Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
April 3, 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, Vince Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, CJ Slicklen, Andrew Wang

Representatives Excused: Nikki Junewicz, Steven Matthews, Guy Mazza, Carly Miller, Chris Sarra, Rebecca Smith

Unexcused Representatives: Ashley McGovern, Rebecca Stein

Liaisons Present: Haley Bergman, Sanjiv Tata

Liaisons Excused: Greg Mezey

III. Approval of the Minutes

A. Salem said that he had a correction to the minutes. At the end of the minutes, the names of a few representatives are listed as breaking quorum. He would like the minutes to only state that M. Asgary noted that quorum had been broken. The change would be analogous to the change in minutes that occurred during the previous meeting.

C. Slicklen confirmed that the statement indicating the individuals who left at the end of the meeting should be removed from the minutes.

M. Asgary called for acclimation. A. Salem seconded the motion. 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.

Lorraine Gregory, ‘08, introduced herself as the VP of Programming for the Senior Class Council. She announced that Class Councils would be hosting a Presidential Meet and Greet Class Reception with President Skorton later that evening at 777 Stewart Avenue (Alpha Delta Phi) from 7:00p.m. to 9:00p.m.

V. Announcements/Reports

Ivy Council Spring Conference Announcement — R. Lavin

R. Lavin introduced Michael Hanson as the Chair of the Board of Governors for Ivy Council. He said that Ivy Council would be occurring during the upcoming weekend. As hopefully everyone knows, Cornell is hosting the conference. All representatives should receive detailed information about the conference, including an agenda, shortly. All representatives are expected to attend. The conference will start on Saturday the 5th with breakfast. Dean of Faculty, Charlie Walcott will be the keynote speaker. The key note will be followed by breakout sessions as discussed at last week’s meeting. The breakout sessions will focus on student government issues across the Ivy League. The conference will be concluded with a banquet on Saturday evening.

M. Hanson, ‘01, thanked the C. Slicklen for the invitation to the assembly meeting. The Board of Governors is the alumni arm of Ivy Council. The board came into being shortly after the Ivy Council was reconstituted in April 1998. Primarily made up of alumni from the member schools, the Board of Governors provides a historical link to the foundations of the Ivy Council, projects that have been done in the past, resources of expertise, and counsel for the officers and committee members of the Ivy Council. He will be around over the course of the weekend to help manage the event and answer any questions.

C. Slicklen asked if there were any questions regarding Ivy Council.

No representatives had questions.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly is very much looking forward to the upcoming conference. He encouraged all assembly members to attend.

M. Hanson encouraged those representatives who had questions at anytime during the weekend to approach him.

R. Lavin thanked M. Hanson on behalf of the assembly for his hard work relating to Ivy Council.

SWOT Forum Announcement — E. Greenberg and R. Lavin

E. Greenberg said that he, other representatives, and community members have been working on a SWOT analysis over the course of the semester. They will be inviting community members to the following S.A. meeting. The open forum will be advertised in the Daily Sun. He will prepare the findings of the analysis and present or e-mail them to S.A. members before the end of the semester.

R. Lavin said that the forum is being modeled after the Codes and Judicial Committee’s community forum. Input from community members is wanted. He encouraged representatives to encourage people to attend the forum. There will also be online forums through which to give feedback.

Additional Announcements

M. Asgary wished R. Salem Happy Birthday! After which the entire assembly did as well.

M. Coombs announced that the S.A. internal elections would be held on Monday, April 7.

VI. Business of the Day

C. Slicklen said that President Skorton was scheduled to arrive at 5:15p.m. Since it is nearing 5:15, the assembly would not have time to start discussing Resolution 18 or Appendix B. The assembly would therefore discussion Resolution 24 which had been added to Business of the Day.

Resolution 24 — Commending the now-free HIV/Syphilis Testing at Gannett and Encouraging the Continuation of this Program - M. Asgary

M. Asgary said that assembly passed a resolution regarding free HIV testing last spring. Last year’s resolution encourages Gannett to look into a way to provide free HIV testing. He said that this morning, the Cornell Daily Sun and Gannett reported that research conducted by Gannett, Tompkins County Healthy Department and the State of New York indicated a rise in syphilis infections within Tompkins County. In response, Gannett is offering free testing through May 15. The resolution he is proposing today is very similar to last year’s resolution. It is a sense of the body resolution commending and encouraging Gannett. He said that the U.A. has legislative authority over Gannett. Since the U.A. doesn’t meet frequently he hopes that the S.A. could pass the resolution quickly indicating student support for free testing. He said that he had spoken with A. Gay regarding certain logistics of providing free testing.

