Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
November 19, 2009
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:44 pm by President Salem.

II. Roll Call

Voting Members Present: I. Akinpelu, V. Andrews, C. Basil, C. DeLencquesaing, M. Danzer, M. DeLucia, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, A. Latella, J. Min, A. Nicoletti, N. Raps, J. Rau, A. Raveret, R. Salem, U. Smith, K. Welch, O. Williams

Voting Members Absent (Unexcused): Z. Glasser, G. Phillips, H. Yang

Non-Voting Members Present: A. Flye

Non-Voting Members Absent: A. Cowen, P. Eliasinski

III. Open Microphone

No one had anything to add to the agenda.

IV. Approval of Minutes

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes passed.

V. Announcements/Reports

Office Hours�Rammy Salem

They will be from 12pm-2pm on Saturday in Libe.

Survey Results�Rammy Salem

They are attached and if you want feedback, contact Rammy.

AAP Update�Ulysses Smith

There was a very major development per task force reports. There is a program that is being considered to be axed since they are thinking of changing to Architecture, Art and Design. He is going to talk about to reach a compromise to keep the major there.

Dining Committee Update�Alex Latella

He gave an update on events on campus.

Women’s Issue Committee Update�Natalie Raps

Attached are survey results. She met with CUPD. They have a new thing where Ithaca Police and CUPD will be on patrol together. They are extending the blue light system. It was approved by CUPD.

Task Force Update — Nikhil Kumar

He wished to remind all members to make sure you read your assigned reports by tomorrow, email to him. They want to form a student response.

Communications Update - Vince Andrews

They are all added as contributors to the blog cornellsa.wordpress.com. He still has to approve all posts but is looking into changing that. Tell everyone. They are averaging 15 hits/day.

Appropriations Committee Allocations�Chris Basil

Collegiate Readership Program

They were previously funded at $5.50. They requested and were recommended at $6.00. They provide publications across campus. They can be picked up for free via undergrad student ID. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The allocation was appproved.

Haven

They are an LGBTQ umbrella organization on campus. They fund a variety of programming. Previously, Haven was funded at $2.06. They requested $2.75. They were recommended at $2.20. The rationale is that Haven provides a wide variety of purposes. The Appropriations Committee wanted Haven to increase on educational programming. There was a motion to approve. It was seconded with no dissent. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded with no dissent. Haven’s allocation was approved.

Women’s Resource Center

They were previously funded, requested, and recommended at 2.00. There was very little criticism or feedback. The Appropriations Commmittee was supportive. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded with no dissent. Women’s Resource Center was approved at $2.00.

VI. Business of the Day

R. 26- Continuation of Liaisons Between the Club Sports Council and the SAFC�Justin Min ‘11, Yuliya Neverova ‘10, Chad Kossar ‘10, Annie Linker ‘10, Catherine Lange ‘10

J. Min said that this regards continuation of the Club Sports Council, established last year. They provide recommendations to SAFC in regards to club sports, as it’s a big allocation. They can be a body that understands what they need allocations for. Yuliya said that this started last semester. She felt there was a big disconnect. SAFC funds up to 25% of funding to club sports. They hear concerns. They had three volunteers. They were non-voting members. They help figure out concerns. They are considering applying for byline funding, other sources of funding. They would like to keep with them because through them, SAFC was able to retain financial data. It was helpful for them.

VP Basil met with club sports a few weeks ago. He thinks it’s fantastic. Club sports council can focus on those judgments that SAFC doesn’t have experience with. He thinks that he wants to see them growing with structure, at least apply for byline funding next cycle.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was a motion for a hand vote. By a vote of 18 — 0- 0, the resolution passes.

R. 27- Amendments to the SAFC Guidelines�Justin Min ‘11, Yuliya Neverova ‘10, Charlie Feng ‘11

Justin said that they’ve been looking over guidelines. Change 1 is digital signatures because now that the SAFC application is online, there is no need for a hard copy. Change 2 is a clarification of new applicant status. Change 3 was a removal of statement for being repetitive.

Change 4 gives more criteria for special projects.

Charlie said that special projects is mainly for those who receive regular funding but something unexpected comes up. Then when cancellations or changes happen. That was original intent. Also funding un-foreseeable things. For instance national competitions.

Yuliya said that Change 5 applies to hearing to late arrivals. Applying same penalty to groups who don’t show up, which is a 10% penalty.

Change 6 was that they previously had unofficial 25% fix cap allocations. Clubs request lots more money than before. Clubs are split into three categories; 1 is club sports, 1 is regular, 1 is co-orgs. Earlier, they had 25% cap on allocation for club sports. This led to uneven semester-to-semester caps. This was $5,500 for club sports, $8500 for regular clubs. They want to leave it up to the E-Board.

Change 7 is a clarification of appeal hearing. People have to come at their scheduled time.

Change 8 is substantial. It clarifies SA’s role in SAFC allocation process. Now, SAFC felt a lot of decisions objectively made have been undermined. Adding a sentence in section 6.4.3 saying that the Appropriations Committee is confined solely to specific guidelines. This is so that the SA is working alongside the SAFC to strengthen decisions. This is because when they submit appeals, they are in 2 categories. This clarifies how to judge. Change 9 is copying expenses. Clubs have to separate chalk and copies. They thought it was unnecessary and could be more flexible with publicity. Change 10 is that before they had to require proof of mailbox, now getting from SAO. Change 11 is clarifying language. Change 12 is removing something. If a club wants to travel with more than four people, advisor had to sign form additionally. It’s unnecessary for an extra sheet since they approve it all anyway. Change 13 is a durable good clarification. Charlie said that there are a couple of issues. They figured it would be appropriate to clarify issues and make sure are making exceptions. They changed original wording. Yuliya said that they have to have an inventory report form. Oftentimes, this fails and is overlooked. They are trying to make sure funds are allocated what used for. Make sure that durable equals durable. Charlie added that the intent is that it was a special exception. That doesn’t mean they will rule differently.

VP Kumar said that while most are great and it streamlines the process. A few he wanted to discuss. Change 6 puts more authority into the executive committee. Why? Yuliya clarified that club sports aren’t just thrown into the general pool. They are still in their own pool. They just don’t want a percentage cap. They found that they could’ve given much smoother difference between them if able to increase the cap slightly. They wanted to account for semester-to-semester changes. They already have discretion but have one variable that is constrained.

J. Min said that one reason is because there’s no discussion.

Nikhil asked about change 8. It gives SA a lot less leeway. In order to overturn, it takes 2/3 majority. He’s against restricting voting. He motioned to move to new business. It was seconded with no dissent.

Change 8 seems to be a step backwards.

VP Andrews was surprised to see that change. SAFC does an amazing job of being objective. Every situation should have a subjective standard, which could analyze real world situations. Change 8 needs to be discussed with the entire assembly as it severely restricts the subjective element.

R. Salem tabled this to next week.

R. 28- Release of SAFC Allocations�Justin Min ‘11, Yuliya Neverova ‘10, Charlie Feng ‘11

They want it to be possible for students to see and understand where their money’s going. An electronic report shows where allocations have gone, to what organization, and how much. Specifics of how it will be organized or made available is still up to debate, but the essence is that it will be available.

Yuliya said that a lot of times, they get questions about funding. They don’t want the data to be misused by groups; they want to be available to all students. They realized last year that the numbers don’t get reviewed as much as they should.

VP Basil thought that there was a rule preventing this. There was not.

M. Danzer applauded their move for transparency. The exact wording should be worked on, but because this is a sense of body, it can be passed. He called to question. It was second with no dissent. There was a motion for a call for acclimation. It was seconded with no dissent. The resolution passed.

R. 29- SA Organizational Review Committee & RSO Taskforce Recommendations Amending the Adopted R. 44�Vincent Andrews ‘11 and Yuliya Neverova ‘10

R. Salem clarified that this was passed last year, but upon further review, President Skorton wanted language to be clearer. It is going to require 2/3 majority to approve. VP Andrews said that the only thing changed is on the second Be It Therefore Resolved clause. Last semester, Ryan Lavin, Yuliya, Tony Miller, Emlyn Diakow, Kate Duch all came together and discussed and looked at spreadsheets of data with funding for every group who got funding since 2004 including membership data, advisors, and mission statements. They were looking at repetition and specificity levels. There are space and funding limitations. The goal is to create a committee to analyze groups, look into how they are using funds, encourage groups to employ economy and possibly get together. The committee is charged with reviewing applications for new groups and reviewing current groups on campus. It takes 4/5 majority to pass. They can always appeal to the SA.

VP Andrews said they have already had 1 issue this semester with group who wants to come on campus and 4 other organizations which do the exact same thing, wrote a letter to the administration saying it would duplicate their exact purpose and dilute membership.

VP Basil said that this was the only meeting last year he was chairing. He had a lot of reservations. Obviously it expands powers not only to fund but to restrict. It doesn’t stop them from declaring themselves an organization and meeting. It is more targeted towards use of university resources. He thinks it is tempered well with the process. It gives opportunity to appeal. They see lot of opportunities where you’ll agree or should disagree. A lot do similar things. There is a demand for four club soccer teams. Essentially, they should be very careful.

Danzer asked if there was a new org review process, would like to see SA procedure. For continued process, is a way for SA to approve�group may appeal to SA. 1, outline how that would work. 2, allow for new group also. VP Andrews assumed but cant put in.

Desai was in favort,

VP Andrews explained to Rep. Gitlin tat the SAFCE wants someone on SA to be thee.

The resolution was tabled to next week.

Amending the Adopted R. 11�Rammy Salem ‘10

Wasn’t expecting delay about this, but president skorton’s trip to asia along with other delays led up to it not being implemented till next semester. If changes were approved tonight, it would take him another week to respond then semester would be over. Two additions: 1 — strike words “without further effect” decided that raps amendment 4.1.b want to strike words “where all eligible voters sit in a designated area” because parliamentarian can take handvote with placards or markers without separating crowd.

Call to question need 2/3. By vote of 18–0−0 resolution passes.

Amending the Adopted R. 13�Nikhil Kumar ‘10

Similar to previous two.

Passed resolution to give sophomores priority unanimously. Asked for reconsideration in light of fact that he’s uncomfortable implementing this spring. Reasonable request. Re-present with final BIFR clause so it starts in spring 11, not this spring but spring after. If you vote yes, reaffirms idea of sophomores going first.

Raps —make because trying to put pressure on university that they can’t indefinitely put off. Call to question .second. no dissent. By vote of 18–0−0 resolution passes.

Spring 2010 Election Rules and R. 30- Direct Election of President and EVP�Nikki Junewicz ‘10

Recommendations elections committee decided on. Presenting now, voted on next week. Last document in big packet.

1st page, speaks for self. Page 3 — consolidated a lot. A lot about postering policy. Decided that a lot is up to campus life. Will leave them out of rules and say, please see campus life. Link to current policies on campus life. Trying to trim down. Page 4, probably more controversial. Go ahead and go to challenges. Following page. Adopted challenging policy of trustee election. Shift with violations of little things. This year, wanted to shift to does this make election more fair or unfair to another candidate. Instead of wordy stuff, now challenges will come down to issue of fairness. Slates. Article 2. Decided to split up slates. Rationale was different. Same reasoning why we got rid of ticketing. Under idea that candidate should be running on own merits. Makes it more fair for people to run for president AND evp. Can run for president and don’t have to find someone to run for EVP. Wanted to make more fair for students running independently at large. Also wanted to avoid, I’m going to run on a slate and get on independently at large. To alleviate problem of making it fair, adopt hair system.

A. Epstein said the basic idea is that instead of checking off top choice/choices. You rank all the candidates you have preference for. Tabulating method that insures that your vote still counts even if you top votes will count.

N. Raps said she remembers last year there was problems with people not knowing you had to vote for pres/vp and at large.

A. Epstein said that feature’s been eliminated. So if you want to vote for someone in undesignated and president, have to vote for them in both places. And if you wanted to, could rank them differently.

Community member Ray Mensa — want to know why the decision to change the rules was made only one year after the implementation. Ask because he doesn’t feel that can come to conclusion that slates are a bad thing based on one election cycle. Always had a problem with hair system. What makes current system less democratic than hair system.

Nikki — breaking up slates — talked about if it was too soon. When all met Saturday, never too late to make positive changes. Take care of independent at large, best way to do that. 2 — rationale of why slates was because they wanted president and EVP to work well together. Think it’s an understandable, good reason for that. President is to manage, motivate and inspire the group. Decision of EVP was to prepare agenda. Important that have strong working relationship, not necessary to be best friends. If running to be president or EVP, a strong leadership skill/quality is to work with different types of people. No reason to wait another year because concerns last year and this would have next year. Didn’t need another year to test out. As for ranking, came up because it was to help with students running individually. Like the idea of having people’s votes count for more. Think it’s democratic and fair. Allows students to have more power.

VP Kumar — commends.2 good changes, eliminating restriction. If people don’t spend any money, auto DQ. But if don’t submit receipts, assumed zero dollars spent.

Nikki — should amend that.

Chris — someone brought it up but didn’t decide as a committee. think would be open to seeing.

Nikki —explained the history.

J. Min - no one is running for undesignated at large. And if they run, will be put in pool known as undesignated at large.

Nikki — can

Min — but those people will not be put in pool.

Nikki — will be. 2 will go to pres and EVP. Makes more fair for pres, EVP and independent candidates to all be in race together because last year, students who ran on slates had strong advantage. Can still run ind at large.

Basil — when you look at results, wasn’t that people on slates one, pairs of slates.

Danzer — why in elections committee, article 3, sec b, clasue 1, subclause 4. Section deleted. Why? Think later deleted shall validate, what’s reasoning behind?

Chris — quorum is still majority. Not supermajority. Ari set up elections so anyone can see output file, so no need to validate as there was in the past. Felt quorum should be majority not supermajority.

Nikki — given how expedited, if people can’t come, they can’t come.

Desai — does this make it any easier for student to come in as at large member to run? Nikki — looking at it, if had decided on it, would have done it. Students would have won.

Rammy — tabled to next week

VII. New Business

R. 31- Resolution for the Improvement of the Well-Being of the Asian and Asian-American Population at Cornell�Ola Williams ‘10 and Nikhil Kumar ‘11

Ola: Revised, proposed in 2007 by SA. About Asian, Asian — American Student Center. Approved, but not much movement on it. Formatting needs to be changed. Doing b/c admins have to look at it, and this works as a reminder Tabled to next week

VIII. . Unfinished Business

R. 24- Garbage Cans on North Campus�Adam Gitlin ‘13, Heran Yang ‘13, Talia Siegel ‘13

Gitlin: Talked to campus life. Waiting to hear back about feasibility. One addition to resolution that want to base on feedback is that the campus life dept at cornell is only resp for garbage cans within 10 ft of res halls and facilities is resp for those outside. Add another BITR after the only one, “that the residential life dept will place more garbage cans within 10 ft of north campus residence halls and that the facilities management dept will be in charge of �”

Desai: moving around. Second is add new trash cans.

Must vote on amendment now. 18 — 0 — 0

Desai — allowed to move trash cans around.

Ravaret — env friendly, any way that could be bins with three holes for paper/plastic/trash.

Gitlin — think idea is that there are extra cans already that have to be moved which is an immediate process so that acquiring new cans would have additional time. This is more expedient. Secondary one.

Brian Forster — mentioned moving garbage cans. Who?

Gitlin — making recommendations to facilities and res life and joint decision

VP Kumar — talk to res life?

Yes

Kumar — call to question second. No dissent. Min: Motion to hand vote.

19–0−0 resolution passes.

R. 25- Supporting the Dutch and Swedish Language Programs at Cornell�Rammy Salem ‘10, Matt Danzer ‘12, Cecilia De Lencquesaing ‘11, Mary Godec ‘11, Kevin Chung ‘11

Solidified funding. Have 10,000 from syr, 15,000 from Inst of European studies, Swedish institute, some private faculty. Grand total of 83,000 and 5,000 from other sources. SA funds would have big impact. Especially since we’re so close to matching funds. Exciting that we’re so close. Would send imp message to admin that student body is in support. Might be embarrassing that students would fund prog that they wouldn’t

VP Basil — motion to table but next week, will be motioning to strike the BIFR clause because was clear that it was a bad step and would encourage to strike selves. Motion to table. Dissent. Second. Motion to over rule chair. Fail by 7–10.

Rau — said 90,000 is toward 2 salaries. Basically, 5,000 is number she threw out for SA funding, but did emphasize that it would be a one-time thing. Want to say embarrassed that arts isn’t funding. Think raps, rave and him should talk to dean.

Rammy: If passed as is, not officially transferring money it’s considering.

VP Andrews support idea of not cutting program. Have you spoken to dutch embassy. Issue aobut contacting was that dutch instructor may’ve met with officials but were hesitant. Have explored, could explore again. Based on chris posey, weren’t enthusiastic. Would have to review on separate discussion. Call to q. second. Dissent. 11–7. Can’t vote.

Desai — why sure won’t need scenario. One year plan is that it’s a patch. Will cover for one more year beyond will speak with admins. Rammy — part of reason is for at LEAST next year was untimely since students had already enrolled to fulfill lang and at least for sake of students, is enough to merit extention.

Nicoletti — BIFR is in there. Would like to strike that. Feel that SA money shouldn’t go toward arts. Cals cut a lot. Found friendly. 15–2−1. call to question. Second. 17–1−0 passes.

NEW BUSINESS

R. 32- Commemoration of Transgender Day of Remembrance�Matt Danzer ‘12, Olivia Tai ‘10, Trey Ramsey ‘12, Ryan Hunter ‘10

Commemortating transgender day. Honoring those been lost due to anti transgendered violence.

Call to question. Second. Call for acclimation. Second. Passes.

Vigil Sunday, 5–7.

Meeting adjourned.

The following resolutions were not discussed:

• R. 33- Clarification of at-Large Seats�Matt Danzer ‘12
• R. 34- Marcellus Shale Drilling —Adam Raveret ‘12 and Cole Streiff ‘10
• R. 35- Student Assembly Absentee Policy�Rammy Salem ‘10

IX. Adjournment

X. Executive Session