Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
November 29, 2007
4:45 — 7:00 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

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

II. Roll Call

Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Daniel Budish, Mark Coombs, Asa Craig, Samantha Dong, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vince Hartman, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steven Matthews, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Austin Redmon, Christopher Sarra, C.J. Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Sanjiv Tata, Andrew Wang

Excused: Lance Polivy, Ahmed Salem

Unexcused: Rammy Salem

III. Approval of the Minutes

There were no corrections to the 11/8/2007 Minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the 11/8/2007 SA meeting were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

E. Greenberg asked if any members of the audience wished to speak on items not on the agenda.

No one came forward.

V. Announcements/Reports

A. Natarajan reminded all assembly members to pick up their Student Assembly polo shirts from the Office of Assemblies.

There were no other announcements.

VI. Business of the Day

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

L. Chernosky said that of any organization on the Cornell campus, the Student Assembly Finance Commission leaves perhaps the greatest impact on the everyday life of undergraduates. As the funding arm of the Student Assembly, the SAFC provides the necessary money to undergraduate groups to create the myriad publications, participate in the endless sports competitions, bring in prominent speakers, put on dozens of shows, and make the campus the vibrant, lively place that it is. A majority of groups on campus simply could not exist without the continued support from the SAFC, and unfortunately, prices continue to raise stretching SAFC resources thinner and thinner. The SAFC acknowledges and is incredibly grateful for the massive increase received last byline funding cycle; however, this cycle they will still request an annual increase of 3.07% for the next two years (a total of 6.14%) to cover general price inflation. The SAFC consists of approximately thirty undergraduates who ultimately allocate the funding for the over 350 registered student organizations on the Cornell Campus. The SAFC works with a wide range of student groups, and bases their funding decisions on (1) SAFC and Cornell University polices and the guidelines established by the Student Assembly, (2) the number of student organizations requesting funding, and the total amount of funds available and (3) information provided by organizations on their applications. The SAFC seeks to allocate its money in a manner that provides all student organizations the means necessary to enrich student life on campus. The SAFC’s job seems to get more difficult by the year as an increase in student groups and an increase in average requests coupled with a static supply of money forces the commission into a process of cuts and caps that prevents student organization from receiving the full amount they need. He said that the price increase that the SAFC is requesting is solely based on inflation from the 2008–2009 standard measure for inflation.

A. Gay said that the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to maintain the SAFC’s current level of funding at $75 per student for a number of reasons. During the previous funding cycle, the SAFC received an increase of $12.00 per student. Taking the numerous variables at play during a funding cycle and the aggregate student activity fee amount into account, the committee felt that maintaining the current funding level was appropriate and would not be detrimental to the SAFC.

M. Asgary confirmed that the aggregate student activity fee has thus far amounted to $204. He said that there was an excess amount of money left over after student organizations received funding from the SAFC. He asked if such an excess existed in previous semesters. He also asked why an increase in funding was needed, if the SAFC had an excess amount of money left over after allocations.

L. Chernosky said that the SAFC allocates as much of their SA allocation as possible but that it is necessary to set aside a certain amount for appeals and special project funding. This semester he decided to set aside $40,000 for appeals. Money remaining after appeals will generally be given out through special project funding. This semester, the majority of this money will be given out in the early spring semester funding cycle. The increase that the SAFC is requesting is based solely on inflation. Inflation erodes the value of the SAFC’s allocations and thus student organizations will be able to purchase less if the funding level is maintained.

M. Asgary asked if L. Chernosky had any specific number available about the amount of funding left over at the end of the semester after appeals and special projects have been funded.

L. Chernosky said that he did not have specific numbers available but that there were approximately $2000 left over this semester.

A. Wang asked if L. Chernosky felt that the increase was necessary.

E. Greenberg confirmed that the SAFC will be allocated $75.53.

L. Chernosky emphasized that the increase that the SAFC is asking for is based on inflation. There is no dire need for an increase. However the SAFC will have less money to allocate in real terms.

R. Lavin motioned to approve the decision of the Appropriations Committee. It was seconded. V. Hartman dissented.

V. Hartman said that he wanted to ask L. Chernosky about the SAFC’s level of improvement and use of money following the $12.00 allocation increase during the previous funding cycle.

There was a vote to vote. The previous question was not called.

V. Hartman asked what improvements to the SAFC have occurred in the past two years as a result of the $12 increase in the allocation level.

L. Chernosky said that he did not have specific numbers available. Every semester the requests for funds that the SAFC receives far exceeds the amount of funding that they allocate. The increase in funding has been used to meet the demands of student organizations.

M. Asgary said that SA representatives frequently hear groups complaining about various SAFC cuts and caps. Many groups feel that they have been shortchanged. He said that he therefore wants to make sure that the SAFC receives adequate funding. He asked how maintaining the level of funding would affect student organizations.

L. Chernosky said that groups will have less money in real terms since inflation occurs.

A. Gay motioned to approve the decision of the Appropriations Committee. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

L. Chernosky said that the increase the SAFC is asking for is based solely on inflation. It is an approximately 3.3% increase over the next two years.

A. Gay said that the Appropriations Committee’s decision to maintain the level of funding is in now way related to SAFC leadership or activities. The committee had to look at the activity fee in aggregate as well as the fluctuations in SAFC funding allocations. The committee felt that the $75 per student allocation was the most fiscally responsible.

In response to a question posed by D. Budish, A. Gay clarified that the SAFC’s total allocation is $75.53. As mandated in the SA charter, the Student Activity Fee must be rounded to the nearest dollar with the extra money going to the SAFC.

There was a roll call vote. By a vote of 15, 4, 1, the decision of the Appropriations Committee was upheld.

Final Legislation to Authorize the 2008–2010 Student Activity Fee — Adam Gay

E. Greenberg said that, according to the SA Charter, it would take a simple majority to amend any piece of the budget and a 3/5 majority to approve the entire budget. He said that the numbers presented in the final budget have already been voted on and approved by the majority of the SA. The SA and the Appropriations Committee have spent countless hours determining allocation amounts.

A. Gay thanked all members of the Appropriations Committee and all Student Assembly representatives for their commitment to the by-line funding process. He presented a spreadsheet containing the recommended allocation of the 2008–2010 Student Activity Fee. The spreadsheet contains the allocation amounts that the Student Assembly has voted on through the course of the semester.

E. Greenberg quoted a statement from VP Murphy which read “You have followed a thoughtful and considerable process and given that the final increase to $204, we will endorse it to the President.” He said that this means that the $204 fee has her approval and support.

M. Asgary confirmed that Appendix B changes will be discussed and finalized next semester.

C. Slicklen said that he has enjoyed working with all representatives during the by-line funding process. He thanked all groups who came and presented their budgets before the SA. The SA and the Appropriations Committee were very comprehensive in terms of reviewing each organization’s budget. The groups were very aware of the process. He said that he does not think that it is fair to go back and amend any organization’s budget. By a show of hands, only one representative had every organization’s budget in front of them. He thinks that it is only appropriate to pass the budget and amend Appendix A as needed next semester. The budget has the administration’s approval meaning that the SA’s recommendations will be supported to the President and Board of Trustees.

C. Slicklen motioned to approve the 2008–2010 Student Activity Fee as recommended by the Appropriations Committee. It was seconded. A. Wang dissented.

A. Wang said that he would like to make a few comments before the assembly approves the fee.

There was a hand vote to move the previous question. By a vote of 14, 7 the previous question was called.

E. Greenberg said that the vote and budget will be presented to the President and the Board of Trustees. He urged representatives to keep this fact in mind while voting. A 3/5 majority is needed to approve the 2008–2010 Student Activity Fee.

By a vote of 15 to 5, the decision of the Appropriations Committee was approved by the Student Assembly.

E. Greenberg thanked all representatives for their time and effort related to the by-line funding process.

Approval of the Student Assembly Finance Commission’s Candidates for Commissioner — Adam Gay, Ian Lesyk. Maddie Ehrlich, Luke Chernosky

L. Chernosky said that the SAFC selects new commissioners each semester. Potential candidates go through an application and interview process after which the SAFC votes to select the new commissioners.

C. Slicklen said that all SA representatives had been emailed the list of candidates for commissioner but asked L. Chernosky to please read the names off.

L. Chernosky said that the SAFC selected Ming Dang, Cailen Casey, Si Chang, Benjamin Finkel, Stanly Gartshein, Marian Heller, and Michael Perry as new commissioners to the SAFC.

The executive board will be made up of co-chairs Jack Castle and Taylor Mulherin, VP of Publicity Elyse Feldman, VP of Internal Operations Jonathon Raymond and VP of External Operations Danielle Fernandes.

C. Slicklen called for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The new commissioners were thus approved.

Approval of the Student Assembly Finance Commission’s Recommendation for the President’s and Treasurer’s Handbook — Adam Gay, Ian Lesyk, Maddie Ehrlich, Luke Chernosky

L. Chernosky said that the SAFC reviews the President and Treasurer’s Handbook at the end of each semester looking for ways to make funding more accessible to students. He said that approximately 20 changes were made most of which were minor.

E. Greenberg asked L. Chernosky to summarize the major changes and the most contentious issues.

L. Chernosky said that every year groups would like to apply for money to fund events that fall between the first day of classes and the date of the budget hearings. If a group chooses to hold an event at this time, it is uncertain as to whether or not it will receive funding because allocation decisions have not been made yet. Therefore the SAFC decided to allow groups to apply for funding for an event in the next semester if the date of the event will fall between the first day of classes and the date of the budget hearings. The event will be treated as a normal priority and funded in the semester in which it is applied for. The SAFC also clarified that acceptable e-mail documentation consists of an e-mail printed directly from an on-line web client which includes the URL at the bottom of the page. The commission also decided to cap international travel at $1500. The changes just outlined were the three main modifications to the President and Treasurer’s Handbook. He said that representatives could ask him questions about these or any other changes.

M. Asgary asked L. Chernosky about the clause in the proposed changes to the P&T Handbook that reads “The SAFC will only fund for events that occur within the fall and spring academic semesters (fall break, Thanksgiving Break, Spring Break, and Study week) will be funded only if the date of the event is out of the group’s control�documentation regarding.” He said that he could see the “documentation regarding” section as being problematic in that it is unclear. He asked L. Chernosky to elaborate on the issue.

L. Chernosky said that “documentation regarding” refers students to the entire section in the handbook outlining what constitutes proper documentation.

V. Hartman said that he is interested in the restriction on international travel. He said that he feels that the principle purpose of the SAFC is to create a vibrant community and fund for events on campus. He thinks that funding for international travel takes money away from campus. He feels that international travel by student organizations is more of a desire than a necessity. He said that he would like to amend the SAFC policy so that international travel is not funded at all.

V. Hartman motioned to amend the changes to the P& T Handbook. A. Wang seconded the motion. There was dissent.

E. Greenberg said that the assembly would now be debating the amendment.

M. Asgary asked how many groups request funding for international travel. He asked if L., Chernosky felt that funding international travel was a necessity and how the SAFC determined the cap of $1500 on international travel.

L. Chernosky said that he personally aggress with Representative Hartman. He feels that money going towards international travel could be better spent elsewhere. Since the assembly voted against an increase in the SAFC by-line funded allocation he feels that it would make sense to not fund international travel as a way of working more effectively with the funding the SAFC has available. He said that he shared his personal views, just mentioned, with the commission and that many commissioners did not share his opinions. Many commissioners felt that international travel was beneficial to the Cornell Community. The $1500 cap represents a compromise.

A. Redmon said he disagrees with Representative Hartman on the issue of international travel. The Student Activity Fee is not just meant for the Cornell Campus. It is meant for the students wherever they may go. He said he that it is amazing that students can travel abroad and represent Cornell. The SA through the SAFC funds student travel off campus all the time and he does not see why international travel should be treated differently.

A. Wang said that he understands the importance of international travel. However, Cornell in itself is a very diverse and international community. Money could be better spent elsewhere. Groups seeking funding for international travel can apply for funds through the various by-line funded organizations that provide co-sponsorships. He urged representatives to vote in favor of the amendment.

C. Basil asked about international travel to Canada by car. He asked if the amendment intended to limit geographical reach. A blanket ban on international travel may not be the best way to approach the issue. He suggested banning international air travel.

V. Hartman said that Representative Basil had a good point. He said that when he presented the amendment he had proximity to Cornell in mind and that Canada is a lot closer to Cornell than California. He said that the issue of banning international travel is not necessarily related to air travel.

V. Hartman said that he would like to amend the amendment to ban international travel excluding Canada. He said that the cost of plane tickets is not the primarily factor motivating his desire to ban international travel.

E. Greenberg suggested that the amendment ban international travel excluding North America.

V. Hartman motioned to amend the amendment to ban international travel excluding Canada. He said that his concern was more for proximity to Cornell and Mexico is considerably far away.

R. Stein said that she feels that capping international travel at $1500 in itself acts as a ban on international travel. $1500 is an insufficient amount of money in relation to the costs of international travel.

D. Budish asked if the SAFC funds the group Alternative Spring Breaks which travels to Nicaragua.

L. Chernosky said that the SAFC does and has funded Alternatives Spring Breaks in the past.

D. Budish said that the organization, which sends students to Nicaragua to help improve the area, is fantastic. The organization works very hard and passing the amendment would eliminate their funding for no good reason. He does not see the point in the ban. The SAFC examines the budgets of each group and identifies erroneous expenses. He does not feel that it is the job of the SA to limit what the SAFC already does.

V. Hartman said that he would like to further explain his rationale. The assembly has in the past debated allocations to by-line funded groups that vary by a few cents. $1500 is approximately ten cents per student and is a significant number. When the SAFC looks at student travel, the cap is 4 students unless documentation is provided as to why more need to attend. With the 4 student cap, each student traveling internationally is getting about $400 of the Student Activity Fee. It is necessary to look at better uses of the money being used to fund international travel. The assembly’s focus has been on not raising the SAF. He suggested examining ways to better allocate the current amount.

In response to a question posed by A. Craig, V. Hartman said that he is primarily concerned with cost. International travel costs far exceed those of domestic travel costs.

A. Craig seconded R. Stein. He said that he feels that the $1500 cap on international travel acts to control the costs and at the same time allows groups some funding. Spreading Cornell’s name internationally is important in that it highlights the university and its offerings. As a whole, international travel helps the university.

In response to a question posed by A. Wang, L. Chernosky confirmed that the international travel in question occurs during the semester.

A. Wang said that many Cornell Students both study and travel abroad seeking out funding sources besides the Student Activities Fee. There are a number of financial sources besides the SAF that students wishing to travel internationally can turn to.

C. Sarra said that allowing the SAFC to fund international travel provides those students who are unable to study abroad with the opportunity to go overseas.

A. Natarjan said that he feels that Representative Stein put it best. Capping international travel at $1500 acts as a limit in itself. He feels that the amendment to the amendment creates crazy situations based on geographic proximity.

A. Natarajan called to question on the amendment to the amendment. A. Gay seconded. There was no dissent.

E. Greenberg clarified that by voting in the affirmative representatives would be voting to limit funding for travel to the U.S. and Canada.

By a hand vote of 2, 15, 1 the amendment to the amendment failed.

E. Greenberg clarified that the debate will return to the original amendment.

D. Budish said that the SA should not prevent groups from doing what they do best as is the case with Alternative Spring Breaks.

D. Budish called to question. It was seconded.

E. Greenberg clarified that if representatives were voting in the affirmative, they were voting in favor of the ban on funding for international travel.

By a hand vote of 2, 15, 1, the amendment failed. Funding for international travel will not be taken away.

E. Greenberg said that the discussion would return to the changes to the P&T Handbook as a whole.

C. Slicklen called to question. It was seconded. The motion was withdrawn as a number of representatives indicated their desire to speak.

A. McGovern asked said that she had a question regarding the clause that limits the SAFC from funding requests for the purpose of “carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence public legislation.” She said that her understanding was that the SAFC was limited from providing funds to requests that support a specific partisan candidate for a political office. She said that she is wondering why political groups cannot be funded.

L. Chernosky said that the stipulation that A. McGovern asked about has been around since before he even became a commissioner. He is therefore unaware as to the rationale for putting it in the handbook in the first place.

A. McGovern said that she would like to motion to strike “ ‘Requests for the purpose of “carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence public legislation.” ’

L. Chernosky said that it was not his job as a commissioner to be subjective and that he has therefore been applying this rule.

I. Lesyk said that he thinks that the rationale is that, since the SAFC is funded by the SAF, the money should not go towards supporting a specific candidate.

A. McGovern clarified that she is not trying to change the rule to permit the SAFC to fund for requests supporting a specific candidate. She just wants to ensure that political groups supporting issues can be funded. The stipulation does not seem to be limiting what it is intending to limit. She asked if there have ever been any issues with the clause.

A. McGovern motioned to strike the 13th restriction under the heading of What the SAFC Cannot Fund. The restriction reads “ ‘Requests for the purpose of “carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence public legislation.” ’ It was seconded. There was dissent.

C. Sarra said that he believes as the restriction stands political organizations can receive funding. He feels that the restriction just limits groups from creating propaganda.

E. Greenberg said that the thinks the intent of this clause is to limit student organizations from making donations to political campaigns.

A. McGovern said that she understands that but that the restriction clause is very vague. She does not want to see political organizations slip through the cracks and not be funded at all. For example, does restriction clause 13 mean that groups focusing on women’s issues can not make statements or hold events relating to legislation?

E. Greenberg asked if any representative or member of the audience was in the position to answer A. McGovern’s question.

Dean Holmes said that she was in charge of student activities and that the clause in question has existed for many years. She asked if it would be possible to table the particular clause so that her office could look into the issue further. There may be some legal issues involved.

A. McGovern said that the issue could be tabled but that she believed the legal issue relates to not being able to support specific candidates as opposed to issues.

A. McGovern changed her amendment. She would like restriction 13 to read “Requests for the purpose of “carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence the election of a particular candidate.” There were multiple seconds. There was dissent.

A. Wang said that he would like to ask Catherine Holmes if the amendment was permissible with her.

C. Holmes said that she would prefer if the SA did not amend the restriction until the legal issue could be looked into.

E. Greenberg clarified that the SA can amend the 13th restriction next semester even if they choose to approve the changes to the P&T Handbook as a whole today.

A. McGovern recommended making the amendment now and then reexamining the issue next semester if need be. She does not want groups to fall through the cracks during the upcoming funding cycle.

E. Greenberg confirmed that the motion was on the table and that there was dissent.

M. Asgary said that he supports both the spirit of the amendment and the sentiment to pass the amendment this semester. If the amendment does not cause any legal problems then it will stand. If the amendment poses a problem, then the assembly will respond to it. He suggested that if the amendment is problematic to just have the clause revert back to what it was before the change.

C. Slicklen said that he agrees with Representative Asgary.

C. Slicklen motioned to call to question. It was seconded.

A. McGovern pointed out that the restriction does not apply to the Student Activity Fee which funds the SAFC. Therefore, the amendment is likely to be legally acceptable.

There was no dissent. Seeing no dissent, C. Slicklen called for acclimation. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote of 14, 2, 0, the amendment was approved. Restriction 13 now reads “Requests for the purpose of “carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence the election of a particular candidate.”

A. Gay thanked A. McGovern for bringing the previous issue to the attention of the assembly. He said that he feels that the SAFC has done a great job of identifying contentious issues and clarifying points in the P&T Handbook.

A. Gay motioned to call to question. There were multiple seconds. A. Wang dissented.

A. Wang said that the new clauses handout states that the SAFC will not fund for software in one section and then in the next section says that the SAFC will fund for the licensing rights to computer software. He asked L. Chernosky to clarify these clauses.

L. Chernosky said that the SAFC does not currently fund for software but that under the proposed changes they would fund for licensing rights. The clause came into being after an astronomy group had requested funding for software licensing. The request was approved on appeal and the organization does not actually own the software.

E. Greenberg said that there was a motion to call to question and that it had been seconded. Since there was dissent, the assembly would now be voting to move the previous question. By a hand vote of 16,2, the previous question was called.

L. Chernosky said that all changes were made in the spirit of making it easier for students to receive funding.

By a roll call vote of 17,0,1, the changes to the SAFC’s policy were approved.

President’s Statement

There was a motion to move Resolutions 9, 10 and 11 to Business of the Day. It was seconded. There was no dissent. Resolutions 9, 10 and 11 were moved to the end of business of the day.

E. Greenberg read a prepared statement. He said that he would like to congratulate the Student Assembly for officially completing the by-line funding process. For the past 11 weeks, the assembly has appropriated over $2.5 million from the aggregate Student Activity Fee for over 25 of the most important student organizations, services and funding boards across campus. Over 60 hours of hearings went into the process in the efforts of the Appropriations Committee and the greater Student Assembly. He said that he wanted to personally commend VP Gay for his careful management of the by-line funding cycle. He has learned a lot from A. Gay’s patience and enthusiasm. He thanked A. Gay for making himself so personally available to every group whenever they had questions or concerns that needed to be addressed. He commended the rest of the assembly for their own patience and enthusiasm. In addition, he commended their drive and commitment to ensuring that the by-line funding process remained fair and thorough for its duration. At times representatives disagreed and clashed in the most public of venues but he does believe that the entire assembly shared a commonality, the mutual desire to work for the greater goodness of Cornell. This semester the assembly investigated gender-neutral housing. The trial period is likely to begin early next year. The assembly debated issues relating to the Asian and Asian American Community, passing Resolution 8 to demonstrate commitment to serving the needs of all students at the time and place that such service proved necessary. Representatives reached out to peers on the Ivy Council and hosted a SUNY Executive Board meeting at Cornell for the first time in recent years. The assembly’s Environmental, CIT and Dining Committees were incredibly active and he is confident that the community is better off as a result of all their hard work. By-line funding had its challenges. The assembly’s interpretation of Appendix A and following clarification caused quite the uproar for some time. As demonstrated today, the simple majority that can override the simple majority of the Appropriations Committee ensured that the SA remains more powerful than the committee throughout the entire process. He stands by the assembly’s decision in light of the necessity they faced to make a decision. It was the best decision they could have made at the time when they found the process in need of decisive action. Despite all of this work and the tangible successes of the assembly, by-line funding brought to light the discrepancies that exist in the SA Charter, inaccuracies that remain unfixed and loopholes that remain unplugged. The by-line funding and its subsequent debates from week to week demonstrated that to often the SA is ignored and at worst chastised by members of the same community the assembly took an oath to serve. On November 14, M. Coombs speaking as a member of the community wrote in the Cornell Daily Sun, “If we really truly in our heart of hearts want to see the SA change we have to be willing to change along with it.” He said that he agrees with this sentiment but that there is so much more to it than that. The assembly’s institutional flaws, the guidelines, and regulations in the Charter can all be fixed but the perverse stigma that the community has against the SA, while having subsided slightly over the past few semesters, still lurks in the shadows waiting for the most opportune time to bite. He said that he is not talking about valid criticism, challenge, scrutiny, opposition or anything of the sort. He is referring to the utterly false stigma that the SA lacks any integrity or heart. Representatives have put their faces, their names, their reputations on the line this semester in an effort to redefine the SA. We thought that through sheer force of will and by allowing the community to see the kind of people that really do get elected we could change people’s hearts and minds and maybe just maybe show them that they aren’t so bad after all. The assembly however needs more than good will and good intentions. The assembly needs an institutional facelift and a system that engages the entire campus addressing local issues and the broader issues of our time. They need a system that stimulates the community, challenges the community and forces them to become better citizens, a system that can see and envision by those who will be living under its governance for the duration of their time on campus. He said that he is quietly stepping aside and resigning his position as President of the Student Assembly effective immediately. As per the Student Assembly Charter, Executive VP C. Slicklen will take over as President and R. Lavin as Executive VP. A special internal election will be held to fill the role for VP of Internal Operations. A friend suggested that he articulate just how his resignation will go on to fulfill the ideas and goals that he has in mind. First he asked that his resignation be taken as a sign of seriousness to the reform process that the SA needs to continue. When the SA eliminated tickets late last year, it set the assembly on the right path. The assembly has been moving steadily forward ever since. This is not a sound bite in the Cornell Daily Sun but rather a 100% commitment to begin to address the period of organizational change. Secondly, the assembly should begin the conversation to address structural flaws in procedure and governing documents and to consider the best ways to fix them. He hopes that he can have a leading role in the conversation. How the assembly will solve its problems will take some creativity but he is confident that an innovative way to do it will be found. Thirdly, the assembly should reach out to the Cornell Community to discern what it is going to take to engage them. The assembly should consult administrators, faculty, students and staff. They should consult the leaders of major student organizations and open the door for all input. It is necessary to create a way for the most activist students and their SA representatives to collaborate in honest discussion. Finally, the SA must accept as an institution and as a community that these questions are not easily answered. The assembly’s current system is 26 years old and even the best systems need some adjustment now and again. The community has to take responsibility for its own student government. Representatives are students just like everyone else in the community. He said that the assembly hopes and expects that students be skeptical of the student government representatives. For this to happen, the community needs to be engaged and own the system. He urged the wider community to responsibly scrutinize the SA and the question representatives for the purpose of discovering the truth. By fall 2009, ahead of the next by-line funding cycle, he sincerely hopes that the SA has a revised system in place. He hopes the assembly will recognize the necessity of conversation. He knows that C. Slicklen and R. Lavin, two outstanding leaders committed to the university, will guide the Student Assembly during the transition phase that awaits. He hopes that the Cornell Community will engage in this thoughtful conversation and seize the opportunity to work the problem. He called on everyone to come together and identify the issues, seek input and identify solutions. It is his hope that by fall 2009, there will be a new and modified system of government in place. He thanked all representatives for the opportunity to have served as President of the Student Assembly. At this point, he said that C. Slicklen would take the chair.

C. Slicklen thanked E. Greenberg for all the work that he has done on behalf of the Student Assembly.

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, and Ashley McGovern

A. Redmon said that at a recent meeting all representatives listened to a presentation by the Connect Ithaca group and had the opportunity to ask questions. Resolution 9 is a resolution indicating the assembly’s support for the organization’s mission to establish a personal rapid transit system.

D. Budish thanked the sponsors for their work. He said that as an Urban Planning major, he has seen many case studies on rapid transit systems. Implementing such a system is a major change and success has only been documented in a few cases. In many cases, a rapid transit system both literally and figuratively casts a shadow on many cities. He recommended that the assembly approach the issue cautiously. He asked how much the Connect Ithaca group has accomplished so far and what kinds of studies have been done relating to North America. He asked if the group had any evidence that such a system would not be a scar to Ithaca.

A representative from Connect Ithaca said that a test track would be built outside of the city in the region before any construction commences within Ithaca. So before a rapid transit comes to Ithaca, the group will have the opportunity to study a working sample.

D. Budish said that he would definitely support a resolution supporting the testing of a rapid transit system. He said the does not really want to see the assembly supporting something that has not been tested.

A. Wang said that although the program is wonderful in spirit he has some doubts as well. The current TCAT system is great and works well.

A. Redmon said that the rapid transit pods will not just be hovering around campus. The system will be on the outskirts of campus. He emphasized that the system would not be an eyesore. The main function of the system is to make the community more sustainable part of which is relieving personal vehicle use.

A representative from Connect Ithaca said that the plan right now is to have the nodes on the perimeter of campus and then to have the bus system serve the nodes. The system will provide students with access to off campus locations.

M. Asgary said that he respects the resolution and feels that the Connect Ithaca program is a great initiative.

M. Asgary motioned to call to question. It was seconded. D. Budish dissented.

D. Budish said that he dissented because he wished to propose an amendment to the resolution.

By a hand vote, the motion failed.

D. Budish said that he would like to make an amendment so that the last be it therefore resolved clause reads, “The Student Assembly supports the efforts of Connect Ithaca to investigate the test of a Personal Rapid Transit System in the Ithaca community.”

Since the sponsors of the resolution accepted the amendment, there was no debate.

C. Sarra motioned to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

A. McGovern said that by passing the resolution the SA will send a message to the administration that they are interested in sustainability. Although the Personal Rapid Transit System may never actually be implemented, it is an important message to send.

M. Asgary motioned for unanimous consent. It was seconded. There was no dissent. Resolution 9 passed unanimously.

Resolution 10 — Resolution Regarding Mann Library’s Decision Not to Choose Cornell Dining for the current “Manndibles” Location — Mazdak Asgary and Joshua Tabak

M. Asgary said that Representative S. Matthews will be cosigning Resolution 10 as well. He said that members of the Cornell community have complained that the Mann Library Caf� does not accept Big Red Bucks. Cornell Dining wished to attain the bid for the Mann Library eatery location and submitted a concept that was too generic. The committee used a rating scale and Cornell Dining did not receive high marks in any of the categories. Regardless of the selection process, the issue now and in the resolution is the acceptance of BRBs. Manndibles does not accept BRBs because they are viewed as a proprietary Cornell Dining payment. Cornell dining has indicated that they could run the current eatery and accept BRBs. Cornell Dining will not allow an outside vendor to accept BRBs which are built into their revenues. Likewise, Cornell Card can only be accepted at Cornell entities and City Bucks can only be accepted off campus. M. Asgary emphasized that the intention of the resolution is not condemn the current eatery. The use of BRBs keeps money and jobs on campus in that all of the money that Cornell Dining makes goes back to dining programs. 99.4%of first year undergraduates are on meal plans with percentages decreasing over the years. When parents pay for their children’s meal plans, they expect their kids to be able to use BRBs all over campus and not to have to pay additionally to purchase food in some locations. He said that the resolution is ultimately saying that the assembly would like to see Big Red Bucks accepted at the location in Mann and eventually all over campus. The sponsors would like to start a conversation with Mann Library about how BRBs can be accepted. An administrator spoke at the Dining Committee meeting suggesting that such a resolution is a good mechanism for moving forwards. The resolution will be used as a starting point.

C. Slicklen pointed out that the eighth whereas clause mentions Mac’s Caf� and the Terrance Restaurant. Mac’s Caf� accepts BRBs until 3 p.m. and Terrace Restaurant always accepts them.

E. Greenberg said that he received approximately 133 emails from the supporters of Manndibles Caf� who are against the resolution. He got no emails in support of the resolution. These numbers are very telling and that the three sponsors seem to have misjudged the voice of the students. He said that students seem to love the caf� and that he will therefore be voting against the resolution.

J. Tabak said that the intent of the resolution is poorly understood. The resolution is not condemning Manndibles as it currently exists or saying that Manndibles should be closed. He pointed out that there was active solicitation to find people who do not support the resolution.

E. Greenberg said that people support Manndibles and the resolution is regarding Mann Library’s decision not chose Cornell Dining for the current Manndibles location. This wording means that the sponsors think the existence of Manndibles was a mistake.

A. Gay echoed E. Greenberg. As a member of CALS he is disappointed to see fellow representative S. Matthews sign on to the resolution. He said that all of his constituents strongly support Manndibles and want to see its continued existence. He understands that the sponsors of the resolution are not calling for the dissolution of Manndibles but feels that starting a conversation with Cornell Dining regarding the acceptance of BRBs at Manndibles would have been a better approach. He is strongly in favor of Manndibles and is against the resolution. It does not appropriately address the issue.

S. Matthews as a CALS representative said that he loves Manndibles. However, the sentiment that he has heard more loudly than ‘I love Manndibles’ is ‘I wish Manndibles accepted BRBs.’ The resolution is not calling for the death of Manndibles but rather the acceptance of BRBs.

A. McGovern echoed previous representatives in her support for Manndibles. The caf� provides far more local produce than Cornell Dining. She asked why Moosewood Caf� which is not a part of Cornell Dining can accept BRBs.

M. Asgary said that Moosewood Caf�, although using Moosewood recipes, is operated by Cornell Dining. Any operation of Cornell Dining accepts BRBs. The caf� is not operated by an outside vendor like the current location in Mann. Cornell Dining is willing to produce the same food as Manndibles and to accept BRBs. Cornell Dining also ensures that they purchase at least 25% local produce. The produce must meet both quality and competitive pricing standards. He feels like the Dining Administration more than any other department is willing to listen to students and will use the resolution as a starting point for conversation.

Hannah Sadtler, ‘08, said that she feels strongly that choice is in the best interest of students. A lot of students love Manndibles and it is great that the Dining Committee is trying to align themselves with the students but their effort is misguided. She thinks that a better approach would be to encourage dining to partner with Manndibles so BRBs can be used. She said that she has spoken with owners of the caf� and they are both interested in accepting BRBs and paying Cornell to do so.

A. Tabak said that the resolution is not condemning choice. They feel that the resolution is attempting to give students more choice by allowing students to purchase food using BRBs. They are not saying that they want Cornell Dining to have a monopoly but rather to make all eating locations more accessible.

R. Lavin thanked H. Sadtler saying that she made an important point. He emphasized that Mann Library entertained all the bids for their caf� location and specifically said that the CU dining bid was far inferior to the other bids. It is recognized that it would have been a poor decision by Mann Library to accept the Cornell Dining bid over the Manndibles bid. The issue is that students apparently wish to use BRBs at Manndibles. He said that he is not convinced that CU Dining has explored all their resources. He feels that they could do better and come to some agreement whereby BRBs are accepted at Manndibles. He said that he is happy to see a non Cornell Dining location in Mann. There are some fundamental errors in the Big Red Bureaucracy.

C. Basil agrees with R. Lavin. He said that there is a disconnect in the discussion because it seems like all representatives want a similar thing. What is written on the page is different than the framers intent. He suggested reworking the resolution.

C. Basil motioned to table Resolution 10 until the next meeting. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote, the resolution was tabled until the January 24 assembly meeting

Resolution 11 — Resolution Regarding Residence Hall Soap Dispenser Installment — Rammy Salem, Mazdak Asgary, Rebecca Stein, and Sanjiv Tata

M. Asgary said that Representatives D. Budish and A. Craig will be signing on to Resolution 11 as well.

There was a motion to limit the time of the meeting until 6:45 p.m. There were multiple seconds. The time of the meeting was limited to 6:45 p.m.

A sponsor of the resolution said that some residence hall bathrooms have soap dispensers while others do not. There are several rationales behind this decision. Some people felt that it was the residents’ responsibility to supply their own soap while others felt that the administration was too cheap to provide soap. However not having soap dispensers, to a degree, creates a public health concern. If people are not washing their hands with soap and water, then the spread of disease is more rapid. The common aim is to keep everyone as healthy as possible which can in part be achieved by providing soap dispensers. It is not fair to have soap dispensers in some residence halls and not in others. The sponsors do not feel that it is at anyone’s disadvantage to provide soap dispensers. He has spoken to many students and administrators and they have all supported the idea. He was told by an administrator that soap dispensers were not provided in certain residence halls because of an SA decision.

C. Slicklen asked if the speaker had any information on the resolution passed by the SA regarding the issue.

A sponsor of the resolution said that he had spoken with an administrator privately about the issue and she informed him that there was a student decision not to install the dispensers.

M. Asgary said that the sponsors made an attempt to locate the resolution but were unsuccessful. He emphasized that having soap dispensers in some residence halls and not in others is an inconsistent policy that treats certain students differently than others based upon their residential choice.

D. Budish pointed out that the word “the” before the word staphylococcus needs to be removed from the first whereas clause. He also recommended changing the second whereas clause to read “Whereas, currently Campus Life/Residential Programs would like to hear a voice of support from the student body with the installment of soap dispensers in residence halls.”

R. Lavin said that he understands that the resolution has to be brought before the SA because there was a previous resolution. He asked if the issue would have been brought before the SA if there was not a previous resolutions thinking that the issue might have just been handled easily by residential life.

D. Budish said as the previous chair of the Residential Life Committee that administrators had said that a resolution would help with the installment.

R. Lavin motioned to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. There was a motion for unanimous consent. It was seconded. There was no dissent. Resolution 11 passed unanimously.

There was a motion to table Resolution 7 until the January 24 meeting. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

VII. Unfinished Business

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

Resolution 7 was not discussed.

VIII. Executive Session

The Assembly went into executive session to elect the new Ivy Council Head Delegate.

IX. Adjournment

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

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun