Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
March 29, 2007
4:45–6:30 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:48 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Sarah Boxer, Mark Coombs, David Crockett, Shivaun Deena, Kate Duch, Danielle Fernandes, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Grace Leonard, Neal Nisargand, Remy Roizen, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Sarah Santana, Calvin Selth, CJ Slicklen, Kwame Thomison, Gene Weinstein

Excused: Daniel Budish, Maddie Ehrlich, Ryan Lavin

Unexcused: Jos� Gonzales, Roger Gousse

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 the Minutes

There were no corrections to the 3/8/2007 minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the 3/8/2007 SA meeting were approved.

V. Announcements/Reports

Dining Committee Update

M. Coombs said that on Tuesday, March 27, Chef Steve Miller lead the dinning committee and other interested SA members on a tour of the North Campus dining facilities. At its past meeting, the committee had a very long agenda. He said that nutrition labels on items in the ivy room should be available shortly. They are working on getting a column into the Daily Sun discussing Big Red Bucks and why they are better than meal equivalencies. He said that once students understand why the switch from meal equivalencies to BRBs occurred they are generally in favor of BRBs. Plastic bag recycling continues to be a topic of discussion and members are looking into it. He said that extending the hours of Olin Caf� is a matter of facilitating communication. There was discussion of possibly compensating the dining committee members for the work that they do. For example, the SA could purchase meal subsidies for members of the committee. Last year, dining sold 500 meal tickets on slope day but 584 were cashed in. This means that some tickets were counterfeit. The issue is being looked into.

M. Asgary thanked those individuals who attended the tours of the dining halls. He said that the executive chef was surprisingly open to suggestions and was happy to take into account the opinions of the dining committee. The committee toured the dining halls in RPCC and Appel. In the near future they will be touring the dining facilities on West Campus and Risley. Automatic coffee dispenser machines will be made available on campus.

S. Boxer said that there was no plan to buy more of the meal tickets that were counterfeited for slope last year again this year.

R. Salem asked if the SA label was going to be placed on the nutrition label.

M. Asgary said that the SA logo was important and that dining has at least agreed to put it on an add in the sun and on pamphlets around campus giving nutrition information.

G. Weinstein said that numerous organizations are working on nutrition labeling and it would be unfair to only represent the SA on the label. They are not the ones producing the food.

K. Thomison said that it is a PR issue. If the SA put in the effort, they should get recognition.

K. Thomison said that he received a four-foot tall plush Stewie Griffin doll in the mail from FOX. FOX is conducting a new contest called “Pass the Stewie.” To take part in this contest students must take pictures with the Stewie doll around campus and upload the photos to the designated website. K. Thomison said that he, as the President of the student government, selects five pictures to submit. The school that wins will be announced during an episode of family guy. The picture will be shown on air as well. There is a separate contest where FOX will choose from all the pictures on the website, regardless of the five selected by student body presidents. The winner of this contest will be sketched into an episode of Family Guy.

R. Salem asked if only one person could be in the picture.

K. Thomison said that the picture is supposed to me taken with only one person in it.

Finance Report- S. Boxer

S. Boxer said that the Appropriations Committee had a very productive meeting with Alan Katz, the Financial Director for Athletics. Athletics is planning on reapplying for byline funding. They discussed initiatives that athletics hope to pursue which relate to homecoming, free sporting events for students and fitness center fees. She announced that the byline funding process has begun. She held office hours today for two hours and met with representatives from a number of the twenty or so groups that will be applying for funding. All budgets will be due by the end of the semester. S. Boxer said that she will be submitting a resolution next week that hopefully extends the budget deadline to May 25. A number of groups have already asked for extensions and the Office of Assemblies does not object to an extension. She feels that it would be better to have a uniform deadline.

VI. Business of the Day

There was a motion to move Resolution 39 to business of the day. It was seconded. There was no dissent. Resolution 39 was moved to business of the day.

USA Today Discussion — R. Irwin

R. Irwin said that she works for USA today and is the regional marketing director. She has been working with Cornell on the Collegiate Readership Program since it was began in 2004. She also works with 55 other universities in the area. The Collegiate Readership Program provides undergraduate students with access to free newspapers throughout campus. The program is funded through the Student Activities Fee. As the program’s byline funding has increased over the years, the locations where students can pick up papers as well as the numbers of papers provided have increased. The Collegiate Readership Program newspaper displays are now conveniently located throughout North, West and Central campus and Collegetown. Displays are located in living/learning environments, in academic buildings and in community centers. The program was able to bring in the editor of USA today, a reporter from USA Today attended the Ivy Council and Cornell was featured in the Collegiate Readership Program Newsletter. Based on feedback, these are initiatives that the program would like to pursue.

M. Asgary thanked R. Irwin for coming to the meeting. He asked how the allocation of papers was determined and if it was possible to change the allocation of papers providing more New York Times and fewer USA Todays.

R. Iwrin said that she looks at the data of how many papers are picked up weekly. At the beginning of the program equal numbers of New York Times and USA Todays were provided, however more New York Times are currently provided because they have proved to be more popular among Cornell students. The goal is to have students able to pick up a paper any day in any location on campus. If more funding becomes available more New York Times can be provided as well.

S. Boxer clarified that R. Irwin has done a lot of research on the newspaper display locations. Which newspapers go faster tends to depend on the location. In the Arts Quad New York Times are gone by early afternoon however where more athletes are located, USA Today tends to go more quickly than the New York Times. The distribution really seems to balance out. She also mentioned that the Intrafraternity Council has recently adopted a program through which newspapers will be delivered to the Greek houses each day. USA Today has proven more popular in this realm.

C. Slicklen asked R. Irwin if she had a business partnership with the New York Times and whether or not the program could be expanded to include other newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal.

R. Irwin said that she does work with the New York Times and speaks on their behalf. It is possible to include other newspapers however, the Wall Street Journal has elected to not participate.

R. Salem asked if any other publications were being considered for the program.

R. Irwin said that it is essentially up to the SA. When the program began, the Ithaca Journal was provided. However, based on student feedback and the input of the SA, it was determined that USA Today and the New York Times were the best combination of publications to provide. Three publications could be provided but the allocation of each would be less due to limits in funding. It was also thought that the Cornell Daily Sun adequately incorporates local news.

M. Asgary said that the SA logo has changed from the one that is displayed on the newspaper display location. He asked if it was possible to change the logo.

R. Irwin said that it was possible to change the logo. She had also thought about changing the newspaper displays to make it more obvious that the newspapers are free. Right now it may not be obvious to students that although they must swipe their id cards, they will not be charged.

M. Asgary asked what other publications the SA could look into providing,

R. Irwin said that students often favor papers from their hometowns. The program tires to choose papers that appeal to the entire student body which is why the New York Times and USA Today are currently provided. She feels that Cornell’s choices are a good match.

K. Thomison thanked R. Irwin for coming.

Resolutions 30 and 40 are timely issues that should be responded to sooner than later.

There was a motion to move Resolution 30 to business of the day. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

There was a motion to move Resolution 40 to business of the day. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a vote of 14 to 2, the motion passed.

Resolution 39 — Resolution Regarding CJC Report & Code of Conduct — K. Duch and X. Kong

K. Duch said that the UA received the CJC Report. The UA is going to send the report and a cover letter to President Skorton. The GPSA passed the same resolution. It basically states that the students support the findings of the CJC. She wants the resolution to be voted on today because the UA is forwarding their report to President Skorton on Sunday, April 1.

S. Boxer asked why time was an issue with regards to passing the resolution.

K. Duch said that President Skorton gave the UA a timeframe in which they could examine the report and the deadline for their recommendation is either April 1 or 2. It would be good to include the SA’s opinion in the recommendation. The report basically concludes that a) the Judicial Administrator should remain independent; b) the UA should retain oversight over the Code of Conduct; and c) a uniform judicial process should be retained for campus judicial proceedings.

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

R. 30 Resolution Regarding PCC

K. Thomison said that the resolution commends President Skorton for signing the Presidential Climate Commitment (PCC). The PCC is a document outlining steps for campuses to become climate neutral. Although the timeline for actual successful implementation is uncertain, the document establishes a timeline for creating a plan. The resolution also asks that students be involved in the planning process.

R. Salem asked what it means to be climate neutral.

K. Thomison said that certain industrial processes send greenhouse gases into the air. These gases negatively affect the climate and lead to global warming. Climate neutrality means not having an effect on the climate

N. Nisargand said that the emphasis is on establishing renewable energy sources and cutting down on the total amount of energy used. For example, new buildings will hopefully have automatic faucets and slow flush toilets.

C. Selth said that he is very pleased to see Cornell taking action in regards to climate neutrality. He feels that it is very important for the students and the SA to really show their support for President Skorton and that they are appreciate his signing of the PCC.

C. Slicklen said that the resolution regarding crisis management presented to the SA this month was voted down in part because the SA felt that students were not qualified to advise professionals on the issue. This resolution raises a similar issue in that it is requesting student input in a complex issue that students may know little about. He said that he is confused as to how some individuals on the SA believe that students are not qualified to advise people on shoveling snow but they that they are knowledgeable enough regarding climate neutrality.

K. Thomison said the resolution is attempting to ensure that students’ voices are heard. The students will be paying the Green Energy Fee and the sponsors believe that if students are paying for a service, they should have some input as to how the money is spent. He also said that many students on the Cornell Campus including those active in Kyoto Now! are very knowledgeable about sustainability.

C. Slicklen believes that precedent has been set. He feels that if the SA presents this resolution without the second clause, President Skorton will still be open to seeking student input.

There was a motion to strike the statement “Be it further resolved that the Student Assembly request representation for up to two assembly members on the institutional structures that will guide this action plan.” The motion was seconded.

C. Selth does not see the correlation between the debate on the crisis management resolution and the resolution at hand. He thinks that the clause is a good thing and should be left in the resolution.

A. Gay agrees with C. Selth. The issues in the resolutions are fundamentally different. Additionally there are numerous students on the Cornell Campus including those involved in Kyoto Now! who have proactively learned about climate neutrality and are very knowledgeable on the issue. The input of these students is appropriate and he does not understand why the SA would attempt to silence student voices. He believes that the clause should remain in the resolution.

V. Hartman feels that the clause should be left in the resolution because it appears to be the point of the resolution. The rest of the resolution is just commending President Skorton. If representatives do not agree with this clause it would logically follow that they do not agree with the resolution and should thus just vote down the entire resolution.

N. Nisargand said that the crisis management resolution was based on a time issue. This resolution is in regards to a 10 or 15 year plan. He feels that the crisis management resolution was voted down not based on students lack of expertise but about the inappropriateness of seeking student input based on the time frame in which the decisions relating to crisis management must be made.

A. Salem echoed what C. Slicklen said. Climate neutrality is way more complex than shoveling snow. He also thinks N. Nisargand made the best point in defense of leaving in the clause being debated. However, precedent has been established. The clause should be stricken.

There was a motion to call the previous question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By a vote of 2 to 16, the motion failed.

A. Salem asked if there was any consideration about how signing the PCC would affect future tuition costs.

K. Thomison said that tuition cost has not been discussed at length and that no numbers are available. It is widely thought that the social benefit outweighs the economic costs. In the beginning, promoting climate neutrality will always cost more money because there is currently not enough technology. At this point in time, traditional energy is cheaper than renewable energy.

M. Asgary asked what the institutional structures mentioned in the resolution are.

K. Thomison said that is currently no the structure in place. Part of the purpose of the resolution is to let President Skorton know that, from the beginning, students and the SA want to be involved.

M. Asgary asked why the resolution designates representation for up to only two Assembly members on the future institutional structures when there is no awareness of what the institutional structures will be. Perhaps five representatives would be more appropriate. He asked why designate the numbers without knowledge of the structure.

K. Thomison said that M. Asgary had a good point and was in favor of not specifying the number of representatives.

M. Asgary said that there are many students not on the SA who are very knowledgeable about climate neutrality. He asked if they would have representation as well. The resolution only requests representation for SA members.

K. Thomison said that there are many students knowledgeable about the issue. He was just hoping to ensure that SA members have a say because other groups have their own mechanisms for ensuring that their voices are heard.

There was a motion to strike the words “up to 2 “ from the resolution so the clause reads “Be it further resolved that the Student Assembly request representation for Assembly members on the institutional structures that will guide this action plan.”

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. There was a hand vote. The motion was passed unanimously. The words “up to two” were stricken from the resolution.

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

N. Nisargand said that it is clear that now is the appropriate time to pass this resolution. He encouraged assembly members to vote for it.

K. Thomison said that in case there are any concerns about economic nuances of this resolution, technology is improving. It is time to move into the next era and technology is following the trend towards achieving climate neutrality.

By a vote of 17 to 1, Resolution 30, as amended, passed.

R.40 Resolution Regarding Action on Green Energy Fee Referendum — N. Nisargand, M. Perkins, E. Rochon, K. Sauer, C. Selth

C. Selth said that 79% of students supported the Green Energy Fee. The sponsors of the resolution realized that they made an error in listing the student actives fee as the funding source. The Student Activities Fee is paid only by undergraduates and thus should primarily benefit undergraduates. The money gathered through the Green Energy Fee would benefit the entire Cornell community. Other programs funded through byline funding benefit primarily undergraduates such as the Collegiate Readership Program discussed earlier. Additionally, the SAF is growing and the assembly is under pressure to keep the fee low. He does not want the green Energy Fee to compete with other organizations that are byline funded. Additionally, the Green Energy Fee should not be included in the SAF because 53% of the students who supported the fee believed that it should be optional. Currently, there is no mechanism for students to select which parts of the SAF they wish to pay for. The sponsors met with Susan Murphy to discuss this issue. She was pleased that the students supported the Green Energy Fee but was under the impression that it would become a part of the SAF. She said that if the SA wants the fee to be separate from the SAF, they need to vote promptly on the issue. The sponsors hope to see the option to pay the fee implemented in the fall.

S. Santana asked the sponsors to clarify how implementing the opt-out option would work.

C. Selth said that there would most likely be a deadline. Students would need to go online and choose to opt-out of the fee by that deadline to avoid paying the fee. Obviously, there should be a lot of advertising to ensure that students are aware of the fee and the deadline. If students do not opt-out, they will be charged. Profits based on opt-in options are typically about 20% whereas profits based on opt-out options are typically 80%.

M. Asgary asked who was going to be in charge of the money gathered from the Green Energy Fee.

C. Selth said that the referendum states that the Kyoto Task Team will be a key administrator of the money generated from the fee. He clarified that there is an infrastructure in place to allocate the funds.

M. Asgary asked if it was appropriate to assume that the 79% vote in favor of the fee is representative of the entire student body due to the low election turnout.

C. Selth said that he was to a degree embarrassed at number of students who voted in the SA elections. He noted that Kyoto Now! has more signatures in favor of the fee than the entire number of individuals who voted on the referendum. He said that he is pretty certain that the good majority of undergraduates would support having an optional Green Energy Fee.

M. Asgary asked if the sponsors felt that the opt-out option is a kind of trickery.

C. Selth said he does not see the opt-out option as trickery. It is a strategy that will bring in a greater profit.

M. Coombs said that he does not feel that the opt-out option is disingenuous. However, out of a sense of caution, he would much prefer to see the fee as opt-in.

There was a motion to amend the resolution to make the Green Energy Fee opt-in as opposed to opt-out. It was seconded. There was dissent.

K. Duch said that the fee should be opt-out. She supports the Green Energy Fee but feels that if she actually had to sign online and opt-in she would not pay the fee. Students are busy and concerned with other things and may not take the time to opt-in although they do support the fee.

C. Selth said that he is concerned that students who would not mind paying the fee will forget to go online and opt-in. Failure of students to opt-in when they actual support the fee will dramatically affect the resources the Kyoto Task Team has to work with. Kyoto Now! is thinking of new and beneficial ways to use the money gathered by the fee. It would be terrible to limit them just because students forgot to opt-in.

M. Perkins said that most students are supportive. The fee is only five dollars and he feels that there will not be much incentive for students to go online and opt-in.

M. Asgary said that he supports the idea. He noted, however, that there is no infrastructure to ensure that people will be made aware of the fee and how to opt-out of it.

A. Salem believes that the fee should remain opt-in. By making the fee opt-out, true support for the green energy initiative cannot be determined. He believes that the individuals who actually care about the resolution will take the time to opt-in. Opt-in works better with the strategy to show that students really support climate neutrality.

R. Salem said that he thinks that opt-out is a good idea. Cornell students are smart and can figure out how to opt-out of fees they do not want to pay. He also asked how the sponsors plan to make students aware of their ability to opt-out.

C. Selth said that many students appreciate the student activities fee but may not choose to pay the near 200 dollars if given the option. The Green Energy Fee is similar. If students miss the deadline for opting-out there would be some mechanism they could utilize to get their money back.

C. Basil said that the fee should be opt-out. His closest friends did not vote for him in the SA election even though they supported him because of the effort it required. In reality it is all about the money and students do not have enough incentive to opt-in.

M. Coombs said that the opt-in option stresses personal responsibility. One option pays more deference to the student and the other pays more deference to the program. He wants to make sure this program is fair to the students and thus it should be opt-in. The SA should have faith that the students know how important the issue is.

A. Gay said that the fee should be opt-out. Student support for the fee has already been expressed. A burden should not be placed on the students to opt-in after they have already expressed their support. Asking students to be responsible and opt-out of a fee is not disingenuous.

V. Hartman said that if the Green Energy Fee is opt-in students will have less incentive to put forth five dollars because they can free ride off the money provided by other students.

E. Greenberg said that he believes that the fee should be opt-out. There are numerous things on campus that are taken for granted. He gave the Johnson museum as an example. He feels that given the option, many students would not personally fund the art museum because they may not go. However, having the museum enriches the Cornell Campus. In order to drive social policy, an active role needs to be taken. The fee should be opt-out to see results.

D. Crockett thinks that the fee should be opt-out. If opt-in is chosen, students will be inconvenienced. As the elections results show, it is an inconvenience for students to sign online and check boxes.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a vote of 16 to 1, the motion passed. By a vote of 4 to 13, the amendment failed. The fee will be opt-out if the resolution passes.

V. Hartman said he believes the SA should go the administration and attempt to make the Green Energy Fee a part of the bursar fee.

There was a motion to strike the words “opt-out” from the first be it therefore resolved clause. It was not seconded.

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

N. Nisargand said that it has become clear why the Green Energy Fee does not belong under the SAF and why the fee should be opt-out. He encouraged members to support the resolution.

C. Selth said that Kyoto Now! and various assembly members have been working on sustainability for a very long time. The resolution presents Cornell with a great opportunity and it should be taken advantage of.

M. Asgary encouraged members to vote against the resolution because many students are not aware that they can opt-out of the two hundred dollar student activities fee. How should they then be aware they could opt-out of the Green Energy Fee.

Dean Hubbell said that he supports sustainability. He however does not want to see the money gathered from the Green Energy Fee used to pay the Cornell utilities bill. It ought to be used for legitimate innovative measures. He urged those advocating the resolution to see it through. The Kyoto Task Team needs to take advantage of the investment being made.

K. Thomison said that as the person who will have to take this resolution to President Skorton, he is in favor of the opt-out option. 80% of students already voted to opt-in to the program.

There was a role call vote. By a vote of 15 to 2, the motion passed.

V. Adjournment

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

The SA went into an executive session.