Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
April 9, 2009
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:46 pm

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: V Andrews, N Baker, C Basil, A Brokman, A Craig, E Cusick, L DeLencquesaing, A Garcia-Verdin, M Heinz, N Kumar, A Latella, R Lavin, M McDermott, G Mezey, T Miller, N Raps, R Salem, O Sandoval

Representatives Excused: E Diakow

Representatives 1/2 absent (excused): N Junewicz, B Smith, R Stein

Representatives Unexcused: E Shannon, Y Yao

Liaisons Present: A Miller, S Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes — April 2, 2009

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent, and the minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

Andrew White said that he’s heard good things and other things that he’s iffy about. He said good work, keep going at it. R Lavin thanked him for coming.

V. Announcements/Reports

CCC/Girl Talk Announcement — Ryan Lavin

R Lavin said that’s an example of a byline funded group doing an awesome job. He commended the Cornell Concert Commission.

UA Gorge Safety Campus Code of Conduct Report — Natalie Raps

This is moved to unfinished business.

2009–2010 SA Internals Update — Rammy Salem

They decided on most of committee chairs and position appointments. The new director of elections is Nikki Junewicz. He also is resurrecting the position of executive archivist and that is going to Tony Miller.

Transitions Announcement — VP Miller

Nikhil and he are working to do better transition work. Please effort to contact incoming SA members filling your position. Give them advice, meet up. They’re planning another event at the end of the semester, the Saturday after slope day probably. If you have any ideas, let him know. N. Kumar thanked VP Miller a lot for everything he’s done.

M Heinz had a faculty senate update. Yesterday at Faculty Senate, they decided to have classes start in the fall a day earlier. They decided to have Labor Day off.. And school will start one day earlier.

VI. Business of the Day

R.32 Assembly Support of Collegetown Urban Plan and Design Guidelines — Svante Myrick, Ryan Lavin, and Chris Basil

They have been receiving updates and supports. The Goody Clancy firm hired by Cornell. There are political roadblocks that the planning group and Cornell are facing. He will keep them in the loop. Himself and Svante Myrick — who is only city representative on council — thought it would a good idea to get official Cornell input. 97 percent of collegetown residents are students. The city council isn’t taking it to heart. They read the last be it therefore resolved clause. Basically it stated that they support Goody Clancy plan. They’re going to go to the rest of the assemblies to see if they want to sign onto this.

R Salem called to question.

VP Miller had other questions first and did not recognize the motion. He asked if the other bodies have moved on this. VP Basil responded that the UA meets next Wednesday. R Lavin said they’re on the calendar for EA. No one else has signed onto it yet. The “be it therefore resolved” clause will be whoever else signs onto it. VP Miller asked if they will be able to help and give more clout. R Lavin said that Guttenberg is VP for government community relations. If the city council looks for a Cornell response, they go to him. It’s more formal. Perhaps President Skorton will be more involved if he knows everyone else is involved.

A Latella is against this because it’s not a comprehensive plan, it’s a real estate development plan. A building will be built. It won’t lower housing prices or improve parking or other problems. R Lavin doesn’t think that opinion represents a majority of students sentiment but where’s that coming from? This treats people equitably. All issues are addressed. Why would you think that isn’t the case? A Latella said that the issues the stakeholders plan says they’re addressing is reflected in the plan but aren’t addressed the concerned. Parking is they want to add more and improve congestion. For a lot of the city planners have been told there is no congestion problem. Additionally, states of buildings are not being addressed. No provision for enforcement of zoning codes or endorsement of fixing buildings within collegetown. There needs to be a plan but doesn’t think this is the best plan. R Lavin said that those provisions are in the plan.

N Raps said that another perspective is that the university is accepting more students. Prices are going to go up. Maybe prices will go up because of the number of people. But fact that we can build more and more people have opportunity to move off campus, it makes more sense to keep on growing as it’s another center of our college experience. She called to question. It was seconded R Lavin said that the plan promotes density and development in the core of collegetown. The people against the plan are ignorant, wrong, and not thinking long term. Promotes development density and wants to make the top part of College Ave spread to the rest and Dryden. That’s why it’s supported.

There was a motion for hand vote. It was seconded with no dissent. By a hand vote of 15–0−1, resolution passes.

VII. Unfinished Business

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

Jared Feldman, sophomore and Paul Ryerson senior introduced themselves again for the record.

A Brokman summed up the changes made. He first put back in the “be it therefore resolved” clause. They felt that on second thought, those two clauses should be it therefore resolved. The real big change was that many asked for intermediate steps. They added a “be it therefore resolved” clause. The reason was that after speaking with Joe Burke, they have found that 110 transfers will be placed in Skylar House anyway, if they do designate as transfer center and support necessary to hold it, then in future years they will be at a better vantage point. J Feldman wanted to address something. People last year were worried about possible displacement of other students. The financial decision of admitting 100 more freshman, will change the face of living could be different as we’re seeing. With program houses, they don’t know what’s opening up. He reminded people that when it existed, the transfer center was the only one with a wait list. P Ryerson would like to address a concern from last week. Even though Andrew represents transfers, you all represent them. They are your constituents. And yours here have spoken loud and clear. They need a transfer center. One said if the SA couldn’t follow through, it would undermine credibility. He couldn’t possibly disagree more. The only thing that undermines it is when you say no when constituency says yes. He urges the SA to do the right thing for the whole community.

R Salem understands where Chris was coming from where the first two “be it therefore resolved” clauses were to be changed to whereas because in the past they’ve been reserved for ACTION statements. That’s an opinion. Despite the fact that he agrees, it’s an opinion. But “Be It Therefore Resolved” is that they DO something. But the SA recommends. He think that’s where they should be. It’s trivial but just because it’s how it’s been done in the past. He motioned for it to be changed. A Brokman said that the reason was just because it’s trivial so right away he agreed. After further consideration, he figured that supporting that it’s essential is an action. To support is an action. While they could put those further up, to put it in a “Be It Therefore Resolved” says that SA supports this. He found it unfriendly.

VP Mezey doesn’t care about the wording. He thinks they should talk about the merits of the resolution. Clearly there’s enough who feel it is essential, makes it no longer opinion. So to go back and forth, let’s just start legislating and stop worrying about the details.

R Salem withdraws motion to amend.

VP Miller said that he likes it better than last week. He amended to says urge instead of recommend in the third and fourth “be it therefore resolved” clauses. The sponsors find this friendly.

Sean Warpol, an audience member sophomore transfer student. He wanted to talk on the resolution of trying to incorporate as much of transfer voice as they can. He thinks one thing that it’s hard to understand is that this experience is so unique. It’s not something that can be fully understood without going through it. The importance of having something fully established with title and body. One thing is why living on north was terrible even coming in and applying and being accepted. There isn’t much in terms of housing knowing where am I going to be living. I had the choice and when it came down to reality now knowing where most of the transfers lived. I didn’t have knowledge of the system. By having it in a house, know where I’ll be living will be with other transfers. There will be mechanisms to assimilate. The lack of development and programming doesn’t allow that to happen.

N Kumar said that this might be one of the best resolutions. They went through a phenomenal process. One suggestion is to please move forward in charter amendment to make committee on transfer affairs permanent. Call to question. It was seconded. A Brokman thanked N Kumar. He said to listen to the people, vote with your conscience. They may not understand what it is to be a transfer. Telling administration that there’s a need. An urgency. R Lavin decided to allow four audience members one minute apiece to speak.

Andrew White, class of 08 wanted to commend this and waw when transfer center existed. It is good to create a safe environment but disagrees with having it established. Yes you’re first years but what are you going to do with people who don’t live in the transfer center. You can’t guarantee all of them to live there. It’s unfair to the ENTIRE community who would like to live there. Lindsay Bober — class of 09. She’s worked with various groups of students of different demographics and years. Transfers have unique needs that she felt that she wasn’t able to meet. Transfers are not freshmen, they aren’t returning students. They have unique need that need to be met. She supports this and urges them to pass it. Kimberly Barth graduated in ‘06 and is presently an RHD on west, and was an RHD of transfers. She feels why would you deny 100 plus people the ability to live in a place because other people hadn’t. They do invite ALL people to the programs. They incorporate August and January transfers. As soon as she became an RHD for transfers, she was asked questions from university officials. They have the impact to reinstate this program. They had a mock funeral last Thursday. When transfer center went down there was one, when it went down, there was another. The definition of transfer issue. They have had nothing but political roadblocks. They’re really resting themselves on you, the SA. Jessica Gross, graduated 08 was a transfer in the last year of transfer center. She was a transfer who was “accidentally” placed outside of the transfer center. From experience, she did feel that once she was placed into the transfer center was when she truly felt the sense of community. Prospective students will feel the same way. They need to feel welcomed to Cornell. She did feel there was something missing. By a roll call vote of 18–1−0, the resolution passes.

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

A Miller would like to start off and keep emotions aside. First thing is the first thing he’s amending. Where it leads in 3.3a and 3.3b add a sentence that says “in addition, the respective members will not be able to vote on byline funding legislation.” Putting it back in realizing that MGFCs are funded by the SAFC. Begin that question why there are liaisons in the first place. Whoever came up with SA charter realized that the Greek and Residential Community are large and important groups on campus. They believe that at this point it’s necessary to extend voting rights. These two communities are large and important enough to be able to vote and support and have vote. They know that 50% of students live in Residence Halls and 35% if students are Greek. In both cases, person chosen is accountable to constituents. Certain situations that arise such as housing differentials, transfers, can’t voice opinion by voting. They also know that multiple representation does exist. If that’s a concern there is a precedent for that. S Tata wanted to emphasize why they pursue this route. They don’t want these spots to be a backdoor into the SA. They don’t want a member who isn’t committed to the RSC or Greek community as well. They would rather have individuals committed to current governance to benefit communities. He urges them to listen to arguments and try to understand.

S Purdy can understand that Rammy has been talking about giving voting rights to people who come. While he doesn’t support that it makes more sense. It’s multiple representation. When you take 23 people and you’re worried because all the people in ILR are running and no one in engineering runs. You designate certain spots for each college. To allocate a minority spot without allocating a non minority spot doesn’t make sense. Giving voting rights to a specific constituency without matching compliment doesn’t make sense. R Salem asked what would be the complement spots. S Purdy responded Non Greeks A Miller: said that they believe that RSC and Greek Liaisons complement each other.

N Raps has problems with this just because coming from a role as running on SA, you spend weeks worrying all the time, 100 dollars, campaining all the time. People that really want to run, takes up a big part of your time. She feels like if you’re a liaison you don’t have to go through the same things. You have to do a lot of things getting them here. Think it’s fair to put in time and effort, that you got appointed. You get to talk to them. She feels like that’s the role of a liaison. Put input but since you didn’t run directly, you can state your opinion but don’t have a direct spot because you weren’t voted by a constituency. Feel it’s a great idea to have it but need to be directly elected. It isn’t fair to 23 of us who did go through the process. S Tata appreciates the time and effort they went through. Both of them did run for elections, they did spend a lot of time campaigning to win positions. Alex spent a month, he did. Those organizations are their lives.

VP Miller said that it’s not that it’s harder it’s that they’re different. Rules they abide by. It’s that they do not go through the same process. They already made a concession to not vote for byline funding. Already making compromises. Because you are liaisons. look at definition on liaisons. Natalie said it well. Bring their community input to them. Understand they’re elected but it’s a different process. Maybe integrate election R Salem doesn’t know why we’re a culture of exclusivity. Second, opening it up, Mike brought it up. As Sanjiv stated, they don’t want them to be backdoor onto the assembly. They put lots of time into it. Who is more qualified for housing questions than Sajiv? And he can’t vote on an amendment about housing.

VP Mezey said that he was a Greek liaison at one time. He understands the desire to have a vote. It iss painful to listen but not be able to do action. Are Greeks underrepresented? 13 greeks that are represented around the table. They take those things into consideration when they vote regardless of title. Better way is that just as you have minority or international, have undergraduate seat designated for Greeks. Better way to go about it. But don’t support giving liaisons voting rights. He saw what a mess it was. Came down to who’s free on Thursdays. Same thing with our internal elections. He doesn’t think they should have voting rights. Supports intent but would like to see undergrad at large position. But to give liaisons voting rights isn’t within what they should be doing. Should be popularly elected. Hopefully can be convincing enough that the opinion will be voted in mind. R Salem like you said, bunch of people sit and decide. Not sure if that’s the case. They were popularly elected. And the people who elected them voted so that you could make the best decision. Point about byline funding. They did that out of personal interests so there’s not a conflict of interest. Assumed you’d abstain if it were to arise but to assume that someone with low morals. Put in to make official. A Miller said that it comes down to WHY we have election process. To produce best representation for constituency. Best for THEIR represenatatives is direct election.

Point Of Information: is it not true that only 41 chapter representatives sit and popularly elect. Is not a popular election. Is only representative from chapter voicing. Only 71 people voting for ISC. A Miller yes but who voted on who those are chapter presidents who are elected.

Point Of Information: S Tata said that the RSC liaison is explicitly the presidents or vice president. So the person has experience with the RSC.

Point Of Information for panhellenic, do they not use slating. It caries by chapter. But executive is slating but also voting. Still the same as IFC exec. Slating recommendation is made by outgoing members

M McDermott has gone through charter and found issues. First is that it’s a delicate issue. The charter review committee didn’t want to get into it. Elections committee thought adding more voting members is something that must be thought out. He doesn’t think two meetings is enough. Why do the STUDENTS need this? 1 thing is rather than allowing another person to the student assembly, they should leave it at liaison level. Where do we stop the limits? 117a and b say members are liaisons. 117c3.4, 3.5, 6.4 all extend more members. Parallel is you are going to have to outline in charter how elections occur. His biggest issue is bylaw 3.11c. Representatives on SA shall be available by a plurality system. It is imp to guarantee that anyone voting follows this part of the chapter. They do not follow rules to that extend. Indirect election logic disappears in bylaw 3.1 par 3 a. 1 says representation will be based on rotating basis. It is not an elected part. It’s process in the charter. This is your month or half of the year which goes against another bylaw. All elected members are elected for a full one academic year. That’s how it would have to be to remain in conjunction with charter. Charter review committee has taken executive out of the definition of RSC representative. SA no longer thinks it has to be an executive. The final thing is that backdoor isn’t an issue. They do have technology to say if we want to expand, constituencies can be selected to vote. Are allowed to say candidate MUST be from constituencies. No lack of logic. Contradicts backdoor threat.

M Heinz said that Mike made a great point. If you felt that communities needed a voting member, do it as Mike suggested not as up liaison. He called to question. It was seconded. There was dissent.

A Craig said that the idea of proposing alternate voting procedure. When people do whatever they do can hear thoughts.

They voted to vote. By a vote of 11 −3 —1, the motion fails as they did not have 2/3 majority.

R Salem didn’t see all the implications as Mike went through. All the changes. They are going to table indefinitely.

UA Gorge Safety Campus Code of Conduct — N. Raps and A Craig

N Raps said that at the next UA meeting, they’re voting on the resolution to prohibit swimming in gorges. It was all in there except for the bolded. They come as UA liaisons to ask SA’s opinions cause are going to have to talk with UA and tell them what students want. A Craig said that the idea is why they need voices and presence. Voted on gorges to take more educative response. Is relative to decision earlier. N Raps said that if you give JAs for being in the waters, they are usually given during the day. If you do this, more people will be tempted to go into the gorges at night, possibly drunk, in order to get around this. They want to hear opinions. A Craig said that the meetings are held at 316 Day Hall. This may change. He will send an email, it’s at 4:30 Wednesday.

R Lavin was at the gorge safety meetings, and thinks that he was one of the people who recommended that there really is zero sense of enforcement. Let them no there’s no sense of enforcement and while he doesn’t think there SHOULD be excessive enforcement, think that if there’s some sense that authorities are around, would encourage students to be more safety conscious. This wasn’t at all what he had in mind. If police were JAing everyone they saw in the gorges, that wasn’t what history behind idea was. That was to pass enforcement in sense that if they see intoxicated students where deaths have been, there would be appropriate, not seeing if it had been sitting.

V Andrews said that the enforcement issue about who should be doing the enforcement, Cornell or Ithaca police. That will be looked at. What’ll happen if student is? JA, city ticket. He also feels like it’s jumping the gun. There are no waters which are designated for bathing. Before they can pass, it has to be designated area FOR swimming, especially because of the Cornell tradition, but if they’re going to be serious about allowing/telling kids you can’t do this, provide with alternative. A Craig said that they need to work on designation. Issue here is that university didn’t want to designate anything because they don’t want responsibility. See we need to figure it out. R Lavin said the issue was who to enforce. Gorges are not Cornell owned. The water is owned by the state. The land beneath and around is owned by the city. Everything else is Cornell. The city’s never enforced because they don’t have manpower. Campus can JA someone because of off campus incident. N Raps said that they’ve talked to CU police and they didn’t think THEY had man power and then Ithaca police didn’t want to go on Cornell turf and CU Police didn’t want to go on Ithaca turd and they talked about if they should have STUDENTS enforce but couldn’t decide. V Andrews feels like there are a lot of unanswered issues and feels like this would be poorly received by the students and has no bearing, what’s the point of passing it?

VP Miller said that they’ve all brought up great points. They went from no enforcement to the extreme opposite. Clearly sticking toes in and jumping off rocks are different things. Need to look at degrees of punishment. Swimming in Beebe Lake is different. They need designation of different punishments. Different to jump than step foot off. Look at ranges of punishments and who’s enforcing it. R Lavin said that what they’ll say is that it’s in place but practice is that they WOULDN’T ticket but would be for egregious behavior and question is are we okay with good faith.

M McDermott said his sentiments were expressed. He thought it was to prohibit swimming. And coming from a water front job, legally rules are different. What do we mean by bathing, running in water, is that bathing, when can and can’t I get ticketed. Main concern is that it’s to prohibit swimming but what’s not being allowed and don’t know what they mean. A Craig said that if you guys are coming, responses will come from police. They don’t want people coming on the sides cause you can slip. K. Laden said that as you brought up the points, the main point is how and manpower. The other is the legal liability of the university. CUPD was going from mindset that we should keep problems in house. On a side note is that only 200 undergrads out of 1100 on CJC. Only one SA representative has shown up. While Ithaca police haven’t been doing it, CU police said if it’s illegal they WILL start doing it. Finally, lack of undergrads on CJC will have more of a presence on UA.

M Heinz asked if it is the UA’s intent to close gorges entirely? K Laden said that it has been brought up is walking same as swimming. Brought in person who pulled out person’s body talked about the theories as to how individual died. It was hypothesized that he slipped while standing. Would be once you enter water. But until then walking would be fine. M Heinz asked if there was no intent to close access. K Laden said that they tried but people kept cutting the fence.

VP Basil wanted to bring up again, what he wants to see is delineation between Beebe Lake and the gorge behind Fiji. As Ryan touched on, the sentiment is correct with police presence and to discourage dangerous behavior. Different gradients of bad behavior have not been reflected.

VP Mezey said that these guidelines are for existence but aren’t necessarily followed. It is a smart move to be on paper for the university. They’re protecting liability and looking out for best interests of the students. Want to protect integrity. Agree there should be degrees and more thought put in.

They took a sense of body through hand vote. 15–1−1 OPPOSING this resolution.

VIII. New Business

R. 33 Staffing Committee- N Kumar and VP Miller

This is a charter change. New business. Questions only. N Kumar said this is a very rough draft. Email him with questions. Intent is to streamline the staffing process. Doesn’t reflect how SA staffs. VP Miller was a pain to staff committees. Had to explain what committee was. Went around to committee chairs and this formally says what committee is, can say to office had formal meeting, gave me the okay. Web updated faster, makes it easier. Hasn’t been expanded upon.

A Miller wanted to ask what original purpose of dean of students existence in there. N Kumar said that this is just streamlining the process. SA charter says something about SA being responsible for internal operations. This keeps it streamlined.

IX. Adjournment

R Lavin adjourned the meeting at 6:06 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brittany Rosen