SA: January 23, 2014 Meeting

MINUTES
Student Assembly
Thursday, January 30, 2014
4:45PM-6:30PM
Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by U. Smith at 4:48PM.

Members Present

S. Khan, S. Balik, J. Batista, Y. Bhandari, G. Block, E. Bonatti, I. Chen, T. Drucker, R. Gademsky, M. Henderson, T. Hittinger, J. Hutson, L. Liu, M. Lukasiewicz, S. Lutsic, Y. Ma, N. Mileti, U. Smith, M. Stefanko, B. Thompson, N. Tulsky, N. Vasko, L. Wershaw, Z. Zhou

Members Absent

I. Harris, A. Murphy, T. Talbot Also Present: J. Berger, A. Muglia

II. Approval of Minutes

December 5, 2013 Meeting: Approved by unanimous consent. December 6, 2013 Meeting: Approved by unanimous consent.

III. Open Mic

No items presented.

IV. Announcements and Reports

Administrative Update — U. Smith

• Changes in the Office of the Assemblies — Brian Murphy is the new SA Clerk and Amy Edwards is no longer in the Office. Reminder to complete administrative tasks on time to reduce stress on the Office.
• Inge Chen is the new Minority Liaison at Large. Welcome back Thomas Hittinger.

Internal Operations Announcement — M. Lukasiewicz

• Open Appropriations Committee seat will be filled during executive session.

Student Assembly Retreat — S. Balik

• The Student Assembly members’ retreat will be held on February 1, from 11:00am to 3:00pm at an on-campus location. Inclusive Excellence Academy — U. Smith
• New initiative by the Office of Workforce Diversity. First event open to undergraduate students --- Planning Accessible Events at Cornell.

V. Business of the Day

R. 47: Approval of 2014 Standing Rules — S. Balik and J. Berger

• Very similar to the Standing Rules approved at the beginning of the Academic Year, save a few changes.
• Change to Rule 3, Section 1: Specifies that the Chair must recognize a motion to suspend the Standing Rules. Ensures that the ability to suspend the Standing Rules is not used without care.
• Change to Rule 6, Section 1: Specifies that job interviews are a valid excuse for missing an SA meeting. Also specifies that any excuses for missing an SA meeting must be emailed to the Vice President for Internal Operations at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
• Change to Rule 7, Section 1: Rule deleted for clarity and to reduce redundancy.
• Change to Rule 1, Section 2: Specifies that formal legislation can be on the agenda for an informal meeting in order to meet a deadline.
• E. Bonatti: Potential danger to allowing legislation on the agenda of informal meetings. Response: In order to have a meeting, there must be a quorum of Members present. Additionally, there must be 72 hours of notice given to Members.
• E. Bonatti: Concerned about situations where a Member becomes ill or otherwise unable to attend a meeting after the 24 hours of notice deadline has passed. Response: The Executive Committee grants excused absents under extenuating circumstances, such as illness, having to go home because of a family emergency, etc.
• E. Bonatti: Please clarify what has changed with the Chair approving motions to suspend the rules. Response: Nothing has changed since the Chair must recognize all motions to begin with, but the language has been clarified and made more formal. In order to suspend the rules, you motion to suspend the rules, the Chair recognizes the motion, and a vote requiring two-thirds majority is taken.
• G. Block: Motion to call the question. No dissent.
• Motion Passes. 22–0−0, simple majority vote.

VI. Old Business

R. 19: Encouraging Community Standards & Accountability — J. Batista, N. Vasko, Carmen Martinez (community member), and Gabriela Lopez (community member)

• U. Smith: The community clause is invoked on this legislation, so the community is entitled to two collective votes.
• J. Batista: Recommendation to the University to document incidents to improve community standards. For example, what happened with the Cinco de Octubre incident would be documented on the group misconduct website. This is not punitive, and not meant to chastise the Athletic Department in any way.
• N. Vasko: The GSPA is working on a similar resolution. The group misconduct website currently includes the Lacrosse team incident and two Fraternity-related incidents. There was previous concern about the website actually being used, and this shows a track record of using the website.
• G. Lopez: This resolution will provide a path to hold organizations accountable. For example, has a friend that filed a Bias Incident report about the Cinco de Octobre incident and never received a response. Help students know the next step in bias related incidents.
• C. Martinez: We reviewed the Respect@Cornell program, and we think it provides a great overview of harassment.
• Discussion via speaker list.
• S. Balik: Please expand upon why the Respect@Cornell program is the best program. Response: The program is an online course that students can do on their own time. The program is something already in place, and we think it is a great first step to implement it as opposed to create another program that does almost the same thing.
• G. Block: Personally tried the course, found it to be very ineffective and a waste of time. Students do not look to the Group Misconduct website before joining a club. This is an easy way to look at the problem, and the scope is incorrect. Why stop at Graduate Teaching Assistants? There’s no doubt that what the Athletic Department did should not have happened. This is the easy way, not the effective way. Response from J. Batista: To clarify, it is easy to take the Respect@Cornell, not to post something on the group misconduct website. There has been a lot of work behind the scenes to make this happen. The resolution will give people a way to see what is happening on campus, a way to formally recognize what has happened. Response from G. Lopez: The most ineffective way to handle the situation is to do nothing. Graduate TAs are specifically included because Undergraduate TAs fall under the program as undergraduate students in general.
• Unknown (29:30): Does not seem that Respect@Cornell is dealing with the Athletics Department issue. Also, have you been working with the VP Murphy’s office or the University’s diversity officers? Response from G. Lopez: Respect@Cornell has to do with discrimination, and this was an issue of discrimination. We are unable to work with VP Murphy’s office on specific details of this issue, as per University policy.
• T. Hittinger: Unlike the Lacrosse Team and Fraternity incidents, the Cinco de Octobre issue was not of a malicious nature. A student group should not be reprimanded in this way. Important to prevent issues like this from happening again, but it should not reprimand a group in this way. Clarification from U. Smith: The legislation says it will document the issue as a Unit, not student organization, since there was not a student organization involved in this incident.
• M. Stefanko: Please provide tangible ways that the group misconduct website will be effective. Also, please clarify: are students required to take this training? Response from N. Vasko: The goal of the group misconduct website is to document issues where organizations fail to hold a high standard of conduct. Goal of legislation is to encourage Cornell community to have high standards of conduct. Conversation is not about the usefulness of the website, but rather about groups being held accountable. Response from J. Batista: Legislation can be changes so that it reflects the Student Assembly’s interest in ensuring students know about the group misconduct website. Clarification from U. Smith: Website was launched in the Fall of 2013, hard to judge the effectiveness of a website this new.
• B. Thompson: Cornell Athletics isn’t a group that students join, and the situation is very different the Lacrosse incident, for example, so it is tough to compare. Response from J. Batista: The website is to document what happened, not to determine the motives of an incident. “Ezra’s Army” is a group of students, so it should be on the group misconduct webpage. Response from G. Lopez: This was a discrimination incident that happened, regardless of the intentions. Clarification from U. Smith: The group misconduct website clarifies what can be posted on the webpage: “Such violations are those engaged in by an established group, including but not limited to athletic teams, fraternities, sororities, university residences, and registered student organizations.”
• N. Tulsky: Legislation is based on the erroneous idea that more bureaucracy will solve the problem. Putting this incident on a website that also contains the Fraternity-related incidents is wrong, as the two incidents are very different. Response from C. Lopez: We are not trying to chastise anyone, just document the incident.
• M. Lukasiewicz: How much have you worked with the EA and the GPSA? What are their thoughts on this and other options? Response from J. Batista: We have been working with the GPSA, who wants to pass a similar resolution, but not the EA. This is a step in the right direction. There are only a limited amount of items on the website because it is new, so the comparisons between incidents are not accurate. Response from N. Vasko: There are a range of issues on the website, not just hazing issues.
• L. Liu: Respect@Cornell contains a lot of flamboyant examples of bias, but does not cover the more subtle forms of bias. How do you plan on covering that? Also, Respect@Cornell is geared towards faculty incident, so what is the thinking behind the Graduate Teaching Assistants? Response from N. Vasko: Graduate teaching assistants should be treated like faculty in this situation. Response from J. Batista: Difficult to define bias with its multiple forms. What were looking to do here is document incidents that were offensive to groups of campus, so that people know it happened. We are not here to debate the ethical or moral aspects of incidents.
• Unknown (49:25): It is the SA’s duty to increase awareness of the website and the information.
• N. Mileti: Not convinced this is the most effective way to handle this. For example, freshmen have to take on online course on Alcohol that does not seem to be effective. Why do you think this is effective? Response from J. Batista: First, this resolution has been on the table since November, so there as been plenty of time for Members to voice their opinion on what is a more effective solution. We think this is the most effective solution because it tells students what happened via an accurate documentation. Clarification from U. Smith: The goal of Respect@Cornell is for everyone. It is not the ultimate solution, but it is a first step and a tool that already exists.
• A. Muglia: The hazing documentation website (hazing.cornell.edu) is not effective, as students still haze. Another website will not solve the problem, as we have seen in the past.
• Unknown (56:00): Clarify how this incident can be put on the group misconduct website. How are incidents chosen to be put on the website. Response from N. Vasko: Incidents involving groups violating the community standards are put on the website. Other than that, not sure how to answer the question posed.
• J. Hutson: This resolution is a starting point. If it passes, that does not mean all other action will stop. If anyone has a better solution, make it be known.
• Community Member: The Cornell Daily Sun also offers analysis and documentation of incidents on campus. Response: The Sun is not, in any way, affiliated with the SA or the University and should not be relied upon as a formal documentation process.
• First speaker list completed. Discussion from second speaker list.
• G. Block: Is there anyone that thinks web-based alcohol education is effective? Students will not be effected by a website.
• M. Stefanko: This violation should not go on the group misconduct website. Who is this site for? Will students look at the website?
• U. Smith: Discussion is repetitive. Please close the discussion.
• G. Lopez: Please do not compare an act of discrimination to AlcoholWise. Drinking is a personal choice.
• J. Batista: This website transcends students’ four years on campus, as the knowledge lasts when its documented.
• N. Vasko: To establish the standard about diversity issues that Cornell has for itself, the issue must be documented so that the community knows it is not okay and must not happen again.
• G. Lopez: Minority students are burdened with job of teaching the rest of the community how to be offensive.
• Call to Question by U. Smith. This is a recommendation, not a mandate. Vote by Roll Call.
• Community Vote: 7–1−0 in favor of the resolution.
• Roll Call Vote: 5–12–6. Resolution fails.

VII. New Business

R. 29: Student Supported Net-Print Improvements — M. Henderson, M. Stefanko, and Emma Johnston

• M. Henderson: Goal of resolution is to encourage NetPrint users to print double- sided to save paper. The price for printing on the back page of a document would be reduced. Obstacles are the CIT software for actualizing this and the lost revenue for the various departments that operate NetPrint. CIT is planning software upgrades in the near future that will make this easier, but it is still not currently possible. Also, it is possible to change the price of printing, since the price has not ever changed. Goal is to have $0.09 for the front and $0.07 for the back.
• E. Johnston: Other goal of resolution is to encourage departments to purchase 100% recycled paper. There is a price increase for the departments, but overall the price difference is not much per piece of paper.
• Discussion via speaker list.
• G. Block: The biggest cost is toner, so how does that effect this? Response from M. Henderson: Printing on both sides does save some cost. The goal is to reduce the cost

for students.

• T. Drucker: Plotting costs in AAP are also high compared to peer institutions. Could be included in this legislation, will talk with M. Stefanko.
• T. Hittinger: Is there any data on the revenue? There has never been an incentive to print double-sided before, so will using half the amount of paper make a difference? Response from M. Stefanko: There will be revenue loss after a certain point, so we are working the different departments.
• I. Chen: What about the cover page? Response: The default now is that the cover page is disabled.
• L. Wershaw: How long will this take to be implemented? How to publicize using double-sided option? Response: Software upgrades take place over the summer. There will probably be promotion to use the new prices for double-sided printing.
• N. Tulsky: Why not increase the price, so that students are more reserved about when to print? Resoponse: NetPrint was created to not generate revenue. It shouldn’t cost students more money that it costs to do the actual printing.
• N. Vasko: How much revenue is generated? Response: Those figures have not been disclosed to us. Also changes for each department, since prices vary slightly.
• Motion to Table by G. Block. No dissent. Resolution tabled. U. Smith adjourned the meeting at 6:21PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Brian Murphy
Clerk, Office of the Assemblies
Student Assembly — Minutes 6 January 23, 2014

Copyright © 2005–2019, Cornell University.