Minutes — April 28, 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 4:49pm
- Members present
- J. Batista, G. Block, M. Cho, A. Chopra, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, I. Harris, T. Hittinger, D. Iwaoka, D. Kuhr, J. Lee, G. Lovely, M. Lukasiewicz, J. Marshall, J. Mueller, P. Scelfo, U. Smith, N. Terrones
- Members tardy
- E. Bonatti, R. Gitlin, C. Pritchett
- Members excused
- G. Braciak
- Members unexcused
- S. Balik, S. Breedon, I. Chen, D. Muir, M. Stefanko
II. Approval of the 4/11/13 Minutes
- Minutes approved by unanimous consent
III. Open Microphone
IV. Announcements/Reports
- Postponed due to limited meeting time
V. Presentation by University Librarian, Janet McCue
- New group study rooms in Olin and Uris
- New collaborative space in Mann
- New learning center at Hotel School
- Added thousands of e-books over the past few years
- Introduced audio books this past year
- Working to get more streaming video
- Working with CIT to get better network connectivity in Olin and Uris
- Working to get more multimedia equipment onto campus
- Working with Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education on getting more research opportunities for students in the humanities
- Working on implementing a better discovery and access system
- Question if there is a need for additional 24/7 study space aside from Uris — Mann is considering keeping its lobby and computing space open
- In what ways can librarians make themselves more accessible and approachable?
- E. Bonatti: Have them be more visible
- J. Marshall: Publicize more programs
- T. Hittinger: Recommends working with FWS structure so that all freshmen are aware of what resources are available
- T. Hittinger: Love the Ask a Librarian feature. Suggests that links to publication be made more accessible and that there be more secluded study spaces
- M. Cho: Would love to see Olin and Uris open late on Fridays and Saturdays as well
- Libraries closed when students use them least for financial reasons
VI. Presentation by Judicial Administrator, Mary Beth Grant
- Transtion from Code of Conduct to Policy 6.4 — how sexual assault and harassment cases will be adjudicated
- Background:
- There used to be two policies: 6.3 focused more on sexual assault and definitions and 6.4 focused on sexual harassment and procedure
- In 2011 the Dear Colleague Letter essentially said that we were not addressing the issues correctly — thus the two policies were combined under 6.4
- Policy 6.4: Investigation, Review, and Appeal
- Investigation
- Agreement is possible at any point
- Both parties have the opportunity to be heard
- Previously, the JA acted on behalf of either the accused or the complainant if the case is dismissed. Now under 6.4 they remain mutual
- Review (of investigation)
- Reviewer has the final say
- People can always challenge the investigator — everyone will have the opportunity to be heard
- Appeal
- Preponderance of evidence will be the standard of proof to determine violation
- Equivalent appeal opportunities and processes for both complainants and respondents
- Topics up for discussion
- How to make the process run smoothly
- Making sure fairness abounds for all parties
- Language used in the policy
- Strategies for communicating the new policy
- U. Smith: What exactly is the timeline for the investigation period?
- 10 business days from the day the report is provided for additional information to be sent to the reviewer
- 10 business days from the reviewer’s decision to make an appeal
- D. Iwaoka: Have you considered using faculty/staff that might be more knowledgeable on the subject since there are resources available on campus? Are there people available for support during the process?
- Great idea — asks that he send a list of suggested departments to contact
- Yes, advisors are always available — there are equivalent resources for both parties
VII. Business of the Day
- Motion to move R.54 up on the agenda as Matty Gruber has limited time
R.54: Approving the Student Assembly Finance Commission’s Executive Board Members and Commissioners — C. Pritchett
- 8 new commissioners and e-board elected
- Motion to table, seconded
- Resolution 54 tabled until the next meeting
R.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
- This resolution also provides an operational responsibility for the Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion
- T. Hittinger: Can people apply to SAORS through the website? For people that make appeals, will they have the ability to testify in person?
- SAORS will act is just like any other committee — can be applied to through the website
- Appeals work the same as byline decisions
- No standing for legal issues — don’t foresee that as a problem
- G. Block: Motion to amend: Include intellectual diversity in the definition
- A. Bores: Definition includes diversity of thought — is that sufficient?
- Motion withdrawn
- R. Desai: This has gone through many layers of feedback and is a great way for the Assembly to make an impact on campus in a tangible way. Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
- T. Hittinger: Would like to spend a little time discussing training
- Motion withdrawn
- T. Hittinger: Would like to see training to make sure organizations understand what DIPs are. Motion to amend: add “and leaders” after “workshop for advisers” under IV.A.2′ ’
- D. Kuhr: Motion to amend: strike “advisers” in IV.A.2 since that might not be feasible
- SAO specifically requested that advisers be mentioned
- C. Pritchett: Motion to amend: in Section IV.A.2 to read “SAO to organize a mandatory training session and workshop for leaders of student organizations at the end and the beginning of the academic year. The advisers of these organizations will be encouraged but not required to attend”
- R. Desai: Idea sounds great, but don’t think the mandatory meeting is possible, as the requirement is the actual DIP. Motion to amend: strike the word “mandatory’ in IV.A.2
- Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
- Vote to vote: 13–4−1 continue on to vote
- Amendment to amendment passed by vote of 16–2−1
- Call to question, seconded
- Amendment passes by vote of 18–0−1
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 45 passed by a roll call vote of 17–1−1
| S. Balik | Absent |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| E. Bonatti | Yes |
| G. Braciak | Absent |
| S. Breedon | Absent |
| I. Chen | Absent |
| M. Cho | Yes |
| A. Chopra | Yes |
| R. Desai | Yes |
| A. Gitlin | Yes |
| R. Gitlin | Yes |
| I. Harris | Yes |
| T. Hittinger | Yes |
| D. Iwaoka | Yes |
| D. Kuhr | Yes |
| J. Lee | Yes |
| G. Lovely | Not present |
| M. Lukasiewicz | Yes |
| J. Marshall | Abstain |
| D. Muir | Absent |
| C. Pritchett | Yes |
| P. Scelfo | No |
| U. Smith | Yes |
| M. Stefanko | Absent |
| N. Terrones | Yes |
Resolution 46: In Favor of an Inclusive Book Policy — U. Smith, I. Harris
- Resolution asks professors to keep at least one copy of required texts for their courses on reserve at libraries
- G. Block: In support, but don’t think the SA has the authority to tell faculty how to spend their royalties
- There is a movement against professors making profit off of royalties, so it is merely a suggestion
- D. Kuhr: Motion to amend: Strike section on royalties. Want this resolution to be as un-contentious as possible for ease of passage through the Faculty Senate
- Call to question, seconded
- Amendment fails by a vote of 8–9−0
- E. Bonatti: Recommends adding that booklists be made available for pre-enroll
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 46 passed by a vote of 15–0−0
Resolution 52: Clarifying the Organization of the Cornell Chapter of the Ivy Council — T. Hittinger
- Resolution delineates responsibilities of head delegate
- Ivy Council to be classified as a committee, not a delegation, to increase its effectiveness
- J. Batista: Does the head delegate get to hand pick members? How often will the committee meet?
- Head delegate is synonymous with chair — statement of approval of SA for accountability purposes
- Thinking bi-weekly meetings
- M. Lukasiewicz: Have you considered making it an ad-hoc committee first?
- Yes, but the committee structure encourages accountability and a commitment to improvement
- J. Mueller: Recommends clarifying sentence about head delegate being a member of the SA
- U. Smith: What kind of resolution would you foresee the committee reviewing?
- It will be a smaller sub-function of the committee
- Main purposes of committee structure if publicity and recruitment ability
A. Gitlin adjourned the meeting at 7:00pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Chelsea Cheng