Student Assembly

MINUTES - DRAFT
Cornell University Student Assembly
November 8, 2007
4:45 � 7:00pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

E. Greenberg called the meeting to order at 4:45pm.

II. Roll Call

Present: M. Asgary, C. Basil, D. Budish, M. Coombs, A. Craig, W. Dong, A. Gay, E. Greenberg, V. Hartman, R. Lavin, I. Lesyk, S. Matthews, A. McGovern, C. Miller, A. Natarajan, L. Polivy, A. Redmon, A. Salem, R. Salem, C. Sarra, C. Slicklen, R. Smith, R. Stein, A. Wang

Also in attendance: A. Epstein, S. Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes

E. Greenberg called for acclimation of the October 25, 2007 minutes. R. Salem seconded the acclimation. There was dissent. V. Hartman said his name was spelt incorrectly. The error was noted. The October 25, 2007 SA meeting minutes, with the correction, were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

C. Slicklen asked if any members of the audience wished to speak on items not on the agenda.

Jonathan Pomboza ‘10, an RA for the Latino Living Center, read a letter from another RA, in defense of the program houses. He said some people felt program houses caused segregation but that this perception was incorrect. Providing place of comfort is at the heart of any American family. He said program houses are beneficial to all because they provide a place of comfort that is at the heart of any American family and because they create learning experiences for everyone. All ethnic groups are welcomed in the houses. He said members of several different ethnic backgrounds live in each program house and everyone benefits from the experience.

M. Asgary asked why the letter was written.

J. Pomboza said it was written in defense of the program houses, which the author felt had been attacked in the last SA meeting.

M. Asgary said he didn’t recall any attacks on program houses in the last meeting.

J. Pomboza said that, given some of the topics on the agenda for today’s meeting, it felt appropriate to bring up the issue.

A. Salem asked what percentage of Ujamaa residents was not African-Americans.

J. Pomboza said he doesn’t know the exact number; there was a large number of African-Americans but there were residents of other ethnic groups living there as well.

A. Salem asked if he would be in support of a Caucasian program house since he said reaching out to different groups was a two-way street.

J. Pomboza said some people would argue that the majority of the residence halls on campus were Caucasian houses. He said, considering that the Caucasian culture was the majority culture and the community was surrounded by it, he didn’t really see a need for a Caucasian cultural program house. He said in a culture dominated by the majority, the minority had a right to express their voice and to be represented.

V. Announcements/Reports

o Dining Committee Update � Mark Coombs and Mazdak Asgary

M. Asgary said they rolled out the labels with nutrition facts on them on Tuesday. It was rolled out for kosher products and the rest should be rolled out soon. They’re printed on corn-based materials. Hopefully this will be a push for dining to make healthier products if they see a change in their sales based on publishing nutrition facts. He said they’re also moving forward another program that other Ivies have. He said Cornell Dining is neutral on the program and it’s looking optimistic. If the Vice President of Student Academic Services supports them, Dining said they would support them and provide the staff and support necessary to implement this.

M. Coombs said he found it difficult to discuss every dining issue at the SA meetings because of time constraints and that just because some issues weren’t raised in SA meetings did not mean that the Dining Committee was not addressing them. If SA members wanted to bring any issues to them they were welcome to. He also said that Colleen Wright-Riva would be attending her last meeting with them next week. The search for new dining director is progressing. The Dining Committee is hoping to be involved in helping to pick a new Dining Director. They are hoping to have students participate in the applicant interviews.

There was a motion to move resolution 8 - Resolution for the Improvement of the well-being of the Asian and Asian-American Population at Cornell - to business of the day. The motion was seconded. There was no dissent. Resolution 8 was moved to business of the day.

VI. Business of the Day

o Resolution 8 - Resolution for the Improvement of the well-being of the Asian and Asian-American Population at Cornell- Adam Gay, Andrew Wang, Rebecca Lee, Linda Yu, Naveen Dasa, Mark Law, and Bhavna Devani

L. Yu, co-President on the Asian and Asian-American Forum, said that based on the Cornell Asian and Asian American Campus Climate Task Force, there is a problem on this campus that faces Asian-Americans in terms of utilizing available mental health services to deal with mental health problems. She said that something needs to be done about this. She said they were not asking for a program house or residence hall of any kind. They didn’t expect the resolution to fully solve all of the problems under consideration, but it was a good start. The community center will provide them with the tools to start fixing the problems. She said the tools available now were not appropriate for the Asian-American population because of the stigma that faced them. They want to ask the community to create that resource that is available to other groups, to help the Asian-American population.

R. Lee, co-President of the Asian and Asian-American Forum, thanked those who were supporting their proposal. She said the resolution was meant to make this initiative high on the university’s agenda and to get support of the idea. Plans and designs weren’t available yet. She said this wasn’t a new idea and that Cornell should support this to promote diversity.

N. Dasa, President of the Asian Pacific Student Union, said that fragmentation is one of the biggest obstacles facing the Asian and Asian-American community. He said the community center would address the lack of communication and partnerships between student organizations, which contributed to fragmentation.

L. Yu asked that the fourth recommendation in the “be it resolved” clause of the resolution, recommending the expansion of the Asian American Studies Program to Department status, be struck.

M. Asgary said that he was sad to see that recommendation be taken out of the resolution, because he was in support of it. He said he is in support of solving the problems facing Asian Americans but he asked how a community center that’s physically separate would help solve fragmentation. How will it bring people together? Shouldn’t the goal be integration instead of separation? He also said that the last “be it further resolved” clause, involving the distribution of the resolution to administration, should include the distribution of minutes for meetings in which the resolution was discussed, so that recipients would understand the resolution’s progression.

Viranjini Munasinghe, Senior Director of Asian-American Studies Program, said that it’s not that they don’t envision developing a full program sometime in the future, but they need to prioritize their efforts. The Task Force report was very specific in what was needed, and they want to focus on implementing the report’s recommendations right now.

L. Yu said she wanted the SA to think of the community center on the same level as sororities and fraternities and the Jewish Living Center.

Victor Poiesz ‘11 asked how the current community centers failed to meet these needs. He doesn’t assume the Asian center would be exclusive to other groups but he feels it would be irresponsible to pass the resolution before distinctly showing how the current system has failed.

L. Yu said it would be irresponsible to not address the needs of the Asian American community when their needs are apparently different and unique. She said it would not be a social place. It would serve as a resource for Asian-Americans to address problems unique to them that other groups don’t have. They need a place where they have experienced faculty and staff specifically meant to help the Asian and Asian-American population.

C. Slicklen said that, if you look at the North Campus Initiative, it segregated freshmen but provided phenomenal support. He said this was not mean to segregate Asian-Americans but to support them. It would be open to all individuals, not just Asian-Americans and would benefit the entire community. He said Susan Murphy is about to post the Assistant Dean position. He hopes the resolution passes and that the assembly works with this new individual to bridge the gap between the administration and the students.

N. Dasa said that the community center would provide services specific to Asian-Americans that aren’t provided anywhere else but that could help them, such as fluency in Asian languages that would make it easier for them to express themselves.

M. Coombs said his concern was that they were losing sight of the larger facts of the kind of culture they have created on Cornell’s campus. He said that instead of one unified campus culture they had created several distinct cultures that kept groups separate and he is not sure this is beneficial to the campus. He questions whether this community center could really become a two-way gateway based on the success of other similar initiatives.

Rema Turner ‘09 said that she was in support of the Asian-American communities demand for a community center space. She said it was important to recognize that segregation was an inappropriate word to use in this case. She said that segregation is a division imposed on communities, unwillingly. She said this was a request to impose space for development by a community, willingly. She said that, if the initiative does not turn out to be a two-way street, it would not be the fault of the Asian-American students but a fault of majority students who were not taking an interest in the Asian-American population. She said that there was clearly substantial evidence that these needs were evident and the initiative was necessary.

R. Stein said, after looking through the reports, she agrees there is a problem but she doesn’t necessarily think that having a community center will solve the problem. She said she would like someone to address activities that would be held to solve the problem, since they’ve mainly been addressing the need for the space but not what they would actually do with the space. She said without the programs, she thinks the community center would only serve as a means for segregation.

B. Devani said that the community center would be a place where they could figure out and host these activities, and would also function as a place for the Assistant Dean to sit. They would like programs where people can have CAP hours, and discussions and cultural performances and other programs like that. They are working on developing several programs and, when they are developed, they will bring them to the SA, to gain their support.

A. Salem said he thought this was a well-intentioned resolution that would have bad unintended consequences. He said that, as a culture, Cornell is moving towards defining themselves by race. He said he had a problem with developing spaces labeled for the use of people with specific ethnic or racial backgrounds. It doesn’t foster a spirit of community between all Cornell members and encourage interaction between all groups. He said there is no evidence to show that this space will solve the mental health problems facing the Asian and Asian-American populations. He said it only seems like a space for congregation and he says it’s a slippery slope for developing other centers labeled for people of specific ethnic backgrounds. He said that people also needed to stop blaming Caucasians and the rhetoric of the racial hierarchy for their problems.

E. Greenberg said that he felt calling it a resource center rather than a community center would better represent the intentions of the space.

L. Yu said they were not married to the word, but married to the space; she would not be against changing the title.

E. Greenberg asked her to sum up the purpose of the space.

L. Yu said it was closer to a resource center and is a place where resources can be focalized and people can find ways to help each other. She said she was not married to the word ‘community center’.

A community member said that the current resources available are meant to treat existing conditions. She said this center would address every day needs and prevent conditions. She said that there are different cultures among the groups and they did need to preserve their cultures and address the cultural differences.

R. Salem said he is torn about how to vote on this resolution. He feels like this is a good idea but that it would have a snowball effect and start something that gets out of their control.

L. Yu said they are not looking for a place to socialize; they’re looking for a resource to help their community.

R. Lavin asked if there was an existing Asian-American resource center and asked them to describe its purpose.

V. Munasinghe said there was an Asian-American resource center, but it served a purely academic purpose.

R. Lavin said that he thought it was a great cause but that people were getting tied up around the word “community center” and that he wanted their thoughts on changing this because he wanted to make a motion to do so.

L. Yu said they were fine with the word “cultural”.

R. Lavin made a motion to change the term “community” center to “cultural” center. The motion was seconded. There was dissent.

M. Asgary said that he did not like the change; he liked the word “community” because it made it seem as though the center’s purpose was to aid in developing community.

By hand count vote of 11–8−2, the term “community” center was changed to “cultural” center in the resolution.

S. Dong said she supported the establishment of the cultural center. She said, having been raised in China, she understood the need for this center. She thinks the cultural differences necessitated the need for it. She also thought this center would be a great opportunity for non-Asians to learn about Asian culture.

Tony Wu ‘03 said he thinks the issues are getting clouded. He says there were a lot of racial issues and incidents regarding Asian-Americans that were never put into the public forum because there was no outlet for Asian-Americans to express themselves. He said instead of thinking of this as a group trying to separate itself, think of it as a group that is trying to find itself in many respects.

I. Lesyk said he doesn’t think the argument that this center was only meant for one group is valid because you could make that argument about a lot of initiatives. He asked if it would be more beneficial to expand the existing Asian-American resource center to include these capabilities instead of creating an entirely new center.

V. Munasinghe said that they had been trying to implement this merger but have halted it because it was too taxing.

A. McGovern said she doesn’t think segregation is appropriate because this is about helping a group not segregating them. She said that the number of people attending meetings to support the resolution was a testament to how important this was to them. She said, regarding the snowball effect that some representatives were worried about, that if other groups decide later that they need a cultural center as well, that can be addressed when that comes up.

Nicholas Calder ‘10, an RA in Ujamaa, that he is concerned about students of color and supporting addressing issues specific to students of specific ethnic and racial groups. Students of color all desire some of the same things, such as having similar looking staff and faculty, having places to feel comfortable and having resources available to them. He said he knows how hard it is to be a student of color and how important it is to have support. He said if you have been looking at the news, you would have heard about issues and incidents that have been occurring in the community that are specific to race.

V. Hartman said that the Asian-American community has been fragmented on this campus and that this center would help defragment them and that they should think of this on the same level as the Jewish Living Center.

D. Budish said he supported the resolution. He doesn’t feel that Asians and Asian-Americans have a resource center available to them to address these issues. He asked why they haven’t created an informal space to address these issues in current physical structures.

L. Yu said they haven’t established an impromptu space is because the centers aren’t available and there isn’t enough space. She said there also wasn’t an institution available to encourage and mobilize the Asian and Asian-American community, and that the cultural center would solve this problem.

R. Stein said supported the resolution but had a problem with the term “cultural” because it seemed inclusive to her and, as a Caucasian, she would feel uncomfortable walking in there.

C. Sarra said he agreed with R. Stein. He said he didn’t necessarily advocate erecting a building but he said he supported the purpose of the building. He said he was in support of it as a representative of the Engineering College, which held a large portion of the Asian and Asian-American population.

A. Wang said he appreciated the support of those who were supporting the resolution.

C. Slicklen said the idea that Cornell is a melting pot is true, but the idea of a melting pot does not promote individuality or the awareness of cultures. He thinks the cultural center is a good idea and hopes other groups on campus are encouraged to pursue similar initiatives. He called to question passing resolution 8. A gay seconded the call to question. There was dissent.

A. Craig said he wants to present an amendment he’s constructed before calling the resolution to question.

By a hand count vote of 9–13–0, the question was not called.

A. Craig said that, from his experience, centers like these promote the culture to the outside community. He thinks it’s important to support the resolution because it provides what everyone needs. He thinks it’s better to call it a community center because it makes it open to everyone. He proposed an amendment to include the previous clause “be it resolved that such a space that Cornell University would provide: 1) a gathering place, a meeting space, a hub, support for Asian and Asian-American student organizations, 2) connections among Asian and Asian-American groups and with orientations to the broader community, 3) a connection with a student support system, 4) a range of resources that are readily accessible, 5) walk-in hours offered by staff providing outreach from the offices around campus, as well as by the Assistant Dean’s office proximity to other multicultural programming, peer counseling and peer support services and 6) programming that captures an array of Asian cultures providing all students with an education in the Asian culture.”

A. Craig made a motion to make the amendment. A. Gay seconded. There was no dissent. The motion was approved.

M. Coombs said that he felt that saying that there is something endemic to Asian culture that makes the group less able to cope with the challenge that Cornell presents is dangerous. He says the resolution is well-intentioned but that this underlying message is dangerous and needs to be considered.

M. Asgary said he wants to make the best decision for the student assembly and the constituents. He said he wanted to propose something feasible that would solve the problems and that the administration would accept. He said people have been pushing for a Collegetown community center and that it hasn’t happened yet; proposing this cultural center would have the same problem. He also said that, by establishing the community center, they’re saying the services offered by CAPS and Gannett are not sufficient, which he doesn’t think is true.

He made a motion to change the recommendation in the resolution regarding “creating a centrally located cultural center” to “create a liaison from CAPS to the Asian community and to further explore the need for a physical community center.” A. Salem seconded the motion. There was dissent.

I. Lesyk said he thought this amendment was just side-stepping the issue. He asked which Asian community this amendment was referring to, since there were several different Asian cultures.

A. Salem said the Asian community, being referred to, is the same community referred to by the resolution, and that this was a good compromise. He doesn’t think they should rush into this given the lack of evidence of how the community center will help alleviate the issues.

A. McGovern said that this resolution was to support a cultural center was to house the Assistant Dean devoted to the Asian and Asian-American population.

By a hand count vote of 2–20–0, the motion to make the M. Asgary’s amendment failed.

A. Salem made a motion to table resolution 8 because he thinks this needs further discussion and they shouldn’t rush into anything. M. Asgary seconded the motion. There was dissent.

By a hand count vote of 2–20–0, the motion to table resolution 8 failed.

A. McGovern reiterated that they were not voting for a building but for the space, just one or two rooms, to house an Assistant Dean that the administration has already committed to hiring.

A. Gay called resolution 8 to question. It was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Salem said that they haven’t explored the resolution enough to pass it. He wanted time to learn more before passing it.

By hand count vote of 14–7−1, resolution 8 was called to question.

L. Yu reiterated that they were asking for the support that the Asian-American community, 20% of the population, needed. The community is asking for it, and she asks that they honor that request.

Ray Li ‘09 said it’s irresponsible to say the Asian-American community needs to suck it up and integrate. He said the existing support has not worked and that this physical space could be used to provide the help Asian-Americans needed and promote integration.

By a roll call vote of 19–3−0, resolution 8 passed.

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

I. Orientation Steering Committee

Rohan Thakkar ‘08 thanked the student assembly for hearing their case.

Andrew Hielmann ‘08 said that their first funding priority was to provide meals for the increasing number of volunteers. He said the existing $4 allocation did not allow them to provide meals for the more than 200 additional volunteers. Volunteers have also expressed disappointment in not being provided meals when they are volunteering their time for this. He said they were requesting an increase of $0.27 for these purposes. He said that their second funding priority was for the National Orientation Directors Associations Regional Meeting for which the appropriations committee gave them $0.26, an amount that does not consider the cost of their meals while at the conference. He said the conference was important to the hundreds of students who the OSC oversee and who would benefit from the OSC’s participation. He said they do not eat at expensive restaurants and that they felt it was unfair that the funding would not cover their meals. He requested an increase of $0.06 to accommodate the purchase of meals while at this conference.

R. Thakkar thanked the student assembly for considering their requests and for granting their request for $1.03 for the Big Red Blowout event. He said they appreciated the $5.65 allocated to them by the appropriations committee but hoped that the student assembly would consider their request for an increase of $0.33 for a total funding amount of $5.98

A. Gay said that the appropriations committee voted 12–0−1 to fund the OSC $5.65. They felt there was a need for more funding for food for volunteers, so they were given an additional $0.36 for this reason. The amount for the conference remained at $0.26 because they felt it was reasonable for the OSC to pay for their own meals during the conference, and, as R. Thakkar alluded to, they were granted $1.03 for programming purposes for the Big Red Blowout.

A. Wang said he supported the request for additional funds because he felt the orientation program was important.

C. Basil said he thought there was merit to their first request for an additional $0.27 for feeding volunteers, and that he would consider voting down the appropriations committee’s decision. He felt the appropriation committee’s decision to not fund the OSC for the meals at the conference was justified based on previous similar decisions with other groups. He made a motion to disprove the decision of the appropriations committee. It was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Salem said that the allocation on the appropriations committee was appropriate. This is evident in the strength of the committee’s vote.

By a roll call vote of 8–8−2, the motion to disprove the appropriation committee’s decision failed.

C. Slicklen said the appropriations committee approved the amounts they did because they felt the number of dining hall meals requested was excessive and that the amount approved was sufficient for something like pizza. They have also set precedent that they will not fund meals during trips. He called to question the decision of the appropriations committee. It was seconded. There was dissent.

By a hand count vote of 13–7−0, the appropriation committee’s decision was called to question.

R. Thakkar said they understood the student assembly’s hesitance to fund several dining hall meals, but that the requested amount was necessary when taking into consideration the fact that the number of volunteers had increased from around 500 to over 800 volunteers, and the fact that the money was also used to fund meals for January Orientation volunteers as well.

A. Gay said the appropriations committee approved funding of $5.65 per student. In making the decision, they tried to be consistent with other decisions that had been made.

By a roll call vote of 15–4−0, the appropriations committee’s decision was upheld.

II. Community Center Programming Board

Joshua Tabak, an RA in Court Bauer, and Haley Bergman, both co-advisors on the north campus councils, introduced themselves to the assembly. J. Tabak said they have made changes to the councils this year. There was a north campus council and a west campus council, now there is a north campus programming board and a west campus programming board. He said they’ve made structural changes — previously there were the Appell and Robert Purcell councils, which had poor attendance and for which no one really understood the purpose. Because of these reasons, they chose to merge both of these councils into the north campus programming board to get them really involved in developing programs. A similar endeavor was undertaken on west campus. They’ve also eliminated hierarchy within the councils. Previously, the members at the first meetings would elect officials; now it’s an egalitarian council. The advisors are there for their experience and to facilitate discussion. The councils are responsible for generating ideas and implementing everything on their own.

H. Bergman said the councils provide leadership opportunities for first-year students and provide services for their peers.

A. Gay said appropriations committee voted unanimously to fully fund the community center programming board at the amount they’ve been funded in previous years because they felt they did a good job.

R. Salem said the councils definitely contribute to the community and he supports the appropriations committee’s decision. He called to question the appropriations committee’s decision. It was seconded. There was dissent

A. Wang said there were questions he wanted to ask.

The call to question was withdrawn.

A. Wang asked how they were using their funding to benefit Collegetown.

J. Tabak said the west campus council is responsible for Collegetown as well. He said the councils reach out to both the West Campus and Collegetown residence halls. He said the programming isn’t necessarily based out of the West Campus community centers. The community center programming board works with the resident halls to provide programming and events; efforts are made to communicate with everyone and to host events in several different places to ensure that they are catering to everyone.

V. Hartman asked if the events they held are only using money provided by the programming board.

H. Bergman said the programs that are sponsored exclusively by the programming board use those funds. She said that if a residence hall or other group came to them to collaborate on a program, they would contribute as well, but their budgets are usually smaller. The majority of what the programming board does is funded solely from their budget.

C. Slicklen said he was impressed with the case the presented, their commitment and their work. He called to question the appropriation committee’s decision. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

J. Tabak said that he appreciates the student assembly’s willingness to hear their case. He thinks their group really provides some valuable programming and hope they can receive the funding they need.

A. Gay said the appropriations committee voted unanimously to fully fund the community center programming board.

By a roll-call vote of 16–1−2, the appropriation committee’s decision was upheld.

III. Multi-Greek Letter Council (MGLC)

Kara Miller, Assistant Dean of Students in the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs said she wanted to address two issues that had come up earlier in the week. The first was that they were told MGLC currently receives $1.00 when actually they typically get $0.50 cents. The second was that they have $4,000 in excess funds. She said the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs dropped the ball on these things and hoped it wouldn’t be held against the group.

Jordan Gonzales, the VP of Finance for the Multi-Greek Letter Council, said that MGLC seeks to educate and provide activities for members of the campus. They serve the African-American, Asian-American and Latino interests. The activities that they offer are typically not offered by other groups or classes on campus. Activities have to be on campus, so they’re open to everyone, provide no alcohol, and provide some cultural or educational benefit. The allocation is currently at $0.50 per student. Progressively, from 2004 to 2007, there has been an increase in spending. They are using funding wisely and effectively. It has been the fastest growing council, with the reactivation of chapters and greater member intake. He discussed some of the activities they’ve sponsored. In response to confusion expressed by some assembly members, he tried to clarify some of the numbers presented.

A. Gay said the appropriations committee voted 10–3−1 to deny funding to the MGLC for the next two years. He said those who dissented said the activities were invaluable to the community but those in support of denying said it didn’t seem that they were not using all of the money they had been given.

M. Asgary said he was concerned that the money was not being used up in support of programs. He said that, at the $0.50 level, they clearly had more than enough money. He said he supported the appropriations committee’s decision because they were clearly not using the money given to them.

A. Wang said he was disheartened to hear that the appropriations committee denied MGLC funding. He thinks the funding is essential for the great events that MGLC supports. He encouraged the assembly members to rethink the appropriations committee’s decision. He said they would be cutting their great events. The Student Assembly has awarded funding to other groups that have had excess funds in the past, and this case shouldn’t be any different. He encouraged the assembly members to vote down the appropriations committee’s decision.

R. Lavin said he was sure the last thing they wanted to do was deny funding based on oversight of an advising office. He asked for more information on why they had the excess.

K. Miller said MGLC didn’t know how much money was in the account and didn’t have access to the account to find out. She said she didn’t have access either, so when they were preparing, they only had limited information.

R. Lavin asked how the allocations would have changed if they knew about the $4,000.

J. Gonzalez said if they had known about the $4,000, they wouldn’t have requested additional funds for the chapters to apply for. He said that a lot of chapters ran out of money allocated to them and couldn’t hold additional events; if they had known about the additional money they would have applied for it.

A. Craig said he thought it was important to support the events that MGLC sponsored. He said if they cut the funding, they’re cutting funding to groups that actually need and use it. He said by providing the funding they’ll encourage more sororities and fraternities to hold beneficial events. He was in support of reversing the appropriations committee’s decision and speaking with the SAFC to see what they could work out for the organization.

L. Polivy said that the Greek community was appealing the assembly’s humanity. He said they weren’t quite sure of all of the numbers and that this is an example of support issues. He said that, because of staffing, they didn’t have the help and support the needed to prepare for the by-line funding. He asked them to please make an exception and give them the $0.50 so they can continue their good work.

R. Stein said she didn’t understand how they were supposed to allocate funds when they didn’t know exactly how much money was being requested. She asked about the reasons for the discrepancies in the by-line funding request.

J. Gonzalez explained their funding system in attempt to explain the discrepancies.

M. Coombs said that he thought there was something wrong with the way they debate. He said he worried that if they upheld the appropriations committee’s decision, would it be perceived that they were concerned with funding or would it be perceived that they did not see the value of the events being held by MGLC? He said something was wrong if they considered how they were going to be perceived in making funding decisions. He encouraged the assembly members to look at the numbers in making their decision and to not consider what the community might think of them.

M. Asgary said they are not making a judgment on the value of MGLC’s events; they’re trying to be fiscally responsible. He needs to fully understand how they’re using the money and where it’s going before giving them more of his constituent’s money. He still doesn’t understand the information they’ve presented.

Jimmy Suarez ‘09 said that the chapters are limited in how much funding they can get because they can’t apply for funding from SAFC, or CUTonight or any of the other funding organizations; they can only apply for funding from MGLC. He said with MGLC’s funding, they had a set idea of how much money was available to them.

A. McGovern said she is also confused about the budget, but that she is not confused about whether or not they will spend the entire $0.50. She says she thinks they will be able to spend it and that she thinks they host valuable programs. She said they should overturn the appropriations committee’s decision.

Guy Mazza, a member of the appropriations committee, said that, in the appropriations committee hearing, a lot of things were addressed. He said he agrees that MGLC puts on valuable programming, but that most groups on campus do. It’s not their job to determine which group’s programming was more beneficial, and they have made cuts to other groups’ funding for similar reasons in the past even though they had valuable programming. He asked MGLC to explain their selection process for determining whom to fund.

J. Gonzalez says they have to fulfill MGLC requirements; treasurers from chapters come to make sure applicants are qualified to receive funding. Those denied are told what is needed to get the funding so that when they apply again they can be approved.

R. Lavin asked on what grounds chapters couldn’t receive SAFC funding.

J. Gonzalez said they couldn’t get SAFC funding if the event was off-campus or if the programming wasn’t for educational or multi-cultural purposes; they couldn’t receive funding for purely social events.

M. Asgary asked if they receive any SAFC funding.

J. Gonzalez said fraternities and sororities are not allowed to receive SAFC funding.

C. Sarra asked how they used the dues paid by members.

J. Gonzalez said the chapter dues collected go towards the tri-council budget. It goes toward the projected total cost for the year. MGLC cannot apply for that money for funding.

A. Salem said it’s not a matter of whether they can spend the money but a matter of if they have been spending the money. He motioned to approve the appropriations committee’s decision. It was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Wang said he wanted to hear the rest of the speakers.

By a hand count vote of 4–14–0, the question was not called.

Jonathan Feldman says he concurs with M. Asgary that they need to be fiscally responsible but that, in this case, it is difficult for the information to be accurate because of the issues mentioned, such as the staffing issues. He said they should table the vote so they can get accurate numbers and information and then next week they could decide.

V. Hartman said he agreed that they should refrain from making a decision until they could get more accurate information. He made a motion to refer the budget back to appropriations committee. It was seconded. There was dissent.

C. Slicklen said he thought the request was to table the decision until the next meeting so that they could get more information, not to send it back to the appropriations committee. He asked V. Hartman to withdraw the motion.

V. Hartman said he wanted to send the case back to appropriations committee because he didn’t see how they could have properly presented their case to appropriations committee if they couldn’t properly present it to the SA.

E. Greenberg said the appropriations committee is not at fault. They made the decision based on the information they had, to the best of their ability, and it is not their responsibility to guide groups through the budget making process.

M. Asgary said he agreed with E. Greenberg. He said it is the responsibility of the group to ensure all of the information is presented.

A. Salem asked if they are allowed to examine a new budget if they bring it to the next meeting since the deadline has passed.

A. Gay said they would not be bringing a new budget; they would be bringing new supporting evidence.

L. Polivy reiterated what A. Gay said. MGLC would be bringing additional information not a new budget. By a hand count vote of 3–15–0, the SA voted not to refer the decision back to appropriations committee.

J. Pomboza said the majority of LLC programs are sponsored by MGLC and they really provide a perspective that attracts the community and allows people to access different views. He said their work was beneficial to the community.

C. Slicklen said he thought they were in agreement that they didn’t want to see funding disappear. He thought they should table the issue until next week because it’s important to have all the facts. He made a motion to table the decision. The motion was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Salem said he wanted to know what the new information was going to be. He said he didn’t think it was fair to table this just because they didn’t bring the necessary information before the assembly.

A. Gay said he agreed that tabling it would be beneficial to everyone.

J. Gonzalez said all of the information the assembly members had before them was submitted with their application.

R. Stein said she wants to see clearly how MGLC is using the funds, what programs they’re funding. She said she doesn’t think anyone wants to pull their funding but that they needed comprehensive numbers to make an educated decision and that’s why they should table it.

A. Wang said he was hesitant to table the hearing, but that he understood that tabling it would allow them to make a more informed decision.

By a hand count vote of 15–3−0, the hearing was tabled until the next meeting.

IV. CUTonight

Two CUTonight representatives gave a history of their organization and reviewed their numbers and funding policies. They fund groups who wish to hold late-night programming. She said there selection process was very selective and that they only fund about 50% of applications. They requested to be funded $10.00, an increase of $2.00 more than the $8.00 they were granted during the last funding cycle.

A. Gay said the appropriations committee voted 13–0−1 to fund CUTonight at $9.00, an increase of $1.00, for the next two years. They felt they did good work but didn’t feel an increase of $2.00 was warranted.

M. Asgary said they asked for $10.00 and the appropriations committee only recommended $9.00. He asked what the purpose of the midpoint was.

A. Gay said that they felt an increase was warranted based on the number of applications CUTonight has been receiving but that they felt this first step could be readdressed in two years.

M. Asgary asked what were the sources of the rollover each semester.

The CUTonight representative said the sources of rollover came from their appeals money, and groups under-realizing funds.

A. Salem called to question the appropriations committee’s decision. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

The CUTonight representative said the $2.00 increase would allow them to fund 2 more events per funding cycle. This would allow them to keep their selection rate at 50%, which is pretty low. They have been turning down a lot of great events.

A. Gay said they voted 13–0−1 to fund CUTonight at $9.00, an increase of $1.00

By a roll call vote of 14–0−2, the appropriations committee’s decision was upheld.

V. Joint Assemblies Financial Aid Review Committee (Students Helping Students)

R. Lavin said Students Helping Students is an emergency grant fund that helps students in emergency situations with funding.

A. Gay said the appropriations committee voted unanimously to fully fund the group at $1.00. The committee felt that the services they provided were invaluable.

M. Coombs called to question the appropriations committee’s decision. It was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Wang said he had a few questions.

R. Lavin said that all of the money was going towards the endowment and that within two funding cycles the money should be self-sustainable.

A. Gay said the appropriations committee unanimously voted to fully fund Students Helping Students at $1.00.

By a hand count vote, the question was called.

By a vote of 16–1−1, the appropriations committee’s decision was upheld.

o Resolution 7 - Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS)- Rammy Salem and Andrew Wang

Resolution 7 was tabled until the next meeting.

VII. New Business

o Resolution 9 - Resolution to support the efforts of Connect Ithaca to implement a Personal Rapid Transit System in the Ithaca community- Austin Redmon, Rammy Salem, Carlos Rymer, Cole Streiff, Julie Heier

Resolution 9 was tabled until the next meeting.

VIII. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. It was seconded. E. Greenberg adjourned the meeting.