Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
October 7, 2010
4:45pm — 6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

R. Mensah called the meeting to order at 4:45 pm.

II. Roll Call

Voting Members Present: S. Agard, V. Andrews, G. Block, M. Danzer, M. Finn, A. Gitlin, M. Gulrajani, C. Jenkins, J. Kay, T. Lenardo, R. Mensah, A. Nicoletti, S. Pendleton, A. Pruce, N. Raps, J. Rau, U. Smith

Voting Members Excused Absent: A. Bajaj, R. Desai, C. Feng, D. Kuhr, A. Yozwiak

Voting Members Unexcused Absent: A. Brokman

III. Approval of Minutes

The minutes from September 30th, 2010 were approved.

IV. Open Microphone�Ray Mensah

No one came forward.

V. Announcements

1. ALANA Report�A. Nicoletti

A. Nicoletti said that ALANA is on top of their funding process and the SA applauds their work along with their work with McFab and CCC.

2. AAP Update- U. Smith

U. Smith announced that there was a minor demonstration in AAP this week because the college wasn’t going to hire another advisor for its students to replace the one who was moved to engineering. Students therefore drafted a letter to the dean and brought it to the dean.

VI. Unfinished Business

1. Resolution 15 — Possession of Pepper Spray on Campus

K. Drabkin said that he had received a letter from CUPB chief telling them not to take statistics at face value. However, they would support CUPB pepper spray training classes.

R. Mensah said that the chief of police didn’t want an absolute rule saying that you can’t carry pepper spray on campus but she thinks that those who aren’t trained to use it may do more harm than good. Perhaps the CUPB could offer a few training sessions each year, to “certify” attendees to use pepper spray. Or, pepper spray training could be integrated into current PE classes.

M. Danzer said he had an amendment to improve the resolution. This would make Cornell policies more up to date with New York state law.

There was a call to question. Call for acclamation. No dissent. Amendment approved.

Resolution called to question. Seconded. No dissent. Passes by a vote of 15–0−1.

VII. Business of the Day

1. Resolution. 18 — Late Night Programming

V. Andrews said this resolution was in response to a meeting between Susan Murphy and the executive board because the university has recognized the lack of university-sponsored late night programming on campus. Late night programming is 10:30–1:00am on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. They have discussed this issue with many byline funded groups. There are a number of issues, including the lack of venues for these types of events. This initiative is already moving forward, but the resolution allows for more structure and is a good way to present it to the public.

A. Nicoletti said that late night programming often falls flat and getting all of these groups together will be the best way to discover why this is so.

U. Smith said that the residential life committee has been working on late-night programming, but they weren’t consulted with this.

V. Andrews apologized for not incorporating them.

A. Nicoletti said that the groups have realized that there is a lack of appropriate venues for programming.

S. Agard asked if other groups could be involved with this committee?

V. Andrews said other by-line funded organizations would be welcome to attend. Anyone can be involved.

M. Finn asked if the community center councils include the North Campus programming council because this group would impact freshmen the most.

A. Nicoletti said they had consulted them and Denise Cassaro as well.

V. Andrews said there aren’t restrictions right now as far as what late night programming entails, but they want to find events that are attractive to students. They don’t want to have to conform to what they think the University’s standards are. They are focusing on effectiveness and then they will see how the University responds to their goal.

M. Danzer said he agrees with the resolution and he knows that there are always issues with planning these types of events. Having all of these groups come together to try to solve these issues is a good idea.

Call to question. Seconded with no dissent. Roll call vote. Passed by a vote of 16–0−0.

2. Resolution 19 — A Response to Recent Instances of Anti-LGBTQ Bullying

M. Danzer said there have been many instances of LGBTQ bullying in the media recently. Most notably, the case of the suicide of the Rutgers student. However, this type of bullying is completely unacceptable. This resolution will ask President Skorton to affirm that bullying will not be tolerated at Cornell. Because many actions and terms that people use on a daily basis are unacceptable, bullying can happen to anyone for any reason and this is an important issue that needs addressing.

R. Mensah said it is important that people come out and say this is wrong and this should not be tolerated.

C. Jenkins asked how effective our bias support protocol is. And how do you define bullying?

M. Danzer said he was not aware of recent on-campus incidents, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t happening. Yet, our bias support protocol is pretty bad. Having Skorton identify the University’s position on bullying will help advance development of this. Oftentimes, bullying isn’t a single act or an explicit act. It is a case-by-case basis, yet intervention is needed for all students on campus.

There was a call to question. Seconded. By a hand vote of 18–0−0, the resolution passed.

3. Resolution 21 — Establishment of the Caring Community Committee

M. Gulrajani and C. Jenkins were added as sponsors and the resolution was changed from a charter change to an ad-hoc committee.

N. Raps said that there was an event called Lift Your Spirits last semester, after several campus tragedies. This was highly successful and brought everyone together and was well publicized. It was a great initiative of the SA. Community members and students want to see this happen every semester. So, she proposed the formation an ad-hoc committee to put on this event twice a year. In this way, the student assembly will have the ability to bring all undergraduates together.

J. Kay said she thinks this event is necessary and, as a freshman, it is important to support mental health on campus and bring the entire university together each semester to increase publicity for this cause.

C. Jenkins said that there couldn’t be a caring community without students and administrators working together.

N. Raps said this is a great direction for the SA to go to be more active in their community.

G. Block asked what the purpose of life your Spirits is. Social event or mental health event?

J. Kay said that it is a mental health event that brings the classes together. It is also a preventative event that will bring people together to promote this cause.

G. Block said he had heard that the success of this event last year was because it was so spontaneous. Will it lose appeal if it is held twice a year?

N. Raps said the culture last year was rather shocked by the tragic events. This resolution would allow he committee to spontaneously add another event during the semester if, god forbid, this is needed.

G. Block wondered if campus mental health is great five years down the line, would the turnout be as good as it was last semester.

J. Kay said that she thought there would be a good turnout, because there is a new influx of freshmen on campus each year.

A. Pruce asked if they had plans to incorporate the University Assembly or Graduate Student Assembly or other members of the community.

M. Gulrajani said they care about all members of the community, so they will reach out to them for their input. This will not be closed off to just undergraduates.

M. Danzer said that student mental health could never be described as “good” because we always go through stress. Therefore, this event will be useful when times are tough and when times are good.

J. Rau said the spontaneity of this event was not what made it so appealing last year.

S. Pendleton asked about the event’s name change. By keeping the same name, they might attract more people.

N. Raps said many people don’t want to associate with last semester and this is a new semester, a new year.

J. Kay said the name isn’t finalized yet. They can get more creative with it down the line. The name change keeps the event new and fresh.

T. Lenardo said this would help mental health and would be good publicity for the student assembly.

Call for acclamation. Seconded. Resolution passes by a vote of 16–0−0.

4. Resolution 22 — Creation of Student Assembly Ad-hoc Committee for Advisory System Review

S. Pendleton said the faculty senate is currently reviewing this issue. There should be more student input to represent all of the colleges. SA representatives should solicit this information from each of their representative colleges.

A. Gitlin said the spirit of this resolution came from the past few weeks with add-drop time, where students had expressed concern about this system. They are worried about not having any guidance in choosing their classes and path at Cornell. As students, SA members would like to have meaningful discussions and eventually help make recommendations.

R. Mensah said he wasn’t sure if having an ad-hoc committee or trying to get on the faculty senate committee would be better.

S. Pendleton said they will respect the faculty senate committee’s decision, but they would like more representation on that committee. The input of students’ opinions would be invaluable in this case and the creation of this ad-hoc committee would help out with this.

A. Nicoletti advised them that CALS has approached student advising as a major issue of the Dean’s Advisory Committee. They should reach out to this committee.

Call to question. Seconded. Hand vote. By a vote of 14–0−1, the resolution passes.

VIII. New Business

1. Resolution 20 — Fall 2010 SAFC Appeals, Part I

A. Nicoletti said that the SAFC heard six appeals last Thursday. The “whereas clauses” of this resolution summarize the rationale for whether or not the groups were funded. The SA is not empowered to grant an appeal if they can’t determine that the SAFC erred in anyway. Did the SAFC err in a certain way when voting on these appeals? That is what the SA is trying to determine.

R. Mensah asked if the SA could overturn these appeals.

A. Nicoletti said that if the SAFC didn’t err, then the SA has no reason to overturn the result of the appeal.

R. Mensah asked if there is anything that prohibits the SA from overturning a request, even if the SAFC did not err.

A. Nicoletti said that it is suggested in the guidelines not to do this.

A. Epstein said that the SAFC guidelines state that this is so.

R. Mensah said that since the SA isn’t necessarily governed by those guidelines, they don’t have to listen to what they say.

A. Epstein asked if R. Mensah was asking what would happen if the SA decided not to follow its own rules.

U. Smith asked about the Native American Students at Cornell and motioned to amend their appeals decision. Motioned to say that the SAFC did err in their decision.

U. Smith said that it is difficult to find people who are familiar with using technology in Native American tribes, thus this group’s situation was beyond their control.

A. Nicoletti said that this group wanted to bring an elderly Native American woman to campus to speak and they needed to submit a letter of intent by the deadline to the SAFC. This elderly woman wasn’t able to access a computer to contact the group. Therefore, the group wasn’t able to submit the letter.

J. Rau said that this group tried to fax the letter of intent to the woman, but she wasn’t able to fax it back. This group could have mailed it to her, however. The group should have done more than send a fax to follow through. The group was lazy and they are trying to hide under the cloak of cultural differences.

S. Agard said that he doesn’t think the SAFC erred in their decision because the group could have mailed a letter.

M. Danzer said that he supports this motion because the group couldn’t control these circumstances. The fax machine failed, and the group couldn’t have predicted this. The fax machine was 25 miles away from where the woman lived. When the fax failed, it was too close for the mail to get to her in time. There was a good effort to get the proper documentation, though.

M. Gulrajani said the SAFC didn’t err in their judgment. Let the group reply for special projects funding because this is how the system progresses.

A. Nicoletti said the group isn’t eligible for special projects funding because they received funding from other sources.

N. Raps has always seen the appropriations committee as an intermediate step between the objectivity of the SAFC and the semi-subjectivity of the SA. She always takes this into account on cultural issues such as this one.

U. Smith’s amendment was called to question, with dissent. Vote to vote on the amendment. 8–4−0, so the amendment was voted on. By a vote of 6–7−4, the amendment failed.

There was a call to question. Seconded. No dissent. By a vote of 8–6−3, the resolution passed.

IX. Adjournment

V. Andrews adjourned the meeting at 6:22 pm.