Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
March 13, 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

Representatives Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Samantha Dong, Elan Greenberg, Nikki Junewicz, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steven Matthews, Guy Mazza, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Chris Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Andrew Wang

Representatives Excused: Mark Coombs, Asa Craig, Adam Gay, Vincen Hartman, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Rebecca Stein

Liaisons Present: Haley Bergman, Greg Mezey, Sanjiv Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes

There were no corrections to the February 28, 2008 minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the February 28, 2008 Student Assembly meeting were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

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

No one came forward.

V. Announcements/Reports

Oath of Office (for Representative Nikki Junewicz)

C. Slicklen said that N. Junewicz was elected as an Arts and Sciences Representative. She would take her place as representative to fill the vacant Arts and Sciences seat.

She took the Oath of Office which reads: “In view of the trust the Cornell community has vested in me, as well as my personal sense of honor, I, [name], do solemnly affirm to fulfill my responsibilities as a student-elected representative. I will engage in open and honest debate in a process where I am guided by truth and fairness. I will never purposely misrepresent facts in an effort to achieve my goals. If a conflict of interest arises, I will relinquish my right to participate in the decision making process. I will seek out and voice effectively the interests and concerns of the student body, address the issues of my fellow students, and strive to improve the quality of life at Cornell for all students.”

C. Slicklen announced that N. Junewicz was now a voting member of the assembly.

Spring 2008 Elections Report — C. Slicklen

C. Slicklen read the results of the Spring 2008 elections that were made public earlier in the week. He congratulated all those who had been elected. R. Smith, L. Engelmyer, R. Lavin, and V. Andrews were elected to the at-large seats. A Latella was elected to one of the Agriculture and Life Sciences seats while the other remains unoccupied. No one was elected to the Architecture, Art and Planning seat. A. Craig, N. Junewicz and C. Basil were elected to the Arts and Sciences seats. M Heinz and T Miller were elected to the Engineering seats. E Diakow was elected to the Human Ecology seat. G. Mezey was elected to the Hotel Administration seat. R. Stein was elected to the Industrial and Labor Relations seat. L. De Lencquesaing was elected to the International at-large seat. No one was elected to the LGBTQ at-large seat. N. Kumar and R. Salem were elected to the minority at-large seats. M. Fontana and K. Laden were elected as at-large delegates to the University Assembly. The two other at-large delegate positions for the UA are vacant.

In response to a question asked by R. Salem, C. Slicklen said that in accordance with the Charter, the vacant seats will be filled through a special election in the fall. The election will be organized by the next Executive Board once they are elected.

E. Greenberg motioned to move Resolution 19 to Business of the Day. It was seconed. There was dissent.

A. Salem said that he did not believe that the resolution should not be rushed through since it is important. He also feels that the resolution should remain on the agenda under New Business until the Director of Elections is present at the meeting.

By a hand vote of 9–4, the resolution was moved to Business of the Day.

Appendix B Update — C. Slicklen for A. Gay

C. Slicklen said that Appendix B will be discussed following Spring Break.

Women’s Resource Center Discussion

C. Slicklen said that three representatives from the Women’s Resource Center (WRC) were present at the meeting. The WRC was kind enough to host himself and G. Mezey earlier this week to discuss issues regarding the Vagina Carnival that were brought forward to the assembly. He asked representatives from the WRC to come and speak at the assembly meeting.

A representative from the WRC said that the her organization had discussed the Vagina Carnival, an event the center hosts each year in RPCC, during their meeting with C. Slicklen and G. Mezey earlier in the week. The Vagina Carnival is a promotional event for the Vagina Monologues centered on the issue of sexual health. For the WRC, the vagina is an anatomical feature for all to enjoy and be proud of. The WRC was informed that someone came forward to the assembly and was offending by the center’s use of the word cunt as well as other aspects of the event.

A representative from the WRC said that the board discussed the word and purposefully included it on the promotional posters. The board is attempting to reclaim the word and take away its negative connotation.

A representative from the WRC said that the Vagina Carnival was not in the lobby of RPCC. Anyone who chose to attend the event made a conscious decision to enter the room where the event was being held. There were plenty of signs indicated that the event was occurring and anyone who participated did so based on self-selection.

A. Wang thanked the representatives for coming to the assembly meeting. He said that he was surprised by the event and felt that the WRC was almost making fun of the vagina. For example, vagina cookies were provided at the event. The event did not seem to be taken seriously and he doesn’t understand the theme of the event. Although other WRC events are enjoyable, he does not see the purpose for the Vagina Carnival.

C. Hoffman said that one of the goals of having the Vagina Carnival was to evoke a response and to prompt dialogue. As evidenced by the present discussion, the WRC appears to have been successful in this aim. The fact that a euphemism for female genitalia has such a negative connotation and that many people are hesitant to discuss female sexual health can transfer into negative consequences for women’s health and negative perceptions of women’s bodies.

A representative from the WRC said that she agreed with C. Hoffman. She said that the intention of the event was not to make fun of the vagina. The event was attempting to create a safe space where individuals could engage in open discussion.

A representative from the WRC said that no money from the SAF was being spent on food. He emphasized that the WRC board stands behind the program and is very proud of it.

M. Asgary said that as an RA he is very aware of some of the provocative programming events held on campus. As opposed to either condoning or condemning the event, the assembly should more so be discussing appropriateness. The individual who brought the issue forward framed it as a discussion of publicly displayed offensive words. The assembly should steer away from discussing the content. It seems that the posters were not in the lobby and individuals had to choose to expose themselves to the posters. He feels that the posters would be acceptable if individuals choose to view them.

M. Asgary motioned to end discussion. It was seconded.

A. Salem dissented because he wished to speak.

M. Asgary withdrew his motion.

A. Salem thanked the representatives from the WRC for attending the assembly meeting. He said that he slightly disagrees with M. Asgary. He said that he understands that there were posters advertising the event all over RPCC with posters featuring the word cunt displayed in the room in which the event was held. He urged the representatives from the WRC to think about considering whether or not certain aspects of the event would offend even those individuals interested in participating and attempting to increase their knowledge of sexual health. He feels that cunt is an abhorrent word to utilize and that the reclamation argument is weak. Although it is not the assembly’s job to regulate speech, it’s within their purview to advise by-line funded organizations.

A. Salem motioned to end discussion.

C. Hoffman thanked A. Salem for his comment. She said that the WRC recognizes that they are by-line funded. They will and always do think very carefully about their programming.

A representative from the WRC emphasized that they are using their allocated money appropriately and that that the WRC is achieving their goal of stimulating discussion.

A representative from the WRC said that not every event will please everyone. The WRC solicits and welcomes the feedback of any community member. The board is in the process of putting together a survey. He encouraged representatives to fill these surveys out when they become available.

C. Slicklen used his discretion as chair to end the discussion. He informed the assembly that Appendix B, Subsection 4, Part H, Subsection 4, states that the WRC will be organizationally accountable to and report directly to the Dean of Students and will be programmatically accountable to the Student Assembly. As an aside, he said that he hopes that the WRC does strive to include all Cornell students in their programming. He thanked WRC representatives for attending the assembly meeting.

VI. Business of the Day

PATCH — SAFC Appeal

T. Mulherin said that PATCH was not funded for two of their events because the SAFC felt that the events were primarily social in nature. In the President and Treasurer’s (P&T) Handbook, “anything for the exclusive benefit of organization members” is the first stipulation under the heading of prohibited expenses. The SAFC felt that the two events for which they denied the organization funding exclusively benefited the organization’s members. “Requests for primarily pre-professional events” and “Receptions, parties, purely social events, DJ’s, or prizes (including trophies or gifts of any sort)”are also prohibited from receiving funding. Under these stipulations, the SAFC was unable to fund for rockclimbing and bowling.

A representative from PATCH said that PATCH is one of the largest pre-medical student organizations. Anyone in is welcome to join and the organization advertises widely. The organization frequently holds panels and hosts speakers of interest to all pre-health students. One purpose of PATCH is to foster community among the pre-med community which is very competitive and cut throat. Communication is important in fostering future generation of doctors.

A representative from PATCH said that rockclimbing is intended to be a team building event. Rockclimbing allows individuals to challenge themselves as well as to encourage others. Pre-med students are notoriously cut throat. PATCH planned the rockclimbing event with the intention of fostering a sense of community among a group of very competitive students. It is vital that future doctors be able to interact effectively with patients and many other professionals.

A representative from PATCH said that the bowling event is a part of the organization’s mentorship program. The mentorship program is a support system for those applying to medical school as opposed to a purely social group. The event will be open to all members of the organization. PATCH was funded for the same event last year and it was incredibly successful.

R. Lavin said that by a vote of 5–1−2, the Appropriations Committee voted to fund for the rockcliming event with the majority of members feeling that PATCH had made a substantial case for this event being a team building activity. By a vote of 2–5−1, the Appropriations Committee voted to not fund the bowling event for the same reasons previously outlined by T. Mulherin.

There was a motion to split the question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The question was split.

M. Asgary asked if other groups have been funded for rockclimbing.

T. Mulherin said that no one has asked for rockclimbing specifically but that the SAFC does not fund any group for social activities.

M. Asgary said that he thinks individuals get something out of rockclimbing.

M. Asgary motioned to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

T. Mulherin mentioned that the P&T Handbook states that the SAFC is not held accountable to previous decisions.

By a roll call vote, the assembly voted unanimously to overturn the decision of the SAFC and to grant the rockclimbing appeal.

M. Asgary confirmed that PATCH asked for funding for 20 people for the bowling event. He asked how the organization was planning on advertising the event.

A representative from PATCH said that the organization advertises in all pre-med related introductory courses, through the organization’s listserve and by putting up fliers.

M. Asgary asked how the event is not a social event. There is downtime during bowling. He asked why students attending the event could not individually pay a few dollars to bowl.

A representative from PATCH said that attendance significantly decreases at events where students have to pay to participate even if it is just a few dollars.

M. Asgary asked how many groups applied for bowling.

T. Mulherin said that he did not believe that any other groups applied for bowling besides the Bowling Team which is a club sport.

R. Salem, understanding that the SAFC is not bound by previous decisions, asked if anyone knew the reason that bowling was funded in the past.

T. Mulherin said that he was not on the commission last spring. The decision just depends on the vote of the SAFC.

R. Salem asked if there were other venues through which the mentorship program could have events.

A representative from PATCH said that the organization does hold more formal mentorship events. However, they feel that it is important for mentors and mentees to be able to interact in an informal and relaxing environment.

R. Salem said that is natural for PATCH to apply for funding for bowling since they had received funding for the same event in the past. He feels that the assembly should overturn the decision of the SAFC out of fairness to the group.

A. Wang said that he agrees with the decision of the SAFC. If the assembly votes to overturn the decision of the SAFC, they will open up a door for other organizations to apply for funding for bowling.

A representative from PATCH emphasized the organization’s view of bowling as a mentorship event. The organization views the mentors as speakers coming to an event.

A. Salem thanked representatives from PATCH for attending the meeting. He asked the SAFC to define what they consider to be a social event.

T. Mulherin said that what defines a social event is kind of hazy. He feels that the SAFC judges events based on the context of the goals of the organization requesting funding. In this instance, the SAFC felt that the events were beyond the goals of PATCH.

A. Salem asked PATCH to define what they would consider to be a social event.

A representative form PATCH said that she considers a social event to have no other purpose besides socializing.

A. Salem asked what purpose bowling has besides socializing.

A representative from PATCH said that bowling event is intended to bring together mentors and mentees allowing them to share experiences and advice.

A. Salem said that the only reason he is hesitant to overturn the appeal is because he wonders what could be considered a social event if bowling is not.

R. Lavin confirmed that PATCH had requested $168 or bowling. He motioned to call to question. There were multiple seconds. R. Salem dissented.

R. Salem said that he would like to comment on some of the statements made by A. Wang.

By a vote of 10–5, the previous question was called.

By a roll call vote of 5–7−2, the assembly voted to uphold the decision of the SAFC. PATCH would not receive funding for bowling.

HALO — SAFC Appeal

T. Mulherin said that HALO wanted to hold an event that required an auctioneer. The organization did not however have proper documentation for the auctioneer at the time the budget was due. The P&T Handbook states that “In order to receive any funding for a speaker, a proof of contact must be submitted even if an engagement fee is not being requested.” HALO did not submit proof of contact with the auctioneer.

A representative from HALO said that the organization found a few days prior to the budget application deadline that the auctioneer they typically use for the event would be unable to participate. She has an e-mail from the auctioneer stating that she canceled. She said that the organization was told that if they presented this e-mail during the appeals process that they would likely be able to receive funding for a different auctioneer. The organization was able to find an alternative auctioneer and can provide proof of contact. She said that the group originally requested $400 for the auctioneer. She however said that the group has managed to find $200 so that only $200 from the SAFC is needed.

R. Lavin said that the Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to fund the event at $1250. This amount represents funding for room rentals, posters and other expenses pertaining to the event.

A. Salem asked who told the organization that they could receive funding for an auctioneer during the appeals process based on new information.

A representative from HALO said that the organization’s treasurer had spoken with someone but that she was not sure who. She was certain that the group was told that they could request funding for a new auctioneer if they found someone during the appeals process as long as they had documentation that the original auctioneer had canceled.

In response to a question asked by A. Salem, T. Mulherin said that the organization did not submit a chain of e-mails indicating contact with the speaker during the appeals process. They submitted one e-mail pertaining to cancellation but nothing confirming that the speaker had originally agreed to come before the budget deadline.

M. Asgary said that regardless of what the organization was told, they are accountable to the P&T Handbook. He confirmed that no proof of contact was submitted with the original budget. He also confirmed that other groups had the entire funding for events cut for not submitting proof of contact with a speaker.

G. Mazza asked HALO to explain the history of the cancellation. He asked why a student could not act as auctioneer.

A representative from HALO said that the organization has been using the same auctioneer for a couple of years. They sent her a number of e-mails prior to the budget application deadline to which she did not respond. She did finally notify the organization by phone that she would not be able to attend the event. The group asked the auctioneer to send them an e-mail indicated that she had canceled. She did not do so to about a week past the budget deadline. Having a legitimate auctioneer brings a sense of a real auction to the event. A student would not produce the same affect that a really auctioneer would.

G. Mazza asked how successful the event has been in the past.

A representative from the group said that the first year she was involved with the event, $3500 was raised for charity. Since then it has continued to be fairly successful.

G. Mazza said that he feels that group deserves funding especially given that they have already independently secured half their funding.

A. Wang said that the rules are explicit and unfortunately the group did not submit the required documentation. Therefore, the organization should not receive funding.

C. Basil said that he believes that the assembly should absolutely fund HALO. The event raises a lot of money for a good cause and the assembly should not be making judgments about the merits of events. The group made a mistake and the assembly should be here to give them a second change.

C. Sarra called to question. It was seconded. M. Asgary dissented.

M. Asgary said that he would like to ask another question.

C. Sarra withdrew his motion.

During discussion there had been some confusion regarding the appeal amount. T. Mulherin had confirmed a number of times and assembly believed that HALO had not received any funding for their event as a result of not submitted proof of contact. M. Asgary confirmed however with T. Mulherin that the organization had in fact received funding for the rest of their event and was only appealing for the cost of the auctioneer. This appeal amount was originally $400 but the group had informed the SA that the amount could be reduced to $200 since they had found outside funding for a portion of the auctioneer.

C. Slicklen confirmed that the total request for the event was $1540. The group received funding for the $850 request for the room reservation.

M. Asgary asked the group to explain how the group intended the difference of $690 to be used.

A representative from the organization said that $400 would go towards the auctioneer and the rest would cover advertising and administrative expenses. The group is only appealing for funding for the auctioneer. The group believes that their appeal is appropriate under new information since their original auctioneer had canceled at the time budgets were due. They therefore were only able to find a new auctioneer following the submission of the original budget.

M. Asgary said that he believes that the decision of the SAFC to fund for the room but not for the auctioneer should be upheld.

M. Asgary motioned to call to question. R. Lavin seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

T. Mulherin said that thus far the group has received $850 for the room reservation and $173 for administration expenses, totaling $1023, pertaining to the event.

C. Slicklen confirmed that the appeal was a $200 appeal for the auctioneer.

By a roll call vote of 3–10–1, the assembly voted to uphold the decision of the SAFC. HALO would not receive funding for an auctioneer.

Phi Sigma Pi — SAFC Appeal

T. Mulherin said that Phi Sigma Pi applied for funding for an event that occurs over summer break. The SAFC does not fund for events that do not occur during the academic semesters. The rule is explicitly stated in the P&T Handbook. He noted that events occurring during academic year breaks are funded if the event date is outside the control of the organization requesting funding.

S. Pompelia said that Phi Sigma Pi (PSP) is a national honors fraternity and is open to all undergraduates. Although PSP is aware of the rule prohibiting funding for events that occur during the summer, they feel that the rule is flawed. The group is required by their national constitution to attend the event that they are requesting funding for. The event is being held August 7–10. She said that the date of the event is beyond the control of the organization. She said that the group feels that they deserve funding because all the prep work occurs during the academic year and because those attending will be freshman, sophomores or juniors meaning that they will pay the next year’s SAF. Attendance at the event really strengthens and improves the Cornell chapter of Phi Sigma Pi.

R. Lavin said that Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to uphold the decision of the SAFC. There is an explicit rule stating that events occurring during the summer cannot be funded.

M. Asgary confirmed that PSP had appealed under discrimination. He read aloud from the P&T Handbook what constitutes discrimination. He asked if the group could prove beyond a doubt that they had been discriminated against.

A representative form the organization said that the group feel that they have been discriminated against based on the nature of their event. The group does not control the date of the event.

M. Asgary asked if other groups that applied for funding for events occurring during the summer received funding.

T. Mulherin said that no organization receives funding for events occurring during the summer. Denial of funding is not related to the group of the nature of the event.

M. Asgary confirmed that the SAFC rejects all funding requests for events occurring in the summer. The SAFC is not discriminated against PSP. No organization is funded for events occurring during the summer.

M. Asgary motioned to call to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

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

Both the SAFC and the group repeated their arguments.

By a roll call vote of 0–13–1, the assembly upheld the decision of the SAFC. The appeal was not granted.

Scabbard and Blade — SAFC Appeal

T. Mulherin said the SAFC was unable to fund for a travel event because the group did not calculate a total for the travel category. The handbook requires that totals be calculated. He said that the group had some technology problems while submitting the budget. Either he or J. Castle had told the group that it would be okay to submit a hardcopy version of the budget.

A representative from Scabbard and Blade said that the hardcopy budget they submitted was the sample budget included in the budget packet. They were unable to print a blank copy of the budget because the budget is taken off line after the deadline passes. She said that she filled out the sample budget believing that the group would be given a more official budget to submit. She was unsure of the totals calculated on the online budget so she filled in all the expenses on the sample budget without actually calculating all the totals. She said that she believed that she would be filling out a more official budget later in the week.

The Appropriations Committee voted 6 to 1 in favor of the group. The committee felt that overall that there was no defined process for groups with technology problems to follow. He clarified that since it’s the organization’s first time applying for funding they are capped at $500. The appeal amount is therefore $220.

R. Salem asked how much of the budget the organization was able to complete before the website malfunctioned.

A representative from the organization said that she was only able to complete Part 1 of the budget. She did not have to enter any funding re quests in this section so she was in no way aware of what is automatically totaled in the online version of the budget.

R. Salem asked what gave the group the impression that they would be able to fill out a more formal budget later in the week.

A representative from the organization said she got the impression from someone she spoke with. The hardcopy budget she filled out is shrunken to fit on a page and has sample stamped all over it.

R. Salem said that if the group was told that they would not be penalized for technological difficulties, then the assembly should not penalize them.

T. Mulherin said that the group was not not funded because they submitted a hardcopy budget. The group was rather not funded because the totals were incorrectly calculated.

E. Greenberg said that the group should not be held accountable for technological difficulties that they could not control.

E. Greenberg motioned to call to question. It was seconded.

M. Asgary dissented. He asked why the SAFC required that totals be calculated for the hard copy budget.

T. Mulherin said that the SAFC is bound by the rules stipulated in the handbook. The same rules would be applied to any other group regardless of whether or not they submitted a hard copy or online budget.

M. Asgary withdrew his dissent.

A representative from the group emphasized that the complete cost for mileage is computed on the online budget. Groups don’t actually have to compute this number. It would be unfair to require groups with technological difficulties to do so since all other groups do not have to.

By a roll call vote of 13–0−1, the assembly voted to fund Scabbard and Blade.

Filthy Gorgeous and Anything Goes — SAFC Appeal

A representative from Anything Goes said that Filthy Gorgeous had withdrawn their appeal.

C. Slicklen confirmed that the appeal only pertained to Anything Goes.

T. Mulherin said that Anything Goes had not submitted proper room reservation documentation with their budget application. The documentation that the group submitted for a room reservation appeared to just be a price quote request.

A representative from Anything Goes said that they believed the documentation to be sufficient. In her portion of the e-mail the date of the room was specified. The lady responding to her happened to only include the price. Although they later received more official documentation, they did not feel that it would be necessary to include an extra form in the budget packet. Also it would have been inappropriate to include an additional form that had not been reviewed by their advisor.

R. Lavin said that the Appropriations Committee voted 0–7−2, that the SAFC did not error. The organization only submitted a price quote. In the eyes of the committee and the SAFC guidelines, a price quote did not constitute proper documentation for a room reservation.

M. Asgary asked if representatives from the group had attended any SAFC help sessions to confirm that their documentation would be acceptable.

A representative from the group said that she did not. She is aware of the process and has filled out SAFC budgets in the past.

M. Asgary said that the group appealed under new information. He asked how the proper room reservation constituted new information.

A member of the organization said that they felt the proper room reservation constituted new information because their advisor had not been able to approve it prior to budget submission. They received the proper documentation on the day that the budget was due.

M. Asgary asked what the proper steps to take would be for a group who was the victim of timing.

T. Mulherin said that if a group has trouble getting any sort of information needed for the budget application, they should submit a chain of e-mails indicating an attempt to get the information.

R. Lavin said that the SAFC deals with a lot of budgets. He feels that in this instance the SAFC may not have been able to completely analyze the entire situation to see that the price quote could in fact constitute a room reservation. He encouraged SA members to put on their representative hats as opposed to their judicial hats. The price quote is enough of a proof of room reservation for him.

A. Salem asked the group when they received the proper room reservation documentation e-mail that they submitted as new information in their appeal.

A representative from the group said that they received the e-mail right around when the budget was due. There was however no way to get advisor approval and she felt that including the second e-mail would be redundant.

A. Salem confirmed that the e-mail submitted with the original budget requested a price quote and that the women responded with a price quote. He asked how this document provided a legitimate room reservation.

A representative form the group said that her e-mail includes dates and room reservations while the woman’s reply includes the price. They assumed that this meant that the group had the room. The woman also indicated that the room was available.

A. Salem said that as a president of a group he understands that it is sometimes difficult to get people to respond in a way that includes all proper information. He however feels that the group made a mistake and that the decision of the SAFC should not be overturned.

Since there were no people remaining on the speakers list, C. Slicklen called to question. By a hand vote of 14–1, the previous question was called.

In response to a question asked by M. Asgary, T. Mulherin confirmed that the group was not funded at all for the event since a proper room reservation was not submitted.

By a vote of 10–2−2, the assembly voted to grant the Filthy Gorgeous appeal.

Aikido Club — SAFC Appeal

C. Slicklen pointed out that the Teszia had withdrawn their appeal.

T. Mulherin said that the e-mail submitted by the group did not constitute proper documentation since there was no URL on the bottom of the printed e-mail.

A representative from Aikido club said that the first clause under “What constitutes proper documentation” states that e-mails printed directly from e-mail programs are acceptable. Later in the section the P&T Handbook states that e-mails printed from on-line web clients must include the URL at the bottom on the page. The organization did not print their e-mail from an online web client so it is not clear that the e-mail they printed must include a URL. They printed an e-mail from an e-mail program which the first statement indicates is acceptable. When e-mails are printed from web programs a URL is not included on the bottom of the page. The organization understands that the rule is intended to make sure that e-mails are authentic. However different e-mails can have the same URL. The organization ensured the authenticity of their e-mail by including server and date references IDs. A server ID is more specific than a URL.

R. Lavin said that by a vote of 5–3−1, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC erred. The committee discussed the purpose of requiring a URL as well as the ambiguity in the rule.

R. Salem said that he feels that the e-mail should be acceptable because the organization included information legitimizing the e-mail.

M. Asgary asked if the purpose of the URL requirement was served by including the date and server IDs.

T. Mulherin said that he personally is not completely aware of how server IDs and e-mail URLs are generated. The SAFC therefore goes by what is in the handbook. He says he can see how it is somewhat ambiguous.

In response to a question asked by M. Asgary, T. Mulherin confirmed that the SAFC planned on clarifying what constitutes proper e-mail documentation.

A. Salem said that the handbook indicates that e-mails printed out from e-mail programs are acceptable. He asked why the SAFC did not recognize the e-mail as being printed out from an e-mail program.

T. Mulherin said that the SAFC evaluates e-mails based on whether or not they look like they could be printed from a word document.

A. Salem asked the group if all web clients are e-mail programs.

A representative from the organization said that e-mail programs are separate software programs whereas web clients require an open internet browser.

T. Mulherin asked whether or not anyone who was not a member of the appealing organization could confirm this information.

No one could generate a clear response.

C. Sarra said that since no one on the assembly could explain the difference or clarify the ambiguity it would be unreasonable to expect all groups to do the same. Given there own uncertainty it is only fair to grant the appeal.

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

By a vote of 13–0−1, the assembly voted that the SAFC did error and granted the appeal.

Undergraduate Philosophy Journal — SAFC Appeal

T. Mulherin said that two price quotes for a publication were included in the budget. The SAFC funds for the lower of the price quotes if more than one is included. The group is appealing for the combined amount of the two price quotes. After the group spoke and clarified their appeal, T. Mulherin said that he would recommend overturning the decision of the SAFC.

A representative from the group said that they had trouble contacting the woman who they had dealt with in the past regarding the publication. The group however, was satisfied with her company’s job and wanted to stick with the same vendor. Another individual from her company responded to their request for a price quote but was only qualified to quote for 2 of 4 components of the price. Therefore the first quote submitted contains the first two components of the price. The woman however got back to the group with the other to components of the quote the day that the paper budget was due. They had already submitted the budget packet at the time but gave the second quote to Terry who added it to their budget packet. The second quote was added to the budget before the 4 p.m. deadline.

R. Lavin said that the Appropriations Committee voted to 8–1 to grant the appeal.

R. Lavin motioned to call to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand vote of 8–5 the motion failed.

M. Asgary asked if it was SAFC policy to go with the cheaper of two price quotes if more than one is submitted.

T. Mulherin said yes. The SAFC had the impression that the two price quotes included in the budget represented a quote for the same thing.

A representative from the organization said that he went to add the second part of the price quote to the budget. They could have removed the old quote to avoid confusion but T. Ector had said that she preferred to add the quote to the budget.

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

By a roll call vote 13–0−1, the assembly voted that the SAFC did error. The appeal was granted.

VII. Unfinished Business

No Unfinished Business was discussed.

VIII. New Business

No New Business was discussed.

IX. Executive Session

The assembly did not go into Executive Session.

X. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. It was seconded. There was dissent.

By a hand vote of 5–8, the motion failed.

M. Asgary noted that quorum had been broken. The meeting was ended.

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun