Student Assembly

MINUTES — DRAFT
Cornell University Student Assembly
May 1, 2008
4:45 — 6:30 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

C. Slicklen called the meeting to order at 4:45 P.M.

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Mark Coombs, Asa Craig, Samantha Dong, Adam Gay, Vince Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steve Matthews, Guy Mazza, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Chris Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Andrew Wang

Representatives Excused: Elan Greenberg,

Liaisons Present: Haley Bergman, Sanjiv Tata

The roll was also called for the incoming 09’-10’ assembly.

III. Approval of the Minutes � April 17, 2008

A. McGovern said that a hardcopy version of the minutes should not have been included in representatives’ packets of meeting materials since the assembly passed a resolution at the previous meeting calling for only the electronic distribution of the minutes.

The clerk said that they were printed accidentally and would no longer be included in representatives’ hardcopy packets of meeting materials.

There were no corrections to the minutes from the April 17, 2008 meeting. There was a call for acclimation. There were multiple seconds. Seeing no dissent, the minutes from the April 17, 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

University Board of Health Services Announcement � Andrew Wang

A. Wang said that the University Board of Health Services will start to meet officially. He asked any representatives interested in becoming the S.A. liaison to the board to please contact him. He said that the announcement was made as a follow up to an e-mail he recently sent to all assembly members.

Additional Announcements

R. Lavin said that students have actively responded to a situation in which a female undergraduate student was forced to leave campus as a result of mental instability allegations. Students responded by claiming that the female was not treated fairly and by bringing up issues of rape and sexual assault. As a result, he and leaders of the Greek community have engaged these students in reestablishing the S.A. Committee on Women’s Issues. He just wanted to let to let representatives know that the S.A. has reached out to students affected by this situation by attempting to provide a venue for students to express themselves.

C. Slicklen said that he and Dean Hubbell had discussed the situation. It is important to note that there are issues of the case that cannot be released to the general public out of respect for the individual’s privacy. While it is important for discussion to occur, it is also important to not jump to conclusions.

C. Basil said that a drafting committee charged with creating a concrete academic integrity proposal will be formed in the fall. Those interested in being on the committee should keep this in mind as the fall draws closer.

VI. Business of the Day

University Disability Strategic Plan (5:10PM) - Lynette Chappell-Williams, Andrea Haenlin Mott, & Kappy Fahey

C. Slicklen said that Lynette Chappell-Williams would not be joining the assembly that evening.

R. Lavin said that the discussion would be moved to the beginning of the fall semester.

SAFC Charter report � Ian Lesyk et al.

T. Mulherin said that there were two major changes to the SAFC Charter. The first change pertains to improving training for SAFC Commissioners. The second change eliminates the system of two co-chairs replacing the positions with one Chair and one Executive Vice Chair.

A. Salem called to question. M. Asgary seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

By a vote of 18–0−0, the changes to the SAFC Bylaws were approved unanimously. A majority vote was required.

SAFC bylaws report � Ian Lesyk et al.

T. Mulherin said that the changes to the SAFC Bylaws were somewhat redundant to those to the Charter. The two documents must be consistent with each other. The one change clarifies the change in leadership positions made in the Charter.

A. Salem called to question. M. Asgary seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

By a vote of 18–0−0, the changes to the SAFC Bylaws were approved unanimously. A majority vote was required.

C. Slicklen, on behalf of the assembly, thanked T. Mulherin and J. Castle for there hard work over the course of the semester.

Appendix B & Res. 22 � Revision to Appendix B of the SA Charter� Adam Gay

C. Slicklen said that the assembly would begin by discussing the Athletics stipulations.

A. Salem called to question on Athletics.

V. Hartman, point of information, said that when the assembly had last discussed Appendix B, representatives were in the midst of debating an amendment. He would like to continue discussion on the amendment. The amendment reads, The Big Red Sports Pass shall provide free admission to all varsity sports excluding men’s varsity ice hockey. The statement is intended to be added as the fifth Athletics stipulation.

C. Slicklen opened up a speakers list on the amendment.

A. Salem called to question on the amendment. V. Hartman seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

By a hand vote of 19–0−0, the amendment passed.

C. Slicklen opened up a speakers list on Athletics.

A. Salem called to question on Athletics. The motion was seconded.

By a vote of 19–0−0, the Athletics stipulations were approved unanimously. A 2/3 vote was required.

C. Slicklen announced that with the passage of the Athletics stipulations, Appendix B had been approved in its entirety.

Review of 2008—09 through 2012—13 Academic Calendar � CJ Slicklen

C. Slicklen thanked A. Wang for submitting feedback about the dates to him. He said that he would be preparing a report to submit to the provost based on feedback from representatives. He asked if there was any other feedback.

A. Wang said that the comment he submitted to C. Slicklen involved Thanksgiving Break. A survey of students by the Faculty Senate indicated that they would rather have the Wednesday before Thanksgiving completely off instead of ending classes at 1:10 p.m. The survey also indicated that students would be willing to make up the missed classes on alternate date.

C. Slicklen opened up a speakers list on the calendar.

A. Salem motioned to approve the calendar including A. Wang’s recommendation. There were multiple seconds. V. Hartman dissented.

V. Hartman said that he wanted to speak regarding Labor Day.

A. Salem said that he would not withdraw his motion.

By a hand vote of 13–6−0, the previous question was called.

G. Mazza said that he heard that classes ended at 1:10 p.m. on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving because of the timing with Fall Break. The dates work out so students have one week off in the fall, Fall Break and Thanksgiving Break, and one week of in the Spring, Spring Break.

A. Wang said that the sentiment from students was that they would rather have all of Wednesday off and make up for it on an alternate date such as shortening winter break by a day since it is already so long.

By a hand vote, the calendar was approved.

C. Slicklen said that representatives are welcome to send him further feedback to be included in the report if they would still like to do so.

Fall 2008 Elections Calendar � Michael McDermott

M. McDermott, Director of Elections elect, said that he, R. Lavin and some administrators have been working to put together a Cornell Student Government forum to be held during Orientation week. The program will be included in orientation schedules and freshmen and transfer students will be encouraged to attend. The Elections Committee will also start looking into advertising on Facebook and setting up computer labs for online voting. Representatives should keep in mind that elections for the vacant seats will be held in the fall in addition to the freshmen and transfer elections. He gave an overview of the elections calendar. There were two calendars included in representatives’ packets of meeting materials: the original draft of the calendar as well as a rapid calendar. In the original draft, students will be able to vote for candidates from September 23 through September 25. If the original calendar is implemented October 2 will be the first assembly meeting of the semester where all seats will be filled. In the rapid calendar, students will be able to vote from September 17 through September 19. If the rapid calendar is implemented September 25 will be the first assembly meeting of the semester where all seats will be filled. If the assembly decided to implement the rapid calendar, seats will be filled more quickly but candidates will have less time to campaign.

C. Slicklen opened up a speaker’s list.

R. Lavin said that he is in favor of the rapid calendar. The assembly already has three vacant seats. It would be in the best interest of the assembly to fill these seats as soon as possible. Pushing the date back would mean only three meetings without the full assembly as opposed to four.

C. Slicklen asked M. McDermott if freshmen can run for any vacant seat such as the Human Ecology or Agriculture and Life Sciences Seat. Or must freshmen run for the freshmen seats?

M. McDermott said that he believes that freshman can run for any vacant seat.

A. Wang thanked M. McDermott for his work regarding elections. It is important to advertise and encourage involvement in the assembly.

R. Stein echoed R. Lavin’s comments. It is extremely important to begin meeting as a full assembly as early as possible especially in light of all the vacancies that existed on the assembly this year. For example, architecture is a constituency that has gone unrepresented for far too long.

M. McDermott emphasized that the rapid calendar presents the opportunity for the assembly to be filled one week earlier. If there are however issues with challenges the assembly may not be fully seated until October 2.

R. Stein asked if freshman and transfer elections were generally less contentious than regular elections. There were no challenges this fall.

R. Lavin said that elections vary.

A. Salem called to question on the rapid elections calendar. R. Stein seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

M. Asgary motioned for unanimous consent on the rapid calendar. R. Stein seconded the motion. There was no dissent. Seeing none, the S.A. approved the rapid calendar unanimously.

VII. Unfinished Business

Resolution 25 � Charter Review Resolution � Mazdak Asgary

M. Asgary said that the 2006–2007 S.A. chartered an Ad-Hoc Committee through Resolution 33, with the charge of, “examining the Student Assembly charter for incongruities, ambiguities, and inaccuracies that may arise between the charter and itself or other charters and to propose changes to the charter to restore harmony.” The Charter Review Committee was composed of himself, A. Salem, R. Salem, A. Wang, E. Greenberg, and R. Lavin. All changes to the Charter were approved unanimously by the committee. The version of the Charter that all representatives were reviewing at the meeting had notes of all changes and explanations for why each change was made by the committee.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly would discuss the Charter by chapter.