A. Gay said that last semester he and K. Duch had met with associate directors of Gannet regarding this issue. They had a long discussion regarding the feasibility and finances of free HIV/STI testing. There were no substantial conclusions reached at the meeting.

M. Asgary said that the service Gannett is providing is clearly beneficial to the community. The first page of the resolution discusses the e-mail sent out that morning, which is included on the second page, and the U.A.’s legislative authority. The resolved clauses of the resolution commend Gannett for providing free testing services through May 15, encourage the university to look into finding ways to continue to provide free testing and urge S.A. liaisons to the U.A. to bring the matter to the U.A. to promote further action.

R. Salem called to question. It was seconded. R. Lavin called for acclimation. There were multiple seconds. There was no dissent. The resolution passed unanimously.

Appendix B Discussion & Resolution 22 — Revision to Appendix B of the S.A. Charter — R. Lavin

A. Gay asked C. Slicklen to confirm how the assembly would proceed. He believes that it is necessary to vote on each change and then to approve the entire Appendix B after all changes have been voted on.

C. Slicklen said that a 2/3 vote is needed to approve the changes since Appendix B is a part of the Charter. The assembly will form a speaker’s list for each change and will vote on each change. The entire Appendix will be voted on after all changes have been discussed.

A. Gay confirmed that with the current number of members present, all changes would have to be approved unanimously.

A. Gay said that the first recommended change is letter N of section three under general guidelines. Stipulation N is new and reads, “All organizations will be held programmatically accountable to the student body and the S.A.”

V. Hartman asked about a by-line funded organization holding an event that is approved by the SAO office but is not using SAF funds to fund the event. Will by-line funded groups holding events not using SAF money be held programmatically accountable under this stipulation?

A. Gay asked A. Wang what his intention was in proposing the amendment.

A. Wang said that he proposed the stipulation because he felt that it is the S.A.’s responsibility to hold by-line funded organizations accountable. He said that he would like to change stipulation N to apply to all by-line funded organizations as opposed to all organizations.

C. Slicklen said that all the stipulations apply to by-line funded organizations. He believes that is assumed that the phrase ‘all organizations’ means all by-line funded organizations. He confirmed that only the word organization is used to mean by-line funded organization throughout the Charter.

A. Wang said that that was fine. He asked if A. Gay had figured out what the university endowment referred to since last week.

A. Gay said that he has confirmed what the university endowment refers to in both places where it is mentioned. He will elaborate on it when the assembly discusses the groups for which the endowment is mentioned.

M. Coombs called to question on the amendment (letter N stipulation). There were multiple seconds. A. Gay dissented.

A. Gay feels that the clause is too vague. It should be more specific. What are the consequences? For which events will groups be held accountable? The stipulation would apply to the SAFC which funds 100s of other student organizations. Will the SAFC funded organizations be held programmatically accountable?

M. Coombs withdrew his motion.

A. Gay asked if any other representatives had concerns similar to his. What does holding a group programmatically accountable entail?

A number of representatives indicated that they did.

C. Slicklen asked how A. Gay proposes the stipulation be changed. He asked if A. Gay thought that the stipulation should be stricken.

A. Gay said that like the Women’s Resource Center earlier this year, he feels that the S.A. would have no problem bringing any organization whose programming concerned them before the S.A. for discussion. He does not know how to make the stipulation more specific.

V. Hartman said that not all student organizations who have previously requested SAFC funding request funding each semester. Also not every group requests SAFC funding. He asked if these groups would be held programmatically accountable to the S.A. even though they receive no funding. If organizations put on events that use no SAF money, will they be held programmatically accountable to the S.A.?

M. Coombs said that the preamble states that all organizations that receive funding from the S.A. will be held accountable to the guidelines set out in Appendix B.

A. Salem said that the statement M. Coombs pointed out pretty much solves the problem. The only concern left relates to organizations such as the SAFC which distribute money received from the S.A. to other student organizations. Although he does not want to get into a technical discussion, the importance of holding accountable groups receiving public funds, in the sense that the money is student money, should be remembered. The clause should remain in Appendix B and he would be amenable to making it more specific.

C. Basil said that he agrees with A. Gay in that letter N should be stricken. He called to question. It was seconded. M. Asgary dissented.

C. Basil withdrew his motion.

R. Lavin said that by-line funded groups are already indirectly accountable to the S.A. since the assembly controls the allocations. Additionally, it is already understood that students can come to the S.A. and express their concern with organizations’ programming. Since groups are already somewhat accountable, why not make it official?

