Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
November 20, 2008
4:45 — 7:30pm
Art Gallery, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

R. Lavin called the meeting to order at 4:45pm

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: V. Andrews, N. Baker, C. Basil, A. Brokman, A. Craig, E. Cusick, L. DeLencquesaing, E. Diakow, L. Engelmeyer, M. Heinz, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, A. Latella, R. Lavin, M. McDermott, G. Mezey, T. Miller, N. Raps E. Shannon, B. Smith, R. Stein, Y. Yao

Representatives 1/2 Absent, Unexcused: R. Salem

Representatives Excused Absent: O. Sandoval

Liaisons present: S. Tata

Liaisons absent: N. Diaz

III. Approval of the Minutes — November 6, 2008

There was a call for acclimation. The minutes for November 6, 2008 were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

No one elected to speak for open microphone

V. Announcements/Reports

Res Life Committee Update — Nikhil Kumar

Their meeting was about using the means of communication for the housing lottery. They came up with sustainability projects. He will update more fully in the future, as updates arise.

R. Lavin asked if they were looking at changing anything specific. N. Kumar replied that the only change in terms of policy was the one from last meeting.

Employee Assembly Update — Emily Cusick

At the meeting, they mostly discussed the economic crisis and voicing of concerns. The vice-president for human resources, Mary Operman, discussed the hiring freeze, and ways to cut costs. They also discussed the planet survey.

ILR Faculty Evaluations Announcement — Rebecca Stein

This past Friday, she met with ILR faculty at their semi-semesterly meeting. They discussed course evaluations. The faculty was split. This was an issue of interest to a lot of people. One of the things they are discussing is problems with the evaluation form as opposed with publishing. She would like anyone who would like to put together questions students would like to see published to tell her. There is a seat on the committee addressing that issue.

Academic Integrity Update — Chris Basil

He met with Dean Walcott, who was still spearheading the academic integrity initiative. He wants to move things forward productively. The committee is called the APC, the Academic Planning Committee. Basically, he recommended convening the drafting committee to draft temporary framework for the document, have the assembly endorse it, and bring it to the faculty senate committee. They will be convening it as a brief meeting in a couple weeks.

GPSA Report — Vincent Andrews

GPSA approved a new budget with money for food amongst other thing, and are looking to do things next semester like Ivy Summit. They passed some resolutions to do with housing and are looking forward to having a GPSA listserve.

R. Stein asked about the Slope Day issue. He replied that in the new budget, they haven’t outlined any funding in for it in their budget. They called last year’s contribution a “gift” and haven’t addressed the issue. Next meeting is with the programming board for Slope Day, so they’ll figure that out.

C. Basil added that Slope Day is presenting their data to GPSA in the December meeting. Slope day’s executive board is waiting to see how it’s received.

R. Lavin said that a goal for next funding cycle will reflect these initiatives. If anyone has issues, contact Chris Basil, who will see that it happens

A. Craig had announcements. UA met yesterday, some things discussed were presentations from TCAT, transportation, campus planning —those deciding development phases. Something that came up at the end of the presentations, which is pertinent given light of financial struggles, what priorities are being placed on in terms of “Any Student, Any Study.” Given that the new financial aid announcement went out, it’s something they could look into it. If you’re interested, can contact R. Stein or A. Craig. Additionally he just got out of a gorge safety task force meeting. In the meeting were city, state, and Cornell officials. They have more clear goals. The ad-hoc committee has more outlines. If you’re interested, it’ll really start kicking off next week, as well as over break, and let him know.

Y. Yao wanted to know if International Financial Aid was discussed. A. Craig responded that they discussed Financial Aid as a whole, but they should look at it. One plan is that for a more sustainable campus to extend roads, but that money could go toward scholarships for students. While it is great to work on roads, the main importance is for the education. They can also discuss it with financial aid committees.

R. Lavin said he knows R. Salem is working with financial aid. He knows that when President Skorton comes next week, they can touch on this. Hopefully there will be an update next meeting.

E. Diakow wanted to thank everyone for coming. They had so many ideas that are being typed up. If you’re interested in anything, let her know and she thanked everyone again.

VP Junewicz said that the committee is meeting to put together their big end of the semester bulletin. If you want to submit it, feel free. The final product will be sent out via listserve. N. Kumar asked if it has to be approved by the committee. VP Junewicz responded that it is approved by the committee.

R. Lavin added that he will be asking all committee chairs, for when he submits end of term report to president, to include summaries and initiatives. He will email individually but look out for it.

VI. Business of the Day

SAFC Handbook Changes — Rebecca Smith, Taylor Mulherin, and Ian

R.17 SAFC Handbook Changes

A lot of these changes are for clarity. T. Mulherin said that the top is just an explanation of things. Down further in the next paragraph changed the President and Treasurer’s Handbook to the new name of “Student Assembly Finance Commission Funding Guidelines.” Ian added that after “be it further resolved” it’s just grammatical changes. For appeals, it is now mandatory for groups to go to the hearing. As it is now, they don’t have to go. Now they would. Charitable fundraising events, now can’t even fund for an event to raise money. It just can’t go to charity, but can do it so long as the money they give the group doesn’t go to charity itself. They changes something with regards to the airfare; some groups get tickets before the funding. They will fund for the lower of the two. T Mulherin said they changed hearings to budget hearings. Struck out what is crossed out, added what’s in bold. The next paragraph is about charities. They added in the bold part. They added the exact number of people travelling (for advisor letter), and the last thing is crossed out to be easy to read.

VP Miller called to question. It was seconded with no dissent. By a roll call vote of 20–0−0, resolution 17 passes unanimously.

R.16 Resolution to Simplify Strucure of SAFC Appeals

As of now, there are three categories to appeal under. They’re getting rid of the appeal on the basis of new information because it is better described as a “basis of circumstances” and they don’t differ from special projects requests. The appeal must be submitted in same academic semester. They struck what is crossed out and added the bold.

R. Lavin clarified that they are essentially eliminating a category for appeals. Now people will simply be appealing.

VP Mezey thinks they’re all good except for 6. He thinks SHOULD state “the deadline for Appeals will be determined each semester but is generally within a week of the allocations being made available. After the SAFC has made its decisions about all submitted appeals, organizations shall have the opportunity to appeal directly to the SA. The SA VP of Finance should be contacted for such appeals to the SA.” He motioned to unstrike that. All of the sponsors found it friendly. So it is now there.

A. Craig said that going back to the past two semesters with appeals. So now students can’t appeal based on new information. How does that take effect? They can now apply for special requests. T. Mulherin said that in years past was special projects AND new information. They had drawn a distinction between things that are mildly related. Such as the soccer team going to nationals would have been a special project. The need for a bigger room would have been new information. They decided that it’s not fair to give preference because it’s the same thing. Ian added that now special projects can be done. They will not fund for a playoff trip if they don’t know you’re going to be in it. You apply after you get in. They will decrease money for appeals but increase that of special projects.

A. Epstein added that if you felt the SAFC made an error in reviewing your special project, you could appeal THAT to the SA.

E Diakow said is the money now that is being set aside, just reworded it still has a rule over it. She is confused about appeals now. Suggested, so it can be any time throughout semester? This means that each semester they create a deadline. This will be a hard deadline, but could be changed from one semester to another.

VP Mezey motioned that “SAFC may” should be changed to “SAFC will” under section seven. Just to make it more definitive. This was found to be friendly.

VP Miller asked how much money or percent is to go to special requests. It’s more of a guestimate. In the past, they have run out of money and have been unlimited. Typically it’s been about $60,000 for appeals. With things like a big change, it leads to guessing. They will probably take some money from appeals to special projects. All together between Appeals and Special Projects will be $80,000. In reality it is no more or less money, but will just be easier to be done for groups and commissioners.

VP Basil call to question. It was seconded without dissent. VP Miller motioned for a hand vote motioned. It was approved. By a hand vote of 20–0−0, it was approved.

R.15 Eliminate SAFC Late Budget Submission Policy

This is mainly about the 25% rule. They want to get rid of it. It was nearly impossible to implement. They gave out a significant amount of money, and couldn’t prepare after the deadline because there were about 50 budgets they had to go through a third time. It was difficult for the office. No firm date was set. It was done as an afterthought. Technically groups could still come in today and still request the 25%. Along with that, it defeats the perks of the deadline. It is very difficult to plan or set caps. Nearly everything is stricken out except commission won’t take late things.

VP Mezey thinks it’s a good move. It did cause problems. The spirit of rule was well intended, but didn’t make sense in practice. SA and SAFC are trying to fix it. It will cause more detriment in the future. Our job is to do this in the future. He 100% supports it.

R Stein called to question. It was seconded, but there was dissent. R. Lavin decided to keep the speaker’s list open.

VP Miller asked if they would you consider a middle ground. Were any other solutions tossed around? That is what the Friday meetings are about, to solve an issue like this. When we met with it, they just basically went over these changes. They thought it would be better to work WITH the SA on the issue. They agree with it in spirit, but SAFC is not ready to implement it yet. It caused a LOT of confusion. There is something that could be revisited. VP Miller says he knows they’re close but just a little bit more is going to be needed to refine the rule. He supports it. It does get very confusing. It’s a good idea, there’s always the appeals process. He is sorry it didn’t work out.

R. Lavin asked if the budget doesn’t pass can groups apply for special projects later on. In theory, if there’s money left, yes. With new change doesn’t it provide for it. Special projects was designed for stuff you couldn’t account for. Soccer is the good example.

V Andrews wanted to know the specific numbers. They gave out $42490.70 with 25% reduction. In total this semester they gave out $558,480.50. That’s money pulled from the spring. V. Andrews feels like a lot of groups are benefiting from it in a good way. They look to create projects to benefit the student body. Their purpose is to fund these groups. SAFC is rational, they allocate fairly. Great job. But this late registration, don’t get it in in time, or if you make an error. In the past a period missing or in the wrong place could be cause to reject it. Maybe amend it, but not throw it out completely. He would like to motion to amend to unstrike the second paragraph stricken on the back page. It is seconded. There is dissent.

“If an error is recognized�application.” The sponsors do not find it friendly.

He hasn’t taken out the late part being stricken. To keep it well-meaning, he thinks that that paragraph is necessary and don’t think it’ll impede.

Speakers list to discuss the amendment was started. A. Craig was going to speak before amending it. There is a difference between not handing it in and an error. He thinks it’s a good idea, but allows students who can’t necessarily get special projects. He feels like there might be a deadline for by the end of a week to notice an error. It makes them say you have a week to look at the rules and what’s submitted. Many people asked why not just do that before?

A. Epstein said that a lot of people have been upset that the rule hasn’t been applied liberally enough. This is something that really MUST change. Some things to point out, the organization does have at LEAST two weeks between start of available and due. They can come in to get help. There is a very small amount of time AFTER the deadline. No practical way to implement this. This semester, SAFC had to make arbitrary calls. When to accept errors until? Furthermore, resolution 16 IS a partial response to this. One of the biggest issues is that they might have events they WANT to get and won’t be able to GET special projects funding. By allowing SAFC to set aside money for it, they are addressing it on a more legitimate basis.

VP Mezey wanted to say something about the week comment. The groups have the whole period while preparing to review it. V. Andrews said it’s a good thing. We pulled $44,000 from spring because of this 25% error rule. It is good now, but we are down $44,000 dollars in the spring.

VP Mezey added that they can’t afford the rule in the way it’s written. They can come up with a process LATER to clearly articulate what they want because we’re going to keep hurting other semesters.

VP Basil said the important thing is that not only does it encourage groups to find passion, but teaches them personal responsibility. A lot of rules at face value might seem ridiculous, but that is how life works. There are deadlines; there are rules. The office is opposed; the experts are opposed. He calls to question on the amendment. There was a second without dissent.

The vote yes would UNSTRIKE the paragraph, a vote of no would leave it stricken.

By a hand vote of 4–17–0, the amendment fails and the paragraph remains stricken.

They now return to the speakers list on the resolution.

A. Craig said that he is using the time now to suggest that in looking at special projects idea, he urges the committee to figure out a way that there could be SOMEthing because it is not defined as it is. He does feel it’s a good idea to give a little bit of leeway. Why one week? A bit of leeway to look at full finished project. He is interested in hearing more discussion but urges the committee that because of the other resolution, they may not get to us, and can’t make the decision ourselves. Some stipulation where students have options.

L DeLencquesaing said it sounds good but should think about putting aside MORE for special projects. It will ease basic funds. This will let this process go over the semester. He think should continue on THAT. He called to question the resolution. It was seconded without dissent.

By a roll call vote of 17–1−3, resolution 15 passes.

VII. New Business

Elections Rules Changes — Mike McDermott

M. McDermott said they reviewed election rules for the upcoming semester. They convened the committee. They had to incorporate resolution 12 from last spring. The process took place over 3 meetings. They researched, sought out input, invited SA members to the meeting. Then they proceeded to develop rules. A lot of the changes are not traditional rule changes. If you have a question on clarity issues, he asked to please quickly stop and ask right away. They met for 11 hours. They did receive a lot of input. The elections committee stands fully behind the document. They didn’t have a vote, it was all done on a consensus. Everything is what they support. He began with TRADITIONAL rule changes. NOT what was highlighted in yellow.

Starting with: Article 1, Section A, Subsection 2. Candidates can only select up to 2 paper colors. This is because it creates a burden. Two colors still allows creativity and is not a burden.

Article 1, Section A, Subsection 3. They removed “or campus organization” because it allows people to say they were part of the SA to show they served in a leadership.

The difference between a political coalition vs. a campus organization is just to avoid tickets.

Article 1, Section B, Subsection 4. That was merely proofreading.

Article 1, Section B, Subsection 6. They removed some words and changed others in order to make certain that it made sense. The first was redundant, then it was contradictory. Afterwards it was confusing. This allows for candidates to have flexibility.

Article 1, Section B, Subsection 7. The introduction area changed. If they get no receipts they will assume they spent zero dollars. This is because previously there were quick and immediate disqualifications which resulted in unfilled seats.

Article 1, Section B, Subsection 7, paragraph B. That is not a change.

Article 1, Section B, Subsection 8, paragraphs A and B. They deleted a some of it. They changed it to allow the ability for endorsing to occur in a free and open forum. The Director of Elections will still be sending an email on what is fair and balanced. Byline funded groups still must notify 48 hours in advance. This allows for flexibility for candidates and organizations.

The Speakers List was Opened. VP Miller asked if he was allowed to say “as a member of SA” and wasn’t allowed to say he is a Republican. There is nothing about not putting political parties in, for instance Cornell Democrats but this is about tickets. The two words were meant for TICKETS. It is up to the judicial part, the elections committee, to decide if election has issues with CUDemocrats, CU Republicans. It is up to elections committee.

N Raps asked if facebook counts as spamming. M. McDermott answered that it is no longer spam if you are a friend.

E. Diakow asked a Point of Information. Does being in the same Facebook group mean you are a person’s friend? M. McDermott said that it is precedent and history to leave this up to the elections committee of the SA to decide if it was a violation.

A Craig asked how it was different from a listserve. M. McDermott said there is a distinct OWNER of the listserve. Facebook is a social networking group.

L. Engelmeyer yielded her time to Emlyn.

E. Diakow asked if you don’t own a listserve can you send something? M. McDermott responded that most listserves will let it happen. It is probably best to EMAIL that person to check.

L. DeLencquesaing asked if one candidate is allowed to be endorsed but another isn’t on a listserve without basis, is that a problem. M. McDermott said that it is up to the discretion of the OWNER and always has been.

R. Salem said he understands that the reason they added it was to not give incumbents an advantage. Will this give people already on assembly an advantage? M. McDermott said it will not. Part of it is to sell yourself. This allows people on SA or any other organization to JUSTIFY why they would be a good candidate.

Second Speakers List

VP Miller said that at the first elections meeting, they asked about endorsements of CANDIDATES. What he took away from that meeting for candidates was that they can’t put it on written statement, but are they allowed to support each other? M. McDermott said it was decided that it came to endorsement rules. It is up to the elections committee’s discretion. They make a set of rules for the judicious process. That’s where they stood. It is on a case by case basis which is triggered by challenging. VP Miller asked if a candidate can act as an agent of another candidate. For example say he and Ryan are both running. Can he say “my friend Ryan is also running for SA.” M. McDermott said that it is at the discretion of the elections committee. They want a flexible and creative campaign. Those rules are in the restrictions section of the rules.

R Lavin stopped and this would be continued next week.

VIII. Business of the Day, Part 2

Campus Life Focus Group — Leslie Sadler, Campus Residential Planning Group

Cornell hired a consulting firm to advise on the master plan relating to residential programs and dining programs. R. Lavin welcomed the guests, thanked them for coming and dinner.

Katie Carr introduced herself. She is a private coordinator with facility planning firm. They are based out of Washington, D.C. and have offices in other places. They don’t DESIGN the building, they do the data and market analysis to design a new facility or in this case, a master plan. They are concerned with the “Quality of Life.” They have worked with universities in 48 of the 50 states. They work to bring student housing, student unions, and student recreation centers to campus or improve facilities.

Ed Morano introduced himself. He works with a food service planning firm, doing the master plans. They are engaged to do a long term master planning for dining services and work with short term strategic issues. They are working toward meaningful goals for the short term as well as long term.

Katie said that they are here to talk with them about the housing master plan. Now that North and West Resident Initiative is in place, they want to take a look at where they are now as they compare to peers, as students perceive them, etc. The key stake holders are the students. What’s working well, what’s not. What the next phase will be.

She asked to go around the circle and everyone introduced themselves.

She wanted to start with housing and lead into dining. This is meant to be informal. She first asked why people decided to come to Cornell.

E. Diakow responded that when she initially came here, she was playing varsity sports but she no longer does. The fact that Cornell was number one in dining was a plus. She also really like that all freshmen were together on North. Some drawback was people beginning to move off campus. For her, she did like that it wasn’t a commuter campus and that you tended to live with your class.

VP. Mezey said that it was best for what he wanted to do. It’s the best hospitality program in country, arguably the world.

R. Salem said he visited during Cornell Days and was hosted by a student. He liked the freshmen being together.

VP. Basil said he came as a bio major, with the strong program Cornell has in biology. When choosing, the quality of housing and reputation for dining were all in consideration but academics were more important. For some schools, substandard housing was a disqualifier. But many wouldn’t attend purely based on housing and dining.

Kate asked has Cornell met, succeeded, fallen short of ideals regarding housing, meeting people, etc.

M. McDermott said that while Collegetown is very close and a large number live there. Collegetown and campus are very different. Campus services there would be beneficial.

E. Cusick said it helped her meet people her own age with North Campus. A big draw of Cornell was housing and dining.

VP Miller said he lived on North and it exceeded his expectations. Off campus, isn’t very impressive.

R. Stein said that coming and seeing the quality here as a transfer is very impressive. She was disappointed with the transfer center being knocked down. She was in Hasbrook which wasn’t really close to a dining facility. When it snows, it was enough of a walk that she didn’t use the 7/10 meals she had.

VP Mezey said that the overall campus life has done a great job. There are little pockets for improvement. He transferred in fall of ‘06. He didn’t live in transfer center, but in another building which is now knocked down. He thinks they’ve done a great job with initiatives. He does feel as if they were a little neglected on transfer’s needs.

V. Andrews said as a sophomore, he had a great time on North and loved it. He was surprised and disappointed that kids had to live in common rooms.

Y. Yao said this fall break, he went to Columbia. He loves our dorms more. He thinks there’s some considering as an international students, houses closed in winter. Most who are staying for winter break have no place to live. Living in HILC is very expensive and could only be in lounge. There should be more care.

Kate wanted to know the reasons students live on campus.

VP Basil said that one thing was cleaning. They expect a level of service almost.

R. Stein said that she would like to take advantage of campus housing next year but probably won’t be able to because she’s at end of the housing lottery. One reason is that people don’t want to deal with subletting. Another is Cornell housing and dining are exorbitantly expensive.

A. Craig said that some dorms provides community. Continuing with students they knew. As a freshmen, he felt disconnected from his community with the housing lottery. You just have to work harder to stay in contact. One reason is for services, but also for community.

R. Lavin said that the Collegetown community, West campus, and three on campus all have different community personalities. It attracts different types of people. That is a large factor.

A. Brokman said he was a transfer this year. Right now he is trying to talk to housing people and trying to figure out since transfers are dispersed across the 5 west campus houses and other 160 on north campus, and some on apartment style. To get there you have to go up a hill, across a bridge, up another hill. He thinks if there’s no more transfer center, at least put 160 other transfers not on the hills with the rest down south.

L. Engelmeyer said the best thing on campus is land and green there.

Kate asked why people decided to move off campus.

K. Duch said she liked the economy of not having an RA and the separation of not having classes where she lives. You can get a single bedroom. It has an urban feel. She didn’t get to meet people in townhouses around her. A lot of differences between seniors and freshmen. When she was a freshman, she didn’t want to live there. It is really changing now that west is a desirable place to live.

A. Craig proposed cost as a reason. He just signed a lease for off campus next year. One thing is cost. Another thing is how the housing system works.

Kate asked where students are living off campus.

People responded Collegetown and Greek houses.

A. Latella said that no one lives downtown in Ithaca. Collegetown landlords have control of the rent. People can find houses for half or third of the price but no one wants to walk up the hill.

M. McDermott has friends who live at Ithaca College because it’s cheaper.

N. Junewicz said that there also apartments on West. It’s nice that you can pick and choose, but it’s funny to see how price differences are.

Kate asked the prices of off campus housing.

The consensus was around $600 per month.

K. Duch said that off campus are popular for Greeks not living in houses. Once people off campus or in sorority, don’t go back to west.

N. Kumar said that another factor is parking.

R. Stein said that she knows a lot of people who want the option of doing one for senior year but don’t see as an option.

Kate asked what amenities or services do students want.

Social or common space.

V. Andrews asked if Cornell is looking for more rooms on campus.

Kate responded that if there is demand, they are willing to create the beds.

A. Brokman said there is obvious demand. There’s a shortage. 2000 people sign up for the lottery and get stuck with options that they don’t want. More beds will be put to use.

N. Kumar said that in terms of expanding, they should be consistent across the board. In a gothic, but get to eat at Becker house.

N. Raps feels as if she does not get all of the amenities. Mews other newer ones have a lot more cleaning things in bathrooms, newer appliances. Three of their ovens don’t work. No dial. Can’t read it. On high rises, you can’t go in through the stairs. You can’t go from ground to any other floor. If there are nice houses for freshmen, at least make them for everyone. Same for townhouses. Might as well make new dorms on north.

VP Mezey said that a lot of time, in new spaces, details are so important. Soap dispensers. Supposed to be clean, friendly. Details are the little things that “rally the troops.”

R. Lavin said on a more abstract level which was probably mentioned, this morning: a good investment would be a collegetown community center.

N. Junewicz lives in Cascadilla. But it is weird because all other living communities have Noyes or RPU but she does feel it lacking in collegetown. There are tons of off campus dining but have some form of Big Red Bucks or meal plan people can use without walking all the way to west.

R. Stein said that a lot of people say the new dorms are not aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps make new buildings blend in with general campus more.

Y. Yao is a member of Court-Kay-Bauer. He doesn’t think cards are necessary for elevator or stairs.

The next thing on the agenda was from a dining perspective. He would like to know general thoughts of Cornell dining, the satisfaction level with it. Why people may not be on a plan now.

R. Smith said that as a freshmen, she was disappointed with the dining. She likes to eat healthier and was disappointed with the variety of healthy options.

M. Mcdermott said that he was only on the meal plan for a year and a half. One of the things he wasn’t allowed to be involved in but liked was the idea of the pantry, which isn’t implemented well but can be used with card access. But other schools do better to keep it stocked. One of the things is during exam weeks that start at 9am Saturday. There are no breakfast times. Early morning eating is not well catered to.

Y. Yao says that people waste meals weekly. He knows other Ivy League and big colleges who have rolling meal plans. According to last year, it is to keep a stable demand to control and not waste food. Rolling meal plans occur in other institutions but are not sure how Cornell can’t make it happen. Another is Trillium. An idea might be to make Trillium a meal plan dining option.

A. Latella said to maybe publicize options would be a good bet.

R. Lavin said that generally he is very satisfied. He visits friends off campus and it’s a different world. The standard is really good. He really likes how West is structured. It is a better, smaller version of RPU and Appel Dining hall with the same quality. For lunch, however, it is very inconsistent. Some people don’t have it, some rush, because there are not a lot of MEAL options, it’s more grab and go. He thinks it would be awesome if you have a sit down lunch. Nice break in the day. If the dining program could foster it.

L. Engelmeyer is thrilled with quality, but the problem is flexibility.

Ed asked if the website is user friendly.

People responded that it is and is easy to reload BRBs.

K. Duch likes the campus system having professors come for dinner. It is a good chance to meet professors. She likes to eat healthy. The food there is not healthy enough.

