Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
October 16, 2008
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:45P.M.

II. Roll Call

Assembly Members Present: Vincent Andrews, Nathaniel Baker, Chris Basil, Andrew Brokman, Asa Craig, Emily Cusick, Luis De Lencquesaing, Emlyn Diakow, Lauren Engelmyer, Michael Heinz, Nikki Junewicz, Nikhil Kumar, Alex Latella, Ryan Lavin, Mike McDermott, Greg Mezey, Tony Miller, Scott Purdy, Natalie Raps, Rammy Salem, Octavio Sandoval, Eric Shannon, Becca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Yuan Yao

Liaisons Present: Nicholas Diaz, Sanjiv Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes — September 25, 2008

L. Patrun announced that the minutes from the October 2 Student Assembly meeting were posted to the assembly website as a draft. She apologized for not having finished them in time to be sent out with the agenda the previous evening, which would have allowed the document to be presented for approval.

R. Lavin reminded the assembly that the minutes from previous meetings and previously distributed resolutions will no longer be included in members’ hardcopy packets of meeting materials to conserve paper use.

R. Stein, point of information, asked if it would be possible to have a few extra copies of resolutions available for assembly members who are excused from meetings where resolutions are initially distributed.

R. Lavin said yes and that that would be taken care of.

V. Andrews thanked the clerks for preparing comprehensive minutes

There were no corrections to the September 25 meeting minutes.

C. Basil called for acclimation. G. Mezey seconded the motion. Seeing no dissent, the minutes from the September 25, 2008 meeting were approved unanimously.

IV. Open Microphone

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

No one came forward.

V. Announcements/Reports

Disability Accessibility on Campus Discussion — Vince Andrews, Katherine Fahey, Andrea Haenlin-Mott and Lynette Chappell-Williams

K. Fahey apologized on behalf of Lynette Chappell-Williams who was unable to attend the meeting. She said that L. Chappell-Williams, A. Haenlin-Mott and herself make up the ADA Coordinator Team for the university. She is the director of Student Disability Services, A. Haenlin-Mott is the ADA Coordinator for Facilities Services and L. Chappell-Williams is the Director of Workforce Diversity, Equity and Life Quality. All three of them deal with compliance with the American Disabilities Act for student and employee concerns. The coordinator team approach is one that it is unique to Cornell University. She believes that Cornell came up with this approach because the university wanted to take a more hands on role involving all of the different offices in how accessibility issues are addressed. In this way Student Disability Services, Workforce Diversity, Equity and Life Quality and Facilities Services can coordinate what is happening with students, facilities and employees. It is a great idea but the three of them, as the ADA Coordinator Team, realized that they were not enough. Therefore, a comprehensive university wide approach that will put more responsibility in the hands of everyone in the university in terms of addressing disability access and understanding the university policy is being developed. The ADA Coordinator Team has an Executive Disability Steering Committee who charges different areas of the university with compliance. The committee told the coordinator team that they wanted the team to work out a framework for disability access management university wide. So, they have been working on that framework for over a year. They are at the stage of stakeholder review and appreciate the opportunity to talk to the assembly about the plan. She said that A. Haenlin-Mott would discuss the steering committee and the business case for the plan in further detail.

A. Haenlin-Mott confirmed that all assembly members had a copy of the Cornell University Disability Accessibility PowerPoint presentation which had been distributed earlier in the meeting. She said that members of the Executive Disability Group include Stephen Golding, Mary George Opperman, Susan Murphy, Carolyn Ainslie, Kyu Whang, Michele Moody-Adams, Lynette Chappell-Williams, Edna Dugan, Katherine Fahey, Jim Gibbs, and herself. They are pleased with the level of commitment that these individuals have shown as well as the diversity of interests represented. One of the things the committee is trying to do is to build awareness of what a disability really is. The issues involved in disability accessibility are not just wheelchair accessibility and many Cornellians take advantage of the diverse array of disability services that Cornell provides. According to the National Organization on Disabilities, in 2007, there were an estimated 54 million people with disabilities in the U.S. This supports that there are a growing population of individuals with disabilities at Cornell. She briefly discussed the laws involved in providing disability services as well as Cornell’s compliance with such laws over the years. She elaborated on how the comprehensive strategic framework for disability access management is important pertaining to both compliance with the law and the avoidance of audits. The Department of Education has recently audited several Ivy League and peer institutions based on disability accessibility issues.

K. Fahey briefly discussed how the committee went about developing the Comprehensive Strategic Framework for Disability Access Management. The goals of the plan for the university include continuing efforts to incorporate disability issues in the university diversity initiatives, developing a plan to address disability access in six priority areas, establishing shared accountability and responsibility for addressing program and physical accessibility for individuals with disabilities, providing education opportunities about disability to improve understanding of disability issues and the university obligations in disability compliance and continuing the commitment to community relations with organizations that advocate for individuals with disabilities. The committee decided to develop the plan by addressing six different priority areas. The responsibility of developing each strategic plan will be placed with the department responsible for implementing that aspect of the overall plan. This will help the entire university to better understand compliance issues and how they are and should be addressed. She discussed the importance of addressing disability accessibility and the importance of developing disability awareness. The six priority areas include physical accessibility, educational programs and services, technology, communication, employment and emergency preparedness.

A. Haenlin-Mott, as the ADA Coordinator for Facilities Services discussed the first priority. Physical accessibility of the campus includes buildings, routes of travel, parking and access to programs offered off campus.

K. Fahey discussed the second priority. It is important to remember that the university has developed beyond providing offerings in a typical classroom setting and that these opportunities need to be made available to individuals with disabilities. Educational programs and services include course and workshops offered that do not result in a degree, such as Cornell’s Cooperative Extension, distance learning programs, and workshops/online programs offered for employees. This priority also involves making sure that the individuals responsible for planning convocation have the necessary resources available to them. She also discussed the third priority. Technology includes internet access, computer technology, electronic access and the provision of technical assistance.

A. Haenlin-Mott discussed the 4th, 5th and 5th priorities. Communication includes how materials are shared with individuals who have sensory, motor and cognitive disabilities. Prospective students and outside individuals judge Cornell based on their ability to access and use information from the university. Employment is a comprehensive priority that draws from the other categories. Emergency preparedness and evacuation of individuals with disabilities was the final priority discussed.

K. Fahey said that the committee is getting to the point where it is beginning to charge the plan. She said that any comments or suggestions are always welcome.

R. Stein said that it appears that SDS and the representatives present are doing an absolutely incredible job. She said that she would love to see the issue of parking on campus addressed. Unfortunately, she was a disabled student as defined by Cornell and New York State for about a month and found it extremely difficult to get around campus. CU Lift is a wonderful program but was not available for all the times that she had class, extracurriculars or other school programs. The service is also not always easy to get a hold of. Additionally, the handicap spots available on campus are exorbitantly expensive. Therefore, not all students find that the parking spots are truly accessible to them. She found that although she could drive, she was limited because she did not have a Cornell parking permit. She said that she would love to see something done about this, such as subsidizing parking spaces, because disabled students really do need to have access to parking spaces on campus.

K. Fahey thanked R. Stein for her comments. She said that she feels that an important part of the long term plan for a sustainable campus involves developing alternative transportation options. Cornell will never have enough parking but the problem could be somewhat alleviated with the development of other moving shuttle options that reach beyond bus routes.

R. Stein said that she was not even referring to the lack of parking although what she suggested sounds like a wonderful idea. The handicap spots on campus always seem to be empty. As a handicap student, she did not take advantage of these spots because of the price tag and believes that other students are in the same boat.

A. Haenlin-Mott, who is in a wheelchair, said that she would love to know where the spots that R. Stein is referring to are located since she drives to work each day and can never find a spot. She thanked R. Stein for her comment and said that the issue of pricing was noted.

R. Lavin thanked K. Fahey and A. Haenlin-Mott very much for coming to present at the meeting and V. Andrews for coordinating their presentation. He said that he noticed that the Executive Disability Group and the ADA Coordinator Team did not have designated spots for student representation. He said that he was curious as to whether or not the issue of student representation had ever come up in establishing either the group or team. Would it be beneficial to have a student on the team or is it not necessary?

K. Fahey said that a disability task force that fed into the executive committee previously existed. The task force had student representation from the Cornell Union for Disability Awareness (CUDA). Since then the system of groups and committees has changed organically in a way that has not been formally planned. As the committee organization solidifies it would be interesting to discuss establishing designated spots including one for a student.

A. Haenlin-Mott said that it could be very helpful to have student representation in terms of strategic planning and that she would love to see representation from students.

