Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
February 26, 2009
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

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

II. Roll Call

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

Representatives Excused: V. Andrews, N. Baker, O. Sandoval

Liaisons Present: S. Tata, A. Miller

III. Approval of the Minutes — February 19, 2009

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded without dissent. The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

No one came forth to speak on Open Microphone

V. Announcements/Reports

University Library Board Announcement — Emily Cusick

E. Cusick elaborated on Cornell’s collaboration with Columbia University’s library to share books.

Convocational Speaker Decision — C. Slicklen

C. Slicklen, chair of the convocation committee, thanked the SA for its support for convocational speaker selection process, which the SA helped to fund. The Class of 2009 convocation committee selected David Plouffe (campaign manager of Obama) to be the convocational speaker.

By-line Funded Group Resolution — R. Lavin

R. Lavin explained the SA’s resolution on the by-line funded groups.

SAFC update — Greg Mezey

G. Mezey relayed to the assembly the amounts of money given out to various groups.

Election Update — Mike McDermott

M. McDermott announced that if candidates hadn’t turned in the posters to be put up in dorms, the posters probably would not be up in time for the elections. Also, there would be a debate among the presidential candidates at 6 pm on Sunday, March 1, at the Browsing Library in Willard Straight. The audience could ask questions at the end. Parts of the debate would be aired on WBVR. Voting will start on March 3 and end on March 4.

Development of the Tapestry program — Remmy Salem

R. Salem announced that there would be a meeting at 4–6 pm on Friday, February 27, at RPCC room 222 to discuss the future development of Tapestry.

Housing Master Plan Meeting — Nikhil Kumar

N. Kumar reported on the housing meeting he attended, where Cornell’s long-term division of housing, off and on-campus, was discusses.

VI. Business of the Day

Median Grade Policy Discussion 5:00 — Dean of Faculty, William Fry

R.26 Revision of Median Grade Policy — Andrew Brokman

Jared Feldman, a freshman from ILR, and A. Brokman presented the resolution together. A. Brokman pointed out that there were 2 contradictory clauses in the original code, which was ambiguous and did not take transfer students into account. Dean Fry said that the original resolution was passed to protect students from being overly concerned with grades. His interpretation is that all students in the same class will be treated equally. He also reported that the Faculty Senate has not considered the issue. R. Lavin wanted to know if the Senate hasn’t gotten to the issue yet or if the Senate doesn’t consider this to be an issue. Dean Fry said he really needs to take this back to Senate for clarification.

R. Lavin called for a vote for the resolution. By a roll call vote of 18–1−0, Resolution 26 was passed.

R.28 Bylaw 7.6.a.1 Revisions — Greg Mezey

G. Mezey explained that this resolution would shift balance from representation of the community to representation of the SA. C. Basil wondered if G. Mezey had considered leaving the number of at-larges the same and just increase the size of the committee. G. Mezey believed that the number should stay the same because it has proven effective and manageable. C. Basil saw his point that a larger committee will also incur more costs (food, etc). G. Mezey also said the appropriation committee should be a true founding board of the committee. SA members are entrusted to make these decisions when they are elected. T. Miller voiced his agreement that it’s important to have elected representatives.

Craig asked if there has been any trouble getting the number of regular undergrads on the committee. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to get the students in the regular community to be more involved. But G. Mezey believed that the elected representatives would have more knowledge about how the committee works. E. Diakow mentioned that ultimately the SA members make the decisions anyway. G. Mezey added that it makes more sense to streamline the process and not waste both committees’ time. R. Stein made the observation that quite a few people at the meeting objected to the idea and wondered if the resolution was open to an amendment to add 4 non-voting members? G. Mezey found it unfriendly because he thought if the committee is going to have more people, they should have a vote.

A. Craig asked how often the appropriation committee meets, and R. Lavin answered that it is a standing committee; it meets regularly year-round but meets more often (once a week) in the by-line funding year. M. Heinz wanted to know how the committee members are chosen. T. Miller said that SA members who volunteered were staffed first, then online applications were looked over by the chairs and other SA members and chosen that way. Y. Yao asked if various constituencies were represented on the committee. T. Miller responded large and small constituencies were represented, and that the chairs tried to choose people who had shown great interest in the assembly, regardless of what constituency. It was based more on their activity and commitment than where they are from.

A. Craig commented that getting half of the SA members to show up to more weekly meetings will take away from time from other committees. G. Mezey disagreed and believed that SA members should be aware of the time commitments before they sign up to get elected.

C. Basil said the SA can’t possibly represent the whole campus and all parties on campus should have an opportunity to question what the committee does. So maximizing student input on the appropriations committee is vitally important. But on the other hand, he wants to give as many SA members as possible the chance to look at every budget package twice to pick up issues overlooked the first time. There are things to lose and gain by both. He would ultimately oppose the resolution, or maybe someone can add an amendment to reach a middle ground, 10 to 6.

T. Miller reminded the SA that at the end the day, students can always contact SA members and point out anything they are doing wrong. R. Salem motioned to make an amendment to change 10 SA members to 8, and 5 undergraduate at-larges to 7. G. Mezey found this unfriendly because he wanted to hear more discussion around these specific numbers.

A. Craig thought it was a good middle ground because it gives students more voice while remaining an SA committee per se. T. Miller pointed out that the SA would rarely have unanimous decisions anyway, so it’s not like all the SA members in the committee would have the same opinion and band together.

E. Diakow questioned if this is a silly middle ground that appeases the dissenters a little bit but doesn’t accomplish anybody’s goal. G. Mezey said there is no clear answer to that question, and that any increase of the number of SA members would be good.

R. Lavin called for all who are in favor of the amendment. The amendment passed by 14–4−2, and the resolution proceeded to pass by 17–1−0.

VII. Unfinished Business

R.24 Appendix A Changes — Greg Mezey

G. Mezey first went through the changes that had been made.

C. Basil thought that all the changes in the document through B were good changes that allow groups more time to review their final numbers in the current year. All changes in parts C were problematic. He understood the need for efficiency, but he felt that the SA was giving up too much here. The process would become less transparent. It’s valuable to let the public have access to the process. G. Mezey said that a full written report would be taken down by clerks at every meeting. The meetings this year are closed-session. This appendix explicitly states the meetings will be open.

T. Miller thought these changes addressed most of the concerns the SA has over the process. The SA can change the process so that next year people can know more about the meetings and groups are welcome to go there and voice their concerns. The SA is shifting the burden onto the appropriation committee. The old process was good, but not as good as this new process is going to be. Next year the committee would be facing a lot of challenges due to the financial situation

R. Salem agreed with VP Basil. In the past people had to come in and every member had to represent an allocation. R. Salem felt that people appreciated and enjoyed the fact that their opinions were taken into consideration.

Mezey thought that the process shouldn’t take up that much of the SA’s time when there is an appropriation committee for this specific purpose. If the groups are happy with their funding, the SA doesn’t need to hear from them. But if the groups are not happy, then the SA can of course listen to what they have to say.

Salem commented that when the groups are happy with what they got, they simply thanked the assembly and the process is very quick and easy anyway, Craig also appreciated the opportunity to listen to the groups and agreed that it went by very quickly if the groups don’t have any problems with the funding. The groups like to hear voices other than the SA’s and enjoy the process.

G. Mezey believed that not everyone thought it was an enjoyable process. He has talked with a lot of group advisers and they said they would appreciate a more clear guideline for the process.

Junewize supported C. Basil and A. Craig in that this is an important process that should be very thorough.

C. Basil agreed the process may not be enjoyable, but it’s a necessary process. Leaders of these by-line groups are very vested in what they do, and the SA should reinforce their rights to come in and talk about their funding. C. Basil acknowledged the changes in part B are very positive and but also thought the appendix can be improved overall. He would like to table the resolution to have time to merge G. Mezey’s changes with what he had last year, preserving the existing form while adding another level of credibility and transparency to the process.

R. Lavin decided to ignore the motion to table because people already had a week to make changes.

R. Salem asked if it was possible to split the appendix into sections and vote on individual parts.

R. Lavin answered yes. Ari Epstein warned the assembly of the risks of splitting documents and voting on incomplete parts that may change the meaning of the whole.

T. Miller pointed out the people objecting to the changes may be attached to the present process. Nothing stops SA members from going into the appropriation committee and voice their concerns. G. Mezey worked hard for a new system that improves the old system. People next year will take by-line funding very seriously instead of just give it a cursory glance.

R. Stein said a lot of people have put a lot of time into the present process. Although it has some flaws and she agreed with a lot of the changes in the Appendix, she thought the review where the whole assembly comes together is very important.

E. Cusick asked whether or not there would be a need for the appropriation committee with the old process or if it would just be doing things twice. G. Mezey stated that there was no old process. Everything was just a collection of rules people said. He was trying to make things more official and explicit.

A. Epstein pointed out that the SA would be delegating power to the appropriation committee, not transferring power. Secondly, the new process states more explicitly that the committee will be held open to public. SA would still be driving and would still need to approve the final decision. M. Heinz agreed with A. Epstein in that the SA would not be getting rid of any power. The SA should delegate power to sub-committees. Not everything should be discussed in the SA alone.

There was a call to question, which failed by 6–12–0.

E. Diakow wanted to introduce an amendment that allows groups to not come to the review if they agree with the funding. But if the groups disagree with the funding, they can show up and make a complaint. E. Diakow proceeded to work out the exact wording of the amendment, to be introduced later in the meeting.

R. Salem pointed out there were instances where both the group and the appropriation committee agree with the funding arrangement, but SA members may not agree.

G. Mezey asked R. Lavin to clarify the procedure in that situation. R. Lavin stated that when someone motions to disapprove an action of a committee, it is brought up right there. Someone will have to table that until the next week. Actual discussion will happen at the next hearing. R. Salem said that if the group is not already here, notifying them to show up would just take more time and that is hardly streamlining the process.

N. Junewicz made a motion to table the resolution, and R. Lavin called for a vote to table. No 2/3 majority was reached, so the motion failed.

R. Smith agreed with E. Diakow in that groups shouldn’t come if they are happy with their funding.

A. Craig made a motion to table the resolution.

T. Miller dissented and said that if people wanted to make these changes, they’ve had a week. Since no one came forward with changes, the SA should come to a decision concerning this issue. G. Mezey agreed that people have had enough time to make legislative changes.

R. Lavin called for a vote to table the resolution, which did not reached a 2/3 majority so the motion to table failed again.

R. Salem said that in the past groups were forced to come and the SA was forced to listen, which made sure things were discussed thoroughly even

E. Diakow proposed an amendment to Secion C, inserted after number 4: if the applicant requests for the assembly to review the committee’s recommendation for any reason, they will be invited to present their dissent at the next meeting where the VP of Finance reports the summary of the appropriation committee’s hearing.

G. Mezey inquired if the nature of the : would this be another meeting or

R. Lavin explains that both the group and the VP of Finance would be given 2–5 minutes (depending on what the chair wants) for explanations, but the vote is actually on the decision of the appropriation committee.

C. Basil said that the SA should really table this resolution because members had less 24 hours to read over this resolution because it was e-mailed out late the previous night. He believed there was a lot of dissonance between what R. Lavin had explained and how the process was written in the resolution and the amendment.

G. Mezey found this amendment friendly,

R. Smith motioned to table this resolution. The motion failed again. There was a motion to adjourn the meeting, R. Lavin decided to ignore this motion and table the resolution. He made the point that this resolution the majority of the changes were introduced the previous week, so all those who wanted to make changes should have something prepared. He asked that those who wanted changes this week

VIII. New Business

R.27 Survey of Students Involved in Illegal Filesharing — Mike Heinz

M. Heinz introduced the resolution to the assembly and explained that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sent out letters to warn illegal filesharing students that if they do not pay a settlement fee, they will be sued.

T. Miller was curious about the number of people who got the letter. M. Heinz said there were 54 students, including some who have graduated

A. Brokman brought up the point that the RIAA has switched strategies on how to get people to stop illegal filesharing. M. Heinz agreed they are looking for other ways to stop filesharing, but letters are still being sent out, though not as voluminous.

R. Lavin wanted to know if the survey is being sent to everyone who received the pre-settlement letter. M. Heinz answered yes, and that people’s private information is going to be protected.

E. Diakow asked there are legal responsibilities because the survey is asking people if they’ve done something illegal. A. Craig also asked if there could potentially be legal issues because admitted use Heinz said that the survey would be used as data strictly. R. Lavin explained further that the survey would no be linked with names and identities at all.

S. Purdy explained that in the survey, answering questions honestly does not mean admitting guilt.

IX. Adjournment

R. Lavin adjourned the meeting adjourned at 6:28.