Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
January 22, 2009
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

R. Lavin called the meeting to order at 4:50 pm.

II. Roll Call

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

Representatives Excused: N. Raps

Liaisons Present: A. Miller, S. Tata

III. Open Microphone

No one came forth to speak.

IV. Oath of Office

There is a new SA member, Alexandrina Garcia-Vridin. She is taking over the place of Representative Englmyer. She repeated the oath of office after R. Lavin and was sworn in.

Student Assemblies Oath Of Office:

In view of the trust the Cornell community has vested in me, as well as my personal sense of honor, I, ______ , do solemnly affirm to fulfill my responsibilities as a student-elected representative. I will engage in open and honest debate in a process where I am guided by truth and fairness. I will never purposely misrepresent facts in an effort to achieve my goals. If a conflict of interest arises, I will relinquish my right to participate in the decision making process. I will seek out and voice effectively the interests and concerns of the student body, address the issues of my fellow students, and strive to improve the quality of life at Cornell for all students.

V. Announcements/Reports

Welcome Announcement — Ryan Lavin

R. Lavin hoped everyone had a wonderful break and was happy to be back. He wanted to informally touch base with everyone. A lot of initiatives and issues were brought to the table. This semester is the execution semester. Tony and other executive board members talked to people. There will be an update on Thursday. There are new issues to be addressed as well, i.e. less flexible financial state. New projects might have to be more creative in terms of finding funding. They will continue to work hard to work on initiatives while under the restraints of financial situation. The E-board is here in that regard to help overcome obstacles. He reminded that the e-board meetings occur at 6:30 pm on Tuesdays.

� Washington D.C. Lobbying Trip — Gretchen Ryan

G. Ryan introduced herself. She works in the office of financial aid and student employment. She wanted to let everyone know about the trip to D.C. They’re just starting the organization of it. It’s a trip to D.C. sponsored by government communication office. It works locally state wide and federally on issues important to Cornell. They work to lobby for those issues and funding. It is co-sponsored by the office of financial aid, student employment, and the Cornell in Washington (CiW) program. This is specifically meant for students recieving financial aid such as the pell grant and with the new administration, there are lots of interesting opportunities. March 31, they plan to travel down to DC. There will be a briefing, traveling together, having a dinner with students in CiW. Students are hosted by CiW students. In the morning, they wake up and have meetings with your state representatives. It is an interesting look at the federal process. It’s a very personal look. That’s the logistics. The purpose is to learn more and to get involved. This is an opportunity to impact students nation wide. She’s hoping to get some help in terms of spreading the word, such as word of mouth. There will be posters put in residence halls. Any other ideas, please let her know. If you know of any professors, student organizations, or anyone else interested send them her way. When she has the email announcement, she’ll send it to Ryan. They can take 10–20 students this year. Since they are lobbying for US federal aid, they would like to take students who are recieving US federal financial aid. This helps them to specifically tell stories.

VP Junewicz said that she would be happy to help. They have started a few new things such as the SA Updates Facebook group. That’s one option. Also, they just started the SA list-serve, which is everyone on the facebook group as well as different groups. Let her know and she’d be glad to help.

A.Craig wanted to know what sort of selection processes were involved. G. Ryan responded that it will probably be a first come, first serve basis. In past years, they have hit the 10–20 student mark. They usually have some melt because of prelims, business, students who didn’t realize it was overnight, etc. In the past several years they were doing it in conjunction with Columbia. This year they are separating it. They can see if they can do it alone or if it is more beneficial with Columbia.

R. Lavin asked if they would be meeting with, for instance a representative from the Ithaca area, or their home town? G. Ryan replied that they ask for the home town and home zip code and then contact those representatives. So you’d be lobbying with your own representative or senator. Only in one case did they meet with that person, in other cases it was with staffers. They also sat in on a senate hearing which was interesting. All expenses are paid for the trip.

