Student Assembly

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

I. Call to Order

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

II. Roll Call

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

Representatives Excused: L. DeLencquesaing, L. Engelmyer, N. Kumar, Y. Yao

Liaisons present: S. Tata

Liaisons absent: N. Diaz

Representatives 1/2 Absence: N. Baker

III. Approval of the Minutes — October 23, 2008

There was a call for acclimation. Only one change (rep to reprimand) was needed. The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

No one stepped up to the microphone.

V. Announcements/Reports

Gorge Safety Committee Update — Asa Craig

They held their first official gorge safety meeting on Monday. They invited the friends of the gorge, people from Cornell plantations, and from natural resources. Minutes for this will be typed and sent soon so that everyone can see what was talked about. They’re hopeful for a larger turnout at the next meeting. If you’re interested, let A. Craig know.

VP Miller asked when the next meeting was and what the topic would be. A. Craig responded that he is going to look over what was talked about. Education will definitely be one thing to be talked about, especially educational videos. Possibly more aspects of education, and they are looking into someone from Gannett, someone from university communications attending a meeting in order to determine the most effective way to spread their message, as well as the orientation steering committee. The more people there, the more helpful the next meeting will be. It will probably occur in the next week to week and a half. There will be an email sent at least a week in advance.

R. Lavin wanted to let A. Craig know that Julie, the city clerk, wanted to be updated as much as she can to be involved in the process. A . Craig said there will be city meetings he’ll be attended. He wanted to invite her to come to their meetings for the ones which will best utilize her. He will also send her the minutes.

Environmental Committee Update — Emlyn Diakow

At their first meeting they did not get the turnout they thought they would. She did have emails about it being a bad night, and there still seemed to be a lot of interest. Mike Walsh, the student trustee came in, and there is a resolution they’re starting to work on. So when people apply for funding, especially for events they are looking into making it more green. There may be other things overlapping with dining. Right now they’re looking for a good time for everyone to meet. Emails will go out. Overall it was a good meeting.

C. Basil asked if they discussed ZimRide and bikes. E. Diakow said that they definitely did but it is kind of on stall. People had known about it but in not too much detail. They were looking more into the issue of green event planning.

ZimRide Update —Tony Miller

John Zimmer, the CEO of ZimRide, said that right now there is the application for Facebook on the Cornell network. He’s giving us this service as a courtesy on our network. Over 2,000 Cornell users are using it. They have expressed a concern about the underutilized ride system.

CIT Committee Update — Mike Heinz

They have had their first CIT meeting. They’ve started discussing issues to tackle. Moodle to replace Blackboard, Gmail in place of webmail, a program called video note which is used in the Engineering School presently, and wireless on campus were all issues discussed. The meeting was on Wednesday. Not too many people showed up but there were a lot of conflicts. Meetings will now be on Tuesdays from 6–6:30 pm. Hopefully this time will work better. E-textbooks are on the agenda for the next meeting SA meeting.

A. Craig asked about network usage and tracking of downloading illegal items. They can forward things about our IP addresses. R. Lavin said that the point of the person coming next week is to help that and to educate the student body.

SA Newsletter Update — Nikki Junewicz and Vincent Andrews

VP Junewicz said that they have gotten a lot done. They made the most updated copy of the new SA newsletter. They want all the input they can get and would like all of you to approve it. Let them know changes or ideas from grammatical to content. They wanted you to see the product. Please give it a once over with notes and give back to her or Vincent. They made SA facebook group titled “Cornell Student Assembly Updates” which had around 300 members last time they checked, and it had only been up for a day. It has already been pretty successful. She met with Ari today, and they are working on having an open SA listserve for the community and all byline funded groups. V. Andrews added that October is coming to a close and they might do a semester in review. This is how they’re generally going to look. If there are any major issues, speak to them.

The budget will be changed from the back to the new one.

E. Cusick suggested that instead of and insert or piece of paper, maybe they could look into a more economical or sustainable method such as an ad in the Sun. V. Andrews replied that they are looking at a bunch of ways to distribute it. VP Junewicz added that as is, it is obviously a lot of text now for a Sun ad, but she appreciates the feedback.

R. Salem said this is great and a good idea. He wanted to know how SA members submit things to them. V. Andrews said to submit it to him or Nikki, and they’re going to bring all summaries forward to communications committee who will vote and decide what’s going to go in. It’s purely based on input and room. R.Lavin stated that he is already required to do an end of semester report so maybe that could work together.

SAFC Funding Guidelines Review Meeting — Greg Mezey

He wanted to let the SA know that Friday at 10:30 in B12 Day Hall. At the meeting was R. Lavin, Terri Ector, Ari Epstein, co-chairs of the SAFC, T. Miller, B. Smith. The meeting is to go through and review SAFC funding guidelines and how SA and SAFC fit together. If there is any input, he is happy to hear them and people are more than welcome to attend. If you can’t make it, sending thoughts via email or paper is good. He is happy to review suggestions. That group will come back and present options to the assembly.

R. Lavin noted that this is a good opportunity to be at a less formal table with members of SAFC as well as a good way to learn. It will be happening every Friday at least for rest of the semester.

Dean of Faculty Appointments Update —Tony Miller

Check your email for Committee Appointments. Applications are on the website. Get back to him as soon as you can. They’re all on assembly.cornell.edu.

Climate Action Plan - Emlyn Diakow

They’ve been thinking about the climate action plan. There has been a date set: Saturday, November 15, probably around 10:30 or 11 and will last a couple of hours. There will be more to come but that’s the date. The purpose is to bring together student leaders from all walks of life at Cornell. Any little thing to improve student life, ways to get students involved to see what students use, how they use it, etc. in order to exchange ideas to make Cornell more sustainable.

Dining Announcement — Greg Mezey

There is a House Five faculty dinner. They have trayless dining, dinner is provided and it starts at 6:00 pm

VI. Business of the Day

‘SAFC Appeals’
!!!!Absolute Breakdance Club There are no representatives here. As a reminder: in the charter, it takes majority to uphold the decision and 2/3 majority to disapprove and come up with a new allocation if this is the case. If we don’t meet that, it would just divert back to the decision of the SAFC. The Chair can make or break the tie.

VP Mezey stated that SAFC voted 8–1 in not funding the request of $300. It was for a new stereo system. SAFC did not fund because they didn’t have an on campus storage location for the equipment they were requesting. They appealed under new information saying they got a locker in Bailey Hall. After going through it all, SAFC felt the locker wasn’t managed by group, it was in someone else’s name and didn’t meet guidelines.

The SAFC said that on page 36 of the SAFC guidelines, it states that they don’t fund for items that can’t be stored by the organization or advisor. This was rejected based on that it didn’t apply as new information.

VP Basil said this was pretty straightforward. In the initial case, he was the dissenting vote. Because the group isn’t present to argue the point, which wasn’t really strong, he called to question. It was seconded with no dissent.

The withholding of funding was upheld by a role call vote of 18–0−0.

COLA

SAFC said that to recap, in the original budget there was no room reservation or letter of intent. In the appeal, the group provided a letter of intent but didn’t have the correct time for that and didn’t have a letter with correct dates

Members of the group present were Marine, Alex Burg and Rob, all class of 2009. They decided to appeal because they were told that the reason they did not receive funding was no proof of contact prior to 9/16 deadline. There is an email with proof of contact before the deadline. They submitted information indicating the reason they did not include the letter which was because the person they wanted to invite wasn’t in the office Monday or Tuesday and did not submit room reservation because after speaking in the information sessions they did not want to request money for it. They have to reserve rooms with money so they decided it was necessary to submit new information. During the last hearing, it was quite clear they were pursuant in trying to submit their materials on time. Afterward, they were able to reserve 165 McGraw Hall. They took proactive measures to change the date from October 2- October 20. Everything was ready to happen up to the last appeal. The reason they did not receive funding was because they did not have a letter of intent. They did not think it was reasonable because proof of contact was submitted.

VP Mezey said that as you can see, the Appropriations Committee felt that the SAFC did uphold the guidelines. The vote was 8–0−2. They felt that the group didn’t follow funding guidelines and failed to meet these guidelines. They didn’t receive a room reservation. They didn’t submit proof of contact. That was what the committee went off of.

Questions and Discussion occurred next.

A. Brokman thought it was clear that the group was very pursuant. The SAFC did what they were supposed to do. But he thought the meaning of the rules is so you know that everything’s in order before you give money. We as a group made the rules or contributed to them at one point. If we’re going by the strict adherence, there’s no real point to having an appeals process whatsoever. But if we go by the intent, it’s clear this ruling needs to be overturned. They have everything they need. They made it clear that it needs to happen this season. He believes it’s very easy to make it happen and let the event move forward.

VP Miller asked the SAFC if they had received the letter of intent, proof of contact, and room reservation. SAFC responded that they did not receive proof of contact submitted to them, but it was provided to the Appropriations Committee. VP Miller asked if they were instructed to provide it. SAFC responded that they were. VP Miller asked if in previous funding cycles has COLA been funded by SAFC last semester. COLA responed that last year they were funded, and historically they have received funding. VP Miller asked if he was correct to assume COLA had followed the rules in the past. COLA replied that yes, they have. The reason why they didn’t was because they were working with a co-organization and there was a mix up with trying to get a room reservaton. That was not the reason why they decided to appeal. SAFC said that they did not submit a proof of contact prior to September 16, but they have contacted before then. They didn’t submit a letter of intent. They did not during the deadline because their advisor was out of the office. They explained this in the appeal. VP Miller asked if they could you have not submitted that. COLA responded that they did.

R. Lavin asked SAFC if they received proof of contact before the 16th. SAFC responded that it is there now, but was not then. R. Lavin asked when they did receive it. SAFC responded that they received it for the SA appeals. The letter for SAFC appeals was the proof of contact dated the 25th of September. They never received this until the appeal to the SA.

A Craig asked when groups are handing it in, does the material go to the SAFC and then the Appropriations Committee or just SAFC? R. Lavin responded that appeals go to the SAFC, then appropriations. A Craig wanted to know if the packets get changed after the SAFC appeal. He was told no. He then wanted to know how the material seemingly magically got into the budget. VP Mezey responded that they appealed to him, but there were two embedded things. He thinks Terri Ector in the office takes the email chain and staples it to the packet. If they did attach it in a unique way, this could be it.

R. Lavin asked how COLA submitted this to the SAFC. COLA responded that they submitted it prior to the September 16 deadline and upon realizing conflicts, changed the date. She spoke with someone to make sure it was fine. That’s the attachment she sent to VP Mezey. That was not the first time and was just to let them know that they changed the date and everyone’s okay with it. R. Lavin said that the original proof of contact is before the deadline. Hw wanted to know how was it sent to SAFC. COLA responded by paper. The sheet on the packet.

VP Miller said that it concerns him that the SAFC has hundreds of groups. He’s doubtful of the fact that it slipped through the cracks. He wanted to know if the event can go on if the receive the money. COLA responded that it could if they receive the money. The only reason they haven’t officially reserved a room is because they don’t want to reserve a room and not have the money to use it or put it at a disadvantage to students who could use it. VP Miller closed with the fact that COLA’s been funded for many years. The rules are known. They were not followed. As a well-established group, they should know the rules.

R. Stein said that they have dealt with other groups in similar situations this semester. They’ve all stuck to same story and groups were asking for a lot less. She felt that at this point they’ve all argued and made their points. People aren’t going to change mind now. She called to question. It was seconded but with dissent. R. Lavin decided to keep the speaker’s list open.

V. Andrews said that unlike VP Miller, he has a lot of faith in the group’s word. There are hundreds of groups, which is a lot of paper work. It does seem like a paper fell through the cracks. It happens in any type of organization. What is the function of the assembly? The group deserves the money. Where did these papers go? Obviously they’ve demonstrated that they can hold the event and be responsible. They deserve the money.

A. Craig would once again like to reiterate that he disagrees with VP Miller. No one is talking about non-faith. This is different. They’re making a decision. They talked about moving towards a new assembly. They didn’t want to see a lot of bickering and fighting. They said they wanted to build new representation to the student body. If you look at bulletin and the resolution regarding the direct election of the president are obvious examples of this. They don’t want to go back to this being “just another rule.” If you read the membership, they are responsible to the students. It seems like there is confusion. They need to analyze what they’re going to do. The whole point of the appeal process is to discuss. Again, he asked to follow the spirit not the letter of the law. Again maybe SAFC can respond if this wasn’t there or there was a mistake and is in the packets. He doesn’t understand why it’s available. In addition, they need to vote NO to disapprove. SAFC wanted to respond about the paper slipping through the cracks. It was reviewed by 3 commissioners, then the e-board. Then during the next one, it was reviewed by commissioners. He personally looked through it and sent it to appeals. If you look starting on first page of the email starting “Dear Greg Mezey and SAFC” and you look, it is all within the same email as an attachment that says sent September 14. It looks like she forwarded the email dated September 14. It has the email in question underneath it in the chain. It looks like if you follow the chain it’s included within the email chain to Greg Mezey required for the appeal.

E. Cusick replied that she was on the Appropriations Committee. And she remembered Marlene coming in and saying it was contingent on bringing in this semester. COLA said they wanted to bring them this semester because of the farm workers in the area. Into the spring is a lot harder. They want that because of the dynamics of the conversation will run differently. They are not there for the display purpose but to change the dynamics of the conversation. E Cusick said that it is almost November. Wouldn’t it be difficult for her to bring them without a date set? COLA said that if it does get approved, they already have begun to migrate but haven’t left entirely. That wouldn’t be an issue. E. Cusick yielded the rest of her time to S. Purdy.

S. Purdy said that he thinks the biggest thing is that the case is very similar to the Asian American case. That was a clear vote against them. In order to be consistent, they should look at that.

R. Salem just wanted to reiterate a few points. First is that they are asking for funding for an event open to the Cornell community to benefit everyone. What message is it sending to future groups if they deny them. It might be too difficult to try, so why do it. We do look at this on a case by case basis. The difference was maybe they (the Asian American group) didn’t state their case strongly enough. COLA has come and presented their case. It’s true that there are hundreds of applications. Couldn’t that make it more likely for one to slip through cracks? Punish them if you want, but don’t withhold full funding. Why would you stop an event from happening completely for one missed letter. It’s like a late paper. That’s why SA appeals are here.

VP Mezey said that what is important is to note where there is gray area. It’s up in the air. All of the SA as humans need to decide. He thinks the SA can add a human element to rigid guidelines. He yielded the rest of his time to R. Stein.

R. Stein wanted to know what the amount they would be agreeable to accept would be. COLA is uncomfortable saying without their speaker’s input. They would be willing to let the SA decide. R. Stein wanted to know the average attendance for events in the past. COLA responded that they are not entirely sure. Between 50–60 people, or a higher range between 40–70 is possible. It could be beyond that as well, there are reasons it’s important this semester. The issue is more important now than ever. R. Stein understood that the issue was important. How many seats were reserved for the room? COLA responded that there are 120 seats. This is important because there has been immigration in Niagra. People are being deported. R. Stein said that even though 50 or 60 have come in the past, you’re expecting 120 at a similar event. COLA said they want as many people as possible.

VP Basil said this has all been talking past each other. One half of the message is to humanize. The other half is about the rules. Neither side is talking to each other. This is really for facts. Looking at the issues, this is a group where the first contact was 9/14. Speaker responded with October 2 for the event date. That ended up being changed. Before deadline, there was no room reservation. This isn’t an issue of one piece of information missing or not having an email in. This really is an issue of where the group didn’t have its act together. He is all in favor of what’s best for the students but only so long as it comes from a group demonstrating the foresight an event of this magnitude. 100 dollars a head is an exorbitant amount. The point of this is to grant clemency for rules that don’t make sense. For instance one rule was that a group must have 50% undergrads and they were at something like 49.9997%. This is just lacking preparation for the event.

McDermott asked a point of information. On the original application the date is October 16th. Last part of our packet has that date. What’s that? COLA responded that was a different one. They have been in communication way before the deadline. For formality they decided to submit the 9/14 email. Their communication had been through the phone mostly. As they understood it, they can submit online but according to rules whatever’s on paper is the actual event. SAFC responded that in the initial budget, there was no room reservation. That is something they never fund for. There was no before and after room reservation. No chain of emails with contact before the specified date. Act consistent with previous actions. It is important to stay consistent. That tells groups they’re doing the process for a reason.

A. Craig would like to respond to a couple things. The group did say that they had been in contact before the deadline and email. The 16th is a deadline, 14th is NOT the deadline. They were thinking about this BEFORE the deadline. They are not bound by precedent. The have the ability to make decisions on a case by case basis. He did not bring all the notes from the Asian American forum. That case was a little different. They should not immediately assume it’s precedent. Additionally, he wanted to ask the SAFC if group submitted email afterwards, now proof there’s an email. How come this is not considered for the 75% funding. SAFC said that the speaker would, but there is still no room reservation. They would not be funded regardless. They need both the speaker AND room reservation. A. Craig believes it’s because they chose and had to move it to a different date. It’s now the 30th. They do not have a secure date because of funding. SAFC responded that the email not new information. They made room reservations after budget hearings.

R. Stein wanted to point out that the there is a lot of the “group said” and the “group thinks” but it is their responsibility to look at the evidence. There seem to be several issues. Think of where money comes from. She doesn’t want the student activity fee to go up any further. She yielded the rest of her time to VP Miller.

VP Miller responded that to A. Craig, he will concede to give the group the benefit of the doubt. Right now they have taken up two meetings to discuss SAFC appeals instead of gorge safety and such. It takes up too much time doing this. The facts are simple. The group didn’t have their act together. The money doesn’t disappear. It gets to help other groups next time around if there is a surplus. It will help groups that do play by the rules. They sent the RIGHT message with American Institution of Chemical Engineers. They sent PATCH the right message. They helped out the Big Red Bears. They’ve been sending plenty of the right messages. It is wrong to fully fund COLA.

R. Salem asked COLA to please explain why they didn’t reserve the room. COLA responded that on the original paper they didn’t request room reservation because they didn’t ask for the room to be funded. It was a discrepancy for the other organization co-funding the event. They did make a room reservation for October 2 which are not in the papers because we wanted to be proactive. Room reservation is from October 20. They decided to change the date. To clarify, they would have thought differently if they weren’t told they weren’t receiving funding because of proof of contact. There are not just 2 issues but 3. This whole process is very complicated. It’s a very difficult process that they trust you to vote on the fact that they did attempt to set the date and the meeting successfully until they were denied funding because of proof of contact. R. Salem asked if it was true that the reason is because of no proof of contact. SAFC responded that they believe in the organization budget they mentioned both. The rationale states no room reservation or proof of contact.

VP Basil called to question. It was seconded with no dissent.

R. Lavin clarified that if they were to vote yes it is for no funding, to uphold the decision. If they vote no it is to disapprove the committee’s decision.

SAFC responded that there are lots of people trying to add information. Either uphold or overturn the decision. They can’t do anything else. COLA thanked everyone for their time and consideration. They asked to consider the case holistically. By not funding, it doesn’t send a message to other groups. It sends the message to them that the event can’t happen.

By a roll call vote of 11–7−2, they uphold the decision. COLA receives no funding.

Final Student Assembly Budget Presentation — Greg Mezey

This is the SA budget for Fall 08 and Spring 09. This is meant to be a working budget. The balance from last year becomes the opening balance for this year plus what we get from the Student Activity fee. DUO is department use only. It helps keep track of where things are coming from.

In General. There is no accurate information for copies and administrative costs. Every year in the past it has come out to around $4,500. The assembly development is the ropes courses, training, food, copying with developing and training assembly, the events to outreach to constituencies. Under Communications there are advertising dollars, for facebook and the Sun. New promotions and initiatives, there’s the table banner, more professional help and promote. This is to get out in a new way to the community. Each committee was assigned a certain amount of money. It’s for copies, food, a clerk if necessary. Appropriations Committee is mainly copies and administrative purposes. There are large amounts of printing, several long lengthy meetings, food and paying a clerk to keep minutes. It’s a fast paced assembly style meeting. For Ivy council, Alex submitted a budget for Ivy Council, how much it costs, and projected cost. They decided to reduce based off what committee chairs need. Two groups listed at 100 weren’t as active, but they put it there in case they do become active. Student clerk is their salaries. This is compiled information based on number of hours worked, rates they are at, and how much time spent doing work. For fall elections, meetings again involve clerks, supplies, and food. The same is for spring elections. Spring increased because of the way we’re electing the President and Vice-President. SAFC costs were reduced by 1000 dollars. The amount of food was reduced. They consolidated other costs. They took the total amount they had and budgeted, which gives leftover special projects pool. This is for a special initiative to be funded. People can submit proposal to the Appropriations Committee. The final approval is then taken to the assembly.

R. Stein said that this looks great and is wonderful with a clear breakdown. She was under the impression that women’s issue had been inactive. Why were they funded? VP Mezey replied that it is no longer inactive VP Miller is the acting chair.

V. Andrews asked if this is the amount spent so far. VP Mezey replied that it is not. It’s a budget. V. Andrews asked if when VP Mezey submits it, will it say how much is left over? VP Mezey replied that yes, once it’s approved, he can assign costs. They have also been talking about posting it somewhere online.

R. Lavin wanted to know if VP Mezey wanted to address the working spreadsheet idea. VP Mezey said that they take this as starting point and online through a number of different options, i.e. logging on with Kerberos or something and be able to see the budget. It would be a read only kind of system to see what’s being allocated what’s hit the account, where the balance is, what’s outstanding. What is this or that for and where we’re going. It keeps a running log of what we’re spending and how we spent it.

VP Basil asked if committees needed funding would the money come out of special projects. VP Mezey replied that it would.

A. Craig asked if there were committees not utilizing funds, is it possible to reallocate the money. VP Mezey replied that it was, and they can take half the money and put it towards the bottom line. This is another function of readjusting the budget at midterm review.

M. McDermott said that looks great. He had an election specific question. Where is the quarter cards and posters provided to candidates allocated? VP Mezey replied that is a function of advertising. They can allocate resources within the amount in the way they see fit.

R. Salem asked what the point of giving inactive committees money was. VP Mezey said it is to have a small amount allocated in case. But if they’re not used they fall back into the pot. They look at what committees haven’t spent and re-allocate.

O. Sandoval noticed on that there was funding for shirts and there’s funding for SAFC shirts and where did that come from? He thought it was for SA shirts what happened. He thought it was great idea. VP Mezey said that after talking to Nikki, he didn’t feel that it had to be a specific line item. It would come from under new promotions and initiatives. As committee chair she could say we can allocate to shirts. In SAFC, it is something provided to new commissioners for hearings and sessions that way they’re easily identified and look professional.

E. Diakow asked to explain special projects, if there is a formal process, and how they decide. VP Mezey said that you the submit request, detail the project, and how it is sustained. It is then submitted to the Appropriations Committee. They look up the merits of the project. E Diakow asked if then they vote. VP Mezey replied yes.

A. Latella wanted to add a little more onto what A. Craig was saying. The Ivy leadership Summit is probably not going to be 4500 dollars.

VP Miller said this looks great. He called to question. It was seconded with no dissent. By a roll call vote of 14–0−1, the budget passes.

VII. Unfinished Business

R.11 Student Assembly Absentee Policies — Tony Miller

The only thing to change should be “semester” not “year”. It shouldn’t say bylaw; it should be section. Again this is more like a stopgap. Hopefully it will work. There was a motion to table; it was seconded because 2/3 of the assembly isn’t here.

VIII. New Business

R.12 P&T Handbook Test — Becca Smith

Basically, the idea of the resolution is to keep all members informed of SAFC policy and because appeals is necessary for us to know the rules and what allows groups to get funding. It requires everyone on SA to take the test which all presidents and treasurers have to take.

VP Mezey thought this is wonderful. It will clarify a lot of questions during appeals. It is for groups and SAFC and to help interpret confusion. It just goes to show how confusing the process is and need to have a good grasp of the rules. They need to be as educated as possible. This didn’t go through in the past but needs to be moved forward with. There is a lot of stuff to know. For someone not interacting with it all the time, it is tough.

VP Miller wanted to move it to business of the day to be voted on, if it pleased the chairman so they could vote. R. Lavin decided not to, due to the time.

A Craig thought it is a good idea which will help us. He feels like it might be more beneficial to have all representatives here to understand. He does not recommend moving it.

E Diakow really liked it but wanted to know the possibility of taking it as a group test. R. Lavin replied that it is a possibility. This just requires it to be taken. Everyone does have to complete it online.

A Craig wanted to know if they are charged an absence if they don’t pass the test. R. Lavin replied that you cannot fail the test. It is not possible.

M. Heinz said that mostly reasons why things are appealed is due to extenuating circumstances. When it comes to following rules, he will take the SAFC at truth. He doesn’t think it’s necessary for the entire assembly to know every single rule. The assembly is to hear other extenuating things that might be exceptions.

IX. Adjournment

R. Lavin adjourned the meeting at 6:30 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,
Brittany Rosen