University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
4:30 — 6:00 p.m.
701 Clark Hall

I. Call To Order

M. Hatch called the meeting to order at 4:37 p.m.

It was noted that R. Orme was appointed as the Employee Chair prior to the start of the meeting.

II. Roll Call

Attendance was taken by sign-in sheet.

Present: C. Basil, J. Marwell, S. Matthews, A. Richter, J. Glenn, T. Parado, B. Liddick, R. Orme, M. Hatch, D. Rosen, E. Sanders, A. Stroock, R. Wayne.

Not Present: T. Lee, H. Hall, P. Mahoney, D. Brown, E. Loew.

III. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

M. Hatch called for any late additions to the agenda. There were none.

IV. Introductions

A. Stroock was introduced.

V. Committees

a. Reports on TAC and Campus Planning Committee

R. Wayne said that he and A. Epstein have a meeting on Friday, September 7 with the Campus Planning Committee. One or two people from the Committee will be attending the September 26 UA meeting to have an open discussion with the membership. There was a discussion about the members receiving materials and information prior to the September 26 meeting that were relevant to the discussion.

M. Hatch said there would be a presentation on the T-GEIS from someone in Transportation Services at the September 26 meeting also.

M. Hatch then asked if there were any committees in which the UA members had developed an interest in becoming more involved. There was a discussion regarding how to submit committees of interest for consideration. M. Hatch said they will need to make sure there is a UA liaison appointed for every UA committee.

b. Family Services Committee, Childcare Committee

A. Stroock introduced 2 new resolutions — the major one being to create a new Campus Life committee on Family Services that would be equal to other existing committees of the UA. He proposed simultaneously to create a sub-committee on Childcare Services. The Family Services Committee would also consider elder care issues. The UA would be given legislative authority over the two new committees. The Family Services Committee has been an “ad hoc” committee since 1988; the Childcare Services Committee has been “ad hoc” committee since June 2007. The major resolution regards a charter change to add the Family Services Committees to the list of campus life committees.

Mary Opperman, Vice President of Human Resources, gave a presentation on the purpose of the committees. She addressed the change of demographics in the future that raise the need for these committees. She said forming these committees under the UA would increase community involvement and make the initiative more effective.

There was a discussion about whether these Family Services were just going to benefit families of employees. M. Opperman said the Childcare Committee was currently focusing on employees and graduate students and their goal was to have Family Services available to the entire Cornell community.

M. Hatch asked what other issues the Family Services committee would address beyond Childcare. M. Opperman said the committee’s focus is on programs, services and policies. In the programs and services area, the committee would also address elder care, ill spouses, and partners. She said changing demographics necessitated new and more flexible work policies to accommodate for these changes.

There was a discussion about which committee was responsible for the decision to move undergraduates into Hasbrouck. E. Sanders said the decision had upset the graduate students. M. Opperman said the Family Services Committee could address the issue but more likely Campus Life, which holds the primary responsibility for this decision.

M. Hatch said if the committee was formed, the UA would be able to address any issues it considered pertinent to family services. M. Opperman commented there were already many issues to address in terms of Family Services and she did not want the committees agenda to become so full that some of these issues would not be addressed. She suggested the UA give the committee a year to handle the current issues, then they could change or expand the committee as they saw fit.

A. Stroock said this committee and sub-committee structure, where the committee as a whole meets less frequently, but the sub-committees meet as often as their particular issue necessitates, could be a model for other UA committees that have not been as active.

M. Hatch suggested everyone read the resolution and take action to pass it now.

A. Richter said she had an issue with the first “be it therefore resolved” of the resolution changing Article 1 of the charter; a change would require them to go through an entire referendum of all of their constituents which would be tedious. She said a standing committee could be established without changing the charter, with a 2/3 vote. M. Hatch said they needed to amend the resolution to address this.

A. Stroock made a motion to amend the resolution. A. Richter seconded the motion.

There was a discussion on this change to the resolution. A. Stroock said he was concerned about removing the first “be it therefore resolved” because this would remove the UA’s legislative authority, compromising the committee’s impact. He said the UA should establish the Family Services Committee as a standing committee and then begin the long process of making the change to the charter. A. Richter suggested establishing the committee and then giving it a year to function before making the charter change. M. Opperman agreed stating she wanted the committee formed immediately.

M. Hatch suggested the first “ ”be it therefore resolved” be struck from the resolution and the first “ be it further resolved” clause be rewritten to read “be it therefore resolved that the assembly establishes a standing committee called the Family Services Committee.”

A. Epstein apologized for the oversight in realizing that community referendum was necessary for the change to Article 1, Section 3. He said, in light of this, he agreed they should strike the first “be it therefore resolved” from the resolution.

M. Hatch said the UA needs a Family Services Committee liaison. He said that person could be the pilot for determining the language to give the UA the power that would be lost in striking the first clause from the resolution. He said the UA could start considering whether they wanted legislative authority over other committees.

Additional minor changes to the resolution were discussed.

B. Liddick asked why the committee needed 15 people. He raised the concern that they may have difficulty staffing the new committees. M. Opperman said both committees were already fully staffed.

A. Stroock said he agreed with B. Liddick, and he too is worried they won’t be able to meet quorum at times when they’re voting on issues.

There was a discussion about the presidential appointment of five experts to the Family Services Committee. A. Stroock said this would include the representatives from Human Resources. He said they were necessary to making progress. M. Opperman said the resolution did make it sound as though the presidential appointees could only come from the local community instead of the community and/or the university. She suggested changing the wording to make this clearer. Concern was raised that local community representation outnumbered other constituencies. M. Opperman said the purpose of bringing this to the UA was to get community involvement. She said she would be disappointed if the committee became divided because some members were from the administration. M. Hatch said the appointed representatives were experts who could help in developing and implementing solutions to issues. A. Epstein said this was modeled on other committees that are listed under the legislative authority section, so the fact that committee’s members included administrative personnel would not make it different from other standing committees. The President’s appointments are needed because it is valuable to have experts on committees. This committee would report to the UA so any recommendations would be up for review and revision by the UA. D. Rosen asked if presidential appointees are voting or non-voting members. A. Stroock said the members of the administration would be non-voting.

There was continued discussion on how to word the resolution to make it more clear that local community and campus community members could be appointed by the President.

A. Stroock said they need a representative to be a liaison. Without one, they would have limited control over the committee and they did not need another committee that doesn’t meet. He said he was willing to be the liaison for the Childcare subcommittee, but felt there should be a Family Services Committee liaison also.

M. Hatch said they could pass the resolution with the proposed changes with the provision they would determine which section the addition would fall under later on.

A. Epstein said they could not pass the resolution without determining which section it would fall under first. There was a discussion about which section would be the most appropriate. A. Richter said they shouldn’t pass a resolution without everything intact.

A. Stroock said he was still concerned about passing the resolution at all. He reiterated he did not see any members interested in being the liaison to the Family Services Committee, and he didn’t see the logic of forming another committee that was not going to be active.

M. Hatch agreed to be the liaison to the Family Services Committee for the time being.

The vote was unanimous in favor of passing the Family Services Committee resolution with the proposed amendments.

M. Hatch requested five minutes to review the Childcare Services Committee resolution before voting on it.

Minor changes were made to the Childcare Services resolution.

R. Wayne made a motion to pass the resolution with proposed changes. J. Marwell seconded.

The vote was unanimous in favor of passing the Childcare Services Committee resolution with the proposed changes.

VI. Adjournment

M. Hatch made a motion to adjourn. D. Rosen seconded the motion.

M. Hatch adjourned the meeting at 6:13 p.m.