Student Assembly

DRAFT Minutes Cornell University Student Assembly April 10, 2008 4:45 — 6:30pm Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

C. Slicklen called the meeting to order at 4:45pm.

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: M. Asgary, C. Basil, M. Coombs, W. Dong, E. Gay, E. Greenberg, V. Hartman, N. Junewicz, R. Lavin, I. Lesyk, S. Matthews, A. McGovern, A. Natarajan, A. Salem, R. Salem, C. Sarra, C. Slicklen, R. Smith, R. Stein, A. Wang

Representatives Excused: A. Craig, C. Miller

Liaisons Present: G. Mazza, H. Bergman, G. Mezey, S. Tata,

III. Approval of the Minutes — March 27, 2008

C. Slicklen asked the members to quickly review the minutes. There was a call for acclimation. The call for acclimation was seconded. There was no dissent. The March 27, 2008 minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

C. Slicklen called for community members to come forward to discuss an issue not on the agenda.

Whitney Patross, a law school student, said she wanted to introduce herself as a candidate for the graduate student trustee position. She reminded them that undergraduates could vote for the graduate student trustee.

M. Asgary said that there were errors in the minutes they had overlooked.

C. Sarra made a motion to reconsider the minutes. M. Asgary seconded the motion. C. Slicklen reviewed the corrections.

M. Asgary called for acclimation. The call for acclimation was seconded. There was no dissent. The March 27, 2008 minutes, with the corrections, were approved.

V. Announcements/Reports

� Academic Integrity & Honor Code discussion — Chris Basil

C. Basil said he received an email this morning for participation on next year’s academic integrity hearing board. He said one big factor under consideration is that there are separate boards for each college. The current code functions like an honor code since it demands students not cheat but it only pertains to academics. He said Dean Walcott and the committee has been considering making changes to the academic integrity and honor code since there is no continuity between colleges. Also, the document is long and no one really understands it. Furthermore, whether cases are actually tried and their outcomes are the sole discretion of faculty members who witness the infraction; there are no set standards so outcomes are really left up to luck. The benefits of an honor code are that it is student run, much shorter, easier to understand and shows that Cornell has a clear commitment to academic integrity. The University of Virginia honor code can be summarized in one PowerPoint slide and, under this code, every student is presumed honorable until they commit an infraction — students can take tests home, don’t need sick notes; if they’re in a store and forgot their wallet, they can tell a store owner they’ll be back in a hour with payment and it will be allowed. It’s been in existence for almost 150 years and it is student run. Under the UVA code, the only punishment available is expulsion except in the case of a trivial infraction. However, students can submit conscientious retractions before they’re found out, then they’re treated more leniently. The UVA study body is the about same size as Cornell’s. They had 54 investigated cases last year. Mostly juniors went to trial, so obviously infractions weren’t being made because individuals didn’t understand the code, or more freshmen would have gone to trial. 22% of UVA students reported the honor code was a positive factor in their admission decision, so this sort on initiative could benefit recruitment, and 63% of UVA students said they’ve had a discussion about honor. The main problem with the UVA code is that there is only one penalty — expulsion. The University of Colorado system is more practical; they have punishments such as letters of warning and community service all the way down to probation and expulsion so the punishments better fit the crime. He said they needed to consider whether they should adopt an honor code at all, and which aspects they would adopt, if they did as well as whether all Cornell community member groups would be bound by the same code.

S. Tata said it would be good to have an honor code. He is on an honor hearing committee here at Cornell and was also on an honor committee at UVA. He said the single penalty for any violation was referred to as the single sanction rule. If they were to adopt an honor code, they’d have to know if they were going to keep a fundamental differentiation between academic violations and other violations. He said having been on the AIHB, while it is good to have a variety of sanctions, the single sanction has a deterrence factor that helps to cut down on the number of violations. Also, the single sanction rule has been voted on at UVA several times and, each time, it’s been upheld, so they may want to factor that into their decision. He really wants an honor code, but it’s not something that should be done on a whim. They may want to consider bringing in an external source to write the code.

R. Lavin was under the impression that the honor code was purely academic, but obviously violations outside of academics are included too. He asked if Cornell was considering including non-academic violations under the code.

C. Basil said yes; under the UVA system, both academic and non-academic violations are considered; they still have a judicial administration-type branch as well.

R. Lavin asked if the hearing board would be a branch of the student assembly or a branch of the hearing board.

C. Basil said he could see it as being a reformation of the hearing board.

R. Lavin said he prefers University of Colorado system because it seems more appropriate to Cornell.

C. Slicklen said he’s been to a school with an honor code and he thinks the principle of stealing should be adjudicated under the honor code.

E. Greenberg said they’ve been positive examples of this, such as a case where an entire football team was found to have cheated and was punished for it, even though this negatively impacted their athletics — integrity like this is why the school is probably still so strong today. But he’s also seen negative examples, such as when a few students took a spring break trip, and violated the hotel policy by having too many people in one rooms — these students were held back for a year. He asked to what extent they wanted the honor code to cover student’s activities and also, which areas it would cover (the Cornell community, Ithaca community, Tompkins community). He agrees with S. Tata that they should take a lot of time to develop the code and get a lot of community involvement in its development.

A. McGovern said the boundaries of the honor code are important and she doesn’t think it should extend off campus, and the single-sanction program is not preferable in her opinion.

R. Salem said he agrees with the idea of an honor code but he thinks they need to carefully consider the punishments for various violations. For example, when people steal trays from the dining hall to go sledding, there is no malicious intent; this shouldn’t necessarily warrant expulsion. The violations warranting expulsion should be limited.

C. Slicklen said anyone with more questions could send C. Basil questions.

C. Basil said, going forward, this would have to be brought forward as a referendum to the entire school.

� Ivy Council Conference Report — Steven Matthews

R. Lavin said, on behalf of S. Matthews, he wanted to thank everyone who attended the Ivy Council Report. He thinks S. Matthews is preparing a report on it and will get that to the assembly members at a later time.

� Dining Committee Report — Mark Coombs

M. Coombs said the dining committee met on Tuesday and had a lively discussion. They’ve been having taste tests for coffee; they’re going to meet to discuss this again, they’re still meeting so if anyone had any interest they should let him know.

R. Stein asked if they’re getting rid of the coffee Cornell currently provides.

M. Coombs said Cornell is looking at which coffee they could put where on campus; it would differ by location.

M. Asgary said they would sign contracts for 6 years, the coffee contracts they have now expire this year. That’s how the system works.

� Environmental Committee Update - Ashley McGovern

A. McGovern said they had an environmental committee meeting and it was great. They have some great initiatives coming up that may be in collaboration with the dining committee. They will also be setting up an Earth Day table on April 22. The committee will be having another meeting tonight in Willard Straight International Lounge at 7:30pm if anyone is interested in attending.

� Residential Life Committee Update — Rammy Salem

R. Salem said at their last meeting they discussed a lot of things including installing cameras in the residence halls. If they’d like to be on the listserv, please let them know.

� Governor Mike Huckabee Lecture — Ahmed Salem

A. Salem said he thought it was important for the members to attend the Governor Mike Huckabee lecture. He’ll be here Tuesday, April 15 in Bailey Hall and will be discussing religion in politics. Tickets are available at WSH ticket office; they just released another 300 tickets since they first 1000 sold out.

C. Slicklen congratulated A. Salem and the Cornell Republicans for obtaining such a high-profile speaker. He also congratulated the new members of the Student Assembly Executive Board for the 2008–2009 academic year — Ryan Lavin, the new president; Chris Basil, the new executive vice president; Tony Miller the new vice president of internal affairs; Greg Mezey, the new vice president of finance; and Nikki Junewicz, the new vice president for public relations.

VI. Business of the Day

� SA SWOT Community Forum — 4:45PM — 5:45PM

E. Greenberg said a number of SA members, community members and alumni have been meeting a lot to do a student assembly analysis, to figure out ways to improve the student assembly this year and the next. He sent out a draft copy via email earlier. He mentioned that they are considering a new judicial branch of the SA, recruitment, the subjectiveness of student assembly organization funding decisions, making all aspects of all meetings open to community members and the legislative scope of student assembly, among other things. Regarding Roberts Rules of Order, a lot of community members have said they are discouraged from speaking during open microphone because it is intimidating since there are so many rules to follow that they may not necessarily be familiar with. He thinks this is an essential mechanism for maintaining order; however, these rules become cumbersome and make the assembly members look silly when they get tripped up in the rules.

G. Mazza said at SUNY Albany, they also used Roberts Rules; however for the more nitty-gritty stuff it was at the discretion of the parliamentarian about whether to use the rules or not. He personally thinks the rules are too formal and esoteric for a forum like this and they should make them less complicated to avoid going through the dredges of procedure and better facilitate the exchange of ideas.

A. Salem thanked E. Greenberg for all the work he put into the SWOT analysis. He wanted to start with Roberts Rules of Order because he felt the wording of this section was worded strangely and he has concerns. He considers this body to be a political legislative body. He thinks the presence of Roberts Rules is important, especially to protect the minority or assembly from a tyrannical chair. The chair can, with his or her discretion, pretty much eliminate rules and that’s a lot of power to entrust in one person. The Roberts Rules already give the chair a lot of power. The best way to crush dissent is to have no formal rules. He thinks G. Mazza’s suggestion about giving the discretion to the parliamentarian also gives this role too much power, especially since this position is chosen by the chair. Democracy is slow and cumbersome for a reason - so that everyone’s views can be heard and considered — and they shouldn’t eliminate the rules that allow for this for the sake of speed and efficiency.

M. Asgary said he agreed with A. Salem. He’s been in organizations in which Roberts Rules were used even more stringently. He thinks because Roberts Rules are at the bottom of the charter, they are already used pretty minimally in this assembly already. He understands that sometimes the Roberts Rules allow individuals to disrupt or slow down meetings but there are already other sets of rules in the charter, apart from the Roberts Rules, which govern their process and behavior. He asked how they would handle these other sets of rules if they change the Roberts Rules.

E. Greenberg said he might be defending some things he doesn’t necessarily agree with because he has to express the views of everyone who gave an opinion. He said he saw A. Salem and M. Asgary’s point about giving too much power to certain individuals and crushing the view of the dissent, but this is why he thinks Roberts Rules should be used to their full extent in any situation where voting will come into play. He thinks that there are some instances in which a more informal environment could benefit them especially in getting more community involvement. It is still at the discretion of the standing rules to modify the Roberts Rules but, sometimes, informality can have its benefits.

M. Coombs said one of his favorite things about American congress is that, even if you know everyone else is going to vote against you, you still get 15 minutes to go up to podium and pontificate. One of the most unfortunate aspects of the SA that he’s seen is that some members try to silence members they don’t agree with in informal debate. He thinks Roberts Rules protects those in the minority, no matter how ridiculous their opinion is. These opinions are important.

C. Basil said they had to recognize that they weren’t Congress. He doesn’t want to trivialize what they do, but they need to not take themselves too seriously. They need to differentiate between discussion and debate. Protecting the rights of the minority is important but, in discussion, a little bit of informality could be good.

V. Hartman said if they start not taking themselves seriously, the administration would start considering them less seriously as well. Some of the resolutions they’ve passed have been major and very important. He thinks that they could find some sort of compromise regarding the Roberts Rule issue, in which the assembly could vote unanimously to suspend Roberts Rules for a period of time and if, at any time, even one member wants to implement the Rules again, they would do so.

E. Greenberg said everyone is making very good points; he agrees with C. Basil that sometimes they dramatize themselves, but it is important to prevent the administration from not taking them seriously as well. He suggested they move on to another issue under consideration.

C. Sarra said V. Hartman’s suggestion is a good idea, but it may make the process more difficult, which is against the intent of this idea. He thinks the Roberts Rules put pressure on community members. The current system is good, but they should be more lenient on community members. He also thinks they should change the representatives’ seating arrangement, such as E. Greenberg suggested earlier to make it more welcoming to community members.

R. Lavin said, when discussing the Roberts Rules, they were trying to think of examples where Roberts Rules worked well and where they didn’t. For example, in gender-neutral housing resolution discussion context, the Rules were very important because they needed efficient structuring of discussion, but in other contexts, it might have been better if the discussion was more informal. The gravity of the issues being discussed needs to be considered.

E. Greenberg said, on the subject of open meetings, one of the most important things they discussed is student organization funding and byline funding. It’s fine if people disagree with decisions, but its infuriating when they accuse you of corruption because the process is not more transparent. As such, they’re suggesting that every aspect of every meeting of the student assembly and its committees be open to community members, including executive committee meetings. They should eliminate executive sessions completely and publish all available minutes.

A. Salem said he thinks this is a good idea for the appropriations committee and executive committees; however, they should allow executive sessions in the event that they have to maintain confidentiality. He thinks executive sessions serve purposes and that they used it too liberally this year. No committee meeting should have executive session, but the SA should be able to do this, in order to maintain secrecy in certain issues.

E. Greenberg said these were very good points.

R. Lavin asked what committees would be able to do if they had to discuss confidential issues as well.

A. Salem said that perhaps, issues of confidentiality should be brought for discussion to the SA. He’s just hesitant to leave executive sessions to the discretion of committees.

C. Slicklen said, with regard to byline funding, the appropriations committee makes funding recommendations to the SA, and the SA then makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees. They do not actually allocate money; they only make recommendations.

M. Asgary said, comparing Cornell’s assembly website to other Ivy’s assembly websites, there is room for improvement. The University of Pennsylvania has biographies for each assembly member and drop boxes where you can submit issues to each member for consideration. He agrees that the SA should continue to maintain a small budget to cover costs for representative’s initiatives but felt that the SA should stop covering the SAFC’s administrative costs.

M. Coombs said they have a tendency to go to extremes. He thinks eliminating executive sessions all together is a general solution to a very specific problem. Also, he stated that he brings up Congress, not because he thinks they are on the same level as this body, but because there is no better judicial body to learn from.

E. Greenberg said he wanted to discuss objectiveness and subjectiveness of handling SAFC Appeals. There’s been a lot of controversy because community members accuse the SA of not being consistent in ruling for different organizations. They need to create more stringent standards regarding how they make these decisions; however, there are instances when subjectivity can be useful. One recommendation was adding another level of appeal, so that organizations appeals the SAFC decision with the SAFC Executive body before appealing with the student assembly

A. Salem made a motion to end discussion. C. Slicklen ended discussion on the SWOT Analysis for the sake of time and attending to the other items on the agenda.

� Appendix B Discussion & Resolution 22 — Revision to Appendix B of the SA Charter— Adam Gay

A. Gay said that before getting to the proposed Appendix B changes, they would address the issue of amending the section of Appendix B dealing with the amount Cornell University Emergency Medical Services is allowed to save each fiscal year. He said the stipulation only allowed them save up to $5,000 per fiscal year towards the purchase of a new vehicle and they had CUEMS had some issues regarding this.

Ryan O’Halloran introduced himself and Jordan Perlman as members of Cornell’s Emergency Medical Services team. He said a lot of things have changed with their organization in the last year. Putting aside $5,000 per year has enabled them to purchase a new vehicle when needed, in the past, because they received additional money from selling the older vehicle as well as other things. These things are not feasible this year because their call volume has gone up in the past year and the student body is putting greater pressure on them for their services. As such, they actually need two vehicles and cannot afford to sell the existing vehicle in order to purchase a new one; they need both. They’re looking to save an average of $10,000 per year, given that they are able to save a total of $20,000 in two years.

A. Gay said he recommended that they remove the clause limiting CUEMS to $5,000 to allow them to obtain the money the needed to obtain the vehicle and continue providing their services. He made a motion to strike the clause reading Cornell University Emergency Medical Services may save no more than $5,000 per fiscal year toward the purchase of a new vehicle. The motion was seconded. There was dissent.

M. Asgary said he doesn’t think they should strike the clause completely; they should just change it to say EMS may put no more than $20,000 per funding cycle towards the purchase of new vehicles; there must be a reason that the clause was initially included and they shouldn’t just eliminate it all together.

A. Gay withdrew his motion.

M. Asgary moved that they change the clause to read “Cornell University Emergency Medical Services may save no more than $20,000 during the 2008–2010 byline funding cycle toward the purchase of a new vehicle. The motion was seconded. There was dissent.

A. Wang asked how many vehicles CUEMS currently has and how much a vehicle costs.

R. O’Halloran said CUEMS has one vehicle, which handles all the events, classes and 911 calls. This is daunting on the vehicle; their warranties on mileage expire well before the year is over. They want to purchase a new vehicle in the time that they were supposed to replace the vehicle, so they can have two vehicles.

A. Wang withdrew his dissent.

In response to a question asking who owns the CUEMS vehicle, R. O’Halloran said Cornell insured the vehicle.

R. Lavin asked if it would be more ideal for the group to eliminate the clause all together rather than making M. Asgary’s proposed change. The stipulation hasn’t been giving them enough flexibility. He doesn’t understand why they can’t just eliminate the claim then reevaluate whether they should add the stipulation again in the next byline funding cycle. He doesn’t want to restrain the group.

R. O’Halloran said not having the stipulation would be the most ideal because it would allow them to have additional funds to help cover unanticipated costs as well as get a new vehicle. M. Asgary’s stipulation will work, but not having it would be even more helpful.

There was brief clarification regarding CUEMS recommended allocation and what type of vote this would require in order to pass.

A. Salem said he thinks the amendment is pretty good and that M. Asgary’s suggestion is acceptable. Removing the stipulation would be a more ideal situation for any group, but they have to maintain accountability. They need to have some oversight; it’s their responsibility to the student body.

R. O’Halloran said that, while it is ideal not to have the stipulation, they didn’t initially ask to have the stipulation removed because they recognize that the SA needs to maintain oversight. But he did want to point out their rising unanticipated costs and highlight that it would be in their best interest not to have the stipulation at all.

V. Hartman asked why the university is not contributing anything to the vehicle since they own it.

R. O’Halloran said that CUEMS owns the vehicle; they purchase it, but the university insures it. It’s a complicated situation.

V. Hartman said it’s troubling that the university is benefiting so much from CUEMS, but doesn’t contribute anything toward it. He asked Dean Hubbell to speak to this issue.

Dean Hubbell said it’s a complicated issue and he cannot answer the question adequately. They’ve been trying to work out a more beneficial arrangement but it’s complicated. They may have to invite a more knowledgeable person to discuss it.

R. Lavin made a motion to call to question approving M. Asgary’s amendment. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By a hand count vote of 14–2−3, M. Asgary’s amendment to the clause was approved.

A. Wang asked how much a vehicle costs. EMS said it costs between $25,000-$40,000. Additionally, specializing the vehicle for EMS services cost between $10,000-$20,000.

A. Gay said he still recommended striking the clause because they’ve demonstrated that they need to make rapid and costly decisions. He thinks they need to be given the flexibility to operate as they would like. They’re already constrained by their budgets. They’ll have to come back to the SA to report their expenditures in a year and a half, so they should just give them the funds they need now and revisit including the stipulation later on. He made a motion to strike the clause. The motion was seconded. There was dissent.

M. Asgary said he thinks the stipulation should be there. The majority just voted that they approved of the amendment. He thinks the stipulation is reasonable. R. O’Halloran says this restriction will work for CUEMS and if they suddenly need more money, they can discuss this with the SA again.

A. Salem said he doesn’t think it’s a good idea to strike this restriction. Yes, striking the restriction is ideal, but no restrictions would be ideal for all groups. R. O’Halloran said M. Asgary’s amendment would work, so they should stick with this. He asked how long the $5,000 stipulation has worked for the organization.

J. Perlman said there have been longer periods of time in which they could use the vehicle because the load on them was not as extreme.

A. Salem said that if the stipulation has worked before and all that is needed for it to continue working is to increase the amount they are allowed to save. There is no need to completely remove the clause.

The motion to strike the clause was called to question. The call to question was seconded. There was no dissent. By a hand-count vote of 6–10–1, the motion to strike the clause failed.

A. Salem made a motion to approve CUEMS stipulation in Appendix B. The motion was seconded. There was no dissent.

R. O’Halloran said the $20,000 stimulation would work barring any unforeseen circumstances. Ideal circumstance would be no stipulation but he understands their need to maintain oversight.

By a roll-call vote of 16–0−2, the amendment to the charter was approved.

A. Gay said they would move on to discussing the change to stipulation N, under section 3 of Appendix B which states that all organizations will be held programmatically accountable to the student body and the SA.

There was a brief discussion about if the copy of Appendix B that they were reviewing was the most up-to-date.

M. Asgary made a motion to approve stipulation N, under section III of Appendix B. It was seconded. There was dissent.

The motion to approve the change was called to question. The call to question was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand-count vote of 5–11–0, the call to question failed.

A. Gay said adding a broad clause, such as section III stipulation N, that is not enforceable is not a good idea. He thinks trying to control each organization’s programming is against the mission of the assembly. He made a motion to strike stipulation N. under section III of appendix B of the student assembly charter. The motion was seconded. There was dissent.

M. Asgary said he understands that they shouldn’t include clauses that are difficult to enforce, but they need to have ownership over what the organizations do. He also said he suggested earlier that they should have something more concrete outline the penalty for not adhering the stipulations A through M and didn’t understand why this was not included. It’s important to have it because it adds accountability.

The motion to strike the clause was called to question. The call to question was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand-count vote 3–13–0, the call to question failed.

A. McGovern said she doesn’t think they are so superior that they should have oversight over organization’s programming. It’s not their decision whether programs should be occurring, or whether they are appropriate. This would be close to censorship. They should strike this clause.

A. Salem said he agrees with A. McGovern that they are going to disagree with some of the programs; the only problem is that some of these programs are byline funded through student money and they should be able to control the money of their constituents. He said it’s important they don’t censor people but it’s also important that they have accountability because they are allocating their constituent’s money. If they have enough knowledge to allocate money, they should have enough knowledge to determine to which programs this money should be allocated.

A. McGovern pointed out that students are not banned from protesting a program if they do not agree with the program that their money is funding. R. Lavin said he’s been going back and forth on this but he thinks it’s best that they continue to have indirect oversight over programming. It’s enough that they approve budgets for the organizations that have this programming. He called to question approving the addition of stipulation N under section 3 to appendix B of the charter. The call to question was seconded. By a roll call vote of 5–14–0, stipulation N was not added to appendix B.

V. Hartman made a motion to extend the meeting until 7:00pm. It was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand count vote of 14–5−0, the meeting time was extended.

M. Asgary said he would like to make add a stipulation that clearly outlined the penalties for not adhering to the outlined stipulations in Section II, specifically to stipulations E and F, which outline who will investigate accusations of violations and how revocation of funding will be approved. He asked A. Gay how they could do this.

A. Gay said he would be in favor of including specifics in the standing rules; he didn’t think Appendix B was the appropriate place for this.

There was a motion to call to question approving sections I, II and III. The call to question was seconded. There was no dissent. By vote of 17–2−0, sections I. II and III of Appendix B of the student assembly charter were approved.

A. Gay reviewed the changes to section 4 regarding athletics. Last week, someone asked why they do not specify specific amounts to be targeted to each portion of the athletics tickets such as they did with the Class Council. After reviewing it, they determined that, while the Class Councils actually consist of multiple groups that are each allocated a specific amount of money, Athletics is one department, and so this is unnecessary. He feels they should approve this as is.

A. Salem said that C. Slicklen had told him earlier that he would be talking to the athletics department about hockey tickets.

C. Slicklen said he did mention the hockey tickets when he spoke with the Athletics department, even though this was not the primary issue under discussion and they told him this is something they could probably work around but he thinks it would be more appropriately handled by the next assembly because, even though they are open to it, it needs to discussed more.

A. Salem said he thinks they should include a stipulation regarding the hockey tickets now. He also thinks they should have some sort of breakdown to preempt any problems that occurred in the past. He made a motion to add an amendment that the Athletics Department will keep hockey ticket prices fixed for the duration of the byline funding cycle. M. Asgary seconded the motion. There was dissent.

A. Gay said C. Slicklen did discuss this but they can’t put it into the charter because it can’t be enacted immediately because it requires more discussion. Doing this, after the fact, is akin to going to class councils and changing their allocation. This amendment would be in the best interest of their constituents, but they can’t enact something that the Athletics department has not explicitly agreed to.

R. Lavin said they’ve made too many strides with their relationship with the athletics department to jeopardize it. Keeping hockey ticket prices fixed wasn’t anywhere in their discussions with the department; they can’t just suddenly enact it.

V. Hartman motioned to table the discussion until next week when the Athletics Department could come to speak with them. The motion was seconded. There was dissent. C. Slicklen said they would move on from discussing Athletics.

C. Slicklen he would step down as chair and R. Lavin would take over because there was a conflict of interest with the next issue they would be discussing, Class Councils.

E. Greenberg made a motion to approve everything under Class Councils (stipulation B) under section IV. It was seconded. There was dissent.

M. Asgary said he wanted to exclude the stipulation in this section regarding SAFC.

E. Greenberg made a motion to approve everything excluding the stipulation regarding SAFC. It was seconded. There was dissent.

The motion to approve everything under Class Councils except the stipulation regarding SAFC was called to question. The call to question was seconded. There was dissent. By a hand count vote, the call to question failed.

E. Greenberg made a motion to approve everything under Class Councils in section IV excluding stipulations regarding SAFC, and the slope day programming board. The motion was seconded. There was dissent.

V. Hartman said he wanted to alter something in this section.

R. Lavin said they were moving to a vote on approving everything under Class Councils except stipulations regarding the SAFC and slope day programming board. By a hand count vote, the question was called.

By a roll call vote of 15–2−2, the motion to approve everything under Class Councils in section IV except the stipulations regarding SAFC and the slope day programming board was approved.

M. Asgary made a motion to add a stipulation stating that “the SAFC will be responsible for funding all administrative costs, associated with their operation, including but not limited to use of the office of assemblies clerk, food for meetings, copies and shirts”. The motion was seconded. There was no dissent. The amendment was added.

M. Asgary asked A. Gay to explain the stipulation under section VI, which states “, Five dollars per student per year shall be placed in a University endowment fund. The SA shall create guidelines for the endowment”. He said that unless the endowment could be explained, he would like this clause to be struck.

A. Gay said he spoke to A. Epstein and P. Beach and the endowment is around $300,000.00. It does exist, but there are no guidelines as to its use, currently.

In response to M. Asgary’s question asking what they plan to use the endowment for, down the line, A. Gay said he wasn’t sure.

M. Asgary asked the chair to table the discussion on the stipulation regarding the endowment until someone from the Office of Assemblies could explain the endowment fund more fully. C. Slicklen agreed to table this issue and said they would ask P. Beach or A. Epstein to attend the next meeting to address the issue.

M. Asgary motioned to approve section V. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By roll call vote of 18–0−0, section V was approved.

R. Salem said that A. Richter asked to have the words “GPSA’ to be struck from section 4, stipulation 6, and for the second “GPSA” to instead read “other funding entities”. She did not think it was necessary to mention the GPSA’s role regarding Slope Day in the student assembly’s Appendix B because it is already in the GPSA’s appendix B. He made a motion to make these changes. The motion was not seconded.

M. Asgary made a motion to approve the Slope day allocation stipulation in section VI of Appendix B. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By a vote of 19–0−0, the motion passed unanimously.

VII. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded. C. Slicklen adjourned the meeting at 6:58 pm.