Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
September 16, 2010
4:45pm — 6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

V. Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:46pm.

II. Roll Call

Voting members present: V. Andrews, A. Bajaj, A. Brokman, M. Danzer, R. Desai, C. Feng, M. Finn, A. Gitlin, M. Gulrajani, C. Jenkins, D. Kuhr, R. Mensah, A. Nicoletti, S. Pendleton, N. Raps, J. Rau, U. Smith, A. Yozwiak

Voting members excused absent: A. Savion

III. Approval of Minutes

There was a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Seconded. There was a call for acclamation with no dissent. The minutes from September 9, 2010 were approved.

IV. Open Microphone�Ray Mensah

A. Craig, the undergrad student trustee said that the Homecoming Parade is on Saturday. Last year, the SA had a banner and walked in it. This is a great way to spread word about the SA to their constituents and to show Cornell spirit.

R. Mensah asked if any community members would like to come to the microphone. No one came forward, and the open microphone session ended.

V. Announcements/Reports

1. Residential Life Committee Update — Ulysses Smith

U. Smith said he went on a tour of the AAP building under construction now. The move in date is scheduled for November 2011. You can track the building process online. Additionally, the Residential Life Committee met yesterday and they focused on alternative programming. The details of the meeting will be posted on the blog later.

2. WSH Student Union Board Update�Adam Nicoletti

A. Nicoletti said the Student Union Board needs to make sure their programs aren’t redundant in order to attract more students. When they co-sponsor programs with other groups, they bring more students into the Straight. The Board will be working on its structure over the course of the semester.

3. Associate Dean of Students for Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Travis Apgar (5:00pm-5:25pm)

T. Apgar said there has been so much news in the Sun lately regarding Greek life. The university has proposed an amendment to put Cornell in line with national policy. The three main points of the amendment are as follows: 1. Hazing in any form will not be tolerated at any point during one’s college experience. 2. Alcohol and other drugs cannot be used in any way among the new members of a fraternity or sorority for recruitment, initiation, etc. 3. Assigning an appropriate period of time that should be allotted for new member initiation/recruitment activities so as not to impact students’ academic success.

A. Brokman asked about the new policy change concerning no freshmen at future open parties.

T. Apgar said that the university constructed the aforementioned three points, nothing more and nothing less, and then the tri-council worked on the new freshman policy.

A. Brokman asked if the new policies are negotiable. Is this officially the new university policy?

T. Apgar said that alcohol and drugs cannot be used in recruitment, initiation, etc. Hazing won’t be tolerated, and the university will identify an appropriate period of time for new member recruitment to prevent it from impacting work. The points regarding freshmen were only part of a draft proposal.

A. Nicoletti said that many students are unsure what parts of the new policy are unalterable. What parts of the proposal came from the IFC Board and which were from the administration? And what do student leaders actually have tangible control over?

T. Apgar said his three bullet points are decided, but how they are put into practice can be decided by student leaders. The points had lots of influence from alumni and others over the summer. The tri-council officers and leaders can continue to work on the draft and come back with new ideas. It will be a cooperative process.

A. Nicoletti asked if freshmen be able to attend open parties next year. Is this point negotiable?

T. Apgar said he would love to make this process easy, but it’s not. Fraternities in the first place aren’t supposed to have open parties; these parties are a violation of their national policies. Individuals can expose themselves to criminal liability.

R. Desai said that Apgar and President Skorton had mentioned aligning with national policy. What were the main goals of the administration: student safety, liability, or reforming the way Greek life works on campus? He asked Apgar to comment on whether or not he thinks there have been many problems associated with serving alcohol at mixers or inviting freshmen to open parties. He said that he didn’t see a correlation in this regard.

T. Apgar said that the policy change is about safety, health, and well being for students, as well as for student organizations. He said his office tries to provide the best advice, guidance, and advocacy for Greek life on campus. This policy change is not about reducing liability because the university has put itself in a good place to avoid liability from Greek life, but his office is concerned about the well being of the students themselves. He worries for students and doesn’t want their mistakes to leave a bad impact on their futures. Additionally, he hasn’t seen many fraternity recruitment events outside of parties. He thinks recruitment and social events should be separated. The connection between recruitment and parties is problematic because new members are unable to see what our organizations are really about.

R. Mensah said that one of the motivating factors behind the policy change was to protect student safety, but this counters what VP Murphy said at the IFC meeting last week because she stated that the university is trying to decrease its own level of liability.

T. Apgar said he assumed that VP Murphy was referring to liability concerning actual harm to our university and students. He has been involved in almost all conversations about this issue and the topic of university liability hasn’t been an issue.

A. Gitlin asked if there was an impetus for this discussion or if there are systemic problems that must be dealt with because many students are wondering where this came from.

T. Apgar said he has been working toward this same kind of goal for a long time. The tri-council leadership constantly works on policy changes, but they need to address the deep root of the problem. This means years of work culminating in this new direction. This isn’t just administrators, it is alumni asking to address these problems because student leaders don’t often want to step up and change anything.

J. Rau- asked if the freshmen who are 21 years and older would be allowed to attend certain “open party” events.

T. Apgar said this would depend on how the administration chooses to structure their new policy.

J. Rau said that dorms are also safe havens for a lack of alcohol events, especially on North Campus. He is asked Apgar if he thought that consumption of alcohol will spread to freshman dorms if freshmen can’t go to frat parties?

T. Apgar said there is drinking in residential halls now, so he is concerned, but the university will work to provide resources so students can creatively find alternatives to drinking. There are a number of successful programs that go on for certain populations on campus.

N. Raps asked about the pros and cons of the plan so that student leaders can go forward and make changes in policy.

T. Apgar said the three bullet points will be proposed to the trustees, not the point about freshman drinking. There may be some things to change in these points, but he thinks it’s pretty concrete. However, he would hate to stop interaction between freshmen and fraternities and sororities. How do they create social events for new students without alcohol? They need lots of new ideas in this area. No one has constructively given him any input. Many schools have this type of model and they make it work.

M. Danzer asked if the university has considered committing resources to help fraternities and sororities create social events/alternatives to replace what many would consider a large part of the freshman experience.

T. Apgar said he would have to discuss this with administration.

A. Yozwiak thanked Apgar for his clarification on what will actually be put forth to the trustees. The Daily Sun tends to focus a lot on other policy changes. How has the tri-council taken a stance on the hazing point?

T. Apgar said that last year, the IFC developed a three-tiered process to determine types of hazing and how to handle them. The more egregious the violation, the more serious the consequence. The university has also thought about instituting hazing amnesty (similar to alcohol amnesty) if the group is committed to rebuild their process and cut hazing out of it.

4. Public Relations Update—Natalie Raps

There will be a bar tab event at Dinos on September 23rd. Proceeds go to the Ithaca Youth Bureau. This is a great event to attend before homecoming weekend. There will be food and both non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks served.

5. Peer Review Board President Isaac Todd (5:30pm-5:50pm)

V. Andrews asked the speakers to introduce themselves.

They were Chloe Gatta and Isaac Todd from the Peer Review Board.

I. Todd said that the Peer Review Board hears house rules violations, mainly on North Campus. They rule upon lots of cases dealing with the presence of alcohol in dorms. That’s where their jurisdiction lies. They fear what the change in policy concerning freshmen at open parties will have on our residence halls.

V. Andrews asked if they know the university abuse strategy and if they influence on it.

I. Todd said that they know it, but all of their decisions remain separate from students’ records and the JA.

A. Nicoletti asked what percentage of their cases are alcohol related and what are their typical outcomes.

I. Todd said they do not hear all of the alcohol-related cases because the JA deals with possession and consumption cases. Thirty-four percent of the Peer Review Board’s cases are alcohol-related.

A. Nicoletti asked what percentage of all alcohol violations goes to the Peer Review Board.

I. Todd said he wasn’t sure, but he is working on compiling more statistics. R. Desai asked what proportion of cases deal with hard alcohol, versus beer. What happens with individuals with multiple cases throughout the year?

I. Todd said that they encounter few repeat offenses. He didn’t have any numbers on how many cases dealt with hard liquor rather than beer. However, it’s easier to sneak hard alcohol bottles into dorms.

V. Andrews asked why there aren’t many repeat offenders. He also wondered on what occasions the PRB comes to a room to investigate.

I. Todd said they usually show up when RA’s report parties in rooms because there’s music and loud noises. In these situations, it is hard to tell who possesses the alcohol and who is consuming. These types of parties usually occur before students go out for the night.

M. Finn asked if these cases usually occur in fall or spring.

I. Todd said that they see slightly fewer cases in fall. There were 19 in the fall last year and 25 in the spring.

N. Raps asked what their maximium capactiy for cases per semester is.

I. Todd said they have never reached their limit because they have two hearings per week, so this covers everything

U. Smith said that the university has a program that tells students how to handle alcohol safely. This program explains to students how to know their limits or how to help their friends. This decreases repeat cases. He then asked how the PRB’s cases differ from those seen by fraternity and sorority hearing boards.

I. Todd said that the PRB hears cases from the residence halls.

M. Danzer asked if there are any long-term trend statistics on PRB cases spanning back since the beginning of the board. Has there been any increase in cases in recent years?

I. Todd said that there were fewer overall cases last year than in previous years, but he doesn’t have any numbers for long-term trends.

M. Danzer asked if Todd could find this information out and send it to him.

I. Todd said he could send out any information regarding the last seven years.

A. Bajaj asked if there is any way the PRB could send out a weekly breakdown of their cases.

V. Andrews said that the SA is requesting these statistics in the next few resolutions.

I. Todd said they have records over the last seven years that they can send out.

V. Andrews thanked the Peer Review Board members for attending and said that the SA looked forward to viewing their statistics.

VI. Business of the Day

1. R. 8 — Gannett Health Services and Alcohol Related Incidents on Cornell’s Campus

V. Andrews said that this resolution would give out information about medical transport for alcohol-related incidents at Gannett.

M. Danzer said that as this resolution has no specified beginning date, he is worried the SA won’t be able to create any sort of long term trend. He motioned to make an amendment, specifying that the data released will be from August 20, 1990 onward.

There was a call to question on the amendment. Call for acclamation. Seconded.

R. Mensah said that Danzer’s amendment passed for resolutions 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13.

M. Finn asked how specific the information request would be for students.

V. Andrews said that the information is currently not allocated by age, but they do have information for living location, as in whether the student lived on North Campus or not.

R. Desai said that he had spoken to an ILR professor who said she would sit down and formulate an approach to analyzing the statistics, should they be released to the SA. He then proposed an amendment to add the status of the offender (age/graduation year/semester of enrollment) to the resolutions.

M. Finn said he would also like to add “gender” to Desai’s amendment.

R. Desai said he would add “gender” to his resolution.

There was a call to question. Seconded. Call for acclamation. Seconded. R. Desai’s amendment passed.

A. Brokman said that he had spoken to Tim Marchelle from Gannett, who told him that there are some privacy issues associated with these information requests. Concerning requesting information from the police: oftentimes, their reports don’t say where the person was when confronted by an officer. Therefore, these reports might not always be helpful. He then motioned for an amendment to combine resolutions 8,9,10,11, and 13 because they are nearly identical.

R. Desai said that these resolutions aren’t all similar; there are some key differences in all of them.

A. Brokman said he was trying to save time, but they are different. Amendment withdrawn.

There was a call to question on the resolution. Seconded. Call for acclamation. Dissent.

J. Rau asked if all of the confidential information is only privy to the executive board.

V. Andrews said yes.

J. Rau wondered how, if the majority of this data is confidential, the SA could deliberate on it.

V. Andrews said J. Rau could amend the resolution to make it available to all SA members.

J. Rau proposed this amendment to strike the executive board as the only ones who can see the information from the resolutions. Instead, all voting members of the SA have the opportunity.

There was a call to question on the amendment. Seconded. Call for acclamation. No dissent. This amendment passed.

All of the resolutions (8,9,10,11,13) were called to question. Seconded. No dissent. By a vote of 18–0−0, the resolutions passed.

2. Judicial Administrators Office and Alcohol Related Incidents on Cornell’s Campus

Presented, discussed, and passed in conjunction with Resolutions 8,10,11, and 13.

3. Cornell University Police and Alcohol Related Incidents on Cornell’s Campus

Presented, discussed, and passed in conjunction with Resolutions 8,9,11, and 13.

4. City of Ithaca Police and Alcohol Related Incidents on Cornell’s Campus

Presented, discussed, and passed in conjunction with Resolutions 8,9,10, and 13.

5. Residential Programs and Alcohol Related Incidents on Cornell’s Campus

Presented, discussed, and passed in conjunction with Resolutions 8,9,10, and 11.

VII. Unfinished Business

1. R. 6 — Responsibilities of the Vice President of Public Relations

N. Raps said that she met with the VP of Communications, Tommy Bruce, to ask if the SA could use its own list-serve to effectively communicate with the student body.

M. Danzer said that he would be worried about the unintentionally frequent mentioning of someone’s name on a list-serve, which could give someone more exposure during times of elections, etc. Therefore, he motioned for an amendment requiring the executive board and faculty advisor Dean Hubbell to double check the content being sent out.

A. Gitlin said he wished Danzer had more faith, but he agrees with his idea.

A. Nicoletti asked what were Tommy Bruce’s concerns on instituting this new list-serve.

N. Raps said he was concerned that email notification list-serves would be a waste of everyone’s time and space and that people would just filter their inboxes, so the emails wouldn’t go to anyone. However, the SA wants people’s feedback so they can connect the student body to all campus events.

A. Gitlin said that students, want the SA to get in touch with the student body because they are interested in knowing more about what the SA does.

A. Nicoletti worried that future assemblies might abuse this list-serve. He would hate to think that the SA emails will just get moved to trash. Therefore, they might want to cap the number of emails at two to three per semester

N. Raps said that the check that Danzer has brought up would prevent the sending of lots of email. However, if there are many pressing resolutions, it will be necessary to send several emails.

A. Brokman asked A. Epstein if the SA list-serve already exists.

A. Epstein said he wasn’t totally sure because there is no list-serve right now except for the one used by the Office of the Assemblies for elections a few times annually. He then asked about the procedure for people who want to opt out of this proposed list-serve. Who will keep track of this?

A. Brokman asked Epstein if he would want to use the preexisting list for the SA’s list-serve.

A. Epstein said no.

N. Raps said they have an elections list-serve from ten years ago for all undergrad students for use during elections. They should have the same system all year as well.

A. Gitlin said they could have an “opt out” feature, similar to other list-serves on campus.

M. Danzer’s amendment was called to question. Seconded. Call for acclamation. Dissent.

There was a hand vote to adopt the amendment. By a vote of 14–1−1, the amendment passed.

The resolution was then called to question, with dissent.

J. Rau said that the SA has had many failed initiatives like the community clause, etc. Not that many people have a lot of vested interest in the SA. They already have a Facebook page, a blog, a website, etc. Why bother students that don’t care?

N. Raps said that it isn’t that they don’t care, it’s that they don’t know. There are only 21 SA members who can’t be everywhere at once. People would rather read their emails than attend meetings.

A. Gitlin said they genuinely want to communicate with the student body and this is the most direct way conceivable.

J. Rau said of emailing 13,000 students: even if 500 care, they are still bothering 12,500.

D. Kuhr proposed an amendment: students can opt out of list-serve if they choose.

N. Raps said that this is already part of the resolution.

A. Brokman said that Kuhr’s amendment should be moved to the latter “be it therefore resolved” clause.

The amendment was called to question. Seconded. Call for acclamation. Seconded without dissent. The amendment was adopted

The resolution was called to question. Seconded. Call for acclamation. Seconded. By a vote of 14–1−1, Resolution 6 passes.

VIII.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:32.