Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
February 21, 2008
4:45 — 6:30 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

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

II. Roll Call

Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Mark Coombs, Asa Craig, Samantha Dong, Adam Gay, Elan Greenberg, Vincent Hartman, Ian Lesyk, Guy Mazza, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Christopher Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Andrew Wang

Excused: Ryan Lavin, Steven Matthews, Ashley McGovern, Rebecca Stein

Liaisons Present: Haley Bergman, Nikki Junewicz, Sanjiv Tata

Liaisons Excused: Greg Mezey

III. Approval of the Minutes

There were no corrections to the January 24, 2008 minutes. There was a motion to approve. It was seconded. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the January 24, 2008 Student Assembly meeting were approved.

In response to a question asked by M. Asgary, the clerk said that the assembly was just approving the January 24 minutes because there was a delay in preparing them. There was not a specific reason that the assembly had the January 24 minutes in front of them.

IV. Open Microphone

Antoinette King, 2008, the VP of Events for Cornell Minds Matter, expressed her gratitude on behalf of the organization for the SA’s attendance and support at the Dining with Diverse Minds Event that was held the previous week.

C. Slicklen said that he R. Lavin, A. Gay, and E. Greenberg had attended. The event was great and well planned. He thanked Minds Matter for directly inviting SA members to the event and asked the organization to contact the assembly if additional support is needed in the future.

Aaron Edelman, 2008, Editor and Chief of the Cornell Lunatic, said that he wrote an article in the Cornell Daily Sun regarding his experience with the SAFC. He said that he had since been asked to come and speak before the assembly.

C. Slicklen asked A. Edelman to summarize the points that he made in the article.

A. Edelman said that he spent three months last semester going through a ridiculous process to try to secure funding for the Lunatic. In the end, the Lunatic was denied funding based on a rule that did not exist in the President and Treasurer’s Handbook. The Lunatic had used a publication price quote that contained the date of the previous semester. The SAFC’s decision said that funding was denied because the date on the quote was incorrect. A rule has since been added specifying the date required on price quotes. He said it took three months to resolve an issue that surrounded a rule that didn’t exist. He said that if this had been the only problem that he likely would have been more understanding. At the time the budget was due, the organization’s treasurer was out of town. When he asked various commissioners how to proceed, he received four different answers. He was told that it was okay to submit a faxed signature, that it was not okay to submit a faxed signature, and that he could sign the treasurer’s name if the treasurer emailed him permission and he submitted that documentation. He was later told that if he had elected to follow the last suggestion he would have been prosecuted for fraud. Additionally at help sessions, he was told to put funding requests in the wrong categories. He said that he wrote the article to solicit input from other organizations because he knows that other groups have had similar problems and are just as outraged at the process.

M. Asgary said that he has seen the sentiment expressed in A. Edelman’s article many times before and has himself noticed the problem. Although the SA has oversight through the appeals process, the assembly does not really have control of the day to day operations of the SAFC. He said that he personally feels that the assembly should have more control over the SAFC. He hopes that the SAFC Executive Board will work towards addressing the issues that have arisen. He said that E. Greenberg is conducting a SWOT Analysis of the SA. He suggested that E. Greenberg include an SAFC analysis in the analysis.

C. Slicklen said that he also hopes that the SWOT Analysis will include an analysis of the SAFC. He told A. Edelman that he is welcome to participate in that process if he chooses to do so.

A. Edelman said that there is clearly enough interest in improving the SAFC and that he would like to continue in pursuing that goal.

E. Greenberg encouraged A. Edelman to attend the SWOT Analysis meetings.

M. Coombs said that as a former SA Executive Board member he understands how difficult it is to generate interest in the SA. He applauded A. Edelman for writing the article and stimulating interest in improving the body.

A. Salem asked if he had received any similar stories from other SAFC funded organization’s since his story was published.

A. Edelman said that he had received a number of stories from other well established organizations. Many organizations have indicated how they have presented extensive documentation and as a result of a miss doted i have been cut thousands of dollars. He said the he feels that students are interested in improving the process but have been beaten down.

A. Salem asked if the previous semester was A. Edelman’s first experience with the SAFC.

A. Edelman said that it was his first experience being the primary individual responsible for filling out the budget application. If anyone wishes to contact him further, he said that he can be reached at thecornelllunatic@gmail.com .

C. Slicklen thanked A. Edelman for attending the meeting and expressing his concerns.

V. Announcements/Reports

Spring 2008 Elections Report — Mark Coombs

M. Coombs said that 26 candidates are running in the upcoming elections. The contested seats are the minority liaisons, international liaison, ILR, and the at-large seats. There are two vacant seats on the UA and no one is running for the LGBTQ seat. Special elections will be held in the fall for the vacant seats. For the future, he recommended that the assembly reconsider the mandatory status of the elections meeting for candidates and the mentioning of campus political coalitions and campus organizations in candidate statements. Multiple candidates had to rewrite their statements. These individuals were not penalized but the process became silly. He said that he hopes the assembly continues to look for ways to increase interest in running and voting.

R. Salem asked if there was anyway to have the fifth highest vote getter for the at-large seats to fill the vacant LGBTQ seat instead of holding a special election in the fall.

M. Coombs said that A. Wang, as the fifth place at-large finisher, was placed in the vacant Human Ecology seat only after no candidates ran for the position in a special election held in the fall. He said that 17 students had checked out elections packets but that not one had turned a packet back in to the office. The Charter requires special elections. He recommended that the assembly consider amending the requirement in the future.

Additional Announcements

C. Slicklen read the following e-mail that he received from President Skorton:

Dear C.J.,

I am pleased to receive and accept the Student Assembly’s Resolution 12, Resolution on the Direct Election of the Student Assembly President and Executive Vice-President. I wish you well as you implement this worthy initiative.

With best regards, David Skorton

M. Asgary said that he would like to briefly talk about the process of SAFC appeals. Last semester, the assembly conducted the process incorrectly and he wants to make sure that appeals are conducted properly from the outset this semester.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly would move the discussion of SAFC appeals to the end of Business of the Day.

V. Hartman said that on March 27, the Class of 2008 Council would like to use the Memorial Room for a wine tasting event (Taste with 08). At the event the Class of 2008 wine will be selected. Ithaca wineries will be invited. The council would like to hold an event on a Thursday from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. He asked the assembly if the council could use the room. The room is free and the council does not have the budget for a similar room.

In response to a question posed by C. Slicklen, V. Hartman said that the council does not want to hold the event from 6 to 8 p.m. because they want people to focus on wine tasting as opposed to drinking. Holding the event earlier will make it easier to get Cornell’s approval and will encourage attendance since individuals are already on central campus.

C. Slicklen said that Class Councils could use the room and asked that the Office of Assemblies to reserve another room for that date. He announced that next Thursday is SA shirt day. He encouraged all representatives to wear their shirts.

VI. Business of the Day

Slope Day Update and Discussion — Adam Gay

A. Gay said that after meeting with Dean Hubbell a temporary conclusion has been reached. Dean Hubbell has spoken with appropriate parties. This year, the administration will assume the cost and responsibility of collecting demographic data on Slope Day attendance. No tickets will be issued. Based on the collected data, the administration can assess how the cost of the event should be allocated in the future. After speaking with various parties over the past few months, he feels that the compromise is appropriate. It does not appear logistically possible to set up a system for charging graduate students this year.

L. Rapoport thanked the assembly for tabling last week’s resolution and for giving involved parties time to appropriately examine the issue.

A. Gay said that the sponsors of last week’s resolution have pulled the resolution from the table. In light of the compromise, the assembly has more important issues, such as Appendix B, to be discussing.

C. Slicklen said that he hoped that graduate students would agree to pay an equitable amount in the future based on the data collected.

A. Gay said it was his understanding that the process of allocating costs in the future would be very straightforward. A negotiation process is not foreseen.

A. Richter said that GPSA has been discussing the issue a lot and is glad that data will be collected this year. The GPSA’s allocation to Slope Day has been put into place for the next two years. It is up to future generations of leaders to determine what is fair and equitable. Many factors come into play but she is glad that a compromise has been reached this year.

L. Rapoport said that the data will begin to be analyzed over the summer. The data will take time to analyze. Data will include who comes through the doors, how many times students enter, what time they enter, ect. All relevant parties will then discuss the data and determine what is fair and accurate.

A. Salem thanked everyone for working out a compromise. He however feels that the compromise is ridiculous. The GPSA for many years has not been contributing to Slope Day as it should be. Although he understands that Slope Day means different things to different people, undergrads are bearing the costs. This is unfair. He asked why different positions had not been acknowledged. For example, the administration could use the data collected this year to have graduate students pay retroactively. The fact of the matter is that a sizable population of the Cornell community is subsidizing the fun of another segment. As undergraduates, it is a shame to accept the compromise.

A. Gay said that he agrees with the sentiment expressed by A. Salem. However, the question is more a question of logistics. Data needs to be collected before moving forward. It terms of charging graduate students retroactively, he feels that the grads don’t have the budget and that they would not agree to pay. The issue can be further discussed when Slope Day stipulations, as a part of Appendix B, are discussed.

In response to a question asked by M. Asgary, A. Gay said that there was no way to implement what the assembly had discussed last week under executive session.

M. Asgary asked if the assembly could prohibit graduate students from attending Slope Day if they are unwilling to pay.

A. Gay said that banning graduates from Slope Day does not fall under the purview of the SA.

A. Salem asked where stipulations regarding grad students can be added. In executive session all assembly members agreed that it was ridiculous to not charge grad students. He does not understand why the tone of the assembly has changed.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly can make stipulations in Appendix B. The stipulations can be along the lines of if graduate students do not contribute, the SA will not fund Slope Day.

A. Gay said that the assembly is still in agreement regarding the issues but there is no logistical way to implement what the assembly had discussed.

V. Hartman said that he does not agree with retroactively charging grad students. In terms of equity, the assembly would then be charging next year’s graduate students for the activities of previous grad students.

C. Holmes said that she is grateful that undergrads have stepped up to the plate and that graduate students have begun to consider contributing to Slope Day. She emphasized however, that the university still covers at least 50% of the event. A lot of departments are contributing a lot of resources to the event.

A. Salem said that it is important to more forward correctly. He does not feel that the university and students are doing so. In this situation, graduate students have erred and are not taking steps to correct that error. The compromise appears to be a cop out.

A. Richter said that the GPSA funding process is similar to that of the SA’s. During the last byline funding cycle, the Slope Day Programming Board had not gone through appropriate procedures to become a byline funded group. Therefore, the GPSA has been funding a gift to Slope Day through their personal budget. The gift is smaller than the SA’s allocation to Slope Day. The GPSA voted to byline fund Slope Day at $1.50 per graduate student.

C. Slicklen confirmed that the GPSA Finance Committee had recommended funding Slope Day at $2.50 per grad student. Slope Day had requested $7.50 per graduate student.

L. Rapoport said that the request came from the results of a survey filled out by graduate students relating to Slope Day.

A. Richter said that the GPSA did not fund Slope Day at their requested amount because graduate students do not value Slope Day to the degree that undergrads do. GPSA members felt that Slope Day needs to do more to reach out to the graduate student community.

M. Coombs asked what was being done this year to discourage excessive alcohol consumption. He asked if there was any information available on the trend of alcohol consumption.

L. Rapoport said that Gannett conducts a survey each year. The number of individuals consuming more that fifteen drinks decreased. Slope Day has been placing more emphasis on attracting people to the Slope early in the day so as to discourage drinking. Last year drinking also decreased as a result of not allowing hard alcohol in Greek houses.

C. Holmes said that Gannet has seen an improvement. The seriousness and frequency of alcohol related incidences has decreased.

M. Coombs said that the information just provided was fantastic news. He encouraged Slope Day and the administration to inform the assembly if there was anything representatives could do in the future to discourage drinking.

C. Slicklen said that the Representative Conduct Discussion scheduled on the agenda as the next item under Business of the Day would be held in Executive Session.

SAFC Appeals Discussion

M. Asgary said that last semester SAFC appeals were presented to the Appropriations Committee with the committee voting on whether or not the SAFC erred. The decision of the committee was then presented to the SA with the SA voting whether or not to approve the recommendations of the Appropriations Committee. There is nothing in the SA Charter stating that appeals should go through the Appropriations Committee. He said that he is not trying to correct what has been done in the past but would like to make sure the process is done correctly in the future. The assembly should be voting on whether or not the SAFC erred, not on the decision of the Appropriations Committee. The recommendation of the Appropriations Committee is not binding in any way.

C. Slicklen said that bringing the appeals before the Appropriations Committee provides for additional input from community members. The committee goes through the nitty gritty details. He is of the opinion that the input of as many community members as possible is beneficial.

M. Asgary said that he is fine with that. He would however really like to see documentation regarding what happened at the Appropriations Committee brought before the SA. He feels that the meeting should also be open to community members at all times.

A. Gay said that minutes will be recorded.

Undergraduate Trustee Discussion

M. Asgary said that when K. Duch was elected as student trustee, it was expected that she would remain an undergraduate for the two year term. He wanted to clarify whether or not K. Duch was currently of senior status. He said that he does not want to see two graduate student trustees.

K. Duch said any representatives with concerns about her status should talk to Doug Mitarotonda. He was responsible for introducing the resolution, passed last year, which stipulates that one student trustee seat be designated to undergraduates and one to graduates.

M. Asgary said that he understands the resolution. He asked K. Duch what her status was.

K. Duch said that she had no idea what her plans were. The resolution does not contain any stipulations relating to her situation.

V. Hartman said that two juniors ran for the position last year and that he did not believe that the there was anything saying that the undergraduate trustee had to remain an undergraduate for the two year period.

K. Duch said that she was certain that she had not violated any regulations or stipulations. When the resolution was discussed there was purposely not a stipulation included that would require students to remain an undergraduate for the two year period. Doing so would further restrict undergraduates.

M. Asgary said that he did not believe that any regulation had been violated. However he feels that it is important to have an undergraduate trustee at all times. He feels that the issue is more of an ethical one. He said that K. Duch promised to remain an undergrad for two years in her campaign.

A. Salem said that the issue is wider than K. Duch and relates to what will occur in the future as well. He pointed out that K. Duch campaigned claiming that she was the only candidate that would be an undergraduate both years of the two year appointment. She used this to her advantage. He said that she had however mentioned to other individuals that she was planning on becoming a senior next year.

K. Duch said that she did not know what her status would be and that she finds it offensive that the assembly is discussing her academic status before any decision has been made.

A. Salem said that campaign promises are being discussed.

M. Coombs said that he feels that K. Duch perhaps should have been more forthright but that the assembly should be concerned that the “undergraduate” trustee is representing undergraduate concerns. He hopes that if K. Duch became a graduate student that she would continue to represent the needs of the undergraduates. The debate of K. Duch’s status pales in comparison to whether or not she will continue to represent undergraduates.

K. Duch said that she will certainly continue to represent undergraduates. Her and M. Ye represent very different constituencies. She will still be living with seniors and participating in the same activities.

A. Wang said that he believes K. Duch would continue to represent undergraduates. He is however concerned about the future and feels that a loophole exists.

K. Duch reiterated that requiring undergraduate trustees to remain undergraduates for the two year period would further restrict students. She said that there is a difference between graduate students who were undergrads at Cornell and those who were not.

V. Hartman emphasized that the undergraduate trustees have to be elected by the undergraduates. If undergraduates do not want a trustee who will be a grad student for one year then they should not vote for individuals who are juniors at the time of the election.

C. Slicklen said that the Representative Conduct Discussion would be the next item discussed. A. Gay, who is leading discussion, asked that it not occur under Executive Session. Resolution 16 will also be moved to the end of Business of the Day.

Representative Conduct Discussion

A. Gay reminded all representatives that, given the nature of the byline funding process, they have a fiduciary responsibility to undergraduates. They therefore must conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. It is appropriate for representatives to abstain from voting when the vote regards organizations that they are a part of. A. Gay said that the MGLC, a by-line funded organization, contacted him regarding the actions of A. Wang. The president of MGLC provided him with e-mails demonstrating A. Wang’s attempt to use his power to pressure the MGLC to fund a certain organization. He read a few statements included in A. Wang’s e-mails that the executive board felt crossed the line.

A. Wang said that SA members are charged with helping students. In this instance several of his constituents had asked him to contact the MGLC. He feels that his actions were appropriate. The MGLC was not responding the organization’s request for funding. It is important that the assembly ensure that by-line funded organizations are responding to the groups they purport to fund.

E. Greenberg read a statement that he feels indicates that A. Wang threatened to cut the funding of the MGLC. He also read another statement that he feels indicates that A. Wang attempted to use his position as an assembly member to try to garner special treatment. In the real world A. Wang’s statements would be considered extortion. He feels that A. Wang was reckless with the name and reputation of the Student Assembly.

A. Wang said that he was asked by the organization to help them out because they were having funding issues. He feels that he only conveyed what had been discussed at SA meetings last semester in his e-mails. He said that the he mentioned that the MGLC’s funding may be cut because that almost happened this semester.

M. Asgary confirmed that A. Wang sent out the e-mails after a group had repeatedly attempted to contact the MGLC. Although the wording of A. Wang’s e-mails can be debated, it is concerning to him that the MGLC did not respond to an organization that was requesting funding from them. Student Assembly members should be concerned if by-line funded groups are not appropriately responding to groups. He could understand being frustrated. He said that he would like to move for a discussion regarding the MGLC’s uses its money and why the organization is not responding to emails in addition to the e-mails sent by A. Wang.

A. Gay said that he will initiate a discussion and try to have some information available by the next meeting.

C. Slicklen said that A. Gay would lead an investigation.

M. Coombs said that he has a passion for open discussion but feels that it would have been proper to have had the discussion in Executive Session prior to discussing it in an open forum. A lot of representatives have just been made aware of the issue. He said that he would not have written the e-mail in the style that A. Wang did but that he feels that the language did not necessarily indicate a threat. A. Wang had indicated that MGLC’s funding would eventually be cut if they continue to not respond to emails not that all funding would be cut. The e-mail was poorly worded.

A. Gay said that the president of a by-line funded organization had brought the concern forward. If the issue had been discussed in Executive Session there would have been no way for the group to view the discussion. Regardless of other issues, an SA representative asked for a favor because of his prior support for the organization.

A. Salem agrees that A. Wang’s e-mails were poorly worded. He thinks that representatives should be careful in mentioning their SA positions. There is however a problem in that he feels A. Wang is being singled out. Other representatives have sent e-mails quoted in the Daily Sun. The Executive Board did not feel it necessary to discuss these e-mails.

C. Slicklen said that the MGLC president was not at the meeting but that she did attend the Executive Board meeting.

A. Salem motioned to end discussion. It was seconded. A. Gay dissented. There was a hand vote. Discussion was ended.

Resolution 16 — Resolution regarding 12/1 Elections Committee Statement — M. Coombs

M. Coombs said that the resolution conveys the same information as the Elections Committee Statement from last week. The purpose of the resolution is not to get rid of the minority, international or LGBQT liaison seats. The intent is to ensure that the assembly is acting pursuant to the charter. He did not have the elections committee document in resolution format last week because he did not think it would necessitate a vote for the assembly to follow its own Charter. As the Director of Elections, he is conveying a discrepancy. Immediately following Resolution 16, V. Hartman would be presenting Resolution 17 which establishes the liaison seats in the SA bylaws. Every member of the Elections Committee voted in favor of the statement. Passing the resolution will promote efficiency and allow for clarification in the Charter. He feels that passing the resolution will also establish that the assembly is the policy maker in relation to elections. The Office of Assemblies in part exists to provide administrative assistant to the assembly. Representatives can vote in favor of the resolution and still be in favor of the liaison seats.

M. Asgary said that he appreciates that the two resolutions were presented at the same time. He said that voting no to this resolution makes no sense. He encouraged unsure assembly members to abstain from the vote.

A. Craig confirmed that the intent of the resolution is to have the assembly follow its own charter. The liaison seats do not actually exist anywhere in the charter.

A. Craig motioned to call the question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

There was a motion for unanimous consent. It was seconded. There was no dissent. Resolution 16 passed unanimously.

VII. Unfinished Business

No unfinished business was discussed.

VIII. New Business

Resolution 15 — Clarification of At-Large Liaison Seats — V. Hartman

C. Slicklen said that the discussion will be limited to questions after V. Hartman presents. Since V. Hartman is presenting a Charter Change, the assembly cannot vote on the Resolution.

V. Hartman said that in common practice the assembly has had stipulated minority, international and LGBQT liaison seats. If the assembly would like to see these seats remain, their existence needs to be added to the Charter. If representatives are in favor of these seats, then they should be in favor of the resolution.

M. Asgary said that maybe V. Hartman should add a statement to the resolution related to why the specified communities (international, LGBTQ and minority) have been selected.

M. Asgary motioned to end discussion. He withdrew his motion after C. Sarra said he wished to speak.

C. Sarra asked if V. Hartman would be amenable to truncating the last be it therefore resolved clause.

V. Hartman said that he would be amenable.

There was a motion to end discussion. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

V. Hartman said that since the resolution contains a charter change all representatives should make every effort to be present during the vote. Non attendance is a vote of no for a Charter Change.

IX. Executive Session

The assembly did not go into Executive Session.

X. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m. It was seconded. There was no dissent. C. Slicklen adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun