Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
April 14, 2011
4:45pm — 7:00pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

V. Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:47pm.

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: S. Agard, V. Andrews, A. Bajaj, G. Block, A. Brokman, M. Danzer, R. Desai, C. Feng, M. Finn, A. Gitlin, M. Gulrajani, C. Jenkins, J. Kay, D. Kuhr, R. Mensah, A. Nicoletti, A. Pruce, N. Raps, J. Rau, M. Scheff, U. Smith, A. Yozwiak

Representatives Absent Unexcused: G. Moon

III. Approval of Minutes

� April 7, 2011 The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone — -- Ray Mensah

No one came forward and open microphone was closed.

V. Announcements/Reports

1. Katherina Balram, candidate for Student Trustee

Katherina is a sophomore in the college of Arts and Sciences. She came to speak about her platform. Her platform centers on mental health and tuition aid increase through funding. Also, important to her platform is promoting and preserving diversity on campus. If elected, she will have scheduling rotations of office hours to make sure she is accessible to the community at large as a trustee.

2. Nathaniel Rosen, candidate for Student Trustee

Nathaniel is a sophomore in the college of Arts and Sciences. Nathaniel stated that he has been going around campus asking students what they feel are their largest concerns about Cornell. The concerns have fell into three different categories 1) mental health; 2) lack of communication between students and administration; and 3) rising tuition. He then went on to state his platform and how he plans to address all three of these issues.

3. University looking to revise academic calendar - Natalie Raps

N. Raps shared that the university has created a committee to review the academic calendar and that they are trying to make it so that there are more breaks during the spring semester. She has concerns because one thing they are looking to do is to reduce the exam week period from 2 weeks to 1 week for finals for both the fall and spring semester. Also, they are looking to shorten senior year week. If they don’t hear from other students and their feedback then they will most likely implement the aforementioned. As representatives N. Raps said that it is our responsibility to relay the messages to other undergraduate students.

3. SUNY SA � Matt Danzer and Ray Mensah

M. Danzer stated that hey went to Syracuse for the SUNY SA conference and they picked their new executive board. M. Danzer said that it was a very successful and positive experience.

VI. Unfinished Business

1. Resolution 69 � Making Campus Buildings Accessible

Clarification that student organizations do not have to move their event if their event is inaccessible. U. Smith said he is asking for the buildings to be with comparable standards to the ADA.

M. Danzer said that students expect the buildings to be accessible but many are not. M. Danzer continued on to state that students expect the buildings to be accessible and the law calls for buildings to be accessible, then doesn’t that mean they should be. M. Danzer said it is asking the administration to fulfill these expectations.

D. Kuhr stated that he applauds the resolution because we say any person any study.

There is a call to question, motion to vote, and there is no dissent. A placard vote is done.

Community has 2 votes in favor, 0 against
Representatives 18 yes
1 proxy for
1 proxy against

Final vote is 21–1−0 and the resolution passes.

2. Resolution 73 � SAFC Funding Guidelines Amendments

3. Resolution 75 � SAFC Funding Guidelines Reform

V. Andrews stepped up to discuss the changes made to the SAFC funding guidelines. Such changes included removing jointly organized events as a category, organizations can no longer apply and receive extra funding for a jointly organized event, would have to go into personal funds to fund the event. Ari said this would be getting rid of the jointly organized event application where organizations can get more money when they have more organizations throwing the event.

V. Andrews continues on and states that budget hearings are addressed, organizations can request a hearing if they want to talk about their allocation only if the request is over $500 and organizations have an opportunity during the meeting to submit missing documentation which they hope will reduce the vast number of appeals.

Change 7.2 Ari explained that these are changes that are going on institutionally. Most of the organizations applying through SAFC are independent. Turns out that shouldn’t be using university tax exempt money for independent organizations.

All in all, the executive summary is as follows: 1. Year long budget period 2. Opportunity in the spring to apply for a budget the next year 3. Changes to nature and timing of the allocation hearings 4. Eliminate separate “jointly organized event”

A. Bajaj said he would like to see whether or not a group can go to a budget hearing who messes up can have a penalty on the cap that they would have received of 20–30% to de-incentivize groups from applying incorrectly. V. Andrews said that he thinks that students do apply correctly the first time and do not intentionally do it wrong. Ari added that dealing with percentage penalties have been done before and it has just been difficult with the calculations and doesn’t see how it would be helpful.

M. Danzer asked we eliminate early spring funding, if groups don’t take advantage of the spring funding are we eliminating the option of having early spring funding? V. Andrews stated that if an organization wants to do what they did last year or what they did this year they can, with the exception of co-hosting.

R. Desai said the only real changes that are happening are having an annual budget and giving groups a chance to give documentation if they mess up, and doesn’t see how a group would get less money with the changes that are being implemented.

V. Andrews said as representatives they have heard a lot of issues about the SAFC and that we have discussed these changes for a year with administrators and SAFC. After a years worth of discussion as a committee they’ve come to conclusion on changes they felt were doable and have worked through every scenario.

A question was raised about the annual budget. Ari noted an organization does not have to choose to do an annual budget.

Ari went on to say that most of the SAFC work has been consumed by technical planning. For what we are talking about is strategic planning and the thing is you don’t have all of the details. The people who will be involved in implementing that there will be a lot of questions. Commissioners he has spoken to so far have all said that these changes are all good. But he will be working with them to come up with a working plan.

C. Feng stated that he feels strongly about keeping co-organizations in the format because the change de-incentivizes organizations to co-organize with one another when you think about it a lot of keynote events that happen on campus are co-organized. Ari stated that the change does not call for eliminating jointly organized events. Organizations can still apply for money for events they have together.

R. Mensah moves to call for the discussion of R. 69 to get back to order because a lot of members of the resolution are here today.

Returned discussion on the resolution:

C. Jenkins asked if there is going to be continual cost training throughout the year, what’s going to happen to make sure that SA and SAFC and groups understand what is going on. V. Andrews stated that every student organization has been notified about these changes and yes there will have to be continued discussion.

A Brokman stated that it seems like the commission wants it be all or nothing, one of the major complaints is that if we do this then there will be a lot more work for the SAFC. Therefore, he wants to know what about some type of penalty of not getting it right the first time? And also, if this went in as is can you do it. Commissioners responded that the penalty idea would work but could backfire in regards to implementing this they have no idea. Another commissioner said yes they have he potential to implement it.

There is a motion. Those in favor of moving out of debate and into vote and it does not pass (8–9−0).

Debate on R. 75 continues.

A. Bajaj thinks that it would be unacceptable for the representatives in this room to say that the SAFC have worked on these changes for a year-long and so we should trust their decision and implement it.

M. Danzer said the word caps was mentioned a lot, is the SAFC prepared to judge caps through the system now or will be prepared by next fall? R. Desai said that it is not impossible and that it has been done years before.

A Pruce calls to question and there is dissent to end debate on R. 75. Placard vote is done 16–3−1 and the debate ends and will now R. 75 will be voted on.

By a roll call vote of 22–0−0 the resolution passes.

4. Resolution 76 � Creation of the S.A. Vice President of Outreach

Gitlin said that this is a concept that he and Natalie have been thinking about for a couple of months. Have spoken to other student assembly leaders and have come up with this idea of a VP of outreach to make sure that representatives are meeting with their deans.

N. Raps said the changes are in section 4 and explained the changes, A. Gitlin said he is open to any recommendations and changes.

M. Danzer stated that what the VP of outreach job is doing is what every representative of SA is supposed to be doing and if they do their job like they should be doing then we wouldn’t need this, but they’re not so he supports the resolution.

A. Gitlin said would change it to section 6 instead of section 4 since it is a newer position.

M. Gulrahjani stated that having another e-board member to work with the SA would be good since the number of SA representatives was increased.

There is a call to question and it is seconded and there is no dissent.

Roll call vote is done and by a vote of 19–1−1 the resolution passes.

5. Resolution 77 � Promoting Accessibility in On-Campus Events

VII. New Business

1. Resolution 78 � S.A.-SAFC Internal Operation Improvement Initiative

There is just a discussion about the resolution. A Gitlin said the resolution would have SA members go through an SAFC training like new commissioners or returning commissioners get in the beginning of the semester so that during appeals we will be able to understand the concept they are going through and will give them a fuller picture of the process.

V. Andrews asked why is there no clause for example, that all SA members that do not go through this training will not be able to vote on SAFC changes? How would people be held accountable? A. Gitlin said he didn’t think about that and that is something that could be implemented.

R. Desai states that he very strongly recommends this and recommends that if you don’t do this then you won’t be able to vote on SAFC changes. Also, said that the SAFC should have something done to understand how the SA works. A. Gitlin said the thing is the SAFC has been to SA meetings before.

M. Danzer asked how long would this process would take, A. Gitlin responded not more than two hours probably an 1 to hour and a half.

R. Mensah stated that he doesn’t favor that members that don’t do the training that they cant vote on SAFC measures.

VIII. Adjournment

Meeting is adjourned at 6:5 pm.