Skip to main content

This is an archival copy of the 2006–2017 Assemblies website. This information is no longer updated.

April 24, 2008 Meeting Minutes

On this page… (hide)

MINUTES — DRAFT
Cornell University Student Assembly
April 24, 2008
4:45 — 6:30 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

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

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: Mazdak Asgary, Chris Basil, Mark Coombs, Asa Craig, Samantha Dong, Elan Greenberg, Vince Hartman, Nikki Junewicz, Ryan Lavin, Ian Lesyk, Steve Matthews, Guy Mazza, Ashley McGovern, Carly Miller, Arjun Natarajan, Ahmed Salem, Rammy Salem, Chris Sarra, CJ Slicklen, Rebecca Smith, Andrew Wang

Representatives Excused: Adam Gay, Rebecca Stein

Liaisons Present: Greg Mezey

III. Approval of the Minutes � April 10, 2008

There were no corrections to the minutes from the April 10, 2008 meeting. S. Matthews called for acclimation. R. Lavin seconded the motion. There was no dissent. Seeing no dissent, the minutes from the April 10, 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.

G. Mazza, ‘08, ILR, said that he was approached by student athlete who was concerned that athletes at Cornell could not run for positions on the S.A. because meetings fall during the time that sports teams hold practices.

C. Slicklen said that it is his understanding that S.A. meetings are held at 4:45 p.m. on Thursdays because it is the most convenient time for the greatest number of students, faculty and administrators.

R. Lavin said that the time of meetings could be a topic of discussion. The assembly does not know the exact legislative history behind the times of the meetings. He suggested discussing the issue at an executive board meeting in the near future.

C. Slicklen thanked G. Mazza for bringing the issue forward.

V. Announcements/Reports

UA Update � Chris Basil

C. Basil said that the U.A. approved the new Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) after it was revised.

E. Greenberg asked if members of the University Assembly felt like they were blind sighted by President Skorton’s office.

C. Basil said that one of the most contentious issues related to the right of an accused Cornell student to an attorney. Under the approved code, the right to an attorney is intact if suspension or expulsion is a possibility. However, if there is no possibility of the student having to take a leave of absence, an attorney may be present for students’ cases, but is unable to speak. The U.A. discussed creating an amendment to modify these changes for an hour and a half, but the motion eventually failed. At the U.A. meeting it was determined that the agreed upon right of an accused to an attorney, just outlined above, represents a compromise.

In response to a question asked by A. Salem, C. Basil confirmed that in the approved code, the president has the final say in determining whether or not to expel a student.

M. Coombs asked if there was substantial discussion at the meeting regarding the code.

C. Basil said that the CJC Committee and the president’s office have been working to compromise on the issues ever since the two parties collided in February when President Skorton submitted his revisions to the code. The version approved is a result of that collaboration.

M. Coombs asked how the decisions embodied in the approved code represent a compromise.

C. Basil said that for example, both parties ended up believing that giving the president the final say in relation to the expulsion of a student is a positive change.

A. Salem asked how the clause was positive.

C. Basil said that it is believed that giving the president the final say in expelling students will allow the university to quickly remove students that are a threat to the safety of the student body and may prevent incidents such as alleged rape scandal that occurred earlier in the semester.

A. Salem said that he is concerned that the administration may act irrationally in response to public pressure. He said he fails to see how the U.A. believes that this is the middle ground. What concessions did the administration make?

C. Basil said that the administration was very adamant regarding this clause feeling that it is very important to protect students. There are a lot of situations where having broader presidential power can protect students.

A. Salem asked for examples of how the administration conceded.

C. Basil said that nothing came to mind. He was not however a part of the CJC process.

K. Duch emphasized that the CJC review process was detailed. Members of the CJC engaged in extensive discussion with members of the administration. Although she said that she could not name all concessions by the administration they did make a number of them. For example, throughout the entire process, the administration did want to change the standard of evidence and eliminate attorneys in all cases. In these two instances, the administration did concede.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly was in the midst of a CJC update, not a CJC debate.

A. Salem said that it concerns him that the administration wanted to change the standard of evidence and take away students’ rights to an attorney. He said that he is very curious to know why the administration was insisting on taking away students constitutional rights.

C. Slicklen suggested that C. Basil look into having a CJC representative or someone well versed in the issues come speak to the assembly.

M. Coombs asked if the issues being discussed resonated with other members of the assembly who were not actively participating in the discussion.

R. Lavin thanked M. Coombs and A. Salem for raising the issues just discussed. He said that he believes that representatives need more information. He feels that it would be appropriate to bring in someone more familiar with the process and issues. If it is not possible, maybe a more detailed report of the legislative process could be presented.

C. Slicklen ended discussion on the issue because there were a lot of items on the agenda.

VI. Business of the Day

Collegiate Readership Program Expense Report � Robin Irwin

C. Slicklen thanked R. Irwin for coming to the assembly meeting. According to Appendix B, the Collegiate Readership Program needs to present its budget at the end of each semester.

R. Irwin gave an overview of the PowerPoint presentation that she had prepared and given to all representatives. The number of papers that are being picked up by students each day has increased since last year.

A. Wang asked what S.A. representatives or students should do if they see a newspaper distribution box that is broken or not working correctly.

R. Irwin said that students could directly e-mail her. There is a gentleman in the area that she works with who can come to campus to repair the boxes at any time. Those individuals who distribute the newspapers to the boxes should be checking to see if the boxes work correctly and notifying the appropriate person if they are not.

C. Slicklen thanked R. Irwin for coming to the meeting and for updating the assembly.

Class Councils Update — V. Hartman

C. Slicklen said that Appendix B stipulates that Class Councils shall present a detailed expense report to the S.A. prior to each Convocation.

V. Hartman, President of the Senior Class Council, gave a brief review of the expense report that he had prepared. He said that Class Councils does not reveal Convocation speakers’ honorariums because they do not want students to judge the integrity of speakers based on the amount of money they receive. C. Slicklen could however easily ask him if there is any concern regarding how the money is secured. This year the administration is in fact helping Class Councils cover the costs of the Convocation speaker.

In response to a question asked by E. Greenberg, V. Hartman said that most of Class Councils spending is only on Class Councils events. Other programming has for the large part been eliminated.

A. Salem said that he just wanted to commend Class Councils for this year’s programming. The events put on by Class Councils seem to have reached a wide array of students. It also appears that Class Councils has done a much better job of budgeting this year. He hopes to see such trends continue.

M. Coombs said that he wanted to echo what A. Salem just said. The Presidential Meet and Greet was fantastic. He hopes that future Class Councils will emulate the event.

C. Slicklen thanked V. Hartman and Jen Davis, Class Councils advisor, for putting the budget packet together.

Review of 2008—2009 Academic Calendar � CJ Slicklen

C. Slicklen said that the review of the 2008–2009 Academic Calendar would be moved to next week because hard copy calendars were not included in representatives’ packets of meeting materials.

Appendix B & Res. 22 � Revision to Appendix B of the SA Charter� Adam Gay

C. Slicklen said that R. Lavin would be leading the discussion since A. Gay was not in attendance. He said that he spoke with the Athletics department and that A. Noel is currently out of town.

A. Salem said that he spoke with A. Noel earlier in the week. He asked A. Noel if it would be okay for the S.A. to include a stipulation in Appendix B stating that Athletics will not raise men’s varsity hockey ticket prices for the duration of the by-line funding cycle. A. Noel said that it would be okay because Athletics is not planning on raising hockey ticket prices anyways. He said that A. Noel understands that the receipt of funding would be contingent on not raising hockey ticket prices.

A. Salem motioned to amend Appendix B to include the stipulation Athletics will not raise men’s varsity hockey ticket prices for the duration of the by-line funding cycle.

V. Hartman seconded the motion. There was no dissent. Seeing none, the stipulation was added to Appendix B.

C. Slicklen noted that Appendix B for Athletics still needs to be approved.

M. Asgary said that the amendment he proposed last week that was approved by the assembly was not included in the version of Appendix B that was distributed at the meeting.

R. Lavin said that it was not included by mistake and that the mistake would be corrected.

M. Asgary motioned to table discussion on Appendix B until next week so that the appropriate wording for the aforementioned amendment could be transcribed from the audio. The motion was seconded. V. Hartman dissent.

V. Hartman said that he would like to discuss the amendment that was on the table at the previous meeting before the discussion on Appendix B was tabled.

M. Asgary said that he did not withdraw his motion to table the discussion.

By a hand vote of 8–9−0, the motion to table the discussion failed.

As a point of privilege, M. Asgary asked C. Slicklen to table the discussion until the accurate wording for the amendment could be determined.

C. Slicklen tabled the discussion until the next meeting.

A. Salem motioned to overrule the chair. Why table all of Appendix B just because the wording for one amendment is not available? The motion was seconded.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly has three charter amendments to discuss at the meeting. If these amendments are not discussed today, the assembly will not be able to act on them before the end of the semester.

A. Salem withdrew his motion to overrule the chair.

C. Slicklen said that A. Salem could no longer withdraw his motion because he had opened a speakers list and the assembly had begun discussion on the motion.

A. Salem called to question on the motion. M. Asgary seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

By a hand vote of 1–17, the motion to overrule the chair failed.

SAFC New Commissioners Approval � Taylor Mulherin, Jack Castle, & Ian Lesyk

C. Slicklen said that a list of new commissioners as well as those individuals not selected was included in representatives’ packets of meeting materials.

J. Castle gave a brief overview of the process through which the SAFC selected the new commissioners. A few individuals were also selected as alternates.

A. Craig asked if commissioners were selected from all classes or if those selected were primarily upperclassmen.

J. Castle said that freshmen were selected but when they take on their responsibilities all commissioners will be at least sophomores.

R. Lavin motioned to approve the new SAFC commissioners. A. Salem seconded the motion. Seeing no dissent, the new commissioners were approved.

SAFC New Guidelines Proposal - Taylor Mulherin, Jack Castle, & Ian Lesyk

J. Castle said that the SAFC replaced the President and Treasurer’s Handbook with a document that is much more usable for both SAFC commissioners and groups applying for funding. The SAFC believes that the newly created document, organized by chapters, will be very beneficial to the organization’s constituents. He gave a brief overview of each chapter of the updated handbook and the process by which the SAFC drafted it. A lot of wording was added to clarify previously murky issues. Chapter 2, Applicants, includes more information than was previously available on ethical conduct and stewardship. In Chapter 3, Requests for Funds, a clause was added stipulating that organization must make the SAFC aware if they have difficulty submitting the online budget portion. In Chapter 4, Hearings, the SAFC decided to not allow applicants requesting less than $500 to request a hearing. This is because groups requesting less than $500 are typically only applying for administrative costs. An exclusion to this rule will be new organizations which are capped at $500. For Chapter 6, Appeals, groups used to be able to appeal under new information, SAFC oversight or discrimination. The SAFC decided to get rid of discrimination feeling that such appeals could be filed under SAFC oversight. One of the stipulations of Chapter 9, Supported Expenses, is that organizations will apply for funding for coaches under local events. In Chapter 11, Documentation, URLs will no longer be required on e-mail documentation.

C. Slicklen clarified that the SAFC first voted to oust the old handbook and then voted again to implement the handbook just presented.

J. Castle said that that was correct and that both votes were unanimous.

R. Lavin said that he thought that allowing groups to appeal under SAFC oversight and removing the URL requirements on e-mails were two good and productive changes. He motioned to split discussion by chapter.

A. Wang seconded the motion. M. Asgary dissented.

M. Asgary said that he doesn’t feel that every chapter needs to be discussed.

R. Lavin said that he just assumed that there would be a lot of discussion on the handbook. Since there were only six people on the speaker’s list, he withdrew his motion.

M. Asgary said that he is concerned because the appeals process laid out by the SAFC in the handbook is not the appeals process that the SAFC and SA currently follow. He therefore motioned to make the following changes:

6.4.3.3 Decision Recommendation
The committee then deliberates in closed session and decides on the proper decision of the appeal and makes a recommendation that the Student Assembly Vice President of Finance will present to the Student Assembly.
6.4.3.4 Notice
The SA Vice President of Finance informs the following of the decision Appropriations Committee’s recommendation in writing or by
e-mail:
� the president, treasurer, and advisor of the organization,
� the Chair(s) of the commission, and
� the Office of the Assemblies.
Such notice includes:
1. a report of the committee’s decision recommendation on each question considered;
2. a rationale for the decision of the committee; and,
3. the date, time, and location of the Student Assembly meeting where the decision recommendation will be reported, in case either the commission or the applicant wishes to seek reconsideration at that meeting.
4. The Student Assembly makes the ultimate decision on the appeal.
6.4.3.5 Report to the Student Assembly
The SA Vice President of Finance reports the committee’s decision recommendation orally at the new next meeting of the Student Assembly after he or she has provided written notice of the committee’s decision recommendation.
The Student Assembly may reverse the decision of the Appropriations Committee by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote. If the SA reverses, the decision of the commission will stand unless the assembly adopts a different decision by a majority vote in the same meeting Commission. Otherwise the decision of the Commission on the appeal stands.
6.4.3.6 Effectuation of Appeal Decision
The Vice President of Finance reports the outcome of the Student Assembly meeting to the Office of the Assemblies for action.
6.4.4 Further Appeals
Organizations may dispute decisions of the Student Assembly through a Final Appeal to Ombudsman (p 18).
6.5 Final Appeal to Ombudsman
For disputes about the propriety of policies themselves or further appeal of decisions already reviewed by the SA Appropriations Committee or the Student Assembly, organizations should appeal to the Office of the University Ombudsman.
The Student Assembly will cooperate with any investigation and will consider any recommendation for action decided by that office.

V. Hartman seconded the motion. There was no dissent. Seeing no dissent, the changes were made a part of the document. The document in its entirety is still on the table.

A. Salem yielded his time to V. Hartman.

V. Hartman informed the assembly that he sat through the entire SAFC revision process and that he reviewed the documentation with the commissioners. He said that he will be presenting a major philosophical change to the rules. The change will be debatable and should be. The change that he is proposing is the addition of an entire chapter, entitled Chapter 13, SAFC Grants, to the end of the proposed handbook. He passed out a draft of the chapter to all representatives. The grant program, outlined in the chapter, proposes that events that are free, attract more than 500 students, are open to all students, and are held on a university venue will be funded using a different method. The current SAFC program does not provide an adequate way for large scale events to receive funding. The system is primarily inadequate because of the timing of deadlines. When planning big events that occur later in the semester, it is nearly impossible to have all the proper documentation when budgets are due. The proposed grant will have rolling deadlines and will be somewhat subjective so that the S.A. can become more involved in the program itself.

A. Salem seconded the motion. M. Asgary dissented.

M. Asgary said that he believes that the idea is good. He is not sure that adding an amendment to the proposed handbook is the best way to go about implementing such a change. Drafting a resolution or forming a committee would be more appropriate.

J. Castle said that he thinks that the V. Hartman has an okay idea. He is concerned that the amendment stipulates that 20% be set aside for the grant program. That is a very large percentage of the Student Activities Fee (SAF).

R. Lavin echoed the sentiment expressed by M. Asgary. The issues embodied in the proposed Chapter 13 need to be further examined. He recommended having the Appropriations Committee look into the issues as well. A lot of umbrella organizations that the S.A. byline funds are designed to fund large scale events. Maybe the way they are funding organizations should be more closely examined. He called to question on the amendment with the intent that issue be further examined in a different forum. There were multiple seconds. A. Salem dissented.

A. Salem said that he would really like to have the chance to comment on the amendment. He worked with V. Hartman on the amendment and it is important to him that he be able to express his opinions.

By a hand vote of 8–8−0, the motion failed.

E. Greenberg asked if there would be any way to approve the proposed handbook and then discuss the proposed Chapter 13 after the main document was approved. He said that he wanted to make a motion to end debate on Chapter 13.

C. Slicklen said that E. Greenberg could not make that motion. The amendment has to be voted down first.

E. Greenberg motioned to call to question on the amendment. It was seconded. A. Salem dissented.

There was an indeterminate hand vote.

V. Hartman pulled Chapter 13 from the table.

S. Matthews said that he had a question regarding the changes made to the e-mail documentation requirements in Chapter 11. Is the stipulation requiring that groups use a web client? That may be an issue because many of the organizations that he is aware of use either webmail or uportal.

J. Castle said that the SAFC is just requiring printed copies of e-mails.

A. Wang asked how the SAFC plans to deal with commissioner errors.

J. Castle said that the handbook includes a disclaimer, The President and Treasurer’s Handbook supersedes any information given by an individual commissioner or staff member by word of mouth.

A. Wang said that he remembers that clause but that he would still like ensure that commissioners are being held accountable.

J. Castle said that the SAFC is also amending its own bylaws and charter. The SAFC intends to require every commissioner to attend a refresher session each semester so that they are well versed in current SAFC policies.

V. Hartman said that he would like to make an amendment to the last sentence of section 9.4.2, Travel Events, Eligibility. The statement currently reads, All travel expenses outside of the contiguous United States will be limited to total funding of $1500. He would like to replace the aforementioned sentence with, All travel expenses will be limited to $200 per student within an academic year.

A. Salem seconded the motion. R. Lavin dissented.

R. Lavin said he wanted to hear V. Hartman’s rationale for proposing the amendment.

V. Hartman said that the SAF, per the charter, is a mandatory charge paid by every undergraduate to foster student activity at Cornell. Groups and students traveling off campus should not have access to an excessively large portion of the SAF because the money is not being used to plan events and activities on campus. The SAFC does not currently have a cap for travel within the contiguous U.S. He proposed $200 because that is the current SAF for the upcoming funding cycle. No student should be subsidizing another’s travel for more than they are paying.

R. Lavin confirmed that the change would apply to Club Sports as well. He asked the SAFC representatives if they felt that this change would pose a problem to Club Sports.

J. Castle said that it would be difficult to determine.

M. Asgary confirmed that the amendment V. Hartman proposed pertains to all travel not just travel outside of the contiguous United States. He feels that the cap of $200 is somewhat arbitrary. Although he is supportive of the idea behind the amendment, he would like the cap to be more closely examined.

I. Lesyk said that there are already caps on travel. Students are capped at $15 per night for lodging and gas is funded near $0.50 per mile. Two hundred dollars amounts to over 3000 miles per student taken at the current funding rate. Two hundred dollars may actually be a very high cap considering what students can do with it under current funding guidelines.

G. Mezey said that since the SAFC does not fully fund travel it would be difficult to argue by I. Lesyk’s logic. He asked if the proposed travel cap was capping just transportation. Is lodging included in the cap?

V. Hartman asked the SAFC what the intent was at capping travel outside of the contiguous United States.

J. Castle said that the intent was to cap all travel expenses.

V. Hartman said that therefore the cap he proposed would include all travel expenses including lodging and transportation.

G. Mezey is curious where students could go on $200 covering lodging, meals, gas and other travel expenses. He thinks more information is needed before such a cap could be determined. He suggesting forming a committee to look into the issue and the average amount spent by student organizations on travel.

A. Wang confirmed that Club Sports are capped around $4800 dollars.

J. Castle said that Club Sports are capped at 25% of the total SAFC funding which is typically around $5000.

A. Wang said that he supports V. Hartman’s amendment. Students should only get what they are giving in. He does however think that the issue should be looked into further.

A. Salem said that he likes the idea of capping travel expenses. He said that he is uncertain if the amendment proposed by V. Hartman accomplishes this.

In response to a question posed by A. Salem, J. Castle said that the SAFC does not currently cap travel within the contiguous United States.

A. Salem called to question on the amendment. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

V. Hartman summarized the amendment and his reason for proposing it.

J. Castle said that he feels that it would be beneficial to have more information before making a final determination. There is currently no way of knowing if the proposed cap gives students more or less money for travel expenses than they currently receive.

By a vote of 3–12–2, the amendment failed.

V. Hartman said that he would like to propose another amendment. The amendment he is proposing reads, If an error is recognized after an application has been submitted, an organization can still receive funding for that error but must provide documentation that the error or errors could have been readily corrected prior to the application deadline. An organization will receive a 25% reduction in the stipulated areas where the error occurred in the application. The statement will be added to the end of section 3.1, Requests for Funds, General Principles.

There were multiple seconds. There was no dissent. Seeing no dissent, the statement became a part of the active document.

G. Mezey said that he would be speaking about clause 6.4.3.4. The wording in the second bullet was not changed from decision to recommendation. He recommended that a representative propose that amendment to be consistent with the changes that M. Asgary made earlier.

M. Asgary proposed the amendment that G. Mezey had just suggested. He motioned to change the word decision to recommendation in the following clause: a rationale for the decision of the committee.

There were multiple seconds. There was no dissent.

M. Asgary said that he feels that the first paragraph of 3.1, Request for Funds, General Principles, is inherently contradictory. He also feels allowing late submissions to be dealt with at the discretion of the Executive Committee could be problematic.

J. Castle said that the statement, “The applicant must inform the commission before the deadline by e-mail or written communication of circumstances that prevent it from making a timely submission” was added as a result of some appeals this year. The Appropriations Committee had suggested adding such a statement to clarify the process groups should take when they are unable to submit budgets on time.

M. Asgary motioned to make the following change:

3.1 General Principles
The commission will not accept late submissions except at the discretion of the Executive Committee if it finds there were extenuating circumstances. The applicant must inform the commission before the deadline by e-mail or written communication of circumstances that prevent it from making a timely submission.

A. Salem seconded the motion. There was no dissent. Seeing no dissent, the amendment became a part of the active document.

R. Lavin asked what was new to section 2.2 Ethical Conduct.

J. Castle said that the section serves clarifies previously held assumptions. It does not really change anything from the former handbook.

R. Lavin clarified that the SAFC has no new enforcement on the basis of ethical conduct.

A. Salem called to question on the proposed SAFC Guidelines. There were multiple seconds. I. Lesyk dissented.

I. Lesyk said that he wanted to add some wording to the amendment that M. Asgary just made.

By a hand vote, the motion failed.

I. Lesyk proposed adding “in order to appeal for a full allocation” to the end of the sentence “The applicant must inform the commission before the deadline by e-mail or written communication of circumstances that prevent it from making a timely submission in order to appeal for a full allocation.” The first paragraph of 3.1, Request for Funds, General Principles, now reads:

The commission will not accept late submission. The applicant must inform the commission before the deadline by e-mail or written communication of circumstances that prevent it from making a timely submission in order to appeal for a full allocation

There were multiple seconds. M. Asgary dissented.

M. Asgary said that the phrase that I. Lesyk proposed adding is not necessary.

R. Lavin said that the change proposed by I. Lesyk does clarify something. He reread the statement aloud.

M. Asgary withdrew his dissent.

C. Slicklen said that he could no longer withdraw his dissent because the assembly had begun discussing the issue.

R. Lavin called to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

By a hand vote, the amendment became a part of the active document.

C. Slicklen called to question on the proposed SAFC guidelines. There were multiple seconds. There was no dissent.

C. Slicklen said that a policy of an S.A. committee must be approved by a majority.

M. Asgary motioned for unanimous consent.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly would be doing a roll call vote.

By a vote of 17–0−0, the SAFC guidelines passed.

C. Slicklen thanked T. Mulherin, J. Castle and I. Lesyk for presenting the SAFC guidelines to the assembly and for all their hard work. He said that there had been a motion to move Resolution 21 to Business of the Day. The motion was seconded.

M. Asgary, point of information, said that Resolution 21 could not be moved to Business of the Day because it is a charter change.

M. Coombs motioned to move Resolution 26 to Business of the Day. R. Lavin seconded the motion. There was dissent.

By a hand vote of 9–5−0, Resolution 26 was moved to Business of the Day.

R. Lavin asked what happened to the motion of move Resolution 21 to Business of the Day.

C. Slicklen said that representatives could motion to move charter amendments to Business of the Day.

Resolution 26 � Printing Out Previous Meeting Minutes � Ashley McGovern

A. McGovern said that she hoped everyone had reviewed the resolution. The resolution is straightforward; it is a waste of paper to print out the minutes for every representative at each meeting.

M. Coombs said that the resolution is a fantastic idea. Unless there was any dissent, he called to question on the resolution. There were multiple seconds. M. Asgary dissented.

M. Asgary said that he would like to propose an amendment.

M. Coombs withdrew his motion.

A. Salem yielded his time to M. Asgary so that M. Asgary could make the amendment he just suggested proposing. M. Asgary motioned to strike, In the event that there is a highly contentious omission or error in the minutes, the dispute will be settled over e-mail and confirmation of the minutes will also take place over e-mail from the be it therefore resolved clause.

The motion was seconded. There was no dissent. Seeing no dissent, the statement was stricken.

Seeing no one else on the speaker’s list C. Slicklen called to question on the resolution.

K. Duch recommended taking the idea embodied in the resolution further. When resolutions are discussed over a series of meetings, representatives should be responsible enough to keep track of the original printout of each resolution. It is a waste of paper to print out resolutions for each meeting if no changes have been made to them.

A. Salem called to question. A. McGovern dissented.

A. McGovern said that she would like to discuss the idea K. Duch just proposed.

By a hand vote, the motion to call to question passed.

M. Asgary motioned for unanimous consent. There were multiple seconds. There was no dissent. Resolution 26 passed unanimously.

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

C. Slicklen announced that R. Lavin had added himself as a sponsor to the resolution.

C. Slicklen stepped down as chair. I. Lesyk would chair the meeting.

C. Slicklen said that the changes outlined in the resolution will stimulate attendance and community involvement at S.A. meetings, provide incentives for special interest groups to attend meetings, gives students the opportunity to get involved in discussions occurring on campus. The sponsors of the resolution are excited about the prospect of being able to officially incorporate the opinions and suggestions of community members. He said that last week the question was raised as to what would happen if there was only one audience member present. The assembly forgot that there is always a clerk and various liaisons at the meetings whose votes would be counted as community member votes.

A. Salem thanked the sponsors for working on the resolution. He said that he believes that it is very well intentioned. He is concerned however because representatives are elected to represent the student body and these community votes take away the power of representatives’ votes. Sometimes decisions are made by one vote so these community members’ votes could change S.A. decisions. Furthermore, there is potential for abuse.

M. Asgary said that he concerned about how the S.A. Parliamentarian could confirm that members of the audience are indeed registered students. He said that two votes from a twenty three person assembly is a little less than 10%�a fairly large percentage to just give away. Furthermore, groups interested in a resolution or issue could influence attendance at meetings to sway a vote in their favor. He said that at Dartmouth only the executive board of the student government is popularly elected. After that, students who show up at the meetings and demonstrate a commitment are given voting privileges. The intent of the resolution is good but giving community members two votes under the current system may not be the best way of achieving that purpose.

M. Coombs said that the third whereas clause incorrectly states that Resolution 12 embodied characteristics of a direct democracy. Resolution 12 is in fact more similar to a representative democracy. Representative governments both represent constituents and allow those with greater exposure to the broader issues to make well informed decisions. Although idea is well intentioned, it is flawed and structured in a way that is open to abuse.

I. Lesyk said that it was 6:30 p.m., the scheduled end of the meeting.

C. Basil motioned to extend the time of the meeting until 7:00 p.m. The motion was seconded. There was dissent.

By a vote of 10–7−0, the time of the meeting was extended until 7:00 p.m.

G. Mazza said that it is frightening to think that this resolution could potentially give one community member twice the power of an elected representative. Every student is well represented. Although the goal of increasing attendance is a good idea, there are much better ways to do so. The resolution seems like a short term solution to a long term problem.

E. Greenberg responded to the potential for abuse by saying that assembly members have abused their power in the past and that such abuses are not uncommon in government. The sentiment just expressed by a number of representatives also exhibits a tremendous lack of trust in their constituency. He said that G. Mazza was correct in saying that the resolution is attempting to address a long term problem. Long term problems in an organization that has high membership turnover begin to be addressed through the establishment of short term and interim solutions. This resolution sets the assembly on the correct path.

A. McGovern said that it is problematic to give two community members votes for the same reasons that other representatives outlined above. She suggested starting to address the issue by looking into ways to make sure that all seats on the assembly are filled. She said that she does not support the resolution.

Rebecca Thomas, ‘08, said that she supports the idea of more community involvement. She does however feel that no unelected individual should have more votes than an elected individual.

A. Wang said that he supports the intent of the resolution but that it is too difficult logistically to implement.

A. Wang motioned to call to question. A. Salem seconded the motion. S. Matthews dissented.

S. Matthews said that he would really like to speak regarding the resolution.

By a hand vote, the motion to call to question failed.

N. Junewicz said that the resolution is a great idea. It is problematic to her that representatives are assuming that the voting privileges will be abused.

G. Mezey asked what the rationale was behind giving community members two votes.

E. Greenberg said that the sponsors wanted an even number so that community members could be evenly split a tie in the audience occurs. Any number greater than 2 would be too many.

G. Mezey asked if any of the technology used to check students in for Slope Day or to verify signatures in elections packets could be used to verify that community members are registered students.

A representative from the Office of the Assemblies confirmed that the office may has access to technology that could check student ID numbers.

S. Matthews emphasized that the process of being elected to the Cornell Student Assembly is not always a result of votes received but could be a matter of when candidates turned in finances. Furthermore most representatives won uncontested elections. He would say that most people on the assembly are not true representatives of the student body. He feels that the community members definitely deserve a vote maybe even more than some of the representatives present. He supports the resolution.

V. Hartman said that he agrees with M. Asgary in that the resolution is well intentioned. He however thinks that a structure of incorporating community member votes more aligned with a system like Dartmouth’s could be more effective. Perhaps community members could be incorporated as voting members on certain issues of the assembly if they attend three consecutive meetings. Such a policy would encourage continued involvement and eliminate issues of people coming out only for hot button resolutions. Such a change would be too much to accomplish in an amendment and it is too late in the semester to propose another charter change. V. Hartman called to question on the resolution. It was seconded. C. Slicklen dissented.

C. Slicklen said that both he and R. Lavin, sponsors of the resolution, are on the speakers list and would like to address some of the concerns that have been raised. By a hand vote, the motion to call the previous question failed.

C. Slicklen said that the assembly recently passed a resolution allowing the entire student body to elect the S.A. president and that he didn’t hear any of the sentiments being expressed now brought up during discussion of that resolution. It is arrogant of assembly members to think that they are the be all end all for knowing what happening on campus. He thinks that there are plenty of individuals on campus who know more than representatives do. If the assembly is trusting representatives to decide their president and vice president why is it so far fetched to invite them to participate in regular S.A. meetings. He doubts that there will ever be situation where one person in the audience gets two votes. The clerk and liaisons are always present. It is important to set the standard that the S.A. is very interested in what the student body has to say.

R. Lavin said that the S.A. really needs to change the way it fundamentally operates. A lot of representatives ran uncontested. Therefore, these representatives are no different than a random community member who attends a meeting. Fundamental changes are needed to address fundamental problems. The resolution is a good first step to initiate fundamental change.

C. Sarra said that the proposed resolution is problematic because it allows students to convince their friends to come and vote for hot button issues. Also giving votes to community members could discourage students from running for assembly seats. A student government system like the one at Dartmouth may be what the assembly is moving toward but that is not the resolution that the sponsors proposed. The resolution may get people involved but not in the way that the assembly wants to encourage involvement.

S. Dong said that she supports the resolution. She stated her reasons for doing so and addressed some of the concerns raised by other representatives.

C. Basil said that he believes that it says something that the former S.A. president, the current S.A. president and the incoming S.A. president are the sponsors of the resolution. E. Greenberg, C. Slicklen and R. Lavin have been more involved than any other S.A. representatives and there is something to be said that they are all willing to relinquish some of their power. Currently, even when community members attend meetings, they are only allowed to speak once every three representatives. The S.A. does not do enough to engage those audience members in attendance. He thinks that the resolution is a step in the right direction. Although he does not believe that the resolution will get passed today, he feels that the assembly should look into the issue further next semester.

C. Basil motioned to call to question on the amendment. A. Salem seconded the motion. There was dissent.

The individual who dissented said that he felt that the assembly should discuss the resolution further.

A. Salem withdrew his motion.

R. Smith said that if community members would like a vote they should run for a seat on the assembly. Part of the problem is that the assembly does not do enough to encourage students to run. The assembly should focus on motivating students to run for assembly seats. There is a difference between those people sitting in the audience and those seated on the assembly. Those on the assembly have demonstrated initiative.

R. Lavin said that R. Smith has good point but that he has seen three years of not a lot of students running. He would like to try an alternative to encourage involvement.

M. Asgary called to question. A. Salem seconded the motion. There was dissent.

By a hand vote, the previous question was called.

Refer to audio for C. Slicklen’s closing comments. He is very disappointed in the assembly.

R. Lavin said that despite what happens to the resolution, the assembly will reexamine how to encourage community member involvement at the beginning of next semester.

By a vote of 9–8−0, the resolution failed.

VII. Unfinished Business

Resolution 25 � Charter Review Resolution � Mazdak Asgary

Resolution 25 was not discussed.

VIII. New Business

Resolution 23 � Resolution Regarding the Confirmation of SA Committee Members � Andrew Wang

Resolution 23 was not discussed.

Resolution 24 - SA Support of Academic Integrity at Cornell University � Rammy Salem

Resolution 24 was not discussed.

IX. Adjournment

I. Lesyk adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Liz Patrun

SA Shortcuts

Contact SA

109 Day Hall

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853

ph. (607) 255—3715

studentassembly@cornell.edu