an administrative position, it is not. When the administration, newspapers, or student body looks to determine a collective student voice, they look to the SA President.

A. Gay thanked M. Coombs and V. Hartman for bringing the resolution forward. He said that his only concern is that qualified individuals will lose their seats on the assembly if they opt to run for President or Executive Vice President and are not elected. He asked if there was some way to amend the resolution so that students running for at-large seats could indicate that they would like to run for President or Executive Vice President as well. He strongly supports the direct of election of President and Executive VP but feels that there needs to be a way to maintain involvement for those not elected.

V. Hartman encouraged those wanting to make amendments to do so.

A. McGovern said that although she would not oppose an amendment to the resolution that addresses A. Gay’s concerns she feels that candidates should decide for themselves whether or not the presidency is worth the risk. She said that she is in favor of the resolution and that it supports accountability. It will increase participation in the overall elections. In terms of prerequisities, she feels that the assembly should let the students decide.

M. Coombs emphasized that it important to allow both students and candidates to decide what they value. The change would serve as a self-selecting process.

V. Hartman said that the assembly should be able to trust their constituency of Ivy League students.

R. Stein said that she feels that the sentiment of the resolution is a good thing but that there are definite requirements to being president. If a candidate had no knowledge of parliamentary procedure or the charter, he or she could not effectively act as chair. She feels that it is detrimental to have no recourse mechanism for qualified candidates who run and are not elected. She said that she feels that the resolution is a step in the right direction but that it may need to be rewritten before it can be approved. Safeguards and qualifications are needed. She said that she feels that it would be a great idea to give candidates running for at-large seats the option of running for President and Executive Vice President and then take the highest vote getters.

M. Coombs said that knowledge of parliamentary procedure comes with time. Making qualifications for any candidate of a political office can be seen as a bold and dangerous step.

E. Greenberg said that he thinks that the assembly should support the resolution. The direct election of the President would ensure that there is never any doubt about the legitimacy of the individual holding the position. From personal experience, he said that he had no problem with people questioning his opinions or actions, but that he did have a problem with people questioning his legitimacy as President or the SA in general. The resolution should be passed in order to start moving in the right direction.

C. Slicklen clarified that the resolution would not go in effect until the 2008–2009 school year.

M. Coombs said that he and V. Hartman would like to make E. Greenberg a sponsor to the resolution.

E. Greenberg said that he would cosponsor the resolution and was added as such.

G. Mazza said that self selecting does not necessarily mean that the individual will be a good leader. Requirements are needed. He said that he agrees with the resolution in spirit.

V. Hartman said to keep in mind that the President would have to satisfy the requirement of getting elected.

G. Mazza said with election turnout as low as it is, it would be possible for a candidate to run a grassroots campaign among friends or organizations and be elected. He said that it would be very easy to elected if individuals knew the right people.

M. Coombs asked if the SA’s internal process of selecting the executive board was any different.

G. Mazza said that that was a fair point but that everyone on the SA has legislative experience.

J. Dulcio said that it is common knowledge that individuals tend to hold their presidents and vice presidents to different standards. These individuals are not just members at large. They are leaders and doers. Their tasks are different and the expectations that students have of them are higher. Presidents are supposed to visionaries, someone whose vision and foresight lead the SA through important decisions and resolutions. Having a president whose vision and foresight has never been questioned by the larger population is troubling to her. Having a president who’s ability to lead and serve effectively as president, has not been scrutinized, analyzed or questioned by the general Cornell population is also troubling. The current system implies that the SA’s current election procedures are undemocratic and that the student body cannot be entrusted to with the decision to choose and elect their student body President. Everyone knows that this is untrue. If the student body cannot be trusted to select their own president, it must also be true that they lack the ability to elect representatives in general. Not only will electing a president increase student participation, it will also allow issues of the community to surface. Candidates will be more compelled to speak with students and address student issues. She said that her president should be elected by her vote and that any other policy increases the power of the SA at the expense of undermining the students.

R. Lavin echoed the sentiment that has previously been expressed and said that he would like to see the resolution pass. He pointed out that it could be the case that a losing candidate for president could have more votes than some of the elected at-large representatives. He feels that this would be a terrible situation. He said he hopes to see an amendment brought forward.

A. Gay moved to amend the resolution to replace “two at-large seats are to be reserved for candidates seeking the office of President and Executive Vice President of the Student Assembly and must be explicitly designated as such” with “A candidate for any seat can additionally indicate their intent to run for President or Executive Vice President. The President and Executive Vice President candidates receiving the highest vote totals will be seated in those designated seats.” This amendment would allow candidates to run for seats and the two positions taking care of the issue of losing qualified candidates.

The amendment was seconded. A. Salem dissented.

A. Salem said that he does not logistically understand how the amendment would work.

A. Natarajan said that he had been in the process of drafting a very similar amendment. He said that he would like to add “If no candidate running for President or EVP is successful in their bid for a seat on the assembly, then an internal election among the 19 elected representatives will occur to determine the President and Executive Vice President” to the end of A. Gay’s proposed amendment.

M. Asgary said that he did not believe that an amendment to an amendment could be made unless the original amendment passes.

C. Slicklen said that he would not be accepting A. Natarajan’s amendment. The assembly could return to it later in the meeting. Discussion would continue on the amendment proposed by A. Gay.

M. Asgary said, as he has said before, that the assembly should be weary of how much they put into the charter. He said it would be appropriate to include a statement in the charter indicating that two at-large seats are designated for the President and Executive Vice President. Any other logistics and rules should be placed in the election rules as determined by the Elections Committee. The logistics may be subject to change each year. He asked A. Gay where his amendment was going. He pointed out that students could just check a box to run for president in case they do end up getting the greatest amount of votes. They may not have a huge desire to be the President.

A. Gay said that his intent was that anyone could essentially be running for two seats, their seat and the officer position. He said that A. Natarjan’s amendment did not really make sense because the President and Executive VP would be highest vote getters.

R. Lavin motioned to extend the time of the meeting until 7:00 p.m. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The time of the meeting was extended until 7:00 p.m.

A. McGovern said that the logistics of the process are not clear to all representatives after fifteen minutes of discussion. She feels that it would therefore be more difficult for the student body to understand the elections process. She said that M. Agsary had a good point. She said she could imagine students just checking a box and being like of well I may as just run for president. Legitimacy needs to be given to the President and Executive Vice President which can only be accomplished by striking the amendment down.

A. Salem said that he is also concerned about the incentive structure that the amendment creates. Running for President or Executive Vice President should be an active choice. The presence of risk is what makes the position more important and appealing. Running for President should be a candidate’s first choice as opposed to running for an at-large seat and then also determining to run for President.

A. Salem called to question on the amendment. It was seconded. A. Craig dissented.

A. Craig said that he felt that discussion on the amendment should continue.

A. Salem withdrew his motion.

A. Craig said that he envisioned the amendment as applying more so to the at-large seats. He said that he does not necessarily agree with the sentiment of having the highest vote getters be elected to the President and Executive Vice President Positions. The President is viewed as representing the entire student body and therefore should come from the at-large seats. He suggested having the highest vote getters of the at-large seats be designated president and Executive Vice President respectively. The next six highest vote getters will be elected to the remaining at-large seats.

A. Wang said that he disagrees with the amendment. Amendments complicate the issue and do not work. The resolution as a whole is appropriate.

R. Stein called to question on the amendment. It was seconded. S. Dong dissented.

R. Stein withdrew her motion.

S. Dong asked A. Gay is an individual wishing to run for President or Executive Vice President also had to be running for an at-large seat according to his amendment.

A. Craig said that he had conferred with A. Gay and that A. Gay had intended to allow individuals running for any seat to also run for President or Executive Vice President. Students running for at-large seats should however really be the only ones with the option of running for the positions. He suggested having the highest vote getters of the at-large seats be designated president and Executive Vice President respectively. The next six highest vote getters will be elected to the remaining at-large seats.

S. Dong said that the comments made by A. Craig were more in line with what she had in mind. The President represents the entire student body and therefore the President should come from the at-large candidates.

C. Sarra called to question on the amendment. It was seconded.

A. Gay withdrew his amendment.

In response to question posed by M. Asgary, candidates wishing to be elected President or Executive Vice President would be running for only the at-large seats. It only makes sense that the highest vote getter from the at-large seats be President.

A. Craig amended the resolution to replace “two at-large seats are to be reserved for candidates seeking the office of President and Executive Vice President of the Student Assembly and must be explicitly designated as such” with “The two highest vote getters that designate that they wish to be in the running for the President and the Executive Vice President will be named as such respectively. The following six highest vote getters shall be designated to the at large seats.”

The amendment was seconded. There was dissent. The assembly would discuss the amendment.

M. Asgary emphasized that the amendment contains logistics that should be included in the election rules as opposed to the Charter. All the charter needs to include is that two at-large seats be designated to the President and Executive Vice President. He said those campaigning for at-large seats would ultimately be campaigning for both at-large seats and the Presidency. He feels that the resolution should pass as is. Logistics could be examined in the future. The resolution will not take effect until next fall so there is some time for further discussion.

G. Mazza said that by having individuals designate that they would like to run for President, they are essentially running for two seats. He said that there is concern that no one running for an at-large seat would like to be President.

C. Sarra said that the amendment does not seem that different than the previous amendment. He encouraged representatives to vote down the amendment and pass the resolution as is. Additional details can be incorporating into the election rules.

A. McGovern encouraged representatives to vote down the amendment.

A. McGovern called to question on the amendment. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

A. Craig withdrew his amendment.

M. Asgary said that he was originally against the idea. As a former member of the e-board he felt that assembly members were better equipped than the general student body to elect their leadership. He said that he however has a problem with the fact that students elected to college seats are able to run internally for the President and Executive Vice President seats. He feels that both positions should be elected at-large because candidates should be debating and addressing concerns of all students. He asked everyone to pass the resolution. If it doesn’t work, the assembly can one again change the process.

E. Flener, 2009, said that he thinks the resolution is long overdue and that there is not much weight behind the argument of experience. A former SA President is supporting the amendment and it seems as if all representatives also do so in principle. Internal elections should be eliminated for the benefit of the student body and the assembly as an institution.

In response to a question posed by C. Sarra, M. Coombs said that the general elections and presidential elections will occur simultaneously.

C. Sarra called to question on the resolution. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

A. Haber, 2008, said that he is sympathetic regarding A. McGovern and M. Asgary’s concerns about a broad charter. He said that passing the resolution now as a broad charter amendment is very important. The more amendments that are made, the less transparent the process becomes. The resolution will serve to legitimize the SA and empower the student body.

R. Stein asked how the resolution would be adjusted in the future.

C. Slicklen said that the charter can be changed in the future. The elections committee will work on the logistics.

G. Mazza said that if the resolution is passed, the assembly will be in violation of the charter. Any charter change goes into affect immediately so the upcoming election would be in violation of the charter if the resolution is passed. He suggested that someone make a motion along the lines that the President and Executive Vice President are subject to the election rules set forth by the Office of the Assemblies.

M. Coombs said that the election packets have already been handed out. The current election therefore falls under the previous charter.

M. Asgary said that is obviously important that the SA try to avoid being in violation of their charter. The SA has in the past however passed resolutions amending the charter with a conditional understanding when the changes will take affect. He thinks it would be very detrimental to vote the resolution down over the technicality.

A community member said that he does not understand the purpose of the resolution. He feels that it is the responsibility of the student body to elect their leadership. The presidential election will turn into a popularity contest.

By a roll call vote of 15–1−3, Resolution 12 passed.

Resolution 13 - Support of Cornell’s New Financial Aid Policy — Student Assembly Representatives

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. Resolution 12 passed unanimously.

There was a motion to go into executive session. It was seconded. The assembly went into executive session.

VIII. New Business

No new business was discussed.

IX. Executive Session

X. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. It was seconded. There was no dissent. C. Slicklen adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun