Minutes — February 21, 2013
Cornell University Student Assembly
4:45pm — 6:30pm, Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room
I. Call to Order/Roll Call
A. Gitlin called the meeting to order at 4:48pm
- Members present
- S. Balik, J. Batista, G. Block, E. Bonatti, G. Braciak, S. Breedon, I. Chen, I. Chen, M. Cho, A. Chopra, A. Gitlin, R. Gitlin, I. Harris, D. Iwaoka, D. Kuhr, J. Lee, G. Lovely, M. Lukasiewicz, J. Marshall, J. Mueller, D. Muir, C. Pritchett, U. Smith, N. Terrones
- Members tardy
- R. Desai, T. Hittinger
- Members excused
- P. Scelfo, M. Stefanko
II. Approval of the 2/14/13 Minutes
- Minutes approved by unanimous consent
III. Open Microphone
- U. Smith (presenting on behalf of Adam Abboud ‘14): On 2/15 there was a homophobic sexist assault on the Muslim community. Requesting more support for the establishment of a chapel. More incidences will occur until then and that is unacceptable
IV. Presentation by Charles Walcott from the University Ombudsman
- The University Ombudsman is an independent office of the University that reports to the University community, not the Administration
- Safe place to go with any problem. 50% of business comes from staff, remaining comes from faculty and students
- Faculty vs. Grad student issues
- Staff vs. supervisor issues
- Faculty tenure and departmental issues
- Undergraduate grading, etc.
- No one knows of the Ombudsman office, especially the undergraduates. A current move to publicize more has resulted in a doubling of business
- Requests the SA for recommendations on how best to reach out to the community
- S. Balik: Are there any ways other than publicity in which the SA can help out?
- Not really, the most important is to spread the word that the office exists
- D. Kuhr: Have you considered going to various floor meetings to introduce yourself?
- No, but they will be happy to. Currently have a table during orientation but they are often overlooked as freshmen are so overwhelmed
- M. Lukasiewicz: Suggests putting pamphlets in the Women’s Resource Center, 626 Thurston, and other buildings with high traffic
- U. Smith: There are a lot of other immediate resources available to students. What pool or problems would make students choose the Ombudsman office over another resource? Where is the increase in business?
- The increase has been seen mostly in faculty/staff issues
- The office is open to help in any kind of problem
- J. Toledo: The Greek Tri-Council encompasses very 1 in 3 undergraduates. Recommends presenting to each of the individual general body meetings
- G. Braciak: Recommends getting information to freshmen through Sarah Jones in orientation programming
V. Announcements/Reports
Elections Update — J. Weinberg
- Elections process has started — 42 candidates
- Concentrated effort to increase voting turnout by providing forums for candidates — one each week for every representation
- Increase in the number of voting booths — voting starts Monday, March 4 at 8am and goes through March 6, 10am
SADAC Update — U. Smith
- First meeting was last Friday — great turnout of students and faculty/staff
- Everyone talked about their College’s process and discussed ways in which they would improve
- Next meeting will discuss the progress reports due from each college regarding Towards New Destinations
Appropriations Committee Announcement — R. Desai
- Will be seeing CUEMS and Women’s Resource Center
Cayuga’s Watchers — A. Gitlin
- Inaugural training this Saturday — over 100+ Watchers which is double what was expected
VI. Business of the Day
R. 34: Amendment to Appendix A of the Student Assembly Charter — R. Desai, D. Muir, C. Pritchett
- A. Gitlin steps down as the Chair and passes control to EVP J. Mueller
- Changes from last meeting: clarification of requirements and additional detail regarding the task force. Main sentiment: a good faith effort to understand the operations and structure when meeting with each byline funded organizations
- Received feedback from 14 organizations explicitly supporting the resolution
- Slope Day Programming Board: ANNOUNCEMENT: Kendrick Lamar to perform at Slope Day!
- Communication is absolutely necessary. They would greatly appreciate more feedback and would like more checkpoints along the way
- D. Iwaoka: Believe communication is very important, but is afraid the Committee is overextending itself. Motion to amend:
- 1) Strike sentence regarding the ability to require the task force to follow up
- 2) D.4.3 Add “Which must be included with the report of the Vice President of Finance to any respective parties it is sent to”
- R. Desai: Motion to split amendment, call to question on part 2
- Part 2 passed by a vote of 24–0−0
- G. Block: Disagrees with the amendment — should keep the opportunity to provide support and help for organizations that have room to grow
- D. Iwaoka: The Committee has too much power. Organizations are given the option to request meetings with the task force — they will ask for help when they need it
- I. Harris: “Require” seems to be a strong word — maybe change the language
- There is a clause that says only one meetings between the organizations and the task force is required — this will prevent badgering
- Call to question, seconded
- Part 1 fails to pass by a vote of 3–16–3
- R. Desai: Motion to amend: Put B. under section A. and move outline letters appropriately
- Motion approved by unanimous consent
- A. Gitlin: Appreciate the changes to the resolution, especially the clause about “good faith effort”. Motion to strike 4.1 as it is pretty much the same as C.2
- Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed, dissent withdrawn
- Amendment passes by a vote of 23–0−0
- G. Block: Agrees that feedback is important, but do not think this resolution is efficient. Also, 6 week time frame seems infeasible — groups won’t be able to relay their sentiments properly. Why can’t the groups send in the reports themselves? Focus should be placed on liaisons that can spend a full year with their organization and provide better feedback
- U. Smith: Still apprehensive — feels like the Committee is micromanaging the organizations. If the liaison process is inefficient, why not just revamp the whole thing?
- A. Bores: Did any organizations give negative responses to this resolution? Will it cause problems for future Committee members?
- All were in agreement, with a “but” clause from MGLC
- Minimal problems
- J. Toledo: Can you clarify “good faith effort”? What would be he repercussions of not having liaisons?
- R. Desai: Responsibility of VP Finance to make sure proper recommendations are being made. Liaisons are inefficient because some groups can’t feasilby have liaisons (some are not on campus, not enough SA members to cover all the groups, etc.)
- Chelsea Cheng ‘15: Why not have the organizations submit the report as G. Block suggested? Maybe publicize the Committee as a resource — let the organizations be accountable for properly implementing the recommendations and should they chose not to meet with the Committee, it was their own decision
- Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
- A. Gitlin would like to make an amendment
- Motion withdrawn
- A. Gitlin: Motion to amend: In C.2 add “The Assembly reserves the right to overturn any part of the report”
- R. Desai: Completely disagrees — weekly reports are not reviewed by the SA. This amendment would take away the voice of the Committee and would make non-byline years as politically involved as funding years
- A. Gitlin: The resolution itself makes it feel like non-byline years are the same as byline years. This amendment provides another safeguard in the charter
- Call to question, seconded
- Motion fails by a vote of 6–17–1
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 34 fails to pass by a roll call vote of 17–5−2
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | No |
| E. Bonatti | Abstain |
| G. Braciak | No |
| S. Breedon | Yes |
| I. Chen | Yes |
| M. Cho | Yes |
| A. Chopra | Yes |
| R. Desai | Yes |
| A. Gitlin | Yes |
| R. Gitlin | Yes |
| I. Harris | Yes |
| T. Hittinger | Yes |
| D. Iwaoka | No |
| D. Kuhr | Yes |
| J. Lee | No |
| G. Lovely | Yes |
| M. Lukasiewicz | Yes |
| J. Marshall | Yes |
| D. Muir | Yes |
| C. Pritchett | Yes |
| P. Scelfo | Absent |
| U. Smith | No |
| M. Stefanko | Absent |
| N. Terrones | Abstain |
Resolution 35: Increasing Member Accountability Through a Revised Initiative Tracker — M. Lukasiewicz, J. Mueller
- As a result of requests from the SA survey, this is an amendment to the standing rules for each member to fill out a weekly initiative tracker
- Call to question, seconded, dissent
- R. Gitlin: Will this inhibit people from doing work because of this extra written requirement?
- No — members just have to write down a few words, this is just a way to keep track
- C. Pritchett: Concerned about the execution. Will a member get a half absence because they forgot to mentioned something?
- Not designed to keep track of everything — idea is to show that each member is being active each week
- M. Cho: If the purpose is communication of initiatives, this seems like a poor attempt
- J. Batista: This increases transparency and is a good way to disperse information. It also communications the interests of each member. Why not give it a try?
- D. Iwaoka: Originally concerned that this provided more administrative work, but this seems like a great way for any reps that might be floundering to get ideas/get involved
- Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
- Vote to vote: 18–5−0 Continue to vote
- Resolution 35 passes by a vote of 20–2−0
Motion to reconsider vote on Resolution 34: Was not correctly done — the chair was not provided by opportunity to break the tie, seconded, dissent expressed
- Vote to vote: 18–0−3 Continue to vote
- Resolution 34 passes by a roll call vote of 18–2−1
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| E. Bonatti | Abstain |
| G. Braciak | Not present |
| S. Breedon | Yes |
| I. Chen | Yes |
| M. Cho | Yes |
| A. Chopra | Yes |
| R. Desai | Yes |
| A. Gitlin | Yes |
| R. Gitlin | Yes |
| I. Harris | Yes |
| T. Hittinger | Yes |
| D. Iwaoka | No |
| D. Kuhr | Not present |
| J. Lee | No |
| G. Lovely | Yes |
| M. Lukasiewicz | Yes |
| J. Marshall | Yes |
| D. Muir | Yes |
| C. Pritchett | Yes |
| P. Scelfo | Absent |
| U. Smith | Not present |
| M. Stefanko | Absent |
| N. Terrones | Yes |
Resolution 36: In Support of the Establishment of an International Student Centre — E. Bonatti
- 4000+ international students that have different sent of needs
- There is administrative support, but not actual center for students to go to
- A. Bores: No objection to the resolution, but it should be more direct to get a more efficient response from the Administration
- There is a clause to get the center built by Spring ‘14
- Not asking for a new building, just a center
- M. Lukasiewicz: Requests opinion of Dean Hubbell
- Dean Hubbell: Is in support of the idea, but unsure of its execution — would be willing to look into possibilities. Creating many centers is beneficial, but want to maintain some sense of unity
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 36 passed by a roll call vote of 18–2−0
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| E. Bonatti | Yes |
| G. Braciak | Yes |
| S. Breedon | Yes |
| I. Chen | Yes |
| M. Cho | Yes |
| A. Chopra | Yes |
| R. Desai | Yes |
| R. Gitlin | Yes |
| I. Harris | Yes |
| T. Hittinger | Yes |
| D. Iwaoka | Yes |
| D. Kuhr | Not present |
| J. Lee | Yes |
| G. Lovely | Yes |
| M. Lukasiewicz | Yes |
| J. Marshall | Yes |
| J. Mueller | Yes |
| D. Muir | No |
| C. Pritchett | No |
| P. Scelfo | Absent |
| U. Smith | Not present |
| M. Stefanko | Absent |
| N. Terrones | Yes |
A. Gitlin adjourned the meeting at 6:49pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Chelsea Cheng