Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
September 4, 2008
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

R. Lavin called the meeting to order at 4:48 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Assembly Members Present: Vincent Andrews, Chris Basil, Asa Craig, Luis De Lencquesaing, Emlyn Diakow, Lauren Engelmyer, Michael Heinz, Nikki Junewicz, Nikhil Kumar, Alex Latella, Ryan Lavin, Michael McDermott, Greg Mezey, Tony Miller, Scott Purdy, Rammy Salem, Becca Smith

Assembly Members Excused: Rebecca Stein

Liaisons Present: Nicholas Diaz, Sanjiv Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes — April 24, 2008 and May 1, 2008

R. Lavin reminded representatives that the assembly passed a resolution last year calling for only the electronic distribution of minutes. Therefore, representatives will no longer receive a hard copy version of the minutes in their packets of meeting materials and should review the minutes online.

There were no corrections to the April 24, 2008 minutes. C. Basil called for acclimation. The motion was seconded. Seeing no dissent, the minutes from the April 24, 2008 S.A. meeting were approved.

There were no corrections to the May 1, 2008 minutes. C. Basil called for acclimation. It was seconded. Seeing no dissent, the minutes from the May 1, 2008 S.A. meeting were approved.

IV. Oath of Office

All representatives took the Student Assembly Oath of Office. A copy of the Oath of Office is available on the September 4, 2008 meeting webpage at http://assembly.cornell.edu/SA/20080904Oath.

V. Open Microphone

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

No one came forward.

VI. Announcements/Reports

Welcome and Semester Goals — Ryan Lavin

R. Lavin presented the following welcome address:

“Ladies & Gentlemen,

Welcome to the 2008–2009 Student Assembly Academic Year. Last semester former SA President CJ Slicklen welcomed the Student Assembly to a new semester of service at his first meeting as chair, former SA President Elan Greenberg gave an address to the SA on expectations at the first meeting of the year before CJ, Kwame Thompson before that, and Tim Lim before that. 4 years later�and here we are, a group of service-oriented individuals who for the first time in many years comprise an assembly where a minority of members are incumbents. Just about 3 quarters of representatives of this assembly, after new student elections take place at the end of the month, will be new to the SA, to the system, and to previous politics that has sometimes penalized our cause.

Ronald Ehrenberg, Cornell trustee and professor, asked his Economics of the University class yesterday: Why does the university allow shared governance with its students? Why do they pay for an office to support us? Why are they willing to join our efforts and invite us to join there’s? Sure they’re investing in leadership, in committed Cornellians who later on will hopefully contribute to this university as alumni. But more importantly, we’d do it anyway, we’d find a way to govern ourselves�If the university did not create this bureaucratic institution of elected leadership and shared governance, well — I don’t know — the Student Activities Fee might be $900 instead of $200, Olin and Uris might close at 10PM instead of being open until 2AM or open all night, Big Red Sports Passes might cost — money�We are given the opportunity to participate in this system of shared university governance because the administration and the Cornell community recognize the essential role we play at Cornell. Dean Hubbell, Vice President Susan Murphy, President Skorton are not only our administrators, but also our colleagues.

We represent almost 3,500 undergraduates from 7 different colleges — and will soon have the new student representatives join us to form an Assembly of 23. While working to improve undergraduate student life at Cornell, we serve as an official liaison to the Cornell administration and the Board of Trustees— reporting directly to the President with passed resolutions and actions.

In the coming months we will have to address and implement structural and cultural changes to our Assembly discussed during last semester’s SWOT analysis, we will have to address and help lead the undergraduate role in Cornell’s mission of sustainability, we will have to address student concerns regarding PeopleSoft, transportation on campus, a need for better and new carpool programs, issues within the new West campus residential communities, relationship with the city of Ithaca and a law enforcement agency who continues to abuse city noise ordinance legislation, Financial Aid policy, Dining Prices, Cornell’s response to the Amethyst Initiative (Amithist), AND the list goes on�

The undergraduate community, the Daily Sun, the Cornell administration are all expecting a lot from us. The bar was raised last year, and the Cornell community has made clear their charge — we have to, and will, fulfill these expectations.

