Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
November 13, 2008
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

R. Lavin called the meeting to order at 4:46 P.M.

II. Roll Call

Assembly Members Present: Vincent Andrews, Nathniel 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, Eric Shannon, Becca Smith, Rebecca Stein

Assembly Members Excused: Rammy Salem, Octavio Sandoval, Yuan Yao

Liaisons Present: Erica Gutierrez, Sanjiv Tata

R. Lavin announced that a GPSA liaison was in attendance at the meeting. He asked E. Gutierrez to introduce herself to the assembly.

E. Gutierrez introduced herself to the assembly. She said that the meeting was the first one that she has attended. She is a Master’s student in regional planning.

III. Open Microphone

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

A freshman student said that he met with a representative from CIT to discuss some concerns he had about computing at Cornell. He raised and elaborated on four issues which included the limitation on internet access at 10GB per month, lack of transparency pertaining to the allocation of money at the operating budget level, the origination and operation of the PeopleSoft system and DC++. He also discussed how CIT responded to his concerns.

R. Lavin confirmed and noted the four issues that the student had just raised. The first issue is one that can definitely be addressed by the S.A. CIT Committee.

M. Heinz said that the S.A. CIT Committee is one that that works with CIT and helps to voice student opinions on computing issues. He said that he has heard a lot of concern expressed regarding the internet use limitation and that the committee will be looking into the issue.

R. Lavin said that it would be beneficial to review and that there are however likely to be legitimate reasons for the restriction. The issue should none the less be brought up and questioned. He said that the audience member who was speaking was more than welcome to serve on the S.A. CIT Committee. He said that he did not believe that the university was in an experimentation phase with the PeopleSoft system. It was his understanding that the university was rather in a transition phase. He cannot speak to the rumors that are circulating.

R. Stein said that the university assembly will actually be evaluating the success and functionality of the PeopleSoft system in the near future. This assembly would perhaps be the better contact for the PeopleSoft issue. She suggested that A. Craig get in touch with the audience member so that he can be invited to the U.A. meeting at which the system will be discussed.

The audience member clarified why he was concerned with the PeopleSoft system. The issue is also about communication with the study body.

R. Lavin said that he knows that conversations regarding how to better incorporate student opinion into the approval of the operating budget have taken place.

V. Andrews said that there is a lot of conversation pertaining to finances occurring at the university right now. He recommended contacting K. Duch, one of the Student Trustees. She may be able to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees that students be more involved in the process. He will follow up with the audience member presenting.

R. Lavin said that with regards to DC++, he believes that the university is choosing not to know about it because that may be in the best interest of students. Polly McClure attending the assembly meeting last week to discuss illegal file sharing. The minutes from that meeting are available. He encouraged the audience member to attend the CIT Committee meetings as all the issues he raised are ones that are discussed by that committee.

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

No one came forward.

IV. Announcements/Reports

Elections Committee Update — Mike McDermott

M. McDermott said that the elections committee has met twice so far to discuss the Spring Elections rules. Overall the committee would like to have some flexibility with the rules so as to allow for creativity in campaigning. The flexibility would relate to some of the strict rules and deadlines that regulate turning in elections materials. Many assembly members have expressed concern over these stipulations. At their second meeting the committee discussed Resolution 12 and the direct election of the President and Executive Vice President. Issues discussed include calendar and profit issues, finance limits, and stipulations on who could or could not run for the positions. On Saturday, November 15 the committee will begin to draft the spring election rules. He thanked anyone that had emailed him comments or attended either of the meetings. Their input really helped structure where committee members went with their discussion. He reminded assembly members that the rules must be passed by the end of the semester. The election packets are made by the Office of the Assemblies over winter break. All rules, calendars, and decisions regarding the spring elections have to be made by the assembly’s last meeting. He also had another reminder coming from A. Epstein, Office of the Assemblies. Despite the success of A. Epstein’s wonderful elections program, it is not finalized. There is no guarantee that this elections program will stay in place long term or that the cost-saving measures will remain. There is a chance that the assembly will have to pay for an external elections system. Please keep this is mind as discussion regarding elections continues. He asked if there were any questions or comments.

A. Craig asked if the committee has finalizing anything yet.

M. McDermott said that the committee spent a few hours discussing the elections. Without going into too much detail, there are two possible options that the committee is considering for direct elections. One option is to incorporate direct elections into S.A. elections. The other is to have an election for assembly members and then a second election for the President and Executive Vice President. With that, there are many concerns regarding having two elections focused mainly on the idea of the trustee nominating committee. There is a question of whether it would be a good idea to have another election in the spring and whether or not the direct election of the President and Executive Vice President could be paired with the trustee election.

R. Lavin said that the assembly would move on to the Slope Day Statistics presentation since representatives from Slope Day were scheduled to present at 5:00 P.M. Further announcements and reports would follow Business of the Day.

V. Business of the Day

Slope Day 2008 Statistics Presentation — Mandy Hjellming, Tyler Coatney, and Liz Rapoport

M. Hjellming, 09, introduced herself as the current Chair of the Slope Day Programming Board.

L. Rapoport introduced herself and said that she was the Chair of the Slope Day Programming Board last semester.

T. Coatney introduced himself as the current Vice Chair of the Slope Day Programming Board.

L. Rapoport said that last year there were issues pertaining to an equitable division of costs between undergraduates and graduates based on attendance numbers. The gathering of the statistics that the Slope Day Programming Board would be presenting was largely initiated because of this struggle. Hopefully the statistics can be used to determine an equitable division of costs based on attendance numbers in the future.

M. Hjellming said that 1,348 guest tickets were sold and that 300 alumni tickets were sold. There were a total of 11,546 scans of Cornell ids. That number includes reentry. There were 10, 701 unique scans. Approximately 65.5% of the total was undergraduates. Approximately 13% were graduate and professional students. There is about 15–20% error on the data. The error reflects students whose ids did not scan or who were just let through. The numbers therefore likely represent an underestimate.

The three Slope Day Programming Board representatives presented tables and charts that indicated total attendance by id/ticket type, attendance by class year, attendance by school, unique scans by class year, attendance by gender, attendance numbers for fifteen minute time intervals, and attendance by gate.

L. Rapoport said that they consider 65.5% percent attendance for undergraduates low. The low number may reflect the poor weather and reporting error. She also presented alcohol consumption statistics. She said that the Office of the Dean of Students paid for all expenses pertaining to the collection of these statistics. Currently Slope Day, Concert Commission and ISPB own 12 scanners required to scan ids. Slope Day rented an additional 26 scanners for the beer tent and other gates. It costs approximately $9000 to rent all the scanners. Each scanner is composed of two separate components both of which are required for the scanners to function. Some of the scanners owned by Cornell groups did not have both components and therefore had to be purchased. There was also approximately $5000 spent on the development of software to process the information. This is a onetime cost.

R. Lavin asked if any of the Slope Day Programming Board representatives knew how much it would cost to purchase a scanner.

L. Rapoport said that it would cost approximately $1500 to purchase a single scanner.

In response to a question asked by A. Craig, M. Hjellming said that the alcohol consumption statistics are collected through a random survey issued by Gannett each year.

L. Rapoport said that approximately 1900 students responded to the survey.

In response to a question asked by V. Andrews, T. Coatney said that every attendance number is a minimum. It is reasonable to assume that attendance numbers for undergraduates and graduates would be underestimated by the same percentage.

M. Hjellming said that the percentage error was estimated by University Tickets based on their experience with the scanners.

M. McDermott pointed out that the Slope Day Programming Board representatives mentioned that they hold aside 3000 tickets for non-Cornell id guests. The only category for non-Cornell id guests that sold out was alumni tickets for which only 300 tickets were allocated. Since none of the other categories sold out, he asked what the rationale was behind the 300 ticket cap on alumni.

M. Hjellming said that the 300 ticket cap was an arbitrary number that had never sold out before. The number will be much higher this year and shouldn’t be a problem.

L. Rapoport said that alumni tickets had never sold out before. She thinks that alumni previously used their ids to be admitted like any other current student. However, this year, since scanners were used at the gates, alumni could no longer get in without purchasing a ticket. The 300 cap will be adjusted to accommodate alumni.

M. McDermott said that then the scanners had a second effect of deterring alumni from sneaking in.

R. Lavin said that before the assembly moves on he would like to clarify why the Slope Day Programming Board was asked to collect the statistics. Last year the S.A. set their by-line funding allocation for Slope Day at $15 per student. Shortly thereafter, the GPSA set their by-line funding allocation for Slope Day at $1.50 per graduate and professional student. The discussion that pursued was based around the fairness in the funding difference between the S.A. and the GPSA. Taking into account the current statistics, the GPSA would need to increase its per student allocation.

E. Gutierrez said that she was new to the GPSA and could not comment on that assembly’s current stance on the issue when asked by R. Lavin.

R. Lavin said that regardless, it is great that the assemblies now have these statistics available as a resource. He confirmed that the representatives from the Slope Day Programming Board would be making the same presentation to the GPSA as well.

T. Miller said that he is curious about the long run implications of the statistics. What does the board think about the possibility of gathering statistics over a certain number of years to generate a broader picture of Slope Day attendance? Is there any value in buying the scanning equipment?

M. Hjellming said that although there are fluctuations in the weather the general trends, including proportions, are generally stable over time.

L. Rapoport said that she does not see scanning equipment and data collection as something that the Slope Day Steering Committee would like to invest in for the long term. She envisions that the board will spend funding increases on programming. It is something that the board along with other related committees is considering doing every few years.

R. Lavin said that this is obviously information that is beneficial to have. It is difficult to mandate that it be gathered when the determination of what department or organization would be charged is up in the air. The university is going through a very frugal time. He said that he does not know if there is a way that the assembly could just pay for it. It is a discussion that needs to be had.

M. Hjellming, to provide some background, said that last year was the first year that the Slope Day Programming Board requested by-line funding from the GPSA. They requested a dollar amount per graduate and professional student based on percentage attendance collected through a more informal survey.

R. Lavin, on behalf of the assembly, thanked the representatives from Slope Day for coming to the meeting and presenting.

VI. Announcements/Reports Continued

CIT Committee Update — Mike Heinz

M. Heinz said that the CIT Committee met on Tuesday, November 11th. The committee discussed the potential to gather statistics and information pertaining to student responses to settlement letters forwarded by the university from the entertainment industry, an issue that Polly McClure raised last week. There is no information currently available because the university does not follow up with students after forwarding them settlement letters. The committee discussed the possibility of requesting that the university forward requests for statistical data to students to whom settlement letters have been forwarded. The letter would ask students to please share information if they feel comfortable doing so. The committee also talked about trying to gather statistics from universities besides Cornell and the RIAA itself. With regards to the RIAA, there was recognition that data may be biased to favor the entertainment industry. The idea is to gain as much factual information as possible to illuminate the process without offering legal advice. He asked anyone with suggestions to please speak with him.

R. Lavin said that he thinks what M. Heinz discussed sounds excellent and was what the assembly was hoping that the CIT Committee would look into after the previous week’s discussion with Polly McClure.

E. Diakow said that her sister was required to pay a fine as a result of sharing her files at Cornell when students were allowed to use a file sharing network. She asked if there was any way that Cornell could incorporate a legal file sharing system.

M. Heinz said that even if you pay to obtain copyrighted material it is still illegal to share that material without permission. He said that he is not aware of a way to have a mass file sharing system that allows for legal file sharing.

C. Basil provided a suggestion for as to how the committee could go about contacting the RIAA which M. Heinz found amenable.

N. Kumar commented on the pre-enroll process saying that he was pleasantly surprised with how it went. He asked if the CIT Committee discussed or had any knowledge of the administration’s current relationship with PeopleSoft.

M. Heinz said that the committee has not spent much time discussing PeopleSoft. The committee can certainly however keep tabs on the issues. He said that he is not certain that there is anything specific that the committee could be working towards accomplishing with regards to PeopleSoft.

R. Lavin said that he received a report from David Yeh after a number of assembly members had met with Susan Murphy. Pre-enrollment has thus far been very smooth.

R. Stein said that she had to disagree strongly. She had bad experiences pre-enrolling. Also, pre-enroll will not be nearly as bad as add/drop. If the system is crashing now even only for some people, she can only imagine what it will do in the Spring.

R. Lavin told M. Heinz that it may be a good idea to keep tabs with the issues since the reports he has received may not be representative of all students’ experiences.

A. Craig said that he thought that the three step process for enrolling in classes could be potentially confusing because it enables students to select classes without actually officially enrolling in them. It is important that students be aware of this. The issue should perhaps be brought up as discussion continues.

E. Diakow agreed with A. Craig and said that she also found it problematic that PeopleSoft does not allow students to enroll in classes whose times overlap. Students may want to enroll in overlapping classes and decide which one they would like to take later on.

A. Craig said that he works in the Dean’s Office and that many students raised this question. PeopleSoft purposely does not allow students to enroll in overlapping classes, or to enroll in too many credits, so that students who want to take those classes are not excluded by someone only considering the classes.

Deciding Neutrality Reminder — Emlyn Diakow

E. Diakow said that thus far six assembly members emailed her that they could not attend the event. If members did not email her, then they are attending.

E. Diakow said that the Student Climate Action Plan Committee is putting on a Student Leaders Charette for Neutrality on Saturday, November 15 from 11:00–1:30 in the Flora Rose Dining Hall. There will be brunch and snacks as the 50–100 student leaders discuss how to work towards neutrality in the themes of life, work, and play. All assembly members are invited and really expected to be there as elected student leaders.

There were no questions.

IvyLIFE Announcement — Alex Latella

A. Latella said that Ivy Council is currently working on a project called IvyLIFE which is supposed to create an inter-Ivy one-stop-shop guide in regards to the admissions process for high school students. This admissions guide will include at least 10 sample admissions essays from Cornell students as well as 70 from the other institutions, followed by analysis detailing why each essay was effective in the application process. If there are any admissions essays that assembly members may still have on their computer that they are particularly proud of, he would appreciate if you could forward them to him. Ivy Council will be voting on the best 10 essays from each school to include in this book. If published, assembly members’ names will only appear as contributors; essay authors will not be specifically identified. He asked that assembly members contact him with questions or concerns.

C. Basil asked if the project was being advertised to the school at large.

A. Latella said that there was really no intention of creating a campus wide marketing campaign but that the opportunity is being advertised to various groups.

C. Basil suggested creating a Facebook group.

A. Latella said that he could definitely create something on Facebook and welcomes any suggestions.

N. Junewicz said that she could be helpful in advancing any type of advertising or Facebook campaign.

A. Latella said that he definitely would be in touch with N. Junewicz. He is also working with the Knight Writing Institute which will be helping to solicit papers.

Res-Life Committee Update — Nikhil Kumar

N. Kumar said that the Residential Life Committee met with administrator Brown to discuss improving communication pertaining to the housing lottery and housing procedures. They particularly discussed how the lottery will work for students living off campus. Committee members are in the process of giving her feedback. Another issue she brought up was a new policy implemented last year that stipulates that all students living off campus but wishing to participate in the lottery be given least priority. If anyone has any input please email him. He also said that the representatives from the consulting firm through the Master Planning Committee want to hear the assembly’s input on the master plan for housing and dining programs. The firm will be coming to the November 20th S.A. meeting to present.

R. Lavin said that he understands the new policy that the administration implemented regarding placing students who live off campus at the end of the line for housing selection because it gives a competitive advantage to students who choose to live on campus. Perhaps the policy is something that the assembly wants to question or even fight if it is not in the best interest of students.

In response to a question asked, N. Kumar said that priority in the housing lottery is given in the following order: sophomores, juniors, seniors, students previously living off campus. Again, any feedback regarding the policy or communication of policy is welcomed.

R. Lavin asked if there were any further questions or comments.

There were none.

S.A. Listserv Access Report — Nikki Junewicz

N. Junewicz said that a number of assembly members had asked her about what the process would be if they wished to email the entire student body. She said that she therefore emailed David Yeh to determine what the process is like. There is a two part approval process. First, the content must be approved by Susan Murphy. The email cannot be related to marketing, sales or solicitation. The second factor is timing which includes the time of the week and the time of year. It is preferred that emails be sent out towards the end of the week. Also, no emails can be sent during critical periods which are typically exam weeks. Also, 7 to 10 days are required for processing but it usually takes longer. This is the information that she was given. If the assembly wants her to pursue it further, she would be more than happy to do so. She asked if there were any questions.

M. McDermott said that the information David Yeh conveyed to him in a meeting earlier in the semester was slightly different than the information he conveyed in the email to N. Junewicz. David Yeh gave him the impression that the process was slightly easier than the one conveyed in the email.

N. Junewicz said that she got that impression as well. She said that David Yeh would have been able to give her more concrete information if she presented him with an email that the assembly actually wanted to send.

There were no further questions.

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

There were none.

VII. New Business

R.13 Encourage Action in the Congo — Nate Baker and Nathaniel Houghton

N. Baker motioned to move Resolution 13 to Business of the Day.

C. Basil said that the resolution could be voted on under New Business.

R. Lavin said that the resolution would be moved to Business of the Day.

N. Baker and N. Houghton introduced the resolution.

N. Houghton emphasized that the resolution is not fluff and that it is backed by a very serious, concrete proposal which he was invited to submit to President Skorton. He said that he emailed the proposal to President Skorton that Monday. He summarized the proposal and the resolution as well as the purpose and aims of each.

R. Lavin thanked the sponsors for presenting the resolution. He asked if there were any similar resolutions or proposals on the table at other U.S. institutions.

N. Houghton briefly mentioned some other initiatives occurring throughout the world but stated that there really has not been any concerted effort by higher learning institutions in the U.S.

M. McDermott commended the sponsors for bringing the issue before the assembly. He emphasized the need and urgency for recognizing the situation that is occurring in the Congo. He elaborated on the situation in the Congo. In light of his development background, he said that he would like to make a couple of specific comments on the proposal. He said that the assembly needs to be careful in calling on and criticizing governments because the situations these governments deal with are complex. He said that he is in no way condoning or criticizing government actions or inactions. He would like to promote the sponsors calls for leadership, educational training and institutional connections as well as service learning trips. He urged all assembly members and the sponsors to speak with Congressional and UN Representatives on the issue. The issue is very complex. He said that he would like ask about what type of costs the proposal would bring to the university. He said that he would also like to ask what type of connections the student group supporting the Congo, headed by N. Houghton, have on campus. Finally, he does have some concerns with divestment which he elaborated on.

N. Houghton agreed with the points raised by M. McDermott. He said that President Skorton outlined a very broad Africa initiative when he was inaugurated. Not much attention has been paid to this initiative. Therefore, he feels that there has been a desire expressed to send money in this direction. He has worked extensively with other groups and individuals on campus and described some of the networking that has taken place pertaining to the Congo. He noted that educational endeavors are more effective in the long run. He hopes to bring up many of these issues with President Skorton when he meets with him.

C. Basil echoed the comments made by M. McDermott especially those pertaining to unintended consequences. He discussed the scope of the assembly and the past possibly inappropriate commentary on international issues. He however believes that this resolution is appropriate because, through divestment, the university can have a real impact. Whether or not divestment is a good idea is another issue but to call for President Skorton to review the issue and proposal is well within the purview of the S.A. He motioned to amend the resolution by striking the entire be it therefore resolved clause and to replace it with “Be it therefore resolved, that the Student Assembly urge President Skorton to endorse the proposal for Proposal for Institutional Action to Counter the Current Crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo with particular focus to Consideration 5, divestment from companies which profit from human exploitation in the Congo.”

T. Miller seconded the motion. E. Diakow dissented.

E. Diakow said that she dissented because she wanted to know why C. Basil felt that Consideration 5 was the consideration worth including in the resolution.

R. Lavin said that Consideration 5 was included because it most prominently falls under the purview of the S.A. He opened up a speaker’s list to discuss the amendment.

L. De Lencquesaing said that perhaps the word endorse should be changed to consider in the amendment. He explained his reasoning. He motioned to make the amendment. He also would like to add a phrase forming a committee.

In response to a question asked by E. Diakow, R. Lavin said that, as the wording stands right now, passing the resolution does not necessarily indicate that the assembly endorses the proposal.

C. Basil found L. De Lencquesaing’s amendment friendly. He repeated the be it therefore resolved clause as amended which reads: “Be it therefore resolved, that the Student Assembly urges President Skorton to consider the Proposal for Institutional Action to Counter the Current Crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to form a committee of university experts to focus on the feasibility of Consideration 5, divestment from companies which profit from human exploitation in the Congo.”

M. McDermott asked if, in focusing on Consideration 5, the importance of education and institutional partnerships was lost. Since these are the more important aspects of the proposal, it appears that C. Basil’s amendment is shifting the impetuous of the proposal.

C. Basil said to a certain extent yes. He was changing the resolution to more appropriately fit the purview of the S.A. The change is not taking away the ability of other organizations or individuals on campus to pursue the other aims of the proposal. It also fits more appropriately with what President Skorton can accomplish.

N. Houghton shared his comments regarding the amendment. He said that he would be much happier to have the resolution passed in this format than to not have the resolution pass at all.

A. Craig shared his opinions on the amendment. It is important to consider the human resources available in pushing the initiative forward on campus and to understand that there are many international issues which the assembly could be urging President Skorton to consider.

N. Houghton said that passage of the resolution by the assembly will give the initiative a good deal of legitimacy. He briefly discussed some of the other outlets that have been found for pushing the issue forward. He emphasized the importance of the situation in the Congo relative to other international crisis.

T. Miller said that part of the problem in the discussion is that assembly members don’t actually know what administrators in Day Hall could accomplish. Assembly members are speculating. He urged the sponsors to bring the resolution to Day Hall before bringing it back to the assembly with detailed info about what President Skorton could and would do. He called to question.

There were multiple dissents.

R. Lavin said that discussion would continue.

R. Stein said that she was not in favor of forming a new S.A. committee. She explained her reasoning. Also, she is worried that the amendment makes the resolution vaguer than it already is. She does not like the amendment.

It was clarified that the committee formed by the resolution was a university committee as opposed to an S.A. committee.

G. Mezey said that he felt that the group headed by N. Houghton already fulfills the role of the proposed committee. It could be this organizations job to reign in administrators. He therefore motioned to strike the committee part of the amendment. He explained his reasoning further.

C. Basil did not find the amendment friendly.

There were multiple seconds.

The be it therefore resolved clause now reads, “Be it therefore resolved, that the Student Assembly urges President Skorton to consider the proposal for Proposal for Institutional Action to Counter the Current Crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo with particular focus to Consideration 5, divestment from companies which profit from human exploitation in the Congo.”

In response to a question posed by E. Diakow as a point of information, N. Houghton reiterated that President Skorton outlined a commitment to Africa in his inaugural address but that there is no current committee working on the issue.

L. De Lencquesaing said a focus on education is important in the long term and something that Cornell could influence. He therefore questioned the appropriateness of eliminating mention of education from the resolution. He said that the assembly is not taking a stand on the issue but rather urging consideration of the proposal.

N. Houghton said that the proposal was not unsolicited. VP Golding asked him to submit the proposal.

R. Lavin wondering if it would appropriate to urge the administration to consider something they are already considering. It would be a different story if the sponsors were urging the assembly to consider the issue.

N. Houghton motioned to add “and to meet with student leaders to discuss future possibilities.” Adding this phrase would allow for discussion of education and long term opportunities.

The amendment now reads, “Be it therefore resolved, that the Student Assembly urges President Skorton to consider the Proposal for Institutional Action to Counter the Current Crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo with particular focus to Consideration 5, divestment from companies which profit from human exploitation in the Congo and to meet with student leaders to discuss future possibilities.”

B. Smith said that she would like to change the amendment. It would make more sense to pass a resolution endorsing the proposal by the assembly than one only urging the administration to consider it since they are already doing so. She motioned to amend the be it therefore resolved clause to read, “Be it therefore resolved, that the Student Assembly supports the Proposal for Institutional Action to Counter the Current Crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and urges President Skorton to consider endorsement with particular focus to Consideration 5, divestment from companies which profit from human exploitation in the Congo and to meet with student leaders to discuss the possibilities.”

R. Lavin asked if the sponsors of the resolution found the amendment to the amendment friendly.

The sponsors found the amendment to the amendment friendly.

By a hand vote of 17–2−0, the amendment passed.

R. Lavin announced that the assembly would resume discussion of the resolution.

G. Mezey said that he would like to motion to table discussion of the resolution until the sponsors receive a response from President Skorton’s office with feedback on the proposal. It is important to further explore the issue.

R. Lavin asked if the sponsors of the resolution found the amendment friendly. There were multiple seconds. There were multiple dissents.

The assembly briefly discussed reasons for voting on the resolution that evening and reasons for not voting on the resolution that evening.

N. Houghton emphasized the importance of having support from the Cornell community.

R. Lavin extended the time of the meeting so that the assembly could at least vote whether or not to table the resolution.

By a hand vote 4–15–0, the motion to table the resolution failed.

R. Lavin announced that it was then 6:33P.M. and that the meeting would be adjourned unless there was a motion to extend.

A. Craig motioned to extend the time of the meeting by 5 minutes.

R. Stein dissented.

By a hand vote, the motion to extend passed.

There was a motion to call to question on Resolution 13. There were multiple seconds. There were multiple dissents.

By a hand vote, the previous question was called (a 2/3 majority was required).

By a roll call vote of 15–4−0, Resolution 13 passed.

� V. Andrews, Y
� N. Baker, Y
� C. Basil, Y
� A. Brokman, Y
� A. Craig, Y
� E. Cusick, Y
� L. De Lencquesaing, Y
� E. Diakow, Y (proxy)
� L. Engelmyer, Y
� M. Heinz, Y
� N. Junewicz, Y
� N. Kumar, Y
� A. Latella, N
� G. Mezey, N
� T. Miller, N
� N. Raps, Y
� E. Shannon, Y
� B. Smith, Y
� R. Stein, N

VIII. Adjournment

R. Lavin adjourned the meeting at 6:37P.M.

Respfectfully submitted,

Liz Patrun
S.A. Clerk