Ed asked what was lacking. She responded that there are salads and veggies. But it is protein that is really lacking. Besides chicken and soy burgers.

N. Raps said that one thing is not a lot of lactose intolerant options. For libraries, you can’t even have a yogurt. And in dining halls, it takes forever.

N. Kumar thinks they do a really good job balancing veggie entrees.

E. Diakow is really satisfied. They cater to a lot of eating needs. A lot more than people realize. You can ask the nutritionist. Or ask them to grill for you.

E. Cusick thinks what the dining halls offer is not really well known. Some don’t know the options. If it’s somehow advertised it would be better. She knows there is something in the housing booklet. It would be really helpful.

K. Duch said it needs to be easier. She didn’t know about the nutritionist.

VP Mezey came in with critical eye. He has been on the dining committee. They have been very responsive to student needs. One thing lacking is marketing promotion, advertising. Nutritionist is great but no one knows about her. They don’t know how to get at the resources that are all there. He does think they’ve shifted focus and the goal is to focus on social responsibility.

As for house dinners, the consensus was that if you have a prelim that night, basically give up on eating a meal.

E. Cusick thinks that facilities are great but the Tatkon Center, for instance, doesn’t open till 3 on Sundays. Weekend hours are inconvenient.

M. Mcdermott only goes to retail places such as Libe Caf�, Trillium, the Statler, and the new Synapsis.

VP Basil said that he frequents Libe Caf�’s coffee and only eats in the Ivy Room. His meal plan was just 500 BRBs or something to that extent.

A. Craig said that he has a meal plan which guaranteed 2 meals a day. All of his spending is through BRBs and retail. The flexibility is given that he’s losing $12 a meal and wanted to know if there is any possibility that instead of BRBs, can be, 12 dollars for BRBs if you miss a meal.

There are 5 different coffee brands on campus. Is there any preferences?

They think that they commercially fit where they are placed.

Where do people eat when off campus?

Collegetown bagels and Asian Noodles.

Do people know about City Bucks? R. Stein replied in the affirmative.

They would like to see City Bucks expanded to healthier places as well as places which deliver.

VP Mezey said that delivery or online ordering to late night options, they have so much unrealized potential.

Y. Yao suggested a late night caf� or something to that effect.

Ed asked what are thoughts if the college were to introduce brands such as. CTB on campus or partner with high quality national brands.

VP Basil said that this is something that sets us apart. Going to a dining place is not like the food court. People do have a negative impression of institutional food.

VP Miller said that it was not only cheaper. He went to Syracuse and it was five feet from the dorm and you can go into the food court. It is quick and convenient. You can grab something hot and ready to go. It is less expensive and he would do it.

M. McDermott agreed with VP Basil. They have to understand that while they would like things that aren’t Cornell or Cornell brand but are strong in sustainability, strong in locally grown.

N. Raps agree that’s what is central to cornell. But if they had CTB here, it would be amazing. It fits with the Cornell theme. Friends from other places want to go to CTB.

R. Stein would not want to see fast food here. It is not healthy and would lower dining in her opinion. But she loves Moosewoods, but if other restaurants like that would be wonderful.

E. Diakow wouldn’t want chains, not because of being cheaper, but because we have such similar options here. Burgers, sandwiches. Think we have it and it’s our own Cornell-ness.

What do people think of Five star sub? They think it does what it needs to do.

A. Latella does have a lot of friends who visited and have same options, i.e. Syracuse. They’re so much more impressed and amazed by our options because we don’t have McDonald’s.

Y.Yao asked if the introduction of these companies were confined to fast food. Ed responded no, it extends to partnerships with local restaurants. Or to local partners with the town, keeping with Cornell dining standards. NOT McDonald’s.

E. Cusick said that when she was looking at colleges, the fact that it DIDN’T have that, made the decision. For instance at GW, the only dining was stations of Subways and McDonalds. This is an atmosphere to bond with people.

M. Mcdermott said a regents bar in the Statler is a good idea. He likes being able to go there as a senior. Some sort of social networking idea in a place that isn’t just coffee.

R. Lavin suggested a campus pub.

Kate thanked everyone for the time to give feedback. Ryan can get our information. All information will be fed into a student housing and dining survey. If anyone receives a request to take a survey, she highly encourages them to take it.

Promote synopsis.

IX. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Brittany Rosen