Student Assembly

Minutes — Student Assembly
October 17th, 2013
5:00pm — 6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

U. Smith called the meeting to order at 5:00pm.

Members present

S. Ali Khan, S. Balik, J. Batista, Y. Bhandari, G. Block, T. Drucker, R. Gademsky, I. Harris, M. Henderson, J. Hutson, S. Lutsic, Y. Ma, N. Mileti, A. Murphy, C. Pritchett, U. Smith, M. Stefanko, B. Thompson, N. Tulsky, N. Vasko, L. Wershaw, A. Zhou

Members tardy

L. Liu, T. Talbot

Members excused

E. Bonatti ,T. Hittinger, M. Lukasiewicz

II. Approval of October 10th, 2013 Minutes

Minutes approved by unanimous consent

III. Open Microhpone

None

IV. Announcements and Reports

None

V. Business of the Day

Appropriations Committee Recommendation: Cornell Cinema — G. Block

• There has been a 63% increase in attendance and a 9% increase per showing
• Reasons for not wanting to raise the ticket price
  • Not a guarantee of additional income
  • Will make the Cinema less competitive and might discourage attendance
  • Prices were just increased by $1 a year ago
• Max: The argument of where the students want their money to go for the SAF is irrelevant
• M. Stefanko: Doesn’t think a $0.50 increase from $5.50 to $6.00 will make the Cinema inaccessible. However, maybe a small allocation increase might be a good idea if it is put toward free showings
• G. Block: Looking at the numbers from past years, the Cinema is affecting fewer people on campus so it doesn’t make sense to give them an increase
• N. Tulsky: Cornell is already a bit too expensive — if the SA has the power to make something more accessible, then it should do so
• C. Pritchett: Cinema has done everything they have been asked to do by the SA and the Appropriations Committee. They have demonstrated a need for their increase so it should be granted
• G. Block: Cinema is already getting about $130,000/year which is a very comfortable number to work with. If the industry has gotten more expensive, then ticket prices can be raised a bit — that’s just how things go. Other groups dependent on ticket prices have worked with the same level of funding since 2006
• A. Muglia: If the Cinema is having trouble with volatility in ticket sales and tracking attendance, then they shouldn’t be getting more money. Also, all 13 members of the Appropriations Committee voted no on the increase, so the SA should keep their opinions in mind
• L. Wershaw: Other groups have a lot in their reserves. If the Cinema’s increase isn’t granted, they won’t have a buffer to work with
• Director Fessenden: Cinema’s attendance has actually increased. Plus, their allocation hasn’t increased in 8 years so they won’t be continually requesting more money
• T. Talbot: As members, they are representing the students, so keep in mind the students that go to the Cinema on Friday evenings with their friends
• Y. Bhandari: As there are so many other methods of watching films, the focus should be on making Cinema more attractive so funds shouldn’t necessarily go toward costs, but rather toward programming
• Motion to approve, seconded
• Committee decision overturned by a vote of 7–16–0
• U. Smith: Now, the SA enters debate about what to set the funding amount to. During debate, any numbers discussed will be written down. When called to question, voting will happen for each number, greatest to lowest, until a majority vote for one amount is reached
• M. Stefanko: Suggests an increase of $0.20 as a compromise
• R. Gademsky: The SA has focused on late-night programming and mental health, both of which the Cinema provides
• G. Block: Believe a $0.60 increase is the wrong allocation. It will not make muc of a difference in the budget that they have to work with. Plus, the SAF is not finite, so it’s not just a decision of yes or no to $0.60, there are other things to keep in mind
• C. Cheng: In case this potentially changes people’s minds, if the Cinema had asked for this increase before installing DCP, would it have been granted?
• Ryan Larkin: If an increase is being considered, $0.60 is the bar to meet as that is the amount the organizations has requested to be sustainable
• T. Talbot: Why not make it $1.00 increase?
• ‘Call to question
• Vote on $1.00: 1–21–1
• Vote on $0.60: 11–11–1
• Tie-breaker vote by Chair is a yes
• Cornell Cinema was approved with an allocation of $10.60

Federal Reserve Challenge Club SAFC Appeal — G. Block

• The VP, not the registered Treasurer, approved the budget on OrgSync as the Treasurer which isn’t allowed to the SAFC voted that they did not err by 0–10–0
• ‘Call to question, seconded
• ‘SAFC decision approved by a vote of 21–0−2

Class Councils — G. Block

• Appropriations Committee voted on a $0.20 increase
• ‘Call to question, seconded
• Class Councils approved by a vote of 21–0−2

Alternative Breaks — G. Block

• Asked for an increase to allow for more students to participate in their program — the Committee felt it would be well-spent
• Call to question, seconded
• Alternative Breaks approved by a vote of 21–1−1

Motion to table R. 13 until next week, seconded, dissent expressed R. 13 tabled by a vote of 17–4−1.

R. 10: Creation of University Student Court — Charter Changes — U. Smith

R. 11: Creation of University Student Court — Bylaws Change — U. Smith

R. 12: Adoption of University Student Court Bylaws — U. Smith

• U. Smith steps down and S. Balik assumes the chair
• Motion to amend section 5.04 to read: The justices of the USC shall be appointed by a committee consisting of three (3) members of the UA Codes & Judicial Committee and two (2) SA members. Interested individuals shall submit an application to the SA, who will forward all applications to the Committee. The Committee shall screen applications and select individuals for interviewing. After the interviews, the Committee shall select (5) justices. The Chief Justice shall be appointed by the President of the Student Assembly, and must be one of the five chosen by the Committee. All justices are subject to confirmation of the voting membership of the Student Assembly.
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment passed by a vote of 21–0−0
• Motion to amend section 7.07A to strike the extra “a” before “defined”
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment passed by unanimous consent
• Motion to amend Section 8.03 to read:
  • 8.03a. An injunction is a prohibitive, equitable remedy of brief duration which shall be issued as standard practice for all parties involved until the Court can hear arguments or evidence on the subject matter of the controversy and otherwise determine what relief is appropriate. The purpose of an injunction is to prohibit the continuance of some act during litigation that would injure the petitioning party, would tend to render a later judgment ineffectual, or would result in irreparable harm. An injunction shall not prohibit an organization from maintaining its daily function, unless that function is the question before the Court
  • 8.03b. For question involving SA actions, once the Court has informed the SA President of a pending action, the SA President is enjoined from forwarding that action to the University President. If the action has already been forwarded, the SA President must forward the complaint to the University President informing him/her of the pending action and a suspension of the (30) thirty-day response period. If the Court overturns the action, the forwarded action is void and the SA must act in accordance with Article III, Section4, Part C of the SA Charter.
  • 8.03c. A party has the right to request a temporary injunction or continuance of an injunction by the Court. This must be requested in complaint form. A request for the continuance of an injunction that is set to expire at the conclusion of a conference or hearing must be filed with the Court within (24) twenty-four hours of the judgment. The Chief Justice has the power to issue such an order.
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment passed by a vote of 20–0−3
• Motion to adjourn fails by a vote of 11–9−3
• G. Block: What’s the impetus behind this?
  • They identified a gap on campus of conflicts that are not covered by any body
• L. Liu: What’s the rationale behind having the President choose the Chief Justice?
  • It’s to strike a balance between SA involvement and non-SA involvement
• ???: What’s the final check if appeals continue forever?
  • Dean Hubbell
• R. Gitlin: How many cases do you expect? Is there demand for this Court?
  • The point is that a gap needs to be filled, even if there is only one student that the Court can assist
• J. Batista: Is there any way to have a trial period?
  • The Court can be dissolved later

S. Balik adjourned the meeting at 6:47pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Chelsea Cheng