Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
March 6, 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, Asa Craig, Samantha Dong, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steve Matthews, Guy Mazza, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Christopher Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Stein, Andrew Wang

Representatives Excused: Rebecca Smith

Liaisons Present: Haley Bergman, Nikki Junewicz, Greg Mezey, Sanjiv Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes

There were no corrections to the February 21, 2008 minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the February 21, 2008 Student Assembly meeting were approved.

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

Spring 2008 Elections Report — M. Coombs

M. Coombs said that there would be no announcement at the meeting regarding elections results. The Elections Committee would be meeting on March 7. There is one important challenge relating to the Cornell logo. The same issue has also arisen in the past. At the meeting the challenge will be discussed and the results of the election will be validated. After the meeting, elections results will be posted to the assembly website.

R. Stein asked if the elections committee was initiating the dispute regarding the Cornell logo.

M. Coombs said no.

R. Stein confirmed that a candidate had brought the challenge forward.

M. Coombs said that the issue is ambiguous. Since it is ambiguous and a candidate submitted a challenge regarding the issue, the Elections Committee will be discussing it.

M. Coombs mentioned another issue that the committee would be discussing. He said that last semester the stipulation was added that candidates must bring their receipts into the office in person. The committee would like to add a stipulation clarifying that submitted receipts must be the original receipts. He encouraged all representatives with questions or comments to attend the meeting.

R. Salem asked what type of documentation is required for payments made online.

M. Coombs encouraged all representatives with questions like R. Salem’s to attend the Elections Committee meeting. Since SAFC appeals are on the agenda discussion of election rules would be more appropriately discussed at the meeting.

SWOT Announcement — E. Greenberg

E. Greenberg thanked all those representatives who had attended the first SWOT meeting. Thirteen individuals were present including a news reporter. There will be two more meetings. He will send out an e-mail with information regarding these meetings. The next meeting will probably focus on public relations and elections issues.

SA/Committee Budgets Update — A. Gay

A. Gay said that he passed out a sheet that indicates committee expenses thus far. Right now the numbers are still preliminary as the semester has not yet ended. The SA admin includes SAFC, clerk, food, and other such expenses. The Appropriations Committee spent about $300 on copies and $1400 on food. The Res & Comm Life amount includes layover from last year’s bus program. The amount was not actually charged until this fall.

M. Asgary thanked A. Gay for preparing the breakdown. He asked why the expenses of the Appropriations Committee are so high. He also asked what the Affirmative Action expenses refer to.

A. Gay said that he was unsure of what the Affirmative Action expenses refer to. He would check and report back next week. The Appropriations Committee spent about $1400 on food for 17 people attending multiple meetings and about $300 on copies. He said that he plans on presenting a finalized version of committee expenses in mid April.

Appendix B Update — A. Gay

A. Gay said that the assembly has to update the charges in Appendix B. He said that he feels that it is best to discuss Appendix B in front of the whole assembly. He suggested that representatives send him any recommendations regarding the organizations the SA by-line funds. He foresees some debate over Slope Day but discussion regarding most of the other organizations should be pretty straight forward.

In response to a question asked by V. Hartman, A. Gay said that the Appropriations Committee spent approximately $1400 on food. Food was bought for seventeen people at around a dozen meetings. It breaks down to five or six dollars a person a meal.

V. Hartman said that the amount seems high.

A. Gay said that the average meeting ran about 3 hours during the evening. Dinner had to be purchased. He said that he would be more than happy to discuss individual breakdowns with V. Hartman following the meeting.

M. Asgary said that he understands why the Appropriations Committee’s expenditures on food were as high as they are. He asked if A. Gay had a projected date for discussing Appendix B.

A. Gay suggested that representatives e-mail him recommendations. He could put the information into resolution format for the following meeting. If he receives no e-mails he will base the resolution on the sentiment of the assembly as expressed last semester during the by-line funding process. He recommended that the assembly discuss Appendix B at the meeting following Spring Break.

Additional Announcements

A. McGovern said that there will be an Environmental Committee meeting following the SA meeting at 7:15 p.m.

R. Salem said that he spoke with an individual who would be willing to video tape all of the S.A. meetings and put them online. If the e-board likes the idea, they could discuss it further with him.

C. Slicklen announced that the student government president of the University of North Carolina was shot dead. He would be sending his condolences to their university on behalf of the Cornell student body. He also announced that it was Trustee Weekend. The trustees would be holding an open session from 9:00 to 9:45 a.m. the following morning in Statler 396. He will be presenting to the trustees about the accomplishments of the SA thus far. He told anyone who wished to come to contact him.

V. Hartman said that Class Councils is undergoing a constitutional revision process. Class Councils will probably be bringing forward the changes to the S.A. sometime after Spring Break. They are looking into their e-mail policy, membership status, elections, and succession issues.

R. Stein said that she hoped that Class Councils would look into making sure transfer students are contacted.

VI. Business of the Day

SAFC Appeal - Alternative Breaks

A. Gay said that the SA would be voting on the SAFC’s decision. In relation to Alternative Breaks, the main issue that the Appropriations Committee looked at was the date and time of the submission of budget materials. After a long decision, the Appropriations Committee voted 5–3−1, that the SAFC did error.

T. Mulherin said that both the President and Treasurer of Alternative Breaks were ill when the budget applications were due. The organization left the online budget completely blank so the SAFC was unable to fund the organization at all. Alternative Breaks then submitted a hard copy budget. As per SAFC guidelines, any changes to the budget must be written on the budget and not on another sheet of paper. The hard copy budget was submitted at 4:30, a half hour after the hard copy budgets were due. If organizations turn in the hard copy budgets late, the allocation is reduced by 25%. The group however received no funding because an online budget was not submitted. The three main issues are a blank budget, incorrect alterations to the budget and lateness.

A representative from Alternative Breaks said that although they submitted an empty online budget, they printed it out and filled it in with pen. The filled in budget was submitted with notes from the hospital explaining both the President and Treasurer’s illnesses.

T. Mulherin said that the SAFC voted to not fund the group. The submitted online budget was empty. Additionally, the SAFC asks that groups change the numbers on the printed out budget if they wish to change anything between the online and hard copy submissions. This was not done properly. He said that he was not present when Alternative Breaks submitted their hard copy budget but that T. Ector said that the hard copy budget was submitted at 4:30 p.m. which is a half hour late.

A. Gay said that after discussion, the Appropriations Committee was very split. Some members felt that there were mitigating circumstances and other felt that, going by the rules, there was no excuse.

M. Asgary confirmed that both individuals were sick. He asked if there were any other group members that could have submitted the budget. He asked why both the online and hard copy budgets were so late.

A representative from Alternative Breaks said that both the President and Treasurer were sick. The President had documentation from the hospital and the Treasurer had documentation from the Gannett. No other organization member could fill out the budget. The organization only has a four person board and neither of the other two people was aware of how to fill out the budget.

M. Asgary pointed out that the Appropriations Committee minutes indicate that a faculty advisor went to the SAFC office and the office said that late submission would be okay as long as documentation from the hospital was turned in with the budget. He asked either the SAFC or the Appropriations Committee to comment on this statement.

A. Gay said Appropriations Committee took the organization’s word for it. In the past, the committee and assembly has ruled that groups must go by what is in the handbook as opposed to what anybody from the office or anyone on the SAFC says.

M. Asgary asked if anyone from Alternative Breaks contacted the SAFC regarding their situation.

A representative from Alternative Breaks said that the organization was not aware that they would need to contact the SAFC. She emphasized that both the President and Treasurer were very sick at the time the budgets were due.

C. Slicklen said that representatives cannot be asking about specific medical conditions.

C. Basil said that SAFC rules don’t allow for consideration of medical issues. It is under such circumstances that S.A. oversight plays a role. He feels that the group has demonstrated that they made a full faith effort to complete their budget properly while hampered by illness.

C. Basil called to question and said that he hopes that the SA confirms the Appropriations Committee’s recommendation to fully fund the organization.

There were multiple seconds. There was no dissent.

T. Mulherin said that it was important to remember that at least a dozen groups did not receive funding because of late budget submissions. He also thinks that the assembly should consider that the organization made no effort to contact the SAFC regarding their situation. Funding the organization would set a bad precedent in this respect. Other groups did contact the SAFC and the SAFC worked with these groups to provide an appropriate solution.

A representative from Alternative Breaks said that they did not contact the SAFC because the President and Treasurer’s Handbook does not indicate the steps to be taken when there are mitigating circumstances and because of how ill both the President and Treasurer were. The program is very important and it would be a shame to cancel the trip.

C. Slicklen said that a 2/3 vote is needed to disprove the decision of the SAFC.

By a roll call vote of 12–5−2, the SA did not disprove the decision of the SAFC. Alternative Breaks will not receive funding.

SAFC Appeal - Cheerleading

A. Gay said that the Appropriations Committee voted 7–0 in favor of funding Cheerleading. There were three issues. The first was whether or not it was implicit in the signature on the budget that the advisor approved travel for more than 4 people. The advisor actually filled out the budget application so she did approve the number of people traveling. The committee felt that it was obvious that more than 4 students are needed to make up a cheerleading squad. The last issue involved the proper category under which to request funding for a coach. The SAFC has actually recommended overruling them on this issue admitting that it is not clear. The handbook does not indicate whether organizations should request funding for coaches under local or travel events.

T. Mulherin said that the last issue that A. Gay outlined is straightforward. The SAFC feels that Cheerleading should receive funding for their coach. He said that the President and Treasurer’s Handbook explicitly states that groups must submit a signed letter from their advisor regarding the number of students needed to attend an event if that number is greater than four. Cheerleading did not submit a note from their advisor. In order to fund for this event, the SA would need to explicitly break SAFC rules. There have been dozens of events that have not been funded for the same reason. It would not be fair to fund Cheerleading and not fund other organizations. The SAFC has no way of knowing who fills out the budget and cannot assume that the advisor does so or even that the advisor carefully looks it over. For consistency purposes and overall fairness, the SAFC feels that Cheerleading should not be funded for this event.

A representative from Cheerleading said that it is not clear under which category groups should request funding for a coach and that the issue seems to be straightforward. As for the advisor letter, their advisor actually filled out the budget and they all assumed that her filling out the budget served the same purpose as submitting a signed advisor note.

M. Asgary said it seems that there were two issues. He asked if either the SAFC or the Appropriations Committee had split the discussion.

A. Gay said that the Appropriations Committee did not split the issue because they felt that both issues were valid and that Cheerleading deserved funding for a coach and their entire squad.

T. Mulherin said that the SAFC did not split the discussion because they are bound by the P&T Handbook and both issues were straightforward.

In response to a question posed by M. Asgary, C. Slicklen confirmed that it would be possible to split the question.

M. Asgary said that he feels that the coach issue is straightforward. It is not clear under which category funding for a coach should be requested and therefore the SA should vote to fund the coach. Unfortunately, he feels that it is clear that a signed note from the advisor is needed explaining why more than 4 people need to attend an event. Cheerleading did not provide this and therefore should only receive funding for four people to travel to this particular event. Consistency is important.

M. Asgary motioned to split the question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

C. Slicklen confirmed that the assembly would first be discussing the issue of whether or not to fund for a coach and then the issue of whether or not to fund for all 20 cheerleaders to attend the travel event.

A. Salem called to question on the coach issue. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

By a roll call vote of 17–0−2, the appeal was granted for the coach.

R. Salem said that assembly has dealt with the issue regarding the number of people needed to travel to events in the past. A cheerleading squad implicitly implies that more than four individuals participate. He feels that the issue is a no brainer and that the travel for all the cheerleaders to the particular competition should be funded.

A. Salem asked A. Huzinga, the group’s advisor, why she did not submit a note especially since she is so familiar with the SAFC and their guidelines.

A. Huzinga said that she understands the P&T Handbook to be directed at students. She does not see the handbook as written to address advisors.

A. Salem confirmed that A. Huzinga was saying that the handbook requires either the president or treasurer to submit a signed advisor note and that it does not stipulate that the advisor must submit an advisor note if the advisor is in fact filling out the budget. He asked what the SAFC’s response was to this argument.

T. Mulherin said that the SAFC’s argument is that the P&T Handbook governs any student organization applying for funding. The SAFC does not discriminate as to who is filling out the budget. It however must be signed by the president, treasurer and advisor. Each group is held to the same standard regardless of who is filling out the budget.

A. Salem said that handbook stipulates that each organization must abide by its rules. He asked A. Huizinga how she interpreted the word organization.

A. Huizinga confirmed that she interpreted the word organization to include only students.

M. Asgary said that he understands A. Huizinga’s argument but the handbook speaks to student organizations, not just presidents and treasurers. If you view the P&T Handbook as speaking to presidents and treasurers then it should really be the presidents and treasurers that fill out the budget. Unlike R. Salem, he feels that the issue is more of a no brainer to not fund the organization. If the SA chooses to fund Cheerleading it would be unfair to other groups that were not funded for the same reason. The guidelines are very clear. Each year groups appeal for the same reason.

A. Huizinga said that if groups are unhappy with the allocation results they should be appealing.

G. Mezey recommended that the SA look at precedent. When Rugby appealed regarding the same issue, the SA held that the term team or squad implicitly implies more than four people. Rugby was funded and he urged assembly members take that into account.

A. Salem asked someone to clarify the issue in the Rugby appeal.

A. Gay said that he believed that it was the exact same issue. Rugby was only funded for a few people when they had asked for funding for their entire team.

R. Lavin said that he agrees with G. Mezey. Rugby created a precedent and he would not feel comfortable voting to not fund Cheerleading after having voted to fund Rugby.

R. Salem said that when he said that the issue was a no brainer he had the Rugby appeal in mind. During the last appeals cycle, R. Lavin made a comment that really resonated with him. R. Lavin had said that the reason the appeals process is instated is to provide a means to base decision on circumstances as opposed to being bound by the handbook like the SAFC.

V. Hartman said that he voted that Rugby should not have been funded and that he is a little disturbed that the S.A. did not add anything to the SAFC guidelines regarding the issue. If representatives took issue with the rule, they could have taken steps to change it over the course of the entire semester. As an assembly member, he reiterated that he did not like the SAFC. He however judges situations based on the guidelines the SAFC has set. The SA does not support their own institution when they constantly vote against the rules that are set. Because the S.A. did not attempt to change the rule after Rugby when there was ample time to do so, they should be bound by the rules.

A. Wang said that unfortunately, he voted not fund Rugby and will be voting against funding Cheerleading. He said that although funding is sometimes difficult to come by, he hopes that Cheerleading will look elsewhere for money to fund for the competition.

G. Mazza said that he found the minutes from the Rugby appeal. Rugby had not submitted a signed note from their advisor that indicated the need and rationale for sending more than four people to competitions. Rugby did however apply for the 15 cars. Implicit in the SAFC rules is that four people travel per car. Rugby’s argument was based on their request for funding for 15 cars which implies that 60 people would be traveling to the competition.

A. Salem confirmed that the SAFC guidelines recognize that travel is funded at a rate of four people per car.

G. Mazza said that the assembly voted 12–4−2, to fund Rugby based on the argument just outlined.

M. Coombs said that last semester he was contacted by an individual that really wanted to run for the freshman representative position. The individual however, turned in his finances late. He said that he had to tell him he was disqualified even though he did not want to. More recently, the SA has abided by rules that prevented candidates from mentioning the Student Assembly in their statements. Although he feels that Cheerleading is a vital organization to campus, the SA created the rules and must abide by them.

R. Stein said that she feels that the sentiment with the Rugby team was that it is ludicrous to take the funding away from a vital campus organization which their constituents would like to see competing just because of a slight mistake with their funding application. It is absolutely ridiculous and possibly even discriminatory not to apply that the same line of reasoning to cheerleading.

R. Stein called to question and urged representatives to support the organization. A. Salem seconded the motion.

There were multiple dissents.

A. Craig said that he would like to ask some questions and make some clarifications.

A. Gay pointed out that the Cheerleading budget application indicates the number of students needed to travel to the event on the registration form for the competition.

Representatives from Cheerleading said that they could not compete with four people. It would be unfair to fund Rugby and not them. A. Huzinga was clearly aware of the rule and felt that by signing the budget she was submitting her approval for the number of girls traveling to the event.

T. Mulherin said that the situation is different from rugby because there is no request for car travel which implies four people per car. The rules are very clear and cheerleading did not abide by them. It is unfortunate. Although Rugby was funded, dozens of other groups were not funded for the same reason.

By a hand vote, the previous question was called.

By a vote of 12–4−3, the second portion of the appeal was not granted.

SAFC Appeal - IAJ Mecca

A. Gay said that the issue here relates to a co-organized event. IAJ and Mecca applied to hold a co-organized event. To hold a co-organized event both groups must submit an individual budget. One of the organizations did not. Therefore, no funding for the co-organized event was received. By a vote of 5–4−0, the Appropriations Committee voted to grant the appeal. The issue is whether or not to allow a group who submitted a co-organized budget to go ahead a push the requests to their single budget.

T. Mulherin read the rule from the P&T Handbook. Each group that is involved with a co-organized budget must submit at least Part I of an individual budget.

A representative from IAJ said that everything A. Gay and T. Mulherin said was true. Mecca is however holding a very big event that is very important to the organization. IAJ did submit their individual properly filled out budget and was given funding. If the funding for the co-organized event is transferred to the IAJ budget, IAJ will not even hit the cap for single budgets. They therefore feel that they are justified in asking for the transfer of money.

M. Asgary said that there are three grounds upon which SAFC funded organizations can appeal. IAJ is appealing on behalf of new information. He asked the SAFC to elaborate on whether or not their request was reasonable.

T. Mulherin said that the P&T Handbook stipulates what constitutes new information. New information is information that could not have possibly been obtained prior to turning in the original budget.

The IAJ Treasurer said that the information that he did not turn in Mecca’s individual budget is new to IAJ. He had been planning on submitting it up until the last minute. There were extenuating circumstances which he would prefer not to comment on.

M. Asgary confirmed that Mecca had worked on the co-organized budget.

T. Mulherin said that the SAFC felt that the lack of communication between two organizations submitting a co-organized budget was not grounds for new information.

The IAJ Treasurer said that he had all the budget information in his possession at the time that the budget was due and could not get it to anyone else to submit due to extenuating personal circumstances. If it had been possible he would have done so.

C. Slicklen said that it is in the Charter given to the SA from the President and the Board of Trustees that representatives cannot ask individuals to elaborate on private personal circumstances such as the one of the IAJ Treasurer in this situation.

C. Basil said that trust and respect come into play in this situation. The situation is a great example of how the SA can use their oversight to fund a deserving organization. He does not think that one group should be penalized based on the private extenuating circumstances of another organization.

C. Basil called to question. There were multiple seconds. M. Asgary dissented.

M. Asgary clarified that rule in the charter stipulates what information can be asked. If SA representatives wish to discuss personal circumstances, they can go into executive session.

By a hand vote of 14–3, the previous question was called.

T. Mulherin said that the SAFC went by the book and therefore could not fund the organization.

By a roll call vote of 11–3−4, the appeal was not granted.

VII. Unfinished Business

Resolution 17 — Concealed Carry on Campus — Mark Coombs, Carol Glenn, Rachel Quigley, Ahmed Salem

M. Coombs said that the sponsors had said their piece last week and would like to give their co-sponsors the chance to give their stories.

M. Coombs read the letter he received from Theodore Lazcano. He urged representatives to consider the information presented in the letter.

“Dear Cornell Student Assembly:

I am writing to support the resolution asking Cornell University to oppose the current restriction on holders of NY Pistol Permits form carry their pistols on university property.

1) I am a Cornell Staff member with 22 years of employment, a member of the Cornell Police Union, was the Cadet Commander of Cornell Air Force ROTC Det 520 during my senior year in college, have a BA degree in History, am a NY certified firearms instructor, and have held a concealed carry pistol permit since 1979. I have no affiliation with any political party, and the opinions and observation that I express here are my own and not those of any other person or organization. 2) The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution grants individuals the right to bear arms. This amendment is located within the Bill of Rights, which was added after objections were raised to the first draft of the Constitution because it primarily granted rights only to State and Federal governments. TO say that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights only grants the right to bear arms to state governments makes no more sense than to say that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights only grants the right of free speech to state governments. The Bill of Rights lists the rights of individuals. 3) The resolution does not compromise campus safety, since anyone who is inclined to commit violent crimes will not observe the exiting state prohibition on firearms at schools. This has already happened on this campus and is not a point of debate. The existing prohibition only serves to disarm those who are inclined to obey laws. 4) At both state and international levels, the last decade has shown a decrease of violent crime in those jurisdictions where alw abiding citizens have been allowed to carry concealed pistols, and an increase of violent crime in those jurisdictions where greater restrictions have been placed on law abiding citizens. The mere passing of laws allowing citizens to possess concealed pistols ahs had a chilling effect on criminals in general, thus extending protection even to those who do not actually posses a pistol. 5) Guns are already on this campus. Guns have been used to commit crimes, guns have been carried on campus by accident, and guns are brought on campus by persons who do nothing else illegal with them. To say that the removal of the ban would result in the presence of guns on campus is false, because in fact guns are already here. 6) If NY law denies students the right to carry a pistol with which to protect themselves, it would seem logical that NY then assumes the liability to provide them with increased protection as compensation for the right the state has taken away. FI this increased protection has not been provided, then it is reasonable for the students to ask for their right to protect themselves to be returned. 7) Law abiding citizens should be allowed to defend themselves against violent attack; regardless of their strength, age, gender or disability. They should not be required to plead for mercy from violent felons, endure deadly assault with the hope that submission will bring survival, or tolerate life threatening attack until their protection is provided by others. While the right ot bear arms does carry obligations for any person who chooses to exercise it, the decision to exercise this right and assume these obligations should be left to each individual to make.”

Rachel Quigley told representatives to imagine sitting in Professor Maas’ Psycho 101 class. She asked representatives to consider how they would like Professor Maas to respond if someone came in and started shooting their classmates and friends. She said that she hoped he would have a concealed weapon. Situations like these are not as rare as many people would like to believe which why concealed carry is important. Everyday millions of licensed Americans legally carry concealed weapons. The legality however stops when people step foot on our college campus. A number of studies indicate that when concealed carry is permitted, the incidence of violent crime is five times less likely. Although gun free zones may make people feel safe, recent events have shown that feeling safe is not the same as being safe. The sponsors recognize that NY State law prohibits concealed carry on college campuses and are not calling for civil disobedience. The sponsors are talking about allowing people to take advantage of their constitutional rights. The people affected by lifting the ban will most likely be staff and professors since you must be 21 and wait six months to obtain a license. She said that she personally is not very passionate about gun control. She is speaking to a much larger concern regarding who makes the laws. As an American law abiding citizen, she believes that the state and federal governments make the laws and not the Student Assembly. The students of the assembly should be careful not to overstep their bounds and should respect individual freedom and constitutional rights. Although passage of the resolution will not allow concealed carry on campus, the assembly would be taking an important step forward in supporting personal freedom.

Carol Glenn said that in the late 1950s North Carolina, local members of the KKK were responsible for a number assaults against the African American community. For a time, the community lived under the rule of local courts. When it became clear that justice would not be served and that local officials were unwilling and unable to protect the rights of all citizens, Robert Williams and other citizens worked to promote Black armed self-defense and established the North Carolina NAACP Chapter. She said that her grandfather was a part of this movement. It is because of stories like this that she supports the constitutional right to bear arms. She encouraged the student assembly to respect the rights of individuals under the Constitution.

M. Coombs said that he changed the wording of the resolution. The be it therefore resolved clauses only indicate that the assembly expresses its support for concealed carry on campus.

A. McGovern said that she has overhead many groups of people talking about the resolution over the past week. Not one of these groups of people has supported it. She said that passing this resolution in light of recent hate crimes against the LGBTQ community would be irresponsible. Additionally the sponsors urge representatives to consider the data. She said however that no empirical date is presented. The sponsors have provided conservative propaganda and quotes from slave holding founding fathers. Additionally sponsors claim that the resolution is not not radical because one state permits concealed carry on college campuses. She encouraged everyone to vote against the resolution. Realistically even if the resolution was passed and the issue moved forward to President Skorton or the NY State Legislature, the S.A. would be mocked. Considering the current climate, the resolution is irresponsible and it undermines the legitimacy of the Student Assembly to propose such a ridiculous and dangerous resolution.

E. Greenberg read the following statement. “Mark and Ahmed, I want to thank you both for making yourselves available to meet with me over the past week. It’s not every day that I hear reason applied to the seemingly unreasonable — and while I believe that this is still the most untimely and illogical resolution presented before the Student Assembly in recent memory, you guys have balls for presenting it. You’ve waved your arms, you’ve jumped up and down and you’ve gotten everyone’s attention. And in the process, I believe you’ve taken a historically fundamental question of the second amendment and made a debacle out of it. As I said last week, by failing to account for how the prospect of providing weapons to students would be perceived by those students, you have probably done more harm to the second amendment question than if you had chosen to ignore it. You’ve done a disservice to those who have committed their lives to lobbying decision makers at the state and federal levels for reduced restrictions on gun ownership, because while their arguments have focused on the prospect of responsible gun ownership, your argument has played into students’ fears of shootings on campus in the wake of Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, and most recently, today, UNC — Chapel Hill, in an event that struck all-too-close to home — their Student Body President was shot and killed. But at its core, this is an argument on the subject of individual liberties. Mark and Ahmed believe that any restriction on an individual liberty, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, is illegal. It is your individual liberty to arm yourself, to carry your weapon, regardless of where, when, or by who. Yet, they fail to recognize that arming students is a violation of another individual liberty — the right of students and all Americans to feel safe and secure in their surroundings. If you have paid attention even slightly over the past 7 days, you would have found that the prospect of weapons on campus does not make students feel more safe or secure, it frightens them. This is because students on campus don’t want weapons here, regardless of whether or not you feel they have the right to do so according to the second amendment. They don’t want to have to arm themselves to feel safe. Mark and Ahmed have spent a considerable amount of time trying to prove to us that in a single state, and in select judicial decisions, we could own weapons on campus. That our federal laws, regardless of state laws or local campus provisions, allow for our right to concealed carry. I still think that providing exceptions to the rule - 1 state here, 1 judicial decision there - doesn’t move us any closer to guaranteeing our right to concealed carry. Even if they truly believe we could carry concealed weapons, Mark and Ahmed, however, have avoided the question of should we. With this resolution, Mark and Ahmed raise the stakes. They inherently force all students into an arms race. If certain students have weapons, we all must have weapons to feel secure. And once we all have weapons, we’ll need more weapons, bigger weapons, automatic weapons, silenced weapons, etc. in order to gain the upper hand on personal safety and self-defense. While Mark and Ahmed will have you believe that we all have the right to arm ourselves, they have failed to provide the necessary logic that we all should arm ourselves. Mark and Ahmed fail to account for the adverse risk of thousands of additional weapons on campus, and they still fail to account for the potential for accident and misuse. But most importantly, they fail to account for their fellow students, by failing to recognize how they feel. Mark and Ahmed, they feel that now is not the time, and this is not the place, for an experiment with concealed carry. I’m sorry that the Student Assembly has been attached to this idea for so long, and I’m sorry that those Republicans on campus who have contacted me, distancing themselves from this issue, have had to associate the proud name of their own political party with this issue. The second amendment is a little bit less regarded at Cornell today, and the party of Lincoln is left scratching their heads wondering, “How did I get myself into this?” It’s time that this idea is done away with once and for all.”

A. Craig said that pretty much everyone he has spoken with is enraged that concealed carry on campus is even a possibility. As the freshman representative, the resolution appears to be unfair to students under the age of 21. He said that he is concerned that there may be incidences of students drawing their guns at inappropriate times. He wonders if concealed carry would create more problems instead of solving them. He encouraged students to think about what would happen if guns were permitted at frat parties. Students get into arguments at frat parties and he is scared to imagine the result if guns are permitted. Although Cornell has a responsibility to the Constitution, Cornell also has a responsibility to maintain the safety of students. He encouraged representatives to think about the ramifications of passing the resolution. He feels that passage would severely hurt our campus. The assembly should be looking to methods of enhancing security on campus.

William Laine, 2010, said that he respects the opinions of those who do think that concealed carry on campus is a good idea. What he does not hear is any empirical arguments to back up their fears and claims. He said that there are many studies that have found that there are decreases in the number of firearm related homicides when individuals are permitted to carry guns. In the years between 1974 and 1988, firearm ownership increased by 67% percent and the homicide rate decreased by 14.6%. Most weapons defenses, 77%, are solved by just displaying concealed weapons. Liberty exercised properly is our own best defense.

G. Mazza said that if an individual intending to commit a crime comes into Pysch 101 with over 1200 students who are allowed to carry concealed weapons the outcome would be tragic. He said that he also serves as University Tour Guide. He already has to respond to concerns regarding Cornell’s reputation as the number 1 school in terms of suicide, and would not want to respond to parents asking why their students need to carry guns on campus. He is appalled that the resolution was even brought before the assembly. Concealed carry on campus is illegal under NY State law and he is concerned that the sponsors did not realize this before the resolution was brought before the assembly. Every statement made in support of the resolution revolves around a second amendment debate. This is not the forum for a second amendment debate.

M. Coombs clarified that the aim of the resolution is too take a stand on the issue.

R. Stein said that she spoke to someone at ILR today and was unable to gather information as to whether or not endowed colleges are subject to different regulations than the public colleges. She wondered if concealed carry was permitted on campus, if students would theoretically be allowed to carry weapons in the endowed schools.

K. Hubbell said that as he understands it, Cornell is a private university. Cornell has contract colleges which contract with the state. He would venture to say that Cornell controls all their property. He is not sure but this is his initial response.

R. Salem said that he e-mailed a professor from SUNY Cortland who wrote a book titled The Politics of Gun Control. He read his response aloud. “I read the resolution (I assume the “Salem” listed as co-sponsor is not you). There are several problems with the idea: 1) the vast majority of campuses in the US have a no-guns policy (or if guns are allowed, they have to be kept in a Campus Police lock-up or similar location), and if you look at national crime statistics on campuses going back decades, this policy has been very successful, in that overall crime rates are relatively low; more to the point, violent crime rates are very low, and gun crimes are virtually unheard-of (until Va. Tech last year). The assumption in the Resolution that existing campus policies around the country have failed is statistically false. 2) thus, civilian gun carrying on campuses is a “solution” in search of a problem. 3) widespread gun-carrying would mean greater gun density, and gun density is associated with several specific problems: a) greater risk of gun suicide (the likelihood of suicide “success’ is greater with guns than any other method of suicide); b) risk of gun accidents (accidental discharge, discharge of well-meaning carrier resulting in injury or death of innocents); c) risk of gun thefts, with ensuing other harm. These problems vastly outweigh the terrifying, but statistically miniscule prospect of a campus shooter like Virginia Tech. And for an armed student to have any realistic chance of deterring or thwarting an armed attack like Va. Tech or NIU, think about how many students, in how many classes, in how many buildings, over how many days of the week, would need to be present to serve as an actual deterrent. In the light of day, armed campus carrying is a solution for nothing, but the fountainhead for manifold problems. 4) student campus populations live in high-density areas where risks are multiplied with presence of guns as compared with, for example, a suburban neighborhood. Other risks amplified because young populations (i.e. students) are subject to periods of great stress, and have many users of alcohol and other drugs which degrade judgment regarding possession/use of guns. 5) campuses have their own law enforcement system populated by trained and usually armed (they are at Cornell) professionals. A few students may have military, police, or shooting experience, but they are students first, not armed professionals; by and large, armed students are amateurs. Law enforcement is generally best left to that professional force assigned that task. 6) guns are not the only solution to safety concerns. Greater dorm security, Cornell’s recent campus-wide alert system, better lighting, locks on doors, cameras, alarms, foot patrols, etc., etc. are but a few of the many ways to improve security and deter crime. 7) Finally, a college campus is not just a place where young people live. It is a university, a place for learning. It is simply not the Hobbesian world that carry advocates make it out to be.”

I. Lesyk said that he is an engineer and has been talking about the resolution with his constituency over the past week. Besides two e-mails, every single person he has talked to is against the resolution. The resolution is ludicrous and terrifying. Many valid issues have been brought up. He said that concealed carry could increase the number of suicides. Just a few weeks ago the assembly was discussing how Juicy Campus could easily push someone over the edge. Guns would make suicide easier and more accessible. He said he recently witnessed a fight at a fraternity party over someone getting in the way of a ping pong ball. He is terrified by the thought of having 500 drunk people in a basement with guns. He said that a community member mentioned that most shots are fired as warning shoots. Campus is very crowded, especially in dining halls and lecture areas. He would be terrified if a warning shot went off. He said that he is very against the resolution.

Noah Presinsky, 2008, said that in endorsing the resolution the Student Assembly would be indicating that it is okay to be scared. The assertion that the nation is under a wave of violence is statistically absurd. Although tragic, the shootings are still extremely rare. Passing the resolution would be indicated that Cornell is in some way in danger and that students need to be protecting themselves with firearms. Although he knows and respects many of the individual in room, he would not be comfortable knowing that anyone of them may be carrying a gun. The resolution is a plan for tragedy.

R. Lavin thanked the new co-sponsors and said that their comments have helped legitimize the discussion. In his opinion, the sponsors of the resolution are neglecting Cornell student culture. He said that his constituents have come to him to express their concern and that he can see a snapshot of fear. The resolution is detrimental to Cornell’s culture. It is not aligned with what students do and how they operate. The resolution needs to be voted down.

Using his discretion, C. Slicklen called to question. There were multiple seconds. There were multiple dissents.

V. Hartman said that he plans on voting yes and would like to explain to the assembly why he is doing so since most everyone is against it.

By a hand vote, the previous question was not called.

M. Coombs said that guns are scary things as represented by the comments of representatives’ respective constituencies. The idea of a gun free zone is a misnomer. As indicated by the letter he read earlier, guns are already on campus. The resolution only affects law abiding citizens. NY State Law trusts its citizens to carry weapons. Representatives should trust their peers, or at least staff and faculty, to do the same.

R. Quigley emphasized that a tragedy is not statistically impossible. Just ten years ago a gunman stormed into a Cornell dormitory and killed two women. The comments about the Greek system personally offend her. She would be comfortable knowing that her sorority’s house parents have concealed weapons.

V. Hartman said that he supports the resolution because there is no proof that concealed carry increases violence. All the robust evidence in academia indicates that more guns is not correlated with more violence. Since there is no proof otherwise, he has looked to the philosophical argument of the right of people to self defense. The argument that students are drunk, irresponsible and incapable of carrying a concealed weapon is degrading. Cornell students are very bright and it disturbs him that representatives do not trust and respect their peers. As citizens of the US, he respects Cornellians right to bear arms.

Ethan Felder, 2009, commended R. Salem for contacting Professor Spitzer who is one of the foremost experts on this issue. The notion that allowing concealed carry on campus will decrease violence is completely ridiculous. If you read Professor Spitzer’s book the chance of homicide for someone who owns a gun is twice as high as someone who does not and the chance of suicide is four times as high. If you allow students to have guns on campus you can expect an increase in suicide and homicide. He pointed out that he feels that all the people supporting the resolution are in the room. It is a very small number. The student body does not want guns on campus.

A. Wang mentioned that there is no statistical evidence against or in support of the resolution. He pointed out that student have the right to possess weapons in off campus housing. Cornell creates rules to keep students safe. The rule however creates a false sense of security since guns are present on campus.

R. Stein said that for the first time she is embarrassed to be a C.U. Republican. There are plenty of people on this campus that are rationale and logical minded republicans. She personally supports the second amendment but this is not a second amendment issue. The resolution has the potential to greatly harm the student body and she does not believe that the student body supports the resolution. She said that she has friends who have concealed carry licenses but that they do not want to carry guns on campus. There is no logical reason to carry weapons on campus. She shudders to think of the liability the university would face if a student the university allowed to carry a weapon did end up engaging in a violent act. The university would be looked upon as vagrantly disregarding any logical means to protect students. She urged everyone to vote against the resolution. Everyone seems to be saying that no evidence has been presented. Although this may be true of both sides, the burden of proof is on the party trying to change the rules.

R. Stein called to question. It was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Salem said that he would like the assembly to keep discussing the issue. He has been on the speakers list for a while patiently awaiting his turn to speak. He respectfully asked R. Stein to withdraw her motion.

By a hand vote, the previous question was not called.

A. Salem thanked the assembly for giving him the time to speak. He said that he is appalled by some of the things that people have been saying. He is surprised to hear that some people support the second amendment but not the resolution. The debate is one of the second amendment. He said that R. Stein just stated that the only person who would wish to carry a concealed weapon is someone who would like to shoot up a lecture hall. If someone wants to bring in weapon to do such a thing, no law will stop them. For those who say permitting concealed carry is not a part of Cornell culture, guns are already on campus. Gun Free Zones are only such for those who respect them. He said that studies show that liberalizing carry laws have had the effect of reducing crime. Allowing concealed carry would also help protect individuals from rape and theft. Weapons do have a deterrent effect.

Jaime Greenblat, 2008, that there has been a lot of discussion about statistics. The assembly should really be looking at the statistic that the largest shooting even in American history occurred one year ago at Virginia Tech. If you add guns there is a chance that you will shoot down the shooter. But there is also a chance that you will shoot down other people. Permitting guns contributes to a culture of violence and fear. She never ever wants to be in a class knowing that her peers could be carrying a firearm.

H. Bergman said that the underlying point of the resolution is the safety of the students. Although she commends that goal, she is deeply saddened that the first response to enhancing safety was a resolution to permit concealed carry. She feels that the resolution shows a lack of ingenuity and problem solving on behalf of the assembly. There are far better ways that the assembly can go about promoting the safety of the student body. She encouraged those who support to resolution to consider other means for accomplishing the same goal. In passing the resolution the assembly would be doing a disservice to their constituents.

M. Asgary pointed out that in going through the speaker’s list; liaisons are treated like community members since they are non-voting members of the assembly.

M. Coombs restated what R. Stein has said earlier which was that the only reason a student would bring a gun on campus would be to shoot up a lecture hall. He said that this is a ridicules and offensive statement.

C. Basil motioned to call to question. It was seconded. M. Coombs dissented.

M. Coombs said that he dissented because he wanted to make sure that all community members who wished to speak had the opportunity.

C. Slicklen said that there were 8 community members and 6 S.A. members on the second speakers list. The first speakers list for SA members has been exhausted.

By a hand vote, the previous question was called.

A member of the audience pointed out that the S.A. was so hesitant to grant an SAFC appeal because of the rules stipulated in the almighty P&T Handbook. The SA is however about to pass a resolution that flies in the face of the Constitution.

By a roll call vote of 3–14–1, Resolution 17 failed.

Resolution 19 — Resolution Regarding the Extension of Campaign Finance Disclosure Deadline

There was a motion to move Resolution 19 to Business of the Day.

M. Asgary motioned to adjourn the meeting.

C. Slicklen said that the motion was out of order because M. Asgary would have to have the floor to motion to adjourn the meeting.

M. Coombs asked G. Mazza to confirm that M. Asgary could not motion to adjourn the meeting.

G. Mazza said that to make a motion, representatives must have the floor.

M. Asgary asked how Resolution 19 was moved to Business of the Day.

C. Slicklen said that he was asked to add it during debate of Resolution 17.

VIII. Adjournment

M. Asgary noted that quoted had been broken.

It is noted that the Director of Elections left the meeting when Resolution 19 was about to be discussed.

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun