University Assembly Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Goldwin Smith: Auditorium D: 4:30 — 6:00 p.m.

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:45 p.m.

II. Roll Call

III. Approval of September 29th Minutes

IV. Committee Reports

JAMIC

K. Rich will be arriving later and will report at the end of the meeting.

JFARC

T. Setter asked Martin if he would follow up on his appointment to this committee and give him contact information.

V. Business of the Day

Discussion — State of the Committees

E. Loew explained that the committees are supposed to help form policies with help and input of community. Those policies are then brought to the UA for endorsement and are put in place or denial and are sent back to committee. This system, however, has not been working. For instance, some of the groups do not even know they are connected to the UA. The UA needs to decide where they stand in terms of these four programs and committees. Martin Lang had informed them that these four committees were picked out from a larger group was party because the UA needs to look at if they should still be under the wing of the UA or if they are doing well enough on their own that there are other committees that need to be looked at instead. The structure that has led the UA to the point it is at now started as the University Senate and came out of the ‘69 takeover of the Willard Straight.

M. Lang explained the history of the University Senate, which had been a very influential group on campus. It created the standing campus life committees.

E. Loew said that in collegiate history, the extent of UA influence has never been tested. The main point is that currently, the UA receives a committee report at the end of each year telling us what they have done and what they plan on doing. The UA approves these decisions, but it really means nothing. For instance, the disapproved of a parking report, and it went on record that they disapproved, but that was all that happened. UA members are on the committees, but they often don’t attend meetings or feel like they have a place being there. The question now is what the UA wants to do with these committees and how the UA can have appropriate input in these committees. That is the reason the representatives from the committees are at the meeting today. We would like to discuss what these representatives want to see and what will work for them. There is no reason to just create a committee and assign UA members to it if it is not going to be responsive to the needs of the community. The UA wants to work with the committees and fit in with the way they operate.

Sharon Dittman, the representative from Health Services, thanked the UA for engaging in this dialog. She said that none of them can really remember the reasons that the committees were structured this way, but this structure is not serving Gannett or the UA. Every year, she comes and presents a report that fills up almost all the time in the meeting, so there is no time to discuss issues. Then the UA picks three issues of importance to focus on and that is about the extent of their relationship. They would like to improve this relationship with the UA. On problem they face is that they pour all their time and energy into the Board of University Health meetings, but the people who come are rarely the same people each meeting. As a result, we can’t get a real discussion going. If we come up with something of interest, we don’t really get to discuss it. She would like to have a more direct relationship with the UA in the form of a small group of UA members designated as connectors with our leadership team so when something comes up and the community has interest, we can all discuss it. Their committee doesn’t want to make decisions that are going to cause controversy with the constituents. Health Services needs contact with the UA, but they are not getting that connection in current structure. For instance, the issue of flu shots is really big right now and maybe they should be discussing that. With more cooperation, the UA will be recognized for providing leadership. She mentioned collaborating on things such as health forums.

E. Loew introduced Rev, Ken Clarke, the representative from CURW and Bill Wendt, the representative from Parking & Transportation. He asked them their opinions on the UA’s “legislative authority” and if that phrase is meaningful in the type of relationships they want to have with us. The way he sees it, that implies that the UA has much more responsibility than acting as a sounding board. The wording of the charter makes it sound like the UA can’t be passive, which is what we’ve done in the past.

P. Dusseau asked what is the ultimate goal and what will be mutually beneficial. She struggles with the idea of voting on things that Gannett or the other committees do. She represents thousands of votes with her one vote on issues that she might not really have enough information about to make a good decision. The UA should and committees should form a collaborative relationship to look at how decisions will affect constituents. The UA can use the expertise of these committees and the committees can use the UA members’ knowledge of the “word on the street” to work together and be more effective. She asked how the UA can move forward to maintain productive relationships, but still to fulfill our role.

B. Wendt said that each of us is here today to make sure Cornellians have the best possible community. He was around through the demise of the University Senate until now and all throughout the history of this body, the “legislative authority” has been a stumbling point. In his opinion, it has never really worked and can’t work in this environment.

S. Dittman said that, at Gannett, they have mandates from bodies beyond just Cornell.

B. Wendt said they work with the county, so no one body can dictate what they do. One thing the committees are helpful with is identifying issues through lots of communication. One difficulty is reaching off campus students. This is something they can do a better job with, but they need to decide if they have a committee that can work effectively. The structure of the transportation committee has changed significantly. For instance, they now have presidential appointments. This change has helped and allowed the committee to function more effectively. He said the UA needs to be there when the committee needs their support because they have access to the president and the administration. They always have room on the agenda to hear from individual students, which they use to identify and look at issues.

Hope Mandeville said she thinks TAC works well, but there is no connection back to the UA and it probably wouldn’t take much to make that connection stronger. A stronger connection could help TAC work even more efficiently.

B. Wendt said that most of the reasons the UA has these four standing committees is because the university government saw problems in these areas. For example, the community saw that there was nobody to deal with transportation, so the Senate took charge and created a committee. However, it is like parenthood. They needed to help these committees along and show them how to function, but at some point, you have to let go and move to the next child. Right now, the UA is locked into four 30 year old committees and there might be more pressing issues they need to take charge of.

K. Clarke said their current advisory board structure can be traced back 50 years when it was more independent of university structure. They used to do more what the service center now does and run camps and things like that. From there, it morphed into what came under the UA umbrella in 1981. The structure has continued to evolve and administrative budgetary oversight is not needed. They internally dealt with some role confusions and the assumption that the board had more influence than it does. They ideally look to provide ideas and perspectives and also have something that provides them internal feedback. He said he is ambivalent as to whether the relationship with the assembly needs to be what it has been. They may be better served with a board that is more organic to CURW. One of the difficulties they face is that people serving on the board have not had CURW “close to the heart.” They served to fill a role or to promote some sectarian agenda without looking at the multi-faith community Cornell has. The board needs to be constructed of people who have a vested interest in CURW and can be the eyes and ears on campus to find issues and represent CURW’s interest to the larger community. He said he is not sure if the current structure serves them in that regard. By just giving a report once a year, it is difficult to give a comprehensive sense of what it is to foster an interfaith community - to create an environment where multiple communities have the right to practice their faith and try to get those groups to work collaboratively.

E. Loew introduced Tom Romantic, the representative from the Cornell store. He asked if Tommy Bruce had responded to their invitation to the meeting.

H. Mandeville said that he had really wanted to come, but he has been extremely busy. He is on his way to China right now. The new Cornell logo will be released tomorrow and he has to make a presentation for his department tomorrow.

Loew asked if TAC draws its existence from a different authority than the UA like the president’s office.

B. Wendt said that they have TAC and a hearing board that deals with things like infractions for parking. The big change with TAC is that it used to be 2 students, 2 staff, and 2 faculty, but students didn’t participate for whatever reason. They also did not have faculty and staff with expertise and knowledge in the things they deal with. Now, they do have those kinds of faculty members because of the presidential appointments. This helps them to understand their relationship with the community and the environment. They now have a pretty good balance of staff members and members form the SA, GPSA and EA, which helps them keep communication open. Their UA representative has sort of faded in the past few years. He said they don’t focus on passing formal resolutions, but solving problems.

S. Dittman said the range of issues they address is very broad and often requires very specialized knowledge. They have other committees of students, faculty and staff who deal with the constituents and serve on these committees because they’re really interested in them. They have committees for alcohol and drugs, mental health, student insurance, and many other issues. It is important to bring people together who are willing to make that commitment. One difficulty they have had is staffing committees with people who don’t understand what it means to be a representative because they didn’t run for office. Turnout is also a problem because they don’t always deal with the most exciting topics

E. Loew said that from what he has heard, right now they pretty much have all the constituencies covered by other committees so their input from the community does not come straight from the UA. He asked if it makes sense to still have another committee with the UA if the constituencies are already represented.

J. Nelson said that some constituents, especially graduate students, do not feel that they are being represented. What they would like to do is help redefine the role of the UA and talk about a way to work together and keep everyone informed. In order for that to happen, the UA needs to be included.

E. Loew said he was hoping to move to the resolution. The last part mentions ad hoc committee from the UA to work with the four committees to talk about making sure that the constituencies are all being heard and to provide a mechanism for communication. He said that if there is an issue, there should be a liaison who can go to the committee and discuss what should be done about it.

E. Loew said he doesn’t want to vote on a resolution that is going to force the committees to deal with the UA just because they have legislative authority. He asked the representatives if they would feel comfortable working with the UA if they pass this resolution.

K. Rich said she just wants them to all work together. UA liaisons would go to their meetings and report back so that the presentation isn’t the first they hear from the committees all year.

H. Mandeville said that it just has not worked in the past. For instance, people are sometimes interested, but they can’t attend the meeting because they have class. While the liaison system might work with this assembly, the assembly changes every year. They need something that works regardless of the people who are on the assembly. She would like to see the four campus governance groups work together and take a survey of all the committees they have established to see where the redundancies are and what is not being covered.

S. Dittman said she feels like this resolution is still a one-size-fits-all solution. She doesn’t think an ad hoc committee can accomplish everything it would need to by November 17. She would like to meet with UA members to think through what will really work for the committees and solve the problem of constituents who feel they aren’t heard. What this proposal is saying is that they will mostly just keep business as usual.

P. Dusseau said she agrees and business as usual clearly doesn’t work. The president is leading the university into cooperation and they don’t want to have an adversarial relationship. She has never had the experience of not being able to meet with an administrator. The key will be communication, trust, respect, and commonality in knowing what everyone’s goals are. She said they should communicate with each other, not legislate or direct others. The reason constituents feel unheard is because the communication isn’t working.

J. Nelson asked if she thought the resolution impedes communication.

P. Dusseau said she thinks it is flexing a political muscle, not working towards collaboration.

J. Nelson said he disagreed.

S. Dittman said the graduate students on their board don’t serve as bridge to GPSA.

K. Clarke said they should try and see if the current structure is working.

J. Nelson said the resolution makes sense for communication because it means that the groups would only need to make one phone call to a liaison instead of four calls to the committees.

H. Mandeville said she thought the original intent for the resolution was to try and have the UA and all its representatives have good relationships and really be the committees.

M. Lang said that, yes, Tim’s goal is having committees made up of UA members instead of haphazard staffing. Tim was also trying to increase UA involvement within the charter by using the committees that exist. For instance, it isn’t right for the UA to step in and hijack TAC since it seems to be working, but in the case of the Board on University health, the UA can help it function.

T. Romantic said he’d like to be able to come to the UA with issues. For instance, they’ve been working on a Shirt and Shoes policy, have stopped selling cigarettes, and are looking at issues with textbooks. These are issues they would like to be able to come to the UA with and they would like the UA to let them know of any issues they have heard. He thinks the UA should work with the store on key issues, not necessarily everything the store is doing. They would like to have two or three UA representatives who are really interested and want to help and they can all work together. Then, at the end of the semester or year, they can come back and they will have made some headway on a key issue. Some other issues are making clothes trendy, making lines shorter, getting better signage, and selling cheaper books. As issues arise, they can set up a task force to deal with them.

J. Nelson said that makes sense and that is what the resolution has done in the first “be it resolved” clause. The UA endorses that you were hired for a reason; you can do your jobs. As a result, you would only have to meet when you really feel you need the input or the constituents want more input.

M. Lang said the problem is tying the liaisons to the current committees might not serve the needs of the constituents or the groups. Tim was trying to work within the charter. Liaisons might be a great idea, but you need to decide if this is the way you want to do it.

J. Jacobs said that since people have issues with the wording of the resolution, they should table it and try and write another draft that will satisfy more people and present it at the next meeting. The executive board has talked about abolishing the boards and using coordinators instead. He does not think the creation of ad-hoc committees is necessary. It is important to think about changing the language of the charter from liaison to coordinator. He also said it is important to see if the transportation committee even needs the UA anymore or if CURW needs the UA any more, or if the UA should be looking at new groups that have been created more recently to work with.

H. Mandeville said she has talked to some graduate students who have concerns with buses and parking. Some of these issues you might not be able to do anything about, but you could consider working with TAC on them.

B. Wendt said that if there are issues, we need to talk about them before passing resolutions. Being invited to this meeting at the beginning of the semester is something that hasn’t happened in then years, which is a really good sign of the effort the UA is making. It is good to know who you all are and for the UA to know who I am. He told them that if they hear any transportation issues, for instance about buses, he may not control it totally, but he will know where to get an answer. There are a lot of ways to communicate and they need people there to bounce ideas off the community all the time.

H. Mandeville suggested inviting graduate students to TAC.

B. Wendt said they work with a couple of programs that are unique to graduate students and the only way to make those programs effective is to work with your group.

P. Dusseau said that the key will be communication. If the UA members are not communicating with one another, they can never communicate with other groups or assemblies. If the GPSA has issues, the phone call should already have been made. The UA needs to work on leadership because if they can cultivate their own leadership in the UA, they will be able to have effective communication. They need to bring up leaders to serve as liaisons.

H. Mandeville said the assemblies have been directed to go through TAC and TAC is working well for the transportation committee, but not for the assemblies.

E. Loew said that any member of the UA could go to the TAC meetings and make comments; they are not taking advantage of that opportunity.

B. Wendt said that if anyone has an issue, they can relate it right to the department. He said he would like to sit down with you and work on a solution together. What he hates is that they get resolutions or people come to the meetings and waste time and as a result, they lost members and lose contacts. Every day they are working to try to solve people’s problems.

E. Loew thanked everyone for coming and said the UA executive board would be in touch to try and carry these discussions further.

K. Rich gave her report on JAMIC. JAMIC has four subcommittees. The first is for underrepresented minorities. They are working on an exchange program with a historically black college. The LGBTQ subcommittee is being led by Erica Kagan and they are continuing work on including transgender individuals under Cornell’s nondiscrimination policy. There is a transgender Law and Advocacy Symposium Friday, October 29 — Saturday, October 30. Anyone interested should talk to her after the meeting. The Asian and Asian Americans are working on a mentorship program with other Asians and alumni to help them grow and create a community. In the spring they will be holding a social forum to discuss minority issues. JAMIC is still looking for an International representative.

J. Jacobs suggested having a meeting before the next scheduled meeting. They discussed dates and said they would let everyone know.

VI. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. and the resolution was tabled.

Respectfully Submitted
Lisa Gilbertson
UA Clerk, Office of the Assemblies