Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
March 31, 2011
4:45pm — 6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

V. Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:45pm.

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: S. Agard, V. Andrews, A. Bajaj, A. Brokman, M, Danzer, R, Desai, C. Feng, M.Finn, A. Gitlin, M.Gulrajani, C.Jenkins, D. Kuhr, G. Moon, A. Nicoletti, A.Pruce, J.Rau, M.Scheff, A.Yozwiak

Representatives Excused: R. Mensah, N. Raps, U. Smith

Representative � Excused: J. Kay

Representatives Unexcused: G. Block

III. Approval of Minutes

� March 17, 2011 V. Andrews said he would forward them out to the SA members and approve them next week.

IV. Open Microphone — Adam Gitlin

No one came forward and open microphone was closed.

V. Announcements/Reports

1. Slope Day Programming Board report — Adam Nicoletti

A. Nicoletti said he met with the Slope Day Programming Board on Monday with the appropriations committee, got an increase per student in the last byline funding cycle. A vast majority of that increase went towards funding the talent and the artists. In addition, A.Nicoletti is appreciative towards their move towards more sustainability. Also, they asked for a lot more feedback from the student body this year. A. Nicoletti mentioned he is pleased with them and that they are spending money efficiently.

2. Special project request report — Adam Nicoletti

The Special Project Request was from the Cornell International Affairs Conference event in the amount of $1,200. This request was reject because felt it would not engage enough Cornell students. In addition, A. Nicoletti stated that it was felt that the group could do better to reach out to funding boards that could fulfill their need and don’t want to give off the idea that the SA is a funding board, but rather provide events that are more directly related to the SA mission.

3. Faculty Panel on Mental Health update — Vincent Andrews

This will be discussed later on in the meeting through the form of a resolution.

VI. Business of the Day

1. Resolution 71 — SAFC Special Projects Funding Assistance

A.Nicoletti spoke about the background of how this resolution came about and what the resolution entails. A. Nicoletti went on to explain that the SAFC sets up a Special Project and Appeal Fund and any appeals that get overturned come from that fund. You are eligible if you have a change in circumstances or if you accidently messed up, you kind of get a “second chance” through special projects.

A change in the publications SAFC guidelines caused several student groups to make a mistake. Due to the higher amount of appeals there is no money left. In addition, there are certain groups that have to go through Special Projects Funding and could not apply in the regular budget and an example of that is club sports because they don’t know when their tournament is going to happen. So we are not giving money to groups who messed up the first time and making a second attmpt, some of these groups are applying for the first time.

Therefore, the SAFC would like to make a short-term loan from the SA. Resolution 71 essentially states that the SA would agree to make a short-term loan to the SAFC of $9,000 out of its reserved account and that the loan will be paid back by July 1, 2011. A. Nicoletti stated that supporting student programming is a priority for this body and there is zero default risk with the SAFC.

The actual amount needed by the SAFC is $10,803.50 to fund all the projects and they would like to amend the amount in the resolution. The amendment is voted on, the amendment is approved and there is no dissent.

A. Gitlin asked if there would be any interest on the loan. A.Nicoletti responded and said that this is a zero interest loan.

J. Rau motions to approve the resolution. A placard vote is done with a vote of 16–0−1 and the resolution passes.

VII. Unfinished Business

1. Resolution 66 — Directly Appointing a Policy Liaison to The Ivy Council

This resolution was represented and explained by C. Jenkins. The resolution calls for making sure that the policy liaison is directly appointed because the position requires knowing about their particular student government and being well versed in it. In addition, the policy liaison will have voting rights and will be a member of the ivy council. This change would be a bylaw change. A. Pruce thinks that this is a great resolution and calls to question.

A roll call vote is done and the result is 17–0−0 and the resolution passes

VIII. New Business

1. Resolution 70 — Calling for Constitutional Convention (discussion only)

This resolution was presented and explained by A. Brokman. A. Brokman stated that various situations (Example: searching a student’s dorm without permission) would allow the student bills of rights to be helpful for a student to be informed about what their rights are as a student at Cornell. A. Brokman stated that he wants to include as many voices as possible of the undergraduate and graduate community. In addition, A. Brokman stated that he has already confirmed administrators that will be in attendance.

M. Danzer stated that he may want to include an administrative buy-in. In addition, he stated that he thinks it is about time that this campus has some sort of guiding document to let them know what rights they have on campus. M. Danzer asked if there would be a worry of interests groups flooding in. A. Brokman responded no.

S. Agard shared that he e-mailed the other ivy leagues and out of his discussion the only school that had a student bill of rights right now is Princeton. S. Agard says he is all for this just to hear what the rest of the student body has to say.

A. Pruce asked if this bill could include responsibilities of students. A. Brokman responded that the campus code really outlines your responsibilities if you want to know it and it is a main source. The student bill of rights is meant to be more of something to create the awareness of your rights and wants to keep it simplistic in that sense.

J. Rau asked what is going to be in the student bill rights that is not in the student code of conduct. A. Brokman said he did point out the privacy debate and other issues that are not covered. He said that there are other points that he will point out before the debate occurs, and hopes through the debate new grounds are found as well.

A. Bajaj asked if A. Brokman could further outline what the procedure will be for the constitutional convention? A. Brokman responded that it is important to note that this is still a work in progress. A. Bajaj also asked what kind of enforcement mechanism will be there? A. Brokman said that the enforcement question is the biggest question. Perhaps there will need to be a university assembly resolution that would alter the campus code and would be in concert with this bill of rights. When we get to that point it will be about making this in concert with other policies.

A. Yozwiak asked, do you think you will be able to cover this ambitious agenda in one SA meeting? A. Brokman stated no he does not expect this to take or be only one meeting.

Note that the meeting will be taking place on April 21, 2011 in the Willard Straight Memorial room.

2. Resolution 72 — Request to Forward Invitation Email to all Faculty

R. Desai explained the resolution and how this resolution is an attempt to get faculty behind the issue. The resolution is calls for sending out an e-mail with the date and time of the event and request all faculty to come out to the event. The resolution looks to blast all faculty and extend personal invitation to selection faculty who are part of the coalition who are willing to help students.

Background of the event: the event will take place on April 6h from 3–4:30pm. The event is a forum and faculty’s presence is important (want as much faculty to come as possible) to show that that there can be faculty support for students without sacrificing academic rigor. In order to accomplish this a resolution was suggested.

D. Kuhr states that he wants to voice his support for the resolution and hopes everyone will get the word out to their professors.

S. Agard asked if this is something that should be brought to the faculty assembly for it to be done? R. Desai responds that they decided not to push it to the faculty because they meet the second Wednesday of every month, which would be after when this meeting occurs and thus found this as the most efficient way.

V. Andrews moved to make this business of the day and there is no dissent.

There is a call to acclamation, there is no dissent, and seeing that there was no dissent the resolution was passed by acclamation.

Andrews said it would be great for every SA member to invite at least two faculty members.

IX. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:44 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Melissa Arguinzoni