R. Lavin thanked K. Fahey and A. Haenlin-Mott. He said that he has been aware that there has been a lot of development regarding these issues. He knows that there is a lot of student attention regarding the issues as well. He opened up a speakers list.

In response to a question asked by V. Andrews, K. Fahey confirmed that there are a number of different avenues by which students can contact Student Disability Services (SDS) on Campus. The SDS website and other Cornell disability websites have contact information and feedback forms. Students can also contact herself, A. Haenlin-Mott and L. Chappell-Williams directly as their roles and contact info is easily accessible on the web. Anyone can email accessibility@cornell.edu for more information or to provide suggestions as well. These avenues of contact are highly utilized especially during commencement.

In response to a question asked by G. Mezey, K. Fahey confirmed that if an individual has a state issued handicap tag that individual still needs to obtain a Cornell parking permit to park in handicap spots on campus.

G. Mezey asked how much it would cost for a visitor to purchase a parking pass.

K. Fahey and A. Haenlin-Mott were not 100% sure.

N. Junewicz, who works for the Cornell Office that deals with this, said that it costs $6 dollar for a half-day pass and $10 for a full day pass.

G. Mezey said it was surprising to him that people are charged to park in the handicap spots.

A. Haenlin-Mott said that all visitors and non-handicap individuals must pay to park on campus. The idea is that handicap and non handicap individuals should be treated the same.

N. Junewicz said that handicapped individuals are not charged more than non-handicapped individuals. If you are a guest of admissions, it is free to park.

The question and answer period continued for approximately ten minutes.

R. Lavin, on behalf of the assembly, thanked K. Fahey and A. Haenlin-Mott for attending the meeting.

Ivy Council Report — Alex Latella

A. Latella said that the Ivy Council delegates met this past weekend for the Ivy Council Policy Colloquium at Columbia University. The format of the discussion was somewhat different than that of previous colloquiums. Delegates from schools committed to one of five policy topics and then engaged in discussion about the selected topic. Drafting sessions to condense ideas and suggest plans to bring back to the universities occurred following the initial discussions. The five policy topics discussed include environmental sustainability, revising the drinking age, administrative transparency and accountability, school spirit and school social function and intellectual property and the free exchange of information.

S. Dong, VP 2011, VP for Finance for the Ivy Council, summarized the discussion that occurred at the colloquium pertaining to intellectual property and the free exchange of information. The two main issues discussed were copyright and ownership of student papers and plagiarism.

C. Guo, 2009, VP for Internal Affairs for the Ivy Council, summarized the discussion about school spirit and school social function. Overall, Cornell is very much on the higher end of involvement when compared to its peer institutions. He discussed some of the programs occurring at the other Ivy League institutions. In terms of Ivy Council, Cornell has had a very strong presence and consistently strong delegations. He discussed some of the other schools participation and the efforts of the council as a whole to increase involvement. The next big event will be the Ivy Leadership Summit in February. He hopes to see assembly members there.

C. Basil confirmed that the Leadership Summit will be taking place at Brown.

Y. Yao summarized the discussion that took place regarding revising the drinking age. The discussion that took place and the issues discussed were similar to the panel discussion that occurred at the previous assembly meeting.

R. Lavin said that for the sake of time the assembly should move on. He clarified that A. Latella would be sending out detailed information regarding this weekend’s colloquium over the assembly listserv.

A. Latella said that Ivy Council will be starting a newsletter and that he would be happy to send it out to assembly members when it becomes available. He asked R. Lavin to summarize the discussion that took place regarding administrative transparency and accountability.

R. Lavin said that he moderated the session on administrative transparency and accountability. Basically, Cornell came out on top in that the students have a strong relationship with the administration. He also feels that the assembly is lucky in that the administration highly values student governance and the assembly system. Also, Cornell is the only Ivy League school that has student elected trustees. Further information is included in the report he prepared to be distributed shortly.

A. Latella briefly summarized the discussion that occurred regarding environmental sustainability. There was some discussion regarding a recycling rewards program.

R. Lavin thanked the delegates for presenting. He asked if there were any questions before the assembly moved on.

There were none.

