Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
April 17, 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, Asa Craig, Samantha Dong, Adam Gay, Vince Hartman, Nikki Junewicz, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steven Matthews, Guy Mazza, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Chris Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Andrew Wang

Representatives Excused: Mark Coombs, Elan Greenberg, Rebecca Stein

Liaisons Present: Greg Mezey, Amy Richter, Sanjiv Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes

C. Slicklen pointed out that Dean Walcott’s name on the 7th page was spelled incorrectly.

There were no other corrections to the April 3, 2008 minutes. There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes from the April 3, 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.

T. Mulherin, ‘09, said that the SAFC will be presenting the revised P&T Handbook the next S.A. meeting. The handbook is completely new. The goal has been to make the handbook more accessible to students. It is about 1/3 the length of the current handbook.

V. Announcements/Reports

Transition Events for 2008–2009 — R. Lavin

R. Lavin said that he is planning a transition event that will be composed of the current assembly and the incoming assembly. He will let representatives know the date in the near future.

Additional Announcements

C. Basil encouraged all representatives to attend the Academic Integrity Student Forum which will be held on April, 28th from 4:30 to 5:30 pm in Goldwin Smith HEC auditorium.

C. Slicklen thanked and congratulated A. Salem and the College Republicans for putting on a very successful event this past week. Regardless of students’ political affiliation, Governor Huckabee was a great speaker and answered a lot of questions.

VI. Business of the Day

Review of 2008–2009 Academic Calendar — C. Slicklen

C. Slicklen said that in accordance with the S.A. Charter, Article 1.4, the S.A. is to review and make comments regarding the proposed academic calendar. At Cornell, the calendar being considered is four or five years ahead. Therefore, the assembly is currently considering the 2012–2013 school year. He said that he would be forming a speaker’s list to solicit feedback on the calendar. He and R. Lavin will compile a report for the provost based on the comments.

M. Asgary said that the assembly has until May 10 to approve the calendar. He suggested tabling the discussion so that representatives have additional time to look over the calendar.

C. Slicklen said that he would be amendable to waiting to approve the calendar. He tabled discussion of the calendar until next week’s meeting.

SWOT Forum — Elan Greenberg & Ryan Lavin

R. Lavin said that he is soliciting feedback on behalf of those who conducted the SWOT Analysis. Based on the feedback, the SWOT document may be edited. Last week the assembly discussed the structure of assembly meetings, Robert’s Rules of Order, and parliamentary procedure. He said that E. Greenberg wanted the assembly to discuss the Conduct of Student Assembly Members. When this issue was being discussed by the committee, it was generally agreed upon that internal conflicts arise within the assembly. These internal conflicts have typically been addressed by the Executive Board. However, since the board has other responsibilities, dealing with internal conflicts is not really a productive use of their time. A suggestion presented during SWOT was the establishment of a third party judicial committee or subcommittee of the S.A. to deal with such issues in a more objective way than the Executive Board can. Other potential solutions include utilizing the administrative oversight of the communications division to make sure that all new members are versed in proper conduct, or developing new and professional leadership conferences of some sort. He feels that the primary solution agreed upon was either a third party or sub S.A. committee.

C. Slicklen said that the SWOT document outlines a third arm of the assembly that would represent a judicial branch. This branch could potentially suspend the privileges of a seating representative for a prescribed amount of time. He urged representatives to remember that the SWOT document is a brainstorming document that will be submitted to the Executive Committee of the assembly next semester. Representatives should give feedback as opposed to taking an aggressive approach.

M. Asgary asked if any other solutions were discussed besides suspending representatives using a judicial committee.

R. Lavin said that a third party judicial branch was really the primary solution that was discussed. The sentiment was that the S.A. should be responsible for itself. This opinion worked to rule out some of the other solutions such as sending the issue to a different Cornell division.

M. Asgary said that the nature of the S.A. as a legislative body will of course result in internal conflicts. Since all members of the assembly are Cornell students, he believes that their conflicts fall under the purview of the J.A.’s office. He thinks the idea of being able to suspend an assembly member for any period of time is ridiculous. Representatives are elected by the students and the only way to take away their power is to recall them pursuant to the guidelines in the Charter. If representatives were to be suspending in someway he feels that the document should include a recommendation to appoint a liaison in their stead.

A. Salem said he understands where those who were involved with the SWOT analysis see an issue in terms of ethical conduct and accountability. He however suggested striking the judicial arm out of the document. No member should be able to suspend someone else’s voting power when they have been elected by the public. Doing so would be anti-democratic. He is concerned about issues and favoritism and politics. Let issues be resolved through the election process or the recall process if necessary.

G. Mazza said that A. Salem’s logic is troubling at best. Allowing conflicts to be resolved through an elections process, is not timely and does not solve the issue on the current assembly. He said that he is a transfer student from SUNY Albany and that the student government branch there had a judicial arm. Although the same exact system is not appropriate for Cornell, a judicial arm or an internal affairs committee is exactly what this assembly needs. Issues have arisen this year, including allegations of abuse of power, that the assembly has no way of addressing. He said that the J.A. deals with actual issues on campus that may actually endanger students as opposed to claims of assembly abuse of power. He is not well versed in J.A. policy but he doesn’t imagine that they would have jurisdiction over the S.A. or amenable to enforcing S.A. policy on its own members. The key issue here is the assembly needing to enforce its policy on its own members. If you are elected to the assembly, you are elected to follow the assembly guidelines. If representatives are not following these guidelines, there is a problem that needs to be addressed. It is not appropriate for the S.A. to pass their judicial issues onto students. Creating a judicial committee would be a good way to bring about legitimacy that many students feel the assembly is lacking.

R. Lavin said that he does not feel that it would appropriate to give five members of the assembly the ability to suspend other assembly members. There is however an issue that has been recognized. There are internal issues that arise that the J.A. would not hear. Instead of focusing on the extreme example of suspending members, he urged representatives to comment on how to address the less extreme example.

V. Hartman asked what the recourse would be if a third party found an ethical violation.

C. Slicklen said to look at the idea as a suggestion. If the assembly decided that some sort of judicial committee is appropriate, logistics would obviously have to be worked out If the judicial committee ended up being a committee of the S.A., its decisions could be overturned by a 2/3 vote of the assembly.

V. Hartman said that his point is that there needs to be some sort of recourse for a representative who is found to be committing a crime of ethics. A. Salem and M. Asgary may be having issues with the idea because the only solution provided is the suspension of voting privileges.

G. Mazza encouraged representatives to keep in mind that the idea of a judicial branch is a suggestion. He said that he envisioned the judicial branch as an internal affairs committee of the S.A. whose decisions would be subject to approval by the S.A.

V. Hartman asked what recourse there was besides suspension. There is none and that is the problem.

R. Lavin said that that is a question that would have to be answered. All representatives take the Oath of Office. It is sometimes thought that some individuals violate the oath. Should the assembly ignore these violations? He asked assembly members for proposed solutions as to how to address these violations.

A. Wang said that having a judicial committee could help check to make sure that the S.A. itself is following its Charter and not breaking its own rules. If the S.A. is opposed to rules in the Charter, they should change them as opposed to break them.

R. Lavin said that that was a good suggestion. The SWOT document, as a series of suggestions, assumes proceeding charter changes in resolution format.

A. Craig asked if R. Lavin could give an example of a reason why a representative would be called under review. Who would decide to call a review of a representative?

R. Lavin said that there were a number of suggestions including an absolute third party, the parliamentarian, community members or an S.A. committee.

A. Craig said that he feels that there should be some sort of internal election or internal review process. He also suggested that there should be some process of allowing individuals to recommend that a representative’s conduct be evaluated.

R. Salem said that although he recognizes issues in involving other Cornell divisions, he likes the idea of involving a third party.

A. McGovern said that an issue related to involving a third party is that they would not be elected. Maybe a third party would work if that party could be voted on. She suggested creating an impeachment process as opposed to creating a whole other committee because she does not foresee of a flood of activity. Such a process would allows all students, whether on the assembly or not, to raise their concerns.

C. Slicklen confirmed that a recall process for assembly members already exists. Assembly members can also recall members of the Executive Board. For non assembly members a similar process can be initiated through a petition process.

R. Lavin confirmed that representatives cannot be internally recalled.

A. McGovern said therefore it may be a good idea to create a process whereby assembly members could initiate a recall process of other representatives.

R. Lavin said that the issues of concern are primarily ethical. The J.A. does not consider ethical issues.

S. Tata said that it is important to ensure that all representatives are held accountable to the student body. He said that he is strongly in favor of forming an entirely third party.

R. Lavin Student said that the assembly should move on to discussing its Legislative Scope.

M. Asgary said that on page 14 of the Charter Review document it was suggested that a recall vote by students at-large and assembly members be permitted. Such a process would set a high standard for assembly members. Clearly any representative who violated the Campus Code of Conduct can be sent to the J.A. For ethical issues some sort of committee should be permitted to verbally reprimand representatives. The committee should also be allowed to make violations public if they are substantiated. The committee should also make representatives aware of the recall procedure as outlined in the Charter review document if it passes. The body should not be able to suspend the votes of any other representatives.

A. Salem said that he thinks there should be an appeals process beyond the assembly for those representatives found to have committed a violation. He suggested the ombudsman. He suggested setting the standard very high and setting the vote at 2/3 of committee members. He said he would very much be opposed to giving a committee the right to suspend representatives for even a minute of an assembly meeting.

G. Mazza said that this judicial body would not be a proactive body. Rather the committee would consider issues as they arise. The idea of suspension is just a suggestion. It is a small paragraph in pages of suggestions. He said having the Parliamentarian chair the committee is an awful idea. The Parliamentarian is currently on the Executive Board. It should be someone more neutral.

R. Lavin said that the sentiment seems to be strong reservations regarding the suspension of representatives voting rights. There appears to be a consensus that third party should be involved.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly would now be discussing the next SWOT issue — Student Assembly Legislative Scope.

R. Lavin said that the Student Assembly has legislative oversight over the policies of the Department of Campus Life and the Office of the Dean of Students. In the past there have been resolutions that some have thought have been out of this scope of legislative authority. There are those who think every resolution needs to be heard. If it is irrelevant, it will be voted down. There are others that think the assembly wastes times in discussing resolutions that are outside the purview of its legislative authority. He said that he is requesting input on this issue.

C. Slicklen said that the SWOT committee suggests that the assembly should consider what is fair game for assembly discourse. The Student Assembly should recognize that resolutions in discussion periods should be limited to only those subjects that will directly affect undergraduates and their Cornell experience.

A. Salem asked what the suggestion was.

R. Lavin said that the SWOT Analysis identified legislative scope as an issue. He is soliciting suggestions for a means of dealing with this issue from representatives. Should there be a process through which to limit the scope of resolutions?

A. Salem said that resolutions should be put to the test. He thinks that every resolution should be heard. It would be difficult to think of a fair process to evaluate the relevance of resolutions. It should not be at the chair’s or Executive Board’s discretion. A vote of assembly members could be taken. Such a vote is problematic because assembly members may vote down a resolution just because they do not wish to take a stand on an issue even though it may be within their purview to do so.

R. Lavin said since assembly members become aware of the agenda before the meeting, an e-mail process of removing inappropriate resolutions from the agenda was discussed during the SWOT analysis.

V. Hartman said that the S.A. itself does not have any sovereignty. The authority of the S.A. comes from being recognized by administration as the voice of the student body. The people who the assembly writes resolutions for gives the resolutions merit by recognizing them. The assembly has no mechanism to enforce its resolutions. It’s hard to argue for limiting the scope of resolutions since irrelevant resolutions will in no way be enforced.

C. Basil said that the assembly has a collaborative relationship with the student body, the administration and by-line funded organizations where the S.A. plays less of an authoritative role and more one of making recommendations.

V. Hartman said that in electing representatives students put their trust in representatives and their discussions as to what to bring forward.

In response to a question asked by M. Asgary, C. Slicklen confirmed that the assembly would not be voting on the SWOT document. If it ever did come down to a vote, the vote would be whether or not to give the document to the incoming Executive Board.

R. Lavin said that the document has been created based on the input of students, staff, and alumni. It is not a S.A. document and therefore it would be inappropriate to vote on it. The document will be given to next year’s board as a resource.

Class Councils Constitution Approval — Vince Hartman, et al.

C. Slicklen stepped down as chair. R. Lavin took the place as chair.

V. Hartman said that Class Councils went through a very detailed review process of their governing documents. He believes that each of the councils voted unanimously in favor of approving all the changes. Some of the changes include clarifying the attendance policy to an objective process, renaming the VP of Programming to Executive Vice President and enumerating the proper succession upon the vacancy of the Presidency. There were also multiple changes to Class Councils operating policy. Additionally, Class Councils redefined the members of the Convocation committee due to the chair being selected in the fall of Junior Year. The constitution is being brought before the assembly for approval as required by Appendix B.

M. Asgary said that Article III, Requirements for Active Membership, Bullet 3, reads “Members, who were active in the previous academic year, shall be considered active at the start of the next academic year�” He confirmed that this statement was referring to non e-board members.

V. Hartman said that this statement would include e-board members as well.

C. Slicklen said that the first bullet under Convocation Chair on page 18 includes the statement “at the time the committee is formed and those fifteen (15) members selected by the Convocation chair.” The next bullet point states “by the Convocation Chair and Class President.” For consistency’s sake, he thinks that the first bullet point should read “at the time the committee if formed and those fifteen (15) members selected by the Convocation chair and Class President.” He motioned to amend�

V. Hartman said that C. Slicklen could not make a motion to amend the Class Councils Constitution.

C. Slicklen said that Class Councils is a part of the division of the Dean of Students and the Student Assembly has legislative authority of this office.

V. Hartman said that the assembly has no legislative authority to change the Class Councils’ Constitution. Class Councils brings forward their constitution solely for approval.

C. Slicklen agreed to disagree.

R. Lavin confirmed that V. Hartman would take into account C. Slicklen’s suggestion and make the change accordingly.

A. Salem said that the way the Convocation committee is formed is much improved by the changes just proposed. He said that the first bullet under Convocation Chair on page 18 includes the statement: “Other individuals may be appointed by the Dean of Students of the Vice President for Student and Academic Services with the consultation of the Convocation Chair.” He said that he did not understand why this statement was included.

V. Hartman said that this statement was included to allow seniors on the Student Assembly to take part in the process if the committee has not selected a speaker by the start of senior year.

A. Salem asked why the Convocation Chair was still not publicly elected.

V. Hartman said that although the Convocation Chair has a lot of responsibility it is also an honor to be selected. It is hard to elect an honorary position.

A. Salem said that he understands but that it still bothers him that six people behind close doors determine who gets that honor as opposed to the entire membership of the Class Councils. Although he still will vote in favor of the Constitution he feels that it is ludicrous that the Convocation Chair is chosen in a closed room meeting.

M. Asgary called to question. There were multiple seconds.

V. Hartman said part of the issue is that Class Councils selects the Convocation Chair in the fall of their Junior Year. It may be possible to elect the Convocation Chair and Class Councils will put the suggestion into consideration.

M. Asgary motioned for a roll call vote.

By a roll call vote of 13–0−4, the Class Councils Constitution was approved.

Appendix B —

A. Gay said that upon request from last week the breakdown for Athletics is $3.85 to Marketing and Promotions and $6.10 directed towards tickets which includes the pass and free admission to homecoming.

M. Asgary said that he thought that allocation was broken down into three categories.

A. Gay said that the assembly had broken down the second category further into homecoming and the BRSP. Since both relate to tickets it makes sense to combine them.

M. Asgary asked what that breakdown was.

C. Slicklen said that he believed that it was a $1 for homecoming and $5.10 for the Big Red Sports Pass.

A. Gay said that he believed M. Asgary’s concern was limited the amount of the Athletics allocation that could be spend on marketing and promotions. The breakdown he presented accomplishes this.

M. Asgary said that he was going to move to amend each stipulation to include the amount that can be spent on the category that the stipulation was referring to. He does not see the need to add a forth stipulation.

C. Slicklen confirmed that $1.20 was allocated to homecoming and $4.90 to the pass.

M. Asgary proposed that the following stipulation be added: “No more that $4.90 of the total Athletics allocation may be spent towards providing the Big Red Sports Pass.”

A. Gay asked if such an amendment was necessary for the first two stipulations since the concern is regarding the marketing and promotions allocation.

M. Asgary said that the stipulations would be important to include for consistency’s sake. Also, Athletics has had issues with moving around money in the past. Breakdowns are included for a lot of the other groups.

A. Gay said that in fact breakdowns are not included for many of the other groups.

M. Asgary said that he would like to add “No more than $1.20 of the total allocation may be spent towards�

C. Slicklen confirmed that after each stipulation M. Asgary would like a statement reading “No more than $X amount of Athletics total allocation may be spent towards the category the stipulation is referring to.”

M. Asgary said that he would like to add the words per student following total allocation.

C. Slicklen confirmed that M. Asgary meant per undergraduate student as opposed to per student present.

M. Asgary said that he would like it to read per undergraduate student for each of the stipulations.

V. Hartman said that later in Appendix B under the Slope Day Programming Board a stipulation reads that “One dollar and twenty-five cents shall be allocated for Slope Fest.”

M. Asgary said that he has made his amendment.

C. Slicklen asked if there was a second. There was. There was no dissent. The amendment is therefore part of the Athletics portion of Appendix B that will be voted on.

C. Slicklen read the added clauses aloud.

To be added to the first Athletics stipulation: “No more than $4.90 per undergraduate student of the total Athletics’ allocation may be spent towards providing the Big Red Sports Pass.”

To be added to the second Athletics stipulation: “No more than $1.20 per undergraduate student of the total Athletics’ allocation may be spent towards providing Homecoming tickets free of cost.”

To be added to the third Athletics stipulation: “No more than $3.85 per undergraduate student of the total Athletics’ allocation may be spent towards providing marketing and promotions.”

R. Lavin and A. Gay dissented.

R. Lavin said that he liked the statement that V. Hartman read. The proposed amendment is too wordy.

A. Salem, point of information, said that C. Slicklen had already asked for dissent and that there was none.

C. Slicklen said that it was unclear what the motion on the table was.

A. Salem said that as opposed to dissenting, those who were against the amendment would have to make a motion to remove the statements added the Athletics stipulations.

R. Lavin motioned to remove the statements added to the Athletics stipulations and then say: “Four dollars and ninety cents per undergraduate student of the Athletics allocation shall be used for the Big Red Sports Pass. One dollar and ten cents of the allocation may be used for Homecoming. Three dollars and eighty five cents per undergraduate student of the Athletics allocation shall be used for the Sports Marketing Group.” The relevant statements will be added to the appropriate Athletics stipulations.

The motion was seconded.

There were multiple dissents.

M. Asgary said that although Class Councils includes the breakdown the way R. Lavin proposed many other organizations’ stipulations include the breakdown language he proposed. No more than is more appropriate language especially since Athletics has had issues related to moving money around in the past.

There was a call to question. A. Salem seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

By a hand vote, the motion passed. R. Lavin’s amendment stands.

A. Salem said that he thought Athletics was supposed to present at the meeting to discuss whether or not a stipulation preventing Athletics from raising hockey ticket prices could be included.

A. Gay said that it was his understanding that C. Slicklen spoke with Andy Noel, Director of Athletics and that it would be inappropriate to make such a stipulation at this point in time.

A. Salem said that Athletics was supposed to be invited to the meeting.

C. Slicklen said that he was very busy and did not contact Athletics.

A. Salem motioned to table Athletics until next week. There were multiple seconds. There were multiple dissents.

A. Gay said that there is no reason to bring back Athletics at this point.

By a vote of 12–4, the motion to table Athletics failed.

A. Gay motioned to approve letter A of Section 4 of Appendix B.

By a vote of 12–4, the Athletics section was not approved.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly would have to keep discussing Athletics.

A. Gay said that if the assembly did not reach an agreement, Athletics would not be included in Appendix B and that there would be no stipulations on their funding. There are groups that have no stipulations.

M. Asgary motioned to remove what had been added to the legislation as a result of R. Lavin’s amendment. He motioned to add back in what he had originally proposed.

A. Salem seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

A. Gay, point of information, asked if it was possible to motion to make the same exact amendment that had already been voted down.

G. Mazza said that you could not propose the same exact wording.

M. Asgary said that his amendment is different that the original amendment because he would like to change the positioning of the words “per undergraduate student” in the sentence.

R. Lavin seconded the motion. There were multiple other seconds. There was no dissent.

A. Salem said he did not understand why people were so hesitant to bring Athletics before the assembly for discussion on the issue of including a stipulation pertaining to hockey ticket prices. It would be something beneficial to students. If he promises to talk to Athletics himself would the assembly be willing to table the discussion.

A. Gay said that there is no reason to have Athletics representatives who are very busy themselves stop by an assembly meeting. C. Slicklen went to meet with them and A. Salem discussed the same issue with them last semester. Nothing can be done at this point.

R. Lavin, point of information, asked if Appendix B could be changed through resolutions, next semester if the assembly were to bring up the same issue with Athletics at the start of next semester.

C. Slicklen said yes. He called to question. It was seconded. V. Hartman dissented.

V. Hartman said that he would like to include a stipulation indicating which sports the Big Red Sports Pass applies to.

By a hand vote, the motion failed.

V. Hartman asked if there was a list of sports available to which the Big Red Sports Pass grants free admission to students.

C. Slicklen, as an aside, said that A. Noel was very excited about the BRSP and the agreement that Athletics reached with the assembly. There is no reason to believe that basketball would be removed from the list due to their success.

V. Hartman said that he would like to propose an amendment that reads “The Big Red Sports Pass shall include free attendance to the following sports�” He does not know the sports off the top of his head. It is not all varsity sports since football was not included.

A. Richter said that it was important to try and not micro manage organizations. The assembly should be concerned with providing students the maximum value for their money. The GPSA actually removed some of the stipulations from their funding guidelines this year.

M. Asgary, point of information, asked if Athletics was a student organization.

C. Slicklen said that Athletics was a division of the university. According to the Big Red Sports Pass free admission will be granted to all Big Red Home Sporting events excluding men’s hockey and playoff games. Free admission to men’s football is included in the BRSP.

V. Hartman asked why a stipulation pertaining to homecoming was including if football is included in the free pass.

C. Slicklen said that not every student will elect to get a BRSP. The clause pertaining to homecoming makes sure that all students are admitted for free.

V. Hartman said that he would like his amendment to read “The Big Red Sports Pass shall include free admission to all varsity sports excluding men’s varsity ice hockey.”

A. Salem seconded the motion.

R. Lavin dissented suggesting that word free be taken out since students are paying for the pass through the SAF.

A. Gay said that he agrees with A. Richter. The assembly is granting the allocation on the assumption that the BRSP will apply to all sports excluding hockey. The assembly cannot include a stipulation mandating how Athletics, a Cornell division which receives millions and millions of dollars from other sources, manage the sports pass.

A. Gay called to question on the amendment. There were multiple seconds. There were multiple dissents. By a hand vote, the motion failed.

G. Mazza said that the Appropriates Committee sat down with Athletics and discussed all of their concerns. The stipulations put forward in Appendix B are what both parties came to agree upon. It represents hours and hours of work and the best deal for students.

A. Salem said he doesn’t understand why people have such an issue with the amendment. It is not changing the agreement. It is clarifying it. He encouraged all assembly members to vote in favor of the amendment. There is no point in not doing so.

C. Basil said that the S.A.’s legislative authority extends to collaboration with by-line funded organization’s as opposed to authority over them. The assembly simply does not have the authority to mandate this. The assembly rather collaborates with Athletics.

A. Salem asked what the amendment was mandating.

C. Basil said that the amendment micromanages Athletics. Essentially the assembly would be saying that they cannot trust future representatives to make sure that Athletics follows through.

V. Hartman said that the intention of the amendment is not to micromanage Athletics. If the stipulation is not included then Athletics could decide to have the pass not include a sport at any point. Representatives may not have voted for the current Athletics allocation if certain sports had been excluded from the pass. The amendment is making sure that what everyone agreed to is maintained.

C. Slicklen ended discussion because too many people had left the meeting.

VII. Unfinished Business

No Unfinished Business was discussed.

VIII. New Business

Resolution 21 — Voting Rights for Members of the Undergraduate Community “The Community Clause” — Elan Greenberg & CJ Slicklen

C. Slicklen stepped down as chair. A. Natarjan took over as chair.

M. Asgary, point of privilege to the chair, asked if presentation of the resolutions could be capped at five minutes so that the assembly has time to get to the Charter Review.

C. Slicklen said that he and E. Greenberg thought of this resolution after seeing the tremendous community response to decision to popularly elect the S.A. President. After the response, he and E. Greenberg tried to think of additional ways to include the student body. The idea is to have all community members present at the meeting vote on the same issues as the assembly. The voice of the community members will then be tallied to count as two assembly votes. They hope the resolution will give students an incentive to participate in their student governance and make them feel like they are a part of the decision making process.

G. Mazza pointed out that it may be the case that only one community member attends a meeting. This individual would then get two votes.

M. Asgary asked how individuals in the audience would clarify that they are indeed registered students.

C. Slicklen said that he wasn’t sure. He believes that assembly meetings really are only relevant to registered students. He does not see why student aged people would show up and try to vote.

M. Asgary motioned to end discussion. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

V. Hartman motioned to move Resolution 25 to be the next item on Business of the Day. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

Resolution 25 — Charter Review Resolution — Mazdak Asgary

M. Asgary said that last year Resolution 33 charged him as parliamentarian to chair a charter review committee. The committee was composed of himself, A. Wang, E. Greenberg, R. Lavin, and R. Salem. All the revisions were unanimously approved. All changes are commented on in the Charter Review document. A couple of SWOT issues are addressed in the changes. None of the changes are very contentious. The changes are primarily clarifications.

V. Hartman asked if it was really necessary for SAFC appeals to go through the Appropriations Committee. It just seems to make the process more cumbersome.

M. Asgary said that the intention was to clarify current procedures as opposed to changing procedure. He said that he feels that there is nothing wrong with the appeals going through Appropriations.

A. Salem motioned to end discussion. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

Resolution 24 — Student Assembly Support of Academic Integrity at Cornell University

R. Salem gave a brief overview of the resolution. The basic idea is to indicate the S.A.’s support for the U.A. and academic integrity at Cornell as that assembly examines the issue.

IX. Executive Session

The assembly did not go into Executive Session.

X. Adjournment

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Patrun