DRAFT Minutes
University Assembly
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
4:30 — 6:30 p.m.
401 Physical Science Building

I. Call to Order

J. Cai called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m.

Attendance:

Present: K. Albert, J. Blair, R. Booker, J. Burns, J. Cai, T. Grove, R. Kay, N. La Celle, J. Il Lee, G. Mezey, E. Newbury, M. Paine, P. Scelfo, B. Schaffner, R. Wayne

Absent: A. Gitlin, E. Loew, E. McNelis

Others present: Representatives from the Office of the Judicial Administrator, the Office of the University Ombudsman, A. Mittman, K. Zoner (CUPD, Chief), CUPD Officer, E. Cortens, A. Epstein, A. O’Donnell

II. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes of the April 16, 2013 meeting of the University Assembly were approved unanimously.

III. Presentations

M B. Grant and A. Mittman gave a presentation on Policy 6.4. M. B. Grant stated that changes to the policy include the addition of sexual assault and harassment issues instead of the current location of these under the code. The presentation also described the parties responsible for investigations, reviews, and appeals under the policy.

J. Blair asked whether is to vote in favor of this policy. There were no objections voiced by members of the UA, so J. Blair was advised to vote in favor of the policy.

IV. Reports

E. Newbury asked that the reports from assemblies and committees be sent to her in the form of an email to save time during the meeting.

V. Old Business

R. 8: Calling for the Disassociation of the Public Safety Advisory Committee from the UA

M Paine asked why this resolution had been previously tabled. E. Newbury responded that the assembly did not provide enough notice to carry out a vote.

The UA voted on R. 8.

Resolution 8 passed with a vote of 12–0−0.

R. 9: A Resolution to Adopt the Cornell University Guidelines for the Office of the Ombudsman

R. Kay questioned the absence of any mention of investigation in the new guidelines. L. Falkson responded, stating that the office provides support and advice but does not launch or participate in investigations. She also noted that the office does not ever generate a public result, nor does it act in any other way as an investigative body.

The UA voted on R. 9.

Resolution 9 passed with a vote of 13–0−0.

VI. Business of the Day

Approval of University Hearing and Review Board Members

The UA approved a slate of appointments to the University Hearing and Review Board with a vote of 13–0−0.

R. 10: Resolution to Modify Campus Code to Clarify the Rights of Complainants to Appeal Summary Decision Agreements

G. Mezey noted that this resolution had been developed with the assistance of M. B. Grant’s office and the Judicial Codes Counselor. The resolution reorders paragraphs and makes changes to the timeline surrounding cases involving individual complainants.

J. Blair voiced his support for the resolution, stating that the CJC carefully considered this issue and met with all the major stakeholders.

The UA voted on R. 10.

Resolution 10 passed with a vote of 13–0−0.

R. 11: Resolution to Clarify Responsible Free Expression in the Campus Code of Conduct

G. Mezey introduced the resolution. He stated that the CJC spent a great deal of time on this issue in an effort to bring increased clarity to the code. The significant change provided is the definitive statement that no permit is required for outdoor demonstrations. Based upon the feeling of the majority of the CJC, a notification of the possibility of submitting a UUP form is also included.

R. Wayne noted that the resolution also states that a demonstration in response to another event is not automatically classified as unacceptable interference.

M Paine offered an amendment to add a clarifying sentence to describe formatting marks. This amendment passed without objection.

J. Burns stated that the Faculty Senate would release their report in about a week after conducting twenty interviews. Due to this fact, he felt that this discussion was premature and that the assembly should wait to vote on the issue. R. Booker asked if the assembly could hold another meeting this semester. This is not possible.

R. Weil stated that she voted against the resolution at the committee level because she found it confusing. She noted that the current resolution states the availability of the UUP form, but it does not explain why one would or would not decide to submit one. R. Lieberwitz agreed with these comments, adding that the resolution creates a back door for the UUP form to be a permit. She, too, felt that voting at this stage was premature. She also stated that the assembly has not given enough time for community response regarding the issue.

D. Evans, C. Davis, and M. Ajl of the community also asked that the UA postpone the vote. M. Paine thanked the community for their participation and asked G. Mezey about the duration of the public comment period.

G. Mezey responded that the comment period opened on April 23rd and closed at noon on the day of the last CJC meeting. R. Wayne added that the CJC had been considering the issue for a significant amount of time before they officially acted on it. Many people have been reached and a wide variety of voices were represented in the public comments.

R. Booker asked if the committee followed the required procedures in drafting and selecting this resolution. A. Epstein confirmed that no rules had been broken, though some optional recommendations had been set aside.

G. Mezey addressed J. Burns, asking him why none of the Faculty Senate investigators ever attended a CJC or UA meeting. J. Burns responded, stating everyone is very busy and some did not realize that the UA’s year ended today.

J. Burns stated that code changes are not necessarily needed simply because certain items were mishandled in relation to a single event. He also pointed out significant confusion among the voting body and the community, leading him to ask to postpone the vote.

P. Scelfo stated that he had seen all the revisions of the resolution as well as the other proposals considered by the CJC and does not fully understand the one currently before the UA. He asked that voting be postponed.

M Paine also stated that the issue could wait for further consideration next year.

The assembly suspended this discussion to allow Joe Lalley to speak about university parking rates.

J. Lalley stated that the permit system would be improved and simplified. Visitor experience will also be improved. He also spoke about student parking options new next year and increased signage and wayfinding. Fees would increase 2%.

J. Blair asked why Cornell pays its own department for parking its own vehicles. J. Lalley stated that there was no good reason for this and the problem simply had not yet been addressed. T. Grove added that the fee increase is unfortunate considering the lack of raises for the staff. M. Paine also expressed hope for a reconsideration of the parking rates at Hasbrouk and Maplewood.

Respectfully submitted,

Noah Wegener
Assemblies Clerk