Zimride Update — Tony Miller

T. Miller said that he and R. Lavin participated in a conference call with J. Zimmer, the founder of Zimride, on Monday, October 13th. Basically, Cornell transportation has a system for ride sharing but it is mostly utilized by employees. Students can’t stand it and employees aren’t that fond of it. Zimride will be a much better system for Cornell. Penn and Dartmouth both utilize the system. There is a nine thousand dollar start up cost. Perhaps the cost could be lowered by engaging in a one semester trial period. Since it is a student initiative, students need to really press forward and start discussions with the Environmental Committee and VP Murphy. He thinks that it is a great idea. It will be further discussed during an upcoming Environmental Committee meeting.

C. Basil said that he mentioned the Zimride program while doing assembly updates at the U.A. meeting the previous evening. He said that it is important to remember that the S.A. can work with the other assemblies to get some leverage in talking to the administration in pursuing the Zimride program.

In response to a question asked by G. Mezey, R. Lavin said that the exact cost for a single semester as opposed to the year was not known. A discussion with J. Zimmer would need to take place.

R. Lavin asked Dean Hubbell if such a system as Zimride has come up in the past or if any substantial discussion concerning Cornell’s current ride share program has ever taken place.

Dean Hubbell said that he really has no recollection of such a discussion occurring. It could be time for the university to look at something like Zimride. He said that the university is in a tight financial position right now as a result of the current economic crisis. As a result the assembly may want to look beyond the administration in attempting to find funding for the program.

R. Lavin said that the assembly would work with Dean Hubbell and VP Murphy without a doubt regarding the program as their advice is valuable. At this point, the assembly is looking to implement the program and those members interested in pursuing that end should contact either E. Diakow or T. Miller.

In response to a question asked by V. Andrews, R. Lavin said that assembly members could think of Zimride as a Wikipedia for car and ride sharing. Students would log in to the system, using their university log in ids. The university would essentially be contracting with Zimride to provide the entire system.

T. Miller gave a more detailed overview of the logistics of the system.

R. Lavin said that a Facebook group similar to the system currently exists that is somewhat similar to the proposed program.

Academic Integrity Update — Chris Basil

C. Basil said that he presented to the U.A. yesterday about what has been going on with academic integrity. In the upcoming weeks he, K. Duch, S. Tata and one of the deans, will be meeting with the heads of the Academic in Integrity hearing boards of each of the college to decide how amendable they are to making changes. After meeting with these boards, he and other involved will have a much better idea of how to proceed. People interested in the issue should contact him.

T. Miller said that he knew that C. Basil had discussed getting a listserv going pertaining to the issue. He asked if C. Basil had created the listserv yet.

C. Basil said that he had not. The Office of the Assemblies is currently working on doing so. In the mean time, just contact him for information. There will be a listserv shortly.

Scheduling Update — Chris Basil

C. Basil said that assembly members should let him know more than a day in advance if they schedule individuals to present at assembly meetings as the individuals from disability services and Ivy Council did earlier in the meeting. This way he will schedule groups at specific times so that they do not have to wait to speak.

UA Update — Asa Craig and Rebecca Stein

A. Craig said that the U.A. had a productive meeting yesterday and that U.A. members are working on developing a plan for where to take the group as an assembly body. The U.A. is working on a Charter Review and the way that the assembly works with its committees to make sure that there is oversight and that a lot of action is going on. Also discussed were strategies for the Academic Integrity Drafting Committee, the Cornell Review and the corresponding S.A. resolution. The U.A. is working to draft a statement of its own in response to the article published in the review.

R. Stein said that there was also some discussion regarding an initiative by graduate students to try to train T.A.’s better across the university. These students will be working with all the colleges to perhaps establish some sort of certificate program. She believes that this initiative will be highly beneficial to all undergraduates.

R. Lavin confirmed that the GPSA had yet to appoint a liaison to the S.A. T. Miller said that the assembly had contacted the GPSA who is looking into doing so.

Dining Committee and Trustee Council Update — Greg Mezey

G. Mezey said that Gail Finan and LeNorman Strong invited him to help make a presentation to the Trustee Council on Student Academic Services. Cornell Dining and the progress that the dining program has made over the past ten years were discussed. He spoke specifically about the relationship of the assembly, through the Dining Committee, with dining itself. The relationship has been very positive and there was much positive feedback. The next Dining Committee meeting will be Friday, October 17 at 3:00P.M. in Hughes Dining. The meeting is open to anyone who is interested.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions.

There were none.

R. 6 and Code of Conduct Update — R. Salem

R. Salem said a committee was formed as stipulated in the resolution. The committee will be meeting on Monday, October 20th. He encouraged anyone interested in the issue to participate in the meeting. The committee will next meet on October 23 in case assembly members are unable to attend the first one.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions.

There were none.

CIT Update — A. Craig

M. Heinz said that Polley McClure, Office of the Vice President for Information Technology, will be joining the issue to discuss two issues. Firstly, she wants our thoughts on using e-textbooks for classes in the future. Secondly, and perhaps more controversial, she will be discussing pre-settlement letters with regards to copyright infringement and the DMCA.

Student Assembly Finances Discussion — Luis De Lencquesaing

L. De Lencquesaing said that he wanted to have a discussion with the board regarding assembly finances. He said that he was told to have the conversation off the record but feels that it would be better to have before the entire assembly.

R. Lavin said that before L. De Lencquesaing continues he wanted to clarify that no assembly meetings or discussions are ever closed doors.

L. De Lencquesaing said that he would like to discuss what the Communications and Finance Committees have been doing. He became concerned after reviewing the assembly budget while preparing the newsletter proposal. Communications has a budget of $5000 and spent $500 for a half page advertisement in the Daily Sun to publicize the alcohol panel. He knows of organizations that use money allocated for advertising more effectively that the assembly currently is. Therefore he would like to have a brief discussions regarding assembly advertising strategy.

R. Lavin said that he is not sure that this is the appropriate time to be having this discussion because it is not an announcement or a report. He said that he wanted to make it clear that the Executive Board does not set the budget. The entire assembly sets the budget. Anyone can motion to change the budget in any way. Anyone wishing to do so should go through the Appropriations Committee and G. Mezey who will then propose the change to the assembly. He said that he does not think that L. De Lencquesaing in the sense that many may feel that the assembly should decrease the section of the budget that he raised.

L. De Lencquesaing said that it is important for assembly members to be aware of assembly expenses.

R. Lavin asked L. De Lencquesaing if what he was saying was that he wanted an assembly expense report each week.

L. De Lencquesaing said that he did not necessarily want a report each week. Again, he was surprised to learn that the assembly had spent so much money on an ad and would like to see more transparency.

R. Lavin said that he will open up a speakers list for a few comments but said that this really is not the appropriate time to be having the discussion. If assembly members want to request something regarding the budget, which is entirely acceptable, they should go through the Appropriations Committee. He said that he would not tolerate expense reports every week. Doing so would waste the assembly’s legislative time. L. De Lencquesaing can request the information he is inquiring about. He believes that G. Mezey would be very accommodating of any assembly members’ request. He once again emphasized that there are no closed door meetings. Executive Board meetings are open and everyone is welcome to attend. He apologized if this was wrongly communicated to L. De Lencquesaing. He asked if there were any questions.

B. Smith said that sending out committee reports over e-mail each week to all assembly members might help alleviate the concern that L. De Lencquesaing just mentioned.

R. Lavin said that all committees should be reporting to the assembly after each meeting. In regards to financials that could be a good idea. Again, it is something that should be discussed at Appropriations so that that committee can formally propose the idea to the assembly.

G. Mezey clarified that the budget passed by the assembly is a working budget. He will be having an Appropriations Committee meeting on Monday, October 20 where the committee will be going over a more in depth budget to approve and then present at next week’s assembly meeting. That is something that is in the works. Another thing is that it costs the assembly around $300 not $500 to run a half page ad in the Sun. The assembly can’t make people attend their meetings. What they can to is publicize events and make sure that people are aware that events are occurring. Advertisements alone build good will among the community and help to demonstrate what the assembly is accomplishing. The effectiveness of a print ad cannot be measured by the number of people that attend an assembly meeting. However, he does believe that the assembly should watch its spending. He said that he believes that a number of people on the board could attest to his inquires about print adds. He has asked the questions that L. De Lencquesaing has raised and understands his concern. The assembly should be being fiscally responsible. There will be more line item details in the future. The budget that the assembly passed is a living one and the assembly is doing more than past assemblies in clarifying the budget. He hopes that Resolution 10 will help show the continued efforts into doing budgets and making sure that they are submitted on time.

