Student Assembly

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

I. Call to Order

R. Salem called meeting to order at 4:44.

II. Roll Call

Voting members present: I. Akinpelu, V. Andrews, C. Basil, A. Cowen, M. Danzer, M. DeLucia, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, Z. Glasser, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, R. Latella, J. Min, A. Nicoletti, G. Phillips, N. Raps, J. Rau, A. Raveret, R. Salem, U. Smith, K. Welch, H. Yang.

III. Approval of Minutes

There was a call for acclamation. It was seconded with no dissent. The minutes from November 19th were approved.

IV. Presentation: Provost’s Strategic Plan Advisory Council- Provost Kent Fuchs and Prof. Ed Lawler (ILR)

K. Fuchs discussed three planning initiatives for the future of Cornell. First, the university is working with consultants to save 90 million dollars on the administrative side. They are in the 7th month of the process and are about halfway done. This initiative entails saving money through the management of electricity, facilities, and other non-educational areas. The second initiative is the creation of 20 academic task forces. There is a notebook in the office of the Dean of Faculties, in the student assembly office, and on the web with the reports of each of these task forces. He said that the university will be smaller in the future, not weaker, and he is looking at how libraries and colleges should be organized. To contact Provost Fuchs, send him an email at provost.cornell.edu. The third planning activity concerns the long-term future of the university. They are in the process of creating a document about what Cornell will look like in five or ten years.

E. Lawler said that he chairs a strategic planning committee of eight faculty members who are at the center of this planning process. So far, they have prepared a brief outline of what the ultimate document may look like. This includes a set of core values, goals, and objectives that will help move the institution forward.

K. Fuchs said that the first goal concerns education and students. They have placed students on working groups to look at the goals of the committee. They have also asked students for their comments on how to make Cornell better. If anyone on campus has ideas on how the educational environment can be approved, contact Prof. Lawler at ejl3@cornell.edu.

N. Kumar said that the student assembly would always be willing to provide input. He also wanted clarification on how the other students were chosen for these groups.

K. Fuchs said that the most important group is the students and education group. They selected students with faculty members because they represent the entire university and they wanted small groups. These groups are just generating ideas.

C. Basil said that he has been sitting in on the education group and that there should be more student input, especially as cuts are being made.

U. Smith asked if the AAP task force would support the abolishment of initiatives like the proposed school of design due to budget cuts.

K. Fuchs said that he was really enthusiastic about making a school of design. However, this needs to be done without using any more money. There are ways of shifting the direction of the faculty to make this work.

A. Nicoletti asked who would have the ultimate decision in the plan for a new school to be added to CALS.

K. Fuchs said that he liked the CALS proposal. One of their options is to create a school of management. For each task force, they need to decide whether an individual in a department, the dean of a college, or the provost and president will make the final decision. If they decide to create a school of management, the Provost, President, students, faculty, and staff will need to work together, but the Provost and President will make the overall decision.

The Student Assembly thanked K. Fuchs and E. Lawler for their presentation and for answering questions.

V. Open Microphone

No one came forward for open microphone.

VI. Announcements/Reports

Office Hours- Rammy Salem

R. Salem said he will have office hours from 12:00–2:00 pm in Libe Caf� on Saturday.

Cornellexchange.com Announcement- Heran Yang

H. Yang said that Cornell students could visit cornellexchange.com to sell used textbooks to other students. After you add a book to website, others can search for it and you will be emailed by the site if someone wants to buy it.

Communications Update- Vincent Andrews

V. Andrews said that the word press blog is at 190 hits so far. They are trying to create more discussions through the blog. If you would like to present something for the discussion at future SA meetings, post comments at cornellsa.wordpress.com.

United Way Update- Max Aggrey

M. Aggrey said that as of December 1st, $538,010.38 has been pledged. This is 71.25 percent of goal. However, they still need more support.

M. Danzer asked if United Way is behind schedule.

M. Aggrey said that they seemed to be ahead of schedule

Task Force Report Update- Alex Latella and Nikhil Kumar

N. Kumar said he sent out an email encouraging people to send him their thoughts about the task force report.

Appropriations Committee Allocations�Chris Basil

• Orientation Steering Commitee

C. Basil: said the OSC requested an increase in funds to feed orientation leaders during training and for transfer events. They have been encouraged to cost cut. The committee should look at capping OSC conferences in the spring.

Motion to accept resolution. Call for acclamation.

R. Salem asked why the OSC’s request was approved despite be encouraged to cost cut, as in providing only one day of food for orientation leaders.

C. Basil said that food for two days of orientation amounted to $14,000 do. It was apparent that this was necessary.

R. Desai asked if they will try to move to one day of food in the future.

C. Basil said that it is the OSC’s decision. They thought that they needed two days to instruct their orientation leaders.

M. Danzer asked about the OSC conference. C. Basil said that this is an annual conference where the committee members learn about event planning. The SA is looking to cap the number of representatives to the conference.

M. Danzer asked if the OSC was capped at $2500 to attend the conference, could the remainder be subtracted from their budget?

C. Basil said that he felt the committee could use these extra funds.

K. Welch asked if there were any cheaper food options.

C. Basil said it is not feasible to go to Collegetown and Appel is open specifically for orientation leaders to go to. Pizza isn’t a good option because some people might only receive one slice.

Called to question. Call for hand vote. Seconded with no dissent. By a vote of 19–0−0, OSC’s allocation passed.

• Welcome Weekend

C. Basil said that concerning Welcome Weekend, the Appropriations Committee wants to wind down their cash balance to a better level, voting for an amount that would lower their surplus by eight or nine thousand over the two year cycle.

V. Andrews asked if appropriations had in fact lowered their surplus.

C. Basil said they hold a $25,000 surplus, so they voted to cut their allocation.

M. Danzer asked if they would receive their regular funding after two years.

C. Basil said Welcome Weekend had received cost-saving sponsorships. Therefore, having excessive balances wasn’t favorable.

R. Desai asked if the SA was cutting the Appropriations Committee’s reserves.

C. Basil said they are being left with enough.

There was a call to question. Seconded. Call of acclamation. Seconded with no dissent. Allocation passed.

• SAFC

C. Basil asked for roughly an $8.00 raise.

There was a call for acclamation. Seconded with no dissent. Passed.

VII. Business of the Day

R. 36-Creation of the Student Judicial Council � Alex Cowen, Nikhil Kumar, Isaac Todd ‘11, Ulysses Smith, Jamer Bellis ‘11

A. Cowen said that this resolution supports the creation of the SJC, which will provide essential resources for judicial boards on campus, including centralized training sessions to discuss ethics.

C. Basil said that he worked on this and is fully in support of it.

Called to question. Seconded. Call for a hand vote. Seconded. By a vote of 20–0−0, the resolution passed.

R. 38- Resolution Approving Student Assembly Finance Commission Member and Officer Appointments� Alex Latella, Justin Min, Yuliya Neverova ‘10, Charlie Feng ‘11

J. Min said that after a long, strenuous process, they have found commissioners for next semester.

Call to question. Seconded with no dissent. Call for a hand vote. Seconded. By a vote of 19–0−0, Resolution 38 passes.

VIII. Unfinished Business

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

J. Min said that an amendment has been suggested to change eight.

V. Andrews said that he feels like the allocation appeals have always been random. The SAFC felt that we were more objective in granting funding than the SA.

N.Kumar said that he was in favor of the resolution, but he does not agree with change six, concerning the club sports cap. He wondered if it would be possible if the whole committee could set the cap and make the decision.

C. Feng said that he would be fine with this.

N. Kumar said he would go ahead and make that amendment.

M. Danzer asked if change 8 would be much different than the current situation. Does this add meaningful boundaries to the appropriation committee or can we do away with it?

V. Andrews said this change allows for more consistent criteria. It enables consistency that will carry through in successive years.

J. Min said that if an organization forgets a piece of documentation, the SA will be able to fund its most important events rather than everything because they were missing documentation.

A. Epstein said that as Change 8 is now written, it introduces a subjective standard and creates an avenue for organizations to appeal for things the SAFC would never allow in the first place. Additionally, any organization can exist on campus without any funding. This doesn’t seem like a very permissive standard. Leave the process as it is now, rather than make it a subjective process.

V. Andrews said that he would be happy to remove all of Change 8. It was in there as a compromise.

A.Epstein said that there would have to be a more comprehensive overhaul of the appeals process.

C. Basil said there needs to be more flexibility, so that one mistake from one person doesn’t affect a whole organization.

R. Salem called for an amendment to strike the first be it resolved on Change 8.

Call for acclamation. Seconded with no dissent. Change 8 was stricken from resolution.

Call for acclamation. Seconded with no dissent. Resolution 27 passes.

R. 29-SA Organizational Review Committee & RSO Taskforce Recommendations

Amending the Adopted R. 44 �Vincent Andrews and Yuliya Neverova ‘10, Emlyn Diakow, Review Committee Member

V. Andrews said that a few weeks ago, multiple groups went to administration saying that other groups shouldn’t exist if they fulfill the same roles. This put administrators in awkward position.

C. Basil proposed an amendment that resolution 29 would not come into effect until fall of 2010.

V. Andrews said he would be opposed to this amendment because the resolution has already sat for a while. They should try to form the committee soon in order to understand how it will work.

R. Desai asked what C. Basil’s rationale was in proposing this amendment.

C. Basil said that the resolution is a huge expansion of the SA’s powers.

R. Salem called for a hand vote for C. Basil’s amendment

With a vote of 12–5−2, the amendment passes. There was a call to question with dissent.

M. Danzer said there needs to be additional discussion. There’s a lot to be gone over.

R. Desai asked how groups would start to be eliminated.

E. Diakow said that they looked at groups who engaged in similar activities and started a list of such groups.

A. Gatlin proposed an amendment to C. Basil’s amendment: the resolution will begin in the fall of 2010 except for the prioritized clubs on the list.

R. Salem asked how the prioritized clubs would be selected.

A. Gatlin replied that they already have a list.

N. Raps didn’t agree with A. Gatlin’s amendment because clubs should not be cut in the middle of the year if they have been planning later events.

V. Andrews said that the purpose of this committee is not to cut any group on campus. There is much more to this resolution. The goal is for groups to be aware of their resources. This is just to get the process started. This is not saying that anything will happen to those groups.

N. Kumar said that the meeting will have to be extended. Motion to table the resolution.

V. Andrews motioned to pass the original amendment now and not the second amendment. The president has to approve this. Tomorrow will have more important business so this should be worked on now.

K. Welch asked what would happen if two similar clubs don’t want to collaborate.

V. Andrews said that nothing would happen then. They have the authority to cut a group, but the purpose of the organization is not that. It’s to create efficiencies. It requires huge majorities to actually cut.

A. Gatlin said that he would postpone his amendment

R. Desai asked if next year they could reject a club with a similar purpose to a preexisting club.

V. Andrews said that is correct.

R. Desai asked if the committee has the power to cut clubs, but just does not lean towards it.

V. Andrews said cutting is not their intent and clubs can still appeal to SA.

By a vote of 12–5−2, Resolution 29 passes.

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

R. Salem extended the meeting until 6:45.

N. Junewicz said that she has previously explained the rational behind the resolution and she would like to go directly to discussion.

M. Danzer proposed an amendment to reinstitute the slates and split the presidential and vice presidential races. This makes it so that the races are separated and you have to create a slate for one and you don’t compete with slates for another.

N. Junewicz said that they considered this, but they want to get rid of slates for a good reason. If someone wants to be president, they shouldn’t have to find a friend to run for vice president with them. This system also gives them an opportunity to be on the assembly even if they don’t win the presidency.

C. Basil said that this amendment is a travesty and should be voted down immediately.

N. Kumar said people should speak up. He would be open to an expansion of the assembly and they should look into it for the following year, perhaps creating four or six or eight undergrad at large seats.

A community member said that he didn’t think the current system is a bad system. Last year when slates were introduced, there was more participation and excitement among the students. If there is a problem with the current system, you need to reserve two seats for a slate and two for individuals running. Additionally, the Cornell Daily Sun will probably endorse an SA Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate, so these people will be treated like a slate. The slate effect here will be worse than what we have now. He encouraged the SA to vote down the rules change.

N. Junewicz said that last year there was more excitement on campus because the President and Vice President were popularly elected for the first time. This year, students will still be excited to vote for them. Also, assuming that everyone will vote based on the Sun is undermining your peers.

N. Raps said that she would vote down this amendment. She disagreed with what was said about the Sun. She wouldn’t vote like that.

R. Desai said that the Sun does not make it easy for someone running independently. Saving spots for runners-up to the executive slate is important. Two more seats should be added for people running independently. He asked if this has been discussed.

N. Junewicz said it had been, but it is a big decision and shouldn’t be made in a hurry.

M. Danzer said that there is merit in pushing off his amendment to add more people. He will change his amendment to reflect the removal of all changes to article two so that it is the same system as last spring.

N. Junewicz said she is fiercely opposed to slates. Given the nature of the offices of President and Vice President, they do not need to be best friends, just professional. None of the current SA members ran together, but they still get along fine.

K. Welch wondered why N. Junewicz didn’t want to split the slates.

N. Junewicz said they came up with a Hare system instead.

I. Akinpelu said that this is not a United States presidential election; it is for students. That’s why he is against slates. When there is a Republican President and Democratic Congress, things work better. You do not have to have the same opinions.

N. Junewicz said that voters can read blurbs, Facebook, or the Sun to make their own slate.

A. Raveret said that people should be voted for by their merit, not their partner’s. No to slates.

N. Raps said that it is selfish to want slates because it secures your position on someone else’s merit.

A community member said that in the past, there have been Presidents and Vice Presidents at each other’s throats, making things difficult.

V. Andrews said that slates put the ILR School’s seat at a big disadvantage. There are people who are enthusiastic about running and who would benefit the SA, but are put at a disadvantage because the elections favor a President and Vice President slate. That’s why slates shouldn’t be allowed.

G. Philips said he agreed with Andrews and he will yield the rest of his time to M. Danzer because he agrees with his amendment.

M. Danzer said that when you have arguing Presidents and Vice Presidents, you get nothing done.

The amendment was called to question. Seconded with no dissent. By a vote of 4–13–0, the amendment fails.

A. Gitlin asked if the student body has been informed on the change in voting procedure.

V. Andrews said there have been two press releases about it.

There was a call to order. Seconded with no dissent. By vote of 15–3−0, the resolution for new voting rules for spring passes.

Call to question. Seconded with no dissent. Motion to table. By a vote of 15–1−0, Resolution 30 passes.

R. 32-Clarification of At-Large Seats�Matt Danzer

M. Danzer proposed a charter amendment. There are four at-large seats that are not in the assembly’s charter. It only takes a majority to remove them. These are the two minority seats, the LGBTQ seat, and the international seat.

R. Desai called to question. M. Danzer asked if this could be voted on now.

R. Salem said it could be.

V. Andrews said there needs to be more discussion. There have not been problems with this in the past. He asked if this will be restricting to the addition of more minority seats in the future.

M. Danzer said that there has not been a need for this change until now. But, people have consistently run to abolish these seats.

N. Kumar called to question.

Seconded with no dissent. By a vote of 16–0−0, Resolution 32 passes.

IX. New Business

R. 37-Approval of the Student Activity Fee�Chris Basil

C. Basil said that his committee would come to a decision tomorrow about funding. The last page of the packet is a summary document about where the Appropriations Committee made their decisions on funding two years ago. This is resolution 37.

R. Salem said he would like to personally thank C. Basil for guiding the SA through this laborious process.

N. Kumar asked if C. Basil could talk about the percentage of increase represented in the resolution.

C. Basil said he was not sure percentage-wise. The funding grew 2.9% compounded from 2008–2010.

U. Smith asked about the funding for Cornell Cinema and how C. Basil came to the decision that they could function with such a large cut?

C. Basil said they could talk about it later. The Appropriations Committee felt that the cinema had an excessive carry over balance of about $70,000. They also looked at the cinema’s expenditure for student employees: $36000 dollars a year. This is one of the only organizations that pays employees to that extent. Overall, the cinema should look towards how it has existed in past. That doesn’t mean programmatic cuts, but the committee thought that this would really encourage change.

R. Salem asked if there were any other assembly questions or questions from community members.

Community member Park asked if anyone knew the historical process by which the cinema came to be under the aegis of the SA. There seemed to be unique features to the cinema. Shouldn’t the history be taken into consideration?

C. Basil said that the cinema’s home is within department of theater, film, dance. As such, it provides an entertainment outlet, which is where the SA comes into play, but it also has that academic aspect.

R. Salem said that it originated from solely students and moved under the University’s hospices and it is a great opportunity for students, so it was worth paying through the student activity fee.

M. Danzer said that he had been doing some rough math and asked if it would be okay to provide a little more money to the cinema: up to a 25 cent increase. $1,800 dollars is not that much money to do a lot.

C. Basil said there would be additional funds to do occasional advocacy programming for the LGBTQ community.

I. Crovisier asked for clarification on the amendment debate.

C. Basil said that, essentially, when there is an amendment, you have to be voting just on an amendment.

I. Crovisier thanked the S.A. for the clarification.

R. Salem said there would be two minutes available for anyone in the audience who wanted to speak.

M. Fessenden said that she believed the SA’s proposed allocation for the cinema is wrong. The cinema needs $40,000 for new projectors. Their reserve is for these reasons and it is a reasonable amount. Lately there have been increases in cinema attendance and students are always highly involved in positions of responsibility. Two years ago, the SA thanked the cinema for a new board of students, but now SA acts like it doesn’t exist. Furthermore, the cinema has a national reputation and is a reason why students choose to attend Cornell. The budget cut will seriously impair the cinema. Don’t go down in history as the SA who cut the cinema’s funding. Restore funding so that ticket price remains same for all students. We will find ways to redirect funding within 2 years.

C. Basil said that the cinema’s allocation will be discussed at the meeting on Friday.

M. DeLucia asked the M. Fessenden if the projectors are broken.

Community member said that they were not.

M. DeLucia asked why do they need to be fixed, then.

U. Smith asked if there are any outside sources lined up to help.

M. Fessenden said that they have ideas and have made contact with Cornell in Hollywood. They’re very supportive of the program. There have also been discussions with other areas of campus. The cinema needs a two-year period to find funding for the $32,000 cut.

V. Andrews asked if they had gone to Arts and Sciences for support.

M. Fessenden said that they had, as well as other programs. As for the history of the organization, Cornell Cinema was formed in 1970 and shifted to the Department of Theater, Film, and Dance for financial reasons in the 1990s. They were then approached by the SA to apply for funding, although the SA knew full well that we were a hybrid organization with educational value.

R. Salem motioned to table discussion.

R. 39 Acknowledging President Skorton’s 60th Birthday

Call for acclamation regarding recognition of President Skorton’s birthday. Seconded. Called to question with hand vote. By a vote of 14–2−0, Resolution 39 passes.

X. Adjournment

R. Salem adjourned the meeting at 7:16.