SA: February 27, 2014 Meeting

MINUTES′ ’ Student Assembly
Thursday, February 27, 2014
4:45PM-6:30PM
Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room′ ’

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by U. Smith at 4:45pm.

Members Present

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

Members Tardy

S. Lutsic, N. Tulsky

Member Absent (Excused)

F. Jimenez, N. Vasko

Member Absent (Unexcused)

S. Ali Khan

Also Present

J. Berger, A. Mulgia, R. Gitlin

II. Open Mic

No items presented.

III. Announcements and Reports

Elections Committee — A. Muglia

• Elections for a few seats are still open: Undesignated At-Large (1 seat), Minority Liaison At-Large (1 seat), LGBTQ At-Large (1 seat), College of Human Ecology (1 seat), and University Assembly (2 seats).
• Accepting candidate declarations until Friday, February 28 at 10:00am

FARC — M. Henderson

• Putting the financial assistance request form online
• Figuring out different uses for the endowment

Organizational Spotlight — S. Balik

• Cornell Model United Nations and the Cornell International Affairs Society

Appropriations Committee — G. Block

• Discussion on Appendix B, specifically tracking attendance, penalties for violating the appendix
• Talking about the endowment, seems to be moving towards a more hybrid model for use

Community Life Committee — M. Stefanko

• Implementing office hours on Sunday to better implement each initiative (around noon-4pm)

Dining Committee — R. Gademsky

• Reaching out to Gannet to work on nutritional information
• Next issue is working on meal plans, adjusting BRBs and meal swipes so that they are more effective for students who run out of BRBs

University Assembly Update — M. Luk

• Going over a resolution that addresses the Ho Plaza incident from last year and makes changes to the Code of Conduct

SADAC Update — N. Tulsky

• Will be meeting in three weeks

SACIDI Update — L. Liu

• SACIDI diversity plan evaluation process, working on the form that will be used with the by-line funding organizations
• Looking to increase attendance at the meetings

IV. New Business

R. 60: In Support of Cornell Investment and Divestment Strategies for a Sustainable Future — S. Balik, David Beavers ‘14, Jeffery Bergfalk grad, Prof. David Shalloway, and Prof. Brian Chabot

• S. Balik and D. Beavers: Looking to support the other Assemblies in their initiatives. The goal is the same as the resolution put before the Assembly last year, but the language is a bit different and more aggressive in its goals. This resolution will stand with the GPSA’s and the Faculty Senate’s legislation. Divestment will give Cornell a chance to reconcile our finances with our mission, and for us to be on the right side of history. The goal is not meant to make a financial impact on the University or to demonize the fossil fuel industry. Cornell cannot continue to teach its students about climate change and not be leading the way to change. The Faculty Senate does not call for specified reinvestment as the Student Assembly did last year, and year designated for carbon neutrality has changed. These changes do not, however, make the impact any less meaningful. The impact will be immediately beneficial.
• Prof Shalloway: President Skorton has accepted the new 2035 target date, but is concerned about the effect Divestment will have on the endowment. Faculty Senate does not believe that the effect will be as drastic as the Administration makes it out to be. A relatively small portion of the endowment is invested in the companies in question. Not arguing that there is not risk in this, but the risk is small and the risk is worth taking. This will hopefully let us lead the Ivies in Divestment
• J. Bergfalk: This resolution is about standing together on the issue. The GPSA has considered the serious ethical questions of Divestment — it is wrong for us to be teaching and researching about climate issues and not be choosing to change.
• Prof. Chabot: Asking the SA to continue leadership on this issue.
• Begin speakers list. E. Bonatti: Do you agree with President Skorton’s response. Also, when the CFO presented last year, it was clear that there going to be a big effect. Response: President Skorton answered in the right way on achieving carbon neutrality 2035. Skorton is unsure if it is safe or unsafe for the endowment, and until he has that answer he can’t be in favor (or opposed). They haven’t given us proper justification for the numbers; currently we only see them as unsubstantiated. We agree with them if there are numbers to back up their opinion. Time expired.
• M. Stefanko: CFO did not seem to believe that they were not right, but that they weren’t comfortable sharing the numbers with the students. Where in your calculations did you find a mistake or reason to believe they are wrong? Response: Keep in mind this resolution is different in it’s approach from the last SA one, which was what the numbers were concerning. The numbers we shared with you are from the CFO. We can be off a little, but not by a lot, and that’s the type of disagreement we have.
• Motion to move item to Business of the Day. No dissent. Resolution is now open for general discussion.
• T. Hittinger: Given all the evidence, I see no reason why we should not support this resolution.
• A. Muglia: Cornell has divested in the past, specifically from South Africa. Is there a correlation between this divestment and the one from the 1980s? Response: We would like to be on the forefront on this movement. There certainly are moral and ethical implications that are similar. Cornell has been a pioneer in the research of this issue, which gives us a certain responsibility to lead divestment. Divestment as a concept is not unprecedented.
• T. Talbot: The President talked about other ways that we have supported alternative energy. Do you think that all of the money spent on other ways is not enough? Response: Those advancements are a real commitment, but aren’t visible outside of campus. If we want to be a leader and set the standard for other Universities, we must take this step. It is a bit hypocritical to be making money off of the companies that stand for the opposite of what we do.
• N. Mileti: What comes after this resolution? Response: We work with administrators to find a compromise that all involved parties is in favor of. We are asking for a annual report because it is a tangible deliverable and that all of the data is communication.
• M. Henderson: What is the cutoff you’re willing to pay? What diminished returns are you willing to sacrifice? Response: Our numbers indicate plus/minus $2 million. We don’t have a specific answer to that right now until we have a more detailed conversation with the CFO.
• R. Gitlin: We are balancing the budget by a very slim margin. Do you think that divestment is worth it if it comes to raising tuition or cutting staff? Response: There is a lot of passion on this campus for this issue. The goal is not to harm any of the University’s primary initiative. If we divest smartly, there won’t be any harm to the endowment.
• G. Block: Where did the discrepancy come from? Do we know what it is? Response: We have asked for justification of their numbers, but we haven’t received that or the numbers.
• G. Block: This Assembly should not vote on this until we have the answer of how much of an effect Divestment will have on the University. Do we think that we will have an actual impact on these companies? Response: The goal is not to have a financial impact on the companies, but to make a statement. There is uncertainty about our investments regardless if we divest or not.
• J. Hutson: Doesn’t feel comfortable voting on this without hard numbers in hand.
• Motion to Table. Not seconded. Motion dies.
• B. Thompson: Echoing that we need hard numbers before voting. Response: This is an uphill battle with Administrators, we have asked for the numbers before and not gotten them. We should appear to the Administration as a unified community.
• T. Drucker: This resolution is concerned with one aspect of sustainability, and we should make an effort to bring forth all issues of sustainability in the future. Hopefully this resolution will enable that.
• Audience Speaker: Is there a failsafe for this resolution? Response: Yes, this is a sense of the body resolution, so if there are consequences that are not foreseen, we will have a change to take it from there. Also, all legislation of this nature is only a recommendation to the Administration.
• Motion to extend the discussion. No dissent. Agenda suspended.
• L. Wershaw: How do we know that the Administration will continue to care about this issue? Response: The University is already putting some effort towards these initiatives, and it is clear that as a University we are invested in this cause. The resolution shows that we are behind this cause as well.
• L. Liu: Since the passing of R. 32 (SA1213–32) has the University put any effort into this issue? Response: Yes, President Skorton has publically supported some aspects of the Faculty Senate resolution.
• A. Muglia: Want to clarify how divestment will help our University and our World. Why are we doing this? Political stance for a political stance? Response: We are taking a stance because it creates a divestment campaign that often succeeds in getting results. Legislation is what we need.
• T. Hittinger: We are voting on a sense-of-the-body resolution, not something that will directly affect the decision. We want to show that we support the idea of divestment. We are acknowledging that we support what our peers have supported. Proposing a solution, not voting on a definitive solution.
• Motion to Call the Question. Dissent expressed. 6–16–0. Motion fails. Discussion continues.
• M. Stefanko: The point of this resolution is to make the Administration more transparent about its investment, so that we can have an educated debate with more data. We need to have a good debate with all of the numbers.
• G. Block: We do not control the endowment; this is not a vote on that. The Faculty Senate made a mistake by passing legislation expecting something that they don’t know the price tag of.
• E. Bonatti: In support of rewriting the resolution to be something more tangible. We need more clear data from the Administration. Response: We need to refocus the conversation. Information would be great, but we aren’t in that position. This resolution is about starting a movement, making a statement, and helping the University put its money where its mouth is.
• Closing: It would be beneficial to have more numbers, but we do not have those number. If this resolution does not pass, it will only hinder our efforts. The SA being in support of this resolution will help us get the answers you want. The next step is to have the SA support.
• Motion to Call the Question. No dissent.
• Community Vote: 4–4−3, 1 vote allocated in favor and 1 vote allocated opposed
• Resolution adopted: 12–7−4.

V. Business of the Day

R. 55: Restorative Justice for the Cornell Community — L. Liu, N. Tulsky, and [Assc. Ombudsman]

• Linda Faulkner, Associate University Ombudsman, is here to talk about what restorative justice is and to clarify any questions that this Assembly might have.
• This system has been implemented at 80 different colleges and universities across the country, including Cornell. We wanted to bring it to the Student Assembly because it will only work with the support of students.
• Speakers list now open. J. Hutson: HAVEN is very in support of the resolution, and it is absolutely something this Assembly needs to pass.
• M. Henderson: What happens if victims are uncooperative with the process? Response: Need to clarify difference between Judicial Process and Restorative Justice. It is a diversion from the Judicial System: bias incidents that aren’t judicially charged have a chance to be addressed. It is a voluntary process. Judicial Process is a board deciding on sanctions, Restorative Justice tries to understand and learn from what happened. Reconciling differences and understanding where everyone else is coming from is a lot more effective than punishment.
• N. Mileti: Please walk us through the process for a Sexual Harassment case. Response: The Restorative Justice process would only apply to issues not covered under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Administrator. This gives the community the ability to come together and heal from a harm done to it. Not a replacement for the campus judicial system.
• U. Smith: If there is something that causes a public disruption where the University is a party? Response: The focus should be on victim and offender reparations and discussing the issue at hand. Something on a larger scale could take the form of a forum where all community members are invited to attend.
• Motion to call the Question. No dissent.
• Resolution Adopted, 21–0−0

U. Smith adjourned the meeting at 6:32pm.

Respectfully submitted, Brian Murphy Clerk, Office of the Assemblies

Copyright © 2005–2019, Cornell University.