N. Junewicz said that she appreciates that L. De Lencquesaing brought the issue up. The half page ad publicizing the Amethyst Initiative Panel was expensive. She said that she wanted to explain the rationale for running it. Unfortunately by the time the panel was finalized, the assembly had only about a day and a half to get the word out. The Communications Committee therefore felt that an ad would a good choice to get the word out. They did the best they could in the time given. But, she does agree with L. De Lencquesaing. In the future, she is more than open to suggestions. G. Mezey is doing a great job of watching the committee’s expenses. Advertising has paid off in other respects in that the assembly had a really great election. She said that she does not think that the money that the Communications Committee has used has gone to waste at all. Unfortunately, the ad for the panel was expensive. But she does appreciate L. De Lenquesaing’s feedback and would be more than willing to meet with him.

R. Lavin thanked L. De Lencquesaing for bringing the issue up and encouraged him to pursue it through the Appropriations Committee. He said that it is very hard to compare what the assembly does with what a programming organization does. The two types of organizations have very different dynamics. The assembly should however bring up the issue.

V. Andrews said that it would be great to have committee meeting minutes or summaries available. Such summaries would allow all members to be aware of what the assembly is accomplishing as well as to encourage committees to get things done.

T. Miller said that he has asked every committee chair to take minutes. The minutes are then posted to the assembly website. These minutes are easily accessible.

R. Lavin, to reiterate, said that committee chairs are expected to prepare minutes.

Y. Yuan said that the freshman representatives hold Freshman Coffee Hours on the weekends to actively engage freshmen in discussions about campus life and the assembly.

R. Lavin said that that was excellent. He asked if there were any further questions.

There were none.

R. Lavin asked if there were any further announcements or reports.

V. Andrews motioned to move Resolution 11 to Business of the Day. There were multiple seconds. T. Miller dissented.

T. Miller said that he thinks the resolution proposes a great idea. However, the resolution was distributed at the meeting and he just got the chance to read it. The assembly also only has ten minutes left in the meeting. He thinks that it would be more respectful to allow for more than ten minutes of discussion

In response to R. Lavin, V. Andrews said that he did not want to withdraw his motion.

R. Lavin moved Resolution 11 to Business of the Day using his discretion as Chair.

N. Kumar said that he had a quick announcement. The Residential Life Committee has begun to meet and he will be giving a more detailed report at the upcoming S.A. meeting. If anyone has any concerns regarding Residential Life he asked that they contact him.

G. Mezey announced that SAFC appeals will begin next Thursday. He encouraged representatives to go online and familiarize themselves with the SAFC funding guidelines.

VI. Unfinished Business

R.10 Addition to the Responsibilities of the Vice President of Finance — Greg Mezey

G. Mezey read the final clause of the resolution which reads “Be it therefore resolved, that, the following be added to the student assembly charter in Article 4 Bylaw 4.2.c.4 under the responsibilities of the Vice President of Finance, 10. Submit a budget to the Student Assembly for approval within one month (30 days) of the start of the fall semester and also submit a midterm financial report to the assembly within 2 weeks (14 days) of the start of the spring semester.” He explained his rationale for selecting the 30 and 14 day timelines.

R. Salem called for acclimation. There were multiple seconds.

R. Lavin said that assembly members could not call for acclimation since the change is a charter change.

T. Miller called to question. There were multiple seconds.

By a roll call vote of 18–0−0, Resolution 10 passed unanimously.

VII. New Business

R. 11 SA Monthly Bulletin — Vincent Andrews and Nikki Junewicz

V. Andrews said that the resolution proposes that the Communications Committee publish an S.A. Monthly Bulletin detailing the activities of the assembly. The resolution embodies an idea rather than a concrete proposal.

N. Junewicz emphasized that details can be further determined after the trial run. A hardcopy bulletin is a great way to update people who are not on the assembly listserv and represents a visible kind of physical evidence regarding what the assembly is accomplishing.

V. Andrews asked if there were any questions.

O. Sandoval said that the likes the idea. He said that a lot of people keep asking him what the assembly does and the bulletin would help generate such awareness. He asked if there was a particular reason that the resolution stipulated that the bulletin be published no later than the 15th or every month.

V. Andrews said he selected the 15th because then the assembly will have had two meetings that month to accomplish things. He is amenable to change.

C. Basil said that it is important to remember that the resolution is in part suggesting a trial run.

V. Andrews said that this resolution is a very preliminary document and is just giving the Communications Committee a go ahead.

