Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
March 27, 2008
4:45 — 6:30 P.M.
Biotech G10 , 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, Vince Hartman, Nikki Junewicz, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steven Matthews, Guy Mazza, Ashley McGovern, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Chris Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Andrew Wang

Representatives Excused: Carly Miller

Liaisons Present: Haley Bergman, Sanjiv Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes

There was a motion to correct a statement in the minutes. The new statement will read that M. Asgary noted that quorum had been broken and therefore the meeting ended. The change was approved.

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the March 13, 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

A representative from the Convocation Committee said that Dr. Maya Angelou would be the Convocation speaker. The 2008 Convocation ceremony will be held on Saturday, May 24 at noon in Schoellkopf stadium.

C. Slicklen thanked R. Thakkar and the committee for all of their hard work they have done in bring Dr. Angelou to Cornell.

Spring 2008 Elections Report — M. Coombs

M. Coombs read the Elections Report that he had prepared:

“This election cycle saw twenty-four (24) undergraduates successfully petition to qualify as candidates for the Student Assembly election and two (2) undergraduates do the same for the University Assembly election.

“Contested races this semester included those for the Student Assembly’s At-Large, International, Minority, and Industrial & Labor Relations seats.

“The remainder of the races were uncontested; in total, twelve (12) candidates ran uncontested, including both of the candidates in the University Assembly election. Two (2) open seats remain on the University Assembly; these will be filled during a special election in the Fall 2008 election cycle, along with the Student Assembly’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gendered, & Questioning seat; the College of Architecture, Art & Planning seat; and one (1) of the College of Agriculture & Life Sciences’ two (2) seats.

“There were no candidates for the LGBTQ seat.

“The rest of the vacancies stem from a single disqualifying action on the part of a group of candidates who failed to comply with Article I.B.7 of the Spring 2008 Election Rules, which reads, in part:

“Candidates must complete [&] submit all receipts and/or proof of fair market value in person to the Office of the Assemblies, 109 Day Hall. For candidates that have no spending to report, a signed statement indicating there were no expenses is required. Failure to submit appropriate documentation of expenses by 12:30 p.m. on the last day of the election will result in automatic disqualification.

“Candidates H. Bergman (AAP), A. Femminello (ILR), and A. Natarajan (Minority) all submitted the necessary documentation after the prescribed deadline; candidate S. Matthews (CALS) did not, at any point, submit financial documentation of any kind.”

M. Coombs said that H. Bergman submitted her receipts at 4:30p.m., A. Femminello submitted receipts at 1:30 p.m. and A. Natarajan submitted receipts at 3:30p.m. as recorded by A. O’Donnell in the Office of the Assemblies.

“A total of four (4) candidates, therefore, were disqualified by the Elections Committee, each of whom � as well as the reason for their disqualification � is indicated above. It should be noted that the decision to disqualify these candidates was not without controversy, as they and a number of committee members argued that the portion of the election rules used to justify this decision was unclear, particularly for candidates who had spent no money on their campaigns.

“Upon appeal, however, Associate Ombudsman Danilee Poppensiek ruled that there is “no ambiguity in the election rules, Article I.B.7,” and the decision remains in effect. Full election results � as validated by the Elections Committee on March 10 � have since been posted on the Assemblies’ website and are viewable for everyone online.”

R. Salem asked what steps would be taken to ensure advertisement of the fall special elections.

M. Coombs said that that would be determined by the incoming SA Executive Board.

S. Matthews asked where M. Coombs got his information because he did in fact submit a signed sheet stating that he had no expenses.

M. Coombs said that he was given the information by A. O’Donnell in the Office of the Assemblies.

C. Slicklen thanked M. Coombs and the Elections Committee for there hard work related to the recent election.

Ivy Council Spring Conference Announcement — S. Matthews

S. Matthews said that the Cornell delegation has been working very hard on the conference. The delegation just finalized the schedule and he will be e-mailing it out to representatives later that evening. Friday night representatives from the school arrive and register. At 8p.m. there is a welcoming ceremony where the agenda of the conference is explained. On a Saturday, a key note speaker is followed by a discussions pertaining to issues in the Ivy League. Each delegation puts together a report on each of the pre-determined topics and then there is a breakout session to examine each topic. All representatives reconvene to discuss the issues. This concludes the business part of Ivy Council. A banquet will be held at 8p.m. on Saturday evening. He said that as student leaders all representatives are expected to attend the event. He would appreciate it if representatives volunteer to moderate the break out discussion sections. In addition to the agenda he will be sending out a list of topics. He also said that representatives would be expected to host a guest. He said that the Ivy Council Constitution has not been amended in a while and that he personally raised a number of concerns. He suggests that the direction of Ivy Council be discussed during the breakout session of the event.