Oh, and did I mention we are going to have a lot of fun. Productivity through enjoyment�we are going to have social events (not covered by the Student Activities Fee of course), we are going to promote humor during meetings when necessary — you are all going to have fun, community members here will enjoy their SA experience, and I’m even going to try to entertain the Daily Sun reporter who comes. But seriously, the Student Assembly is no outlet for egotistical monologues, bullying, patronizing, etc. If there was one thing that bothered me about previous SA members — !!who have graduated!! — it was their lack of spirit and sensitivity. Trust me, spitefulness will only lead you to political isolation on this Assembly.

So friends and community members, welcome to the memorial room, welcome to the Student Assembly — let’s roll up our sleeves, get to work, and also enjoy ourselves.

Thank you.”

Greetings & Introduction — Michael Walsh and Kate Duch

K. Duch, ‘09, Undergraduate Student Elected Trustee, introduced herself to the assembly. She will be entering her second and final year on the board. She said that she will be attending S.A. meetings fairly regularly and that she would like to be involved in the assembly. She wants all representatives to feel comfortable approaching her and all are welcome to contact her at any time. Last year she was involved with a number of different efforts with various assembly members such as academic integrity with C. Basil. In the next few weeks, she and B. Smith will be working on a senior resolution.

M. Walsh, Graduate Student Elected Trustee, introduced himself to the assembly. He will be entering his first year on the board. He is a past VP of the GPSA and is therefore very aware of the processes and issues that the S.A. works with. He thanked all representatives for choosing to become involved with student governance. He emphasized that although he is a graduate trustee, he is first and foremost a student trustee. He and K. Duch will be working together and both student trustees will be involved with issues that affect all students not just their respective constituencies. Sustainability will be a key focus for him this year. He briefly discussed some of the upcoming initiatives he will be undertaking with regards to this issue. He said that he hopes that representatives will contact him as they see fit.

Elections Announcement — Mike McDermott

M. McDermott, Director of Elections, said that the elections season is in full swing. The elections committee has met already and begun discussion. Currently the three freshman seats, the transfer seat, the AAP seat, a CALS seat, and the LGBTQ seat are vacant. Therefore, there are four seats available to incoming students and three for which only specific constituencies can vote. He said that the Elections Committee has made an exception to the rules that will be discussed through a resolution later in the meeting. To update the assembly further, over 60 people have signed out S.A. election packets. The deadline for elections materials is September 8. The candidate forum is September 16 where candidates have the opportunity to address their concerns to the community and to answer questions from a moderator. Those assembly representatives who are able should come to the Office of the Assemblies on September 8th to verify signatures between 12:30PM and 4:30PM.

Both R. Lavin and M. McDermott asked if there were any questions regarding the Elections Announcement.

There were none.

Staffing Committee Announcement — Tony Miller

T. Miller said that there are a number of vacancies that need to be staffed. A new CIT Chairperson and an E.A. liaison are needed. Additionally, the S.A. Committee on Women’s Issues must be staffed. He thanked N. Junewicz, VP for Public Relations, and the Office of the Assemblies, for the work both did in publicizing the opportunities to become involved in the various committees by running Facebook ads, placing pamphlets in mailboxes and Daily Sun advertisements. He said that he would like members of the assembly to join him on the Staffing Committee, which will be responsible for going over applications that the Office of the Assemblies has received. He is flexible as to the date that the committee will meet and those interested should contact him after the meeting. His goal is to have the vacancies filled and committees staffed by September 25.

R. Salem asked if members of the Staffing Committee would be limited to S.A. members only.

T. Miller said yes.

Gorge Safety Discussion — Asa Craig

R. Lavin asked A. Craig if the Gorge Safety Discussion was more of a discussion or an announcement.

A. Craig said that he had an announcement that would likely lead to a discussion.

R. Lavin said that the Gorge Safety Discussion would be moved to Business of the Day.

Schedulizer/PeopleSoft Update — Ryan Lavin and Chris Basil

C. Basil thanked A. Epstein, Office of the Assemblies, for his work on creating an alternate election system this summer. The system is not related to PeopleSoft and will hopefully save the assembly the $12,000 that it spends each year on elections. The system looks great and will be in place for the upcoming elections. On another note, he, R. Lavin and a couple other members of the Executive Board, met with David Yeh, of the University Registrar, to discuss issues pertaining to PeopleSoft and Schedulizer. Those S.A. representatives present were very satisfied by the discussion on both issues but especially the discussion that took place regarding Schedulizer. For those representatives unaware of the issue, Schedulizer had been down for a day due to issues in working with the PeopleSoft system. Currently, the administration is working with Schedulizer to make the system accessible to the PeopleSoft system so that there will not be any errors with class times. The administration has been very cooperative, essentially recognizing that Schedulizer provides an invaluable service to students. The S.A. representatives were also very satisfied by David Yeh’s attitude towards PeopleSoft. He recognizes that there is a big problem, as anyone who tried to add/drop knows. Currently the registrar is conducting an investigation as to why the server failed. Server malfunction was the ultimate cause of the problems that students experienced. There was some discussion regarding further specializing which students enroll when to decrease server traffic. This is a solution that representatives should think about before the discussion with David Yeh who will likely come before the assembly at next week’s meeting to answer representatives’ questions, seek input as to how the system can be improved and to provide a broader report of what went wrong this add/drop period. He asked if there were any questions.

L. Englemyer asked if there was any discussion regarding making course IDs available on Schedulizer.

C. Basil said that Schedulizer is a private company run by students. There has been a disconnect between how the administration is putting up course information and how the Schedulizer system collects that information. This is the issue of concern to the administration. The issue raised by L. Englemyer is one of improving Schedulizer’s performance and therefore represents an issue that should be taken up with Schedulizer not the administration. The assembly could e-mail Schedulizer on the issue.

R. Lavin said that the problems stemmed from the way that Schedulizer retrieves information from the PeopleSoft system. Cornell has voluntarily stepped up in bridging the disconnect between the two systems. He emphasized that David Yeh is really looking for feedback so he urged representatives to reflect on the PeopleSoft system before next weeks meeting at which David Yeh will be tentatively present. The system is new and being constantly updated so representatives have the opportunity to make suggestions that will be taken into account. The discussion will be advertised in the Cornell Sun.

Finance Announcement — Greg Mezey

G. Mezey said that he would like to meet with all committee chairs after the meeting. He will be asking each committee to submit a budget that will be discussed at Appropriations Committee meetings. He hopes that such budgets will allow the assembly to keep better track of its spending this year. Also, he and R. Lavin will be meeting with all of the by-line funded organizations to discuss their respective Appendix B stipulations. This will allow the assembly and groups to reevaluate the appropriateness of the stipulations and make sure that everything is understood. A number of representatives, himself included, who witnessed the Appendix B process last year were not to pleased and they just want to ensure that the best system is in place.

VII. Business of the Day

Gorge Safety Discussion — Asa Craig

A. Craig said that of friend of his, and a friend to many students, Doug Lowe, died while swimming in the gorges in mid June. The tragedy promoted him and other students to take another look at the gorges around campus and to reexamine their safety. In response, he sent out an e-mail to assembly members hoping to start a discussion on the issue of gorge safety. He drafted a letter to the administration based on the responses that he received. The letter essentially stated that students were concerned about the issue and solicited input as to what can be done to improve gorge safety. The purpose of the letter was primarily to initiate a discussion. He received input from President Skorton, VP Murphy and Dean Hubbell. The administration’s stance is basically that it is illegal to swim in the gorges. The administration did however recognize that swimming in the gorges has long been a tradition among Cornell students and that it would be difficult to alter such an ingrained tradition. A thought that occurred was to actively publicize against swimming in the gorges to the incoming class. This was a reason that he had pursued the issue over the summer. The administration indicated that each freshman receives a packet of information regarding gorge safety during orientation. Although fences have been constructed, there are already holes in the fences and anyone can witness students going down to the gorges each day. He said that he is not necessarily advocating policing but he would like the assembly to start a discussion as to what can be done to improve gorge safety. For example, both VP Murphy and Dean Hubbell had suggested working with New York State Authorities to clean out the gorges. Debris is partly responsible for generating a more dangerous environment in that it disrupts the natural tide. He said that he will continue to pursue the issue and invited those students interested in doing so as well to contact him.

R. Lavin opened up a speaker’s list on the issue.

V. Andrews said that gorge safety is a very pertinent issue that needs to be addressed by the assembly. Policing may not be the correct idea since swimming in the gorges is such a Cornell tradition and students will find a way to do so regardless of policing. He said that he feels that an education program, or increasing the availability of pamphlets may be more effective.

E. Diakow asked if there were certain gorges on campus that are safer than others so that students can be steered towards better environments.

A. Craig said the degree of danger of specific gorges was a component of the discussion that took place with administrators this summer. The gorge down behind Fiji where Doug Lowe died is considered to be specifically dangerous. He does not know the specifics of each gorge but this could be determined if students and administrators determine that it is an effective way to improve the safety of students. Perhaps a gorge characterized as safe could be highlighted and emphasized while warning against others.

R. Lavin said statistically speaking the gorge that Doug Lowe died in is where most incidents occur.

G. Mezey said that is great for the assembly to have these discussions. These discussions have the potential to greatly benefit the student body and the community. He suggested drafting a resolution and forming an ad-hoc committee with students and interested university representatives to further explore the issue and potential options. The committee could then update the assembly as appropriate.

M. McDermott said that there are many community members in Ithaca and New York State that are involved in gorge safety. The dive teams involved in rescues in Ithaca often come from his hometown which is an hour and a half away. Additionally, the New York State police are also often involved. The assembly and the university would do well to remember that far more individuals are involved in gorge safety and present a valuable resource to those exploring the issue.

R. Smith said that students are going to go to the gorges no matter what especially during the summer months. Therefore, she feels that it is really important to bring more awareness to the issue. Something that stands out more than the flier is necessary. She knows many students who have received the flier and tossed it without reviewing it. A lot of students are simply not aware of either the dangers that exist or the tragedies that occur.

C. Basil motioned to move Resolution 3 to Business of the Day. There were multiple seconds. Seeing no dissent, Resolution 3 was moved to Business of the Day.

R. Lavin announced that there would be a gorge safety meeting with administrators and city officials on Friday, September 12. It is a closed meeting but assembly representatives may be able to attend and should get in touch with him if they wish to do so. Those representatives interested in pursing the issue should get in touch with A. Craig so that the group could determine the next step and report to the assembly at next week’s meeting. He thanked A. Craig fro bringing the issue before the assembly.

R.1 — Approval of 2008–2009 Standing Rules — Chris Basil

C. Basil said that all representatives should have a copy of the Standing Rules in front of them. He had emailed them around requesting input earlier in the week as well. There are not many changes from last year. He encouraged representatives to propose amendments or raise concerns as they see fit. He said that he would review some of the major changes. The Executive Board decided to change the time that each speaker shall have to speak from two minutes to three minutes under Section II: Policies and Procedures, Rule 7. The board felt that the change was appropriate since it was not a by-line funding cycle and since all representatives should be given the opportunity to fully express their views. He also gave the Chair the responsibility of keeping time as opposed to the Executive Vice President under Section III: Leadership and Oversight, Rule 17. Time keeping has traditionally been the responsibility of the Chair. The last main change was to Section III: Leadership and Oversight, Rule 18, which governs the process for sending out mass messages. Before he altered the rule, a very long and drawn out process was outlined. In Section I: Attendance and Related Policies, Rule 6, he transferred the responsibility of dealing with excusing absences after they occur from the S.A. to the Executive Board since the issue really does not need to be discussed before the entire assembly.

R. Salem asked how the Executive Board approves a mass message with the deletions that C. Basil made.

C. Basil said that the procedure stipulated in the Standing Rules was established by M. Asgary last year so that the Executive Board could not stifle communication to the entire student body.

R. Lavin clarified that the assembly can currently submit e-mails to the registrar to be sent to the student body. Therefore a way to send out mass messages currently exists but it is neither very autonomous nor flexible.

R. Salem motioned to undelete “The Executive Board may approve a message by a majority vote and the vote may be conducted by e-mail” from Section III: Leadership and Oversight, Rule 18. He is fine with the having the statement “The e-mail records must be saved and reported at the next SA meeting by the Vice President for Public Relations” remain stricken as C. Basil had just proposed.

R. Lavin repeated the amendment.

C. Basil seconded the motion. There were multiple dissents.

A. Craig, who had just dissented, said that he feels that it would be beneficial to bring back the both of the statements that C. Basil had proposed deleting.

T. Miller said that the assembly had elected the executive board members to make such decisions and had invested trust in the board to act in the assembly’s best interest. The board will do so. By reinstating the two statements in Rule 18, assembly members would be making the process of sending mass messages more bureaucratic and cumbersome.

C. Basil said that T. Miller was correct in assuming that the intent of the change was to free the assembly from a more cumbersome process. Mass communication is a rare occurrence he felt that the executive board had discretion enough to deal with it. If other assembly members would prefer to have the statements remain as a components of Rule 18 he is not opposed to it. Once again his intent was to decrease the burden on the assembly and to increase the burden on the assembly.

In response to some questions, R. Lavin said that any student assembly member, including the Vice President for Public Relations, can submit mass messages, including e-mails, advertisements and press releases, to be sent to the entire student body on behalf of the S.A.

V. Andrews suggested just having the executive board distribute whatever mass messages they choose to send out to the entire assembly.

R. Salem withdrew his motion.

A. Craig clarified that his suggestion to have Rule 18 stand as it did the previous semester had nothing to do with trusting the executive board. He said that he just wants to ensure that assembly representatives are made aware of any mass messages sent out on behalf of the assembly. He motioned to undelete the statements “The Executive Board may approve a message by a majority vote and the vote may be conducted by e-email. The e-mail records must be saved and reported at the next S.A. meeting by the Vice President for Public Relations” from Section III: Leadership and Oversight, Rule 18. In its entirety Rule 18 now reads, “Any Student Assembly member, including the Vice President for Public Relations, must submit a mass message (e-mail, advertisement, press release, etc.) to the Executive Board for approval. The Executive Board may approve a message by a majority vote and the vote may be conducted by e-email. The e-mail records must be saved and reported at the next S.A. meeting by the Vice President for Public Relations.”

R. Salem seconded the motion. There were multiple dissents.

G. Mezey said that he is concerned that the term e-mail records is included in the rule. The phrase has been problematic for the Appropriations Committee in the past. He asked the final sentence of Rule 18 be amended so that the only stipulation is that the mass message be reported to the assembly at the next S.A. meeting.

R. Salem motioned to amend the amendment by replacing the phrase “e-mail records” with the word correspondence.

A. Craig said that he found the amendment friendly. The third sentence of Rule 18 now reads, “The correspondence must be saved and reported at the next S.A. meeting by the Vice President for Public Relations.”

E. Diakow said that she does not feel that the words “saved and” need to be included after the change R. Salem just initiated. She motioned to remove the phrase.

The motion was seconded.

A. Craig said that he found the amendment friendly. T he third sentence of Rule 18 now reads, “The correspondence must reported at the next S.A. meeting by the Vice President for Public Relations.”

C. Basil reminded representatives that the assembly revisits the Standing Rules each semester and the document is very much living and changing. He said that he supports open and honest communication and therefore called to question on the amendment.

It was seconded. There was no dissent. Rule 18, being voted on, reads, “Any Student Assembly member, including the Vice President for Public Relations, must submit a mass message (e-mail, advertisement, press release, etc.) to the Executive Board for approval. The Executive Board may approve a message by a majority vote and the vote may be conducted by e-email. The correspondence must be saved and reported at the next S.A. meeting by the Vice President for Public Relations.” By a hand vote of 14–0−0, the amendment passed.

R. Salem asked if representatives are allowed to submit proxy votes if they do not inform the VPIOP of their absences by the requested time.

R. Lavin said that he believed giving representatives a proxy vote in such situations would be against parliamentary procedure.

R. Salem asked why the phrase “As per Robert’s Rules of Order�Newly Revised” was removed from the beginning of Rule 16, Section III: Leadership and Oversight.

C. Basil said that he thought the phrase was wordy and unnecessary.

A. Craig called to question on the Standing Rules. G. Mezey seconded the motion. There was no dissent. By a roll call vote of 14–0−0, the 2008–2009 Standing Rules were approved.

R.3 — 2008 Fall Undergraduate Election Rules — Mike McDermott, Greg Mezey, Michael Heinz

M. McDermott said that the elimination of the transfer center has made it difficult for new transfer student candidates to locate a sufficient number of transfer students to sign their petitions. Currently, transfer candidates are required to submit the signatures of fifty transfer students. Transfer students were unable to pick up their elections materials before transfer orientation was completed. As a proposed solution, the Elections Committee felt that it would make sense to define the proper constituency to sign petitions of new freshman and transfer student candidates as any new student. He said that he noticed an error. The word undergraduate should be added between new and student in the first be it therefore resolved clause to that the phrase reads “shall be any new undergraduate student.”

G. Mezey said that he understands the current frustration of transfer students. He was a transfer student who did not live in the transfer center. He also pointed out that there are bureaucratic hurdles in campaigning in other buildings including obtaining UUP forms. He feels that the proposed change will make the process more encouraging of involvement in the assembly and that the change is a step in the right direction.

A. Craig said that he thinks that Resolution 3 is a good resolution. He said that he thinks the resolution does however raise concerns regarding how the proper constituency is reflected in minority seats. He asked for some clarification.

M. McDermott said that the freshman and transfer seats had stipulations regarding their respective constituencies in the bylaws. Since minority seats, such as the LGBQT just mentioned by A. Craig, are self identifying, the university is not allowed to ask constituents to self identify as well. The proper constituency for the minority seats is considered to be the at-large student body.

In response to a question asked by N. Kumar, M. McDermott said that as it was written in the bylaws only freshmen can sign the petitions of freshmen candidates and transfers can only sign the petitions of transfer candidates although all are deemed seats for new students.

In response to a question asked by R. Salem, M. McDermott clarified that passing the resolution will allow freshmen students to sign transfer candidates’ petitions and transfers to sign freshmen candidates’ petitions.

R. Salem suggested only allowing transfer students to get signatures from freshmen. It may not be appropriate for freshmen to be allowed to get signatures from transfers. He asked if the sponsors of the resolution had considered allowing the at-large student body to sign transfer petitions.

M. McDermott said that they chose to merge the freshman and transfer constituencies because both are classified as new students. It would not really be fair to allow transfer students to get signatures outside of their constituency when the freshmen candidates cannot.

In response to a question asked by R. Smith, M. McDermott confirmed that only transfer students can vote for transfer candidates. The Elections Committee is however concerned that there will not be enough transfer candidates because of the hurdles in finding transfers to sign petitions.

R. Smith asked if the committee had considered lowering the number of signatures required.

M. McDermott said that that had been discussed. They felt that doing so could however lead to future debates. For example, someone could argue that since the Hotel school is smaller than the Ag school, fewer signatures should be required on the petitions of Hotel school candidates. The change the committee is currently proposing leaves the numbers the same across the board.

G. Mezey said that he does not even believe that there are fifty transfer students who vote in a transfer election.

S. Tata said that he is not sure that the solution that the sponsors are proposing would work very well. Freshman and transfers are still living in different buildings scattered across campus.

M. McDermott said that it really is making it easier since it is currently difficult to know where transfers are located. Although transfers may have to travel, everyone knows where the freshmen are located. The change is eliminating the difficulty in finding those eligible to sign petitions.

S. Tata said that it may be more appropriate to decrease the number of petition signatures needed. This may be a more elegant solution that truly makes the process easier.

G. Mezey asked how the assembly could come up with an appropriate number for required signatures. The current change keeps the numbers the same across the board. For example, what if one transfer candidate lives in a cluster of only ten students while another lives in a cluster of fifty. If the assembly starts screwing with the numbers candidates would be able to make arguments based on such logic.

M. McDermott clarified that this change has already been made and approved for the current elections as an exception by the Elections Committee. The resolution is proposing that the change be made permanent.

R. Lavin informed that the assembly that the exception was an action of a committee and can therefore be overturned by a 2/3 vote of the assembly.

In response to a question asked by V. Andrews, M. McDermott said that an e-mail had been sent to all candidates regarding the change.

V. Andrews called to question on the resolution. The motion was seconded. A. Craig dissented.

A. Craig said that he wished to speak. Since the change is already in place for the current election, it would be better of the assembly to sufficiently discuss the issue and to come up with the best solution possible.

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

T. Miller said that the earlier at the meeting R. Lavin had discussed the value of having a less bureaucratic assembly that is more open and accessible to the Cornell student body as whole. Passing the resolution would not hurt anyone. It in fact opens the door for members of our diverse community to join the assembly.

E. Diakow thoroughly agrees with the resolution. She feels that freshmen and transfers are a very similar constituency with very similar concerns. It makes sense for both constituencies to be supporting each other. There is no harm in the resolution. There is benefit in that it gives freshman and transfers the opportunity to work together more.

L. DeLencquesaing said that he feels that the assembly should reexamine the number of signatures required. The number fifty is arbitrary and not an appropriate reflection of elections since, as G. Mezey said, not that many individuals vote in the transfer elections. The change mixes constituencies in a weird way since freshman and transfers cannot actually vote for each other. Lowering the number of signatures required would be a more appropriate way to attract diverse members of the student body to run for assembly seats.

G. Mezey said that he is concerned that decreasing the number of signatures required would decrease voter turnout further.

A. Craig said that the goal should be to encourage candidates to get to know their constituencies. It should not be too easy for transfer students to stand outside RPCC and get signatures. The assembly should really consider requiring transfer students to get at least a specific number of transfer signatures.

R. Lavin asked A. Epstein, Office of the Assemblies, if something like A. Craig suggested would be feasible.

A. Epstein said that mixing the constituencies could cause some issues in validating the signatures. It would really have to be all transfers or an unfixed ratio of freshmen and transfer signatures.

C. Basil emphasized that the resolution does not have to be the long term solution to the problem. Lowering the number of signatures required could create issues in making it to easy to run. Requiring fifty signatures says something about the commitment of students to the assembly. At the same time, getting fifty transfer signatures is very hard because of the difficulty in identifying transfer students. The change still requires commitment on behalf of candidates but makes the process feasible.

G. Mezey said that every representative is equal in that they all have one vote. If you are going to change the number of signatures required of transfer students, do it across the board so that the number required reflects each constituency.

L. Engelmyer said that she supports having the same number of signatures required across the board. Doing so helps to prevent uncontested elections.

R. Salem said that he has an issue with allowing individuals to sign candidates’ petitions who cannot vote in the elections. He suggested opening up the vote so that all new undergraduate students can vote in both transfer and freshmen elections. He agrees that changing the number of signatures required could be problematic.

M. McDermott said that new elections rules will be brought up in the spring. There is a study by former assembly members in the law school that calls for an entirely new elections system.

A. Craig asked what would happen in the resolution does not pass.

R. Lavin said that he believes that the resolution was a gesture by the Elections Committee to inform the assembly of the rules exception. The decision to allow the exception could be overturned by a 2/3 vote of the assembly. Not passing the resolution would not overturn the decision of the elections committee to allow the exception in the upcoming election.

E. Diakow said that allowing transfers to seek freshmen signatures will get more people involved in the process and start more conversations on the issues.

R. Smith said that it is important to improve turnout. It does not make sense to permit individuals to sign petitions of candidates that they cannot vote for. L. DeLencuesaing said that the assembly should further explore the issue and an appropriate long term solution should be decided upon. He asked when such a discussion could occur.

R. Lavin gave a brief overview of the elections process and the process by which the agenda is formed or by which issues are brought up for assembly discussion. He announced that the assembly will be holding a meeting to go over internal procedures shortly.

C. Basil called to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent. By a roll call vote, Resolution 3 passed unanimously.

VIII. New Business

R.2 — Creation of an ad-hoc Academic Integrity Drafting Committee - Chris Basil

C. Basil gave an overview of Resolution 2. Basically, the resolution proposes that the Student Assembly, in conjunction with the U.A. and the GPSA, create an ad-hoc committee, the Academic Integrity Drafting Committee, and charge it with the responsibility of writing and considering a revised Academic Code of Integrity or an honor code for Cornell University. The resolution stems from the U.A.’s decision, last spring under former Dean of Faculty, Charles Walcott, to charge the Committee to Consider Academic Integrity with discussing and examining Cornell’s current Academic Code of Integrity. He asked if there were any questions.

There were no questions.

R. Lavin said that Resolution 2 will be discussed under Business of the Day at the next assembly meeting.

IX. Adjournment

R. Lavin adjourned the meeting.

X. Executive Session

The assembly entered executive session. Scott Purdy was approved as Parliamentarian.

Respectfully submitted,

Liz Patrun
S.A. Clerk