E. Cusick asked if either of the sponsors had discussed distributing the bulletin as a leaflet in the Daily Sun.

N. Junewicz said that for the first run they were thinking that they would distribute the bulletin independently.

G. Mezey said that the Sun does take inserts and charge by the thousands. If inserts are distributed monthly, the Sun charges about $115 dollars per month per thousand. If you want a frequency discount, you must commit to a semester. A maximum of 5000 inserts can be accepted. He asked if the sponsors had contacted the Office of the Assemblies as to whether or not they could handle this type of printing. Through the office it costs 2 cents per side to copy.

V. Andrews said that he has not talked to the assembly about printing the bulletin yet. If the assembly endorses the idea, through the passage of the resolution he will look into all avenues of printing that have been discussed. Distributing some bulletins through the Sun may a good way to generate broader interest in the bulletin which would be available through other outlets as well.

N. Junewicz said that the bulletin could be included in the Sun if they have a really big month. The committee would definitely take steps to spend money on distributing the bulletin wisely.

G. Mezey suggested that the sponsors of the resolution come up with a clearer plan so that the assembly has a little more information to go off of.

A. Latella said that he likes the idea of putting larger more important bulletins in the Sun. He asked if the sponsors had considered the type of paper that they would use.

V. Andrews said that they have not looked into the paper issue. They are proposing a trial run with more details to be determined in the future. These issues can be tackled once the ball gets rolling. The resolution being discussed does not restrict any details. If any representative is dissatisfied with the results of the first issue the process for preparing and presenting the bulletin can be changed.

R. Lavin announced that the time was 6:31 P.M. and that the meeting was officially over.

R. Salem motioned to extend the time of the meeting by seven minutes. G. Mezey seconded the motion. T. Miller dissented.

T. Miller said that multiple representatives have preliminary examinations that evening. Since the resolution is a worthwhile endeavor it should be appropriately discussed without timing constraints. Additionally, some details need to be further hashed out by the sponsors.

By a hand vote of 14–4−0, the motion passed. The meeting was extended by seven minutes.

T. Miller said that the bulletin is a great idea but that many people have brought up details that need to be worked out. Also, this may turn out to be a long lasting permanent change. Therefore, the sponsors may want to consider a Charter change. He motioned to table the resolution indefinitely.

C. Basil dissented. He said that he had advised V. Andrews to bring forward a resolution proposing a trial run. He does not think anything should be added to the Charter until the after the assembly can evaluate the bulletin. The resolution is exactly the type of thing that the assembly should be voting on. He does not think that the resolution should be tabled.

R. Lavin said assembly members have been discussing a trial run. He asked if reference to a trial run was actually included in the wording of the resolution.

V. Andrews said that the resolution does not explicitly reference a trail run. He emphasized that the resolution imposes no restrictions on the logistics of the bulletin. All the resolution is doing is giving the Communications Committee the okay to print out a bulletin and distribute it. He believes that it would be detrimental to postpone the preparation of the bulletin further.

R. Lavin said that he wanted to move on with the speakers list and was therefore choosing to ignore T. Miller’s motion. He said that there is nothing stopping the Communications Committee from proceeding with the bulletin. The committee just needs to submit a budget to G. Mezey. Since the resolution is something more formal, the committee may just want to go ahead with the trial run and then propose a more finalized resolution based on the trial run.

B. Smith said that she thinks that the resolution is a great idea. She asked what the focus of the bulletin would be. Would it cover other assemblies or just the S.A.? If covering the S.A., would it include the SAFC?

N. Junewicz said that at this point the sponsors were envisioning a S.A. bulletin only. They want to keep it short to save paper money and paper. She thinks that there would be two main aspects. The first being upcoming news and events and the second being resolutions and accomplishments. It’s really open.

L. De Lencquesaing said that it appears that all the kinks assembly members have raised are not really kinks. The bulletin will be easily changed and improved if assembly members feel that it needs to be. He thinks that assembly should vote on the resolution since they all seem to support it. The committee will work on figuring out the details.

L. De Lencquesaing motioned to call to question. There were multiple seconds. G. Mezey dissented.

G. Mezey said that the committee has about $1100 in their promotional budget. He therefore encouraged the sponsors to remove the resolution form the table, conduct a trial run and come back to the assembly with a more formalized version of the resolution. He supports what they are doing and is willing to work with the committee to create a budget for the bulletin.

The sponsors withdrew the resolution from the table.

VIII. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. There were multiple seconds. Seeing no dissent, the meeting was adjourned at 6:39P.M.

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun