MINUTES
University Assembly Meeting
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
4:30–6:00 p.m.
316 Day Hall

I. Call to Order

M. Lukasiewicz called meeting to order at 4:35 pm.

Voting Members Present

K. Albert, R. Ataya, J. Blair, W. Candell, E. Cortens, B. Cristelli, H. Howland, M. Lukasiewicz, S. Murphy, B. Schafner, R. Wayne

Voting Members Absent

W. Fry, P. Goldstein, T. Grove, R. Kay, N. Celle, N. Raps

Also Present

D. Lieb, A. O’ Donnell, A. Epstein, A. Bores

II. Approval of the minutes from November 15, 2011

M. Lukasiewicz then moved to approve the minutes from November 15. She asked if there were any changes to the minutes. R. Ataya, E. Cortens S. Murphy and B. Schaffner suggested some changes. E. Cortens then motioned to approve the minutes with the suggested changes. J. Blair seconded Seeing no opposition, the minutes from November 15 were approved.

III. Call for any Late Additions to the Agenda

None

IV.Committee Update

a. Codes and Judicial Committee

J. Blair said that the CJC was still working on Title IX issues. He said that in the past 2 meetings, they had the Judicial Administrator, officials from the CJC and representatives from the Women’s Resource Center to discuss standards for sexual assault in Cornell’s Code of Conduct. In the last meeting, the CJC sought to seek equal standards for both parties and achieve a cohesive solution to this issue. They had drafted an amendment to address these issues; additionally they also had dissenters to this policy to come and present their points. The amendment was voted down with a desire not to weaken the structure of the campus code. However, the CJC still had to address issues of contradiction with the Counsel. The people with the opposite side of the view had offered to draft a resolution on this, seeking a comprehensive model to resolve these issues by compromise. J. Blair thought it might still take 2 more meetings to come up with a concrete solution for these issues. He hoped that the CJC would come up with a constructive solution manner that would be agreed upon by the whole committee.

R. Wayne asked what gave the Department of Education jurisdiction a right to legislate over Cornell’s civil and criminal issues. J. Blair said that Cornell received funds from them and thus had to abide by their norms. E. Cortens then read out the federal regulations and said that since Cornell received federal funds, it had to comply with these regulations. J. Blair said that the CJC needed to see Professor Claremont’s resolution, get the Council’s view on it and then reach decisions. He said that the situation was complex but they were working to resolve it in a constructive manner. E. Cortens said that Professor Claremont’s resolution was a win-win stratergy, it addressed issues of hostile environments as well as double jeopardy for the accused. R. Wayne agreed with this. J. Blair hoped they could get the matter resolved by the end of the academic year. M. Lukaisewicz asked if they could contact the president and find out when the deadline for the CJC for resolving this matter was and whether the administration would take matters into its hands. J. Blair said it was more at the hands of the CJC and they should keep it connected to the Title IX administrator for the university and the JA.

b. Campus Welfare Committee

R. Ataya said that the CWC was scheduled to have a meeting the past Thursday but unfortunately they could not have it. They were rescheduling for the coming week he hoped to find out more then. The CWC also planned to release some sort of formal approval on issues of childcare. R. Ataya encouraged people to meet with him and publicize issues of campus welfare. R. Wayne asked whether the turnover for the Campus Welfare Committee had gone up or down R. Ataya said that it had gone up.

V. New Business

a. U.A. Resolution #4 Recommendation to Cancel the University’s Affiliation ad Financial Support of the Fair Labor Association

A. Bores explained the resolution and the role the Fair Labor Association played in university policies. He felt the university was thus giving its name and funds to the FLA, which was not doing any substantial work. The administration and President Skorton had sent a couple of solutions to the FLA to improve its manner of functioning and address these concerns. However though they attacked the university’s criticisms and justified themselves, they did not come up with any viable solution to resolve these issues.

J. Blair said that President Skorton had expressed problems with this organization but did not want to cut off from it. The FLA had responded to his letter and suggested some solutions to the problems addressed. J. Blair asked A. Bores to talk more about why the FLA hadn’t done anything to address the university’s concerns, depite its promises. To this, A. Bores said that issues that Cornell was protesting against were corporations on their board, interviewing workers on site which made workers feel threatened, unannounced audits which didn’t give people a chance for people to clean up their acts in a very short period of time and sub-contracting its own inspections for profits. The FLA had not come up with solutions to these problems in the past.

J. Blair said that President Skorton felt that the FLA made significant contributions to workers rights and despite its criticisms and that the organization had merit. He proposed warning them to take measures clean up their act before threatening to sever ties immediately. A. Bores said that the resolution proposed solutions and they were going to put them across in a manner that served the best interests of the community. E. Cortens suggested making an amendment to the final clause. A. Bores had no problem with this amendment and made the suggested change. E. Cortens asked to elaborate on the 6th clause of the resolution, which A. Bores clarified. E. Cortens motioned to amend this clause. J. Blair seconded. Seeing no opposition, the amendment was made. E. Cortens then said that it was a great resolution and he gave his full support for it.

J. Blair then asked if there was general support in the room to vote for the resolution or if they could postpone voting. A. Bores said that due to time issues with the FLA, it would be better if the resolution would be passed now. J. Blair suggested postponing the passing the resolution and carry on conversations about it at the next UA meeting. Seeing no opposition, E. Cortens motioned to table the resolution. M. Lukasiewicz seconded. Seeing no opposition, the issue was tabled to be discussed till the end of the meeting.

The resolution was returned to at the end of the meeting. E. Cortens suggested some changes to the resolution and its wording. However, since the resolution was not worded exactly how A. Bores had explained it, E. Cortens then withdrew his amendment and made another amendment to word the resolution in the manner of which A. Bores spoke. J. Blair seconded. Seeing no opposition, the amendment was made.

M. Lukasiewicz then asked if there was a Call to Question. H. Howland raised a Call to Question. R. Ataya seconded. Seeing no opposition, the UA moved to vote on the resolution.

M. Lukasiewicz then motioned to vote on the resolution. 10 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstained. Resolution passed.

b. U.A. Resolution #3 [Resolution on Campus Parking]

D. Lieb from Transportation Office suggested some changes to be implemented on the resolution. H. Howland asked where this motion was coming from. S. Murphy clarified and said it was from the Campus Infrastructure Committee. H. Howland said it was advisable not to vote on the resolution without having people who worked on the it to express their opinions, present. D. Lieb said that transportation services was under a time crunch to implement this resolution and the sooner it would be passed, the better. H. Howland understood the pressure for people with disabilities and asked if they could separate this from the other part of the problem. D. Lieb said they could do so but since issues of disability parking, retiree parking and regular parking were connected, it would be better not to separate them. H. Howland still felt that they could be separated despite the overlap so that they could look at the retirees portion of it that day without looking at the other side of it. S. Murphy asked D. Lied if this was an issue to which he said there wasn’t. He said segmentation of the resolution wouldn’t effect its clauses.

J. Blair asked if the CIC has approved the resolution. M. Lukasiewicz said that the CIC agreed on the policies in the resolution. A. Epstein suggested having the motion read out and voted on the same day. R. Ataya also preffered having it read out as he didn’t want to vote on something he couldn’t read. J Blair agreed with this, he wanted the UA to read the resolution and then vote on it. S. Muphy motioned to read the resolution papers, J. Blair seconded. Seeing no opposition, R. Wayne read out the resolution. D. Lieb further explained certain clauses of the resolution. There were some minor and grammatical changes suggested to the resolution, which were unanimously implemented.

E. Cortens said that he liked the substance of the resolution but he said from a parliamentary perspective, it made more sense to address the current situation first and then get down to resolving it.

M. Lukasiewicz then asked if there was a Call to Question. E. Cortens raised a Call to Question. J. Blair seconded. Seeing no opposition, the UA moved to vote on the resolution. M. Lukasiewicz then motioned to vote on the resolution. 11 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstained. Resolution passed.

c. U.A. Resolution #2 Availability of Accessible Unisex Restrooms and Locker Rooms on Campus

M. Lukasiewicz introduced the resolution. J. Blair suggested some minor changes made to the resolution. E. Cortens then motioned to put an additional resolved clause to send the resolution to Facilities Services. J. Blair seconded. Seeing no opposition, the amendment passed.

M. Lukasiewicz then asked if there was a Call to Question. E. Cortens raised a Call to Question. J. Blair seconded. Seeing no opposition, the UA moved to vote on the resolution. M. Lukasiewicz then motioned to vote on the resolution. 8 In favor, 1 opposed, 2 abstained. Resolution passed.

d. U.A. Resolution #5 Report to the Community from the Office of the Ombudsman and the Judicial Administrator

H. Howland suggested making some changes to the report. Additionally, E. Cortens suggested a resolved clause. H. Howland suggested reading the report and guidelines in detail before coming to any decision.

Since the UA meeting was running out of time, E. Cortens suggested extending the meeting to 6: 10 pm. Seconded by S. Murphy. Seeing no opposition, the meeting was extended.

H. Howland suggested talking to the Ombudsman first about this issue. R. Ataya wanted to know if the UA had got in touch with anyone who wanted to talk on this issue. To this, J. Blair said that it had not. R. Ataya said the UA should get in touch with those people first. H Howland said the report was a way of formalizing the issue, which he felt was important. J. Blair said that it was important to discuss this issue to work out a comprehensive report of issues that troubled the student body.

M. Lukasiewicz then asked if there was a Call to Question. H. Howland raised a Call to Question. R. Ataya seconded. Seeing no opposition, the UA moved to vote on the resolution. M. Lukasiewicz then motioned to voting on the report. 10 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstained. The report passed.

VI. Adjourn

E. Cortens motioned to adjourn. S. Murphy seconded. Seeing no opposition, the meeting was adjourned at 6:04 pm.

Respectfully submitted, Shriya Patnaik