DRAFT Minutes — May 2, 2013
Cornell University Student Assembly
4:45pm — 6:30pm, Willard Straight Memorial Room
I. Call to Order/Roll Call
A. Gitlin called the meeting to order at 4:45
- Members present
- S. Balik, J. Batista, G. Block, E. Bonatti, I. Chen, M. Cho, A. Chopra, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, I. Harris, T. Hittinger, D. Iwaoka, J. Lee, G. Lovely, M. Lukasiewicz, J. Mueller, P. Scelfo, U. Smith, M. Stefanko, N. Terrones
- Members tardy
- S. Breedon, R. Gitlin, D. Muir, C. Pritchett
- Members excused
- J. Marshall
- Members unexcused
- G. Braciak, D. Kuhr
II. Open Microphone
III. Approval of the 4/25/13 and 4/30/13 Minutes
- R. Desai: Motion to amend 4/30/13 Minutes to include “roll tide” in Section 7 before the call to question
- A. Epstein: Would like to stat that he is in support of the intent behind resolution 48 but not as it is currently drafted
IV. Announcements/Reports
Ambassador Program Announcement — D. Iwaoka
- Program is under way, upcoming events
University Assembly Announcement — P. Scelfo
- UUP Campus Code Resolution tabled at the UA meeting
V. Business of the Day
Motion to suspend agenda and discuss R.50 as SAFC co-chairs have limited time
R.50: SAFC Funding Guidelines Amendment Spring 2013 — Matthew Gruber, Alykhan Bandali, R. Desai
- Looking to have at least 3 funding cycles per semester — will allow groups more time for planning and increase transparency between them and the SAFC
- G. Block: How will caps be set?
- Currently they are set after the initial allocation period. Next year with the new systems, caps will be pre-set based on past data
- Friendly amendment to section 2.1.1.1 to read: “register with the Student Activities Office (SAO) by the 1st funding cycle deadline in September or optionally by the 1st funding cycle deadline in January if the group plans to only pursue spring funding
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 50 passed by a roll call vote of 20–0−0
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| G. Braciak | Absent |
| S. Breedon | Not present |
| 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 | Absent |
| J. Mueller | Yes |
| D. Muir | Not present |
| C. Pritchett | Not present |
| P. Scelfo | Yes |
| U. Smith | Yes |
| M. Stefanko | Yes |
| N. Terrones | Yes |
R.48: Addressing the Student Activity Fee Endowment Fund — R. Desai, A. Gitlin
- A. Gitlin yields to J. Mueller for the duration of this resolution
- This resolution will charge the incoming SA to work on the same initiative
- Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
- G. Block: Document is definitely not perfect but today’s vote will be focused on cancelling the $5 to the endowment and broadly, that the SA is providing funding for innovative ideas that will fill a gap on campus
- E. Bonatti: How was the 9.74% figure agreed upon?
- Number so that the payout of the endowment is self-sustaining
- U. Smith: Not disagreeing with the resolution, but uncomfortable that the resolution is limiting the conversion for the future SA. There are many other options to consider for this huge sum of money and student input should be sought
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 48 fails by a roll call vote of 16–1−3
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| E. Bonatti | Abstain |
| G. Braciak | Yes |
| S. Breedon | Not present |
| 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 | Abstain |
| D. Kuhr | Absent |
| J. Lee | Yes |
| G. Lovely | Yes |
| M. Lukasiewicz | Yes |
| J. Marshall | Absent |
| D. Muir | Not present |
| C. Pritchett | Yes |
| P. Scelfo | Abstain |
| U. Smith | No |
| M. Stefanko | Yes |
| N. Terrones | Yes |
- U. Smith: Motion to reconsider the resolution
- Motion passes by a vote of 18–2−0
- Call to question on the resolution, seconded
- Resolution 48 passed by a roll call vote of 18–1−1
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| E. Bonatti | Abstain |
| G. Braciak | Absent |
| S. Breedon | Not present |
| I. Chen | Yes |
| M. Cho | Yes |
| A. Chopra | Yes |
| R. Desai | Yes |
| A. 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 | Absent |
| D. Muir | Not present |
| C. Pritchett | Not present |
| P. Scelfo | Yes |
| U. Smith | No |
| M. Stefanko | Yes |
| N. Terrones | Yes |
R.49: Amendment to Appendix B of the Student Assembly Charter — R. Desai, C. Pritchett, D. Muir
- This reflects the intent of the original resolution passed in the Fall — amendments to move from Appendix A to Appendix B
- Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
- U. Smith: This resolution still seems to be a bit contentious and should be discussed as the upcoming year is one of byline funding
- Motion withdrawn
- G. Block: Originally on the fence, but now in full support. This allows for informal meetings between the Appropriations Committee and the byline funded organizations and received feedback from them
- E. Bonatti: Motion to amend Section III.10 so that the document should only submit external, not internal changes
- R. Desai: Completely disagrees. Also, it is not in line with the intent of the resolution
- Motion withdrawn
- P. Scelfo: Wll there be any interaction between the Appropriations Committee and organizations that are trying to become byline funded?
- There has informal process where the previous VP Finances have agreed to meet with any group for discussion and feedback
- U. Smith: Not in support of the resolution. To reiterate the President’s original response to the resolution, the SA should investigate all of its current structures for working with the organizations and only after those efforts are expended, should they consider a new structure.
- A. Chopra: In full support. These organizations are not necessarily funding-oriented and the conversation provided by the resolution will help them make better decisions
- U. Smith: The process outlined by the resolution doesn’t make sense. If the Appropriations Committee doesn’t understand the processes of the organizations, they shouldn’t be meeting with them to tell them how to operate. President Skorton’s response should be considered heavily
- A. Epstein: Concerned with the procedural process. Currently there is a contract between the SA and the organizations. This resolution will allow recommendations not rooted in the contract and may even create a pre-application process that recommends funding amounts to organizations that don’t even know how much to ask for yet
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 49 failed to pass by a roll call vote of 15–8−0
| S. Balik | No |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| E. Bonatti | No |
| G. Braciak | Absent |
| S. Breedon | Yes |
| I. Chen | Yes |
| M. Cho | Yes |
| A. Chopra | Yes |
| R. Desai | Yes |
| R. Gitlin | No |
| I. Harris | Yes |
| T. Hittinger | Yes |
| D. Iwaoka | No |
| D. Kuhr | Absent |
| J. Lee | Yes |
| G. Lovely | Yes |
| M. Lukasiewicz | No |
| J. Marshall | Absent |
| J. Mueller | No |
| D. Muir | Yes |
| C. Pritchett | Yes |
| P. Scelfo | Yes |
| U. Smith | No |
| M. Stefanko | Yes |
| N. Terrones | No |
Resolution 52: Clarifying the Organization of the Cornell Chapter of the Ivy Council — T. Hittinger
o*This resolution creates accountability for the head delegate, formalizes the staffing infrastructure, provides an opportunity for great ideas, and solidifies a true partnership between the SA and the Ivy Council
- Idea is to have a committee instead of a delegation as this is NOT going to be a trial effort
- Friendly amendment: Second be it further resolved clause:
- Second paragraph, 1st to sentences should read: “The membership of the Cornell Chapter of the Ivy Council shall include at least 5 delegates. The chair (i.e. head delegate) will be a serving member of the Student Assembly elected internally.
- Third paragraph, strike: “Interested students may apply for delegate positions in an identical fashion to Student Assembly committee applications, whereby the Communications Committee will assist in publicizing the delegate application as it does for committees, with the stipulation that the head delegate will ultimately review and select prospective delegates for approval of the Student Assembly
- U. Smith: In full support of re-affiliating with Ivy Council, however not comfortable making it a committee. Other chapters have been fluctuating with affiliation due to inactivity. Just a few weeks ago, 3 questions were sent to the Ivy Council and no response has been received yet.If the main purpose of the committee structure if staffing and publicity, the SA can provide both without the structure.
- A. Epstein: Committees are made to approve resolutions passed by the SA which doesn’t seem to be the purpose of the chapter. Recommends making it a delegation
- M. Lukasiewicz: Motion to amend to make the chapter a delegation
- First be it therefore resolved clause should read: “that the Ivy Council be established and all staffing infrastructure therein”
- Second be it therefore resolved clause should read: “that Article VII, Section II of the Student Assembly by-laws be changed to state the following:”
- Found friendly
- Jessica Barragan: Part of the plan is to bring the committee/policy liaison structure to the other chapters. Resolution aims to create a think tank and a team to bring new ideas to the SA. As no such team exists, questions sent to the Ivy Council haven’t been answered
- Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
- C. Pritchett: As the outgoing Ivy Council liaison, concerned about the structure of the delegation, especially as they have not responded to questions sent to them. The Council was provided an opportunity to prove itself to the SA with its re-affiliation (R.33) and it has let them down
- Vote to vote: 17–0−1 continue to vote
- Resolution 52 passed by a roll call vote of 19–2−0
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| E. Bonatti | Yes |
| G. Braciak | Absent |
| S. Breedon | Yes |
| I. Chen | Yes |
| M. Cho | No |
| A. Chopra | Yes |
| R. Desai | Yes |
| R. Gitlin | Not present |
| I. Harris | Yes |
| T. Hittinger | Yes |
| D. Iwaoka | Yes |
| D. Kuhr | Absent |
| J. Lee | Yes |
| G. Lovely | Yes |
| M. Lukasiewicz | Yes |
| J. Marshall | Absent |
| J. Mueller | Yes |
| D. Muir | Not present |
| C. Pritchett | No |
| P. Scelfo | Yes |
| U. Smith | Yes |
| M. Stefanko | Yes |
| N. Terrones | Yes |
R.55: Approval of the Fall 2013 Elections Rules — S. Balik, U. Smith
- A few of the rules this past semester didn’t work so well — this aims to resolve that
- 1. Resolution moves to make the requirement of committee applications and SA meeting attendance as part of the regular checklist so that candidates won’t be disqualified after the have been established
- 2. Possibility that the candidate ads might not be made in the Daily Sun — that decision will be up to the discretion of the Elections Committee
- 3. Traditionally the Ombudsman has been the form of appeal. During their restructuring, they reached out and said that they are uncomfortable with the mediator role and have asked to be excluded from it. This will allow candidates to directly challenge any statement made by the Elections Committee. Any appeals will amount to reconsiderations by the committee
- C. Pritchett: Thinks that overall, the rules are way to strict
- Motion to amend: Article III.D.8, 3rd to last sentence to read: “If the committee determines a candidate should be disqualified, either party to the challenge may request reconsideration within twenty-four hours of receiving notice.
- Call to question, seconded
- Resolution 55 passed by a roll call vote of 21–0−0
| S. Balik | Yes |
| J. Batista | Yes |
| G. Block | Yes |
| E. Bonatti | Yes |
| G. Braciak | Absent |
| 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 | Yes |
| D. Kuhr | Absent |
| J. Lee | Yes |
| G. Lovely | Yes |
| M. Lukasiewicz | Yes |
| J. Marshall | Absent |
| D. Muir | Not present |
| C. Pritchett | Not present |
| P. Scelfo | Yes |
| U. Smith | Yes |
| M. Stefanko | Yes |
| N. Terrones | Yes |
Resolution 56: Addition of a Webmaster — A. Gitlin, I. Harris
- A. Gitlin yields to J. Mueller for the duration of this discussion
- Resolution to create a webmaster position for the SA website
- J. Batista: Should clarify money allocation from the budget as it can be taken advantage of
- Resolution allows money to be allocated, but is not required
- E. Bonatti: Motion to strike: In Section II, strike “The Webmaster may not be an SA member”
- G. Block: Strongly against the amendment — the position is paid and funding should not be spend on a student worker
- Motion withdrawn
- E. Bonatti: Motion to amend: in Section II, 3rd sentence to read: “If the Webmaster is a Student Assembly member, he or she may not be paid”
- R. Desai: Disagrees. — there shouldn’t be any funding. A byline group was denied funding for a Webmaster since it is an extraneous expenditure due to the talents found on campus
- Call to question, seconded
- Motion failed by a vote of 4–13–5
- R. Desai: Motion to amend: Strike the second be it further resolved clause and have the first read: “that the SA create a Webmaster position.”
- A. Gitlin: SA already pays for a student worker — not doing anything revolutionary.
- A. Epstein: Question of supervision over the Webmaster
- G. Block: Passage of resolution would violate the bylaws as it was not presented a week before
- Motion to table, seconded
J. Mueller adjourned the meeting at 7:20pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Chelsea Cheng