A. Garcia-Verdin asked if the people who were eligible had to be completely subsidized by financial aid. G. Ryan replied that it was any amount. But if someone who gets other kinds of aid and REALLY wants to go, they would probably send them. It is ideally federal aid people.

Her contact information is:
Gretchen Ryan ‘97
Associate Director of Customer Services and Community Relations
Office of Financial Aid and Student Employment
203 Day Hall Ithaca NY 14853–2801
t. 607–255–5145
f. 607–255–6329
glr5@cornell.edu

Committee Chairs Announcement — Tony Miller

VP Miller thanked everyone who has emailed him back. If they have not, please do so as quickly as possible. If you need any help, email him or the Office of the Assemblies. Greg wanted him to reiterate that there are funds for your committees available and to contact him. Especially in the tough times. Natalie wanted to be new committee on women’s issues chair and we can formally congratulate her next week.

Disabilities Service Announcement — Vincent Andrews

V. Andrews reminded that last semester people came to talk about making Cornell more accessible to disabled students. He got an email Monday and they are very interested in getting student input on their project or plans. They will ask for student input on technology, and other such issues. If you’re interested in helping out, go speak to him and more information will be forwarded as he gets it. If you know of a student group who wants to get the information, please send him that group name and he’ll make sure they’re in contact. Any questions, speak to him after the meeting.

Elections update — M. McDermott

He know that there were some questions about elections. He just wanted to update. It is getting to be near elections season. Packets will be available in the office Feb 2. People have already started going to ask for the packets, which is good and exciting. They will be having a change in the rules which were passed. This is mainly a time change. They had discussed that receipts would be due at 12:30 and challenges would be due by 4 pm. There really would be no way for the office to receive these, make copies and packets and get them out to the committee. So as of now, it is changed to 12:30 as previously. This just is how to get everything done by the deadline in order to have challenges done by that night. If any questions, he can answer. If not Ari can help. There will be an advertising plan going out in the next few weeks, and it should be a good election.

R. Lavin asked M. McDermott to talk a little bit about the PR efforts. M. McDermott said that they will be doing a lot of the same things in effect for the fall semester and past spring. They will be using Facebook ads, and are looking into an email for packets and voting.

VP Miller remembers the debate that happened last semester. Now, challenges and receipt at same time which defeats what they’ve worked hard to do. M. McDermott said that the main thing is that a 4 pm just isn’t feasible for the office. The main thing is to work within constraints. If they can think of a way to get packets in on time, that would be great, but that’s the constraints they’r efacing. If there are other office questions, meet with or ask Ari.

VP Mezey wanted to know the precident on voted on rules just being changed like that. Also he wanted to know why do theyy need packets if we have a challenge, because usually committee’s small enough and would save paper if they shared. Or he would volunteer to go to Kinko’s to pay for it. But they have a functioning capable elections committee. He doesn’t know why we’re just letting them be changed M. McDermott said that there have been rules just not feasible to be carried out by the office. They have to work within the rules the best they could. Would recommend to meet with Ari to see if could come up with something that would work. VP Mezey asked why this issue was not addressed at the meeting when voted on them. He believes they were sent advance copy and some representative was there. A. Epstein doesn’t know how much time there was in advance.

R. Lavin asked if Ari would be opposed to the stuff just being taken. A. Epstein said that the office is responsible for keeping track of the originals, and he wouldn’t be comfortable with group of people widening it.

A. Craig is confused because we were under pressure at the last meeting. Who is responsible for checking the receipts to issue challenge that should be going on? R. Lavin said that anyone on elections committee has authority to file the challenge himself. M. McDermott completely sees the issue, and that’s why it was written that way. But it’s what can and can’t be done by the office. Not the elections committee, the office. Unless they can meet the office’s constraints, there’s no way for the office to follow them. 12:30 is the last time. That’s the answer he’s been given. A. Craig asked if it would be feasible to alter another rule and say challenges heard the following Monday instead. But if it’s a challenge hearing, say it would be able to be held another day? M. McDermott said that he will check to see with the office. R. Lavin said that he doesn’t think we need to change calendar. They do need to meet again with Ari.

R. Stein wanted to echo Asa’s sentiment, we were railroaded into a vote and that was really despicable as we can change them, but if we’re opening up rules for this change, we should open them to any change. Second, this takes away the right of anyone to challenge anything. It’s ludicrous. They need an alternate solution. The idea of having everything due at same time is inefficient. She yielded her time to Greg. G. Mezey asked if they could we hire a clerk or something to do it. And pick up receipts at later time or something so it stays in control of office employee? A. Epstein said that he hadn’t thought about that possibility. M. McDermott understands the sentiments and they have been brought forth and agree. This is not an attempt to change the rules. A constraint was brought to him over break. That would be the only change. Under current constraints, that’s the only way for it to go forward. The rest of this should happen outside this meeting.

R. Lavin expressed his believe that they will figure this out and he closed the speaker’s list.

ILS Update by A. Latella

Briefly, everyone knows who’s attending. It is two weeks from tomorrow. They will leave around noon and head to Providence, RI. They are returning and leaving by 10 am Sunday. As of now that’s it.

Miscellaneous Announcements

R Salem said that anyone who’ll be here next year and would be interested in going to a service learning trip next winter, let him know. His email is rms84.

VI. Business of the Day

There was a motion to move resolution 19 to business of the day. It was seconded without dissent. The motion was approved.

Approval of the Standing Rules — Chris Basil

VP Basil said that this should be relatively straightforward. The only change made was on page 4. This was changing 3 back to 2 for speaking limits. The E- board thought would facilitate discussions. They decided to relax it to 3 this fall, and thought it was too relaxed and wanted to move back to two. This could be done by a simple majority hand vote. By a vote of 20–0−0, they were unanimously approved

R.19 Transfer Ad-Hoc Committee — Andrew Brokman & Nikhil Kumar

A. Brokman said that there are numerous organizations addressing different issues for transfers. This committee which consists of M. Berger ‘11, N. Hotran ‘11, James Gieh ‘11, Jared Feldman ‘11). They plan to create one organization to draw upon and get it all into one group. This will have everything to affect lives of transfers to look at. N. Kumar said that for background, the campus life student advisor has been having a subcommittee meet frequently. This is to figure out ways to most effectively address issues from incoming and past transfers. He has been discussing issues and one of the recommendations was to have a transfer advocacy board. They think it’s a great idea and other members think it’s a great resolution. A. Brokman said that last night at the e-board meeting, he reached out to Molly Baker and Claudine, who are co-chairs of committee for campus life and would like to incorporate them and others.

R. Stein asked if he sees this as permanent or temporary. A. Brokman said that he sees it as very permanent. There has been one like it that did not stay active. Hopefully whoever fills his shoes next year will keep it up. R. Stein asked if they would be joining hands with residential life and orientation groups. Another thing to look into is dealing with deans of various schools. Some, such as ILR, treat transfers and new students differently, which is good and bad. Talk about integrating transfers. A. Brokman said that as an ILR transfer, he’s sure it shouldn’t be a problem.

A. Craig likes the idea, and hearing the voices of his transfer friends, that would be good. Also, he feels it would be helpful to have ex-officio member from the Orientation Steering Committee or part of that committee. A lot say they want to have more voice during orientation. Then could work to include that into next orientation thing. He would be in favor of that. A. Brokman said that it should be noted that if he added all the ex officio members, it would be about two pages. Want to add all of them, all will be on the email list and get minutes. There are only a couple administrators on the list because whoever they’d be, those positions are directly working with transfers at all times which is why they’re specifically there.

S. Tata said that his first question is what will the relationship be with transfer advocacy board. He thinks it will be wonderful to see this. N. Kumar said that he’s met a lot and have been talking to M. baker and Claudine. From his understanding, that group has met frequently and would be the first to get emails. R. Lavin said that one issue was that there are issues that are not just involved in Res. Life. And they don’t want repeat committees. Another concern was CLSac is a group that was created and chartered by campus life. S. Tata said that his understanding was that it wasn’t a subcommittee. He was wondering the difference because of overlapping AND having a transfer committee responsible to SA doesn’t seem to be AS stable. He is just not entirely clear how it works with transfer advocacy board. A. Brokman said that as far as he knows, the board is a private group, no SA funding, not the same weight as an SA committee would have. This plans to work with everyone and that includes reaching out. He thinks this committee would give transfers a platform with greater legitimacy to get legislation through the SA N. Kumar said that his understanding was it was a subcommittee. He doesn’t know if transfer advocacy committee was approved. S. Tata said that yes, it was private, but he understood that the group was private but has been in operation for a while. He likes the idea, but is just concerned about duplication of responsibilities. He understands that legitimacy though he might hesitate to say how different it would be. He would like to chat afterwards.

VP Mezey was a transfer three years ago. He was on the transfer committee. He thinks it’s about time someone started doing something and not just talking about transfers. There are over 600 transfers in the fall. University and residential life talked a lot, and that is why there are several things that can’t happen during the first semester. That is when they really drop the ball on first year for transfers. West campus housing messes up the living units. It’s about time that the SA took action to represent them. He supports it and called to question. There was a second, but also dissent. R. Lavin decided to continue on with the speaker’s list and but recognize the dissent.

VP Miller is a fan, but hopes that the committee is kept up with. SA committees are part of governing systems. Administrators are obliged to notice the actions. When a committee of SA takes action, that action has inherently more weight. He commends what they’re doing. Legitimacy is a fine point to raise.

Y. Yao said that during winter break, he met transfers. He was wondering if there are current issues or initiatives this semester. A. Brokman said there are number of issues that are being looked at. The best launching pad is a survey to get the pulse of the transfers. Housing and orientation are among the main issues. They will be generating different issues. Whichever transfer shows up and gives issues, they will be willing to look at that.

A. Garcia- Verdin thinks this is a great idea. She thinks the whole debate about connected, disconnected, with all small organizations is very disconnected. This would create a cohesive body and would cater to background. She supports this 100%.

R. Salem said that an alternate group existing might not be that big a deal. Only thing is, he said this intending to be a permanent committee. R. Salem thinks that ad-hoc should be taken out if it’s permanent. That way it would be a continued process. R. Lavin said that an ad-hoc committee can become a permanent committee. N. Kumar saidt hat the committee itself can bring forth the resolution. The sponsors found that unfriendly. R. Salem withdrew his motion.

V. Andrews thinks that transfers are underrepresented in the Cornell community. He thinks eventually they should look at making it a standing committee, but first try it out and see how it works, He called to question. There was a second with no dissent. Resolution 19 passed by a roll call vote of 19–0−2.

VII. New Business

� R.20 Smooth Transition of Executive Board — Andrew Brokman and Octavio Sandoval

R. Lavin reminded that this was new business and was only for questions.

A. Brokman said that this is a simple resolution. Since so many people were displeased with open elections, the idea that the president doesn’t need SA experience or any experience, they decided to make a resolution to mandate that the outgoing president take the time to mentor or train the incoming president for the lapsing time of the outgoing presdent’s term. R. Salem said that he actually thinks it’s a good idea. He was browsing through the SUNY student assembly page and they require the executive board to take a leadership course. He thinks that could be implemented but this is a good alternative. A. Brokman hadn’t heard of a course.

M. McDermott wanted to know why was he putting the responsibility and burden on current president and not the incoming president. For instance, make the incoming president take a test/class/attend x-numbers of meetings. A. Brokman said they spoke at length about requiring, mandating, showing up at x meetings. This is just very simple. All it requires is the president meet with the incoming president however many times is necessary and mandates that if you’re an incoming president, the outgoing president has to give you the time of day.

A. Craig said that outgoing members tend to help incoming anyway. He wanted to know if it was necessary for the charter. A. Brokman said that it was. A. Craig asked R. Lavin if in his experience did the past president guide him. R. Lavin said that it does happen naturally but something more formal doesn’t hurt.

A. Latella said that his comment follows McDermott’s and Craig’s. He feels that it is like the mentorship program that VP Miller tried to implement in the beginning of the year. Was that a precedent? R. Lavin said that it was added last year. A. Latella suggested that he might want to expand that. A. Brokman said that they are meant to be separate.

Y. Yao thinks it’s a great proposal. And suggested thinking about it being concrete. A. Brokman said that it is purposefully vague. Making it more specific makes it more complicated. This is something every outgoing president must be charged with. Y. Yao said that he didn’t think it meant a course. He just wanted to know if any procedures were considered. Some set things.

E. Diakow was wondering what the vision of the president mentoring. She wanted to know what issue specifically should be briefed on, what was the idea. A. Brokman said that people spoke of the horror of no SA experience. This aims to fix that. If you’re an incoming president, you need to be trained on issues. E. Diakow said the burden should be on which president. What makes you think that they’ll ask the right questions? R. Lavin said that they could add things in next week. That’s what new business is for. A. Brokman replied that the burden is on the outgoing president. E. Diakow asked if he was making it another of the president’s duties. A. Brokman replied that he was.

E. Cusick asked if he feels like it’s necessary to mandate for the E VP. A. Brokman said that he does feel it might be necessary. But first feels like we should start from there.

VP Miller believed that their hearts are in the right place. The E-board met with their counterparts from last year’s e-board. The charter is very serious. This seems like adding more unnecessary stuff to the charter. Dean Hubbell was kind enough to take them to dinner. This is common sense. He doesn’t like to clog up the charter. He wanted to know if this was necessary. O. Sandoval said that he doesn’t think everyone thinks it’s common sense. He does think it has to be implemented into the charter.

VP Mezey asked a point of information: how long is it between the election and the end of office for the president. The answer was that the election results are released by March 6 and the end of the president’s term is June 1.

VP Mezey said that he thinks it should be something a bit more concrete, like an outline taking the person from March 6 until the end of the semester might be better way to approach it. That way a more formal transition is there. Are they opposed to something more concrete? He would be willing to help. That way it would be concrete because mentor is subjective. A. Brokman said that he would be willing to take in suggestions.

R. Lavin said that the office did create the handbook that’s designed to transition and train. That could be a rubric for set guidelines.

R. Smith agrees that it needs more structure. It doesn’t make sense to be a smooth trans of the executive board if this is involving just the president. She would suggest including e-board or changing to president.

V. Andrews’ question is on the placement. In bylaw 4.2 there’s something specific. The next section that is bylaw 4.2.c.1 — which is the responsibilities of the president. He doesn’t know if you were looking at it to place it elsewhere, but if you were looking at that. Was there a specific reason? A. Brokman doesn’t remember if they examined that. He will take another look.

A. Garcia-Verdin thinks that clarity is good, but suggests to leave flexibility or space. But she does think it is common sense and is good that historically presidents mentor but it doesn’t have the formality. It can happen. She thinks it’s good to put the weight on the president.

R. Salem wanted to repeat his sentiment that mentorship wording was meeting at LEAST two times. He thinks that is a sort of guideline. Having “at least” in there is helpful.

A. Craig asked if they would be interested in or opposed to having not “mentorship” but that the president elect and VP elect need to attend the meetings. VP Miller replied that they do need to attend two. A. Craig said that perhaps they would look into shadowing and not just mentorship so that they see what they’re getting into. He didn’t want to stipulate that in election rules. After elected, they are capable of doing that. Hopefully they can look into that.

R. Lavin had two notes. He encourages and expects updates next week. Also, they will go into executive session next week to have informal updates. Figure out if people want to coordinate, etc.

VIII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Brittany Rosen