M. Asgary reviewed all the changes made to Chapter 1. For exact changes and rationales see May 1, 2008 Meeting, Attachments, SA Charter Review Document, https://assembly.cornell.edu/auth/SA/20080430Meeting. The changes primarily relate to updating terminology and streamlining wording.

A. Salem called to question on Chapter 1 of the S.A. Charter. The motion was seconded. R. Lavin dissented.

R. Lavin said that he wanted to discuss the additions regarding the State of the Assembly speech.

A. Salem withdrew his motion.

R. Lavin said that he was not necessarily opposed to adding a State of the Assembly speech to the duties of the President. He however wonders if such a speech would be redundant to the end of year report that the President already makes.

M. Asgary emphasized that the end of year report is presented at the end of the semester. The State of the Assembly speech will be presented at the beginning of the semester to update incoming representatives especially those new to the assembly.

R. Lavin proposed adding The S.A. President shall make the State of the Assembly speech which shall include the annual end of year report. That may not be the best phrasing but he just would like the State of the Assembly speech to include the annual report as a portion of it. He still feels that the end of year report and speech would be redundant.

M. Asgary suggested the following statement: The S.A. President will have the responsibility to see that the end of the year report is written and presented to the current and incoming S.A. members. This statement will replace The S.A. President will have the responsibility to see that the annual report is written and presented, and that the State of the Assembly speech is drafted and made to incoming S.A. members. (The Charter review committee had suggested adding and that the state of the assembly speech is drafted and made to incoming S.A. members to the previous statement.

The motion to amend the Charter as M. Asgary suggested was seconded. Seeing no dissent, the amendment became a part of the active document.

A. Salem called to question on Chapter 1 of the S.A. Charter. The motion was seconded.

V. Hartman, point of information, asked if reference to the State of the Assembly speech could be removed from Section 1.8 - Annual Report.

C. Slicklen said yes.

I. Lesyk dissented to the motion to call to question on Chapter 1 of the S.A. Charter. He said that he would like to discuss the addition of two liaisons to the SAFC Executive Board. Having three SAFC liaisons may be excessive.

A. Salem said that he did not withdraw his motion.

By a hand vote of 4–15–0, the motion to call to question failed.

I. Lesyk asked M. Asgary to elaborate on why the committee felt that it was necessary to have three liaisons on the SAFC Executive Board. If the SAFC is fully staffed at 30 commissioners, student liaisons would make up 10% of the commission. He could understand adding three liaisons to the commission but placing all liaisons on the board is a bit much for an organization that generally has as much autonomy as the SAFC.

M. Asgary said that there always seems to be a disconnect and lack of communication between members of the SAFC and members of the S.A. when SAFC appeals are brought before the assembly. The committee felt that establishing more liaisonships would help to alleviate these concerns.

I. Lesyk said he still does not feel that there is enough work to be done to merit having eight people on the SAFC Executive Board. He is not opposed to having three liaisons on the commissions but to give them the same amount of responsibility and influence as a co-chair is not necessary.

M. Asgary asked I. Lesyk if he would be okay with having one liaison on the Executive Board and the other two liaisons on the commission.

I. Lesyk said that he still feels that three liaisons is excessive but would find the set up that M. Asgary just proposed more agreeable.

V. Hartman said that having three S.A. liaisons to the SAFC will diminish the S.A.’s active involvement pertaining to other committees. He motioned to make the following change: At the time committee appointments are made, the SA will select one three members to serve as liaisons to the Student Assembly Finance Commission (SAFC). The liaisons will be voting members of the Executive Board and will serve to increase the communication between the commission and the assembly.

The motion was seconded. Seeing no dissent, the change became a part of the active document.

R. Lavin said that this issue was contentious among members of the Charter Review Committee. He is happy with the amendment that just passed.

V. Hartman called to question on Chapter 1 of the S.A. Charter. The motion was seconded. M. Asgary dissented.

M. Asgary said that the amendment regarding the State of the Assembly speech creates an inconsistency in the document that should be corrected.

M. Asgary motioned to strike The SA President shall also make a State of the Assembly speech to newly-elected SA members before Commencement of the current academic year. This speech shall be open to the Cornell community.

A. Salem seconded the motion. Seeing no dissent, the change became a part of the active document.

M. Asgary said that earlier he was incorrect in stating that the first paragraph under 1.4 University Calendar should not have been stricken. The statement was correctly stricken as the committee moved this information to Bylaw 1.17b.

C. Slicklen asked if there was a second to the suggestion that M. Asgary made since it was really an amendment.

V. Hartman seconded the motion. Seeing no dissent, the change became a part of the active document.

A. Salem called to question on Chapter 1 of the S.A. Charter. V. Hartman seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

By a roll call vote of 19–0−0, Chapter 1 of the S.A. Charter was approved.

VI. Business of the Day

End of the Year Report � CJ Slicklen

C. Slicklen said that all representatives should now have a copy of the annual report in front of them. He worked very hard on the report and thanked all representatives for the assistance they provided him in preparing it. The document will be submitted to the President, S.A. representatives and members of the Cornell community. He will also send the report to Dean Hubbell, VP Murphy, and other senior members of the administration. In the first part of the report he gives an overview of what the S.A. is. Key highlights of the report include approval of the 2008–2019 Student Activity Fee and the accomplishments of various committees. By a vote of 15–5 the S.A. approved the Student Activity Fee (SAF) set at $204. He pointed out that the S.A. voted to begin funding the Big Red Sports Pass allowing undergraduate students to attend Cornell sporting contests at no cost and Minds Matters for mental health advocacy. He thanked everyone for their work on gender neutral housing especially V. Hartman. He thanked everyone for their work on the Asian and Asian American cultural center especially A. Wang and A. Gay. He thanked S. Matthews, R. Lavin, S. Dong and everyone else involved for their work pertaining to Ivy Council and the Ivy Leadership Summit. The assembly also worked with the SUNY Student Assembly. In the report he also discusses the assembly’s work with CIT. Earlier in the semester issues pertaining to Red Rover and the implementation of g-mail were discussed. He is proud of the assembly’s work related to the Convocation Committee and the Slope Day Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs. He congratulated V. Hartman on a very successful year as Class Councils President. He and S. Tata worked on the Polices and Behavioral Review Committee whose findings will be released shortly. He thanked A. Wang for his work on the Campus Life Committee and the University Board of Health Services. He asked representatives whose involvement he has not mentioned to please contact him so that their accomplishments could be included in the report. He thanked M. Coombs, M. Asgary and A. Salem for their great work on the Dining Services Committee and mentioned some of the committee’s accomplishments. He thanked C. Basil and S. Matthews for their work with U.A. and for keeping the S.A. updated. The report also includes mention of how the S.A. changed the way that the President and Executive Vice President are selected. He thanked M. Coombs, V. Hartman and E. Greenberg for their work related to this change. He thanked A. Redmon and A. McGovern for their work relating to the Environmental Review Committee. He thanked E. Greenberg and everyone else who participated in the SWOT Analysis for their work. He also included an overview of the change in S.A. leadership that occurred in November. He thanked N. Junewicz and H. Bergman for their roles as liaisons to the S.A. He said that it has been a pleasure working with everyone. He has certainly grown from the experience and hopes that everyone else has done so as well. Despite their differences, he is grateful for the work that everyone has done. He asked for any feedback and said that such feedback would be incorporated into the document. Representatives can feel free to e-mail him their comments.

V. Hartman asked if assembly members’ outreach to Qatar could be included.

C. Slicklen said that he would be happy to mention this. Outreach efforts, including an exchange program, will continue to be developed over the next year.

R. Salem asked when the S.A. would be submitting the final draft.

C. Slicklen said that the report would be submitted sometime in the next few days when he has the chance to update it taking into account representatives’ feedback.

R. Salem asked how the assembly would have the chance to approve the document.

C. Slicklen said that nothing controversial will be added to the report. He hopes that the assembly can approve the draft. He will submit any changes to the S.A. list serve. If there is dissent he would be happy to change comments. He hopes to submit the report to President Skorton before leaving campus.

R. Lavin, on behalf of the assembly, thanked C. Slicklen for his work as President.

M. Asgary motioned to approve the end of year report with the understanding that any changes will be submitted to the list serve. The motion was seconded. There was no dissent.

By a hand vote of 19–0−1, the report was approved.

VII. Unfinished Business

Resolution 25 � Charter Review Resolution � Mazdak Asgary

M. Asgary reviewed the one change made to Chapter 2. For exact change and rationale see May 1, 2008 Meeting, Attachments, SA Charter Review Document, https://assembly.cornell.edu/auth/SA/20080430Meeting. The change streamlined wording.

A. Salem motioned to call to question on Chapter 2 of the S.A. Charter. It was seconded there was no dissent.

By a roll call vote of 19–0−1, Chapter 2 of the S.A. Charter was approved.

M. Asgary reviewed all the changes made to Chapter 3. For exact changes and rationales see May 1, 2008 Meeting, Attachments, SA Charter Review Document, https://assembly.cornell.edu/auth/SA/20080430Meeting. Key changes include adding mention of Election Rules, and clarifying the term of representation, the role of S.A. advisors, and absentee and recall procedures.

M. Asgary motioned to split discussion of Chapter 3 into discussion of the recall procedure, Section 3.4.b.1 to the end of the chapter, and everything prior to Section 3.4.b.1. There was no dissent to the motion.

A. Salem called to question on Chapter 3 except for the recall portion. There was no dissent.

By a roll call vote of 18–0−1, Chapter 3 up until Section 3.4.1.b passed.

M. Asgary, point of privilege, asked C. Slicklen to set a time limit on the discussion of the recall procedure since it may be contentious. The assembly can pick up the discussion after less contentious issues are discussed since there are a lot of changes to go through.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly would begin discussion. If the assembly has been discussing the topic for a substantial amount of time, someone can table the recall portion of Chapter 3.

R. Lavin asked if the reason for including registration as the first step was to inform the Office of the Assemblies so that they could prepare for an election. He does not like the idea that students have to register and then do the petition.

M. Asgary said that registration officially starts the process. Students have fourteen days to get the signatures. Registration allows for easy determination of when these fourteen days begin and end.

R. Lavin said that he now recognizes that registration is necessary and that picking up the petition sheet is really all that is involved.

A. McGovern said that she feels that it is important to make it easy for students to initiate the recall process. She proposed amending Section 3.5.1 by adding that participated in the election of that member to the end of the second sentence. The second sentence of Section 3.5.1 shall now read, The required number of signatures shall be 15% of the representative’s constituency that participated in the election of that member.

The motion was seconded. There were multiple dissents.

A. Wang said that he felt that A. McGovern had a good ideal. It is not really a good idea though since only those members who voted could participate in the recall process. Also such a change may make the recall process too easy. A student may be able to initiate the recall process with only ten signatures.

A. McGovern said that there is no requirement that the 15% be from those individuals who voted. The community would not be limited in any way. The way she changed the wording just decreases the number of signatures required.

R. Lavin clarified that the percentage of signatures being debated pertains only to bringing a representative up for review. Getting signatures from 15% of the representative’s constituency would not result in removing that individual from the S.A.

A. Salem said that if the required number of signatures is collected, the Office of the Assemblies will be required to hold an election. If a fewer number of signatures are required, there may be more elections. These elections cost money. Therefore it may not be feasible to implement the amendment A. McGovern proposed. Fifteen percent of the representative’s constituency that participated in the election may not be a good standard. Fifteen percent of the representative’s constituency is more appropriate. Also under this procedure, how would you recall someone like A. Wang who was not actually voted into his seat? (After the seat was vacant for a sustained period, the next highest at-large vote getter was asked to fill the seat).

M. Asgary said that the Charter presented by the Charter Review Committee really provides two ways for the student body to initiate the recall of a representative. The first is by getting signatures from fifteen percent of the representative’s constituency. The second would be to contact a representative who could begin the process. Any six representatives can begin recall proceedings against another assembly member. Since the S.A. is a political body, there will be disagreements and dislike between representatives. The assembly should be careful not to make it too easy for representatives to take advantage of the system to remove representatives purely for reasons of dislike.

C. Slicklen asked M. Asgary if the Charter Review Committee intended to replace the section about the recall election.

M. Agsary said that the entire previous recall portion was deleted and replaced with what the review committee drafted. Having assembly members make the ultimate decision regarding the removal of representatives makes more sense since representatives are more aware of the issue pertaining to a particular representative than is the student body. The proposed process is very similar to ones in place at other schools.

C. Slicklen confirmed that a popular election will no longer take place.

A. Salem said therefore that his point about elections costs was invalid.

V. Hartman agrees that it should be easier for students to recall a representative. However, he does not agree with A. McGovern’s amendment. He encouraged someone else to propose a decrease to the original fifteen percent. The recall procedure should not really be dependent on the number of votes that a representative receives since this number depends on a number of factors including whether the seat was contested and elections publicity.

V. Hartman called to question on the amendment.

A. McGovern, point of information, said that the percentage in the amendment she proposed relates to the number of individuals who voted in a particular election, not the number of votes that individual representatives received.

A. Salem seconded the motion to call to question on the amendment. A. Gay dissented.

A. Gay said that he agrees with A. McGovern and wanted to speak on the amendment.

By a hand vote 13–6−0, the previous question was called.

By a hand vote 4–15–1, the amendment failed.

A. Gay said that certain representatives just said that the amendment created too easy of a standard. However, he could easily see six representatives sitting down together with no evidence initiating a recall procedure against a fellow representative. This is completely contrary to the democratic nature of the S.A. Therefore, the argument that such a process is too easy for the student body is absurd. He also wanted to speak about Bylaw 3.5.2. He motioned to make the following change: SA Voting Member Any ten six assembly members may begin recall proceedings against another assembly member. Such members will notify the assembly at least one hundred and twenty (120) hours before initiating such proceedings. In the end if a 4/5 majority vote is needed by the assembly to recall a representative more members should be needed to initiate the process. The requirement should not be used as a mechanism to embarrass a representative by initiating a recall against them just to make a point without the intention to actually remove them.

The motion was seconded.

A. Salem dissented. If six people try to recall a representative just to make a point they will end up embarrassing themselves more than the individual they are trying to recall. Six is a very reasonable standard.

R. Lavin, who took over as chair while C. Slicklen stepped out, opened up a speaker’s list on the amendment.

A. Wang suggested lowering the number to eight as a compromise. The process shouldn’t be too difficult to initiate because such a large number of representative votes are needed to actually recall a representative.

M. Asgary said that the review committee did not just randomly pick the number six. Six representatives is used as a standard throughout the entire Charter. Six representatives is around a fourth of the assembly, a fairly large percentage.

M. Asgary called to question on the amendment. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

By a hand vote, the amendment failed.

A. Salem called to question on the recall procedures in Chapter 3. M. Asgary seconded the motion. V. Hartman dissented.

V. Hartman said that he would like to make an amendment lowering the percentage of signatures required from 15% to 5% in Section 3.5.1 making it easier for students to initiate the recall process.

By a hand vote, the previous question was called.

By a roll call vote of 16–0−3, Chapter 3 from Section 3.4.1.b on of S.A. was approved. With this vote, Chapter 3 had been approved in its entirety.

VI. Business of the Day

International Students Programming Board Expense Report (5:40) � Elise Gonzales

C. Slicklen said that Appendix B stipulates that the International Students Programming Board must present their budget to the assembly at the end of each academic year. He thanked the International Students Programming Board (ISPB) for attending the meeting and for preparing their budget.

A representative from ISPB passed around a copy of the budget that the organization had prepared.

A representative from ISPB gave an overview of the document passed around detailing how the organization spent its SAF allocation

A. McGovern said that $3000 is a lot to have left over at the end of the year.

R. Lavin echoed A. McGovern. Although rollover may have been a trend for the organization, he recommended looking into avoiding having a rollover in the future. Having a rollover is not the most productive thing in the long run.

A. Gay thanked ISPB for attending the meeting. He said that the issue of rollover and its management came up during Appropriations Committee meetings. He feels that issue will come up again during the next cycle. The issue is addressed in the notes prepared by the e-board and by the Appropriations Committee. Having rollover for multiple years is a serious issue that he expects will be more fully addressed during the next by-line funding cycle.

VII. Unfinished Business

Resolution 25 � Charter Review Resolution � Mazdak Asgary

M. Asgary reviewed the changes made to Chapter 4. For exact changes and rationales see May 1, 2008 Meeting, Attachments, SA Charter Review Document, https://assembly.cornell.edu/auth/SA/20080430Meeting. The changes primarily update terminology and streamline phrasing.

C. Slicklen said that it was 6:30 p.m. the scheduled end of the meeting. He asked if there was a motion to extend the time of the meeting.

A. Wang motioned to extend the time of the meeting until 6:45 p.m. There were multiple seconds. A. Gay dissented.

A. Gay said that out of deference to the assembly next year the Charter should be discussed thoroughly. Representatives have already left the meeting and there is no way that the assembly will get through the entire Charter tonight anyways. The Charter can be discussed next year when a full assembly is seated.

By a hand vote, the time of the meeting was extended.

A. Natarajan said that he wanted to add a clause to the section of the responsibilities of the Vice President of Public Relations. He would like to add Clause 14. To be interviewed by WVBR once every three weeks.

The motion was seconded. There were multiple dissents.

M. Asgary said that this was not an appropriate clause to add to the Charter. There is no way of determining how permanent such a responsibility would be.

A. Natarajan withdrew the motion.

V. Hartman, seeing no contentious issues, called to question on Chapter 4 of the S.A. Charter. There were multiple seconds. R. Lavin dissented.

R. Lavin said that he is on the speaker’s list and wanted to discuss one of the bylaws.

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

R. Lavin asked if every committee was responsible for having audio.

M. Asgary said that all committees are required to have minutes but not audio.

R. Lavin said that he said that he is referring to bylaw 4.2.b.1. which stipulates that the Executive Committee shall make meeting audio available within 24 hours of its meetings. He said that he is assuming that the M. Asgary wants to make the minutes from the Executive Committee meeting available sooner.

M. Asgary said that it may not always be possible to prepare minutes within a 24 hour period. The audio is easy to prepare and ensures that a recording of the meeting is available as soon as possible.

R. Lavin said that he personally feels that requiring the Executive Committee to post its meetings audio is a little too much. S.A. representatives are allowed to go to the Executive Committee meetings and should be encouraged to do so. Requiring audio to be posted may deter representatives from attending. The assembly must think of how to use its resources efficiently. Spending time uploading Executive Committee audio may not be the most appropriate use of time. Also it is important to think that there may not be a large audience for these recordings.

R. Lavin motioned to strike The Executive Committee shall also make available the audio of the meeting within 24 hours of the end of the meeting to any member of the Cornell community from Bylaw 4.2.1.b. A. Gay seconded the motion. A. Wang dissented.

A. Wang feels that the assembly and its committees should be as open and as honest as possible.

C. Slicklen opened up a speaker’s list on the amendment.

A. Gay said that he agrees with R. Lavin. He called to question on the amendment. R. Lavin seconded the motion. A. Wang dissented.

By a hand vote, the previous question was called.

By a hand vote of 12–5−2, the amendment passed. The statement was stricken from the active document.

V. Hartman said that he would like to replace the word committee with board everywhere that it is used. The change refers to calling the Executive Committee the Executive Board as opposed to the Executive Committee. He also does not feel that the Executive Board should exist as a committee and would like to strike the committee when the assembly begins discussion of the appropriate section of the Charter.

A. Wang seconded the motion. There were multiple dissents.

R. Lavin said that this amendment merits discussion of what the Executive Committee/Board does or should be. He does not feel that the assembly will be able to accomplish this in the next five minutes or even the next fifteen. This is an issue for the next year’s assembly to discussion.

C. Slicklen called to question on the amendment. There was a second. V. Hartman dissented.

By a hand vote, the previous question was called.

By a hand vote, the motion failed. The amendment was not made.

M. Asgary called to question on Chapter 4 of the S.A. Charter. There was a second. There was no dissent.

By a roll call vote of 17–1−0, Chapter 4 of the S.A. Charter was approved.

C. Slicklen announced that it was 6:45 p.m.

V. Hartman motioned to extend the time of the meeting until 7:00 p.m. A. Wang seconded the motion. A. Gay dissented.

A. Gay said the assembly should give the issues sufficient attention out of respect for next year’s assembly. It does not make sense to try to jam in issues in during the last fifteen minutes of the assembly.

By a hand vote, the motion to extend the meeting failed.

VIII. New Business

Resolution 23 � Resolution Regarding the Confirmation of SA Committee Members � Andrew Wang

Resolution 23 was not discussed.

Resolution 24 - SA Support of Academic Integrity at Cornell University � Rammy Salem

Resolution 24 was not discussed.

IX. Adjournment

C. Slicklen adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. He said that it has been a pleasure serving with everyone and wished all representatives the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Respectfully Submitted,
Liz Patrun