Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
February 14, 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

Representatives Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Mark Coombs, Samantha Dong, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steven Matthews, Guy Mazza, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Christopher Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Andrew Wang

Representatives Excused: Asa Craig, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller

Liaisons Present: Haley Bergman, Greg Mezey, Amy Richter, Sanjiv Tata

Liaisons Unexcused: Nikki Junewicz

III. Approval of the Minutes

There were no corrections to the February 7, 2008 minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the February 7, 2008 Student Assembly meeting were approved.

M. Asgary said that the clerk should, in the January 31, 2008 Minutes, note that the assembly should not vote on a motion to divide the question.

The following has been added to the January 31, 2008 Minutes:

(*On February 14, 2008, it was noted that a motion to divide the question does not require a vote; that if it is moved and seconded, the question is automatically divided. The chair agreed that this procedure is correct and noted that it will be followed correctly in the future.*)

IV. Open Microphone

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

No one came forward.

V. Announcements/Reports

Slope Day Announcement — Elizabeth Rapoport et. al.

E. Rapoport thanked the SA for the opportunity to announce this year’s Slope Day artists at the meeting. She introduced M. Chua, the Selections Director, who would be presenting the artist that would be performing at Slope Day 2008.

M. Chua announced that Hot Hot Heat would be performing and that Gym Class Heroes would be headlining Slope Day 2008. Additional information about both of the artists is available on the Slope Day 2008 website http://www.slopeday.cornell.edu/2008/index.php.

The assembly thanked the Slope Day Programming Board for their work in securing both of the artists.

Elections Update — Mark Coombs

M. Coombs said that at the time of the meeting 31 elections packets had been checked out. He pointed out that candidates can unfortunately not mention the Student Assembly in their candidate statements. All statements are due Monday, February 18, 2008. He encouraged the assembly to revisit the issue prior to the next election.

A. Gay asked why the assembly could not start allowing people to include reference to the SA in their candidate statements. The intent of the rule was not to prohibit students from mentioning the assembly.

M. Asgary said that C. Slicklen had pointed out that the Student Assembly was included in the category of student organizations at the meeting when the assembly voted to approve the election rules. It would not be fair of the assembly to change what they had previously voted in favor of.

M. Coombs said that he wanted to mention and clarify the rule. The rule is unfortunate and ambiguous.

Committee Chair Meeting Announcement — Ryan Lavin

R. Lavin said that there will be a meeting for all SA committee chairs on Tuesday, February 19 in the International Lounge of Willard Straight Hall. The committee chairs will be discussing their respective initiatives and general issues that have arisen. The discussion will also focus on coordinating committee efforts and making sure that committees have access to needed resources. He encouraged all committee chairs to make every effort to attend the meeting. Those unable to do so should contact him.

SWOT Announcement — Elan Greenberg

E. Greenberg said that he is in the process of organizing a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) Analysis of the SA. Conducting a SWOT Analysis of the SA has been endorsed by multiple levels of the administration. He has received positive feedback from many SA members who wish to participate. He asked everyone interested in doing so to contact him. Undergraduate community members, former representatives, trustees, faculty, and current administrators will all be participating.

M. Asgary asked if it would be appropriate to form an official committee charged with the role of conducting the analysis.

E. Greenberg said that forming a committee is a possibility. The idea is to produce some sort of conclusive report by the end of the semester. M. Asgary said that he will be presenting a series of updates to the SA Charter. He suggested that in conducting the analysis, E. Greenberg consider changes to the charter.

E. Greenberg liked the idea and asked M. Asgary to take an active role in the process.

GPSA Update — Rammy Salem

Since R. Salem had not yet arrived at the meeting, A. Richter, GPSA liaison to the SA, spoke in his place. She said that there was a Council of Representatives meeting on Monday, February 11. The Council met with Dean of Faculty Charlie Wolcott and had an extensive discussion regarding academic integrity. Students and faculty have had varying experiences of the process. It looks like there will be a resolution in the near future that attempts to recommend a way to address the current concerns. She said that she feels that issues of academic integrity are a greater problem than many students and administrators realize. She also said that there will be a Graduate Student Trustee election this year. She mentioned the new child care center and said that the graduate students will also be hosting the Grad Ball on April 4 in Willard Straight Hall. She read a statement given to her by R. Salem regarding the graduate student response to the prospect of being charged for Slope Day.

C. Slicklen asked the assembly to disregard R. Salem’s comment as it would be more appropriate to discuss at a later time in the meeting.

M. Coombs said that last year’s GPSA President, Janet Vertesi, frequently attended SA Meetings. He confirmed that Yu Yu currently chairs the GPSA. He asked if she would ever be willing to stop by an SA meeting and introduce herself. He feels that the GPSA President’s attendance at SA meetings now and again facilitates a good working relationship.

A. Richter said that she would mention M. Coombs comments to Yu Yu.

UA Report — Chris Basil and Steven Matthews

C. Basil said that the UA met on Wednesday, February 15. At the meeting there was a resolution on the table threatening to disband the UA. The resolution did not pass. The meeting was interesting in that the students were preaching moderation and the faculty confrontation.

S. Matthews said that a letter was drafted inviting President Skorton to the next CJC meeting to discuss his concerns with the Campus Code of Conduct.

A. Gay asked how many faculty members were actually pushing for the resolution just mentioned.

C. Basil said approximately 5 or 6 faculty members supported disbanding the UA at the meeting.

In response to a question posed by A. Gay, C. Basil said that community members do not really show up at the UA meetings.

A. Salem asked why the students were preaching moderation.

C. Basil said that personally he and other members of the UA are working on constructive initiatives such as lowering the cost of textbooks. Additionally he and S. Matthews are pursuing other initiatives that A. Gay and K. Duch began last year as the SA liaisons to the UA. Furthermore, the UA is looking into the issues of academic integrity. A lot of good things are coming from the UA, and threatening to shut themselves down seem like an effective approach.

A. Salem said that there seems to be a huge divide in how students and the faculty are interpreting President Skorton’s response. He asked what caused this divide.

C. Basil said that he feels that some of the difference in responses can be attributed to the length of time that individuals spend at Cornell. Students are around for a few years whereas the faculty makes their careers at Cornell. The two groups therefore have different agendas.

A. Salem asked if the Campus Code of Conduct affects the faculty.

C. Basil said that the code does not directly affect them. The faculty does however have to enforce the code.

M. Asgary said that faculty and students also differ in their opinions regarding the code because students live on campus. Since students live on campus, the code governs all their actions at all times. Additionally, the faculty deals with issues internally within departments whereas students are referred to the Office of the Judicial Administrator. He thinks that the SA should prepare a statement regarding its response to the President Skorton’s revisions to the code.

C. Basil agrees that the SA should draft a statement. He feels that the faculty is more upset by Skorton’s actions as opposed to the actual changes he made.

M. Coombs said that President Skorton’s response could be taken as a warning. He quoted Government Department professor, Elizabeth Sanders, who said that “We had hoped for an inclusive attitude from David Skorton. The disagreements were so vague and scary that you think that this is just an asserting of executive power and the hell with us.” He said that he would encourage the administration and president to approach the SA regarding Resolution 12. The resolution had support from all areas of campus but the President has the power to say no and overrule it. He said that he was not sure that many representatives were aware of his ability to reject all of their resolutions. The SA has no way of ensuring that Resolution 12 actually passes. He said that it is important to recognize the issues involved in what is being called an illusion of legislative authority.

C. Slicklen said that he is expecting a response from President Skorton regarding Resolution 12 in the next few days. He has the impression that the resolution is well received among members of the administration. There may however be some logistical questions regarding implementation. He will forward the response to all SA members as soon as he receives it.

Faculty Senate Report — Chris Sarra

C. Sarra said that the Faculty Senate met once last semester and once again during the past week. The only thing that pertained to undergraduates was Provost Martin’s announcement regarding dean searches. The administration is specifically looking for a dean for the College of Human Ecology. A committee has been formed regarding the search and the administration is looking for students to participate in the committee. He has contact information for those interested in participating in the committee. He listed the candidates that have been nominated for the Dean of Faculty. He said he did not catch their specific names but could find them out at the request of any representative.

C. Slicklen confirmed that Charlie Wilcott was not nominated because he would be retiring.

C. Sarra said that the University Faculty Committee will be meeting with President Skorton on February 27 at 4:30 p.m. in Uris Auditorium.

Engineering N3rdiators Announcement — Chris Sarra

C. Sarra said that he is friends with the Engineering Student Council President. They are planning on holding an engineering week to celebrate and enhance awareness. He is in the process of soliciting support for Dean Fox. Events would be open to all students and may include a textbook toss, and pi day. He hopes that the SA will provide their support to the events.

Gender Neutral Housing Update and Safe Ride Program Report — Sanjiv Tata

S. Tata said that the Residential Student Council has expressed their support for the gender-neutral housing initiative. Joe Burke, Director of Residential Housing Programs, will be chairing a committee to further investigate implementation of the policy. He and a few others, including V. Hartman, sit on the committee. The gender-neutral housing program is expected to be approximately 3 years in duration. The committee is currently working to draft a mission statement and the potential application. For the first year, the committee is planning on setting aside 2 suites for 10 students. The suites will be used to gather data. He will update the SA when appropriate.

He said that the RSC is additionally brainstorming the idea of a safe ride program in order to help prevent drunk driving. Safe ride programs have been instituted at other colleges and some of Cornell’s peer institutions. Specifically the committee is looking into a Blue Light Escort Service. He will hopefully have more to report in the near future.

A. Richter said that her undergraduate institution used Student Activity Fee money to subsidize cab rides for students. For such an initiative to take place, the assembly would need to negotiate with cab companies.

S. Matthews asked what would happen if more than 10 students apply to live in gender-neutral suites.

S. Tata said that the committee would like to start small and work its way up. The committee would prefer to turn away students than to be in a situation in which not enough students apply to live in the gender-neutral suites.

M. Asgary said he recalled similar safe ride initiatives that had been either tried or discussed in the past. Ithaca taxi and a group of Hotelies, for example, have tried to establish safe ride programs.

C. Slicklen said that he met with John Gutenberg, VP of Government and Community Relations, regarding working with outside taxi services to provide some sort of safe ride service. He said that Cornell has a policy that it cannot support outside organizations unless they receive 60% of the profits. Therefore there cannot be any direct partnership between the SA and an outside vendor because such an agreement would violate university policy.

M. Asgary pointed out that students who are intoxicated and chose to walk home are also exposed to dangerous situations. The Cornell campus is difficult to navigate at night especially in the winter months and the gorges pose a threat. Such a program should really be considered to mitigate the risks of both drunk driving and walking.

Mandibles/Dining Committee Announcement — Mazdak Asgary

M. Asgary said that the Dining Committee has not yet met this semester so he cannot really provide much of an update. The committee will be looking into the future of the Mann Library eatery and exploring student payment options at the location.

M. Coombs said that he is concerned about having a Dining Committee meeting this semester because as a former chair, he wants to ensure an effective transition. A lot of the committee’s initiatives take time to implement and he would not like to see plans discussed this semester die. He and M. Asgary are determining the most appropriate way to transition the committee.

M. Asgary asked anyone wishing to be a part of the committee transition to contact either himself or M. Coombs.

Ivy Council Spring Conference Report — Steven Matthews

S. Matthews said that the Ivy Council will be held at Cornell. He said that would like to find out who on the assembly is interested in helping to coordinate the event. Anyone with constructive ideas should contact him.

R. Stein said she would like to help out with Ivy Council but that she will not be able to stay after the meeting to talk with S. Matthews.

Additional Announcements

M. Asgary said that CIT has decided to make the computer lab in Upson Hall a 24 hour computer lab. A few other labs have also been converted to 24 hour labs.

C. Slicklen said that he and Dean Hubbell attended the Chief Diversity Officer Search meeting earlier in the day. He is the student representative on the committee and will provide periodic updates about the progress of the committee.

R. Lavin motioned to move Resolution 14 to the top of Business of the Day. It was seconded. A. Salem dissented.

A. Salem said he did not understand the motion because both resolutions will be discussed under Business of the Day.

R. Lavin withdrew his motion.

VI. Business of the Day

Official Elections Committee Statement — M. Coombs et al.

M. Coombs said that the circulated document is meant to be a statement from the elections committee. Despite the fact that there is no documentation for the “designated seats” which include International, Minority, LGBTQ seats, the Office of Assemblies regards these seats as common law. The seats have existed for so long that the office refuses to act on them unless the issue is discussed before the assembly. The statement is not advocating a change. He said that if the assembly would like to keep the seats, text needs to be added to the Charter. The seats currently exist only in the realm of common law.

R. Lavin thanked M. Coombs for bringing the issue up to the assembly. He asked M. Coombs what he and the elections committee wanted to accomplish by bringing the statement before the SA.

M. Coombs said that he is pointing out the issue to give it legitimacy in the eyes of the Office of the Assemblies. The charter indicates that the assembly can designate up to 4 at large seats to underrepresented communities.

C. Slicklen clarified that the SA can designate up to two per constituency.

M. Coombs said that the Elections Committee approached the Office of the Assemblies in order to have them remove information regarding these seats from the ballot. The office refused stating that doing so would constitute a major change. He feels that it is a clarification as opposed to a change. The only way the office will act on the issue is if it is brought before the SA.

E. Greenberg said that he is worried about opening up a discussion on the validity and value of the designated seats. He said that he is curious about what M. Coombs is trying to accomplish with the seats.

M. Coombs said that he and the Elections Committee do not have agenda. They are not making a moral or value judgment. There is simply no information regarding the designated seats anywhere. If the assembly would like to place the seats concretely within the Charter, he urged representatives to bring a resolution forward. If the assembly feels that the ambiguity is not problematic then they should leave the wording and understanding as is.

M. Asgary said that the issue being discussed first came to his attention last year and it has surfaced again this year. Last week G. Mazza mentioned that by passing Resolution 12 without specifying the date of implementation, the assembly could be considered to be violating its charter. The same could be said of the assembly’s current position because the designated seats are not specified in the charter. He also mentioned that in addition to the minority, international and LGBTQ communities, there are other underrepresented groups on campus. He said he would like to look into exploring how to identify these communities.

A. Natarajan said that the current documentation in elections packets permits students to indicate if they would like to run for a designated seat. He asked if the Elections Committee would have candidates ignore this and have all seats reverted back to at-large seats.

M. Coombs said that he had not anticipated the response he received from the Office of the Assemblies.

A. Natarjan asked what would be the consequence if the assembly took no action.

V. Hartman confirmed that if the assembly would be in violation of the charter if no actions were taken.

C. Slicklen asked M. Coombs what the ideal outcome of the discussion would be.

M. Coombs said that the Election Committee is currently in a standstill with the Office of the Assemblies. The office refuses to accept the clarification unless it is validated by the assembly. The assembly is also dealing with the issue of timeliness. He said that he would like to determine how and when the assembly would like to act on the issue.

C. Slicklen said that since the issue is not in resolution format, it would be inappropriate to take a vote.

M. Coombs said that A. Epstein gave him the impression that no resolution is needed since text is not being added or deleted.

R. Lavin said that the only appropriate course of action right now is to make a resolution defining the designated seats in the SA Charter or to take all stipulations out contradicting the charter anywhere else.

M. Asgary said that the Elections Committee has not prepared a resolution because there is no change. It is the duty of the committee to disseminate the information and they are provided what they found.

M. Coombs told A. Epstein that the assembly is confused since representatives have understanding of how the election should run but are not being allowed to run them in that way.

A. Epstein said that the Office of Assemblies is concerned by doing something as far reaching as changing the structure of election seats when allusions to the designated seats exist. The seats were created in the early eighties and have existed ever since with students voting for the positions since then.

A. Gay thanked A. Epstein for his remarks and said that the seats are based on precedent. He pointed out that the statement of the Elections Committee was produced on a Saturday at 5 a.m.

C. Slicklen said that the issue of the timing had already been discussed by the assembly.

A. Gay said that since precedent exists, it seems appropriate to create a resolution addressing the issue. He said that it seems absurd to him that the issue was not addressed sooner especially prior to the release of election packets.

A. Gay motioned to end discussion. It was seconded. There were multiple dissents.

A. Salem said that the assembly is not done discussing the matter and that further discussion is needed to determine the best course of action. The last time the assembly attempted to discuss this issue, the meeting was adjourned.

By a hand vote of 8–7−0, the motion passed. Discussion on the statement was ended.

C. Slicklen said that a 2/3 vote is needed to end debate on a piece of legislation. The document submitted was not in the form of a resolution and a 2/3 vote to end discussion is therefore not needed.

M. Coombs asked G. Mazza to clarify what C. Slicklen just said in Robert’s Rules.

C. Sarra motioned for a revote.

By a hand vote of 9–7−0, the most passed.

C. Slicklen ended debate at the discretion of the chair. There was a motion to overrule the chair. It was seconded. There were multiple dissents.

V. Hartman said that a motion to overrule the chair requires debate.

C. Slicklen opened up discussion on whether or not to overrule his decision to end discussion on the Elections Committee statement.

M. Coombs asked C. Slicklen to clarify that the Elections Committee Statement was included on the January 24, 2008 agenda.

C. Slicklen said that he did not have the records in front of him at the moment.

E. Greenberg said C. Slicklen decided to end debate based on the general sentiment of the SA. There is nothing to discuss until the issue is turned into a document that can be debated.

C. Slicklen said that for a Committee action to be approved, it needs to be brought in front of the SA in a legislative form.

A. Salem said that the statement stands as a committee action. The statement is not saying anything new. By deciding to end discussion, the assembly is, for now, approving of the statement.

V. Hartman seconded A. Salem. If the assembly does not like the statement, a motion would need to be made to disapprove it. A 2/3 vote would be needed to disapprove the committee action.

A. Gay motioned to call to question on overruling the chair. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By a hand vote of 5–10–0, the motion to overrule the chair failed.

Resolution 14 — Resolution Concerning the Funding of Slope Day

C. Slicklen said that he withdrew himself as a sponsor of the resolution.

A. Gay said that Resolution 14 represents the next step in a progression of discussions. The SA briefly discussed the concepts embodied in the resolution during Executive Session last week. At this point, the assembly has met with both the GPSA and the Slope Day Programming Board multiple times. The resolution formalizes the sentiment of the student body and stipulates that the Slope Day Programming Board charge a fee of $12.00 to each Graduate Student who enters Slope Day. Passing the resolution is in the best interest of undergraduate students. Charging grad students an entrance fee is in no way meant to be punitive and is in fact useful to a lot of people on campus. The intent is to charge graduate students the same fee paid by undergraduate students.

R. Lavin said that the resolution formalizes what the assembly discussed in executive session last week.

C. Holmes, Chair of Logistics Committee of Slope Day/Associate Dean of Student Activities, said that she understands the resolution to be asking the Slope Day Programming Board to adhere to an item in Appendix B ultimately resulting in charging graduate and professional students for Slope Day attendance. She asked the assembly to table the resolution so that data required to comply with the resolution coul first be gathered. The university has to agree the release of student data and to staffing arrangements. She and another individual from the Slope Day Programming Board would be having a discussion with the Registrar’s office on Friday, February 15 to find out if they would support enforcing the directive presented in the resolution. She would be willing to report back the SA.

V. Hartman motioned to table the resolution. It was seconded. A. Gay dissented.

A. Gay said that if the resolution is tabled, he hopes that it will be discussed at the next meeting.

C. Homes assured the SA that she would report back.

A. Gay withdrew his dissent.

The resolution was tabled.

VII. Unfinished Business

No unfinished business was discussed.

VIII. New Business

No new business was discussed.

IX. Executive Session

The assembly went into 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