Student Assembly

MINUTES - DRAFT
Cornell University Student Assembly
October 23, 2008
4:45 — 7:00 P.M.
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

R. Lavin called the meeting to order at 4:47 pm.

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: V. Andrews, N. Baker, C. Basil, A. Brokman, A. Craig, E. Cusick, L. DeLencquesaing, E. Diakow, L. Englemyer, M. Heinz, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, A. Latella, R. Lavin, G. Mezey, T. Miller, N. Raps, R. Salem, O. Sandoval, E. Shannon, B. Smith, R. Stein, Y. Yao

Liasons Present: M. McDermott, N. Diaz, S. Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes — October 2, 2008

There was a call for acclimation, and a second without dissent. The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

There were no questions.

V. Announcements/Reports

Update About the Semester- Ryan Lavin

R. Lavin just sent out email. It entailed all of the issues which have come up thus far this semester. Now there needs to be activity and then resolve. If anything is inaccurate, let him know. He did receive requests for members to team up and all of that was forwarded. He hopes to see activity. They should use latter half of the semester to do this. Use the listserve and email to get things rolling. There were no questions for him.

University Calendar Update — Chris Basil

Just wanted to let know people know that this isn’t a short term thing. The faculty senate is discussing adding an extra day to the semester and in turn would add labor day as a day off, an extra day to fall break, or an extra day to Thanksgiving. This probably wouldn’t be enacted for about two years, but at some point they want to seek student input. Keep in mind we’ll be part of the discussion. There were no questions.

Gorge Safety Committee Update — Asa Craig

He sent an email last night about the first official meeting with students and community members about the gorges. He did meet with N. Raps about this about how to precede as a committee. Let him know if you’re interested so you can be included in emails and such. The meeting Monday will be from 5–6:30 pm in the Day Hall board room. It will be a little bit packed, as they invited the Friends of the Gorge Committee. The introductory meeting will mostly be about deciding how to go about this and proceed. Let him know if there were any ideas.

University Diversity Forum- Asa Craig

On Monday evening, there is a university diversity forum. He is looking to get a lot of students to come out. It will be in the memorial room from 7–9pm. There will be alumni stories to base discussions on.

Res Life Committee Update — Nikhil Kumar

They had a very exciting second meeting yesterday. There has been input from RSC members and freshmen as well. There was recently a Sun article about issues with the system. They want a sense about information from housing lottery and information gotten by students. They will continue to talk about more information the students want for the short term.

Code of Conduct Meeting —Rammy Salem

After this meeting there will be a campus code of conduct committee meeting.

VI. Business of the Day

SAFC Appeals

Asian and Asian-American Forum

VP Mezey briefed the SA. The appeal amount requested is $420. The amount granted was zero. They appealed under new information. Group’s explanation was that they got information after the 9/16 deadline. The SAFC rationale was that there was no contact until 9/18 and the initial contact must be made before the September 16th deadline. The Apprpriations Committee voted 0–9 concluding that the SAFC did not err. The rationale was that the SAFC did follow funding guidelines and the group failed to meet the requirements outlined in the guidelines, specifically the group did not submit anything about an attempted room reservation. You can see the appeal application and email and take note of dates on the email. The SAFC said that without room reservation, the SAFC can’t fund for the event. The SAFC agrees with the Appropriations Committee. There was no room reservation in the appeal either. The group went over the timeline of what happened. On 9/16, they submitted the original packet. On 9/18, they had the SAFC hearing. They submitted new documentation adding to their SAFC packet. After reviewing it they said that all they needed was confirmation for the massage therapist and because they didn’t have confirmation that they did make the effort to contact. Once they got confirmation, they provided it, submitted the confirmation for appeals and at the appeals hearing, they were told didn’t submit the original attempt to reserve the room but were not aware that from the verbal exchange that they needed to submit those documents. They were also unaware that in the second appeals that they can’t submit new information. They are just trying to get funding. They held this event the last two semesters. Without funding it will be a lot harder to put on the event with same capacity. Questions started. VP Miller wanted to know the SAFC stance about whether they felt that the group was not given proper information at the time. SAFC responded that they can’t guarantee what was said at the actual hearing, but they did send all rationale afterwards and did say what the group needed.

A. Craig asked the SAFC whether the issue was if that room wasn’t confirmed or speaker? The SAFC responded that both were the issue and either is enough to rule out funding. A. Craig asked the group if they did get in contact with people needed. The Group responded that they did, but just didn’t submit it. A. Craig asked if it was confirmed before. The Group responded that they attempted to make contact before, but didn’t get a response until after.

L. DeLencquesaing stated that it is terrible to have a 16th of Sept date about who to bring in November. He understands that it is a few days late is that it’s a complicated thing. He thinks they should fund them. The SAFC feels there may be miscommunication. They don’t require to have the speaker. They do have to show the attempt for it with a chain of emails.

R. Stein added to clarify that she thinks it’s important to realize that we’re not here to analyze whether policy is good or bad, they are just here to decide to fund or not. She then wanted to know how the lack of funds will impact the event. The Group responded that it will be more difficult in terms of not securing the speaker, looking for other means of funding, but the event will still take place either through a lesser capacity or through other funding. They are holding other events, too, this semester.

A. Brokman wanted to know if there was ever a doubt of getting them for the event. The Group responded that they wouldn’t set a date before the speaker was confirmed.

O. Sandoval asked if the group showed in the application that you had the event prior in the application. He also asked the SAFC if an organization regularly has an event, do they get a little more leeway because events are hard to coordinate. The Group responded yes, they had the event in past and in budget packets they did include correspondence dated last semester, and that was correspondence was from last spring. The SAFC says that there is nothing in the guidelines about regularly held events. It is not fair to give old groups funding automatically because of all of the new groups.

N. Junewicz asked if the event got funding the last two times and if so, why didn’t they include everything this year. The Group responded that they believe they did receive funding the last two times and a possible reason is that there was a new treasurer this year. He was not as aware of SAFC policies as the previous treasurer. They did follow guidelines in terms of making contact before the deadline, but it was an oversight that they forgot to give documentation.

M. Heinz asked if a group doesn’t provide information about a speaker they get no funding and if they have it later, they can correct by giving them 75%. The SAFC responded that if they contacted but didn’t receive a response, they can get full funding but if it is new information they forgot to put in the packet, they get 75%. R. Lavin added that part of the issue is to clarify whether it is new information.

VP Basil wanted to point out that on the fifth to last page, there is a Gmail email subject line that is “Request Masseuses” from Meredith Riley, which shows that only on Sept 14th did group even begin to think about how to schedule a masseuse. The email was a forward from the previous semester. Had the group had the room scheduled, it would be new information. Since neither condition was met, from his point of view that’s why it’s no. He called to question. There was a second with no dissent.

R. Lavin clarified that they are voting yes to uphold decision or no to overturn the decision (then discuss other options). They would need 2/3 to overturn. With a Roll call vote of 18–2−2, the SA upholds the Appropriation Committee’s decision that the SAFC did not err and the group receives no funding.

VP. Mezey closed stating that if the group feels this was not filed correctly, they can appeal, and he recommends them to go look out for other sources of funding and appreciates their time.

PATCH

VP. Mezey summarized the committee decision. There is a note of clarification on the sheet given with PATCH at top. The number of the original allocation should be $234.51 not $235.51. The appropriations committee voted 9–0, yes the SAFC did error. The funding decision was to fund the group an additional $117.65 on top of their original allocation of $234.51. If they would have given letter from advisor would have gotten a 25% reduction. Given that there was sufficient information for students to travel, they decided to fund the group. There is a price quote and a signup sheet for members who wanted to attend the trip. The SAFC said that in the original application, they received two things: a price quote for 47 person capacity bus. (Note: the amount SAFC allocates based on number of students traveled and mileage doesn’t matter what type of transportation used.) If there are more than four people traveling, they need a letter from the advisor stating why and a specific number. They were given a range not a number. When given a range, precendent was to funded for lower end which is what they did. They were told 30–40 but then 47 and no new letter was given at the meeting. Erin Sandler stated that in the original packet they put in a number of people interested but the letter said 30–40 because they didn’t know that they could get that many people on the bus. She was told that should go about appeal as if it were discrimination. They weren’t told told that it was funded for the lower end. But didn’t have letter because she was told to file under that and that is why the letter wasn’t there. They do have letter from advisor now. They do have price quote and confirmation of the bus. They’re going on the trip tomorrow.

Questions began with R. Salem.

R. Salem says looking at the letter it says 45 seat bus which must be filled. He was taking that to mean that all seats must have been filled. Administration requires minimum of 30–40 students. He thinks it should be taken to mean all seats. The SAFC responded that in the guidelines it says they need an exact number so they went with lower end of range.

VP Miller said as a member of the appropriations committee, he remembers they came to agreement about what to work out with. The amount allocated was received amiably and he asked if it was correct. The SAFC responded yes. They were defending their decision but now there is clearly proof. PATCH is happy with decision. VP Miller called to question. It was seconded without dissent.

R. Lavin explained that yes would uphold the Appropriations Committee decision in favor of the group, no to overturn the decision to rule that the SAFC did not err.

With a Roll call vote of 19–0−3, the SA decided to uphold the committee’s decision.

There was a ten minute recess because they finished this decision early.

SA reconvened at 5:41 PM.

Big Red Bears

The group is not here. SAFC decided they did err 9–0. $302.20 was provided. What the group needed to provide was the quote for costumes to be cleaned but in conversations with the group and committee, they said they didn’t need to receive full funding because a number of cleaning cycles have passed so they only needed two remaining cleaning periods in the semester. They did add in the quote. The SAFC denied and said it wasn’t new information. They should have given it with the 25% rule. So instead of the 25% , they were funded for the lesser amount. The SAFC agrees with decision.

O. Sandoval called to question. It was seconded without dissent.

VP Mezey said the group asked for money without quotation and could easily submit. They thought they had to appeal under new information but all they had to do was turn form in to the office. At the committee meeting, the group was amiable. R. Lavin noted that the precedent has been if group doesn’t come, they receive no funding. It hasn’t happened like this so we’ll just go through, also SA is not ruled by precedent. Also, there might have been a miscommunication.

By roll call vote of 18–0−4, SA voted that SAFC did err and the group should get the money.

American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Jeremy Holzwarth, president and Emily Majusiak, treasurer were present on behalf of the group. VP Mezey said that the appropriations committee decided that the SAFC did err by a vote of 9–0. The decision was to fund an additional $993.32 on top of their original allocation of $674.90 for a total of $1668.22. The group should have been able to receive 25% reduction and was confused by the 25% rule. During the meeting, they agreed to travel expenses, the total for trip, a 75% reduction, first allocation and the difference between that and the first allocation. It was very straightforward. There wasn’t new information, but it was part of the 25% rule. They do need to work on communication for the future. SAFC agrees with appropriations committee. It was almost exactly the same as the last case. The representatives from the American Institute of Chemical Engineers agree with the decision. N. Kumar called to question. It was seconded with no dissent. The American Institute of Chemical Engineers are glad it worked out. By a roll call vote of 20–0−2, the SA decided that the SAFC did err.

At this point, Business of the Day was paused.

VII. New Business

R.11 Student Assembly Absentee Policies — Tony Miller

There have been a lot of questions about absences and how they apply to the charter. There has been a lot of confusion as to what excused and unexcused absences meant. The only thing an excused absence does is give the member the right to cast a proxy vote. As of now, if a member misses 3 in a row or 6 in both semesters, he/she will be vacated from his/her seat. Thought this was a little unfair. There is a total of 27 meetings and he feels that an SA member ought to attend at least 20 of them. Sometimes there are just emergencies. He also wanted to give weight to diff between excused and unexcused. If this is passed, for a member to miss 3 meetings in row, their seat will be vacated. If there is a total of 7 excused absences cumulatively, the seat is vacated. If you miss 3 unexcused, your seat is vacated. If you get 5 excused and 2 unexcused, your seat is still vacated. It’s very straightforward.

R. Lavin reminded that this week is for questions only.

E.Shannon asked if it is completely at the discretion of the VP Internal about what is or is not an excused absence. VP Miller responded that yes and R. Lavin added that it has been in the past.

R. Salem asked if other rules of the policy still stand, i.e. coming late/leaving early. VP Miller responded that if you leave early, it’s a 1/2 absence, religious observance also counts as a 1/2 absence if he was told before. R. Salem asked if missing roll call counted. VP. Miller responded that yes, it was.

A. Craig posed a question to R. Lavin asking if in the past has someone been brought before them to vacate their seat. R. Lavin said he does not know as a freshman but knows it has happened in the past. VP Miller said there are some who have a fair amount of absences, close to the 6 mark. He just wants to help protect members. A. Craig asked if he feels it would be more advantageous to adjust it for leaving early, for instance for a prelim. VP Miller is not opposed to clarify what a half absence is. Or perhaps even no absence. A. Craig asked, as it is it says the seat will be vacated, but he knows it has been voted on as a committee. Is it automatically vacated or are they brought forth as an issue to be talked about? R. Lavin said that is something to explore. As of now, it is automatic. If people are looking to explore the idea where it’s a process, it needs to say in the charter. They have to talk about it. VP Miller was bothered that it wasn’t a discretionary matter. So it’s definitely an issue to be tackled down the road. This is just to make clear between excused and unexcused absences. S. Purdy added that in the bylaw 4.2.z.3 there is a list of responsibilities of the VP of Internal Operations. Number five is maintain and monitor SA attendance records and so forth.

L. DeLencquesaing asked if there’s an extension does it count for the absence if the meeting is extended. VP Miller answered that if it’s extended, no.

E. Diakow noted that this does apply to absences already.

R. Stein said that one things talked about is in addition to looking at this change, do we want to go work with excused and unexcused. So that someone who’s missing for chronic illness or religious observance or prelims and should it be different than a regular absence. She just asked to think about it. VP Miller said originally he was looking at it and if it’s excused, why count as an absence. But it’s not a personal thing. If you’re not able to be here to cast a vote for your constituency, you’re hurting your constituency. You can’t be effective. The 7 absences is wiggle room. 20/27 meetings is reasonable.

VP Basil yielded his time to A. Craig. A. Craig wanted to talk about leaving early or coming in at 4:46:20. Or if we haven’t gotten through roll call. VP Miller said it is for the chair to reprimand him if the procedure isn’t right. Everyone got an email about absences. He didn’t count off for a half absence if it’s just a LITTLE bit. He doesn’t adhere staunchly to the gavel. There is a bit of leniency, not robotically or mechanically. A. Craig said that he did send out all of our absences and could there be a portion of the sight with it. VP Miller said it is on roll call, and he didn’t feel appropriate for everyone to see everyone’s absences. But if people aren’t opposed to it, he wouldn’t be. He wanted to protect privacy.

Y. Yao said he is not sure if it’s being written, but there are so many specific situations. Is it possible to have the VP Internal put explanations to each absence R. Lavin said it’s for the VP if he wants to justify. Y. Yao added that there are so many specific situations. R. Lavin said he can’t answer. He noted for C. Basil to have this as an agenda item. About if they should explore excused/unexcused, etc. He cannot answer now, but it will be discussed. It is separate from this resolution.

A. Brokman asked what happened when a seat is vacated. VP Miller noted that it is all in the charter. If an at large seat was vacated, they look at next highest winner. If no one else is in the pool, then the chair would appoint a liaison and a special election would be held in next election cycle.

R. Salem asked if there were a special election is the person vacated eligible to run. VP Miller said yes, reminding that this was wanted as a stopgap.

C. Basil called for a short recess while waiting for the other groups to show up.

The meeting resumed at 6:18 PM

VII. Business of the Day, Part Two

COLA

VP Mezey noted that the initial appeal requested was for $5275. The decision was SAFC did not err by a vote of 8–0−2. The SAFC did follow funding guidelines and specifically, no room request was submitted, however they did have letter of intent. The SAFC agrees with the decision of the Appropriations Committee. There were two issues: 1) lack of room reservation, 2) no letter of intent. They did receive the letter. COLA had three issues. 1) They were told they did not submit proof of contact prior to the deadline, but they did. 2) Proof: the letter of intent and room reservation. It was not submitted by the OTHER group they’re co-funding the event with, but didn’t know they were going to submit money. They made a proactive effort to switch the meeting to a later time, from 10/2 and 10/20. 3) They did not receive funding because they did not receive proof of contact, but they did. They took proactive measures and wanted to have everything, but it turns out that they did not receive funding because of proof of contact but there is proof of contact.

The floor was opened up for questions.

R. Salem asked the SAFC if they have the missing information now. The SAFC responded yes, but they never got that. It was given to the Appropriations Committee, but still no room reservation.

		R. Salem asked why they group didn’t give that.

COLA responded that their last notice was not the issue of room res, was proof of contact. All documentation is there but is a matter of when things were turned in. There is a discrepancy on when things were turned in. The room reservation is right after SAFC: squirrel mail: room reservation confirmation number is there. The SAFC said that netiher qualified as new information, but they needed to see proof that the speaker was contacted before. COLA said there was no other way to submit after September 16. The only thing after the deadline was the room reservation confirmation for the switching the date and letter of intent signed by a representative of the organization.

VP Miller recalled that during the meeting it got very confusing. But by the 16th, the date of original appeal, they did not have the letter of intent, proof, or room reservation. They need to be before the date of sixteenth. The SAFC said it was made explicitly clear through guidelines.

L. DeLencquesaing said that it is the issue of the spirit of the law or taking the law as accountants. He remembered having this discussion with a former president of SA about small issues. He thinks they should be funded. Basically, the guidelines are saying you messed up and shouldn’t get money. But we need to rethink way the guidelines are and obviously it doesn’t function well. Speaking from groups with speakers, this is complicated to do. He reiterated that they should fund, everything is there. But he did recognize that the SAFC was right.

VP. Mezey asked if the original room reservation for the date requested was not presented. This was correct. He then asked if groups have been able to change dates during the funding process in the past. The SAFC was not sure, but if you have a room reservation and extenuating circumstances, you likely wouldn’t get funded. But then they would appeal under new information and probably would get funding. They can show that. As long as it was requested for a certain date, they can accommodate it. VP Mezey summarized that it is because there is no original that it would not fall into that case.

V. Andrews asked if COLA is cosponsoring the event. COLA responded that they and MICHNA are funding the event. V. Andrews asked if the treasurer and president of groups have to take tests, how these things were not accounted for. COLA said that they made arrangements to bring a person to campus within a week and a half prior to the deadline and people were still getting situated. There was a lot of working between presidents and treasurers. The rationale of the treasurer was that they did not submit proof because he thought we weren’t asking money FOR the room reservation, so upon realizing they needed to submit it as well, they requested a room for October 2 and realized they were going to run into problems and wanted to change deadline but never submitted proof for the first one. In general, they actively were trying to make documentation ready. They already have a poster ready for the event. They have been in contact to get a room reservation. They were very persistent because they want farmworkers to come with their speaker and it will be harder to bring workers during the winter. They have been trying to bring the topic to campus.

A. Craig wanted to emphasize that it IS new information, but if it was received by SAFC is a different question. But it is like the second week of school. He is leaning towards looking at overturning decision. What happens if there is no funding? COLA responded that they are going to attempt to get funding through the ILR school, but they have a lot of events not applied for funding. They are not sure if it will proceed. A. Craig urged the SA to take into account that this isn’t a trip. It’s a service to benefit the rest of the student committee. It would be added imposition to force to COLA to look for more funding. He feels that the SAFC is following regulations, but the SA should look at what’s good for students.

		E. Cusick asked if they had a room reservation for the October 2nd date.

COLA responded that it was made after that week. By that time, they wanted to switch the date. E. Cusick summarized that they didn’t submit the reservation for October 2nd because they had changed the date. COLA replied that is correct.

VP Miller wanted to go back to spirit. The SAFC funds over 300 groups. 1/50 groups plays by the rules. That doesn’t feel right. We know that these are the rules of the SAFC. All people took the president and treasurer’s test. They knew in advance and didn’t do it. They shouldn’t penalize other groups who followed the rules.

R. Salem asked if in the event it was overturned would they vote on the amount funded. R. Lavin replied that first is the vote to overturn. If it is overturned, then comes the proposition to or another amount. R. Salem felt it would be harsh to withdraw total funding. If they do decide to overturn, they can still penalize but shouldn’t withdraw total funding.

L. DeLencquesaing wanted to put in context what it is to organize an event. Sometimes it is confirmed a day before. It is very complicated and they should be understanding of what they’re doing, the service they’re providing. It’s a lot of time. He felt that they should fund them, then rethink the way to do guidelines. It should be open to exceptions. This does pose a problem. First group had a problem. The SA did vote to other group to give money. If we don’t, it’s illogical.

V. Andrews asked the SAFC, if COLA does get funded would it affect the allocations of other groups. VP Mezey responded that it will not affect other groups allocations in any way. They need to look at the merit of the case, NOT at how much money is left. The SAFC said it won’t this semester, but will next semester. VP Mezey said that is not true. The SAFC said it won’t DIRECTLY effect. V. Andrews said that there’s the issue of if we grant this group funding, there’s the idea behind it that it penalizes other groups, but it could be understandable that we can let them be funded.

VP Miller asked a point of information. Is any money remaining in SAFC balance rolled over next semester to be used in other groups? The SAFC replied that it was.

R. Stein said they have to take into account the guidelines. She is not clear on why this misunderstanding arose. It is good that they have the new information. They need to take into account that they did not admit they made the mistake.

R. Salem said from his understanding, they couldn’t have qualified for the 75% rule. The SAFC responded that it applies to stuff there, but was not turned in. R. Salem said that is it not a matter of them not taking the initiative to apply, they just couldn’t. The SAFC said that was correct.

R. Stein was under the impression that they had information they didn’t submit. Why doesn’t 75% rule apply? The SAFC said it applied to readily correctible mistakes. Items they had and were not turned in. COLA was not sure it changes the decision. But it was attempt, but there was no letter of intent before deadline. It was submitted as new information but are not sure.

A. Craig responded that yes it was new information but because it wasn’t submitted, they had no idea to say it was new information. When they sent the updated email, they gave the updated one and not the new one. Going back to spirit, he wanted to remind everyone that they’re not the Supreme Court. We as a committee are for the students. They’re voting on that. That’s how they need to run things. SAFC needs to organize procedurally. Appropriations did their role. Our line is to evaluate if IS this helping the student community. They can make decisions and exceptions. It is not run by precedent. It’s a little different in there was no proof of contact in the first case. The individual did not seem as if he wanted to provide that. They could easily have made the decision to appeal. They can talk about penalizing, but he feels they need to make the right decision to overturn what the SAFC did. Punishments are for later on.

N. Raps ask if they would still be able to hold the event if they’re penalized. COLA responded that they will talk to the speaker and let her decide. We think if it’s a reasonable amount, she will still come. N. Raps yielded the rest of her time to A. Craig.

A. Craig said this is an honorarium, a specific amount to bring a speaker. That is hard to change, this is what it is, we should think about that when talking punishments. It’s an honorarium for a speaker.

VP Mezey wanted to go back into spirit of things. They all agreed on guidelines, the past assemblies set forth guidelines, and they need to follow those because of the 300 or so other groups who did follow these guidelines. They do need to fund groups who follow the guidelines. What was originally asked for, there is no proof provided. They were asking for event on specific date. COLA responded that they changed the date because they didn’t submit letter of intent because they anticipated problems with funding. VP Mezey does think the application was for this date, and the date had been changed. They have the responsibility to uphold guidelines.

VP Basil said that in looking at appeals, he looks for two things. The extent of errors and the intent of how it happened. He felt that due to the extent of the errors and that there weren’t mitigating circumstances, lent itself to the SAFC’s decision. He called to question. It was seconded, but there was dissent by R. Salem. He thinks there should be more discussion. First, they voted to vote. By a hand vote of 12–4, the motion to vote passed.

Because they voted with 2/3 majority to, they could call to question. First there would be closing arguments.

COLA said that again, they hope you vote in favor of our budget. This event can only happen this semester. They took proactive measures to receive funding. They have been in constant communication with everyone. Also, the reasons for not giving funding were different. If we don’t get funding it’s because we didn’t have room reservation. The last appeal was over no proof of contact. The other member of the group, Rob, said that it seemed to him to be about rules and stages. He stated being new to the process. This process is part of those rules, so he feels that they have given themselves the ability to be flexible. SAFC stated that they are sure SA is familiar with facts. By guidelines they like to treat everyone fairly and objectively.

The vote of yes would be to uphold the Appropriations Committee decision allowing the group to receive no funding. A vote of no is overturning the decision. By a roll call vote of 9–8−1, neither a majority was reached nor was it overturned by 2/3.

The speakers list is re-opened. R. Lavin is choosing not to give his vote

As a point of information, they wanted to know the date of the event. COLA said that as of now it is during November. There are lots of dates available. It is pending for some time in November.

R. Stein said that they’ve all had a lot of arguments and everyone understands each other’s points, but everyone else seems to manage to get their events. She commended them for going through the process. The fact is, the more times we overrule them, the less legitimacy the appropriations committee has. There is then less incentive to go through the process correctly. If we want to change the process, that’s something they can do through resolution. This money can roll over to next semester for another group.

VP Miller said that it’s not like this money disappears. It will roll over, which will allow over three hundred groups to get money. The SAFC has to reserve chunk of money for the appeals process. Due to negligence to follow the rules, they are penalizing groups for next semester.

R. Salem wanted to return to the point before that VP Mezey brought up. 300 groups followed it to a T. As a reward, they’re getting full funding. The 75% rule is fabulous, but it’s the first year it’s instated. But he doesn’t blame the organization. He doesn’t think they should deny full funding. They should at least have a portion of it. But that might have been difficult.

L. DeLencquesaing stated that there is a reason FOR the appeals. These guys had the right to vote against it. We’re here for the best interest of the students. It’s to USE the money NOW. Not using it this semester to have a successful event, it is our DUTY to make Cornell a more intellectual, vibrant place. We have to do what’s best. They determine THEIR charter; we determine what’s best for the student body. We have to vote. We don’t need to give as much money but they SHOULD at least give them some money.

V. Andrews reversed his vote from the appropriations committee to here. The reason is that on the Appropriations Committee, it felt like the spirit was to determine the ruling of SAFC. Here and now, the spirit is to determine the validity of application. S. Purdy said that there is a big difference in opinion about rules vs. students. Some people feel it is best for students, but he doesn’t think it should be whether or not they deserve the money over the next year, but whether or not this group will use the money beneficially. He thinks the reason the rules are in place is so that the groups don’t get money and not use it efficiently.

A. Craig said they are talking about not punishing groups. Take a minute to analyze this. They may have extra money next semester, too. They’re not punishing ANYONE. All groups that got their money HAVE their money. People may not even APPLY next semester. They can’t say they’re affecting student groups that already have it. He had to reiterate that we’re doing what’s best for students on the committee. This is about spirit and reputation. What about our reputation on the SA? We don’t want students going around saying “blank the student assembly.” We’re serving students. We need to think in terms of the students. A little bit of something to think about. We need to analyze what does a vote do. Just saying we feel there’s a need to make our own decision-

		A. Craig got a 1 minute extension.

A. Craig continued that they should think about the spirit, they’re not hurting other groups, the money is there, it will be there, other groups that want it can apply. Think about it by a semester basis. Don’t be just a legislative body. New information versus error. This is a new thing we can take into account. They forgot to give us materials, but this said they qualify. But given in the charter, they should qualify.

VP Mezey allocation is not a semester by semester. It’s for the year. They divide it by spring and fall. They took $44,000 to dump into fall semester to accommodate for this issue. But are 20,000 dollars in the hole. A. Craig asked a Point of Information about if that is particular to this semester. VP Mezey said that yes it is particular to this semester.

A, Brokman said that very rarely do they trip over an opportunity to do something good. Why help them? Because we can. The appeals process is for a fresh pair of eyes to look at it.

N. Kumar wants to echo V. Andrews. The Appropriations Committee did the right thing, but it is important that we look at it through the SA’s point of view. It leaves the SA’s legitimacy intact. He called to question. It was seconded with no dissent.

By a vote of 8–9−0, once again a majority was not reached to approve, nor was a 2/3 majority overturn.

There was a motion to adjourn. It was seconded, but there was dissent. The reason was that they spent a lot of time. If they can’t come to a decision now, they will have to re-go over it regardless of the time. V. Andrews wanted a whole assembly to vote on it R. Salem said that the outcome could be different. He calls to question. The vote was 10–7 by a hand vote.

VIII. Adjournment

R. Lavin adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Brittany Rosen