Student Assembly

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

I. Call to Order

R. Lavin called the meeting to order at 4:45 P.M.

II. Roll Call

Assembly Members Present: Vincent Andrews, Nathaniel Baker, Chris Basil, Asa Craig, Emily Cusick, Luis De Lencquesaing, Emlyn Diakow, Lauren Engelmyer, Michael Heinz, Nikki Junewicz, Nikhil Kumar, Alex Latella, Ryan Lavin, Mike McDermott, Tony Miller, Scott Purdy, Natalie Raps, Rammy Salem, Octavio Sandoval, Eric Shannon, Becca Smith, Rebecca Stein, Yuan Yao

Assembly Members Excused: Greg Mezey

Assembly Members Unexcused: Andrew Brokman

Liaisons Present: Sanjiv Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes — October 16, 2008; October 30, 2008

There were no corrections to the minutes from the October 16, 2008 S.A. meeting. There was a call for acclimation. A. Craig seconded the motion. Seeing no dissent, the minutes were approved.

There were no corrections to the minutes from the October 30, 2008 S.A. meeting. There was a call for acclimation. There was a second. Seeing no dissent, the minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

R. Lavin asked if any members of the audience wished to speak about items that were not on the agenda.

No one came forward.

V. Announcements/Reports

Residential Life Committee Update — Nikhil Kumar

N. Kumar updated the assembly regarding the meetings and activities of the Residential Life Committee.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions.

There were none.

Student Climate Action Committee Announcement — Emlyn Diakow

E. Diakow said that the Student Climate Action Plan Committee is putting on a Student Leaders Charette for Neutrality on Saturday, November 15 from 11:00–1:30 in the Flora Rose Dining Hall. There will be brunch and snacks as the 50–100 student leaders discuss how to work towards neutrality in the themes of life, work, and play. All assembly members are invited and really expected to be there as elected student leaders.

T. Miller asked if there were any particular issues that assembly members should be aware of before attending the meeting.

E. Diakow said that no particular preparation is needed.

R. Lavin said that he spoke with M. Walsh, graduate elected student trustee, who has been very involved in campus sustainability. He said it he thinks it would be wise for all assembly members to be expected to attend the event.

B. Smith asked if assembly members could bring friends that have an interest in the issues being discussed.

E. Diakow said that assembly members could feel free to contact her with the names of individuals that would like to participate and that something could be worked out.

R. Lavin asked if there were any other questions.

There were none.

Academic Integrity Update — Chris Basil

C. Basil said that he, K. Duch, Student Trustee, and S. Tata met with the faculty chairs of the academic integrity hearing boards for each college last week. The overall tone of the meeting was very positive. Going forward, he K. Duch, and S. Tata will be working with Dean Fry and Dean Walcott to basically reformat how committees consider the best way to move forward He will keep the assembly informed about how this is going.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions for C. Basil.

There were none.

Women’s Issues Committee Update — Tony Miller

T. Miller said that he was happy to announce that the S.A.’s Committee on Women’s issues met for the first time this semester on Monday, November 3. Since the committee has not met for a few years, this meeting was a very important first step. An S.A. liaison is still needed for the committee. In the meantime, the committee discussed the clerical work of and policy changes that will be implemented regarding the Women’s Resource Center (WRC. Currently, the WRC and the Sexual Violence Resistance Network are working together to look into getting consent education into part of Cornell’s orientation programs. The WRC is also looking to increase sexual health awareness on campus and other long term issues mainly directed at freshman and incoming students. The committee will be meeting on Mondays and all assembly members are welcome to attend.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions for T. Miller.

There were none.

JAFARC — Rammy Salem

R. Salem said the Joint Assemblies Financial Aid Review Committee (JAFARC) met the previous evening. The committee will be discussing ways to have more of a student voice on financial aid issues. The committee also discussed ways to encourage students in any type of financial emergency to talk to their financial aid representatives.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions for R. Salem.

There were none.

Additional Announcements and Reports

A. Craig said that it was very special to see on the activism of students on campus on Election Day. He said that he really hasn’t seen such a collective excitement on campus aside from Slope Day. Hopefully, there is some sort of way to focus such activism on student government.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions for A. Craig.

There were none.

M. McDermott said that the Elections Committee met the previous evening and discussed rules for the Spring elections for the first time. He thanked those assembly members who either attended the meeting or emailed input. He said that the committee will be holding an open forum session where students and assembly members can let the committee know their ideas about the direct election of the S.A. President and Vice President on Wednesday, November 12 at 4:30P.M. in Stimson 116. There may be a room change. At the meeting, the committee will be brainstorming and setting objectives as to how the direct elections system will work. He really wants to see student input. The rules will be written on the following Saturday. Although the assembly has oversight over the rules once they come before it later in the year, he would really like to see assembly members’ input now so that issues can be addressed in drafting the rules.

R. Lavin asked if there were any questions for M. McDermott.

There were none.

R. Lavin said that representatives from the consulting firm through the Master Planning Committee want to hear the assembly’s input on the master plan for housing and dining programs. The firm will be coming to the November 20th S.A. meeting. The meeting will be extended to 7:30P.M. The firm will be providing dinner. It will be a very important meeting and it is fortunate that the group is reaching out to the assembly. Additionally, each Friday morning at 10:30 A.M. in Day Hall B1 representatives from the S.A., the SAFC and the Office of the Assemblies have been meeting to discuss the Student Activity Fee allocation process. The process will be theoretically revamped which will take time and discussion. All representatives are welcome to attend these Friday morning meetings. After hearing SAFC appeals he is sure that many assembly members have opinions regarding the process. Lastly, the Slope Day Programming Board will be coming in the present the attendance statistics at next week’s assembly meeting. The statistics, which will show the breakdown of undergraduate and graduate attendance, will allow the assemblies to address the by-line funding equitability issue. He asked if there were any other questions.

R. Salem asked T. Miller if he had filled certain committee vacancies.

T. Miller said that there have been multiple people that have responded to him. He will be working with the office to see if there are any online applications sent in as well. It is better that the seats be filled sooner than later so the process might be expedited.

R. Salem asked when T. Miller would be accepting committee applications until.

T. Miller said probably up through the next week since the process should be expedited.

R. Lavin clarified that the online application is always available. People can apply at any time and therefore may be appointed if vacancies become available. He asked if there were any questions.

VI. Business of the Day

Vice President for Information Technologies, Polley McClure

M. Heinz thanked P. McClure for attending the meeting that evening. He said that he understood that there were two issues on which she hoped to receive feedback from the assembly. He turned it over to her to present these issues.

Cornell-RIAA File Sharing Notification Policy

R. Lavin said that M. McDermott would be the last speaker regarding the Cornell-RIAA File Sharing Notification Policy. The assembly has spent good deal of time has been spent discussing the issue and still needs to address the Cornell E-Book Policy.

P. McClure said that she is interested in hearing assembly members’ opinions on issues relating to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). This is the law that says that it is illegal to share copyrighted material without permission. Therefore, as many students are aware, a lot of music and movie sharing occurring is not strictly legal. She said to keep in mind that she is not a lawyer. The DMCA essentially evokes the university’s involvement in two different ways. If an entertainment industry representative believes that a computer at Cornell has transmitted copyright materials without permission, the university’s obligation as an institution is slightly different based on whether the person being accused of a violation is an employee or not an employee. If the accusation is that an employee illegally uploaded copyrighted material, the university is legally responsible. If the accusation is that a student illegally uploaded copyrighted material, the university really is in a different position in that it is not legally responsible for student behavior. The university’s relationship to the issue becomes one of any other internet service provider. The university has no way of monitoring or controlling the behavior of private citizens who are using the Cornell network. When a representative from the entertainment industry believes that a violation has taken place, that representative will send a DMCA notice to the university. Essentially the notice says that if the accused offender is an employee, the university is responsible for stopping the illegal activity immediately and taking disciplinary action. If the accusation is against a student on the residence hall network, the university is not required to take action. The university has however been letting students know and asking that the illegal material be removed after deciding that it is really important to let students know that they have been identified by industry representatives. By informing students in this manner, the university feels that it is providing students with the opportunity to remedy the situation before it escalates. The university has also been asking students to explain why they do not believe that their activity is illegal if they feel that it is not. She said that the university receives many DCMA notices. The entertainment industry has also been taking a second step which is to send what is called a settlement letter to the university and asking that the university forward the letter to the guilty party at Cornell. This is done indirectly because the industry does not know the identity of the accused party. All the industry knows is the offending IP address. Of course the university does not want to inform the industry of the identity of the individual using the offending IP address. The university has however chosen to forward settlement letters to students. The settlement letters basically indicate that entertainment industry representatives believe that the individual has transmitted copyrighted material without permission and that they are about to issue a subpoena for information to document the case and take legal action. In the settlement letter they also say, however if you contact us, you can arrange a settlement before engaging the legal process. Many people have settled upon receiving such letters. She is not certain but she is told that settlements really range from two to three thousand dollars. The conundrum here is that the university is not legally required to forward DMCA notices and settlement letters. They could throw the letters in the trash or tell the industry that they will not be forwarding letters. The university’s decision to forward both letters has been based on the belief that it is in students’ best interest to be made aware of accusations against them and to give them the opportunity to take advantage of settlement offers. More recently, people have been saying that universities have been putting themselves in a difficult position and that they have really been aiding the entertainment industry by being cooperative in forwarding letters. Maybe universities should have just told entertainment industry representatives that enforcement of the DMCA is not their problem. She said that the university’s decision regarding the forwarding of such letters will ultimately be made by administrators based on a number of criteria. One such criterion is student input on the issue which is why she is currently before the assembly. She said that she is interested in receiving feedback from the assembly on Cornell’s RIAA File Sharing Notification Policy.

R. Lavin said that he could not thank P. McClure enough for reaching out to the assembly because obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to both forwarding DMCA notices and settlements letters and not forwarding them. He said that he understands the settlement letters and the opportunities that these give to students. He asked P. McClure to elaborate on what the entertainment industry accomplishes in sending the DMCA notices and how they differ from settlement letters.

P. McClure said that there are many more DMCA notices than settlement letters. These notices ask the university to cease and desist from the alleged infringement. If the accusation is against a university employee, Cornell does so. If the accusation is against a student, she said that she believes that students IP address is blocked and that the university then communicates with that student giving them the opportunity to stop the illegal behavior or to explain why they do not think the behavior is illegal. The DCMA letters are letting students know that someone believes that they are engaging in illegal file sharing.

R. Stein thanked P. McClure for attending the assembly meeting. She said that she had a question about the settlement letters. She asked what would happen to students if the university chooses not to forward the letters. She confirmed that the industry could subpoena student identities based on IP addresses. She asked if P. McClure had any idea of what the cost of subpoenaing such information would be to the industry.

P. McClure said that she was not sure what the cost to the industry would be but that it is not inconsequential.

R. Stein said that she definitely thinks that students should be given the DMCA notices but that she is not convinced that settlement letters should be forwarded. If there is any way that the university could prevent students from having to pay thousands of dollars in settlements that would be great. Perhaps some type of J.A. process could be implemented. Some universities block student computers for a very lengthy time which could also be an effective deterrent.

P. McClure clarified that by sending the settlement letters, the university is not helping the industry in any direct sense. The university does not tell the industry who the students are. All the university does is forward the information on to students. In this way students can take advantage of an opportunity to settle if they choose to do so.

R. Stein asked if students are aware that the industry does not who they are. She would imagine that is students are aware of this, they would not choose to settle waiting instead for the industry to come after them.

P. McClure said although it would pose a cost to the industry to go after students directly it would also potentially pose a great cost to students.

R. Stein asked if students would have the opportunity to settle if they did not ever receive or take action on settlement letters. If the university informed the industry that they would not forward settlement letters, what would the industry’s next step be.

P. McClure said she has no way of knowing for sure. The industry certainly wants individuals to think that the opportunity to settle would largely be lost if students did not respond to settlement letters and if the industry had to subpoena the student’s information and files. She emphasized that the university has no way of knowing what even happens between students and the industry after they forward the settlement letters to students. Last year she tried to find out and couldn’t because settlement is a private transaction between students and industry representatives. It is likely that universities other than Cornell have been engaging in a similar process and facing the same difficulties. At this point however many are beginning to rethink their policies just as Cornell is.

E. Cusick asked how the people from the industry get the information that certain IP addresses may be violating the DMCA.

P. McClure said that the industry has technology that looks through the network and hard drives. If there is copyrighted property that the feel belongs to them in the peer-to-peer directories, they infer that a potential violation has occurred. It is a fine legal point.

M. Heinz said that forwarding settlement letters seems like a great thing to do. However, in many cases, the industry may not actually have enough information to present a case in court. Therefore students may end up paying settlements when they would not be found guilty in court. He thinks that in not forwarding letters Cornell would be protecting students from being bullied by the industry.

P. McClure said that she does not think that the university would be protecting students in not forwarding the letters. Instead the university is giving students the opportunity to act if they feel that it is in their best interest to do so.

M. Heinz asked if any additional information is sent to students accompanying the settlement letters. Is any advice provided to students?

P. McClure said that she believes that a cover letter advising students and their parents to consult their private legal counsel is included. The university really does not want to give institutional advice and is really not in the place to do so.

In response to a question asked by M. Heinz. P. McClure confirmed that the settlement letters have a time frame for settlement.

In response to a question asked by V. Andrew, P. McClure said that she believes that the university had been subpoenaed once or twice.

V. Andrews said he believes the university’s decision to forward letters is facilitating the industry’s ability to move forward against students.

In response to a question asked by V. Andrews, P. McClure said that she believes that the industry knows that the settlement letters are being forwarded to students.

The assembly continued discussion on the Cornell-RIAA File Sharing Notification Policy (see audio).

Cornell E-Book Policy

Since the assembly had spent a good deal of time discussing the Cornell-RIAA File Sharing Notification Policy, the assembly and P. McClure decided to save the discussion of the Cornell E-Book Policy for a later date.

