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

I. Call to Order

President Lavin called the meeting to order at 4:47 pm.

II. Roll Call

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

Representatives Excused: B. Smith

Representatives Unexcused: A. Garcia Verdin, E. Shannon, Y. Yao

Liaisons Present: A. Miller, S. Tata

III. Approval of Minutes

After necessary changes were made, there was a call for acclimation. It was seconded without dissent. The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

No one came forth to speak.

V.Announcements/Reports

� SAFC Co-chair — Yuliya She wanted to quickly summarize that they went through the procedure. They held a hearing with the group and individual. They had a lot of conversations. After a week of hearings and weighing in evidence, she read the hearing out loud. Basically, they are not permanently revoking funds. She asked if there are any questions. R Lavin thanked her, the SAFC and the representatives from Chi Alpha present. Thanks for participating.

A Brokman said that there is something he doesn’t understand. Does open heart, open minds not factor in at all to student organizations? Yuliya responded that there are certain policies that apply to student and independent organizations. SAFC can only look at if they made a mistake in looking at the policies. Then SAFC can look at specific policies, which is adhering to policies applicable. The final thing is policies not covered by those. They need two conditions. 1 — something directly applicable. 2 — chi alpha would have to be found in violation. The Open Doors is a mission statement, not a binding policy. A Brokman asked if SAFC plans to create a clause about that. Yuliya said that one of the reasons SAFC put the reasoning in was to make other judicial bodies aware. Seems that one reason they cannot prosecute or investigate because there is a loophole in the campus code of conduct. Yesterday, there was a resolution passed from codes of judicial committee. They changed the policy to include this clause, which will give them the opportunity to investigate. She wanted to remind that SAFC has specific set of guidelines that they follow. Very specific things they could and could not do. R Lavin said that any offices found that there was no formal official breach of policy. The UA approved the recommendation because a case like this in the future would be under the jurisdiction and go through Mary Beth Grant’s office. Yuliya replied that Cornell’s stance on diversity is it puts sexual orientation and religious freedom in the same clause and doesn’t say which one takes precedence.

E Diakow commends all your work.

� Senior Class Campaign Announcement — Ryan Lavin

Congratulated McDermott and they set a record in senior class giving rate. They have given some amount to Cornell. About 50% of the class has.

� Transition Preparedness Announcement — Rammy Salem R. Salem has met with Ryan. He wishes him luck with future. � Appropriations Committee Report — Greg Mezey They had an exciting meeting this week. They decided to purchase 500 dollars worth of slope day meal tickets. Can pass them out. Say get a meal on the SA. Great menu lined up. Should be pretty good. Everyone can get 10 tickets, 20 dollars worth of tickets. Don’t lose them. Stop by and he’ll give you a set. Give them to people who need them. The appropriations committee also decided to fund two programmers for the summer who will be revamping SAFC online application and then will work on RSO and other type tasks for the assembly. Decided to fund at 9600 dollars. That’s 15 dollars an hour, 40 hours a week, eight weeks. If any questions, Ari would be happy to answer. Also decided to not fund transfer orientation program as an assembly. They didn’t feel it was their place to be a programming body. It wasn’t the right time or place. Ari replied that the goal is that SAFC has been using the same database and software since the mid-nineties. It could fail at any point and wouldn’t have a backup. They would have to go to using paper. It would be a big problem. There have been several attempts to overhaul and always come into limitations of time and expertise. Most of the reason is because when he hired a student programmer for one month, it wasn’t sufficient time. This time, two programmers for a full two months using code developed 2 years ago as a basic framework. They have ample resources. VP Miller said that he trusts Ari completely. The appropriations committee was curious as to why two members and put stipulation that if they completed would do other things. Ari replied that programming projects are notoriously difficult to plan. There are all sorts of unforeseen issues. The thinking behind two programmers is that they want ample resources to get done. Two major tasks associated. One is implementing feature, then spend as much time writing code to test features. At full time, in the summer, students are free. VP Basil said that the cost is 15 dollars/hr. They’re looking to pay each student programmer close to five thousand dollars out of student money. For some members of appropriations committee, it seemed like a high money. Do you not think there will be qualified apps for more reasonable student rate? Ari said that a lot of the talent at Cornell has already found internships and other summer jobs. Already dealing with competitive and small pool of people. Their idea was to offer a very good student wage. A lot of college students are capable of programming at same level as professionals. And professionals in Ithaca would probably be paid 60 dollars an hour, so paying students at 15 is reasonable. V Andrews said that they started two years ago. If for some reason, they finish a few weeks before hand, will they be able to work on RSO taskforce or other business. Ari very much doubts all the features they would like to be implemented will be done but if they ARE done, there is a committee staffing idea. Could develop a database application. Personally, if he had resources, that is what he would look towards. R Salem asked how they are going about selecting/recruiting student programmers. Ari put request into the undergraduate office for computer science and forwarded request to all computer science majors, posted on Cornell’s job listing service. And undergraduate computer science students will be sent this. Any other ideas would be welcome. He would suggest you email friends you have with talents in this area. R Salem asked what to do if they know a student is interested. Ari said to have them email him and say they heard about the programming position, want a job. S Purdy is a computer science major, and he got his notice in email. If anything, 15 dollars is low. There is a big difference between high end and low end. If you get someone on low end, you are never going to get a quality project. He thinks given the current job market, he could be able to find it. Ari thinks that Cornell has the wage system and there is a limit to the starting salary. If you are passing on to friends, office might be willing to supplement money to make wage competitive. � Ivy Council Announcement — Alex Latella This past weekend, he was at University of Pennsylvania for elections. Harris Lee is president, from Brown. He wanted to encourage them to come out. Next year they are planning four conferences one of which hopefully be hosted here. Let him know. � Preliminary 2010–2012 SAF Requests Report — Chris Basil He wanted to bring this in front of everyone to see. Especially for people on assembly next year. This is where they stand in terms of requested funds from byline groups. A few groups haven’t been updated, by and large, groups are collected. There is a percent change asked for. SA is only group asking for a decrease. Two new groups, alternative breaks and big red are on there. Class council is splitting into two separate groups, and wilderness reflections is changing name. VP Miller asked if they were done staffing. VP Basil said that thy are still staffing. VP Miller suggested that it would be prudent to get staffed ASAP. VP Basil said that the nature of appropriations dictates that final schedule. The minimum of the committee has been staffed.

R Salem announced that the international student programming board approached him. Funding isn’t limited to international students. They are looking for new members. May 8, from 5–9:30 pm in the Memorial Room there will be a fundraising event with barbecues for habitat for humanity, support sustainable housing, disease prevention.

Asa Craig said that, as mentioned earlier, the CJC rules were approved. He can send it out to the full list. Nothing major. They approved Mary Beth to continue being judicial administrator, and approved Ryan’s Collegetown resolution.

VI. Business of the Day

� Approval of the Fall 2009 Elections Rules — Nikki Junewicz and Michael McDermott M McDermott said that his main announcement is that they met to approve the fall 2009 election rules. A majority of changes are ones that have been made and approved previously. For instance, transfers can get signatures from any new students. Can’t slip/post in/under doors. No receipts assume no money was spent. Final changes are grammatical or updating names of positions and he wanted to wish Nikki the best of luck. Respect her. His final comment is that next year they should focus on are the city council elections. If every student registered, they all would benefit. They would get 3 students back on council.

VP Mezey congratulated them. He thinks the changes are straightforward. There is other imp business to discuss. A Brokman asked if it will it be the same election process in terms of at large M McDermott said that is a decision to be made in the fall. He suggested that they don’t change too drastically or it will de-legitimize the election VP Mezey called to question. It was seconded with no dissent.

By a roll call vote, it was approved unanimously 18–0−0. � R.44 SA Organizational Review Committee & RSO Taskforce Recommendations — RSO Taskforce R Lavin said that resolution 21, the moratorium, will end June 1, and the task force discussed issues facing student organizations, and SA funding process. Recognizing issues. Discuss processes. They try to recognize correlation. There still are issues. There is an over demand, lack of supply of space, funding. Most importantly, duplicate groups. They have made several conclusions and can generalize to two separate topics/issues. Going through all 900 groups. Duplicate or similar mission statements. E Diakow said that groups they thought had similar mission statements are on there. It is to see if they can use resources or spaces together. The biggest thing is having trouble is if they’re REALLY specific, for instance card game clubs. If they can be grouped together or are different enough to be their own groups. V Andrews is looking to form a standing committee, bylaw change. Looking to go firstly, if you are a new organization, you will have to come in front of group and committee has to approve or can disapprove by 2/3 majority. Specific criteria for why it may not form. It is VERY restrictive. Also a timeline, if the committee does not follow the timeline, the group is automatically allowed to form. Second part is to analyze current groups. Mission statements, specificity. Requires if the standing committee deems they’re duplicate, it requires 4/5 to ask to revoke group’s recognition on campus. It is VERY restrictive. It took a semester to come up with guidelines. If they have amendments or suggestions, say them. But feel it’s a good process. They worked hard. He urges everyone to pass it. One example is a group saying “our mission statement is to publish certain article” another one was to “support other group to publish article” which is clearly two groups looking to pool funding from SA and SAFC which dilutes funding. R Lavin added that new groups having to deny someone registration is expected to be EXTREMELY rare. It’s an information sharing process. So they’re aware. Only time denied will be if it is a group that is specific. VP Miller said that it is recommended by the committee to do a tiered system, which couldn’t be put in because data was so heavy. Kate tried. Urge committee to form a system where allocations of funds will be formed. Won’t have actual numbers. Urge committee to look into it. Hope that someone in SA office or SAO office can run numbers so they’ll have reasonable criteria to help make funds more fairly dispersed. Large groups doing programming get funding they deserve. R Lavin noted that instead of “form” it should be “register.”

M. McDermott wanted to commend on hard work. Ola made a great comment that minority committee is doing same process. He is supporting everything here. Supports. Looking in right direction. Do want to say with some of club sports, are very distinct differences. Large differences between development and race team. And roller hockey and soccer teams are different. Could you comment where the SAO stands and are they in support on new process. VP Miller said that they are very impressed by this program. Ola encouraged this because thought his groups would be encouraged by the process. See as a sign for assembly system as a whole. R Lavin said that the SAO had this in the past and glad students will be doing this. Rather that than administrators. Minority groups that Ola’s working with, it’s great that they’re doing that. More support and muscle. V Andrews said that there is a line which specifically says exceptions can be made. Such as club soccer teams. So many students that it makes sense. That line specifically allows that.

A Craig said good job. He hopes that list here does not restrict or impede process for being on list. Other thing suggest, mentions statement that committee puts it on SA. Have something to appeal to SA. V Andrews said that the last line states appeals. E Diakow said that in regards it’s not that they can’t form. It’s that they had SOME similarity. These are just starting points. Understands difference. Put in list, knowing that some have more necessity than others.

N Kumar said great job with the entire process. Likes the second part. Sets high enough bar. Curious in terms of first part, is there terms of a higher standard than 2/3? VP Miller said that V. Andrews advocated for a higher, he advocated for a lower one. In the spirit of compromise. With new, it will be thoroughly looking. Be very rare to deny. R Lavin with continuing groups it’s not as friendly by the community to tell groups you’re out. New groups it’s more clear, easier, new info. If you’re telling groups that have already been on campus, better have a strong action. That’s why continuing is ahigher percentage. Both are supermajorities and can be overturned by SA

VP Mezey commends their work. Worked diligently. Excellent. No sticking points. Call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. R Lavin amended something. They voted to vote. The motion failed.

M Heinz asked about having applications instead of making meetings. Seems like a lot of unnecessary meetings. R Lavin said that they viewed approximately twenty-something new groups and wanted that opportunity. Any questions would be able to happen. V Andrews said it brings presence of committee to SA. For members of committee, have to know application process and know groups. Maybe can work together so they can pool resources. Make group process more effective. If it overburdens committee, can change it next semester. Wanted to meet them all to start off. R Lavin said that Chi Alpha said to him, there should be a course to navigate SA and activities. Maybe this fills that unmet need. M Heinz asked if right now, they don’t have to meet with anyone. R Laving stated that was true.

A Miller did have concern with quorum being six, but would like to yield time to Sanjiv.

S Tata said that one point M Heinz raised. He would emphasize that even 20 groups is a lot of meetings. Better used strategically but suppose they know more. Big problem is the point Liaison Miller is point of quorum to deny/remove. He wanted to hear more about people who advocated for a higher threshold. He was surprised to see 2/3 or 4/5. Quite significant. It doesn’t even allow alumni donation. Why not have a unanimous decision? V Andrews said the difference between majority, 2/3, 4/5. 4/5 only allows 1. 2/3 allows between 1 and 2. It came down to specific reasoning. The mission of this committee is to ensure that we have unique and effective groups on campus and ensure that current groups. SAFC can’t discriminate against groups. They’re looking to ensure that all new groups look to represent specific mission. They felt that was different than current groups. S Tata did understand the difference but for both, he wondered why unanimity was not preferable. Still small. It is difficult for committee of any size to get a cross-section of university for a group’s ESSENTIAL purpose. R Lavin said that at one point they had it unanimous. Anything for unanimous consent handcuffs. S Tata said that point is that you’ve hammered home how rare. Wouldn’t imagine that unanimity would be in fact complete duplicate. Raised issues of exact same people and advisers and would not imagine why people would vote against that. But presuming rarity but don’t think it assures rarity unless unanimous vote. R Lavin one thing to keep in mind is it’s not just duplicity. There are 3 issues. One being per capita allocation of SAFC. 5 people in a group getting 10,000 dollars. Duplicate memberships and advisors. Then there’s scope and function. Rummy club, poker club, it’s not always SO black and white. Other issues they need to address that aren’t as black and white. Don’t think anyone would have unanimous except for the one. There are other factors that aren’t as objective.

R Salem was wondering how they plan to deal with conflicts of interest. What if you’re from a club being decided upon? V Andrews said that he thought it would be obvious that you would step down, but if you want to add it, would find friendly. Same with appropriations, there’s stipulations. But the committee would work same way. R Salem called to question. It was seconded with no dissent.

R Lavin noted that things will change, percentages might change. He thanked V Andrews.

By a roll call vote of 15–0−0, the resolution passed unanimously.

VII. Unfinished Business

R.42 Committee on Transfer Affairs (COTA) Charge — Andrew Brokman

As you know ad hoc committee started. It had a specific purpose. Mainly housing, also some problems with academic and orientation policies. They have made a lot of progress. They need to continue committee. Problems with housing and orientation won’t just go away. Feel it’s important for next transfer rep to give and utilize.

R Salem thinks it’s necessary. As seen, transfer issues do last more than one representative’s term. He called to question. It was seconded with no dissent.

There was a motion to move to a hand-vote. By a hand-vote of 13–1−1, the resolution passes.

A Brokman made a motion to overrule decision made by the appropriations committee on Tuesday. Concerning OSC. There was dissent. He said that there was originally around $15,000. Given that we’re spending 9,600 on students. They could use 1,000. Emily Krebs runs OSC. But he’s been working closely with assistant dean of students. Together, they came up with a number of options, events that would extend the scope of orientation specific to transfer. What’s left of OSC funds isn’t enough. 2 years ago when transfer center was dismantled, it was also a programming house. They held orientation events specific to transfers, and OSC was getting funding allocation. This fall, they realized there were only 2 transfer specific events for orientation. Hoping that because they didn’t get correct allocation, could use this money to help expand scope of orientation process.

VP Miller took upon himself to meet with assistant dean Jones. Informed that they are expanding and due to financial constraints can only do so much. They are requesting an increase for next funding cycle. He thought the amount requested was outrageous.

V Andrews said that the reason why he voted against it was because the committee hadn’t been voted on, also OSC is governing body and even though they just formed it, they don’t have members, it hasn’t been staffed. They don’t know who’s coming back during orientation week. He would be more friendly to allocating $1000 to OSC for transfers. When they got the funding allocation, weren’t many stipulations. Also, VP miller made point that OSC is increasing programming. A Brokman would like to clarify. This 1000 dollars is going to committee on transfer affairs. Was original idea. Since then, things have changed. They talked about how it is OSC’s duty. They don’t want to take committee on transfer affairs and run events. Its duty is to influence. Money WOULD go to OSC. It would rather resemble something Sarah Jones is mapping out. To have good events. No money to the newly formed committee. It would be going straight to OSC. Point of Information: Was the budget not designated to Committee on Transfer Affairs? VP Mezey replied yes.

VP Basil talked to Emily. He asked whether 1000 dollars today could give programming. Could set up events in fall. Main complication and reason she’s hesitant is because OSC is not allowed to email new students directly. Instead only means are through the booklet. (which has already been printed) conceivable there could be supplements. No way to clearly communicate new events. She is worried they would set up events and no one would attend.

N Raps kind of agrees, but doesn’t think it’s the right time to do it. With economic situation, with student funding put into things more successful, it’s bad for money to go into things that they don’t know how it will work out. They don’t want to sink 1000 dollars into something they don’t know if transfers are going to go. Maybe apply next year when in a better financial situation. A Brokman said that first, regarding frugality, they just put in 9600 to update applications. As a new student who isn’t a freshman, needs are not met. This is the crux. First few weeks in Cornell. Not sure exactly what was conveyed to VP Basil but can tell certainly that they will have access to OL’s emails. Could make for better already existing events or additional event. Not that hard to say “come tonight to the dinner with professors” wouldn’t be very hard.

R Salem asked what group/organization CAN email new students. Put money to better use if OSC can’t do these things. A Brokman responded that in the past, the registrar has. OLs will get emails.

S Purdy has respect but from his point of view, he has seen the membership circumvent the people running the budget for things they want to use it for when people controlling money don’t have final say. Whether or not he agrees doesn’t think it’s appropriate.

VP Mezey is a transfer. If OSC wanted funds, they would approach SA. Would have approached to say that they need more money. Understand that he’s an intermediary that’s what they went on. Not always best practice to allocate funds not on our purview. Programming job is moved to pay for that. This is a cost incurred in another fiscal year. Isn’t our money/place to allocate expenses in fiscal years we’re not responsible for. Transfers do get the shaft. Commend because he’s been the best transfer representative but he says that in this situation, step back, let year happen, work throughout next year to put solid transfer program in place after byline funding. Not right way to do it. Understand frustrations and concerns.

N Kumar says that he has done a phenomenal job. There will be 4 or 5 additional programs. Completely agrees with Mezey not enough but is not sure if there’s a big transfer program in January. Think something to look into next fiscal year. A Brokman tabled it.

New Business � Approval of New Student Union Board Bylaws — Jacob Stein His group was told that they had that the student union board has been not organized. Going through entire constitution. He went through all of the changes on the sheets.

R Lavin said that this makes sense that offices should be given to groups already there. And byline funded groups? Is there anywhere that they get priority? J Stein said that he could put it in section 3 on page 16.

VP Mezey said great job. Good improvements. This is group that runs this organization and probably knows what’s best. They should trust when they come with changes. Don’t think anything is detrimental to community. Makes sense. Call to question. Second. There was dissent.Someone called for acclimation. It was seconded with no dissent and thus approved.

IX. Adjournment

R. Lavin adjourned the final meeting of the semester at 6:21 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,
Alexandria Sun