Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
April 2, 2009
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

R Lavin called the meeting to order at 4:48 pm

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: V Andrews, N Baker, C Basil, A Brokman, A Craig, E Cusick, E Diakow, M. Heinz, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, A. Latella, R. Lavin, M. McDermott, T. Miller, N. Raps, R. Salem, O. Sandoval, E. Shannon, B. Smith, R. Stein

Representatives Excused: L. DeLencquesaing, A. Garcia-Verdin, G. Mezey

Representatives Unexcused: Y. Yao

Liaisons Present: A. Miller, S. Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes — March 26, 2009

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded with no dissent. The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

No one came forth to speak.

V. Announcements/Reports

Median Grade Resolution Announcement — Andrew Brokman

They passed the resolution (26) which requested that registrar clarify the policy to what the original one said. Basically, the transfers having the same transcripts as everyone else in their class. They followed up on Monday and met with Dean Fry. The education policy committee of the Faculty Senate is approving this at the next faculty senate meeting. This will mean that the registrar would have to obey. The change will be made after the meeting having force and effect.

R. Lavin asked if they think the registrar should send a message to let the transfers know. A. Brokman thinks this is a good idea and will work on it.

Ivy Council Announcement — Alex Latella

Tomorrow he’s going to New York City to meet with Chinese visiting students from the Ivy/China exchange program. Some members went as an exchange program to China and this is the second part. One night they’re having dinner at the Chinese consulate and another at the UN.

Res Life Announcement — Nikhil Kumar

They had meeting past Monday. Their main topic is off campus housing. There’s an off campus housing office. A lot of students (especially ones on trying to get off campus) don’t have easy access to information. They’ve been working for creative ways to inform students. They’re working on that in the next two weeks. Additionally they’re looking at ways to improve the housing lottery.

Ithaca Common Council Meeting Report — Ryan Lavin and Chris Basil

There has been recent discussion around proposed city urban plan and design guidelines for collegetown. Last night was the first zoning vote. The vote was more restrictive and wasn’t conducive to student needs and concerns. There was a great showing and he thanked to everyone who came. A lot of efforts created good momentum which spilled over to landlords in collegetown. The vote originally needed a majority to pass and did. Landlords in that area signed a petition with a majority against it. So state law dictated that if a majority of landlords in the area were against it, then they needed a supermajority which they didn’t get. The vote failed which is good for us, collegetown, and development. He doesn’t know what plan the city planning board will compile but they will continue to keep everyone updated.

VP Miller said that even though they barely won this round, it’s not over. This is a continuing process. Last night, they were shocked with the number of students involved. Good

A Miller was going to ask how else to continue to stay involved. R Lavin said they’ll be having more meetings with the active landlord in collegetown. Svante will be in tough and R Lavin said that he’d continue to keep people updated.

V Andrews said that more meetings are during finals time or after the semester is over. But there will be more next year.

A Craig said he should work on getting city council members to hear our presence. All the students do, the council say that they don’t represent us. Use student voices. This is part of our city, we belong here.

Further Announcements - Rammy Salem

There are two events of interest tomorrow. First is a program house discussion presenting student led discussion at HEC Auditorium in Goldwin Smith. Second is there is a meeting for charity. Dinner at 104 West at 7 pm. They will donate about 21 dollars for every person who attends to African refugee (who fled from Darfur to Israel).

Internal elections happened Monday. They decided on Vice-presidents and the SAFC liaiston. VP for internal operations will be Nikhil Kumar, Chris Basil will be VP Finance, Vice President of Public Relations will be Vince Andrews. Safc liaison is Justin Min. They’ll be deciding on committees and Director of Elections next time.

VI. Business of the Day

Power Down For The Planet Report 5:00 — Linda Croll

She works with CIT and is responsible for greening IT across campus. She’s coming because she needs help and guidance. President Skorton signed the climate commitment. 614 college and university presidents signed it. It is a commitment to achieving carbon neutrality within 40 years. By September they have to submit a plan. Her involvement is in IT. IT is contributing ~2% of the carbon footprint on the planet. That’s equivalent to the airline industry. It is expected to grow exponentially. It’s thought to reach ~6% by 2020. Identifying the carbon footprint on campus is their first step. They’re looking at what best practices are here and other places. One thing is at the beginning of February, they had contact from Intel. They joined a group called “climate savers” which started in 2007 by intel and google. They want to reduce amount IT had. They felt like 50% was wasted energy. The goal was by 2010 to it cut in half. They wanted to go after manufacturers to use more energy star compliant equipment. The second way is to go after users asking them to buy energy compliant equipment and activate power management. Last year looking at universities, about 4% of the US’s carbon footprint is college and universities. If all students were to activate power management, that would be equivalent to taking about 200,00 cars off the road. Their goals are to get people in the future to buy energy star compliant commitment materials, have people activate power management and to educate students, faculty, and staff. To help, the climate savers have come up with a contest. The highest percentage to commit to activating power management on computers wins a prize. There’s also a video competition on YouTube. This involves faculty, students, and staff going on and completing the pledge. The pledge says that when you can, you will buy energy star in future, enable power management, and educate your friends and family. If everyone were to activate power saving on campus on one machine, it would be equivalent to about 2,755 cars off the road. As of today, 153 people have made the pledge. There will be articles in the Chronicle, the Daily Sun, PAW Print. Power down for the planet official day is April 8th. There will be pledges set up at kiosks, posters will be around campus. They’ve distributed email to CIT students and planet facebook page. She wanted to know if they have any other ideas and would anyone be interested to help work at kiosks.

E Diakow asked when the competition was over. L. Croll responded that it ended on April 17, Earth Day.

VP Junewicz would love to help any way she can. They first have their own ways to get information out. There’s a Facebook group, the listserve. She suggested to maybe reach out to student groups. L. Croll said there are a bunch of different things that can be downloaded to promote this.

B Smith said having RAs talk to students or Greek Life house presidents to talk about it would be helpful. They would reach a lot of people.

A Miller said he would love to help so contact info would be great. Her net id is llc36@cornell.edu

R.30 Calling for the Reinstatement of an Optional Transfer Programming House — Andrew Brokman

Jared Feldman, class of ‘11 from ILR is a co-sponsor. Paul Ryerson, class of ‘09 from ILR is a supporter of the resolution. There is a vast difference between transfers this year and those who arrived when transfer center was in existence. Because the numbers were so high (88 % reporting positive, and 6% reporting a somewhat positive experience), there cannot possibly be a better practice. P Ryerson said that as one of 100 students left on campus who had the privilege of living in the transfer center. He has watched the experience deteriorate. As an RA at Hasbrouck last year and on West this year, they were told that this was supposed to help transfers integrate better. They are not helping transfers transition. They are isolating them. Not only do transfers this year want one, they need one. They got rid of an important recruitment and retention tool. They don’t need to look elsewhere for best practice. We had it. A Brokman added that this is more than a statement. This is about follow through. J Feldman lives in Cook House. As a part of the West Campus Residential Initiative, when administrators began to organize this, transfers were excluded and there has been no attempt to establish the program that died. The Committee on Transfer Affairs doesn’t know why administrators had it. With the current housing system, people don’t understand what it means to be a transfer. How can they make a statement that they’re essential but neglect their needs.

VP Basil said that transfers are often overlooked for policy. He proposed to amend to change the first two “be it therefore resolved” clauses to “whereas” clauses. A Brokman finds that friendly.

VP Miller understands and says it is a shame that it’s gone. Any statement from the SA has to consult with various departments. Have you spoken to administrators, campus life, Susan Murphy, etc? P Ryerson said that they have met extensively with Joe Burke, met with Susan Murphy, Barbara. They have been met with skepticism. A Brokman said to look at results. In terms of what could be done. All they’ve been getting is that they “will add to a list of discussions in fall when talking about program houses.” He thinks it should be at the top of the list. VP Miller replied that Cornell’s not building anything else. You can’t make them BUILD more buildings. He’s worried that under the crisis, you can’t force administrators to do this. P Ryerson said that the school already sets aside beds and guarantees housing. No difference between taking spread beds than putting them in one place. They’re asking to put transfers together. A Brokman said when it was in existence, it was the only programming house with wait list.

R Lavin asked if he knows the number of guaranteed beds for transfers. A Brokman said that he knows they guarantee transfer housing and ~600 students are transfers R Lavin asked how many does west campus housing hold. West Campus holds about 200.

VP Junewicz asked how many are on north. A Brokman said that around 125 on north campus. Hasbrouk was a bigger mistake. VP Junewicz asked if he’s spoken with Sandy Davenport. What response did they get to that? J Feldmen replied that in the spirit of west campus initiative, not going to block one or all in one. They’re asking for a better job to be done taking into account how transfers want to be placed. VP Junewicz thought they wanted to take a new house as a transfer center. A Brokman would love that. Even Shelden which houses 170 people is a good idea. Cascadilla is even better with 375. The old transfer center didn’t house ALL transfers. It was a place to be not just live. VP Junewicz said that it was a great homebase. But do you want them to be mixed with non transfers. A Brokman everything would be all optional. VP Junewicz asked if this was to be all dedicated to transfers. A Brokman said yes.

R Stein commends him for everything. The only thing concerning her is when she tried to do it, she talked about setting aside floors of West Campus because administrators weren’t interested in the idea. While she loves it and did work on it last year, she is confused about if something’s changed. P Ryerson is concerned with getting a full house. Feasibility is low. Something like Shelden Court, there are still residential programs, and it’s more than feasible to place transfers there. R Stein have you explored how the general student body would react to losing one of the places in collegetown. A Brokman said considering the student body as a whole, there are 700 transfers. He thinks they deserve it. R Stein asked if he’s explored something on north campus. A Brokman thinks north is predicated to needs of freshmen. He’s considered it. He can say freshmen residence halls are so booked that they have freshmen in the townhouses. R Stein knows that when she discussed this last year, there was a general feeling that they didn’t want to support until all steps are gone through. Are they sort of at stalemate or using to start action? A Brokman said he’s been at stalemate since he’s been in office. Now they have statistics. He thinks with this, they could get it. P Ryerson said he’s been at a stalemate for three years since in the transfer center. He’s met with everyone from Skorton, to Burke, to Murphy.

N. Kumar echoes sentiments and commends the process. Great job involving lots of students from transfer backgrounds. He’s curious more about immediate terms, i.e. next year. There are lots of transfer complaints. Blocks are formed at random. What is your feeling about how they’ll be housed. A Brokman isn’t sure administrators know. He knows they sent meetings to CLSAC. Know where they are. Don’t know how next year. P Ryerson said that there is no change in policy. They’re still blocking. They claim they will do a better job in blocking.

S. Tata said that as a former transfer, he empathizes. This is a good idea. Did reference 3 years ago the battle to keep transfer center alive. One thing to see is do you have interim steps to suggest? Perhaps something like. Of course the goal they would like to happen soon. However for flexibility here are steps to take in the meantime. i.e. 100 transfers in one location. P Ryerson said that is still not a transfer center. That is lumping them together. They still need services, programming. Need RAs and GCAs. S Tata agrees but perhaps a step like that, understanding that it’s necessary. Like some interim steps. It is difficult to argue with this on a fundamental basis. Perhaps it would become more attractive to THEM this way. P Ryerson said that the only interim step offered was the person in RP specifically dedicated to transfer programming. They have done a lot of programming they shouldn’t have to do out of budget. S Tata said that would be a good step. He does back it. The University is under financial crisis.

A Craig was going to speak about financial importance and the immediate agenda. Given that it’s not building of a house, it isn’t a financial constraint. Having been a freshman who got locked out of west, he feels like dedicating an entire west dorm isn’t as constructive. Perhaps they do need programming, but what resources. How about a center but have transfers that live in groups and with other students. Some sort of office, meeting area. Feel that putting them all the way in collegetown isn’t as facilitative. A Brokman doesn’t think an office would do it. He thinks that transfers are having a tougher time now than they were a while back. A Craig said that another suggestion is in terms of possibilities, this fall they’re discussing program houses. The way the university does housing may change in September. He suggests building up statistics and working on that for the fall.

R Lavin said that Sanjit brings up valid points. Unfortunately, they’re dealing with issues that SAs and administration 5 or 6 years ago forgot. He would agree a long term goal SHOULD be to develop a transfer center programming house as it was before. His discussion has been that it’s impossible right now and that it won’t go any further. If one of the clauses is more “the SA adopted and calling for admin to” do a long term plan for a transfer center. It might be most effective. Problem is space, money, etc. He hopes some version passes. Maybe next week take into account suggestions. A Brokman said it would be worse if administrators break six promises as opposed to one. They will be discussing in fall and stay on them with that.

S Purdy said that this has been a funny conversation. It seems like they have been working. They’ve gone through steps, gotten facts. People are questioning administration isn’t there but there’s no cost to this. For them to do now, they already have system in place. Even to restrict groups ie north to freshmen. He doesn’t think there’s anything to stop from doing in a week. He’s confused by qualms. It is their duty as SA to support students with problem. R Stein was asking for more information. She’d had time to think over. Last year their tactic was “let’s not pass a resolution until everything but passing a resolution has been done” but that was an unsuccessful tactic. She doesn’t see the downside. It’s not going to cost the university money. They shouldn’t focus on where they should be. That they DO have a unique situation. It’s like being a freshman but not as many options for friends. Not adjusting. Freshmen are on a different situation.

V Andrews thinks they’ve done a good job on the issue. He thinks it is the bottom line. Whether it’s tomorrow or three years, that we get there is what matters. He also says this resolution is asking for follow up. This is what SA thinks. He called to question. It was second. There was dissent.

VP Basil explained his dissent stating that he thinks that the way it’s worded we need to iterate specific steps toward the goal. But shouldn’t’ be the sole thing to call for.would recommend that they withdraw and revise.

By a vote of 6–11, the motion fails.

M Heinz thinks they’ve done a great job. It doesn’t need to be revised. He wants the SA behind him for getting a transfer programming house.

B Smith asked why the administration says it’s so difficult to put transfers together. They talked about how it’s supposedly easy. What’s their reasoning? A Brokman said it’s just not realizing. That he came in and every transfer knows housing isn’t ideal. Housing office says some people like it. P Ryerson said that he thinks the west campus housing initiative is academic and overlooks social needs of transfers. While administrators think they’re doing them a favor, they’ve hindered their transition. There is a reason for not having a transfer center but backfired R Lavin said it is not in west campus initiative.

N Raps was disappointed that they didn’t call to question. If they outline steps they will do as little as possible to make transfer community happy. It’s broad. Not saying they can’t TAKE steps. She called to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. R Stein said that there has been so much back and forth about facts and she doesn’t think they’ve been able to discuss the resolution as fully as possible. Now on same page, need to debate merits.

By a hand vote of 7–10, the motion fails.

E Diakow thinks the ultimate goal needs to be clear in the resolution. She doesn’t think outlining other steps is a bad thing. She doesn’t think that the steps are a bad thing. They might not know what steps are best. Maybe they don’t realize things to do or what is most important. Maybe they haven’t made it apparent. She thinks it needs to be changed to have it included. You’re best to say what to be fixed. P Ryerson said that if you give steps, you limit possibilities. Now just have a goal. Can work for FEASIBLE steps. J Feldman said the administration is not wanting to help us out

R Salem said the last time he spoke with them, he was told that housing lottery system would mess things up for following semester if things were tampered. A Brokman said that when they talked about blocks, they said all x factors. Professors have rooms, the housing lottery. There are many different factors into housing process.

VP Basil said that is the reason you need an iterative process. Now, the university cannot afford to have a single empty bed. The university will not take steps to alter current housing system to affect housing. When they do it in a new way, yes it’s been done, but won’t do it in housing system. Would you take a gothic, program houses in north. They won’t be receptive for next fall or even fall after that. Here, they have legislative oversight. This will be telling them to do something. They’re going to ignore it. It lessens our credibility. It would not only be ineffective but would be detrimental to future effectiveness. For themselves they need flexibility. The way it’s written, it won’t happen. He motions to table to next week. Second. A Brokman said that there is nothing saying to give a dorm. He is willing to bet that there won’t be a single empty bed in transfer program house. They’re not grabbing out of air. This was in place three years ago. They say it won’t happen. That’s not their [the sponsor’s] dream. This will happen. The year after? Maybe. Year after, better chance. Don’t remember how many resolutions that have had force an effect. SA is almost an illusion. In terms of proclamations supposed to say what students feel. Just SA supporting students.

VII. New Business

R.31 Granting Voting Rights to Liaisons - Allen Miller and Sanjiv Tata and Rammy Salem

There is another amendment. Where it reads, excepting ability to serve as exec board member, also should say “and vote in byline funding” A Miller said that this is going to require a charter change. Please give it read through. Tell him comments and thoughts. Basically, Greek community and RSC should have voting rights. Full support. Great resolution. He wants to see two important communities have more voting rights and responsibility. R Salem said that the liaisons represent constituencies in the same way and should be able to vote on behalf of people they represent.

M McDermott asked how are they elected to be a representative. Because everyone with voting privileges has ability to be voted. His impression is that it’s all internal. How do RSC and tricouncil elections work? A Miller said that there is no complete democratic election. Every dorm represents one RSC person. From RSC they elect the president and they’re the liaison. That’s indirect democracy. ISC each Greek house elects a president. Their president or IFC representative is then elected in where every house gets one vote. While not every Greek member gets a vote, it is indirectly democratic. R Salem feels like if they’re here they’re representative. M McDermott asked if they would then would you be opposed to changing SA charter to have constituencies elected by whole student body. A Miller said that they can work, it would take more changes. System of representation is good. He doesn’t see why it should be changed.

VP Junewicz was an arts liaison last year. Are you willing to change attendance policy. A Miller replied absolutely. VP Junewicz asked if they would mind putting that in a whereas clause. A Miller said that he would.

M Heinz said that in the Be It Ttherefore Resolved clause about will have all responsibilities as a voting member except exec board. A Miller replied that yes, they would not be able to serve on the executive board or vote in byline funding. R Lavin asked why the last clause was included. R Salem feels like putting in charge of funding organization, as they’re elected every semester and might not have as much familiarity with process as people all year. Might be chance for them to vote for groups that are under their perview.

S Purdy said that there are 23 voting members. What they did was saw tons of people from ILR run. So they gave engineering spots to only be voted on by engineers. Giving spots because of fair reasons. Liaisons are kind of like LGBTQ, minority, and international spots. He thinks it’s great there are representatives. But why not add nine spots for people from US. In response, might come up with resolution to get rid of spots. He doesn’t think should give spots for constituency but not for complement.

R. Stein said that her only question is how can it be democratic to have two liaisons who are appointed serve as voting members on SA. In past have had to appoint AAP liaison and arts Liaison. They were representative of democratic groups but had no vote. It was unreasonable to say someone not elected to make decisions. She thinks those students are adequately represented. She doesn’t believe that the Greek Community is different. She was wondering why they did. R Salem said that if they’re in this room, it doesn’t matter how their groups chose them. They were chosen. R. Stein doesn’t feel it’s more democratic for whole student body as opposed to tricouncil to pick. R Salem said that you voted on people on the people decided. A Miller said that those people voted for chap presidents.

A Craig said that individuals get elected every semester. Maybe something about duration of terms should be added. Additionally, training to do what about SA and who they represent and how to do things. Would you be interested in instituting training program? A Miller said that the student elected leadership of tricouncil is whole year. Liaisons are one semester. They would absolutely be willing to train. A Craig asked if they feel as though the Greek Community is not represented on the SA. A Miller said that he thinks it might be an issue of double representation. He thinks there are possibly minorities who are engineers. He thinks that most people see them as opposing communities but significant ones. R. Salem said that especially for lack of attendance. This would give them accountability. The seats would be more sought after. People applying would be qualified and passionate.

E Diakow asked the difference between a representative and a liaison. R Salem replied that a liaison can’t vote. A Miller said that this would add representative spots, with the exceptions noted. E Diakow asked if they think they should add a representative for every community that thinks it is important on campus. R Salem thinks that everyone interested in SA should get representation.

E Shannon asked if they would you be amenable into looking into where the line of discretion is drawn. Before three seats weren’t filled, they decided to appoint people as liaisons but the concern is discretionary ability to appoint liaisons. R Salem doesn’t think this would affect chair’s ability to affect liaison. These groups are electing people. A Miller asked about the precedent for LGBTQ liaison. R Lavin said that since those seats were not filled. He can’t just appoint liaisons. He got the ability because constituencies were elected for the following not represented .

VIII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:13 pm

Respectfully submitted,

Brittany Rosen