Student Assembly

Minutes — Student Assembly
October 24, 2013
4:45pm — 6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

U. Smith called the meeting to order at 4:45pm.

Members present

S. Ali Khan, S. Balik, J. Batista, Y. Bhandari, G. Block, E. Bonatti, T. Drucker, R. Gademsky, M. Henderson, T. Hittinger, J. Hutson, L. Liu, S. Lustic, Y. Ma, N. Mileti, A. Murphy, C. Pritchett, U. Smith, M. Stefanko, T. Talbot, N. Tulsky, N. Vasko, L. Wershaw, A. Zhou

Members excused

I. Harris, M. Lukasiewicz

Members unexcused

B. Thompson

II. Approval of October 17, 2013 Minutes

Minutes approved by unanimous consent

III. Open Microphone

SAFC

Would ask that the SA reconsider the overturn of the Appropriations Committee decision regarding Cornell Cinema from the last meeting. The Committee spends all their time analyzing the financials of byline funded organizations and came to the conclusion that the Cinema wasn’t in need of the increase. Concerned that the SA catered toward an emotional appeal and that that’s not how things should be conducted

IV. Announcements and Reports

Community Life Committee Update — M. Stefanko

Regarding the Green Revolving Fund, things are moving in the right direction and there are very passionate supporters

Dining Committee Update — R. Gademsky

Continuing on many initiatives. Be on the lookout for an upcoming event

Appropriations Committee Update — G. Block

ALANA is missing quite a few things from its financial packet so their hearing might be pushed back

Divestment/GRF Update — S. Balik

There is a group of students passionately pushing for divestment of Cornell’s endowment from fossil fuels. Looking into alternative areas for investment, will continue providing updates

V. Business of the Day

Appropriations Committee Recommendation: Club Sports Council — G. Block

• A Club Sports ad-hoc committee was created 2 years ago to put all the groups under an umbrella
• If the Council applied for byline funding, no individual club sport organization would be able to apply for SAFC funding
• The Council didn’t seem to have financial priorities in mind regarding how funding would be divided among the organizations — the Committee didn’t think it would be smart to provide any allocation due to this uncertainty
• A. Muglia: How will the community receive this decision, considering how hard-earned eligibility was?
  • People will be disappointed, but a lot of individual club sports groups don’t need more money than what they are currently getting out of the SAFC so the hope is that framework will continue to improve
• N. Vasko: There are some groups who need things that can’t be funded through the SAFC — how is that handled?
  • Durable goods can be funded by the SAFC, but non-durable goods (ex: shuttlecocks) are in a gray area and is under discussion in the SAFC
• Motion to approve, seconded
• Approved 22–1−0

Appropriations Committee Recommendation: International Students Board — G. Block

• The Committee was very happy with ISB
• Motion to approve, seconded
• Approved 23–0−0

Appropriations Committee Recommendation: EARS — G. Block

• Motion to approve, seconded
• Approved 23–0−0

VI. Old Business

R.10 University Student Court — Charter Changes — U. Smith

R.11 University Student Court — Bylaws Change — U. Smith

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

• S. Ali Khan: The SA was forwarded an emailing with the thoughts of the JA — what are the views from other administrators?
  • Have consulted with the Ombudsman and the Scheinman Institute and have talked to Dean Hubbell, VP Murphy, and President Skorton. Unfortunately their opinions are confidential
• A. Murphy: How will you solicit student interest for the 2 year term required of justices? What is there is a missing justice?
  • There is already a lot of interest, as indicated by the interest in UHRB, CJC, etc.
  • Article V addresses vacancies
  • There is an implementation plan in place
• E. Bonatti: Some community members are uncomfortable bringing their concerns to undergraduate justices. Maybe a higher power would be better?
  • In terms of qualifications, the SA, CJC, etc. are all composed of students who go through training
  • In terms of higher bodies, the JA doesn’t handle student issues and the Ombudsman can’t take sides
• A. Murphy: Is there any way for there to be a trial period?
  • Can put in a clause regarding a review period, but would caution against a deadline. A review stipulation can also be placed in the implementation plan
• J. Batista: Motion to amend to include a review period in R. 12, a Be it Finally Resolved Clause “that the Student Assembly will formally review the operations and bylaws of the Court during the Fall 2014 term at a general body meeting.”
  • S. Ali Khan: Reviews of the Court will probably already happen and there is the ability to destroy it later. If anything, have the review period later, maybe in the Spring
  • C. Pritchett: The Court is an independent body so it doesn’t make sense for the SA to review it
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment passed by a vote of 15–4−2
• Motion to amend 7.04D to have a period of 5 business days instead of 3
  • The court does have the power to grant an extension if requested
  • The timing was well thought out and a change in the period will affect other processes laid out in the Bylaws
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment failed by a vote of 2–15–4
• Call to question on R.10, seconded, dissent expressed
  • Vote to vote: 7–12–2 Discussion continues
• L. Liu: Have other schools done this and what was their review process?
  • No other schools have a review process as their Court equivalents were created simultaneously with their SA equivalents
• C. Pritchett: Where is the power coming from? What binds organizations to the verdict of the Court?
  • The power stems from the same place as the SA, through the Office of the Dean of Students. If a verdict is not complied with, a penalty will be issued from the Dean’s Office in line with other penalty practices on campus — the potential removal of an organization’s registration status, for example
• M. Stefanko: Not comfortable with the fact that there will be 5 students making decision regarding registration statuses
  • The Court doesn’t have that power — it only answers questions of procedure and bylaws of student organizations. Issues only get taken to the Dean’s Office under extreme circumstances
• Motion to suspend rules and have an open discussion
• Motion failed by a vote of 13–8−0
• Call to question on R.10, seconded
• With a proxy yes vote (N. Tulsky), R.10 passes by a roll call vote of 16–3−3

• With a proxy yes vote (N. Tulsky), R.11 passes by a roll call vote of 17–3−2

• With a proxy yes vote (N. Tulsky), R.12 passes by a roll call vote of 16–5−1