Student Assembly

Minutes — Student Assembly
December 6th, 2013
4:45pm — 6:30pm
122 Rockefeller Hall

I. Call to Order

U. Smith called the meeting to order at 4:50pm.

Members present

S. Ali Khan, S. Balik, Y. Bhandari, R. Gademsky, I. Harris, M. Henderson, J. Hutson, L. Liu, S. Lutsic, N. Mileti, C. Pritchett, U. Smith, B. Thompson, N. vasko, L. Wershaw

Members tardy

T. Talbot, N. Tulsky

Members excused

J. Batista, G. Block, E. Bonatti, T. Hittinger, A. Murphy, M. Stefanko

Members unexcused

T. Drucker, Y. Ma, T. Talbot, A. Zhou

New Business

R. 40: SAFC web Hosting Amendment — G. Block

• First amendment is to allow student organizations to apply for funding for web posting (considered an administrative expense)
• N. Vasko: A lot of money has already been put into OrgSync which does provide webpage capabilities for organizations. Despite the difficulties with OrgSync, the SA should probably push organizations in the direction of engaging with it more. Additionally, new features are being considered that might be in place next semester. Maybe this should be tabled?
  • OrgSync provides support for very basic web page editing, but nothing complex like forms etc. which many organizations are currently using on their pages
  • Additionally, many organizations work with others outside of Cornell so OrgSync wouldn’t be the best vehicle
  • Dean Hubbell: There is also talk of creating new templates. However, is OrgSync is capable, then there should really be a focus on that
  • Even if changes are being made, there will need to be some method available for the Spring semester
• Motion to move to Business of the Day, seconded
• Moved to Business of the Day
• Call to question, seconded
• R. 40 passed by a vote of 14–0−1

R. 41: SAFC Funding Amendment for Newly Eligible Organizations — G. Block

• Currently, new organizations are placed in the lowest tier with a tier cap of $1500. This resolution would place a tier cap of $500 for all new organizations and if they are efficient with their funds, then they would move into the lowest tier the next year

�*I. Harris: Would new organizations still have access to Special Projects Funds?

• Yes, but can only apply up to their tier cap

• C. Pritchett: What would be the metric for moving a new organization into the tier cap?
  • They would just be moved automatically
• Motion to move to Business of the Day, seconded
• Moved to Business of the Day
• L. Liu: How would the $500 affect new students? Seems like the amount might be used just to publicize
  • Each organization is capped $200 for administrative fees (publicity) so it shouldn’t hamper them
• M. Lukasiewicz: How much of the $1500 allocated per organization has been used?
  • Don’t have exact numbers at this point in the semester
  • However, historically new organizations really only hold social events that the SAFC doesn’t fund, so usually don’t spend too much funds
• C. Cheng: If groups are going to move to the lowest tier automatically, then wouldn’t the same problem be run into if a huge number of groups move from their new status into the $1500 tier?
  • The idea is that this will allow for better forecasting, as tier caps are set before budgets are due
• S. Ali Khan: Why not just fund the new groups at a lower amount instead of setting this new cap?
  • It’s how the process works — there’s no delineation between new groups and existing groups in the lowest tier cap. Plus, if an organization applies for funds and meets the guidelines, then funds must be set aside for them
• Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
  • Vote to vote: 13–3−0
• R. 41 passed by a vote of 17–0−0

Motion to suspend the rules to allow for approval of the new SAFC commissioners

• Call to question, seconded
• Commissioners approved by a vote of 17–0−0

R. 39: Improvements to Student Assembly Election — A. Muglia

• Increasing the number of votes needed for President and Executive Vice President
• N. Vasko: Feels there should be more guidelines to specific how candidates should answer questions regarding their position when asking for signatures
  • The guidelines specify what candidates are not allowed to do rather than be specific about how to answer certain questions
• L. Liu: Met someone at Harvard and found out that their student government president needed to get 1,000 signatures. She said the experience was a lot of fun and a lot of hype was generated for the elections. It’s a big change but it could be a good one
• S. Ali Khan: Seems like you want to create a quasi-slating structure
  • M. Lukasiewicz: Feels that would cause too many problems
• C. Pritchett: Why not have a system where anyone can endorse anyone?
  • N. Tulsky: This might make the SA more exclusive as SA members are more likely to endorse each other, making it harder to non-SA members to be successful. Endorsements might make sense for the President and EVP though
• Motion to amend Article I Section B Candidate Information 2. Petitioning strike “1. Discuss their platforms or agendas when collecting signatures” and Article I section B Election Guidelines 1. Early Campaigning strike “5. Explaining of any detailed platform or agenda when collecting petition signatures”
  • A. Muglia: Not against it, but the plan was to have some sort of equalizing factor. If a candidate decides to run last minute then he/she shouldn’t be ‘behind’ on campaigning his/her platform during the petition period especially as the campaign period hasn’t started yet
  • S. Balik: There’s a reason the petition process is different than the campaign process — some line has to be drawn
  • B. Thompson: When he ran, there were some people that refused to sign for him because he couldn’t tell them why he was running
  • L. Liu: Getting a signature without telling people why you’re running is almost like getting a fake signature
  • J. Hutson: There won’t be an ‘open door’ to the campaign process as there are still rules in place during the petition period (no chalking, FB, etc.) so this will simply allow candidates to speak for maybe 10–15 seconds about why they’re running
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Motion passes by a vote of 13–3−0 (with proxies)
• Motion to amend strike “In addition to candidates�plagiarism”
  • C. Pritchett: Endorsements should really be allowed as there is not place where it isn’t allowed
  • L. Wershaw: This is too much to handle at the moment — candidates should really run for themselves and not for others
  • J. Berger: Fears that awkwardness/internal conflicts could be created is an SA member chooses not endorse a candidate but still has to work with them
  • Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
• Vote to vote: 11–4−0, voting continues
  • Motion fails by a vote of 4–12–0 (with proxies)
• Y. Bhandari: Regarding plagiarism, will running on a platform with similar ideas (eg: extending dining hall hours) be considered plagiarism?
  • No, not for general ideas
• Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
  • Vote to vote: 9–5−0, discussion continues
• N. Vasko: Thinks increasing the number of votes required for president and EVP is a really good idea
  • Motion to amend Article 1 Section B Candidate Information 1. Eligibility Requirements endorsements requirements to be: 300 for President and EVP, 150 for at-large seats, 100 for Arts and Sciences, 25 for New Transfers, 75 for all other seats
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment passed by a vote of 7–6−0
• Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
  • Vote to vote: 11–1−1, continue to vote
• R. 39 passed by a vote of 14–0−0

U. Smith adjourned the meeting at 7:04pm

Respectfully submitted,
Chelsea Cheng