Minutes
University Assembly
Wednesday, October 28, 1998
WSH Art Gallery
4:30 PM

I. Call to Order

M. Esposito called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.

II. Additions to the Agenda

No additions were made to the agenda.

III. Open Forum

No comments were made during Open Forum.

IV. Announcements

M. Esposito welcomed and asked everyone to introduce themselves to the new student representatives of the University Assembly: Rachel Jacobs, Kristen McNamara, and Michelle Schaffer. He added that Jacob Warner would not be able to attend today’s meeting due to the College Town fire that occurred over the weekend.

M. Esposito announced an Employee Assembly fund drive to raise money for relief efforts in Arecibo. The goal is to raise $10,000 for relief to fellow Cornellians in that area. He asked that any contributions be given to the Office of Assemblies, or to contact the office for an address to which money could be forwarded. It was requested that “Arecibo Relief” be written in the subject area of the check, due to the fact the Office of Assemblies is presently participating in multiple fund-raisers. M. Esposito commented that members of the Employee Assembly would be collecting money, for this cause, in front of Willard Straight Hall this Thursday and Friday.

V. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes of 9–30–98 were unanimously approved with no amendments.

VI. Business of the Day

University Alcohol Policy

M. Esposito announced that the University Alcohol Policy has presently been reviewed by all constituencies and the next step is to work out all the details of the policy. He noted that the vote today would be on the document as it is presently worded.

A. R. Thomas questioned what the vote of the UA would decide.

M. Esposito commented that the UA would vote on whether to accept the alcohol policy as an interim policy.

A. R. Thomas questioned if the policy would go into effect without UA approval.

M. Esposito responded that the policy could go into effect regardless of the UA vote. He added that this vote would allow the UA to make a public statement, either in support or disapproval of the policy.

B. Perry noted that much debate exists in the Student Assembly concerning this policy.

It was added that the university should follow the law, especially in issues such as homecoming and Slope Day. In both these instances any drinking over the age of 21 is a public offense, not a criminal one.

D. Carlson, representative of the GPSA, indicated that the policy would prohibit graduate students from having a collection of school friends over in the presence of alcohol. He noted that the wording of the document is strict and no distinction exists for issues such as graduate student gatherings.

It was pointed out the document states that student fees cannot be allocated to the purchase of alcohol. This rule however does not distinguish between university and student funds. An example was brought up as to whether a club activity could spend funds on alcohol. Such instances were not specified in the document, leading to a very strict wording of the policy.

A. R. Thomas pointed out that he felt the document should be applicable only to undergraduate students, which is the main body that is under the legal age of consumption and purchase of alcohol. He felt that this policy should not apply to graduate students.

It was brought up that the document addresses the Dean of Students, which demonstrates the policy is directed toward undergraduate students. However, additional wording should be added to the document to make this point clear.

The representatives of the GPSA acknowledged that their constituency was not in support of the Alcohol Policy, due to the wording of sections of the document.

The general feeling of some members of the UA is that the university is putting this policy into effect without obtaining input from all groups on campus.

M. Esposito pointed out that the drafters of the policy will point out the fact that they did present the policy to the University Assembly, a group which consists of representatives of all members of the campus community, including undergraduate and graduate students.

It was mentioned that the GPSA is attempting to bridge the communication gap concerning the creation of this policy.

M. Pritts suggested it is important to vote on the policy itself and not on the fact that communication is not open between the community and university. He noted that it would be wrong to vote down a policy based on other problems.

It was announced that two constituencies, the SA and GPSA both have major disagreements with the policy. Also, it was mentioned that by voting down this policy, it would make a statement to the University that the UA does not support the present policy and that changes need to be made.

M. Esposito enunciated the policy could be voted down based on the lack of input from the community. By voting this policy down, this is expressing that the constituencies do have a problem with this present policy.

D. Carlson pointed out this vote is a yes or no decision and that it is apparent that there are changes that need to be discussed.

A question was raised as to what time constraints were placed on instituting the policy.

C. Gardner reminded the UA the Federal Government requires the campus alcohol policy to be updated regularly, and that Cornell has not recently updated their policy.

M. Esposito added this updating of the alcohol policy is also a result of the recent alcohol related death of an M.I.T. student.

B. Perry stated that the Student Assembly is opposed to the alcohol policy as a group.

M. Esposito called for a vote to determine the UA support of the Alcohol Policy.

By a vote of 12 opposed, 1 abstention, The University Assembly decided not to support the University Alcohol Policy Draft Dated 9/10/98.

M. Esposito commented that he would send a letter containing the University Assembly’s reasoning for not supporting the draft alcohol policy to the President.

University Assembly Attendance Policy

M. Esposito introduced the topic of the University Assembly Attendance policy. He reviewed his reasoning for creating such a policy. He commented that the assembly becomes ineffective when hindered with not reaching a quorum at meetings. This forces votes to be postponed, inconveniencing everyone involved and hindering the process of government.

D. Carlson added that they attempted to create a policy that did not give power to remove a member from the assembly, but the ability to make a recommendation to step down, after which an appeal can be made to the entire University Assembly.

D. Levitsky remarked that such a policy would be devastating for the Faculty representatives. He explained that by instituting a policy which had reprimands for missed meetings, he felt that the active faculty members would decide not to spend their time sitting on a board in which they felt the pressure of an attendance requirement. This attendance policy, he added, would give the Faculty a parent figure to report to, which is not desirable on a volunteer board.

M. Pritts commented that he felt the policy was fair, due to the fact that the member missing multiple meetings has a chance to appeal his/her case to a review board.

Rachel Jacob commented that she felt the policy is very lenient, yet is important in trying to make the University Assembly appear more important in the eyes of the public.

D. Carlson explained that the motivation behind the document is to understand time constraints of the members, yet promote attendance if the commitment has been made to serve on the University Assembly. He reminded the members that other Assemblies have stricter attendance policies.

D. Levitsky remarked that assembly attendance can be paired to church attendance; there are a lot of demands, however, and makes it difficult to attend regularly.

Rachel Jacobs reminded that all the policy is doing is requesting a courtesy call in advance, containing the reasoning for missing the meeting.

Yrjo Grohn expressed that he felt this policy is an acceptable compromise to creating an attendance policy.

B. Lewis questioned the scale of judging which serves as an acceptable emergency to miss a meeting.

M. Esposito responded by noting that it is understood as to what type of situation should be considered an emergency.

D. Carlson commented that an emergency is not being able to call more then 24 hours in advance with a reason for missing an upcoming meeting.

M. Esposito asked for any suggestions for improving the attendance policy.

R. Jacobs questioned what voting system would be used in the appeal process.

M. Esposito replied that a person could appeal to the entire Assembly and would require a 2/3 vote to repeal the removal of the member.

M. Esposito explained that the UA cannot function without bodies in the chairs, and under the present system there exists no system of attendance policy to prevent empty seats.

Referring to the attendance policy, D. Carlson added that there are only 9 meetings throughout the year, of which meeting times and dates are advertised for the entire year. He expressed that the policy is not trying to belittle other important commitments that members may have, but just asking for the University Assembly to become a commitment.

D. Levitsky brought up the fact that recently he was not able to attend a meeting due to a review session that ran over its time constraint. He felt in this case, he should not have to plead his case to the executive board. He suggested other ways to obtain the same results, but without punishment, be sought.

M. Esposito pointed out that such a job related excuse, as D. Levitsky brought up, would be considered an excused absence.

It was suggested that Bylaw 6.7.b.2 be stricken and replaced with 6.7.b.2.1

M. Esposito reviewed the three suggestions for the executive committee to try to formulate an attendance policy

1.) No policy
2.) Individual Policy
3.) UA Attendance Policy

It was suggested that the writing of the attendance policy be clarified to cover all gray areas of the issue. Suggestions of alternatives to the present attendance policy consisted of providing a common courtesy call, informing the executive board of the absence, to no threat at all. Another idea brought up was to allow each constituent assembly to decide on the attendance policy of their representatives.

C. Gardner pointed out that after the next elections, all representatives on the UA will not be members of their corresponding constituencies assembly. Because of this fact, the responsibility for an attendance policy will need to be centralized in the UA body itself.

A. R. Thomas announced he felt the proposed attendance policy was fair.

A suggestion was made that it would be helpful for the Executive Board to contact people not in attendance to advise them of the impending attendance policy and members concerns about absences.

The vote on the attendance policy was postponed until the following meeting.

Residential Housing Plans & Progress

S. Murphy, Vice President for Student and Academic Services, began her presentation of the residential housing plans and progress by reviewing the planned alterations. She mentioned that these housing plans and developments are the result of President Rawlings’ statement, one year ago, which announced plans to move all freshman living areas to North Campus in the near future. S. Murphy announced that Robert Purcell Community Center (RPCC) is presently undergoing renovations to enhance the building space. Plans for RPCC include a Cybercafe, a small caf� which would give students the opportunity to fill their on-line needs while dining, a larger auditorium, as well as a central staircase that would open up the interior of the building. Another project underway is the demolition of the Pleasant Grove Apartments. This demolition will provide space for new playing fields, which will serve as replacements for the present fields that will be covered by the new dormitories.

S. Murphy explained the two new dormitories will follow the themes of the courtyard and the muse. Each dormitory will house 280 additional students. She remarked that the new dorms will have a central interior hallway, designed to improve the social atmosphere of the dormitory.

In addition to the new dormitories and fields, S. Murphy announced that the fitness and dining facilities will be expanded. Along with all the physical changes 15 faculty-in-residence will now be living on North Campus. She added that the general exterior look of the new buildings will combine the brick style of the High and Low Rise buildings with the stone style of Balch. The new dormitories will be connected by walkways throughout the complex, in addition to a universal bi-floor lounge with hopes of stimulating social gatherings among differing floors. S. Murphy added that the new dormitory will have air conditioning, which will also help during the summer booking of these residences for summer guests on the Cornell campus.

S. Murphy explained that a study lounge would be provided to every 30 students, and a TV lounge and kitchen would be available to every 60 students. She reiterated that the goal behind this renovation is to make North Campus more of a community and to make North Campus more alive. Included in these alterations will be a more diverse menu throughout the existing RPCC Dining Hall and the dining hall to be added.

S. Murphy reviewed that these renovations, are projected to be completed in two years after the beginning of the dormitory construction commencement of this summer. She noted that one obstacle throughout construction will be to control the times of the noise pollution inherent in the process. During sleeping hours and study week all construction noise will have to be limited, which will hamper the progress of the building, but is a necessity. Construction companies that are experienced in working among present living areas will be hired to perform the renovations with the least obstruction.

B. Perry questioned what steps were being taken to make these dorms more environmentally friendly.

S. Murphy suggested he contact J. Reese, Project Leader, Residential Initiative, to receive more information on that topic.

M. Esposito questioned if the architects and builders were local businesses.

S. Murphy replied that the two firms hired, both architectural firms, were not local. She noted that the companies were hired after an extensive bidding war on the project. She added that each company will specialize in different parts of the project, but will also critique each others developments.

S. Murphy concluded that the renovations on North are hoping to create more cohesion on that part of campus. The present layout of that living area has very little cohesion between the multiple additions over the years. She mentioned that the rates of living will not increase any more then the normal inflation rate. Also, she added that all funding will come through Campus Life. She pointed out that presently the Townhouses will most likely become Freshman housing, but there are plans to return this environment to a more upperclassmen setting, beyond 2004–5.

S. Murphy then moved on to the subject of West Campus renovations. She explained the renovation plans have been focused on how to create a more attractive environment for sophomores and juniors. The focus has been on aiming to create more of a neighborhood environment with a stronger student government, similar to Risley. The goal is to create housing which will entice sophomores with an added desire to remain on campus. S. Murphy reported that presently, a master plan is being created to take broad ideas to reality. However, these developments are behind the progress of the North Campus renovation plans.

M. Esposito questioned if the new fields on North would be for intramural or team sports.

S. Murphy replied by noting that these ‘new’ fields are just replacements for the older fields, and will, therefore, be generally for intramural sporting events.

S. Murphy acknowledged that the project will be funded by debt financing, including issuing bonds, all handled under Campus Life. She added the West Campus renovations will be made through similar financial resources, as well as private gifts.

A question was raised concerning the placement of a library on North Campus.

S. Murphy reported that no plans for such an addition were created, yet computer centers may be added to the North Campus environment.

D. Levitsky questioned the consequences of moving all the freshman up North.

S. Murphy responded by noting that studies have been researched to address this question. Bases on this research, it was decided that the unification of North campus will lead to a more unified Freshman class. Also, the unique needs of the general body of freshman can be addressed more quickly due to the location of the entire class in one area. The upper-lower class connection will need to be established in student activities through advisors, etc.

S. Murphy concluding by announcing the existence of fact sheets about the project on the Cornell web page, Campus Life, Residential Programs.

VII. New Business

Division of Biological Sciences

The topic of the resolution on changes to the Division of Biological Sciences was presented to the University Assembly.

Representatives of the Student Assembly commented that the SA has already agreed with this draft. Also, representatives from the GPSA and Faculty Senate both announced that their respective assemblies had also passed similar resolutions in support of this topic.

D. Levitsky commented that he was unaware of the alternatives to the policy and that all consequences are not known.

M. Esposito called for a vote to determine if the UA would support the Resolution on Changes to the Division of Biological Sciences.

The resolution was passed with one abstention as follows:

RESOLUTION ON CHANGES TO THE DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

WHEREAS the University Administration is considering disbanding the Division of Biological Sciences, and

WHEREAS this change will greatly affect many members of the Cornell community, and

WHEREAS the University Assembly mission statement declares that the UA is to provide a vehicle for the continuous involvement of community members in the decision-making process of the University, and

WHEREAS the Faculty Senate has resolved that decisions regarding changes to the Division of Biological Sciences should not occur without the “same thorough and careful deliberation used in the creation of the Division”, and

WHEREAS the Student Assembly has resolved that the President should defer his decision, and to use the time “to solicit, utilize, and respond to input” from the Cornell community,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the University Assembly implores the administration to delay a decision concerning the Division of Biological Sciences, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the UA requests that the administration uses this time to allow members of the University community to voice their concerns and ideas regarding the changes in the Division of Biological Sciences.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Carlson
October 28, 1998

VIII. Adjournment

M. Esposito adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p. m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark A. Frontera