I. Lesyk said that the S.A. has legislative authority over the Dean of Students Office. He feels that all the groups being mentioned fall under this category.

M. Coombs echoed R. Lavin and A. Salem. If the S.A. ever used the stipulation unfairly, they would undoubtedly be held accountable by the student body. He suggested having faith in the assembly not to abuse the clause.

M. Asgary said that he would be in favor of adding a clause stating what the penalty would be. What happens if a group’s programming is inappropriate? He is not in favor of adding something to the Charter that has no consequence or force.

A representative left. Two-thirds of the assembly was no longer present at the meeting, so the assembly could no longer discuss/vote on Appendix B.

Talk with President Skorton

C. Slicklen thanked President Skorton and Susan Murphy, VP Student and Academic Services, for joining the assembly.

President Skorton said that he appreciates the opportunity to speak with the assembly. It is important to be able to speak with and address student concerns. He said that he would like to hear more about the assembly’s reorganization efforts pertaining to the SWOT Analysis. He would like to spend as much time as possible addressing students concerns so he opened up the floor for questions.

R. Salem asked what progress was being made on the Capital Campaign.

President Skorton said that we are approaching 2.1 billion dollars. The university is emphasizing the same priorities as previously discussed. Student Financial Aid for both graduates and undergraduates is one of the first concerns that has been talked about. Very good progress is being made. In a time of market volatility there has been national discussion regarding what will happen to philanthropic investments. He said that he had confidence in Cornell alumni and believes that the campaign will continue to make forward progress. He is willing to keep in touch regarding the campaigns progress. So far people have been incredibly generous.

A. Wang thanked President Skorton and VP Murphy for attending the meeting. He also thanked them for their continued discussion with and receptiveness to the Asian and Asian American student community. He asked President Skorton and VP Murphy to comment on their knowledge regarding the Asian and Asian American student community center that was proposed in Resolution 8.

President Skorton said that he appreciated A. Wang’s generous comments. He emphasized that long before he came to Cornell VP Murphy and others were exploring ways to meet the needs of the Asian and Asian American community on campus. A lot of careful work and thought has taken place. He is extremely confident that the university will come out with a solution to meet the needs of the campus.

S. Murphy said that she had mentioned a suggested membership to Dean Hubbell. As a formal body, the S.A. is not represented on the committee moving the community center forward. She feels that such an addition would be appropriate. She listed the various individuals who will likely make up the committee.

A. Wang said that he is in favor of having S.A. representation on the planning committee.

R. Lavin thanked President Skorton and VP Murphy for attending the meeting. He said that the SWOT committee has been analyzing and assessing the S.A.’s strengths and weaknesses, how the assembly operates, what needs to be changed and what things the community feels needs to be changed. He said that E. Greenberg has prepared a report which will be forwarded to both of them. He informed them that the next two assembly meetings will include an open forum for community members to express their opinions regarding the S.A. There are also online forums where individuals can submit feedback. He feels that it has been a great process and that the assembly has learned a lot. It is the hope that next year’s executive board will take into account the information gathered in the SWOT analysis.

President Skorton said that he appreciates the progress report. He reiterated how important student governance is to him. Of all the forums through which he interacts with students, this is one of the most important. He said that he supportive of whatever changes the S.A. feels serve to best represent the interests of the student body. He commended representatives for taking the time to look carefully at their student government institution.

E. Greenberg said that there is an ongoing debate on campus regarding the appropriateness of continuing the ROTC program. He feels that the focal point of this debate has been the status of military science professors. There really has been no response from top administration regarding the issue. He asked President Skorton to comment on it.

President Skorton said that he is supportive of ROTC remaining on campus. He has tried to be public about his support for the program. He has chosen to meet directly with the faculty involved along with Vice Provost Michelle Moody Adams. There is a lot of work going on in this regard. He will try to find ways to be more public about his support and feels that it is important to allow the dialogue already taking place to continue. He believes that progress has been made.

S. Murphy said that the discussion revolving around the status of military science instructors is a complicated academic issue that involves many parties. She feels that there has not been a direct response because discussions are currently taking place and the issue has not been completely resolved.

E. Greenberg said that he is glad to hear that discussions are taking place and that the parties involved have recognized that progress is talking place.

I. Lesyk thanked President Skorton and VP Murphy for attending the meeting. He asked if either of them could comment of any efforts taken in response to the recent criminal activity affecting Cornell and the surrounding areas.

S. Murphy said that aside from actively pursuing the investigation and partnering with the Ithaca Police Department, the university will be increasing the presence of police and auxiliary to the police from now until the end of the year. This is being done to serve as a deterrent as well as to increase the comfort and security of those on campus. She was pleased to hear that the number of calls to the Blue Service increased. This is comforting in that students are taking advantage and becoming aware of the services already available. The issue is something that is being taken very seriously. One arrest has been made and another is perhaps in the work.

C. Slicklen asked for VP Murphy to update the assembly regarding emergency preparedness in terms of both text messaging and sirens.

S. Murphy said that the university has a new text and voice messaging vendor and that tests will be conducted in April. Four sirens have also been installed around campus. These will be tested in April as well.

President Skorton said that there are still a substantial number of students who have not singed up to receive the phone alerts. In the event of an emergency person to person communication will be very important. No matter how slick the system is students need to communicate. The philosophy behind the emergency alert system is to make it redundant. The university is working on it in a serous way.

C. Basil said that he has been serving on Dean’s Walcott’s Committee on Academic Integrity for the last few months or so. The committee has been examining having an honor code at Cornell. He asked President Skorton and VP Murphy to elaborate on their personal opinions regarding a campus wide student run honor code.

President Skorton apologized saying he did not have his head completely wrapped around this issue at Cornell. He is very aware of the general issue. If the students decide that it is important to them, he feels that it would be important to keep the dialogue going. He said that in moving forward it would be important to think about the consequences if a student violated the code. He is currently educating himself more on the issue.

S. Murphy said that she has done some research on the issue. It is important to understand that there is a range of honor code models. In full blown honor codes there are obligations for student witnessing violations to report them. Modified honor codes are more centered on holding students responsible for their own actions. It is important to understand the diversity and complexity of the issue. It is not an either or situation. A modified honor code could be a positive step.

President Skorton asked C. Basil what he thought about the issue.

C. Basil said that he has recently come up with a PowerPoint presentation along with K. Duch. They are hoping to have a student forum in the near future. He agrees with S. Murphy in that the system should be moderate and feasible. In the PowerPoint he included the University of Colorado system where the punishments range from probation to community service to education to suspension to expulsion. It is student run and allows for a more flexible system.

In response to a question asked President Skorton, C. Basil said that he would be willing to send him the PowerPoint.

A. Salem thanked President Skorton and VP Murphy for attending the meeting. At the end of last year, the S.A. passed the Intellectual Diversity Initiative. The resolution discussed how Cornell students feel that a good academic environment is one where all viewpoints are encouraged to be shared and where indoctrination does not become the central theme of the classroom. He has been having personal talks with the Deputy Provost for the past six months requesting some kind of response from their office since they are the chief academic officers of the administration. He feels has it taken a long time for the administration to respond to the IDI. He is interested in hearing what they think the administration could do to ensure Intellectual Diversity and why has there not been a more concrete response.

President Skorton said that he could not give a direct answer for why A. Salem has received no response from the Deputy Provost. He and S. Murphy will go back and look into it. He will also respond to A. Salem’s e-mail shortly on the more focused issue of support for a specific speaker. He said he outlined his views on this issue in the Cornell Daily Sun. He said he believes that concrete things to improve the university should be done. He is not in favor of imposing some externally imposed value system. He does think that the university should be supportive of student opportunities to hear different points of view. He feels that Cornell is doing a much better job than some places at promoting political diversity.

A. Salem said he agreed with President Skorton in that he did not believe an external system should be imposed on students. He asked what the university could do to help student interested in bringing controversial speakers. When he worked to bring John Ashcroft last year the administration was very supportive. The security costs imposed however were very high. Other more liberal speakers have had lower security costs imposed. While he believes that student groups wishing to bring a speaker should bear a burden, should they bear the burden of paying an exorbitant security cost for a speaker the majority of campus does not like?

President Skorton said that it has been long standing tradition for the administration to be both morally and financially supportive of student groups wishing to bring speakers to campus. Financing visits should and really must be viewed on a case by case basis in view the current budget of the university. He said that he would not be in favor of setting aside a fund to promote intellectual diversity. It is up to the students to bring who they want to bring and for the administration to be as responsive as possible. The people responsible for making the campus secure have to assess each situation based on its own merits. He is looking into the disparity in security costs regarding various speakers. Obviously there are limits to university funding. He will look into developing a further a response to the disparity in security costs.

S. Murphy said that the securities costs are developed by the Cornell police’s assessment as to what the risks involved are. She said that she has problem with how much the speakers themselves are charging students. She feels that there is a broader issue.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly had now been meeting with President Skorton for over a half hour and that discussion would be ended.

President Skorton said that representatives are free to follow up with him or email him other questions.

VII. Unfinished Business

No Unfinished Business was discussed.

VIII. New Business

Resolution 18 — Establishment of Safe Ride Program — Sanjiv Tata, Ali Austerlitz, Ryan Lavin

C. Slicklen said that R. Salem added himself as a sponsor to the resolution.

S. Tata said that Residential Student Congress (RSC) has already passed this resolution. Since the initiative applies to the entire student body, they felt that it would be appropriate to bring the resolution before the S.A. as well. The services addresses a need in the community and similar program have been successfully implemented at peer institutions. Similar programs have been proposed in the past at Cornell, but they have not been implemented primarily due to funding restraints. In addition to preventing drunk driving, the service will help minimize bad situations resulting from unsafe walking habits. Although the resolution states the service will eventually be incorporated into a S.A. by-line funded organization this is not necessary.

R. Lavin thanked S. Tata and A. Austerlitz for their hard work regarding the resolution. He said that the RSC is looking for support from the S.A. The resolution addresses a serious concern that has not been addressed by the university. Our campus is not the safest place to be walking around at night. A number of Cornell’s peer institutions have a similar service. Although the initial logistics of the program are a bit tricky, the RSC will be able to fund for the start up costs. Long term plans will depend on how the program progresses. It is fortunate that RSC resources are available to fund the start up.

S. Tata said that he had additionally passed out the proposed guidelines to representatives. The RSC has discussed these guidelines and they are not binding. He rather just wanted to provide representatives with as much information as possible.

A. Austerlitz said that she is a freshman at Cornell and is really interested in and committed to following through with the program.

A. Craig thanked the sponsors for bringing the initiative before the S.A. He asked how much funding would be needed to initiate the program. He asked how the sponsors planned to maintain the program.

S. Tata said that the RSC may be able to contribute somewhere around $20,000 to $25,000. He said that Campus Life has been very helpful and is very much on board with the idea. He feels that there is currently funding available that will cover the cost of securing a van for transport as well as training costs.

A. Craig asked about insurance issues.

R. Lavin said that insurance issues are very much in the works as of the meeting. Risk management and insurance seem currently to be the two biggest obstacles in implementing the program. It may be that the program just needs approval from Director Bova. Insurance however is very much in the discussion phase. Passage of the resolution by the S.A. is very important to furthering the insurance discussion and gives the students leverage in talking with the administration.

M. Coombs said that he was floored by the second whereas clause of the resolution which indicates that 31% of Cornell students consume an average of five drinks per night. He asked how if at all the resolution would affect numbers such as the one just mentioned. He asked if the sponsors were aware of anything that Gannett was doing to drive these numbers down.

A. Austerlitz said that numbers were taken from Gannett’s 2005 Core Alcohol and Drug Survey.

S. Tata said that it was numbers such as these that pushed RSC to develop the safe ride initiative.

R. Lavin said that he feels that the program is very aligned with Cornell’s medical amnesty program. The program is attempting to improve the campus environment in light of the statistics.

M. Asgary asked how the program will deal with students living off campus. He asked if the service would be available to both grads and undergrads. He asked if the J.A.’s office would actually permit the Medical Amnesty protocol to apply for students who utilize the service.

S. Tata said that in relation to off campus housing, there is no problem in driving on streets not owned by Cornell. There are however specified locations where students can be dropped off. He said that RSC that does not cover grads. They are not completely certain about whether or not the Medical Amnesty protocol can be applied. This issue will be looked into as the service continues to develop.

M. Asgary said that he thinks the service is a fantastic idea.

In response to a question asked by A. Wang, S. Tata said that the RSC would not be capable of funding the program year after year after year. He said that his current goal was securing funding for startup costs. He hopes to charge an oversight committee by the end of the year.

A. Salem motioned to move Resolution 18 to Business of the Day. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

A. Salem said that he thinks Resolution 18 is a great resolution. He lived in George Washington University housing over the summer and that university had a similar program. It was a great service. He feels that the assembly should support the resolution. He said that everyone should keep in mind that an unwanted by product of the service could be higher levels of drinking. He suggested coupling the resolution with an alcohol awareness program. He commended S. Tata and those involved for their hard work in putting the initiative together.

S. Tata thanked A. Salem and said that he would certainly keep his concerns in mind. It is a concern of the RSC as well. He pointed out that other universities with the same service have seen no increase in alcohol consumption as a result of implementation. RSC certainly has in mind an alcohol awareness programming.

A. Gay said that the resolution is fantastic. He called to question. It was seconded. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The resolution passed unanimously.

IX. Executive Session

The assembly did not go into Executive Session.

X. Adjournment

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

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun