MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
September 3, 2009
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

President Salem called the meeting to order at 4:51 pm.

II. Roll Call

Representatives present: I. Akinpeli, V. Andrews, C. Basil, C. De Lencquesaing, M. Delucia, Z. Glasser, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, A. Latella, J. Min, A. Nicoletti, N. Raps, J. Rau, A. Raveret, R. Salem, K. Welch, O. Williams
Liaisons present: P. Eliasinski, A. Flye
Excused: A. Cowen

III. Approval of Minutes

President Salem directed everyone’s attention to the minutes from the last meeting last semester. There were no changes and the minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

Ebony Ray 2010, Phil — 2010, and Zak Murray —2011 came forth to speak. E. Ray said that they were here on behalf of students for Ken Glover. A struggle ensued over the summer. The RHD of Ujimaa was transferred from his position. Students mobilized via the internet. Over 800 alumni and over 200 students raised questions, asked why he was removed without prior notice. Residential programs said they’d reinstate him for a year after which a nation-wide search would begin for a new RHD. They think this is wrong. They think a decision to remove him should’ve been a democratic decision reached by administrators and students. Institutionalized student voice. They want more transparency and wanted to alarm the SA because you are our advocates and need to know what affects us. Z. Murray said that this is an issue of student voice. We are given a voice. Students have had a voice in the history. They want your support and don’t want it to set a precedent for student voice to be ignored. They want to add that the reasons the administrators cite are inadequate. They cite the economy but are going to conduct a national search during a hiring freeze.

V. Oath of Office

All newly elected representatives were asked to rise. They repeated the Oath of Office after R. Salem. The Oath can be found on the assembly website under this meeting’s date.

VI. Announcements/Reports

Elections Committee Update — Nikki Junewicz

Elections are up and coming. They’re going well. So far they have had 80 packets checked out. Hopefully they will be turned back in by 12:30pm Tuesday and then signatures will be checked. Things are going well and remember to turn in packets.

Zimride Update- Vincent Andrews

The update has been delayed until next week.

Sponsoring Cornell United Religious Works Event- Rammy Salem

On Sept. 22, they are inviting Professor Steve from Cornell Law School and a lawyer from the 1st amendment censor to discuss freedom of speech amendment on campus.

VP Update — Chris Basil

Reminder to assembly members, they are having eligibility hearings on Monday for Big Red Bikes and Alternative Breaks at 5pm, Monday in Goldwin Smith Hall 142, if any member is interested, please feel free to come. Also touched on briefly during that discussion in training session last week, philosophically whether to raise the Student Activity fee or keep it constant. If you’re interested, do try to come by.

Staffing Update — Nikhil Kumar

He wanted to remind all SA members of the attendance policy. Any voting member absent for 3 meetings in a row, or 6 all together, will lose his or her spot. If you have academic reason, etc, let him know, but that only counts toward proxy votes, doesn’t affect whether you accrue an absence or not. He got a ton of applications for committee positions. They have begun to start staffing. Those in the audience should know in next two weeks or so. If there are any questions, feel free to email him at njk38.

President Salem stated that Yuliya and Charlie Feng, co-chairs of SAFC sent Rammy an email thanking SA for allowing them to hire two FWS employees this summer to help make new SAFC database and this just expressed their gratitude.

President Salem wanted to let everyone know that he will start having office hours Saturday at noon, in libe caf�, till around two. If it changes, he’ll let people know.

N. Kumar motioned to move the Ithaqatar Presentation to reports. It was seconded without dissent.

IthaQatar Ambassadors Presentation- Jonathan Soh and Allen Miller

A. Miller gave background on the IthaQatar Ambassadors program. They hosted Qatar students this summer. They took them on community related trips, and things such as roadtrips to Boston, and New York City. There were 22 Ithaca undergrads across colleges and majors. 24 students from Qatar from the pre-med program who were recently accepted med students. A big thing gained from this summer is the novel idea of starting a campus-to-campus exchange. Currently there is no program that exists now, despite pieces all being in place. Credits and grades would be transferable. A Miller then showed a video made this summer.

VII. Business of the Day

Welcome- Rammy Salem

R. Salem welcomed everyone, and made a welcome speech. This is about the collective effort. The power and bonds to create this year. He hopes it’ll grow. Especially in relationships. This year they have, as VP Basil said before, the privilege of allocating student activity fee. They will learn from mistakes. It is imperative to learn from mistakes and such from past. They have benefited from their predecessors and the marks they left on campus.

Introduction of the Student Trustees — Mike Walsh and Asa Craig

Mike Walsh and Asa Craig introduced themselves. M. Walsh is a fifth year grad student and the senior trustee. He is here for you, as a relief pitcher to take the issues to the board. There are two big issues he’s looking forward to working on this year. First is their plan to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. It is one of the best plans out there. They will be submitting them on 10/1. The other is the strategic planning process. A lot of changes are going on. For instance they just cut ice hockey and cross-country intramurals. Asa Craig said hi, and urged people to feel free to contact him. What he’s trying to do is increase student body communication. Strategic planning about university. It’s pretty scary to see what’s going to go by the wayside. While looking best for institution, we are an undergrad institution and make up a majority of students on campus. Res life, program houses, and other big issues are for broad goals. Feel free to approach them, as they are soon heading to New York City to meet with trustees and they will be at SA meetings.

VIII. New Business

R. 1- Approval of the 2009–2010 Standing Rules- Ola Williams

Standing rules act as guidelines.

V. Andrews motioned to move to business of the day, so they can vote on this. It was seconded without dissent. He then wanted to go by line through all the changes. O. Williams said that first 08/09 was changed to 09/10. E-board was changed to executive committee. Speaking time reduced from 3 to 2 minutes.

A. Latella pointed out that it should be 2009/2010, not 20010.

N. Kumar called to question. It was seconded with. No dissent.

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

R. 2- Creation of a Student Ambassador to Doha, Qatar- Cecilia De Lencquesaing , Maya Dib, Allen Miller and Rammy Salem

A Miller calls for the creation of student ambassador to Doha. This came out of this summer. Believes there is a need for a consistent relationship. Important part is responsibilities. All the points, a lot are things that when working on program they found the need for. The selection process, is that the student is appointed by president with advice and consent of SA Exec board. And approved by 2/3 of the SA. Maya Dib completed two years of premed program in Qatar. They have options of coming to main campus before going to med school. It was a big decision to come here, will be here for a year. They suggested having ambassadors in both places. Great idea and something needed. It would be a good opportunity to get to know other campuses on Cornell and have exchange programs. In Qatar they are a small group of 120 students with 21 nationalities. It would help them to feel more that they belong to Cornell.

VP Basil motioned to move to business of the day. It was seconded without dissent.

VP Andrews read the resolution, responsibilities, etc. It is essentially a liaisonship? A Miller said they’re creating an ambassador and didn’t want to confuse it with a Greek or RSC liaison. VP Andrews asked if they would sit here. A Miller said that they would give progress reports but not have speaking rights, etc and would be communicating with person.

N Raps thinks it is a great resolution to help further campus to make one community. Great step. Call to question. It was seconded with no dissent.

There was a call for a hand-vote, which was seconded with no dissent.

By a vote of 15–0−0 Resolution two was approved.

R. 3- Restructuring of Review Committees- Nikhil Kumar

Thanks to Vince and Nikki, they have over 120 apps for roughly 40 positions open. His hope is to expand to let more people. Changes made on dining services want to expand voting undergrads from 4–7 and to appoint alternates.

VP Basil said that it’s always a challenge in committees is having small enough to be workable, but this is great.

J. Min asked how they came up with numbers. Was there a reason? N Kumar tried to draw from experience. The previous vp of internal operations tried to allow more people to serve as non voting capacity. But would be open to amend.

R. 4- Voting Rights for Members of the Undergraduate Community

“The Community Clause”- Ola Williams and Rammy Salem R. Salem wanted to first give background and context. About a year and a half ago, two of the past SA presidents submitted a resolution with the same name. It had a similar idea. Parliamentarian would get people’s ids and have them vote. And then they would get votes. This would count as two for majority.

They came up with this instead and are presenting it. He encouraged people to find holes and tell why it won’t work, because that’s how to improve things.

Most changes made were inserting the word “popularly elected” to distinguish from others on campus. If one student were to attend 3 consecutive SA meetings, they would be considered voting members on sense of body resolutions. This excludes funding and budgetary as well as amendments to the charter and standing rules, ability to make motions, creation and dissolution of committees, selection of officers, committee members and liaisons. The parliamentarian job will still be the same with this added responsibility. What if an assembly member has a few friends and brings in his entourage to attend 3 meetings and attend resolutions at critical moments. That’s why the veto power is there. All elected representatives are part of that. So it is stated that they reserve the right to veto sense of body resolutions. This states that these are resolutions just for student concerns.

He had an idea to have a minimum of 2 assembly members required to present resolutions. He thinks if you’re not able to find another person to support it, it’s best not to present it.

VP Basil asked how he foresees this resolution affecting speaking privileges. Especially because you’re talking about community members only being able to vote in a sense of body resolution. What about other assembly business? R. Salem thinks that speaking rights are at the discretion of the chair. He would be happy to add, saying that in the case of really contentious issues, member of the community would be recognized as every third speaker. VP Basil said that he also talked about reassuring it wouldn’t change responsibilities or privileges. So what’s the point? R. Salem said that he wants more people in this room and caring about issues. It is elitist to think that we’re the only ones who have an understanding of happenings on campus. They should take advantage of the fact that different people have different areas of expertise. Everyone wants to feel investment in the process. This is putting power back into hands of students. He dosn’t want to hear student say they don’t know what SA is or does or isn’t happy with actions they are taking. This gives an automatic response. They could’ve come to the meeting. VP Basil said that they would need to know 3 weeks in advance about contentious issues. But most time taken to debate one resolution is 2 weeks and that’s charter changes. But by and large, issues are debated and voted on in sense of body over a 2 week period. What’s the point? R. Salem said that the main thing is that resolutions happen in 2 weeks so wouldn’t be able to vote. That’s not the issue. Next week, if you vote, starting that week, if students attend the following three meetings, they will have voting rights as long as in attendance. But that’s all they have to wait.

A. Cowen said that he is curious if you could elaborate on reasoning in appendix 6, section 3 i.a. R. Salem said that currently the charter states that SA shall abide by open meetings law. He changed it to non-elected undergrads will be excluded from executive sessions. He didn’t know what the first thing meant.

A. Raveret said that his opinion was that most people who would come have investment or interest in what’s being passed and that wouldn’t be representative of a whole student body and just people interested in things passed. Would this undermine whole idea of elected representation? R. Salem said that only SA members are able to determine agenda. If you don’t want to see something presented, you can disagree. He wasn’t following the interest. A. Raveret said that SA meetings he’s been to, there have not been a large amount of people here. The times with large amount of people are big issues being passed. All because they have opinion, usually for the issue. He was nervous that giving these people in support of issue, voting rights, not representative of people in Cornell community who disagree. R. Salem said that’s why if you passionately disagree, you should show up to make voice heard.

J Min asked how does this work in line with the distribution of seats allotted to certain things, especially for arts receiving 3 seats and smaller colleges receiving one, will it not undermine whole system of representation of the student body and 50 hotelies show up, it could really disrupt representing voice of whole student body. R. Salem said that is why he put in 5.3 vetoing power. All elected representatives. You are most representative of the student body so if a resolution comes up (and would have to be friends of one of you, cause at least 2 would be able to present) then if 2/3 agree it’s not right, it gets vetoed. It would cease to be on the table. J Min said how would they be able to differentiate whether it is a conflict of interest or not. R. Salem said that if there’s a conflict of interest. Like Raveret had mentioned, only way to bring students here is to give them interest. Going to be interested in some way, shape or form. J Min asked how people would know if it IS a conflict of interest. R. Salem said that it is not solely for suspecting conflict of interest. If for whatever reason, 2/3 disagree. If a group no one has met come in, get 2 assembly members to sponsor, 2/3 against makes it null.

N Raps said that if anyone’s REALLY passionate, they’d come, be able to vote. She does think they need ways to fill chairs. But isn’t it the duty of us to go INTO populations and have them talk to US to tell US what they THINK to have them vote. If they can come and vote and say what they want, there is no need to spend a week, campaign for a position. It makes all of us have no reason. Might as well just have open forum. Then how long meetings will go, it would extend hours. R. Salem said that last year when resolution went to have direct elections for president and vice-president, they agreed that we have to lessen our powers for the sake of more democratic voting process. All agreed that we desire more participation from students. They are lessening power with regard to 1/5 of the responsibilities.

VP Andrews said that if students can’t vote on resolutions, put them forth, funding, etc, what power are you giving students. He would feel more comfortable if you gave them more of a real voting privilege. Seems more like qualm. R. Salem says that he thinks the main reason that implemented and included veto is protecting rights as assembly Members. 2/3 is substantial number. If less than 2/3 want to veto, it passes. N Kumar as chair cut off discussion until next week.

R. 5- Supporting Extending the Campus Conversation on Religion in the Public Space- Rammy Salem

R Salem said that last week he was contacted about this event. SA had to make a decision about a religious organization denying a leadership position of an out LGBT student. Purpose is to enforce policy. They are inviting senior scholar from 1st amendment center to flesh out for constructive conversation and more dialogue. They asked if SA was willing to sponsor event. This is a perfect example of sense of body resolution. Ever since the incident happened, there were vigils, op-eds, and it is still an issue that is unsettling students. Great thing is that asks for no money, just SA’s name. They’re not endorsing perspective, simply supporting dialogue.

N Kumar motioned to move to business of the day. It was seconded. He call to question. There was dissent. VP Basil stated that he respectfully disagreed. A sense of body expresses an opinion. This is a waste of time. They’re not expressing assembly’s opinion. It cheapens what we do which is change student life. SA will take a stance ON an issue, which we did do in spring. He motioned to table indefinitely. It was seconded. R. Salem said that the analogy he made doesn’t apply. They’re not saying we’re endorsing event, but the outcome and the generated discussions and thought that will emerge. They are expressing the opinion that being we feel more dialogue about the issue and more consideration should be taken into effect. If you feel it’s ineffective or meaningless, may be first step to drastically reviewing campus code of conduct and funding. They voted to table indefinitely. There was a motion for a hand vote. By a vote of 5–6−4, the motion fails.

VP Andrews said that his problem with this was that they’re supporting efforts of one organization, which is very narrow. Then should support every organization. He wanted to amend it. R. Salem asked if they could say they supports efforts of CURW? N. Raps had the wording: be it therefore resolved that SA supports ongoing efforts of understanding the complexities of different ethnicities, religions, and sexualities and will not endorse one perspective but will support the ongoing dialogue. VP Andrews wants to know if he finds the amendment friendly or not. R. Salem wants to include CURW. VP Andrews said they shouldn’t support in sense of body one organization R. Salem wanted to support the ongoing efforts of CURW with the rest of the amendment VP Andrews withdraws his amendment to table till next week. It was seconded with no dissent.

N Kumar motions to move to executive session. It was seconded.

IX. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:16 pm to move to executive session.

Respectfully Submitted,
Brittany Rosen