Minutes — March 7, 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 4:50pm
- Members present
- S. Balik, J. Batista, G. Block, E. Bonatti, G. Braciak, I. Chen, M. Cho, A. Chopra, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, R. Gitlin, I. Harris, T. Hittinger, D. Iwaoka, J. Lee, G. Lovely, M. Lukasiewicz, J. Marshall, J. Mueller, P. Scelfo, U. Smith, M. Stefanko
- Members tardy
- D. Muir, C. Pritchetet
- Members excused
- S. Breedon, N. Terrones
- Members unexcused
- D. Kuhr
II. Approval of the 2/28/13 Minutes
- Minutes approved by unanimous consent
III. Open Microphone
IV. Announcements/Reports
Elections Results Announcement — J. Weinberg
- > 40% voter turnout!
- Results of unchallenged races will be released a few hours after the meeting
- Challenged race results will be released once resolved
Unity Hour Recap — U. Smith
- 1st Unity Hour with Ujamaa
- Discussion about how diversity is being addressed
- Talked abut the social justice requirement — split responses on the subject: some feel it’s necessary, some didn’t
Social Justice Roundtable Dinner Update — U. Smith
- Monday, 3/11 SA is co-sponsoring a Roundtable dinner with OADI to discuss whether or not student government is a benefit or a hindrance to achieving social justice.
Appropriations Committee Announcement — R. Desai
- Waiting for approval of Resolution 34 from President Skorton — once approved, the reports will be released
VI. Business of the Day
R.29: Crisis Management Follow Up Process — M. Lukasiewicz
- The resolution was sent to President Skorton and a few small changes in the last paragraph were made
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 29 passed by unanimous consent
R.38 Establishing a New Events Calendar — J. Batista and I. Harris
- Changes from last resolution: Last Whereas clause, last two Be It Therefore Resolved clauses, pilot program timeline included, draft email, list of target organizations for pilot program
- G. Block: How did you decide on the target organizations?
- A GoogleDoc was sent to the SA — targets came from those suggestions
- Eventually all groups will be included, but this will form the sample pool for the pilot program
- E. Bonatti: Under whose purview is the email? Has Denice Cassaro agreed to this?
- The draft email was written by her — she is willing to do whatever the students want
- A. Chopra: Have you talked to the groups you plan to involve? Have you considered requiring that events be posted on the calendar in order to be held?
- Have not contacted the groups as they want to make sure the program will happen
- G. Lovely: Have you considered giving students the option to share their interests and have a system send them emails about relevant events?
- D. Iwaoka: The point this is to expose students to everything around campus. Disagrees with the email since he doesn’t want anymore, but agrees with the calendar requirement
- U. Smith: Agrees with the calendar requirement, but recommends getting buy-in from groups as they don’t want to spend money on a program that people won’t use
- Won’t be spending extra money since the platform is already in place
- Emphasis on the fact that this is a pilot program
- Motion to change title to “Revamping the Events Calendar”
- Motion passed by unanimous consent
- I. Chen: Questions implementation — how will everyone be trained?
- The process is really very simple — shouldn’t be a problem
- Concerns and details will be hammered out during the pilot program meetings
- M. Cho: Will events be sent out through this as well as listserv email or will listserv email be gotten rid of?
- This will not affect listservs — merely consolidating all general event notification emails into one
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 38 passed by a vote of 22–0−1.
R.39: In Support of the LGBTQ Ally Ambassador Program — D. Iwaoka, Emily Bick, J. Toledo, Carlin Van Holmes, Colin Foley, William Jackson
- All 3 councils are fully behind the resolution and have been added as sponsors
- Clause asking each council to draft their own implementation plans — hope to get a pilot by the end of the semester so that this will really get going in the Fall
- IFC: 18 month plan, not made mandatory as mandates are usually not received well. Have received a lot of positive feedback
- Panhellenic Council: Requiring it — considering putting it under an exec position for next year to provide more momentum
- G. Block: How will you substantively maintain this program? What is the role of the ambassador?
- The ambassador if the go-to member to talk to about LGBT concerns — they will be familiar with campous resources and will be required to attend orientations
- R. Gitlin: Concerned that the incentive plan for IFC isn’t strong enough to get this initiative off the ground
- Interest has already been shown, but the will take appropriate steps after outreach is peformed
- Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed and withdrawn
- Vote to vote: 20–12–0 discussion continues
- G. Braciak: Recommends a greater reward than a plaque to help incentivize IFC participation
- Emily Bick: PEGS (Peer Educators of Gender and Sexuality) will always be a resource as well — maybe the ambassador could help facilitate those events
- I. Harris: Recommends getting information about the ambassador program to freshmen
- Call to question, seconded
- Community vote: 2–0
- Roll call vote: 23–0−0
- Resolution 39 passed by a vote of 25–0−0.
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| E. Bonatti | Yes |
| G. Braciak | Yes |
| S. Breedon | Absent |
| 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 | Absent |
| J. Lee | Yes |
| G. Lovely | Yes |
| M. Lukasiewicz | Yes |
| J. Marshall | Yes |
| J. Mueller | Yes |
| D. Muir | Yes |
| C. Pritchett | Yes |
| P. Scelfo | Yes |
| U. Smith | Yes |
| M. Stefanko | Yes |
| N. Terrones | Absent |
V. Business of the Day
R.40–42: Creation of the University Student Supreme Court — U. Smith
- None of this is final
- In the current judicial system, nobody handles inter-student group disputes
- Currently very difficult (near impossible) to overturn SA decisions
- Plan to have this Court housed in the student office
- E. Bonatti: Have you spoken to the Ombudsman? Have you thought about the level of bureaucracy in terms of adding more boards/organizations?
- Have not spoken to Ombudsman, but have been present at the presentation
- Have thought the bureaucracy — initial step is an immediate board (deterial) and has to go through 2 steps before it gets to an adversarial level
- There have been quite a few demands for this
- J. Lee: How will the Court members be chosen?
- Process is in bylaws, but will be the same process as the University Hearing and Review boards
- G. Block: Where does the SA get the power to do the things laid out in the resolution?
- Bylaws drafted from a lot of research from other universities — some topics have not been discussed and should be amended
- G. Lovely: What needs to happen in order for a hearing to be held with the Court? Will this completely fail if all 3 resolutions don’t pass?
- Anyone can apply for a hearing
- J. Toledo: Will this obsorb the Greek judicial process or any other judicial process? Are there any gray areas?
- No, no processes will be absorbed — this shouldn’t conflict with the Greek system at all
- R. Gitlin: Asks for Dean Hubbell’s perspective on this idea. Also, should this be called a “Supreme Court”?
- Dean Hubbell: Always in support of students helping students and student determining student conduct
- I. Harris: There are already methods in place to question SA initiatives (committees, meetings, etc.) — do you think those aren’t effective? Is this Court absolutely necessary?
- That is all up for interpretation — the ResLife committee is merely looking for feedback at this stage
- His personal opinion is that the SA has not consistently done a good job of holding itself accountable
- J. Mueller: Can you explain the Recalling Officers section of Resolution 40?
- Vice President of Internal Operations notes absences and reports that a member has reached his/her limit — the member then has a chance to tell his/her side of the story before the final decision is made
- This is an internal operation that needs to be developed — idea is to provide a stronger guideline for holding members accountable
- P. Scelfo: Have you spoken with the JCC (Judicial Codes Counselors) office? You mentioned modeling off of other schools whose members are paid (that is their method of accountability) — should the SA be paid?
- SA should not be paid — they are all students are not better than anyone else
- Have not spoken to JCC — spoke to JA first
- J. Batista: Can you explain the mediation process?
- That process was requested by the JA
- A body convenes with the case members to talk about it before it goes adversarial
- D. Muir: Will this include the Appropriations Committee?
- Hesitant to touch anything regarding funding, but it might be considered
- D. Iwaoka: Regarding the members of the Court, should the Administration have th power to choose members that are to help mediate student issues?
- Ultimately, members will be chosen by the students, but it will probably be a good idea to have an administrator on board as a check
- Motion to table indefinitely until the Committee is ready to bring it back
A. Gitlin adjourned the meeting at 6:19pm
Respectuflly submitted,
Chelsea Cheng