Minutes
University Assembly
March 28, 2001
WSH Art Gallery
4:45 - 6:45 PM

I. Greetings and Call to Order

M. Brown, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.

Attendance:

Present: Timothy Anguish, Matthew Banner, Scott Beemer, Mike Brown, J.S. Butler, Jeff Ehrenberg, Amy Gerhard, Brian Goodell, Bhaskar Krishnamachari, Krysta Levac, Jane Mt. Pleasant, Jeremy Rabkin, Aaron Saathoff, Donald Tobias

Absent: Leslie Barkemeyer, Linda Clougherty, Dawn Darby, Subrata Mukherjee, Daniel Schwarz

Also Present: M. Grant, R. Johnson, H. Mandeville, K. Riley, K. Rourke, L. Sekaric

II. Reports

Assemblies Leadership Meeting

M. Brown spoke about what was discussed at the most recent Assemblies Leadership Meeting with the administration. He explained that they discussed the Student Assembly’s resolution asking that Teaching Assistants be screened for English communication skills. They are working to implement a pilot screening and training program this summer. They also discussed the usefulness of the Leadership meetings. There is a feeling among participants that the meetings lack candid, thorough discussion of issues. They discussed how the make the meetings more beneficial to those involved.

Program Document Public Hearings

K. Levac asked for volunteers from the UA to attend the public hearings for the Program Documents of Transportation Services, the Campus Store, and Gannett Health Center. The times for each hearing are: Transportation, Wednesday, April 4, 12pm-1pm in G01 Biotech; Campus Store, Wednesday, April 4, 2:30pm-3:30pm in 700 Clark Hall; and Gannett Health Center, Wednesday, April 11, 5pm-6pm in the International Lounge in Willard Straight.

III. Additions to the Agenda

There were no additions to the agenda.

IV. Approval of Minutes

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of January 31, 2001. The minutes of January 31, 2001 were approved by acclamation.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of February 28, 2001. The minutes of February 28, 2001 were approved by acclamation.

V. Business of the Day

Proposed Amendments to the Campus Code of Conduct

Mary Beth Grant, the Judicial Administrator, spoke about the proposed amendments to the Campus Code of Conduct. She explained that she was at the meeting to provide clarification on the changes for which they are requesting approval.

M. Grant explained that the first amendment “A” asks to change how “harassment” is defined in the Code. The current definition does not clearly define what harassment includes. An all-inclusive definition of harassment would be very complex, as issues of free speech must also be considered. Still, she pointed out, the campus community must have notice on what kind of behavior will not be tolerated. To do this, the CJC decided to rework the definition of harassment put forth in the Code. She explained that the committee used the New York State Penal Code as a guide to devise an acceptable definition for Cornell.

J. Rabkin pointed out that there are grammatical errors in the text of the change. L. Sekaric explained that they are open to any grammatical changes. J. Rabkin also questioned if the footnote present in the original will be included in the change. L. Sekaric said that it would not.

J. Rabkin remarked that the proposed change conveys no clarity. Use of the word “annoying” could include many behaviors that are not harassment. K. Rourke commented that the word use is appropriate when taken as part of the entire definition. The behaviors must be intentional, serious, and repeated. L. Sekaric also pointed out that all cases to be considered would come before the Hearing Board. The individuals on the board can distinguish between harassment and annoyances.

J. Rabkin proposed to strike section “b” from change A. M. Grant commented that if that portion is struck, this harassment definition would only protect against stalking.

J. Rabkin revised his proposed change to read:

I. To intentionally harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person by:
Following a person in or about a public place or places, or by other repeated acts of an objectively offensive nature.

J.S. Butler questioned the use of the phrase “no legitimate purpose.” M. Grant gave an example of repeated, hang-up phone calls late at night. These could seriously alarm a person and serve no purpose. But, if those phone calls were during an acceptable time and were for a specific reason, it would serve a legitimate purpose.

M. Banner remarked that the proposed change is more concise and grammatically correct. But, he also pointed out that defining harassment is subjective and attempts to fully clarify it are futile. He commented that he does not see the advantage of either of the proposed changes over the original language.

A. Gerhard commented that there are some cases where someone would hesitate to call a situation harassment, but it still makes them uncomfortable. She pointed out that if “annoy” were stricken from the change, more people would not report these incidents. She remarked that it is better to have more incidents reported so no true incidents of harassment go unreported.

B. Goodell commented that the original language in the Code is more vague than the proposed change. He said that it is better for the language to be vague, as the community is continually changing. M. Grant pointed out that if the language were vague, people would not know what would not be acceptable.

J. Ehrenberg remarked that the proposed change limits harassment to two specific kinds of behavior. Harassment covers a variety of behaviors and declaring something harassment has to take in the specific facts of the incident. He commented that the definition in the code should not single out a few specific kinds of harassment. M. Grant pointed out that the language chosen by the committee is based on the language in the New York State Penal Code and that they kept part of the definition broad to include other types of instances..

J. Ehrenberg also expressed concern with J. Rabkin’s amendment. He remarked that the language of the amendment gives the impression that following a person in a public place is the only important form of harassment. J. Rabkin commented that the committee’s change does not clarify harassment, but instead makes it easier to bring charges in marginal cases.

A. Saathoff said that amendment to section A tries to find a balance between overly vague and overly specific. He commented that the proposed change would not make it any clearer.

A motion was made to call the question. A vote was taken on whether to replace change A with the proposed amendment. The amendment passed by a vote of 7 - 6.

J.S. Butler commented that it would be better not to change the original language in the Code. He questioned why a change was needed. M. Grant responded that they want to change the current language to give more clarity to the definition of harassment.

L. Sekaric advised the UA members not to accept the amended changes. This definition will constrain harassment to only include repeated acts.

S. Beemer commented that the amendment is an improvement over the original language in the Code.

B. Goodell commented that he would prefer to retain the current language, as it leaves harassment open to interpretation.

A vote was taken on whether to accept the amended change A. The change failed with a vote of 1 - 12.

K. Rourke asked if the UA would like the CJC to readdress this issue? M. Brown commented that the majority of members prefer the current language. J. Rabkin remarked that the current language does not inform people of what behavior is acceptable and asked that the committee try again.

M. Grant explained that the change in part B is to change the title of the Chair to be consistent with other changes that have been approved. This change was approved unanimously.

M. Grant explained that part 1 in change C specifies the University Hearing Board as the body to which Temporary Orders of Protection are appealed. This change is to make the code consistent with changes that have previously been approved. Part 2 in change C is to formalize a practice that is already in place, in which the Judicial Administrator can use his/her judgment to rescind a Temporary Order of Protection. Part 3 in change C is to make it consistent with the proposed change in Part 2 of change C.

M. Banner asked if the protected person is consulted before the Temporary Order of Protection is lifted? M. Grant commented that there must be a reasonable attempt to contact the person.

M. Banner remarked that while the amendments in parts 2 and 3 are to formalize current practice, the language used could create problems. He questioned if the complainant is also informed when the order is lifted. M. Grant remarked that the Judicial Administrator’s Office is in close contact with the complainant throughout the process.

A vote was taken on Part 1 of change C. The change passed unanimously.

It was decided to address the remaining changes at the next meeting.

CURW Program Document

Reverend Robert Johnson of Cornell United Religious Works presented the program document for CURW. He explained that the search for a new CURW Director has not yet been completed, but he expects a decision to be made soon. He also reported on some changes in staff: a new Rabbi has joined CURW from Emory, and a new Episcopal Chaplain has come to Cornell from Nebraska.

Reverend Johnson also elaborated on some projects going on with CURW. They are working on a guide to Sage Chapel, which will give details about its history, architecture, etc. He expects this to be completed soon. On April 22, there will be a sermon by AD White Professor John Cleese. This past fall, CURW co-sponsored a conference on human rights and religious issues. This spring, CURW also sponsored two Martin Luther King, Jr. lectures, one done by Dr. Calvin Butts, and the other by James Lawson, a friend of Dr. King.

Reverend Johnson also pointed out that the fees for use of Anabel Taylor and Sage Chapel have not changed.�

J.S. Butler questioned why it is more expensive to hold a wedding at Sage Chapel than to hold a concert, since admission is charged for concerts? Reverend Johnson explained that admission is usually not charged for concerts held at Sage Chapel.

J. Ehrenberg remarked on Reverend Johnson’s discussion of the future of Sage Chapel, where the document reads “From the retiring director’s perspective, a chapel that operates as an interfaith chapel has a blurred mission and I cannot name a single effective such program. Generic religion cannot sustain broad support.” He questioned why the building influences the practice of the faith? Reverend Johnson explained that Anabel Taylor is designated as a building that can be used for any faith. Sage Chapel, though, has designs in architecture and decoration that are undeniably Christian. Individuals of other religions might not find worship in this setting appropriate.

A motion was made to accept the program document for CURW. The motion passed unanimously.

Resolution in Support of Reducing Cornell Campus Emissions

• , a representative for the Cornell Greens, explained the current status of the proposed resolution. She explained that they had met with Cornell’s Facilities Manager to determine the feasibility of the proposal. They were told that Cornell could follow through with the seven-percent reduction, but it is a matter of how much this reduction will cost.

M. Brown remarked that Harold Craft, Vice President for Administration and Chief Financial Officer, expressed reluctance to support the proposal until there is an detailed plan of how it will affect Cornell.

J.S. Butler asked if the 1990 levels are known? * explained that the Facilities Department is conducting a self-audit, so those figures will soon be known.

M. Banner questioned the significance of lending the UA’s support to this proposal. F. Lind explained that they want to get support from as many campus groups as possible. This will show that this is important to the Cornell community and put pressure on the Administration to get involved.

J. Ehrenberg remarked that he is hesitant to endorse the proposal without knowing the specific effects that the reduction will have on Cornell. He commented that it is better to wait until the specific effects are known. * explained that implementing the seven-percent reduction will not adversely affect students. It is more an issue of money - the structural changes are costly.

B. Krishnamachari commented that he is in favor of the resolution. He remarked that it simply sets a goal to work towards.

A. Saathoff remarked that a lack of specific goals should not prevent the UA from supporting this statement. Their support will help bring the problem to the attention of the administration, and the details can be decided upon at a later time. He suggested that the resolution not allude to a specific year. He explained that the UA can support the idea of the resolution, and additional proposals in the future can set the goal of a specific year.

An amendment was suggested to remove 2004 from the resolved clause. The amendment was found friendly.

A motion was made to call the question. The motion failed to gain a two-thirds majority with a vote of 7 for, 5 against, and debate continued.

T. Anguish questioned what scientific information this proposal is based on. * replied that a United Nations panel on climate change has release a report that explains the human influence on global climate change.

J.S. Butler expressed his support for the resolution. He remarked that the resolution is just a statement of purpose and does not impose anything on the University.

A motion was made to move the previous question. The motion passed with a vote of 9 for, 4 against.

A vote was taken on the resolution. The resolution passed by a vote of 8 - 2 - 1. The resolution appears as follows:

Resolution in Support of Reducing Cornell University Campus Emissions

WHEREAS, a scientific consensus has arisen that dramatic increases in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other gases released into our atmosphere will have a profound effect on the Earth’s climate, such as increased global temperatures, increases in hurricanes, more severe storm patterns, and higher sea levels causing floods and losses of land; all of which pose significant risks to both natural ecosystems and human societies; and

WHEREAS, cities, colleges, universities and other institutions need to take a leading role to move society and economics towards solutions to the global climate change crisis; and

WHEREAS, we have students, faculty, and other organizations who are concerned about global climate change to help us see this campaign through; and

WHEREAS, actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency and purchase green energy can provide local benefits to the Cornell campus and community by: decreasing air pollution, creating jobs, reducing energy expenditures, and saving money; and

WHEREAS, other campuses such as Tufts University and Harvard have already passed successful resolutions and many others are moving forward with this campaign; and

WHEREAS, as campuses across the country work towards reducing on campus emissions, it will show our government that taking action to stop global climate change is possible; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cornell University campus pledges to work towards reducing campus greenhouse emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels and thus do our part in stopping global climate change.

Scott Beemer
Undergraduate Representative
University Assembly

VII. Adjournment

M. Brown adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kristen Riley