C. Slicklen told those with concerns or those interested in becoming more involved with the conference to contact S. Matthews following the meeting.

Additional Announcements

R. Salem said that he had two announcements regarding the GPSA. The GPSA passed a number of constitutional changes that really are of no interest to the SA. He said the GPSA President proposed a resolution regarding inter-campus coordination between graduate students on the Ithaca campus and Weill students. . He said that he was e-mailed by GSPA Representative Mike Walsh regarding the vacant seat on the President’s Climate Commitment Committee. He asked if there were plans to fill the seat.

I. Lesyk said that the seat would be filled shortly.

A. Salem said he had an announcement pertaining to the Intellectual Diversity Initiative resolution that the assembly passed last year. On Friday, March 28, the Cornell Republics are hosting an event called Indoctrinate You — Exposing Liberal Bias in Academic Settings. He invited all assembly members to attend the event. He thinks that the assembly should once again start breaching the subject of intellectual diversity in part by potentially discussing how relevant the documentary is to Cornell. The producer of the documentary will be available for Q&A after the screening.

C. Basil said that the U.A. met on Wednesday, March 26. The major issue of discussion was the proposed changes to the Campus Code of Conduct. Basically, the CJC and the President’s office agreed with all of but ten of the proposed changes to the Campus Code of Conduct. The issue of allowing the President to suspend or expel a student based on his belief that the student is disrupting the educational process was the major point of contention at the U.A. meeting. Faculty members expressed concern about this proposal. The example of a student chaining themselves to the President’s deck during the Redwood Construction Project was given. The proposals will be discussed further at the next U.A. meeting.

A. Salem asked what other changes are still under contention. He asked if issues pertaining to the right to an attorney and evidence were discussed.

C. Basil said the issue of a allowing a trial to go forward if the accused wanted to say silent was also discussed. Most of the other changes that the President’s Office and the CJC did not agree upon were relatively minor. Related to the educational experience, a lot of faculty members were concerned with what could be defined as a breach of that experience and expressed concern that the proposal would punish students that protested on campus.

In response to a question asked by M. Coombs, C. Basil said that the proposed provision would give the President the final say in determining whether or not a student has disrupted the education process.

M. Coombs asked if the proposal included any sort of appeal process for students expelled by the President.

V. Hartman said that instead of the University Hearing Board having the final say the President would have the final say.

C. Basil said that under the change, a student would not be able to appeal the decision of the President.

In response to a question asked by R. Lavin, C. Basil said he could send the ten issues of contention out over the S.A. list serve.

A. Salem asked who currently has the final say in expelling or suspending students on the basis of disruption.

C. Basil said that the President currently has the power to suspend and expel students for reasons besides disrupting the education process.

A. Epstein said that the President currently can expel students for grave misconduct.

A. Epstein said that compared with other processes such as with employee misconduct, although the appropriate administrative department addresses the issue, the President has the final say. He feels that the administration is trying to standardize the process with the clause.

C. Slicklen said that he feels that a relevant case pertains to the student stabbing incidence. The President will be coming to the next week’s S.A. meeting, so representatives can ask him any questions they may have.

A. Epstein said that the Office of Assemblies would be happy to pull together the materials

R. Lavin said that on April 9, the Campus Community Coalition will be having a meeting. Representatives from all over the Cornell community will be attending. He encouraged representatives to attend.

C. Sarra made a brief announcement regarding the logistics of the Engineerds weeklong event.

VI. Business of the Day

Appendix B Discussion — A. Gay

A. Gay said that no representatives sent him any proposed revisions to Appendix B so he added the ones that he had. He said that he would go through his proposed revisions and that representatives could make suggestions as well. The recommendations and suggestions will be put into resolution format for the next meeting. He said that the first change involves adding Athletics to Appendix B. He suggested the following three stipulations: (1) The Athletics Department shall provide, at no cost, a Big Red Sports Pass (BRSP) to every interested student during the Fall Semester of each year. The Athletics Department must ensure that the BRSP’s are available at no cost until October 15 of each year. After this time, students may purchase a BRSP at regular price; (2) All students must be admitted to Homecoming at no cost; and (3) In collaboration with the Sports Marketing Group, the Athletics Department will promote Cornell Athletic events to the entire Cornell community.

C. Slicklen asked A. Gay to comment on the stipulations that the S.A. placed on Athletics when they allocated amounts to various categories.

A. Gay said that he did not include the breakdown in Appendix B but that he could add it. He said that the next organization in Appendix B is Class Councils. The only recommendation he has was changing the monetary amounts to those agreed upon last semester. The first stipulation would read: Three dollars of the Class Council’s allocation of the Student Activity Fee shall be evenly divided among the four classes. Four dollars off the allocation shall be allocated to the senior class to fund events during Senior Week. Seven dollars and fifty cents of the Class Council’s allocation shall be allocated to the senior class to pay for Convocation.

R. Stein asked if any stipulation requiring that Class Councils make an effort to contact transfer students could be added.

C. Slicklen confirmed that R. Stein was recommending adding a clause. He said that all clauses recommended by representatives would be included in the document that A. Gay prepares for next week’s meeting. When the assembly is voting on the official document representatives can motion to strike clauses.

M. Asgary said that he believes that Class Councils gets their e-mail lists from the Registrar’s Office. He recommended that R. Stein contact that office to see if they could ensure that the e-mails of transfer students are included in the lists giving to Class Council.

R. Stein said that M. Asgary had a good idea and that she would look into it. She said that she was however under the impression that registration with the Class of website gave Class Councils the e-mail lists.

M. Asgary asked about adding a stipulation that prevents Athletics from spending money on administrative expenses.

R. Lavin suggested included all of the organizations’ charters in Appendix B.

C. Slicklen said that included the charters would give the S.A. complete oversight over the by-line funded organizations.

R. Lavin said that he is proposing including the charters for the sake of discussion. He can think of pros and cons for doing so.

A. Gay said that he would be opposed to including charters in Appendix B. He feels that doing so would take a lot of autonomy away from groups.

A. Wang said that he feels that it would be a good idea to include the charters although he does recognize some concerns. He said that he is in favor of adding the charters because it makes them easily accessible.

M. Asgary said that he is in favor of promoting accessibility to the charters but is not in favor of adding the by-line funded organizations charters to the SA Charter. He suggested adding a clause that states that organization’s charters, bylaws and other governing documents be made available in some forum.

R. Lavin said that the issue may be more logistical. He pointed out that any by-line funded organization wishing to change their charter must bring it before the S.A. for approval. He said that he would agree that it is not necessary to include the charters in Appendix B.

R. Salem asked if groups would have some say in the process of charter amendments if their charters were included in Appendix B. He wondered if the S.A. would wide up changing group charters without consulting groups.

R. Lavin said that he expects groups to be consulted. Any change to a by-line funded organizations’ charter must be approved by the S.A.

S. Tata said that he agreed with A. Gay in that by-line funded organizations’ charters should not be included in Appendix B. Autonomy is an important thing. He said that including the charters for the purpose of oversight could be viewed in a way that is detrimental to the S.A. Charters may also be available in the Student Activities Office.

In response to a question asked by C. Slicklen, A. Epstein said that the best place to access by-line funded organizations’ charters is to contact the organization.

A. Salem asked if a stipulation could be added that states that Athletics may not raise the price of hockey tickets during the by-line funding cycle.

A. Gay said that such a stipulation and request is beyond the purview of the S.A. The assembly only provides funding to three specific divisions of the Athletics Department.

A. Salem confirmed that the assembly funds blankly for Athletics Marketing and Promotion.

E. Greenberg said that A. Salem raises a good point. Although the assembly does not provide money for anything relating to hockey, the SAF allocation to marketing does cover marketing efforts pertaining to hockey.

R. Lavin said that he believes that the Sports Marketing Group works to promote the Big Red Sports Pass and admission to relevant sporting contests. He feels that it would be inappropriate to add such a stipulation.

C. Basil said that he thinks such a stipulation is a bad idea. From an economics perspective, price ceilings are ineffective.

M. Asgary recommended that a representative contact Athletics regarding the issue.

C. Slicklen said that he had a meeting with the Director of Athletics the next and that he would mention the issue.

A. Salem said that if you view the SAF from an economics perspective it really shouldn’t exist. He feels that it is very important that the assembly discuss hockey. Although subsidization of hockey tickets is not currently a possibility, it is important that representative push to get the best deal for students.

M. Asgary said that Appendix B currently includes a stipulation that states that Cornell Cinema cannot raise the price of student tickets.

A. Gay said that he had no recommendations for the Community Centers Programming Boards, the Community Partnership Board or Cornell Cinema. He asked if anyone knew whether or not the cinema programming board exists and is functional.

No one responded.

A. Gay said that the next organization is Concert Commission. After speaking with L. Rapoport regarding the new ticketing system it may be difficult to include the SAF logo on all tickets. It is a logistical constraint to work around.

C. Slicklen said that the current clause reads that “All tickets for Cornell Concert Commission sponsored events shall bear the SAF logo.”

A. Gay recommended changing the clause to read “When possible, all public materials relating to Concert Commission sponsored events shall bear the SAF logo. The logo shall still be included on all posters, advertisements or tickets when possible.

In response to a question asked by A. Wang, A. Gay said that there is no explicit punishment outlined for groups who do not include the SAF logo when they are required to do so. Generally the S.A. will just remind organizations that the logo needs to be included if the issue arises. He said that the last clause under Concert Commission could be stricken because it refers to a situation that has already passed. He said that he had no recommendations for CUEMS. Because the Cornell University Programming Board sometimes uses the same ticket vendor as Cornell Concert Commission the change regarding the logos clause should also be made. The new clause would read “When possible, all materials relating to Cornell University Program Board sponsored events shall bar the SAF logo.”

M. Asgary said that he understands that the logo cannot be included. He asked if a line saying sponsored by the SAF could be included on the tickets.

A few representatives said that they believed that this is the already the case.

In response to a comment made by C. Slicklen, A. Gay confirmed that the last clause under the CUPB would also be stricken because it refers to a situation that already passed. He said that he had no recommendations for the Women’s Resource Center or the International Students Programming Board. He said that Minds Matter must be added and proposed the following two clauses: (1) Cornell Minds Matter shall report its activities at the end of each year to the Student Assembly and (2) Minds Matter shall widely advertise its events to the entire Cornell community.

R. Salem asked why only the Women’s Resource Center is held programmatically accountable to the S.A. He asked if every programming board could be made accountable.

C. Slicklen said that an umbrella clause could be added at the beginning of the Appendix.

R. Salem said that he would like such a clause added.

A. Gay asked if the suggestion could be further discussed next week because of some complexities involved. The WRC is not an umbrella organization that funds other organizations. The effectiveness of such a clause should also be explored.

R. Stein asked if a clause stating that the assembly could review posters for the Vagina Carnival under the WRC could be added.

A. Gay said that he had no recommendations for the Orientation Steering Committee.

R. Lavin said that he though something pertaining to a diversity event should be added.

A. Gay said that he would look up the specifics and add the clause. Under Slope Day, he recommended that the following clause be added: “In collaboration with the Slope Day Steering Committee and University administrators, the Slope Day Programming Board will be tasked to collect demographic information form all Slope Day entrants beginning in May 2008. This information must be reported to the Student Assembly and GPSA during the Fall Semester flowing Slope Day. Based on this data, the Student Assembly will assess and if need remedy the proportional funding relative to the GPSA of the Slope Day Programming Board.” Since no explicit information is available, the statement indicates the intent of the assembly. Anyone with suggestions for a different wording can e-mail him.

M. Asgary said that he had a question about the Slope Day stipulation stating that one dollar and twenty-five cents be allocated for non-alcoholic Slope Fest activities. He feels that something defining slope fest type event be added.

C. Slicklen said that A. Gay will work with the Slope Day Programming Board to define such an event.

A. Gay said that he and other individuals are working with the SAFC to update and improve the P&T Handbook as well as other governing documents. He recommended striking one outdated SAFC clause.

M. Asgary asked about the SAFC stipulation that states that not more than $1.20 per-student per-year of its allocation to fund staff salary. He said he was not sure what staff the clause is referring to since the SAFC clerk is paid for by the S.A. budget.

No one was certain what the clause was referring to.

I. Lesyk said that neither he nor the co-chairs knew what the clause was referring to.

M. Asgary said that the assembly should look into what is left in the SAFC budget after it allocates its money to see if the committee can cover some of its own administrative expenses. He said that nothing relating to the P&T Handbook is included in Appendix B. He recommended mentioning it and mentioning the S.A. ability to overturn the SAFC decisions through the appeals process.

A. Gay said that the second ALANA clause pertaining to the SAF logo on tickets should be updates as was the CCC and SDPB.

M. Asgary asked about the clause reading “Fifteen cents each year shall be encouraged to be used for an event during Orientation or Welcome Weekend.” He asked if this was actually occurring and said that shall be encouraged is weak wording.

A. Gay said that he would look into it.

A. Salem said that when MGLC came before the assembly last semester, there was some insinuation that SAF money was being spent on events exclusive to organization members. There is a problem with events of this nature. He suggested reflecting this into a stipulation.

A. Gay said that the stipulation is already included as an umbrella clause.

R. Lavin said that the MGLC had already clarified that their SAF allocation is only spent on events open to the entire Cornell community.

A. Gay said that he had no recommendations pertaining to the CU Tonight Commission.

R. Salem asked why the last clause was included specifically for CUTC when it could refer to all umbrella funding organizations.

M. Asgary asked about the university endowment account mentioned in the first CUTC stipulation. The clause is poorly worded.

To respond to R. Salem and M. Coombs who asked a similar question, A. Gay said that under general guidelines the following clause is included: “All organizations must submit any changes in the organizations’ bylaws, constitution, or other governing documents to the SA for approval.

C. Slicklen said that redundancy in the appendix does exist.

R. Lavin said that essentially for SHS all the money goes to the endowment. The Financial Aid business manager along with JFARC determines the most productive use of the money. He believes that the clause should state that the amount allocated shall be allocated in such a way as determined by JFARC and the business manager.

M. Coombs asked how the Students Helping Students service is advertised.

R. Lavin said that SHS funds are need based. The office staff always provides the option to students who are eligible. It is only really advertised when students come to the office. The rationale for this is that the funds are need based.

M. Asgary suggested including a clause that states that JFARC shall submit guidelines regarding eligibility to be approved annually by the S.A.

A. Gay said that he had no proposed changes to Welcome Weekend.

In response to a comment made by A. Wang, A. Gay said that the first clause could be stricken.

A. Wang asked why a stipulation requires that the Campus Relations Vice President work with the OSC Night coordinator.

A. Gay said that he was unaware.

A. Wang said that he also feels that Welcome Weekend should not be required to give a certain amount of money to OSC.

R. Lavin said that the clause A. Wang just referred to should be stricken because the situation changed.

M. Coombs asked about the required event.

R. Lavin said that OSC is involved in a new program required of all incoming students.

A. Gay said that he had no recommendations for the Willard Straight Hall Programming Board. He asked A. McGovern about the clause that stipulates how much money HAVEN can spend on the Creating Change conference.

A. McGovern said that the clause could be stricken.

M. Asgary asked what the point of the HAVEN clause reading “All expenditures must be reviewed and approved by Haven’s Executive Board.” The clause is obvious and should be true of all organizations.

A. Gay said that clause was included because HAVEN is an umbrella organization.

M. Asgary suggested included such a clause to apply to all umbrella organization.

A. Gay said that he recommended changing one of the Collegiate Readership Program clauses. He feels that it would be appropriate to have a report once a year as opposed to one a semester regarding newspaper distribution.

M. Asgary said that the S.A. liaison could more easily provide a report every semester.

A. Gay said he would look into how easily it is to gather the relevant information.

M. Asgary said that the newspaper boxes have the old S.A. log on them. He suggested adding a clause suggested that the boxes be updated so that it is clear that newspapers are funded by the S.A.

The assembly deferred the issue of looking into the status of the S.A. logo to A. Natarjan.

A. Gay said that he recommend an update of the dates in the duration and supersedence clause.

A. Salem pointed out that there was no stipulation regarding Cornell Cinema’s use of their allocation.

A. Gay confirmed that the money the S.A. contributes go towards allowable expenses under the by-line funding guidelines.

A. Salem says that he would like there to be further clarification regarding the use of SAF funds by Cornell Cinema.

C. Slicklen asked A. Gay to comment on groups not included in Appendix B.

A. Gay said that Club Insurance, EARS and Wilderness Reflections are not included in Appendix B. Club Insurance has always been a very straightforward expenditure.

In response to a question asked by M. Asgary, A. Gay said that it would be impractical for the S.A. to review Club Insurance every time there is a change in policy.

A. Salem wondering if there was anyway to increase the transparency of EARS expenditures. Although he does not want to breach the confidentiality agreement, he wonders if a middle ground could be reached.

R. Lavin said that he believed the only issue of transparency related to a telephone bill which ended up being a low expenditure. Everything else was very clear.

M. Asgary said that nothing from the SA budgets should go towards paying for ‘something’ related to the SAFC. He pointed out that when organizations present their budgets for by-line funded they present their projected budgets. He suggested adding a clause stipulating that if the actual expenses deviate from the projected amounts by X% then the organization needs to come before the assembly for approval.

R. Lavin asked what the percentage change would need to be.

M. Asgary said that he didn’t know but maybe somewhere around 5 or 10%. Secondly he thinks that there should be more specific guidelines with regards to funding investigation. He feels that something should be included pairing violations with consequences.

R. Salem motioned to move Resolution 18 to Business of the Day. It was seconded. R. Lavin dissented.

R. Lavin said that the sponsors would like the resolution remain under new business. They want to solicit input on the resolution.

R. Salem withdrew his motion.

Resolution 20 — Resolution Regarding Vacancies of the ‘08-‘09 Assembly

C. Slicklen confirmed that A. Natarjan, H. Bergman and S. Matthews were sponsoring the resolution.

S. Matthews said that the sponsors were not at the meeting to argue about the elections rules. Although the ombudsman said that the rules were not ambiguous, she did say that the spirit of the specific rule in violation was unfair. The resolution aims to protect the student body. He feels that the assembly has an obligation to overturn any decision that will hurt itself and the student body. Everyone that he has spoken with on the assembly feels that he and the other sponsors should not be disqualified. Representatives have also said that the assembly made the rules and however ridiculous they may be the assembly should abide by them. The S.A. however during the SAFC appeals process grants funding to groups that have broken the rules based on circumstances. The resolution gives the assembly the opportunity to overturn bad precedent and indicate that it cares more for the assembly and student body.

H. Bergman said that when the result of following those rules is detrimental, they must be reexamined. The Elections Committee was striving to perform its function and no one is here to argue that. The common goal among everyone here is to serve and the undergraduate community. The decision of the Elections Committee does not serve this goal.

A. Natarjan compared the situation with SAFC appeals. He said that representatives are elected to do what is best for the student body. It is clear to him that that spirit of the rule was not violated. He asked students to do what is best for Cornell. The campaign finance rule is in place to maintain the fairness of the election and prevent candidates from getting an unfair advantage. Those disqualified in this situation spent no money.

R. Lavin motioned to extend the time of the meeting to 7.p.m. It was seconded. M. Asgary dissented.

M. Asgary said that R. Lavin should change his motion to 6:45 p.m.

By a hand vote of 14–3, the end of the meeting time was extended to 7p.m.

C. Slicklen said that S. Matthews had mentioned that Dean had said that the spirit of the rule was in poor. He asked if S. Matthews had the e-mail in which she said this.

A. Natarajan said that he asked her point blank and she said that she did not believe that the spirit of the rule was violated.

C. Slicklen said that the resolution would need a super majority to pass since it is overturning the decision of a committee. In response to a question asked by A. Gay, he said that the resolution is asking for the decision to disqualify the candidates to be overturned.

M. Coombs said that the whereas clause stating that it is a grave disservice to the Student Assembly and the student body alike, for seats to go unfilled and constituencies to go unrepresented is incorrect. There will be a special election in the fall to fill these seats. Disqualified candidates can run in the special election. He said that during the appeals process it was confirmed that there is no ambiguity in the rule. The idea that disqualification of uncontested candidates disenfranchises voters is interesting because voters never had a say to begin with. He tried multiple times to bring the elections rules before the assembly for discussion. No representatives indicated an interest in really discussing them. If the sponsors believe that the rule was unjust they should have taken action when it was possible to change the rule.

G. Mazza said that rules have to apply to everyone or no one. It would be unfair for candidates running in contested elections to overturn the disqualification. He feels that the rules need to be reexamined but the assembly would not be honoring the spirit of those rules if the elections committee decision is overturned.

H. Bergman said that even if there is an election in the fall there is a period of time for which certain students will not be represented on the assembly.

N. Junewicz asked when the special elections would be held.

M. Coombs said that specials elections typically run in concert with the election of freshman representatives.

C. Slicklen confirmed that the special elections took place towards the end of September.

M. Coombs said that according to the standing rules the S.A. president has the option of selecting liaisons to represent students not represented by an elected member until the seats are filled in the special election.

S. Matthews said that liaisons do not have voting power and that students therefore are not truly represented.

H. Bergman said that AAP students have gone more than a semester without a vote on the assembly.

M. Asgary as a point of information said that the at-large representatives represent the entire undergraduate student community.

H. Bergman said that the argument just made by M. Asgary undermines the point of having seats designated to specific colleges.

E. Greenberg said that he felt it fair to say that this year’s election was pretty much a failure. There was low voter turnout and few candidates ran. He said that the assembly is kind of at a cross roads. The assembly could go by the rules or take into account the reasonable person test. The disqualified candidates didn’t have any receipts and a reasonable person could conclude that they the sponsors should not have been disqualified. Although laws are important on the municipal and state levels, the assembly is not the be all and end all. What he personally thinks is best is to improve the rule and fix the situation now instead of waiting.

M. Asgary asked if any of the sponsors knew who “Ernest” was.

None of the sponsors knew who this person was.

M. Asgary said that he was that an individual disqualified from the previous election for the exact same reason. He asked why none of the sponsors proposed the exact same resolution last semester.

S. Matthews said that if that individual had come to him and made him aware of the issue, he would have sponsored a resolution to overturn the decision to disqualify him.

R. Lavin as a point of information said that Ernest was not uncontested and therefore that the situation was not analogous.

A. Craig asked how many people have been disqualified in the past. He feels that that as the assembly is trying to improve itself it is important to look to the past. A rule is a rule. He said that he believes that the elections rules state that no individual on the assembly may use their role to influence the outcome of an election. Aren’t the sponsors doing just that? He also does not think that representatives could reasonably blame the assembly for vacancies on it. The disqualified candidates can run again in the fall.

S. Matthews said that he understands what everyone has said. He asked why however it is necessary to wait to remedy the problem.

R. Lavin said that he is disappointed that so many people are framing the argument as rule is a rule debate. The S.A. does not operate solely based on rules. He votes on SAFC appeals based on what he feels is best for the community. The welfare of undergraduate students must be kept in mind. He feels that there is merit to the resolution and is therefore leaning towards voting in favor of it. The rule exists to protect contested candidates.

A. Natarajan said that the rules exist to prevent one candidate from getting an unfair advantage over another candidate.

S. Matthews said that he feels for those individuals who have been disqualified in the past. However if he was disqualified for same reason and was not a member of the assembly he would have come and spoken at open microphone and tried to get a representative to sponsor a resolution with him. The best thing for the student body is to address the issue now.

R. Salem said that he has witnessed people being disqualified based on rules violations. Although it stinks, it would not be fair to make an exception. Those who were disqualified can run again. Liaisons do have the power to influence assembly decisions.

M. Coombs said that he instructed the Office of Assemblies to not accept candidate receipts after the exact deadline. He did however give candidates the benefit of the doubt with a 5 or so minute window.

A. Natarajan said that disqualified candidates not on the assembly could also have started a petition.

A. Salem said that he sympathizes with the sponsors but it is wrong to say that the assembly is disenfranchising the voters. The candidates who choose to turn their back on the rules are the ones disenfranchising the voters. The assembly should wait because ex post facto rules do not benefit people.

A. Salem motioned to call to question. It was seconded. R. Lavin dissented.

M. Asgary withdrew motion.

In response to a question asked by G. Mazza, M. Coombs said that disqualifications take place after voting before votes are tallied.

A. Wang said that he agrees that the assembly must abide by its rules. He feels that there should be an early election for the vacant seats separate from the freshman elections.

A. Wang motioned to call to call to question. It was seconded.

M. Asgary motioned to extend the time of the meeting until 7:10p.m. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

By a roll-call vote of 7–7−4, the resolution failed. The decision of the Elections Committee was not overturned.

VII. Unfinished Business

No Unfinished Business was discussed.

VIII. New Business

No New Business was discussed.

IX. Executive Session

The assembly did not go into Executive Session.

X. Adjournment

R. Lavin motioned to adjourn. It was seconded. There was no dissent the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun