Student Assembly

Student Assembly Meeting Minutes DRAFT
WSH: Memorial Room
4:45 p.m. — 6:00 p.m.
October 5, 2006

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:51 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Chris Basil, Carrie Bodner, Sarah Boxer, Mark Coombs, David Crockett, Shivaun Deena, Kate Duch, Adam Gay, Roger Gousse, Elan Greenberg, Vincent V. Hartman, Ryan Lavin , Grace Leonard, Danielle Fernandes, Ahmed Salem, Sarah Santana, Calvin Selth, CJ Slicklen, Kwame Thomison, Rachel Goldfarb, Mazdak Asgary

Late: Daniel Budish

Excused: Maddie Ehrlich

Unexcused: Neal Nisargand, Rammy Salem, Stacey Lynch

Others Present: Ari Epstein

III. Open Microphone

Austin Redmon (‘10) commented that the bike route symbols on the sidewalks around campus are in very poor shape. They are difficult to see, especially in the rain. He has also heard of bikers being ticketed for being on the wrong route because they couldn’t tell the difference in the signs. He said that it would be great if the SA could find a way to get them repainted.

IV. Approval of Minutes

There was a call for unanimous consent. It was seconded. There was no dissent, and the minutes from 9/28/06 were approved.

V. Announcements/Reports

Early Decision Discussion Update: E. Greenberg said they will be meeting on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 with Doris Davis to discuss the early decision debate going on nationally right now and Harvard and Princeton’s decisions to eliminate early decision. Anyone interested in attending the meeting should contact him.

S. Boxer encouraged people who haven’t had a chance to be very active to go out and talk to their constituencies about early decision. It is an issue that is easy to talk to people about. There are many different viewpoints and angles to this issue. Since it is such a big issue, they want to have as much information as possible.

E. Greenberg said the Day Hall Board Room, where the meeting is scheduled, holds about 20 people, but so far only 10 are interested. If anyone knows community members who are interested, they should also contact him.

Transfer Center News: D. Crockett said there was an article published in the Sun regarding shutting down the transfer center as part of the West Campus Initiative. There has been little information given to the transfers, and a lot of rumors have been started. He spoke with Joe Burke in residential affairs who told him the students are getting incorrect information. The plan is to knock down the transfer center over the summer. Next year, transfers will be placed together somewhere, likely on North Campus. After next year, the transfers will be dispersed in groups of 30; there will be no place for all of them to live together. In response, transfer students have formed a Transfer Center Renewal Committee and another working committee that will work with residential faculty. Their goal is to have a place for all transfer students to live together in the West Campus initiative; it could be similar to a program house.

K. Thomison reminded Representative Crockett that he could invite guests to have a discussion before the SA.

S. Box asked if all of the transfers are upset or if some people think the current plan is ok.

D. Crockett said most students are concerned, especially those who have siblings or know other people who are planning on transferring. Those students have a concern for the future. People without a future concern aren’t as interested, but most students do care about this.

S. Boxer asked if the lack of a transfer center might affect the number of transfers to Cornell.

D. Crockett responded that it definitely would affect the number of students who apply to transfer. The transfer center is a huge selling point for Cornell. He knows of alumni who say they chose Cornell specifically because of the center.

C. Selth said West Campus seems to be a better place for transfers, since North Campus is the freshman zone. He thinks it is possible to have something like the transfer center on West Campus; it could be arranged in the way things like the language house are. As long as they retain the staff they currently have to work in one of the other houses (where the transfers are), it should be possible. However, it may not be one building designated only for transfers. Instead it would be a section of a larger building where transfers are together.

D. Crockett said that though they may ask for one building just for transfers, they don’t expect to get it. Structuring the transfer center like one of the program houses would work. It is more important for transfers to be together than for them go get their own building.

Mike Walsh, graduate student liaison, said that he was a transfer student as an undergraduate (not at Cornell) so he appreciates this issue. He also spoke with Joe Burke regarding the idea of housing transfer students as Hasbrouck, which affects graduate students and their families on North. Joe Burke was suggesting that 270 transfers would be housed at Hasbrouck next year. There are currently 30 transfers living at Hasbrouck because the university has needed to move some undergraduates to North Campus due to a lack of space on West Campus because of the construction. Graduate students and residents of Hasbrouck only want the university to use this as a temporary solution, for one year. There is a concern that it may become long term.

K. Thomison asked Representative Walsh to summarize the issues Hasbrouck residents have.

M. Walsh said that Hasbrouck has had vacancy problems for various reasons. Since space on West Campus is limited, the university has taken the opportunity to fill these vacancies. The graduate residents understand the need for space but want the situation remedied quickly because living with undergraduates there affects their lives and families.

V. Hartman commented that the transfer center only holds 200 of the 350 transfers on campus; so not all transfers can live together anyway. To put all the transfers together on West would require a very large portion of a building.

Volunteering for United Way: C. Slicklen reminded the assembly that they will be helping to fundraise for United Way during the first half of Homecoming. He would appreciate everyone’s help. Also, they will be helping out during Into the Streets. If anyone is interested in either event, they should contact him.

Ivy Man: C. Bodner announced an Alpha Phi Philanthropy event called Ivy Man; Representative Slicklen will be participating. It is a male beauty pageant, including a swimsuit portion. She encouraged them to come Friday, October 13 at 7:30 p.m. in the Statler, $5 at the door.

VI. Business of the Day

Appropriations Committee Allocation: S. Boxer made a motion to move into executive session after new business to discuss this allocation. She would like to get a sense of the body in a more private, less formal setting.

M. Coombs asked if they would need to vote today.

S. Boxer said no.

Chris Basil N
Carrie Bodner Y
Sarah Boxer Y
Daniel Budish -
Mark Coombs Y
David Crockett Y
Shivaun Deena Y
Kate Duch Y
Maddie Ehrlich -
Danielle Fernandes Y
Adam Gay Y
Roger Gousse Y
Elan Greenberg Y
Vincent V. Hartman Y
Ryan Lavin Y
Grace Leonard Y
Neal Nisargand -
Ahmed Salem Y
Rammy Salem -
Sarah Santana Y
Calvin Selth Y
CJ Slicklen Y
Kwame Thomison -

R. Goldfarb asked if they mayor would still be attending next week’s meeting.

S. Boxer said yes and thanked her for the reminder.

The motion was seconded. There was no dissent, and the motion to move into executive session after new business was passed.

VII. Unfinished Business

R. 14 Resolution Regarding VP of PR Duties: C. Slicklen said the friendly amendment he made at the last meeting is not reflected on the hard copy the members have. The resolution should read that the newsletter will be distributed in print, once per semester. The reason for this is partially a cost issue; he feels it is a waste of resources. Also, they will not be able to reach very many people, so it is not that effective.

C. Selth asked if the only changes being made are those he just mentioned: distributed to student body in print, once a semester.

C. Slicklen ansered yes.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. A vote was taken via roll call. With a unanimous vote, the resolution passed.

VIII. New Business

R. 13 Resolution Regarding SA Purview: M. Asgary said this issue had been tabled at the last SA meeting of last year. There has been a problem in the past about whether or not the SA has purview over certain issues: local, national and international. Last year, this issue came up in regards to Resolution 29. The problem in certain cases is that debate on resolutions turns away from the merits of the resolution or the issue itself and focuses on whether or not the SA even has the purview to pass such resolutions. If they make an amendment to the charter, it will be clearer what the SA has purview over or not. Last year, he spoke with Dean Hubbell and Susan Murphy about this issue. They produced a statement, which he does not have available at this moment. The consensus was that the SA should consider resolutions if they directly affect higher education.

S. Boxer commented that the statement “directly affecting higher education” is very ambiguous. In her opinion, any major movement affects the students on campus and affects higher education. In the past, the SA has gone as far as to support wars, issues with the federal government, and issues in the LBGTQ community; these are very volatile issues. Maybe there is a line and there should be some things the assembly shouldn’t be doing, but issues like genocide somewhere might be important enough on campus to say they directly affect higher education. For example, if a representative from a regime or political movement is coming to campus, that directly affects our higher education. How do we draw the line?

There was a motion to extend the speaker’s time by one minute for a response by the authors. It was seconded.

A. Salem said it is impossible to list everything that would be included or excluded from the SA’s purview under this resolution. However, things like condemning governments: that is something they feel is not within the realm of directly affecting higher education. Other things like taking stances on wars, which Representative Boxer agrees, is also not a good idea.

M. Coombs asked, assuming they can work out Representative Boxer’s concern about the meaning of the wording, if this resolution would leave the door open for students to bring in concerns. For instance, would a student initiated effort to bring in an issue with a foreign government be able to come before the assembly?

M. Asgary responded that with the current wording, anyone can bring issues in for the assembly. The change in wording they are suggesting just makes the charter more specific. In addition, the wording of the charter currently (Bylaw 1.3) states that the SA should make reports on the issues it examines to the appropriate officials within the university. This doesn’t allow the SA to make recommendations to the president of the United States or anyone outside the university. The wording has to be a little ambiguous, but their changes should help shift the debate on issues form whether or not it’s within the purview of the SA and allow them to focus on the issue.

C. Selth recommended taking some time and presenting the statement from Dean Hubbell and Susan Murphy. He also suggested waiting to discuss this resolution until they received the statement from Provost Martin and the senior administration he mentioned last week. He agreed with other members saying that there are issues which would blur the lines about directly affecting higher education. He cited the debate about the Solomon Amendment the SA considered in the past, which would cut funding to universities who refuse to allow military recruiters. He asked who would determine whether or not resolutions qualify.

M. Asgary said the case of the Solomon Amendment is a good example of how an issue directly affects higher education because it deals with funding. He welcomed Representative Selth’s comments about waiting for the statements from administrators.

C. Selth expressed a concern that the assembly wouldn’t have time to hear the administrators’ statements before they had to consider the resolution for voting, which would lead to having to make edits on the floor at the next meeting. He made a motion to put this resolution on new business again for the next meeting to allow time to receive the statements.

M. Asgary said tabling new business items is not allowed.

C. Slicklen asked who decides what resolutions will qualify as being under the purview of the SA according to this new wording. He mentioned the SA’s involvement in Hurricane Katrina as another ambiguous topic.

A. Salem said the decision for which resolutions to consider would be left up to the SA members. The purpose of the amendment is to shift the focus of debates by specifying the purview of the SA. Some people may be more conservative or liberal in their definitions of what affects higher education; the goal of this amendment is not to end debate on those matters, just to shift discussion.

C. Slicklen asked if this resolution limits the ability of the SA and that matters should be decided on a case by case basis. If representatives feel it is not within the purview of the SA, they can abstain as was the case with resolution 29.

There was a motion to extend the speaker’s time by two minutes. It was seconded, and there was dissent. A vote was taken via hands and the motion to extend the time passed.

M. Asgary said if you look at issues like Katrina, the way the charter stands, the SA can issue statements or make actions on those issues as long as proposals are made to the appropriate officers of the university. Those issues are fine for the SA to handle as long as their efforts can be directed toward someone who can make a difference at the university level. The decision for which issues to consider may also be up to the chair’s interpretation, so it could be biased given any particular chair’s opinions.

A. Salem said he doesn’t think this resolution limits the SA’s abilities; it just shifts the focus. If everyone on the SA feels that a certain issue falls under this definition, then it will come before the SA. That is the reason the language is not very strict.

A. Gay commented that the resolution seems rather pointless given that the decision of whether or not something is within the purview of the SA eventually comes down to the SA. Anyone can make a case about why an issue directly affects higher education. For instance, someone could say that the cost of the war takes away resources and funding from the school so it directly affects higher education. This amendment seems unnecessary because the discussion they are trying to avoid will happen anyway.

E. Greenberg cited an example of an SA member from a few years ago who, as a midshipman in ROTC, resigned in part because of a resolution the SA had passed condemning the way in Iraq. She felt like she was no longer in a position to appropriately represent her constituency in engineering, at least in part because she is honor-bound not to speak against her chain of command.

A. Salem said they were aware of this situation. In response to Representative Gay’s comment, he said if they can prove that the war is directly taking money away from the SA, they could consider that issue. However, the general principle of the resolution is that the SA shouldn’t be taking stances on generic matters.

E. Greenberg said that the idea of the war in Iraq taking away money from students is not the type of statements that should be thrown around the SA. There is no proof of these statements.

A. Salem agreed with Representative Greenberg. He said this amendment reflects a tightening of the charter; it is not an end to debate. The goal is to set a new tone for the SA. If there is a university office that can lobby for brining back money to education from something like the war, then the SA could pass a resolution saying that office should or should not do something. If there is no proof of something like that, there is no point for the SA to consider it; it is a waste of time and takes away time from things that really do affect students.

A. Gay commented that his statement about the war in Iraq affecting funding was simply an example of how someone can construe anything to claim it directly affects higher education. He was not implying a connection between the two.

K. Thomison reminded the members to refrain from debate and only ask questions.

C. Selth reiterated that they should wait for the statements from the administration. He made a motion to end discussion on this issue. It was seconded. There was dissent. A vote was taken via hands and the motion to end debate was approved.

IX. Adjournment

There was a motion to move into executive session. It was seconded and there was no dissent. The SA moved into executive session at 5:38 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Gilbertson, SA Clerk
Office of Assemblies