Student Assembly

AGENDA
Cornell University Student Assembly
February 4, 2010
4:45pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

R. Salem called the meeting to order at 4:46 pm.

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: I Akinpelu, V. Andrews, C. Basil, A. Brockman, A. Cowen, M. Danzer, M. DeLucia, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, Z. Glasser, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, R. Latella, S. Purdy, N. Raps, J. Rau, R. Salem, U. Smith, K. Welch

Representatives Excused Absent: J. Min, A. Nicoletti, A. Raveret, H. Yang

Representatives Unexcused A bsent: G. Phillips

III. Approval of Minutes

Call for acclamation. Seconded with no dissent. The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

No one came forward for open microphone.

V. Announcements/Reports

A. Cowen encouraged people to visit the judicial board’s website and get involved.

R. Salem said that two seats have been replaced this semester by A. Brockman and S. Purdy. He then had these new at-large representatives stand and repeat the Oath of Office.

Office Hours and Cornell Basketball Update- Rammy Salem

R. Salem said his office hours would be Saturday from 11:00–12:00 pm in Libe Caf�. Additionally, he would like to congratulate the basketball team on their recent win and their ranking as the 25th team in the nation.

Trustee Meeting- Asa Craig

A. Craig said that he met a week and a half ago in NYC with the Trustees. They discussed the various debates going on in the college about budget modeling. He thinks that the Student Assembly should stress the importance of and take part in the budget debates. Additionally, the Student Life Committee discussed diversity and the achievement gap between minorities once they arrive at Cornell. This is a significant problem. He also met with Professor Ed Lawler concerning strategic planning. There are lots of debates and other activities on campus for students to get involved with. The student involvement task force is meeting to understand these issues.

V. Andrews asked if the trustees have discussed their vision on strategic planning?

A. Craig said that they are talking about their goals, but the University and the committees of the college deans are making these decisions. Go to the Assemblies Office to see what’s being discussed.

a. SA Website- Vincent Andrews and Heran Yang

V. Andrews said that this website is separate from the blog. They want to move to a website with a more professional appearance within the next few weeks. They are looking into purchasing the domain name and are looking for input on how to build a useful and informative SA website.

b. Elections Update-Nikki Junewicz

N. Junewicz said that there will be a Spring 2010 elections information session on Tuesday, February 9th from 5:00–6:00 pm in the Willard Straight Art Gallery. All SA members should attend to get others excited about this.

N. Kumar asked how many people are active in the elections committee right now.

N. Junewicz said probably 4–5 people.

Residence Life Committee Update- Jon Rau

J. Rau said that their focus is on off-campus housing issues. The Residence Life Committee is working on a website to make it easy for those looking for apartments to see photos of residences and rate their landlords. This way, students can make more informed choices about renting properties.

c. Appendix B Update- Chris Basil

C. Basil said that there will be an SA executive meeting where all representatives are welcome. They will be discussing Appendix B, which is about the designation of money to particular organizations. These meetings will continue throughout the semester. The appropriations committee will be meeting on February 13th and 14th and will probably debate on this subject for the next few weeks. SA members are encouraged to attend.

d. VP of Internal Operations Update- Alex Latella

e. Executive Committee Meeting- Nikhil Kumar

B. Unfinished Business

a. R. 42- Encouraging Professors to Comply with Cornell Store Booklist Submission !!!!Deadlines- Rammy Salem & Chris Basil

R. Salem said that Cornell staffers added another clause, changing the resolution slightly.

C. Basil said that Dean Fry was really receptive to this resolution.

M. Danzer asked if anything can be done in the faculty senate so that professors have to comply?

C. Basil said there wasn’t anything they could do, but he thinks that professors will try to make a difference in their planning if they understand how this could benefit their students.

N. Kumar said that the UA has some oversight in this.

Motion to handvote. Resolution passes 17–0−0.

C. New Business

a. R. 43- Defining the General Roles of College Representatives- Ulysses Smith

U. Smith said that he realized that representatives could just attend meetings but do nothing and not be penalized. The charter doesn’t say anywhere that members have to have two meetings with the dean. So, this resolution will add the standing rules from the past two years to the charter. This will require representatives to hold a forum/outreach activity with their constituency. Also, representatives should communicate regularly with their constituency. Finally, they should all complete the climate survey. However, enforcement of these new rules is uncertain as of now.

M. Danzer said he applauds this resolution, but he has not witnessed representatives holding meetings with their constituency. There should be some enforcement to this.

U. Smith said a lot of this is on the trust system, which is not the best system.

C. Basil said this is a question of leadership. It’s already in standing rules. In the past, they tried punishments to enforce this kind of thing, but it never fared well in SA legislation.

V. Andrews said that he doesn’t think enforcement is a big deal. Also, there is ambiguous wording in the resolution. Could “voting” be changed to “representing”?

U. Smith said they would discuss this further next week.

R. 44- Non-Discrimination Clause- Andrew Brokman ‘11

Ken Clark, Director, Cornell United Religious Work Mary Beth Grant, Judicial Administrator A. Brokman said they have begun examining campus code in more detail, dealing with the issue of independent student organizations. This resolution mirrors the University’s discrimination policy but there is a difference between democratic and non- democratic student groups.

M. Grant said that in 2008, there were a number of code changes. The Judicial Committee of the UA incorporated policies to their code to define harassment. This policy only applies to faculty and staff right now, but if it is written into the university code, it will incorporate students as well. The code doesn’t prohibit discrimination on an �ndividual basis, as students are allowed to pick their own friends,etc. However, the prohibition of discrimination would apply to student organizations.

K. Clark mentioned the Chi Alpha fraternity and how last year saw a clash with the 1st amendment of free religion and free speech and the 14th amendment of equal protection under law. It was a complicated situation. However, gay rights will eventually rise to the same level of state interest as race and religion. This will cause tension between these two amendments.

R. Salem motioned to move the resolution to business of the day.

A. Brockman agreed.

V. Andrews asked what the process of enforcement for this resolution would be. Would it go to the JA? SA?

A. Brockman said it would go through the Office of the Dean of Students.

V. Andrews asked if the JA’s office would be involved.

U. Grant said they are only involved with things that violate the code, so not for this.

M. Danzer asked if the same thing happened as at Chi Alpha, would this resolution fix the problems they had last year?

A. Brockman said it would not because this doesn’t impose values upon religious organizations. This distinguishes between democratic and non-democratic organizations. There aren’t any democratically elected officials in Chi Alpha.

K. Clark said that Chi Alpha has chaplains that determine their policy. There are students who are on their board who are appointed by the chaplains.

M. Danzer asked if this would encourage groups who don’t want to include certain individuals to just become non-democratic. In this way, they could kick people out of leadership positions whenever they wanted to.

A. Brockman said that this is a possibility, but it is unlikely. However, on the other hand, if a Christian organization believes in democracy for its leaders and wants to kick someone out based on their sexuality, that person would have protection under this resolution.

K. Clark said that chaplains who are appointed by national organizations set the trajectory of organizations. It is highly unlikely that an organization would change like this unless funds dry up and the chaplaincy goes away.

K. Hubbel asked “isn’t a student organization run by students?” If chaplains are dictating who the leadership is, is it still a student org?

A. Brockman said that he agrees with Hubbel, but in order to live up to University principles, you can’t force all organizations to become democratic.

K. Clark said he thinks that chaplains and students work out a “social contract” to see to what extent students engage in leadership.

C. Basil asked if administrators found the language in the resolution strong enough.

A. Brockman said that he modeled it after existing language, so it should be strong enough.

C. Basil asked what the difference is between creed and religious practice.

K. Clark defined creed as a religious belief and practice as how that belief is put into practice.

A. Brockman said that he didn’t come up with these words. They’re based on existing university policy.

K. Clark said that creed can be broadly construed and that a religion is a faith community.

N. Kumar asked how this resolution goes along with what the University Assembly did on Wednesday.

A. Brockman said that when his group worked at adding a non-discrimination clause, they came upon a lot of problems because campus code wasn’t meant to regulate independent organizations.

R. Salem called community member R. Mensah to the microphone.

R. Mensah said that in order to run for his organization, you have to be conservative. He asked, should this resolution be passed, what would stop people who aren’t Republicans from coming in and overwhelming their elections and taking over the organization.

A. Brockman asked if his organization currently elects officials.

R. Mensah said yes, it does

A. Brockman asked what would stop people from doing this now.

R. Mensah said that the organization’s constitution could stop them now, but he is unsure what would happen if this were passed.

R. Desai asked what the difference is between election and appointment. Some groups do voting in different ways with combinations of elections and appointments.

A. Brockman said that an election is where every member votes for someone.

R. Desai asked if internal elections, such as the SA vice presidential position are deemed “elections.” There needs to be more clarification at the next meeting.

R. Salem said that this resolution would be tabled to next week.

R. 45- SAFC Appeals Rule Changes- Charlie Feng ‘11 and Dan Gusz ‘11

C. Basil said that the SAFC is restricted on their rules about what counts as a valid appeal. There isn’t any room for error when groups make mistakes, whereas the SA overturns SAFC decisions on appeal. This resolution tries to eliminate an unnecessary step to lift the burden upon the SAFC.

K. Welch asked if the SA would still have power to overrule an appeal.

C. Basil- yes.

V. Andrews said that they have been talking about objectivity versus subjectivity in the guidelines. This comes back to the same issue as last semester and he doesn’t see how that has changed. What stops the SAFC from denying all appeals and the SA never being able to hear the appeal? What happens if you forget or miss something in the application accidentally? Would you be able to table this resolution until the next week and work on it throughout the semester? The SA should have something to do with the appeals process.

C. Basil agreed. Currently, it’s difficult because groups have to plan their whole semester in August and this can be stressful. However, a proposed shift in SAFC procedure has been proposed in which if organizations forget a for, for instance, they only have to reschedule their event for the next week. With the funds the SA has and the increase in the SAFC’s budget, the SA should look into this shift in SAFC procedure. It will require more work for SAFC members, perhaps increasing its size, but it would make the committee more efficient.

C. Feng said that under current policies, the SAFC would purposefully not grant the appeals of some clubs so that these clubs would be able to appeal to the SA. This resolution eliminates this process. If a group made a direct error on something, the SAFC could grant their appeal themselves. Can this be tabled for two weeks?

R. 46- Making the Swim Test Optional- Rammy Salem ‘11

R. Salem said that originally, the swim test was only required of Cornell women to make them well-rounded young ladies. The test was applied to men as well during the World War II era, as it was an important skill should they become drafted. However, drafts haven’t occurred for a while. Furthermore, this isn’t in the University’s mission statement, as it is not an academic requirement. Also, some people may be afraid of water and they shouldn’t be forced to swim. Although students can appeal to not take the test, they may not want to because it could isolate them from their peers. As far as safety, the odds of drowning are one in 10,940. One in ten of this is for young children. This should all be taken into account. There are many more likely dangers than drowning, yet there are no mandates to go to a counseling service, self-defense classes, or driving safety seminars. He is not in favor of complete elimination of the swim test, he merely wants to make it optional.

N. Junewicz asked if it is necessary to take the test on orientation week of freshman year? If students took it later on with their friends, they may feel more comfortable.

R. Salem said that the University advises to get the test out of the way early. If nothing else, this resolution will get the administration to think about this. Lots of people talk about this behind the scenes, but no one ever questions it publicly. This might change people’s opinions.

C. Basil said he thinks that the SA should be dealing with more important things. If the test is made optional, why would anyone do this? He suggested they table this resolution indefinitely.

N. Kumar motioned to table. Seconded. Tabled to next week.

R. 47- Establishment of the Student Assembly Public Service Committee- Adam Gitlin, Rachel Greenspan, Jake Kose

A. Gitlin said this resolution would get the student body involved in public and community service. He began to work on this to create an SA committee devoted to advancing community service. The committee would work with the Public Service Center to connect students to different services. This would expand the mission of the SA. As an elected body, the SA is not only representing, but inspiring the students as well.

N. Raps proposed that the committee work to organize and fund disaster relief.

R. Desai said that many freshmen don’t know how to get involved. He wondered if Gitlin would chair this committee. Who else will work in this?

A. Gitlin said he was uncertain and that he isn’t focusing on that yet. They have yet to reach out to all the service organizations on campus, but that will be one of their biggest goals.

C. Basil said he thinks that this is just creating another little bureaucracy. Why not just make the Public Service Center more visible?

A. Gitlin said the SA has a unique role on campus, where members are involved in many different circles. It is the only body with the ability to touch every part of campus. The Public Service Center could benefit from this influence.

N. Kumar asked what exactly would this committee try to achieve?

Jake said they are unsure right now, but they would be able to link together all of the service organizations on campus. Ultimately, they would create a forum to interact with the Public Service Center. Now, they are just trying to set up the framework.

N. Junewicz said that there is a huge discrepancy between different public service organizations. Be more specific as to who would be in this committee.

R. Salem tabled the resolution to next week.

D. Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 6:37

Respectfully submitted, Allison Bazinet