University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
4:30 — 6:00 p.m.
701 Clark Hall

I. Call To Order

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

II. Roll Call

Roll was taken by sign-in sheet.

Members Present: M. Hatch, R. Orme, J. Marwell, J. Glenn, D. Rosen, E. Loew, M. Fontana, A. James, D. Brown, R. Wayne, C. Basil, D. Kurczewski, T. Parado, E. Sanders Members not Present: S. Matthews, R. Rodriguez, B. Liddick, P. Mahoney, A. Stroock Others in attendance: Dean Charles Walcott, Gary Swisher and Margarita Whiteleather from the Cornell Campus Store, A. O’Donnell, A. Epstein, D. Arnold

III. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

M. Hatch called for late additions to the agenda.

R. Wayne asked to add Resolution 9 Recommending the Adoption of the Master Plan. D. Rosen asked to add putting together a subcommittee to discuss the Provost’s visit to this item as well.

M. Hatch proposed to add the discussion of moving the UA meetings to different locations on campus to either this agenda or the next meeting’s agenda.

IV. Approval of the Minutes

R. Wayne made a motion to approve the November 14, 2007 UA meeting minutes. E. Loew seconded the motion. The minutes were approved.

V. New Business

� Academic Integrity: Dean Charles Walcott: 5 minutes

Dean Walcott said that academic integrity is an issue that came up years ago. It’s a problem for both students and faculty and the procedures are perceived as cumbersome so many do not follow them. There’s been discussion about implementing an honor code such as the ones in the Law and Vet schools. Now that they’ve gotten through the Campus Code of Conduct, this might be a good time to form a subcommittee to discuss academic integrity. Technically, the responsibility for academic integrity lies with faculty, but in this case it would be helpful to have undergraduates and graduates students involved as well, to develop a more optimal system.

In response to Dean Walcott’s request for feedback on the idea, C. Basil said his high school has an honor code and he supports this idea. M. Hatch said he thought it would be a good idea to have undergraduates, graduate students and faculty all involved in this discussion.

M. Hatch asked C. Basil if he would be willing to represent the undergraduates in this kind of group discussion and C. Basil said he would.

E. Loew said one of the things that initiated their academic integrity discussion was Gannett’s decision to no longer provide excuses for people. He asked if Dean Walcott had heard of many instances of students actually fragrantly violating the academic integrity code beyond the stories.

Dean Walcott said some graduate students have reported catching students fragrantly cheating on exams but that the faculty refused to do anything about it. There is a substantial amount of cheating and plagiarism happening, especially in the large courses. The Carol Tatkon Center is trying to find a better way to explain to students why these actions are so bad.

T. Parado said she would represent the graduate students in a subcommittee on this matter.

In response to D. Brown’s question about whether this issue wasn’t the responsibility of the colleges, Dean Walcott said it was not left to the colleges; it was left to the faculty. Individual colleges can bring changes to the academic integrity policies if they want, but the overarching framework is on the university level.

M. Hatch said that with the two student representatives, they could look into setting up a discussion group on academic integrity policies and procedures.

� Presentation by representatives from the Campus Store, and discussion of UA committee on Campus Store: 30 minutes

R. Orme introduced Gary Swisher and Margarita Whiteleather from the Campus Store.

G. Swisher apologized that their director, Tom Romantic, could not make it. He said he appreciated the chance to speak to them. He gave a presentation on the Campus Store, discussing the store’s mission, annual budget and sales, strategic initiatives, accomplishments, performance measures, and ongoing topics and initiatives. He asked for feedback from the assembly.

In response to D. Kurczewski’s question about whether the e-books they were looking into were going to be downloadable and if one could buy books from the Campus Store online, G. Swisher said that the e-books were downloadable. One could not yet purchase books online; they have a very primitive e-commerce system. They are looking into getting this set up by next year. It is one of their priorities. M. Whiteleather said a limit on providing e-books was that some publishers and titles aren’t available in that format. Also, one of the reasons for their being behind on the e-commerce initiative is that it hadn’t been that necessary in the past because of the student’s close proximity to the store, but they are looking into it now.

In response to R. Wayne’s question about how text book prices compared to the rate of inflation, G. Swisher said that textbook prices outstrip tuition in increases.

In response to R. Wayne’s request for suggestions on how they could contribute to lowering the prices, G. Swisher said that the publishers are the reason why their prices are so high; almost 80% of their text book sales go back to the publishers. He said it might help if faculty considered whether the various components of their textbook packages, such as the CDs that come with some of them, are necessary because this will lower the cost of replicating the packages.

J. Glenn said it would be a good idea to publicize that the plastic bags used by the Campus Store are recyclable. He asked if they could just go into normal recycle bins.

G. Swisher said he wasn’t sure, but he knew they could be returned to the Campus Store.

In response to D. Rosen’s question about whether the Campus Store saw a drop in their sales because students were turning to sources such as Amazon.com for their textbooks, G. Swisher said their prices are pretty competitive, and a lot of students say their prices aren’t that different from Amazon. He said somebody somewhere always sell the books they offer at a lower price, but it takes some effort to find them, so one has to consider the uncertainty in purchasing, shipping costs, the frustration in searching and things like that, in addition to considering price.

In response to Dean Walcott’s question about whether there was a sufficient supply of used books to tap into that market to lower costs, G. Swisher said that the demand always outstripped the supply in the used book market. The publishers keep this phenomenon going by publishing new editions frequently. Their best source of used books is students. They also buy used books from networks and national wholesalers. One thing that helped them get more used book was getting book requests from faculty early so they could place the orders before the supply ran out.

Dean Walcott said he thinks it’s important to let faculty know that getting their requests in early helps them get more used books, since this might motivate them to do this.

In response to D. Kurczewski’s question about whether they had considered setting up a peer-to-peer auction network sponsored by the Campus Store, G. Swisher said they were willing to do that and were currently looking at a suite of software that included this capability.

In response to E. Loew’s question about whether the increasing amount of Campus Store floor space that was being dedicated to non-academic materials to the detriment of the availability of trade books, was going to continue and had something to do with maintaining profit, G. Swisher said it’s difficult to be successful selling trade books; they need to be financially responsible when considering the use of their inventory and space. They unfortunately can’t afford to stock every title for an unlimited amount of time. He doesn’t think the situation will get any worse.

In response to M. Hatch’s request for a volunteer to fill the position of liaison to the Campus Store committee, a position which had been vacant for quite a while. M. Fontana said he would be interested in filling the position.

M. Hatch made a motion to make M. Fontana the UA liaison to the Campus Store committee. C. Basil seconded the motion. M. Fontana was unanimously voted as the new UA liaison.

� Revision of paragraph 2 in R. 6: Resolution in Support of the t-GEIS: 15 minutes

M. Hatch discussed the letter President Skorton sent in response to resolution 6 in support of the t-GEIS. He said it seemed that the President had misunderstood their resolution as stating that the Transportation Advisory Committee had legislative authority over the Department of Transportation and Mail Services, when they had meant that the UA had legislative authority over them. He said they needed to make their intentions clearer in paragraph 2 by stating “as described in its charter, the UA, with consultation from the Transportation Advisory Committee, will continue to exercise its legislative authority over policies which guide the activities of the Department of Transportation and Mail Services.”

In response to D. Rosen’s statement that he felt President Skorton misunderstood the letter and that they should send it back to him to be reviewed again, M. Hatch said they needed to clarify that they have authority over the policies not the activities.

There was a discussion about the University Assembly’s legislative authority and the extent and nature of this authority. E. Loew said he felt the President understood what they had meant in the letter but that the administration just did not want to give up authority over the Transportation Department to the UA. A. Epstein said he thought the extent and nature of the UA’s legislative authority was being misunderstood; he tried to clarify it.

There was a discussion about rewording the resolution to make the UA’s intentions clearer. Dean Walcott said that the phrase “deciding which specific proposed elements, projects, policies and activities will be implemented” was troubling to the administration because it made it seem that that UA had specific issues they were going to decide. In response to Dean Walcott’s hesitation about including the Transportation Advisory Committee in their statement, D. Brown recommended removing the section about the consulting with TAC. M. Hatch said that, with the amendment, the second paragraph of the resolution now read “as specified in its charter, the University Assembly, will continue to exercise its legislative authority over policies which guide the activities of the Department of Transportation and Mail Services.”

There was a motion to approve the changes to resolution 6. The motion was seconded. The changes were unanimously approved.

� Report by Rodney Orme on President’s response to UA 2007 resolutions: 1–5 minutes

R. Orme said that President Skorton had approved Resolution 4, to establish a Family Services Committee, and Resolution 5, to establish a Childcare Services Subcommittee of the Family Services Committee, and had given recommendations for members of these committees. Resolution 7 has been sent to President Skorton for his consideration and action.

� Resolution 9 Recommending the Adoption of the Master Plan by Randy Wayne

R. Wayne said the growth assumptions in which the Master Plan was based were not transparent. They liked the idea of the Master Plan, but would like someone to explain the reasoning for the growth assumptions.

There was a discussion about the loss of green space for athletics and agriculture that the Master Plan seemed to advocate. D. Brown said he thought that this aspect of the Master Plan wasn’t well though out. E. Sanders proposed that this concern be added to the resolution.

In response to M. Hatch’s request for volunteers to put together talking points for their meeting with the Provost on January 30 regarding the Master Plan, E. Sanders, D. Brown and M. Fontana volunteered and E. Sanders said she would convene the meeting and develop an agenda.

The UA members gave input on rewording the resolution to take into consideration some of the concerns discussed. R. Wayne reread the amended clause, which now included consideration of “the loss of proximal green spaces for teaching and athletics”.

E. Sanders made a motion to approve resolution 9 with the changes. J. Marwell seconded the motion. Resolution 9, with the amendments, was approved unanimously.

In response to D. Kurczewski’s request to have the next meeting in a different location, there was a discussion about possible locations. A. Epstein said he would look into available venues.

VI. Adjournment

D. Kurczewski made a motion to adjourn. D. Rosen seconded the motion. M. Hatch adjourned the meeting at 6:08pm.