Minutes
University Assembly
Wednesday, November 19, 1997
Art Gallery, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:37 by M. Esposito.

II. Roll Call

Present: Jon Austin, Steven Caldwell, Henry Chung, John Cisne, Linda Clougherty, Chris Cole, M. Esposito, David Grubb, Marian Hartill, Betty Lewis, Joy Johnson, A. P. Pirondi, Michele Travis, Jonah Zern

Excused: Jeff Kozlow, David Levitsky, Dianna Marsh, John Sherry

Absent: Linda Yannone, Michael Cameron, Alan Mathios, Richard Moore, Ellis Loew

Others Present: Cris Gardner, Mark Frontera, Gary Hartz, Jason Murtagh, Eric W. Nerenberg

III. Additions to the Agenda

M. Esposito announced that the nominations for the Hearing Board were supposed to be brought to the meeting, however due to the absence of the biographies and list of nominations, this agenda item will be delayed to the next meeting.

IV. Open Forum

No one spoke during the Open Forum.

V. Announcements

M. Esposito announced that there will be an additional University Assembly meeting on December 10, 1997 at 4:30 p.m. in the Willard Straight Hall Art Gallery.

M. Esposito also stressed that the attendance for the UA meetings is mandatory, not optional. He exclaimed that two unexcused absences will result in a request to leave the Assembly. He also stated that if attendance at a meeting is not possible, then the member should contact the Assemblies office and either M. Esposito or J. Kozlow through e-mail or phone messages through the Assemblies office.

M. Esposito also announced that there will be a forum for the all Assemblies members on Tuesday, November 25, 4:00 - 5:30 in GO8 Uris Hall, concerning the Data Access Policy. M. Hodges will then discuss the three policy options that the Assemblies have held and members input in the Data Access Policy.

M. Esposito also announced that leadership topics are due Friday November 21st concerning the leadership meeting Tuesday December 2nd. The leadership meetings allow the leaders of the assemblies to meet with the president, vice-president, and other administration members, to ask questions. M. Esposito stated if anyone had concerns or questions they wanted the UA leaders to voice, to forward these to himself or C. Gardner’s office. He stated that the Office of Assemblies may take liberties in editing. If there is a problem with the editing of questions, he asked that this be stated in the e-mail and the submittors name will be attached to the question.

VI. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes from the October 29th meeting were approved with the following amendments:

On page 2 under Report from Chair - “. . . in Cornell’s media rank in published documents.” was changed to: Cornell’s rank in the media.

On page 3–4 under Business of the Day- “ . . .the JA is not responsible for campus theft,” was changed to: . . .the JA is not responsible for campus crime,

Also on page 3–4 under Business of the Day -“. . .only responsible for the violations of the Student Code.” was changed to: . . .only responsible for the violations of the Campus Code of Conduct.

In the same selection the sentence - “Students are the greatest problem in. . .” was altered to: Students represent the greatest number of referrals to…

Also in the same selection the sentence - “. . .education classes may be having an effect on the number of crimes. . .” was changed to: . . .education classes may be having an effect on the number of code violations. . .

The sentence “It was also brought up that perhaps theft education may be an answer to the increase in crime throughout the campus.” was struck

On page 6 under the JCC & Ombudsman Search Committees section the sentence ”M. Esposito stated that the JCC is frustrated. . .” was changed to: M. Esposito stated that he is frustrated. . .

Also under the same section the sentence- “. . .work is beginning to conflict with his. . .” was changed to: . . .work is beginning to interfere with his. . .

VII. Report from the Chair

M. Esposito discussed the use of Robert’s Rules in the UA meetings. He explained that the UA Charter states that Robert’s Rules should be followed during the meetings, but it does not state to what extreme. Therefore, M. Esposito stated that if it was decided to strictly follow these rules, a workshop may be necessary to educate everyone on the procedures.

D. Grubb stated that these rules are appropriate for a body much larger than the UA. He suggested that they may not be critical to follow exactly, in the small population of the UA.

S. Caldwell agreed with D. Grubb and questioned if it would be possible to progress without the implementation of Robert’s Rules.

M. Esposito stated that this discussion stemmed from the past meeting in which he may have voiced concerns that as the chair he should not have voiced. He feels that he may have made his opinion known when he should have been serving as a facilitator of discussion.

J. Zern stated that although he did not feel it is necessary to follow strict Robert’s Rules, he felt that it is necessary to institute more structure in the meetings.

J. Cisne suggested that Robert’s Rules should be available to fall back on should situations require the usage of these procedures.

M. Esposito reiterated that the decision is to follow a stricter format for the meetings, but not strictly follow Robert’s Rules.

M. Hartill suggested that the UA follow a procedure of the EA, in which every member has a sheet summarizing Robert’s Rules as a reference.

M. Esposito agreed that this suggestion may have a positive effect on the structure of the upcoming meetings and stated that this reference sheet will be available at the next meeting.

C. Gardner suggested that the chairs pass on their knowledge of Robert’s Rules when the situation arises that requires certain procedures. She stated that this will allow all members to be aware of the options they have in the situation. She felt that a small explanation of the rules during each situation would be extremely helpful.

JCC and Ombudsman Search Committee Update

M. Esposito stated that he is happy to report that these committees are beginning to act on their respective topics. He stated that each committee has already established a meeting or will be establishing a meeting shortly.

C. Gardner stated that she would like to see that when the committees establish meeting dates, they recess over the winter break. This will ensure that the student representatives will be able to continue to have an input on these committees.

UA Committee Convenor Responsibilities

M. Esposito was concerned if all UA committees were being convened. After a response to this statement, it was discovered that each member present was serving on committees that had all been convened.

VIII. Constituent Assemblies’ Reports

Faculty Senate

D. Grubb reported that the Faculty Senate was presently concerned about the tenure review procedure. He stated that they spent the majority of time formulating and passing Option 3 to establish a faculty committee to advise Provost on tenure decisions.

Employee Assembly

M. Esposito reported that they have held two meetings since the last UA meeting. He stated that two members are resigning, therefore they are actively trying to fill these vacant seats. He stated that Peggy Haine, the Employee Representative to the Campus Planning Committee, gave a presentation on the Campus Planning Committee. The presentation summarized the actions the committee is dealing with, including a new dormitory, road repairs, etc. He stated that the EA is continuing to discuss an open forum to be held for the employees to voice their concerns to the President, Fred Rodgers, Mary Opperman and other administrators. He stated that the meeting is planned for February 3rd. He also stated that committee reports were given, and some discussion arose as to the mission of the Communication Committee. The next EA meeting is December 3rd and everyone is welcome to attend.

GPSA

R. Gary Hartz stated that the GPSA is presently concerned with the Student Activity Fee. He stated that a present concern is the funding of athletic events and if the GPSA will continue not to support athletics in the future. This decision will be voted on Monday, November 24th. He stated that the GPSA is also working on the creation of a student-to-student handbook on guiding new students through Cornell. R. G. Hartz also stated that the GPSA is presently working on filling the vacant UA seats and hopes by next week these seats will be filled.

Student Assembly

J. Zern reported that the Student Assembly is presently dealing with the Student Activity Fee and will be voted on at tomorrow’s SA meeting. He added that there are new organizations aspiring to be funded by the Student Activity Fee: the Women’s Resource Center, the New York Public Interest Research Group(NYPIRG) and the Community Partnership Fund Board (CPFB). J. Zern stated that if all aspects of the Student Activity Fee were passed the fee would be increased by 25%. He stated that the other pressing issue to the SA was the condition of Rand Hall. He commented that the architect students were presently attending meetings to gain support to change the conditions of Rand Hall. The students complained that the working conditions are unacceptable and they feel the administration is not taking action to assist in clearing up this problem.

J. Zern also voiced a concern for the Statement on the Environment, released by the administration. He stated that although this is not related to the Student Assembly, he felt that everyone should make an effort to get involved in the environmental awareness stimulated by this statement.

L. Clougherty commented that there is a group presently working on waste minimization in partnership with the Vet. School. She feels that perhaps this program should be inclusive of the whole campus.

M. Esposito questioned if the graduate students were presently paying to attend sporting events.

R. G. Hartz stated that the students are paying, but at a price slightly higher than the undergraduate student reduced rate.

M. Esposito questioned J. Zern if the Student Activity Fee was voted on as a whole, or if it could be voted on in sections.

J. Zern stated that the Student Activity Fee will be voted on in blocks. The less controversial issues may be bunched together, while other issues may be voted on separately. He stated that the three new items will be voted on separately.

IX. Business of the Day

M. Esposito announced that the Office of the Judicial Codes Counselor, represented by Jason Murtagh, would be reporting on their activities and concerns.

J. Murtagh, JCC, introduced his assistant, E. Nerenberg. He stated E. Nerenberg was hired in order to relieve some of the strain of the JCC case load. He stated that the office is presently representing people accused of violating the Campus Code of Conduct and the Campus Code of Academic Integrity with that the majority of his cases resulting from accused violations of the Campus Code of Conduct. The role of the office is to represent and educate students on campus when they are accused of violating a code. His office advises students of their rights under the Campus Code of Conduct, explains the accusations, and, in some cases, actually represent the student in meetings concerning the violation, offering advice as to when to talk, etc. Also the JCC may attend the University Hearing Board with the student, to represent them. He stated that each case taken to the University Hearing Board requires 20 to 40 hours of effort, including research, meetings and representation. J. Murtagh stated that the JCC also deals with representation of students who are accused of violating the Code of Academic Integrity. He explained that his office would represent students when meeting with professors and facing the Academic Integrity Board. He also explained that this representation is similar to the type given to accused violators of the Campus Code of Conduct. He stated that the JCC is independent of most offices on campus and is responsible to the Board of Trustees.

J. Murtagh stated that presently the JCC office is facing three areas of difficulties. These are in the areas of funding, location, and technology. The JCC office receives a budget of $10,000, $7,000 of which goes to wages. He stated that although the case number has increased from 250 cases to 500 cases, the budget for this same time period has remained relatively constant.

J. Murtagh also stated that the present technology is not adequate for the amount of work presented to the office. The office is presently performing all computing needs on a 286 processor, which is outdated by approximately 5 generations of computer improvements. In a recent case dealing with an accusation of misuse of e-mail, the JCC office could not even gather the evidence, due to the lack of Internet or modem access in their office. He stated that due to the demands of the office, it is essential that the technology be kept up-dated.

J. Murtagh added that the other concern his office is facing is the location of the office. The JCC office is located in 350D Caldwell Hall. He stated that this location is distant from any central locations on campus. Because it is so far from his school, going to the office in-between classes is almost an impossibility. He also noted that the office does not serve the necessity of confidentiality while trying to meet with clients, as the walls of the office are paper thin, and the office is surrounded by other offices. J. Murtagh stated this is not fair to the accused students and that the need for relocation is a necessity. He suggested that the cases are growing in number and complexity and the necessity for a third staff member is growing. He felt that it may be worthwhile to place a faculty advisor for assistance or to hire a third member of the staff.

M. Esposito noted that the Campus Code of Conduct covers all members of the Cornell community, meaning that the JCC should be available to assist all members of the community.

J. Murtagh stated that although the office is opened to all members of the Cornell community the majority of people represented are students.

D. Grubb questioned the size of the office.

J. Murtagh stated that the main concern of the office was the location and confidentiality. He stated that the office is large enough for the two members of the staff to function. He left the office phone number for further contact and questions. (255–6492)

X. Old Business

M. Esposito noted that the Student Assembly Resolution R-3 was still on the agenda. He was under the impression that the resolution failed at the previous meeting and questioned if another resolution would be presented.

C. Gardner pointed out that due to the SA policies and election procedures, all resolutions of this type had to be in place by winter recess, time limitations may prevent another resolution from being presented to the UA.

M. Esposito noted that the resolution would be removed from the agenda for next month.

M. Esposito stated that the Committee on Committee resolution was postponed to this month’s meeting for voting, in order to give members time to review the resolution. He stated that since the past meeting he was under the impression that J. Kozlow was amending the resolution, therefore he would not call for a vote at this meeting. He questioned if any discussion was needed on the resolution. There were no comments made concerning this resolution.

Committee Reports

M. Esposito called for reports from the University Assembly Committees. The following committees met and had information to report on their actions:

Health Services

Joy Johnson reported that the Health Services Committee will be meeting monthly. She stated that the goal of the University Health Service was to improve it’s services to students: the service has extended Saturday hours; a primary care provider has been assigned to each student; and other services have been adopted to improve the availability and service to students. She stated that the Health Services is working to improve its counseling and psychiatric service. The desire of Heath Services is to refer fewer students to off-campus appointments. She stated that the EMS service is now located in the Environmental Health and Safety Department.

J. Johnson stated that another concern of the Heath Services Committee was the insurance provider for the students. Unfortunately the provider is a private company located out of state. The present insurance policy does cover medication. The policy of the campus is that each student must have some insurance coverage upon entering Cornell.

J. Johnson stated that presently the committee was working on establishing sub-committees. She also reported that Tom Kern was elected to serve as the chair.

M. Esposito questioned as to how the changes of the University Health Services (UHS) was decided upon, be it studies or questioning of students.

J. Johnson reported that the change of the UHS were made through the use of student surveys. When a student frequents the UHS, they fill out a survey form which assists the UHS in becoming more aware to the needs of the students.

In response to a question, J. Johnson stated that the UHS is available to all members of the Cornell Community, however the majority of patients of the Health Center are students.

Committee on Committees

M. Esposito reported that the Committee on Committees was active in assigning members to UA committees in order to stimulate the actions of these committees. They are presently working to establish a more involved committee system.

Transportation Advisory

Betty Lewis reported that the committee will be meeting on December 1, 1997

Campus Store

S. Caldwell reported that the Director of the Campus Store put on a presentation for the committee. However, S. Caldwell stated he felt more like an audience then a committee. He was unsure of the role the committee has relative to the Campus Store.

M. Esposito stated that the responsibilities of the committee is stated in the charter. He then referred to Article 10 7.3 of the University Assembly Charter. He stated that the UA is used as a system of checks and balances over the Campus Store and to provide community input into policy and budget discussions.

D. Grubb referred to last year and the actions of the Campus Store. He stated that the Campus Store had attempted to advertise in the surrounding communities. In turn the UA applied some pressure in order to stop the advertising of the Campus Store. He stated that this is an example of the influence the UA holds over the Campus Store.

A. P. Pirondi stated that she felt the committee was not being presented with pricing policies.

D. Grubb suggested that perhaps the UA should request the policies of all the represented committees. He stated that the UA does have control over policies, but this depends on what is defined as policies.

M. Hartill suggested that members review the previous years program documents in order to compare past and present policies.

C. Gardner offered to re-circulate program documents of all the represented committees to all members of the UA.

CURW

M. Hartill stated that she was unable to attend the recent meeting, however she has minutes from the past meeting available. She said the name of the chair elected was Robert Johnson.

XI. New Business

Resolution on TCAT - UA Exec. Committee

D. Grubb questioned if the resolution had been discussed with the proper boards. He felt that it would serve no purpose if the motion was created and then voided due to a technicality that the proper procedures were not followed concerning the resolution.

D. Grubb then questioned if the resolution would have any power because Tompkins County is not under Cornell’s jurisdiction. He felt that this resolution would have no power, because TCAT is community based and not under control of Cornell University. He stated that research is needed to be done on how to find an avenue that will allow the UA, and thus the Cornell community, to keep control of the transportation systems on campus.

C. Cole stated that TCAT is not only a University service. He re-iterated that the University could only control University transportation. If this alliance with the other companies was established, the UA loses the control of bus transportation. He stated that the UA must fight to stay in a position to regulate TCAT on Campus. Future concerns of the Cornell community will be difficult to address once the UA is removed from the inside loop. Representatives of Cornell will then be forced to attend community meetings in order to voice concerns.

M. Esposito stated that Cornell is only one of three members of the consolidation. He also stated that the University Assembly Charter definitely does not extend to the surrounding city or county. M. Esposito questioned if the resolution was calling for the UA to have a vote on the combined Board of Directors.

C. Cole responded that the seat on the Board of Directors is only to attempt to ensure a safe guard for the interests of the Cornell community and the busing service only concerning on campus service, not to give Cornell control over Tompkins County service.

L. Clougherty questioned as to how a member of a Board of Directors could only vote on policies concerning Cornell. She felt that a member on any Board of Directors would have to be available to vote on all aspects the board addresses.

C. Cole stated that as the present board is set up, he is under the impression that the Board of Directors will involve groups representing their constituency. Cornell’s outlet in this system will be under the Cornell University Department of Transportation, in turn causing the UA to lose representation in the transportation area. Therefore, the request is to ensure a seat on this Board of Directors in order to maintain a voice in transportation issues.

B. Lewis stated that there are two options to maintaining a voice in the transportation issue. First, the UA could secure a seat on the upcoming Board of Directors. Second, the UA could influence the C.U. Department of Transportation members that have a seat on the Board and voice concerns through this avenue.

C. Cole stated that there exists little guarantee that the UA’s concerns will be carried out by the Cornell members. He stated that the purpose of this resolution is to aim for a voting seat on the Board, but is also designed to open negotiations for representation. He stated that a seat on the board would be worthwhile, even if it was not a voting seat. Basically this motion is aiming to start negotiations for a counter proposal.

D. Grubb asked if this resolution suggests that each member of the Advisory Board will each have a vote on the Board of Directors.

C. Cole stated that he was aiming for one vote on the Board.

M. Esposito stated that this one vote on the Board will not replace the power the UA held over the transportation system. He stated that before the TCAT proposal, the transportation systems were forced to report to the UA any changes in policies. Now with this new consolidated system, the UA will not have legislative authority over the busing policies of the transportation system.

C. Cole stated that the motion will instigate negotiations with TCAT.

M. Esposito stated that he would like to take the question of how the UA will remain in the loop with the formation of TCAT resolution to the Assemblies leadership meeting. He also stated that he is concerned as to how the UA can propose to the two additional groups that the UA would like to be a part of their Board of Directors. He also stated that he still feels this action will not fill the original responsibilities of the UA’s control over the transportation system.

C. Gardner stated that this resolution should be taken to the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting, on December 1, and the leadership meeting in order to gain addition feedback from these two groups.

B. Lewis stated that influence still exists through the Cornell representatives that will be serving on this Board of Directors.

M. Esposito questioned as to why the UA had not been approached with the topic of consolidation when the issue had first been brought up. He questioned that if the UA had to be presented with the recent price alterations, shouldn’t the consolidations of the transportation systems fall under the auspices of the UA?

C. Cole stated that the UA can only recommend the fees for the bus system, not have authority over the fees.

M. Esposito stated he was under the impression that the UA Charter was bypassed in the formation of the consolidation. He felt that although this was bypassed it is past the point of being reconciled. He stated he is unsure as to the next step to take in this process.

C. Cole reiterated that the main goal behind this resolution is to inform TCAT that the UA should still be involved in the transportation system. This resolution is presenting a message to TCAT.

M. Esposito asked C. Cole if he would be willing to attend the upcoming Transportation Advisory Committee meeting. C. Cole said he would attend the meeting.

Sense of the Body Resolution on UA support of Judicial Process

M. Hartill questioned as to the necessity of this resolution, she felt that the process of selecting the Judicial members was presently in effect.

M. Esposito stated that although the process of appointment is already in effect, the delay of the action of the appointments was unacceptable. He stated that although this process is happening , it is not occurring fast enough. He said the present appointment is only happening largely due to the efforts of the UA continually contacting the President’s office.

C. Cole stated that the purpose of the resolution is to ensure that if a resignation arrives in the future, a replacement will be available on or soon after the person leaves the office. He stated that this resolution will institutionalize the process of appointment; it signifies who has responsibility for the appointment process in the future. He stated that although the process already exists, the resolution will help ensure that the process will be followed.

D. Grubb questioned if the time limitations on the appointments is realistic to carry out the entire process.

C. Cole stated that these time windows were already set by the present process the system is supposed to follow.

C. Gardner suggested that the last statement of the resolution be altered, to strike the words “of the knowledge”. She stated that as worded if the process of appointment were to be initiated to early, there could exist a situation in which two people could be holding the appointed seat.

C. Cole stated that this resolution should not be postponed.

M. Esposito called for a vote on the amended resolution.

University Assembly Resolution on Search Committees for the Ombudsman, Judicial Administrator, and Judicial Codes Counselor was passed by a vote of 9–0−2 as follows:

WHEREAS, the University Assembly shall participate in the selection of slates of nominees for the position of Ombudsman, Judicial Administrator, and Judicial Codes Counselor, and

WHEREAS, the Ombudsman shall be appointed by the President with the concurrence of the University Assembly, and

WHEREAS, the Judicial Administrator shall be appointed by the President with the concurrence of the University Assembly, and

WHEREAS, the Judicial Codes Counselor shall be appointed by the President with the concurrence of the University Assembly,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that in order to institutionalize the appointment procedures of these essential University positions the President’s Office be specifically tasked with:

1. identifying the President’s respective representatives for the Search Committees for the Ombudsman, Judicial Administrator and Judicial Codes Counselor,
2. identifying chairpersons for each of the respective Search Committees whose responsibilities include convening the respective Search Committees,
3. sending letters of appointment to all committee members outlining the search process and timetable, and
4. facilitating the selection of candidates for the Ombudsman, Judicial Administrator, and Judicial Codes Counselor, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these tasks are to be expedited in October of the year preceding the expiration of the terms of the Ombudsman, Judicial Administrator, and Judicial Codes Counselor, or within 21 days, while University is in term, of the knowledge of the resignation of the Ombudsman, Judicial Administrator, and Judicial Codes Counselor, the President’s Office shall convene a six member search committee, to include two members appointed by the President and four members appointed by the University Assembly, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University Assembly will appoint four representatives to the Search Committees, one from each constituency, within the time frame specified above, and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that:

1. in the case of the expiration of a term of office, the succeeding Ombudsman, Judicial Administrator, and Judicial Codes Counselor be appointed and be ready to assume office on the day of, or before, the expiration of the preceding respective office bearer, and
2. in the case of knowledge of the resignation of the Ombudsman, Judicial Administrator, and Judicial Codes Counselor, the respective replacement office bearer be appointed and be ready to assume office within 30 days, while the University is in term of resignation.

XII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:56 by M. Esposito

Respectfully Submitted,
Mark A. Frontera