Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
March 8, 2007
4:45 — 6:30 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:45 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Sarah Boxer, Daniel Budish, Mark Coombs, David Crockett, Shivaun Deena, Kate Duch, Maddie Ehrlich, Danielle Fenandes, Adam Gay, Roger Gousse, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Neal Nisargand, Remy Roizen, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Sarah Santana, Calvin Selth, CJ Slicklen, Kwame Thomison, Gene Weinstein

Excused: Grace Leonard

Unexcused: Jos� Gonzales

III. Open Microphone

M. Coombs asked if any members of the community would like to speak.

No one came forward to speak.

IV. Approval of Minutes

There were no corrections to the minutes. There was a call for acclimation; it was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the SA meeting on 2/22/2007 were accepted.

V. Announcements/ Reports

Election Results

The election results are recorded on the assemblies’ website.

UA Update — K. Duch

K. Duch said that she e-mailed everyone the link to the report on the Campus Code of Conduct published by the Codes and Judicial Committee.

Spring Break Bus Program Report — V. Hartman

V. Hartman said that almost all the bus tickets had sold out. There are still five tickets available. The SA sold about 350 tickets in total breaking even beyond belief.

Additional Announcements

R. Lavin said that there are still a few places available for participation in the Student Aid Lobbying Trip.

S. Santana said the she went to an open forum held by the Dean of CALS last week. The dean discussed renovations in the CALS school such as improved lighting. In the future, CALS is going to hire architect to completely remodel the Ag Quad. She also discussed how CALS does not currently have enough funding to open up the AEM minor to students in other colleges. Lastly, the college is looking into revising the biology major requirements

VI. Business of the Day

SAFC Appeals — S. Boxer

Cornell Herpetological Society

M. Treglia, president, said that the goal of the Cornell Herpetological Society is to provide a forum for the informal exchange of herpetological knowledge and information, including but not limited to natural history, ecology, and conservation efforts. They were denied funding on the basis that their group has less than 60% undergraduate membership. They properly submitted all of their documentation. The guest speakers are confirmed and would incur cancellation fees if they are to be denied funding. They are appealing on the basis of new information. Their group’s undergraduate membership is well over 60%. At the first hearing, they explained that the numbers on their application came from their list serve which does not qualify as active membership. There is no definition of active membership in the P&T Handbook. They also provided proof that all officers in the organization are undergraduates. The groups functions primarily to serve undergraduates and is organized entirely by undergraduates.

The SAFC said that the P&T handbook clearly states that groups must have at least 60% undergraduate membership to be funded. It is the responsibility of the group to make sure that they input accurate numbers to the budget application. It would not be fair to other groups who provided correct information on their budget application to fund a group who does not properly fill out its budget.

S. Boxer said that the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC did not error in allocating the funding. They believed that even though it was unfortunate, the group filled out the wrong numbers. There were members on the committee that felt the group should be funded because they were making an effort and going through the appeals process.

C. Selth said that groups should not be allowed to update their membership after they turn in their budget application. It is reasonable to expect organizations to have some sense of their undergraduate membership. He feels that the group should be held accountable for not correctly inputting their numbers.

M. Ehrlich pointed out that new information is strictly defined. New information is not considered to be a re-clarification. New information is information that could not possibly have been available prior to the budget application deadline.

V. Harman said that the rule is straightforward. Organizations seeking funding through the SAFC must have at least 60% undergraduate participation. The SAFC made a decision in accordance with this rule and therefore did not error.

A. Gay disagrees with this sentiment. He feels that the SA needs to take a step back. Without funding the group will not be able to operate successfully. The group has taken the time to appeal, they paid the student activities fee and the SA should support groups that come back and appeal. Holding individuals accountable for small errors is very detrimental. Although he realizes the process can’t be relaxed too much, there are only a few groups appealing and the SA should take that into account. He believes that the group should be funded.

C. Slicklen agrees with A. Gay. He asked if membership was defined as those individuals actually signed up and attending meetings or just those on the list serve.

L. Chernosky said that the rule is clear. The SAFC is not trying to dangle the money in front of the club. It is just abiding by the rules. If the SA disagrees with the situation, they should vote to overturn the SAFC’s decision.

K. Duch strongly agrees with A. Gay and C. Slicklen. The group made a full faith effort to fill out the budget accurately and on time. This one small error will cause the group to receive zero funding for the entire semester. She feels that the SA should vote to fund them.

R. Lavin said that during the appeals process the SA is supposed to be appellate judicial body. They should make their decisions in accordance with the guidelines set up by the SAFC. The situation is unfortunate but there is really nothing to do at this point that would fairly remedy it.

M. Treglia said that the numbers the group used were from the previous semester. He believes that there are some general problems with the funding process and things need to be clarified. The group is predominantly undergraduate and they have well over 60% undergraduate membership.

S. Miller-Little reminded the SA that they are voting on whether or not the SAFC errored in their decision.

M. Ehrlich said that she is sympathetic to the group’s situation.

The SA voted that the SAFC did not error. The Herpetological Society will not receive funding this semester.

CU Jazz

J. Abraham introduced himself as the treasurer of CU Jazz. He said that the SAFC changed its policy as to not allow contracts to be signed before funding is secured. The policy change came fairly last minute and their organization works well in advance contacting speakers and working out contract details as early as possible. They received little notice of the policy change and had already finalized a contract with a guest speaker. Additionally, the group believes it received conflicting information from the budget packet. The new policies document which described the change in policy also included an excerpt from the P&T Handbook which still contained the clause stating that contracts signed before January 18 were acceptable. The group believes that they did not receive notification of the policy change at an early enough date and conflicting information made it difficult to determine how to proceed.

L. Chernosky said that the SAFC made all of changes in time for the first day of the semester. The new policy sheet included in the budget packet explicitly states that the SAFC will not accept contracts signed prior to the start of the semester. The P&T handbook is updated before the first day of the semester. There were also signs that led him to believe that the group was aware of the policy.

S. Miller-Little said that the Student Activities Office put this policy into place because it does not want Cornell to get sued.

S. Boxer said that the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously that the SAFC did error. The committee felt that CU Jazz was being penalized for trying to get their budget together early. The policies changes were made public on January 22 and any group that tried to fill out the budget before his date was given inconsistent information. After finding out about the new policy, the group’s advisor held contracts that the group had been planning on sending out to wait for the appropriate date. The group was aware of the change and made an effort to follow the new policy. When the contract in question was sent out to be signed, the new rule was not in place. It does not seem appropriate to ask the group to tear up the contract at this point.

E. Greenberg said that it is very clear that there was a conscious member to follow the rules. He believes that the SAFC errored.

C. Slicklen said that this situation is a no brainer. The SAFC errored.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

J. Abraham said that CU Jazz fully intended to follow the policies put into place by the SAFC. However, they feel that there was simply not enough notification and clarification regarding the policy change. Had they received better notification and appropriate clarification they would have done everything possible to abide by the policy.

L. Chernosky reminded the SA that it is the organization’s responsibility to keep up to date on the policies of the SAFC. The purpose of the SAFC is not to deny groups funding but to protect groups who complete the funding process in accordance with the rules.

By a vote of 19 yeses to 2 nos, the SA voted that the SAFC did error.

Bridges to Community

Bridges to Community is a community service organization that was founded four years ago. The group organizes a construction trip to Nicaragua at least once a year. This semester, the group plans on taking 35 students to build six houses in five days. The trip is open to all members of the Cornell Community. The group believes that the SAFC errored in that they failed to recognize a digital signature on documentation from the national organization. Nowhere in the P&T handbook does it explicitly state that a signature has to be handwritten. They submitted the same documentation as they did last year when they were funded with no questions asked.

L. Chernosky said that he does not doubt the group’s integrity. However, when considering documentation, the SAFC must refer to the handbook which states that word documents are not considered appropriate documentation. The letter submitted by Bridges to Community was a word document.

S. Boxer said that the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously that SAFC did error. The copy of the documentation that Bridges to Community presented was in color and looked like it had come from organization.

C. Selth said that the Bridges to Community appeal was similar to a previous appeal. The group made a full good faith effort. The letter has an official letterhead. He said that there is no official standard as to what qualifies as a signature in the handbook. It is the duty of the SA to examine the documentation in situations such as these and make a determination.

There was a motion to call the previous question. It was seconded. There was dissent. There was a hand vote. By a vote of 17 yeses to 3 nos, the previous question was called.

Bridges to Community believes that the SAFC committed an error in that they did not recognize official documentation that had been digitally signed. Nowadays documents are generally accepted if they contain an organization/individual’s verification information. He said that the group submitted the same documentation as they did last year and submitted the forms on time. The group believes that there is no reason they should not be funded.

L. Chernosky said that when the SAFC received the documents, it was not completely clear that they were official and came directly form the organization. They made their decision based on the rational application of the guidelines in the President and Treasurer’s Handbook. He said that he does not believe that the document was forged and encouraged members of the SA to take that fact into consideration when voting.

By a vote of 19 yeses to 1 abstention, the SA voted that the SAFC did error. Bridges to Community will be funded.

Cornell Organization for Labor Action

Alexandra Berg introduced herself as the current president of COLA. She said that COLA is an organization that commits itself to the struggle of economic justice. The group does a lot of work pertaining to labor on the Cornell Campus, in Tompkins County and at the national level. At the initial budget hearing the organization was told that their funding would not be affected by the percentage of undergraduate participation. They noted on their application that they were an organization with 59.7% undergraduate membership. However, they were denied funding on the basis that they did not have 60% undergraduate membership. She said that when COLA went to the initial hearing, they were told that 60% requirement would not be applied in their case. Based on this information the group determined not to change their membership numbers when they could have.

J. Wells said that at their budget hearing, the organization brought in evidence of increased membership. There were new subscribers to the list serve and at least two more undergraduates began attending meetings in the time since budget applications were due. These two individuals move COLA’s undergraduate membership to well over 60%. In COLA’s view, the goal of the funding process is to determine whether or not the organization is a predominantly undergraduate organization. He said that COLA is one of the longest running student funded undergraduate organization on campus. If the SAFC has any doubt, they should just look at the group’s funding applications from the past 12 years. He said that there is no such thing as a percentage of a person so .7 percent should be rounded up.

S. Miller-Little said that the SAFC has guidelines for a reason. The purpose of the 60% rule is to ensure that that the undergraduates who pay the student activities fee are the ones who receive the benefits. He says that once you begin rounded it is difficult to determine the limits. The SAFC strives to be as objective as possible such as with all or nothing deadlines. The SAFC firmly believes that the presidents and treasurers of organization are responsible for reading and abiding by the P&T handbook. He said that the SAFC decided not to fund COLA because they believe funding should go to groups with undergraduate participation over 60%.

S. Boxer said that the majority of the Appropriations Committee felt that the SAFC did error. The vote was 8 yeses, 2 nos and 2 abstentions. The committee felt that if decimal points were permitted on budget applications, it would make sense to use them. If the SAFC does not want to have decimal points then it is fine but if they have them, they should use them. She said that most people felt that 59.7% should be considered 60% especially when considering that the group will receive zero funding on the distinction. There were also those who felt strongly that 59.7% was not 60%. Another factor to consider is that COLA did go to the official Cornell website after they were denied funding to determine the exact number of undergraduates on their list serve. There were ten more people than they had listed on their budget application which would put the group well over the 60% mark. COLA brought this information to their appeal. At this point they do have documentation that they are above 60% even if it was not there in the first place. The majority decision of the Appropriations Committee was based on the fact that 59.7% is interpreted as 60%.

V. Hartman said that he agrees with the SAFC. The representatives of the SA set standards to give to the SAFC and the SA said that 60% is the cutoff. As a judicial body in the appeals process, the SA should determine that the SAFC did not error. The group submitted their budget on time with numbers that did not satisfy requirements for funding. Only after they found out they would not receive funding did they make attempts to prove undergraduate participation greater than 60%. He said that if they gave every group on campus the option to increase membership after budget application are due even groups with 53% could likely increase their membership to 60% undergraduates. If the group cannot submit a budget on time with 60% undergraduate participation, they should not be funded.

E. Greenberg equated the situation to waiting for two cents in change at a Dunkin Doughnuts to express his belief in the absurdity of not rounding 59.7 to sixty. He understands that requirements have been put into place for a reason, but there is no way to tell if other groups encountered the same issue and rounded up on their applications. He believes that it is likely that other groups who encountered the same thing rounded up. COLA, in following the guidelines, was explicitly honest. There is no such thing as .7 of a person. He said that in the future they will round up and should have rounded up in this case.

S. Boxer said that when groups are filling out the budgets they put in numbers and the computer computes the percentages.

M. Coombs clarified that groups only determine numbers and do not determine percentages. He asked if it was normal practice for groups to leave percentages as decimals or to round up. He asked if it was regular practice to round.

S. Miller-Little said that on the budget application there are places for groups to enter the number of undergraduate, graduate, community members, faculty and staff participating in their organizations. The groups plug in numbers and never calculate any percentages. The computer calculates the percentages based on the numbers entered by the groups.

R. Salem agrees with S. Boxer. He does not feel that the group should receive zero funding the entire semester based on .3%. He said that the representatives on the SA are not machines and should have a heart.

C. Slicklen asked if the list of ten additional members that COLA provided were all undergraduates.

J. Wells said that the list is composed of students that asked to be added to the list serve as well as two undergraduate students who began attending meetings in February.

C. Slicklen asked if all the students of the list attend COLA meetings.

J. Wells said that there are only three people on the list that they would consider active and that could be added to the budget application membership category. Even one individual from the list would put COLA over the 60% requirement.

C. Slicklen asked how many active members COLA has�how many individuals would receive the benefit of being funded.

J. Wells said there are about 15–20 active undergraduate members. He could really only think of one truly active member that was not an undergraduate.

C. Slicklen clarified that the group is more the 60% undergraduates. It is undergraduates that are coming to the meetings and that will benefit from receiving funding. The SAFC guidelines do not state whether or not the 60% requirement refers to the actively participating members of an organization or to members subscribing to the list serve of an organization.

R. Lavin said that he liked how E. Greenberg made a mockery of situation by relating it to waiting for change at Dunkin Doughnuts. They are putting in the numbers and the SAFC commissioners should exercise their discretion in rounding up.

A. Gay said that it is not responsibility of the SAFC to round up if the groups provide membership numbers that do not satisfy the 60% requirement. Allowing the SAFC to round opens the door to subjectivity.

S. Boxer said that she would appreciate a level of decorum. The issue is very important. In the Appropriations Committee appeal, the treasure of COLA mentioned that the treasurer said that when she entered the numbers, she assumed that computer would round when calculating the percentage. Once again, if decimal points are calculated it would make sense to use them. She asked the representatives to keep in mind that a group’s entire budget is in question.

R. Roizen asked if the documentation indicating increased membership after the budget deadline constitutes new information.

S. Miller-Little said that the SAFC classifies new information as information that could not possibly be had prior to original submission. In this case the SAFC does not consider data from the list serve to be new information because it could have been obtained prior to the budget application submission.

R. Roizen asked why this was so considering that it is not possible for a group to know that individuals would seek to join the group following the budget application deadline.

S. Miller-Little clarified that COLA had said that the members listed on the documentation provided after the budget had been submitted were not new members.

A. Berg said that on the list there are two new members who asked to be placed on the list serve and started attending meetings after the group submitted their budget.

R. Roizen said that she has to agree with the SAFC that 59.7 is not 60 and that the group should have realized this when filling out there budget. She does however feel that the documentation proving increased membership following the application deadline constitutes new information and puts them over the 60% requirement.

K. Duch asked COLA to clarify their statement that they had asked someone if 59.7% would be a problem to which the group received no for an answer.

A. Berg said that group was told explicitly by a commissioner that the 60% requirement was not going to affect them in this case. She said that the commissioner advised them to be over the 60% mark in the future but did not suggest changing the numbers when they had the opportunity to do so. They could have remedied the problem if they know it was going to be a problem.

K. Duch said that A. Berg’s previous statement speaks volumes. A commissioner told COLA that it would not be a problem and that the group did not need to change the numbers.

C. Selth said that one of the benefits of the appeals process is that it points out problems in the SAFC policy and applications process so these problems they can be addressed. He said that he is going to vote to give this group funding and hopes that by next semester the SAFC will establish a policy solving this problem. It would be good to fund groups with more than 59.5% undergraduate membership.

M. Asgary thanked the co-chairs of the SAFC for coming to the SA meeting. He said that put a lot of time and effort into determining the budget allocation and feels as if a lot of people have been critical of them at the meeting. He said that some of the seemingly unfair funding issues that have come up at the meeting at not the SAFC’s fault. They are responsible for upholding and enacting the rules that are already put in place. He also said that the SAFC is a committee of the SA and the SA can thus overturn its decisions. He mentioned a club from last year that had fewer than 60% undergraduate membership at the time the budget application was due. At the appeal, this group provided documentation indicating that their membership had grown to over 60% undergraduates and the SA voted to fund them. He feels that although 59.7% is not 60% the intention of the rule is to make sure that the Student Activities Fee gets allocated to predominately undergraduate organizations. Even though he feels that the documentation does not constitute new information, it is clear that the money is going to undergraduates. Based on past precedent and the fact that the intention of the rule is being fulfilled, he asked everyone to vote in favor of funding this group.

S. Miller-Little said that the percentage is referring to the entire undergraduate membership. The percentage is not referring to the arms, legs and fingers of individuals. For some groups, 1 person could be .3%. He reiterated the difficulty in determining when to stop rounding once you start. The SAFC strives to maintain objective standards and rounding contradicts this aim. Everyone involved knows what to expect when standards are upheld.

M. Ehrlich said that she had a hard time with this appeal. If the SA and SAFC start permitting rounding they open a large door. For example what happens if a group comes in with undergraduate membership at 59.4%.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent.

There was a hand vote to determine whether or not to call the previous question. The previous question was called.

J. Wells said that the group currently has over 60% undergraduate membership and they have documentation constituting new information that proves their increased membership. COLA should be funded.

L. Chernosky said that it is not the SAFC’s place to be subjective. Their ability to be objective is why the SA entrusts them with over a million dollars. They must abide by the P&T Handbook.

An individual from the audience said that the event for which COLA requested funding for has already happened. The group has a lot to pay for and really needs the funding.

K. Thomison said that the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC did error.

By a vote of 15 yeses, 2 nos, to 4 abstentions, the SA voted that the SAFC did error.

S. Santana brought up significant digits. If the SAFC is going to have a 60% rule, numbers would have to be rounded to two digits. If the SAFC did not want to round, the percentage requirement would have to be stated as the 60.0% rule.

Art Beyond Cornell

Kathleen McDermott introduced herself as a sophomore and the treasurer of Arts Beyond Cornell.

The co-president of the organization said that members of Art Beyond Cornell are volunteers who teach art lessons at a juvenile detention center in Lansing. The group goes twice a week spending about an hour with the individuals there. Art Beyond Cornell is the juveniles connection to the outside world and the art lessons are their only mode of self expression. Funding for art has been cut so the juveniles do not have any connection to art. The kids there are extremely bored. Art Beyond Cornell believes that what they do is very important and have received much positive feedback in the two years since they have begun the lessons.

K. McDermott said that the group is requesting funding for art supplies. Their request was denied on the basis that art supplies are disposable goods. They are appealing on the basis of discrimination. She said that the Arts Beyond Cornell believes that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of art in our society. They view art as durable and something lasting. Art supplies are not used and discarded. They are used to make something permanent, something of value, and something that has a lasting affect on the individuals in the juvenile detention center. They said they went to a help session and believe that their case is an exception. Fine arts do not really fit into any of the categories designated by the SAFC.

A member of the club who joined the panel reiterated the importance of the group and the positive feedback they have received for their work. She said that art supplies are vital to the group and to not fund them would prevent the group from functioning.

L. Chernosky said that he feels that the Art Beyond Cornell appeal is the perfect example of an appeal. As a result of this appeal, the SAFC will looking into changing the P&T Handbook to take art supplies into account. He believes that this group deserves funding but the SAFC had to fund the group as it did because they are bound by the handbook.

S. Miller-Little said that they have dealt with similar situations in the past. Areas that were once gray can be codified in the handbook based on issues that arise during appeals. In this way, fine arts will have a permanent and consistent mode of seeking funding.

S. Boxer said that the Appropriations Committee voted almost unanimously that the SAFC did error. The committee discussed whether this issue would be resolved in the future which the SAFC just clarified. The committee felt that even under the current guidelines in the handbook, Art Beyond Cornell qualified for funding. Art supplies are technically tools in that they are used to create something else that lasts for years. The supplies Art Beyond Cornell are requesting are not comparable to items such as crayons. The group also does not dispose of the work that their students create and display it in art shows. The committee appreciates the SAFC’s willingness to change the handbook but feels that Art Beyond Cornell deserves funding in accordance with the current rules.

C. Selth pointed a picture of an art show that was circulated at the meeting. The wall in the picture was covered in art indicating that Art Beyond Cornell does not dispose of what they produce with the arts supplies they are requesting funding for. The art supplies are in no way equivalent to markers and posters other groups use to make signs for a bake sale and then throw away.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

Art Beyond Cornell reiterated the importance of art supplies to the successful functioning of their organization and how their organization makes a positive impact on the individuals being held in the juvenile detention center.

L. Chernosky personally thanked Arts Beyond Cornell for going through the appeals process. The concerns raised by their appeal will be addressed in the future. He also thanked them for putting on great events in the community.

By a vote of 18 yeses to two abstentions, the SA voted that the SAFC did error.

Women’s Club Volleyball

K. Thomison said that women’s club volleyball is not present at the meeting and that the SAFC will explain why.

L. Chernosky said that the women’s club volleyball appeal was a simple case of miscommunication. The SAFC thought the team had to qualify for the national competition for which they requested funding. It became clear in the appeals process that they were already guaranteed a spot. With this information clarified, the SAFC did not feel that it was necessary for the group to come to the SA meeting and supports them completely.

S. Boxer said that the SAFC has already admitted that they did error and the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to uphold that admission.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

The SA voted unanimously that the SAFC did error. Women’s club volleyball will receive funding.

CU Debate

N. Stone, president, said that he received an e-mail stating that CU Debate would receive zero funding for their budget. He believes that CU Debate acted in good faith. Their treasurer submitted an online budget application and the SAFC must not have received it due to a computer glitch. The group properly submitted all their documentation. It would not even be rational to forge the simplest part of the application process when they had put so much effort into collecting 90+ pages of documentation.

S. Miller-Little said that there were several peculiarities to this case. First of all, over 350 groups successfully submitted their budgets. CU Debate was the only organization that had difficulty. There advisor did not sign the budget. Last years poster rates are also on the budget instead of the updated ones. The SAFC believes that the group forgot to submit an online budget and printed out a copy of last years saved budget claiming computer problems

S. Boxer said that the Appropriations Committee was very split regarding the outcome of this appeal. The majority voted that the SAFC did not error in a 5 to 4 vote. A 2/3 vote is needed to overturn the decision of the committee. The facts in the appeal are not clear and it turned into a he said, she said debate. It is unclear as to why the CU Debate budget was not properly received.

R. Salem asked why CU Debate forgot to print their budget upon submission like the application instructs groups to do.

J. Taylor said that he forgot and did not think much of it because he did not anticipate such problems. He also expressed concern that the SAFC does not send out a confirmation e-mail.

N. Stone said that the group, as they previously explained, had not gotten a signature on their budget due to scheduling conflicts. He was appalled at the accusations the SAFC were making towards the group and thought that the SAFC’s position had changed 180 degrees since the previous appeal. He understands the SA and SAFC’s skepticism but suspects that J. Taylor attempted to fill out an old copy of the budget application and to submit that one online. N. Stone said that he e-mailed members of the SAFC regarding what the problem with their budget was over the past couple of days and had received no response.

K. Thomison said that no response was sent because the SAFC was still trying to determine what the problem was.

K. Duch said that it was unfair that CU Debate was not made aware of the accusations prior to the meeting.

J. Taylor recalls the issue of the incorrect poster rate being brought up in the appeal. The SAFC did not discuss this with a tone of accusation or implied forgery.

M. Coombs asked the co-chairs of the SAFC and A. Epstein, Office of Assemblies, if they believed that CU Debate was presenting false information.

The SAFC said yes.

S. Boxer said that it was just brought to her attention that the budget CU Debate had saved on their computer and the one they printed out claiming to be the budget they had attempted to submit had space for a Priority 4, Priority 5, and Priority 6. This clearly makes it a budget from last year when the SAFC operated according to a yearly budget. This year the SAFC does a semester budget and there is only space for Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3 on the application.

M. Coombs asked the present members of CU Debate if they feel as if any person in their organization lied or presented false information.

J. Taylor and N. Stone both said absolutely not believing that group acted in good faith.

S. Miller-Little said that it was a physical impossibility to have mistakenly given CU Debate the wrong link to an annual budget�one from last year.

C. Slicklen reminded the SA that the issue at hand is to determine whether or not the SAFC errored not whether or not CU Debate acted unethically.

M. Asgary said that since J. Taylor submitted the budget application from his home computer, there was no way to determine whether or not he actually submitted it.

S. Boxer said that she does not feel that the meeting was not the appropriate place to discuss the ethical conduct of CU Debate. In a somewhat similar case in the past where a budget application went missing, the SA voted that the SAFC did not error.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. There was a hand vote. The question was called.

CU Debate believes that they did submit an online budget application and acted in good faith. If they had been made aware of the accusations against them they could have come better prepared to address them.

The SAFC feels that there are many discrepancies relating the budget application. It contains last year’s poster rates, priorities and was not signed by the advisor. It was also the only 1 of over 350 budgets that did not get properly received. Since they did not receive the budget application on time there was no way to fund the group.

By a vote of 13 yes to 5 abstentions, the SA voted that the SAFC did error. CU Debate will not receive funding.

VII. Business of the Day

R. 32 Resolution Regarding Ad-Hoc Charter Committee — M. Asgary, E. Greenberg, K. Thomison

K. Thomison moved Resolution 32 from new business to business of the day. There was no dissent.

M. Coombs made himself a cosigner of the resolution.

K. Thomison said that this resolution entrusts M. Asgary to chair a committee that will review and update the charter. The SA has passed at least seven charter changes since September 2005 and they have not been officially incorporated to the charter.

M. Asgary said that the reason that the resolution has to be voted on today is because it gives the committee only four weeks to draft proposed changes. After fours weeks they will report to the president of the SA.

There was a call for acclimation. There was no dissent. The resolution passed unanimously.

VIII. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun
SA Clerk