Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
September 6, 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, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vince Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steven Matthews, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Lance Polivy, Austin Redman, Rammy Salem, Ahmed Salem, Christopher Sarra, C.J. Slicklen, Sanjiv Tata

Excused: Daniel Budish, Mark Coombs

III. Open Microphone

C. Slicklen asked if any members of the audience wished to speak.

No one came forward.

IV. Approval of the Minutes

There were no corrections to the 8/30/2007 minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the 8/30/2007 SA meeting were approved.

V. Announcements/Reports

UA Announcement — Chris Basil

C. Basil said that the UA was considering a charter change that turned out to need trustee approval. The resolution has been temporarily tabled but the UA is ultimately attempting to create a Family Services Committee. The committee would seek to have oversight or guidance relating to the child care facility. If the UA amends their charter, their purview would be extended and could potentially conflict with the SA’s purview over residential life. However, this will most likely not be an issue. The UA also discussed the appointment of an SA member to the proposed committee.

A. Richter made a correction. She said that both resolutions were approved yesterday. The committee will be established and the UA will request that an SA member be appointed to it.

SA Philanthropy Announcement — Arjun Natarajan

A. Natarajan said that there are a couple of philanthropy events coming up including Tip-a-canoe, a canoe relay race sponsored by Kappa Alpha Theta, and Phi-Tug, a tug-of-war tournament sponsored by Phi Kappa Tau. It would be great if the SA could send a team or two to each of these events. He asked interested representatives to sign up on a sign up sheet.

Additional Announcements

R. Lavin introduced Lance Polivy as the Greek Liaison. He reminded representatives to keep their schedules clear on September 29 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. for the SA orientation retreat.

I. Lesyk said that the co-chairs of the SAFC have invited all SA representatives to the budget hearings

VI. Business of the Day

Approval of the 2007–2008 Student Assembly Budget — A. Gay

A. Gay said that all representatives should have a copy of the proposed budget. The executive board went through the budget at their previous meeting. He asked if any representatives had questions or concerns.

M. Asgary asked if the budget had gone through the Appropriations Committee.

A. Gay said that the budget had not gone through the Appropriations Committee.

M. Asgary asked what was being covered by the $750 Orientation expense.

A. Gay and R. Lavin clarified that that the $750 is being used to cover the SA orientation retreat on September 29.

M. Asgary said that he had a couple of questions about the Communications Committee budget. He asked that approval of the budget be tabled until the budget goes through the Appropriations Committee and until the representatives can look at the individual committee budgets. He asked where the number $9151 for committee expenses came from.

A. Gay said that $9151 represents the aggregate expenditure of the SA committees. He said that a lot of committee activities are not explicitly planned out. It makes sense to not require the committees to have a detailed breakdown of their expenses this early in the semester.

M. Asgary asked what $1000 for promotional items in the Communications Committee would be spent on.

M. Asgary’s time expired.

V. Hartman asked if the representatives could get a copy of last year’s budget.

A. Gay said that he would be more than happy to give individuals a copy of last year’s budget if they would find it helpful.

C. Basil said that he is in charge of planning the SUNY Student Assembly visit in October. He asked if funding for this would come from the SA budget or from some other source.

A. Gay said that the money would come from committee expenses.

A. Salem motioned to table the budget until the next meeting. He asked that a breakdown of committee budgets be presented. It is difficult to approve an aggregate number.

The motion was seconded. There was dissent.

V. Hartman said he would like to go over the Communications Committee budget in more detail before tabling the budget.

A. Salem withdrew his motion.

V. Hartman asked what the Insert to the Cornell Daily sun for $1300 refers to.

A. Natarajan said that the Communications Committee had been brainstorming ways to distribute the newsletter. They determined that the best way to distribute the newsletter is through an insert in the Daily Sun.

C. Slicklen said that he thinks the SA should send the budget to the Appropriations Committee so they can make a recommendation and provide committee breakdowns. He motioned to send the budget to the Appropriations Committee.

The motion was seconded. There was no dissent. The budget will be sent to the Appropriations Committee.

There was a motion to move Resolutions 2,3,4,5, and 6 to Business of the Day. There was dissent. Resolution 2 cannot be moved to Business of the Day because it is a charter change. The motion was withdrawn. There was a motion to move Resolutions 3, 4, 5 and 6 to Business of the Day. It was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Salem asked why these resolutions were being moved to business of the day. Resolutions are moved to business of the day if there is a sense of urgency accompanying them. He said that there did not appear to be an urgent need to pass any of the resolutions.

E. Greenberg said that the individual presenting Resolution 6 who is not a representative on the SA had attended the meeting with the purpose of discussing the resolution. He also said that the assembly had some time to discuss resolutions because the group presenting their budget for byline funding had not arrived yet.

There was a motion to move Resolutions 3, 4, 5 and 6 to business of the day. It was seconded. There was no dissent. Resolutions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were moved to business of the day.

R. 3 Resolution Requesting Gender-Neutral Housing in the Residence Halls

V. Hartman said that college students should have the right to choose their roommates based on their preferences regardless of gender. Currently in upperclassmen housing, students can choose to live with a female only if they are female or a male only if they are male. He asked that the SA mandate to Campus Life that undergraduates be allowed to live with members of the opposite sex starting in the spring of 2007. In the resolution, he noted that Cornellians already have the option of living with members of the opposite sex off campus. It is not the administrations place to make students select roommates in accordance with traditional policies or to provide guidance. Upperclassmen are legally adults and thus should have the option of choosing with whom to live. As adults, Cornell students can make a rational decision to live with members of the opposite sex. Those opposed to the policy may feel that roommate disputes will be likely to occur if a couple breaks up while rooming together. However, these types of disputes are just as likely to occur between best friends. Also the fact that members of the LGBT can live with the individuals they are in relationships with is being overlooked. He is asking that the policy that applies to the LGBT community be universally applied to all students. Cornell’s current housing policy is assuming heterosexuality across the entire Cornell Community. Joe Burke, the Director of Residential Programs, has indicated that gender-neutral housing can be implemented if students demonstrate a strong interest. The change allowing men and women to live in the same dorms was a more radical change than it would be to allow students of the opposite sex to live together. The be it therefore resolved clause, states that the Student Assembly should mandate gender-neutral housing. He asked that representatives not change the word mandate. The SA has the power to legislate upon Campus Life.

C. Slicklen said that he was initially against the idea of gender-neutral housing. However after doing some research, he realized that this housing idea is broader than just that of permitting heterosexual couples to live together. There are situations when siblings or best friends from home would like to live together. He said that opponents of gender-neutral housing cite increased instances of rape and sexual assault. He asked for V. Hartman’s thoughts on this issue. He also asked if V. Hartman was proposing that gender-neutral housing be implemented in all residence halls.

V. Hartman said that he is proposing gender-neutral housing for all residence halls with the exception of those that are endowed such as Balch. As for the issue of sexual assault, he said that he feels it is under the rationale of the students. Both students would make the decision to live together. This already happens off campus.

C. Slicklen said that he feels that the argument that “this happens off campus” needs to be discarded. Students can drink and do drugs off campus but that does not justify allowing these activities to occur within the residence halls. He asked what would happen if a couple breaks up and the living situation becomes a physically or emotionally abusive environment.

V. Hartman said that these are issues that are already occurring in the residence halls. RAs and GRSs, have been trained to deal with these types of situations.

A. Gay asked if V. Hartman had spoken with any members of Campus Life.

V. Hartman said that he has not spoken with members of Campus Life because he did not feel that it was necessary. The SA has the legislative authority to mandate the change.

A. Gay said he did not feel that V. Hartman adequately addressed the sexual assault issue. Justifying sexual assault by saying that an individual choose to live with a member of the opposite sex is not appropriate. He asked if V. Hartman had any statistics about sexual assault from other colleges who had implemented gender-neutral housing.

V. Hartman said that he did not have any statistics currently but would be willing to look into finding some.

A. Gay asked how frequently students were denied their first choices in housing selections and assignments.

V. Hartman said that he is just asking that members of the opposite sex be allowed to live together if both individuals specify that they would like to live with each other.

M. Asgary said that he thinks gender-neutral housing is a good idea in theory. He said that although he understands that V. Hartman would like to test the SA’s authority, they might have it taken away in the process. He suggested starting conversations with Campus Life and implementing gender-neutral housing in only certain houses.

R. Salem asked if individuals would be apply to specify that they wanted to live with a member of the opposite sex or if they would have to specify as specific person.

V. Hartman said that the resolution is in the idea that individuals would have to select an individual and that individual would have to select them as well.

R. Salem said that he is against the policy because of the uncomfortable situations that could result from it. He feels that the policy would really only benefit couples.

R. Lavin said he does not view gender-neutral housing as a secure policy that Campus Life should implement. He said that yes, students can choose to live with members of the opposite sex off campus. The university has an off campus housing office now meaning that the administration can aid students in selecting off campus housing. He would support speaking with Campus Life.

There was motion to table Resolution 4. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote, the motion passed. The resolution was tabled.

There was motion to table Resolution 4. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote, the motion passed. The resolution was tabled.

There was motion to table Resolution 5. V. Hartman withdrew Resolution 5.

There was a motion to table Resolution 6. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote, the motion failed. Resolution 6 was not tabled.

R. 6 Resolution Regarding Changes to the SAFC Attendance Policy — I. Lesyk, et. al.

I. Lesyk said R. 6 is resolution to approve the new attendance policy that the SAFC has drafted to better serve the Cornell Community.

K. Donahue, SAFC VP IOP, said that the old attendance policy read that “If a commissioner missed three meetings unexcused or five meetings excused, they will be notified that at the next meeting there will be a vote taken by commissioners present on whether or not to remove said commissioner from the SAFC.” However some commissioners took a literal interpretation of this statement and missed two meetings unexcused and four meetings excused. She said that this interpretation of the policy posed a problem especially during budget hearings when high attendance is essential. Therefore, the SAFC has created a new points based attendance policy system. Each SAFC meeting or event has a point value for unexcused and excused absences. At certain point levels, votes will be taken to determine whether of not the commissioner will be removed from the SAFC. See meeting attachments for exact policy. She said that the new policy holds commissioners to a much high standard because attendance is necessary for the successful performance of the commission.

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

C. Slicklen said that he just realized that R. 6 is in conflict with the SA standing rules which supersede the SAFC charter. The attendance policy followed by the SA automatically applies to the SAFC.

E. Greenberg said that to the best of his knowledge committees have had the right to make their own attendance policies. He asked representatives to correct him if they thought otherwise. He said that for now, the SA will proceed taking historical precedent into account. He asked K. Donahue how long the SAFC has had its own attendance policy.

K. Donahue said that the SAFC has had a distinct attendance policy since she became involved with the organization and most likely prior to that as well.

E. Greenberg said that the SA will move ahead assuming the policy is constitutional by the SA Charter.

M. Asgary questioned the legitimacy of the statement “Any commissioner may appeal to the SA, which can overrule the decision of the SAFC by majority vote.” He said that he was not sure that this statement agreed with the SA charter. He asked if it would be detrimental to the SAFC if the resolution was not voted on until next week so that this issue could be examined.

K. Donahue said that budget hearings start Thursday, September 13 and that the SAFC would like to have the policy implemented by then. It is essential to hold commissioners accountable for attending the hearings and the approval of the policy helps accomplish this.

E. Greenberg said that a representative just pointed out that the charter states that SA committees are allowed to make their own attendance policies. The resolution is therefore not in conflict with the SA charter.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By a hand vote, Resolution 6 was approved.

The Student Assembly’s Allocation of the 2008–2010 Student Activity Fee — Adam Gay (on behalf of the Student Assembly Appropriations Committee) Cornell University Emergency Medial Service (CUEMS)

A. Gay said that throughout the funding process representatives will be voting on whether or not to uphold the decisions of the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to fully fund CUEMS at their requested amount of $2.36 per student. The committee felt that the application, the services provided by CUEMS and the organization’s place on campus showed that CUEMS is worth funding.

Alec Johnson, Brandon Lemesh and Ryan O’Halloran spoke on behalf of CUEMS. A. Johnson said that CUEMS is a basic life support unit. CUEMS responded to 480 calls last year and began operating a 24 hour service in January. They provide all services free of charge to the Cornell Community which include everything from trauma to transport. All funding comes from the undergraduate and graduate student assemblies. Besides responding to 911 calls on the Cornell Campus, CUEMS provides stand-by service for university events, alcohol education and CPR and first aid training to the Cornell Community. CUEMS has asked for an increase in their budget allocation due to operating a 24 hour service, the initiation of mass casualty planning, increased immunizations for members, gas prices increases, increases in vehicle maintenance costs, insurance upgrades and the purchase of new equipment. Cornell EMS is the largest contingent of EMS is Tompkins County and there are no mechanisms in place to handle large scale disasters. He said that the Appropriations Committee expressed concern in relation to the rollover budget. He said that the rollover is a part of CUEMS’ capital account and ensures that the organization will be able to replace vehicles when the time comes.

M. Asgary asked if CUEMS used the money they were previously allocated for vehicle replacement to purchase a new vehicle.

A. Johnson said that CUEMS purchased a new vehicle in 2004.

M. Asgary asked where the money allocated in the previous byline funding cycle for a new vehicle went.

A. Johnson said that it is accumulating interest. The money allocated in the last funding cycle for a new vehicle is not enough to purchase one. It accumulates across cycles and accrues interest.

M. Asgary asked about the National Collegiate Conference costs. He said that in the past assembly members have had issues in using funding to send a few students to conferences. He asked how many students attend the conference.

A. Johnson said that ten EMS members attend the conference each year. Representatives from all university EMS teams typically attend.

V. Hartman asked if the attending members covered any of the costs.

A. Johnson said yes. Additionally the conference is very valuable to members of the Cornell Community. The squad has learned a lot and dramatically improved through participating in these conferences. This year there was a lot of discussion regarding how to deal with large crisis events. The suggestions that were presented are being modified and applied at Cornell. If EMS representatives had not attended this conference, he feels that Cornell would have suffered in regards to large crisis planning.

V. Hartman asked why the projected expected gasoline expenses increased significantly.

A. Johnson said that the price of gasoline has recently risen dramatically. Also CUEMS consumes more gas due to their decision to start operating a 24 hour service.

M. Asgary asked about the recognition banquet expenses. He asked if the banquet was only for undergraduates or if it includes graduates and faculty.

A. Johnson said that the recognition banquet was for all CUEMS members which includes undergraduates, graduates and faculty. The recognition banquet is important to the organization which is entirely volunteer based. It shows appreciation and provides incentives.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The decision of the Appropriations Committee was unanimously upheld. CUEMS will be fully funded at their requested amount of $2.36 per student.

M. Asgary asked if A. Gay and the Appropriations Committee had a goal or a figure they hoped to end up at.

A. Gay said that the Appropriations Committee has been discussing this issue but has not come to a firm decision. He said that he has reminded the committee to look at the funding process as a whole and not just by group.

E. Greenberg said that this discussion is more of an executive board discussion.

The Student Assembly’s Allocation of the 2008–2010 Student Activity Fee — Adam Gay (on behalf of the Student Assembly Appropriations Committee) Minds Matter

A. Gay told the SA representatives that they would be deciding whether of not Cornell Minds Matter is eligible to receive byline funding. If the group is deemed eligible, they will come before the SA again at the following meeting to determine the level of funding. By a unanimous vote, the Appropriations Committee determined that Minds Matter be approved as a group eligible to receive byline funding. He said that the organization is the only new group applying. The nine eligibility requirements are (1) directly and primarily serve/benefit the entire undergraduate Cornell community, (2) allow all students equal access to services and/or participation, (3) request as part of their annual operating budget at least $0.50 per student, per year, from the SAF (the minimum amount set by the Board of Trustees), (4) if a new applicant, present a petition of fifteen hundred (1500) registered undergraduates to the Student Assembly, (5) be a registered organization, (6) be student-directed and student-led, (7) possess a University operating account with internally controlled funds, (8) have a Cornell-employed advisor with oversight of its account and (9) be previously funded by either the SAFC, the Student Assembly, or a University department/unit for at least two semesters. The Appropriations Committee concluded that Minds Matter met all of these requirements.

The President of Minds Matter said that the organization’s mission is to help Cornell students decrease stress, decrease the stigma associated with mental illness and seeking mental health resources, promote understanding of the value of caring for one’s own mental health and to serve as a liaison between students, staff, faculty and the administration.

The VP of Events for Minds Matter said that the 2007 Meinig Student Scholar’s Report found that stress at Cornell results form loneliness, peer conflicts/dating, new responsibilities, adaptation to a new environment, academic achievement, time management, and parental expectations. The report recommended increasing collaboration with Cornell Minds Matter, increasing the advertisement of stress relief information and making mental health resources more approachable. Minds Matter directly and primarily serves and benefits the entire undergraduate community by holding events that promote self-care, awareness of signs of stress and depression, techniques for de-stressing, time management study skills, campus resources, and speak-outs by Cornell students. Large scale events include Procrastinate at the Straight, Positive Psychology Workshop - Happiness 101, and bringing in Kay Redfield Jamison.

A representative from Minds Matter said that the organization also holds small group discussion sessions throughout campus focusing on Asian/American issues, healthy relationships, winter blues, parental expectations, life at Cornell, getting into grad school, roommate issues and minorities and mental health. In the past Minds Matter has received funding from the SAFC however, they feel that SAFC funding is inadequate. Byline funding will help Minds Matter increase the number and density of their events and run their own events instead of frequent co-sponsorships. They would still like to co-sponsor events but feel that it is important that they be able to hold large scale events themselves. Mental health is a huge issue on college campus and it is important that it be addressed.

M. Asgary asked about the attendance numbers at Minds Matter events.

A representative from Minds Matter said that small group discussions range from 10–30 students and large scale events range from 100–500 students.

M. Asgary said that Minds Matter has not made the case to him for eligibility. They are only seeking about $3000 for the year which is not enough to warrant funding from the SA. He feels that the organization more appropriately falls under the purview of the SAFC. He does not feel that the Minds Matter truly affects all students on campus and it is thus difficult to justify making every student fund their organization.

L. Polivy said that the SA also funds MGMC which is a much smaller organizations.

C. Slicklen yielded his speaking time to Minds Matter.

A representative from Minds Matter said that it is not wholly appropriate to measure the organization’s size and effect by evaluating only their attendance numbers. A major goal of their organization is outreach aimed at fostering a healthy and caring community which benefits all students. Minds Matter works to create a sense of openness regarding mental health issues and to remove the stigma associated with them.

G. Mazza, a community member on the Appropriations Committee, said that although many representatives have made valid points, Minds Matter is only being heard for eligibility. Minds Matter clearly fulfills all nine of the eligibility requirements.

R. Lavin echoed G. Mazza. In response to the concern that Minds Matter does not directly affect the entire undergraduate community, he suggested comparing it to EMS. Although all students may not utilize the service, the entire community benefits from having it. Potentially Minds Matter could serve the entire community. He feels that they are eligible and motioned to vote. There was dissent.

A. Salem asked R. Lavin to withdraw his motion because there were still items he wished to discuss.

R. Lavin withdrew his motion.

A. Salem said that he has worked with Minds Matter in the past and truly appreciates and respects their organization. He pointed out that an eligibility requirement is that Minds Matter request fifty cents per student. The presented budget is a maximum use of $5000. He asked the Minds Matter representatives if they felt that there organization has been effective with this amount of funding.

Representatives from Minds Matter said yes.

A. Salem said that there is no reason for the assembly to vote yes for eligibility when Minds Matter has not demonstrated the need for a substantial increase in funding. He asked why an increase in funding was needed.

A representative from Minds Matter said that although they organization has been effective, the effectiveness has not been maximized.

E. Greenberg asked A. Salem to clarify which eligibility requirement his line of questioning was directed at.

A. Salem said the third requirement which mandates that groups ask for at least fifty cents per student. He pointed out that any organization who receives an increase in funding can increase effectiveness. He asked what was special about them.

E. Greenberg said that issue is whether or not they asked for fifty cents per student not whether or not they deserve fifty cents per student. The issue is black and white. Minds Matter did request fifty cents per students.

A representative from Minds Matter said that their organization has not been able to sponsor the events that they would like to sponsor. It is important that Minds Matter be allowed to improve their effectiveness because mental health issues are a growing concern on college campuses and it has become necessary to increase awareness. The group is fulfilling a need on the Cornell Campus and getting money to address this need is vital to the well being of the entire community.

There was a motion to call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. The dissent was withdrawn. There was a vote to determine whether or not the motion would be voted on. By hand vote, the motion would be voted on.

A. Gay reiterated that the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously that Minds Matter was eligible to receive byline funding. The issue is objective.

M. Asgary asked if the assembly could still choose not to fund Minds Matter if they voted that the group was eligible.

E. Greenberg said yes. If a group is eligible for funding, it does not mean that they must be funded.

By a roll call vote, the SA voted that Minds Matter is eligible to receive funding. See below chart for spefic vote.

The Student Assembly’s Allocation of the 2008–2010 Student Activity Fee — Adam Gay (on behalf of the Student Assembly Appropriations Committee) HAVEN

A. Gay said that HAVEN is applying for funding and has received it in the past. By a vote of 8–5−2, the Appropriations Committee voted to fund HAVEN at $2.06 per student. He told representatives to keep in mind that HAVEN requested $2.75 per student and was funded at this amount during the previous funding cycle. There were a number of concerns at the executive session of the Appropriations Committee. The basic majority reasons for not funding HAVEN at $2.75 was the fact that HAVEN has repeatedly asked for more money than they have spent and a high cost for sending a few individuals to a conference. HAVEN requested approximately $7300 for the Creating Change Conference. Some felt that this amount was excessive funding for a single conference with only a few participants. The Appropriations Committee arrived at $2.06 by stripping away the excess money and eliminating the conference amount.

Eric Fisher introduced himself as the Treasurer of HAVEN. He said that HAVEN is umbrella organization that supports 11 undergraduate member organizations that do not receive any other funding. HAVEN’s executive Board is composed of the President, Treasurer, and Secretary of HAVEN and a representative from each of the member organizations. HAVEN seeks to enrich the Cornell Community by supporting its diverse array of sexual and gender identities and expressions. HAVEN is requesting a renewal of their current funding allocation so that they will be able to maintain all their current organizations and programming activities at their current level. HAVEN does not feel that $7300 is an excessive amount of funding for the Creating Change Conference. He said that some members of the Appropriations Committee had recommended fundraising for the conference. However, sexuality is a very sensitive issue and many members of HAVEN may feel uncomfortable participating in fundraising events. The purpose of the organization is to create a safe haven for LGBT students and fundraising could potentially conflict with this goal. Fundraising could subject members to verbal abuse or bias related incidents. Additionally, HAVEN has clarified the purpose of attending the conference and will give attending members guidelines for what they should bring back to organization. He said that HAVEN uses the carry over balance to conduct orientation events in the early fall. Since HAVEN is the only LGBT organization, they are entirely responsible for any events put on for this community in the first few weeks of the year and need to make sure that students are aware that they exist. The rollover money has also been used on co-sponsorships. The rollover money is not being wasted and is very important for the successful functioning of the organization.

C. Slicklen said that he is concerned with the disparity between speaker and advertising expenses. It seems as if HAVEN has not allocated enough money for advertising for their events. At the Appropriations Committee he said that he had asked why advertising costs were so low and that HAVEN has responded by saying that turnout at their events was very good. In his opinion a lot of the events put on by HAVEN are not open to the entire Cornell Community because there is not a sufficient mechanism for advertising them. He also said that HAVEN had said that they could send between 4 and 10 students to the Creating Change Conference. Potentially this means that they could be requesting $2000 for lodging for two nights and 4 students. It does not seem fair.

E. Fisher reiterated that a great deal of advertising is free. Through co-sponsorships, HAVEN has access to other organizations resources as well. They have had no issue in the past sufficiently advertising with a budget of $200 which is what they are currently requesting. He feels that for HAVEN’s major events there have always been posters everywhere�in all buildings and residence halls. He said that he is unsure how the organization could do more to advertise their events.

A. McGovern asked A. Gay to confirm that if the SA cut HAVEN’s funding from $2.75 to $2.06 per student they would essentially be cutting HAVEN by $10,000.

A. Gay said that HAVEN would be cut by roughly $9,000.

A. McGovern said that this cut then basically eliminates the entire conference and the entire rollover budget.

A. Gay said that he believed that the majority opinion had intended on taking away $5800 from the Creating Change Conference and eliminating the carryover. There were a good number of Appropriations Committee members who did not support this allocation as evidenced by the vote. The cut for the carryover is the average of different carryover values from previous years.

A. McGovern asked if the allocation amount could be altered.

E. Greenberg said that the assembly could vote to allocate a different amount.

V. Hartman asked if the Appropriations Committee had considered adding an addendum to their Appendix B indicating how much money could be allocated to conferences.

A. Gay said that the Appropriations Committee had considering establishing rules in relation to conferences but is unable to amend appendices during the byline funding semester. Currently funding for conferences cannot exceed $.85 per student.

V. Hartman asked how many individuals attended the LGBT fall retreat, CUGSA, Filthy/Gorgeous and Homocoming.

E. Fisher said that approximately 50–60 people attended the fall retreat and that the Homocoming attendance was between 250 and 300 students.

Michael F., 05, introduced himself as a university employee and unofficial advisor to the Greek system. He said that he supports those having issues relating to being an LGBT student. He spends at least 20 hours a week counseling people and relies on groups like HAVEN to help students move forward. He is able to network many individuals he counsels with HAVEN which provides amazing support. While the advertising budget may be low, he has witnessed HAVEN’s outreach efforts and they have been substantial. He recommended giving the organization the money that they need to help students survive.

M. Asgary said that he agreed with the Appropriations Committee’s recommendation to cut the conference costs. He asked HAVEN to elaborate on what students who attend the conference bring back to the Cornell Community.

E. Fisher said that conferences create new opportunities for building relationships with potential speakers and brings experience back to Cornell in general. The students who attend the conference share their experience with other students and the various member organizations of HAVEN.

M. Asgary asked if this was something that could be accomplished via email or phone.

E. Fisher said no.

M. Asgary said that to his knowledge, HAVEN has a very large list serve and does not feel that advertising is an issue. He said that he did not believe that it would be detrimental to the group to fund them at $2.06 per student. If it turns out the have very negative effects on the group, the SA can always increase funding in the next byline funding cycle but they currently have not proved that they need their requested amount. HAVEN could seek out co-sponsorships if need be this upcoming year.

C. Basil asked if the same people repeatedly attend the HAVEN events.

E. Fisher said he would not say that the same exact people attend all events. HAVEN tries to encourage diverse participation in all of their events; however, they do put on events aimed at the LGBT community and thus do attract an audience from that community.

C. Basil said that he shared the views of the Appropriations Committee’s concern regarding the seemingly excessive costs of the attending the Creating Change Conference. Numerous groups on campus are strapped for hotel and travel fees.

E. Fischer said that the group does not want to highlight economic disparities between members by asking them to individually pay for the cost of attending the conference. It is also not appropriate for HAVEN to ask members to fundraise when it could potentially compromise the mission of their organization. HAVEN feels that the conference cost is justified.

G. Mazza said that the Appropriations Committee did not have an issue funding for a portion of the conference. He said that HAVEN had indicated that participation was limited to leaders of member organizations clearly indicating that the conference is not open to all members of the Cornell community. When asked what would happen if two hundred dollars was not enough to cover advertising costs, HAVEN stated that they could collect funds from another source. This response indicates that HAVEN does have the means to obtain at least some additional funding for the conference if the SA determines to cut their funding. He said that HAVEN seemed to have a more relaxed budgeting procedure than the Appropriations Committee would have liked to see. It appears that HAVEN has presented a worst-case budget which is not in the best interest of the SA.

E. Fisher said that the budget presented to the SA is formatted for their convenience. HAVEN’s budget is composed of a set of funds. Essentially the budget presented to the SA is HAVEN’s best guess regarding how they would like to allocate their money from these various funds.

A. Salem said that he understands that it is unfair to ask students to fundraise if it requires them to be subjected to verbal or mental abuse. However, he asked how it was then fair to require 13,000 students to pay for sending a small number of students to the Creating Change Conference.

E. Fisher clarified that participation in the Creating Change Conference is not limited to executive board members of HAVEN and its member organizations.

A. Salem noted that HAVEN had said that sending individuals to the conference enhances the entire Cornell community because the individuals who attend bring back a great deal. He asked if these individuals were planning and putting on workshops. If so, he wondered how HAVEN could ask these students to openly discuss their sexuality at public events and not ask them to fundraise.

E. Fisher emphasized that HAVEN is the only undergraduate organization catering to the needs of the LBGT community. Individuals who attend the conference bring back ideas for workshops and potential speaker information. Participants’ ideas are enacted by the executive board and the broader membership. At no point in time are the individuals asked to identify themselves or individually run a workshop if they choose not to. The activities put on by HAVEN expose the entire Cornell Community to gender and sexuality issues.

L. Polivy said that he has been lucky enough to attend a number of leadership conferences and that they are great experiences. Conferences provide a sustained focused environment and allow participants to have a very good idea of how different potential speakers speak. He asked what HAVEN’s rationale was in requesting to send ten students to the conferences as opposed to a smaller number. He asked what ten students were able to accomplish that five could not.

E. Fisher said that he did not believe it would be enough sending only 3 or 5 students to the conference. The conference is a huge event with numerous activities and workshops occurring at the same time. Representatives from HAVEN are allowed to choose which events to attend and often choose those that benefit the specific member organization they are apart of. By limiting the number of students who attend the conference, the breadth of information that HAVEN can bring back to the Cornell Community is severely cut.

A. Gay said that it is disingenuous to say that it is not fair to fund for the Creating Change Conference. The Student Activities Fee is commonly used to fund student participation in various conferences. Personally he thinks the event is great and that it warrants attendance. He said that a purpose of byline funding is to provide groups with funding to bring speakers and workshops to the Cornell campus. He mentioned that you never see individuals fundraising for Slope Day. He also feels that HAVEN is doing a fine job of budgeting. Any group that is trying to project funding two years into the future cannot be entirely certain of the exact expenses they will incur. He said that he would prefer for HAVEN to be funded a higher amount than determined by the Appropriations Committee. He asked the organization to elaborate on how they would be hurt by the cuts.

E. Fisher said that the organization and the Cornell community would most definitely be negatively affected by the cuts. The rollover budget that the Appropriations Committee decided to cut is used to cover the costs of all orientation events. It is critical that HAVEN be allowed to be active at the start of each year so new students know that they have an organization with whom to socialize and find support relating to issues of gender and sexuality. There is no other place in the budget from where they can take money from to finance orientation activities.

C. Sarra asked what HAVEN’s rationale was in requesting to send ten students to the conferences as opposed to a smaller number. He asked what ten students were able to accomplish that five could not. He asked why it was okay for students to say this is where I’ve been after a conference but not okay for them to say this is where I want to go.

E. Fischer said that he had already answered this question and repeated what he had said before. He said that he did not believe it would enough sending only 3 or 5 students to the conference. The conference is a huge event with numerous activities and workshops occurring at the same time. Representatives from HAVEN are allowed to choose which events to attend and often choose those that benefit the specific member organization they are apart of. By limiting the number of students who attend the conference, the breadth of information that HAVEN can bring back to the Cornell Community is severely cut. Individuals who attend the conference bring back ideas for workshops and potential speaker information. Their ideas are enacted by the executive board and the broader membership. At no point in time are the individuals asked to identify themselves or individually run a workshop if they choose not to.

R. Salem said that he understands HAVEN’s need to send students to the Creating Changes Conference. He asked if it ever happened that Cornell students attended the same workshops within the conference. He asked why ten.

E. Fisher said that HAVEN was the umbrella organization for eleven member organizations that each have different missions and focus on different issues. A good number of individuals need to attend the conference to give HAVEN the broad range of experience it requires. Although all member organizations share a general vision, some focus on educational outreach and other on counseling for example.

C. Miller asked where the Creating Changes Conference occurs.

E. Fisher said that it occurs in a different location each year. The last conference took place in Kansas City.

C. Miller asked if there were any other comparable conferences that occur nearer to Cornell that HAVEN could participate in instead.

E. Fisher said that the Creating Changes is a very large scale and unique conference. There are not others that are truly comparable.

C. Miller suggested further exploring the option of attending a different conference.

E. Fisher said that Cornell students and HAVEN already have a relationship with the Creating Changes Conference. The organization understands what students and the community will gain by participating in this conference. He said that he did feel it would a responsible use of money to start trying out other conferences that may not be as beneficial.

E. Greenberg encouraged representatives to discuss issues besides the Creating Changes Conference.

C. Slicklen said that to benefit from the funding allocating to HAVEN, students have to be a participant in one of their member organizations. Other groups that are byline funded do not have this requirement. For example, all students can attend Slope Day without being a member of some sub-organization. The SA has no legislative authority over the membership of HAVEN’s member organizations. He recommended that representatives keep this concept in mind. He asked if it was correct that the majority of HAVEN’s speakers would be staying in the Statler.

E. Fisher said for the most part yes.

C. Slicklen said that he felt that speakers could stay at other close hotels for less money without any detriment to the group. He agrees that fundraising is not appropriate for raising money to attend the conference. However, he does not feel that HAVEN is doing an appropriate job of applying for grants and other university stipends.

E. Fisher said that HAVEN’s member organizations receive only administrative funding from HAVEN. Any member of the Cornell Community can come HAVEN and asked for help in funding activities and events related to issues of gender and sexuality. Therefore, funding can benefit all students. Additionally a good portion of HAVEN’s speakers stays in the guest rooms of dorms on West Campus.

V. Hartman pointed out that the SA does byline fund another umbrella organization. He asked A. Gay if the Appropriations Committee had discussed funding HAVEN at levels besides $2.06 and $2.75 per student.

A. Gay said that there were numerous amounts on the table ranging from $1.25 to $2.75. In the end, none of the alternatives were selected and the majority concluded that HAVEN should be funded at $2.06 per student.

V. Hartman pointed out that all of HAVEN’s member organizations are able to apply for SAFC funding. He asked if any of the organizations did so. He said that these organizations could receive administrative funds from the SAFC.

E. Fisher said that HAVEN’s member organizations do not generally ask for any outside funding.

A. McGovern pointed out that a good number of people objecting to the conference costs are objecting the fact that HAVEN would like to send ten people to the conference. She noted that if the SA chooses to approve the Appropriations Committee’s recommendation, all funds for the conference would be cut in addition to the rollover budget. HAVEN would receive no money to attend Creating Change. She said that this is a problem for her.

E. Greenberg clarified that the Appropriations Committee cut funding to $2.06 by eliminating conference funding and the carryover amount which is an average value. In addition to being unable to attend the conference (using SAF money), he asked what else would have to be cut from HAVEN’s proposed budget if they only receive $2.06 per student.

E. Fisher said that he could not specifically say because it would be up to the executive board as whole. He speculated that HAVEN would probably have to cancel a speaker or a large event. This would have a negative effect on the long-term integrity of their organization and limit the range of their outreach.

E. Greenberg asked if it was fair to assume that the executive board of HAVEN would ensure that all necessary steps are taken to ensure that the cuts are taken from the most appropriate areas.

E. Fisher said yes but the organization will suffer.

A. Salem clarified that HAVEN could decide to use other money for the conference even if the SA voted to reduce funding based on not funding the conference costs.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. The motion was withdrawn.

M. Asgary said that the carryover has typically been consistent from year to year. He recommended that HAVEN budget for freshman orientation activities in the future. He also recommended extending HAVEN’s outreach to the graduate community so that they could seek byline funding from the GPSA. He pointed out that HAVEN’s conference budget increased significantly from past years during this funding cycle. He said that he feels that the Appropriations Committee recommendation was appropriate.

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

E. Fischer reiterated that HAVEN is the only student run organization that deals with LGBT issues on the Cornell campus and that they do not receive funding from anywhere else. The members of the organization tried their very best to budget appropriately and effectively and believe that they have done so.

By a vote of 11–2−2, the SA voted to fund HAVEN at $2.06 per student. See below chart for specific vote.

IX. Adjournment

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