Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
January 29, 2009
4:45 — 6:30pm
Art Gallery, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

Called the meeting to order at 4:48 PM

II. Roll Call

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

Representatives Excused: A. Brokman (1/2), N. Junewicz, O. Sandoval, Y. Yao

Liaisons Present: A. Miller, S. Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes — January 22, 2009

V. Andrews called for acclimation. It was seconded without dissent. The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

No one elected to speak.

V. Announcements/Reports

GPSA Update — Vince Andrews

V. Andrews said that GPSA just passed a long resolution regarding the mental health and Gannett services for graduate students. They also passed a resolution asking for a holiday in exchange for starting one day earlier.

R. Salem asked if the date of the holiday was set. V. Andrews said that it was not. They are pursuing it further.

R Lavin asked if he could please get a copy of it so SA can provide information.

Housing Master Plan Update — Nikhil Kumar

N. Kumar said there was a meeting of a committee composed of people from the focus groups. As the members may recall, there were some of those people here doing a focus group with us. They are in the process of creating a report. They should be finished by about April or May.

Elections update

M McDermott said to disregard the discussion last week. They were able to work with the office so that what stands in the rules is able to be followed. There will be packets handed out next week.

VI. Business of the Day

SA Budget Spring 2009 — Greg Mezey

VP Mezey passed out the budget. This budget is up to date as of this afternoon at 4:19 pm. A few outstanding charges are for miscellaneous supplies as well as Cornell Daily Sun ads. The communication equipment charge is something that won’t be occurring in spring semester. It was for phone and data. It’s very straightforward. Line items are available as well. Funds are available for constituency outreach events.

R. Stein asked about and abbreviation and it was clarified to stand for Supplies and Materials.

N. Kumar asked if this is included in today’s meeting packet and will it be posted online. VP Mezey said that it can be.

A. Garcia-Verdin asked what amount is available for outreach events. VP Mezey said that it is a total of $1000 as a pool for everyone. Then specific committee accounts.

R.21 Moratorium on New Student Groups — Ryan Lavin, Greg Mezey, and Tony Miller

R. Lavin showed the resolution calling for a moratorium on new student groups. Given the recent financial issue, they want to do their part in making the financials of student activities as efficient as they can. They’re calling for a moratorium for a number of reasons. There are problems that have been accumulating for years. The staff of the Student Activities Office (SAO) have been discussing the issues for years. For instance, repeat student groups, groups competing for limited supply of space on campus, club sports that attend conferences that only let in one team per school. They want to do some sort of formal auditing of process of registration for student groups and allocation process for student groups. The only way to do that is to freeze any new activity and audit groups already formed. This is coming out of meetings on Fridays last year with members of the SA, SAO, and Office of Assemblies. VP Miller had a particularly enlightening meeting with people from the activities office. He was amazed at how many groups have formed over the last five years or so. One problem with SAFC is that it’s objective and their hands are tied for following rules of groups. It’s waste. There needs to be a subjective element to groups receiving funding. It would give time for SA, SAFC members to sit in and make it a better, more efficient process. R. Lavin reiterated that the only way to do this is to freeze new activities. If you hear different tour guides around campus, they let people know that we have over 900 student groups. But there are inefficiencies to having this immense amount of student groups. This is to identify areas where consolidation and shared costs can happen.

R. Salem asked what was to stop this task force from doing the intended job without the moratorium. VP Mezey said that within the registrations, it’s always fluctuating within the SAO. They want to work in a set parameters. R. Lavin said that there are some negative aspects. This is only a semester. It expires on June 1. It is very temporary. M. McDermott had questions on ramifications. He wanted to know the average number of new groups formed in a spring semester. He also wanted to know about groups that are formed involving immediate action necessary and would that stopped them from being formed. For example a Darfur call to action. R. Lavin replied that anything can always be brought to the assembly. They can always extend with extenuating actions. This is short and temporary. M. McDermott asked about if they knew groups that don’t require funding/admin support. R. Lavin responded that this is the analysis they want to do. That’s what they’d do. M. McDermott asked about the inactive groups R. Lavin said that all of those questions are hitting on inefficiencies of student activities at Cornell.

R. Stein said that if they’re going to revamp the process for accepting student groups, she hopes they’ll be reforming the entire process. As for groups that have started registration, how will those groups be completed? VP Miller said that if they’re already in the process, they have to talk specifically to Katharine Holmes. VP Mezey said that pending approval of SAO would go through, versus else things. VP Miller replied need to see more specifically. R. Stein said that it is something to consider carefully. Also, whether to allow new groups to organize saying they don’t require support. R Lavin said that this is a freeze in registration of new student groups.

E. Cusick asked if this was something the SA has the power to do. R Lavin said that it was. They have legislative oversight over the dean of activities. They do have leverage if we think it’s for the betterment of the undergrads. E. Cusick wanted to know if it’s wasteful and why the taskforce is going to disband. VP Mezey replied that one thing they hoped to do is to have a plan in place on how to move forward. For instance, the approval board or whatever process comes out. This allows them to come up with the system and process for registering, eligibility and funding. E Cusick asked if it isn’t just to look at ones now, but to establish guidelines later. R. Lavin said that yes, there will be some subsequent body created by this body. VP Miller replied that this is an initiative that administrators in SAO wanted to do for a while, but they had wanted it to come to the students and fully support.

N. Baker said that all colleges are cutting funds. A lot are cutting groups. If it’s been 2 semesters since they’ve gotten funding from SAFC, a group is no longer SAFC. And that won’t be possible. R. Lavin said that new groups this semester won’t be affected. We can change it to the day after budgets are do. It was amended it to the first page, on the second to last be it therefore resolved. They had it begin with “which shall begin on Wed. Feb 4th and shall be lifted on June 1st�”

S. Tata does empathize with the problem but as RSC liaison, doesn’t know if solution matches up with the problem. There are a number of things that could come along with this. Besides the financial matters, we do brag about the number of student groups. Just the symbolism is striking. He likes R .Stein’s suggestion of allowing groups to sign up but not receive finances. This allows them to file forms for discussion. From an outside perspective they might LOOK the same, but if it’s important for those students, and doesn’t stress finances, he doesn’t see it as a problem.

L. De Lencquesaing said that he thinks we should rethink the whole soccer things. But as S. Tata said, the idea of it symbolically is not good. No real need. R. Lavin said that since January 1, there have been 30 new student groups registered. L. De Lencquesaing said that they can look at data from the fall semester and do reflection around that. By doing that, they are freezing a few initiatives that could be effective. For instance, his group was founded in March and allowed them to get money from alumni. It didn’t cost the university.

A Craig said that coming from students who have been saying they’d like to get together, but they can’t be in places because they’re not registered. They want a space to do something but can’t do that. He thinks it’s a good idea to analyze but need to look at it. One of the main reasons he chose this, was because of student groups. Everyone can make an organization. He thinks it can be done without a moratorium. A lot of groups are going to get money cut. A lot of things getting cut back. What can we do? Something that may not get money or be an imposition on other students. Why punish current students because of what other students maybe five years ago did. R. Lavin said that current groups can’t find space. The demand is so high, but the supply is so low. If the problem keeps accumulating, it’ll get worse. They’re still accumulating problems if we do last semester without anything this semester. They would’ve been better for people with reservations were at those meetings last semester. All of these were valid points, which were considered.

A. Garcia-Verdin doesn’t want to cripple the passion of student leaders. It is important to cut costs and should allow students to fundraise and such without being registered. What examples are there of repeat groups. VP Mezey responded that examples are soccer, Frisbee, outing clubs, and cultural groups with similar interests. A. Garcia-Verdin is just worried that groups will be put in together, how would that work? R. Lavin said that is the last thing he’d want to happen. This is to recognize opportunities for shared costs or consolidations. As a point of information, they are not freezing funding. They wouldn’t be doing anything because of when the deadline is.

M. Heinz said that the funding cycle ends. New groups formed wouldn’t be applying for money. What would the new groups be doing? VP Mezey said that they need to separate the financial. It is still a strain on SAO. There are groups taking spaces away from groups who have received money and funds. This is more of a strain on the infrastructure. He wants to see them working with taskforce to have groups more efficiently share things. That’s why the freeze will be there. They’re not looking to reduce groups getting funding. They want to be more efficient so come fall, it’s a more beneficial and productive next semester. M. Heinz said so the moratorium is unrelated to the financial crisis. R. Lavin said that these discussions had happened before then. But we should play our part. It was needed anyway.

L. De Lencquesaing said that they are starting with strain because of the financial crisis, but then it doesn’t but then does. Then they should look at cutting things like publicity for the SA. The additional groups registered in the meantime don’t fundamentally change the total number. The lack of doubling was supposed to be done already. This clearly sends fundamentally the wrong message. He believes it would be an error. He thinks that they should encourage students to make new groups. VP Miller said that will overload the office of the dean of students and the SAO. It is not ideal, but all 23 people were elected to not make people happy. They have to work for what is best for the students. Ryan hasn’t come down from the chair until now. You should trust him after four years of experience. They are not using the financial crisis as a reason to do this. R. Lavin noted that last semester, there were 86 groups registered in the spring. Now there are 30 already registered.

E Diakow said that she understands the reasons for consolidation. She doesn’t understand moratorium. She doesn’t see how they can’t work that into consolidation. Why can’t they continue to register and look at them that way. She doesn’t like the idea of not having anything.

There are no implications on byline funding. N. Kumar said that there seems to be agreement about the way to examine waste and efficiencies, for instance line items. He made a motion to remove the first be it therefore resolved clause. They did not find the amendment friendly.

After impassioned debate, the members tried to keep to the policies and not the politics of the issues.

R Salem wanted to know why the meetings cannot still take place as he does not believe the moratorium is needed. VP Mezey said that the moratorium is needed and this will make it better for the 900+ already existent student groups.

V. Andrews called to question on the amendment. They voted by a hand vote of 11–8 to vote on the amendment.

A. Craig wanted to get back to the amendment as a whole.

N. Kumar withdrew the amendment.

B. Smith feel like it’s long overdue. She feels like she’s repeating. This is to make it BETTER for groups. It’s a semester long. They’re analyzing the problems and where to consolidate. To talk about the ideologies and symbolism but the PURPOSE is to make it better. She thinks they should pass it.

N Raps said that the fact that administrators have been wanting to do this. This says something about what needs to be reexamined. It’s only a semester. She doesn’t see how this could hurt them, especially when administrators are doing the work. As a point of information, VP Mezey said that they’re not getting rid of them, just looking at how to approach and where there can be cost sharing and savings. If they don’t, fine. But it’s coming up for a system for that to be shared. N Raps said that is even better.

A Craig asked Dean Hubbell for an administrative point of view. Dean Hubbell did not want to insinuate himself in decision making. He said that he would confine himself to facts. The SAO is small but mighty. They try to facilitate all things happen in Student Organizations around campus. They are challenged by the numbers. If they were afforded a respite to perfect the system, that could be helpful. He appreciates the debate. It’s an incredibly important part of Cornell.

R. Stein said that one thing she noticed is a lot of people are speaking out who haven’t been to the Friday meetings. While she doesn’t love the idea of a moratorium, can understand it. There can be the flexibility on a case by case basis. Groups can be active without being registered. Need to come together that it isn’t the worst thing in the world. These are stressful times. Unless someone going to the meetings can propose an alternate solution, she doesn’t understand why they can’t stand together. This is the first time Ryan stepped down from the chair. He strongly believes in it. Additionally, if a group is important and valuable, they can wait a semester. Otherwise, is a fleeting interest.

Community member, David Hoffer, a junior, spoke about it. He is strongly against it. His opinion was that a blanket moratorium is a bad idea.

A Craig said that they, as SA members, are supposed to represent student ideals. He does not want a moratorium. Those are his views. VP Miller appreciated his view. He suggested that they need to think of what your duty is. Whether or not it is to take a poll or do the duty to make things better for the long run. R Lavin said that the office isn’t telling them they can’t handle it. But it is about things being more efficient. SAO isn’t saying that they can’t do this. That’s why it’s coming from us. This is a long term goal. If they are more efficient, they will be less wasted.

R Salem asked if this were to pass how often would the task force meet. VP Mezey replied that it would meet once a week for 1–2 hours. R Lavin said that it could be a weekend with all day ventures.

M. Heinz said that they should be asking two things, is the moratorium effective and do you think in the long run it’ll make student groups better. He thinks it will. VP Mezey said that there are 900 groups trying to protect. People running organizations will be benefited by this.

Community member CJ Slicklen said that they should think about what a moratorium will do. The people this really disadvantages are 2nd semester seniors. Two of the three sponsors ARE those people. He thinks you’d be foolish not to support it. If it’s that big of a deal with PR, that’s why you have a VP Public relations. VP Mezey replied that it is important too to consider that it’s different to look at it this just now vs. the 15 weeks they had been. They want to make it better for everyone else.

A Miller would like people to recognize that it’s senior members speaking out for it. They have far better knowledge. He doesn’t see that as a reason to vote for or against this. But wanted to keep in mind, they have been meeting every week.

E Diakow respected the time spent and does feel that they should vote together. But the moratorium is a problem. She wants to amend to put in a little bit of wiggle room. R Lavin said that in special cases, it’s a good point. If there’s a crazy urgent issue. E Diakow thinks if it’s not in there, people won’t know that they can appeal to the SA.

A. Garcia-Verdin wanted to say that she is proud and grateful for having student leaders as dedicated as these. But she doesn’t feel comfortable removing the student rights. With rooms it’s not being able to have a room, it’s other issues like being able to fundraise. If she weren’t a registered group, she wouldn’t be able to fundraise in certain places. VP Miller said that it is about improving quality. The massive explosion of groups is the issue. The other ideas they came up with were thrown out cause they weren’t as good. This is the one that did work best. Encompasses every issue.

V Andrews said that he doesn’t see the SA going and building classrooms. He called to question to vote on the amendment. With a hand vote of only 6 in favor, the motion failed.

E Diakow motioned to make an amendment rewording the second be it therefore resolved clause.

E. Diakow withdrew her amendment to the changes that the sponsors made in the Be It Therefore Resolved clause in order to allow wiggle room.

E Shannon stated that for funding purposes it doesn’t make a difference. The deadline’s now. He is in favor of it. Even new groups will be benefiting in the long run.

A Latella said that they are not punishing groups but there is a sacrifice. These are difficult times in a number of ways. When he’s told that his budget is getting slashed, it’s not against his rights. R Stien said that unless it’s timely and they can’t wait a semester, why is it that important to form a new group. But there is no VIABLE solution. It now does provide flex. She called to question.

There was dissent, the reasoning being that they only received this last night. With a vote of 12–4 by hand vote, enough of a majority was reached so they are going to vote on it.

The sponsors expressed their determination and belief in this resolution.

By a roll call vote of 12–6, the resolution passes.

The chair extended the meeting by 15 minutes.

VII. New Business

R. 22 Resolution Regarding Slope Day Funding

VP Mezey said that currently, from the activity fee, five dollars is allocated to go into an endowment account created in ‘02 so that eventually, we can get to the point where SAFC funding comes from the interest off an endowment. Currently that’s been happening and they make an investment each month proportionally. What’s being asked here is that put a hold on the 5 dollars between January and June. So the second half of the investment of the five dollars can be redirected to the Slope Day Steering Committee because of the cut of the contribution from the dean of students’ office. They don’t want to pull from it, but want to redirect the money that will be coming in. This way slope day can still be maintained. Since the dean of students has made the cut, the cut won’t ever be given back. R Lavin said that in the future, there could be byline funding allocation. But it’s not a formal decision. It’s allowing for the possibility. Slope day was hit hard and there’s a lot on the line if the budget is down almost a third, especially for programming and safety concerns. They don’t want financial reasons to prevent that. VP Mezey said that this allows them to hold the investment into the principle. It allows them a pool of money for the largest money. R Lavin said that they are not touching the SAFC budget. The university has taken from their principle. This is just putting less into the investment. One other thing is making more formal guidelines. They need to come up with a process for managing this fund. The appropriations committee will take this on.

VP Miller wanted to know how much would we be redirecting to slope day and how much is in the investment fund. VP Mezey said that they don’t have the exact number. There will be more information forthcoming. The amount they’d not be putting in this cycle would be about $33,000. VP Miller noted that $33,000 out of a large amount is not a lot.

M Heinz wanted to know what the downside is. VP Mezey replied that the money doesn’t go into the account. They want to maintain slope day. They realize it’s a tough time, but they want to make sure to deliver the same programming to students. The downside is that the endowment doesn’t grow. R Lavin also noted that right now it’s just a growing endowment so the goal is for the SAFC to be financially sustainable.

A. Miller asked if there was anything he should take back to the Greek community to help. R Lavin said that a representative, Dan Tracy, has been in contact.

V Andrews said that it seems like the university is divesting itself from slope day. He wants to know how that looks for future years. Is there an outlook on NEXT year? R Lavin said that those are all very good questions. Historically, 6 or 7 years ago is when the fence went up. The programming board was formed. It’s the goal of the university for this to be a fully financed student event. It’s been gradually happening. It happened suddenly this year because of the cuts. When it’s decided next year, the Student Activity fee will have to be talked about. They might have to fully budget for what it’ll cost.

E Diakow asked if the event on Ho plaza is funded and necessary. Mandy replied that yes it is funded, but she was not going to say about necessary. E Diakow wanted to know the deficit. Mandy replied that if they get a certain amount of ticket sales, $70,000 is where they’re looking at. The loss wouldn’t be that they spend 40,000 extra, it’s the amount they’d cut from funding. E Diakow asked about money from the GPSA. R Lavin said that they don’t know right now. V Andrews noted that the GPSA doesn’t have money now. As for operating budget they have very little to give. R Lavin said that it’s a very sudden thing. They haven’t pursued the GPSA yet. V Andrews will ask them. R Lavin said that it’s something for next semester to think about with byline funding.

V Andrews motioned to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded.

There was a note that next week they will be holding internal elections for SAFC and UA liaisons.

VIII. Adjournment

R. Lavin adjourned the meeting at 6:47 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Brittany Rosen