Agenda — April 11, 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, S. Breedon, I. Chen, M. Cho, A. Chopra, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, R. Gitlin, I. Harris, T. Hittinger, D. Iwaoka, D. Kuhr, J. Lee, M. Lukasiewicz, J. Marshall, J. Mueller, D. Muir, C. Pritchett, U. Smith, M. Stefanko
- Members tardy
- G. Block, P. Scelfo
- Members excused
- G. Braciak
- Members unexcused
- E. Bonatti, G. Lovely, N. Terrones
II. Approval of the 4/4/13 Minutes
- Minutes approved by unanimous consent
III. Open Microphone
IV. Announcements/Reports
Internal Elections Results Announcement — U. Smith
- Vice President for Public Relations: Ian Harris
- Vice President for Finance: Geoffrey Block
- Vice President for Outreach: Juliana Batista
- Vice President for Internal Operations: Melissa Lukasiewicz
- Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion: Cameron Pritchett
Big Red Ideas Announcement — A. Chopra
- ResCUer app got 3rd place!
Appropriations Committee Announcement — R. Desai
- Will being seeing Alternative Breaks and Orientation Steering Committee this week
- Also, will discuss SA Endowment resolution
Greek Freak Announcement — J. Toled
- Event held annualy by MGLC
- 3S competition: stomping, strolling, and saluting
- 4/20 State Street Theater at 6:00, tickets $5
V. Business of the Day
Resolution 44: Building Better Committies — S. Balik, J. Marshall, M. Lukasiewicz, U. Smith
- CIT, Communication, Women’s Issues absorbed into other committees. Task forces dissolved as well
- Idea to have each committee focus on more than one issue
- ‘Motion to amend: Section 2.9 should read:
- The committee will review the policies, budgets and sustainability initiatives for Dining Services. The committee will make recommendations to the Assembly and Dining regarding changes in existing policies or establishment of new policies. The committee will consist of one graduate/professional student, two faculty members, one non-management employee, one management employee, and at least two Dining student workers and or Dining student sustainability coordinators, two voting SA members one of whom has to be a freshmen representative and seven undergraduate students. The VP of Internal Operations will recommend additional students to both the committee chair and the Staffing Committee for their approval. The Chair’s decision may be overturned by a majority of appointed voting members present. Members shall serve one-year, and may reapply to serve a second term. One-half of the seated voting membership shall constitute a quorum. The Director of Dining or a designee and the Budget Director of Dining shall serve ex-officio.
- Motion approved by unanimous consent
- D. Iwaoka: Would you be willing to consider adding in a clause about necessary diversity training for SAFC and Appropriations?
- Great idea, but not willing to make the change now, as they are unsure what the training will look like
- R. Desai: Motion to amend: In section 2.9 strike second sentence. In section 3.3 add ‘not including the Vice President of Finance’ before the semicolon and penultimate sentence should read: ‘however, the SAFC Liaison may serve as an ex-officio non-voting member’
- U. Smith: No disagreement with the amendment, but this isn’t the time to do it — SAFC should be consulted first
- C. Pritchett: Feels that neither the amendment nor the resolution should be voted on until the SAFC is consulted
- U. Smith: Internal policies are moving quickly and some are being held back as this resolution is still pending. Would like to postpone discussion on the amendment
- R. Desai: Don’t what the amendment holding up passage of the resolution, however it is clear that the stricken sentence does not belong in the resolution
- Call to question on the amendment to section 2.9
- Amendment passed by a vote of 16–2−1
- Call to question on the amendment to section 3.3
- Amendment passed by a vote of 14–3−2
- Call to question on the Resolution
- Resolution 44 passed by a roll call vote of 18–0−1
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Absent |
| E. Bonatti | Absent | |
| G. Braciak | Absent |
| S. Breedon | Yes |
| I. Chen | Yes |
| M. Cho | Yes |
| A. Chopra | Yes |
| R. Desai | Yes |
| R. Gitlin | Not present |
| I. Harris | Yes |
| T. Hittinger | Yes |
| D. Iwaoka | Yes |
| D. Kuhr | Yes |
| J. Lee | Yes |
| G. Lovely | Absent |
| M. Lukasiewicz | Yes |
| J. Marshall | Yes |
| J. Mueller | Yes |
| D. Muir | Not Present |
| C. Pritchett | Abstain |
| P. Scelfo | Yes |
| U. Smith | Yes |
| M. Stefanko | Yes |
| N. Terrones | Absent |
Resolution 45: Fostering a “United Student Body” — A. Gitlin, U. Smith, J. Batista, Oscar Correia, J. Toledo
- A. Gitlin yields to J. Mueller for the duration of the discussion on this resolution
- Resolution presented to SAO and they were very much on board
- Added section on an advising system
- Metrics: Cornell PULSE survey and a an SAO organization survey at the beginning of each academic year
- D. Kuhr: Is there a penalty if advisors don’t show up? What will be the recourse for groups that don’t necessary align with this?
- No penalty
- Idea is to not exclue any people that might be interested
- D. Kuhr: Motion to amend: Combine USB implementation of tiers: Performance and $4000 tier in 2013–3014, $3250 and $2500 tier in 2014–2015, $1750 and $1000 tier in 2015–2016
- S. Breedon: What exactly constitutes a DIP?
- Haven’t developed a final DIP yet
- The application will have a specific page for organizations to state their initiatives and the reasons behind them
- M. Cho: Concerned that the survey will cause already-open organizations to being analyzing their processes through a discriminatory lens
- The idea is to review processes and see where improvements can be made — eg, buying equipment for handicapped people or reaching out to those who cannot afford costs
- M. Stefanko: What will you do for organizations that are not quite put-together enough to focus on such an initiative? Will this just be grunt work for the SAORS?
- In terms of implementation, top-tier organizations are most likely very suitable for this — will adjust as implementation continues
- D. Iwaoka: Fear of how much work the SAORS will have to take on — other than that this resolution is fantastic
- Purposely left the review process vague to allow for adjustment
- C. Pritchett: How often will the Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion hold summer Skype office hours? By what metric will groups be reviewed? Believe the SAFC should be involved in the discussion as the implementation structure doesn’t lend itself to the movement of organizations through the tier system. Also believes more input is needed before it moves forward
- Office hours are up to the discretion of the Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion
- Not looking for hard statistics but rather a good faith effort from groups
- This won’t affect the tier system at all — not looking to affect movement. The structure is merely a logical way to implement the phased plan
- J. Marshall: Culture change is really important and the SA has no right to determine what the university culture should look like or how the change is implemented. Suggests a town hall to get more input. Question of the definition of diversity and how this conversation will be brought to the organizations
- Agree with the town hall as they are still seeking student input
- Diversity is a lot of things — can’t be strictly defined
- M. Lukasiewicz: Can you explain the structure of the SAORS?
- Idea is to have each member of SACIDI elect several representatives to the SAORS
- G. Block: Really worried about logistics. The SAORC was originally created to review every organization and improve efficiency — it wasn’t effective as there wasn’t enough time to review 900+ groups.
- In the past, the charge of the SAORC was very unclear whereas now there is a very specific mission that seem feasible
- T. Hittinger: Currently this only affects SAFC organizations — will this eventually expand to include all SAO-recognized organizations? Question of potency — if every group reaches out to everyone else, an ocean of emails would spam everyone. Have you considered a venue for outreach to occur as opposed to having each individual group reach out? Also, recommends adding more examples, eg Academic and Religious sections in Composition
- Yes ideally this would expand
- Venue is a great idea — will look into it
- C. Cheng: What does the overhead look like? Who will be overlooking the process and making decisions about what changes need to be made
- SAO staff are in full support and are on board
- C. Pritchett: What is the process by which you will gather input as this process moves forward? Huge logistical concern regarding execution
- Urges representatives to relay this information to their own constituencies
- Resolution 45 tabled until the next meeting
J. Mueller adjourned the meeting at 6:32pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Chelsea Cheng