P. McClure said that basically Cornell is interested in pursuing the topic. She said that students may be familiar with the Amazon Kindle, an electronic book reader. The company is interested in looking into a similar option for Cornell. The question would be whether or not students would want to get all their books on a single device like the Kindle. Typically, electronic books are cheaper than hardcopy books. It is a complicated issue that will take much longer to discuss. She is very interested in the assembly’s input.

R. Lavin thanked P. McClure on behalf of the assembly for attending the meeting. He wondered if she wanted a short summary of what seemed to be the general sentiment of the assembly. He asked if P. McClure had received the feedback she was seeking regarding the Cornell-RIAA File Sharing Notification Policy.

P. McClure briefly summarized the input given by assembly members. The general lay of the land is that nobody likes the situation. Under the circumstances that exist, she feels, that the general consensus is that it is a good idea for Cornell and the administration to give students all the information that the university has about the issue. Also, if the university is a position to provide help or resources, they should do so.

R. Lavin said that he feels that the issue is one that should continue to be addressed by the assembly over the course of the year. He said that one of the CIT Committee’s charges for the rest of the semester and the year will be to do all the research and see how Cornell can educate or provide information and logistics without providing legal advice. Again, he thanked P. McClure for reaching out to the assembly.

P. McClure thanked the assembly for their input.

VII. Unfinished Business

R.11 Student Assembly Absentee Policies — Tony Miller

R. Lavin informed the assembly that the resolution was reprinted because it was supposed to be changed.

T. Miller confirmed that the 4th whereas clause should read, “Whereas, it is reasonable to expect that each member attend at least 20 of these meetings during each year” not each semester. He briefly summarized the resolution which had already been presented to the assembly. The basic purpose is to ensure that assembly members do not get kicked off the assembly if they miss meetings for legitimate reasons.

A. Craig said that the assembly should look at the resolution from the perspective of the greater student body. It is in the best interest of the constituents that representatives are at as many meetings as possible. He does not necessarily think that the resolution is the best solution to attendance issues. He suggested perhaps having representatives who have missed a specific number of meetings come before the assembly in closed session to discuss their attendance issues in a productive manner.

R. Stein said a lot of assembly members would have no one to replace them if their seat were to be vacated. The assembly must bear in mind what is best for constituents. Of course it is best to have representatives who attend every meeting but things come up. It is better to have a representative who misses a couple of meetings than to have an empty seat that results from kicking off an assembly member. She agrees with some of the ideas presented by A. Craig. Regardless of what the assembly decides, they need to make sure that they are serving the interest of constituents/students in the end.

V. Andrews said the attendance policy approved by the assembly should come into effect next year. Changing the attendance policy partway through the term is a distortion of power.

T. Miller said that the assembly needs to look at the broader picture. He would be willing to make the attendance requirements more strict if that means more representatives would support it. He confirmed that the assembly is clarifying the rule as opposed to changing it. There was no previous distinction between excused and unexcused absences which he believes hurt Cornell Students as a whole.

In response to a question asked by E. Diakow, R. Lavin confirmed that if a seat is vacated for any reason, the next runner up in the election will take the seat. There are currently a number of seats for which there are no runner ups. At-large runner ups are eligible to fill vacant college seats. Yes, there can be appointments. But appointed assembly members, do not have the right to vote and act as liaisons from the student body. A special election would follow to fill vacant seats.

R. Stein, point of information, asked how many at-large runner ups are currently available to fill assembly seats if they are vacated.

No one knew for certain. T. Miller said that he believes that there were at three runner ups in the at-large election.

A. Latella asked T. Miller to confirm what was meant in the resolution by the phrase considered vacated. He said that he supports the idea that A. Craig proposed related to bringing individuals before the assembly for attendance issues as opposed to selecting a somewhat arbitrary number of permitted absences. In this way the assembly can take into consideration what would be best for students instead of having seats considered vacant after a certain number of absences.

T. Miller said that he took the phrase considered vacated from the Charter and could not say specifically why it was worded in such a way. He said that the assembly can certainly look into bringing individuals before the assembly if representatives would like to do so.

A. Latella said that he would like to see an attendance policy that does not automatically vacate seats.

R. Lavin encouraged representatives with prospective changes to amend the resolution.

E. Cusick seconded A. Latella. Instead of being strict the assembly could enact a policy of compromise. Allowing a gray area through presentation to the assembly, could work in the best interest of students.

C. Basil read from the Charter. As it stands there is no sort of appeals process for representatives who are considered to have vacated their seats as a result of violation of the attendance policy.

B. Smith yielded her time to A. Craig.

In response to a request for clarification from A. Craig, T. Miller said that representatives email him saying that they will be missing meetings for legitimate reasons. The only effect of having an excused absence is to be able to have a proxy vote. If representatives are unexcused, they do not have the ability to pass a proxy vote. The resolution will allow for delineation between the two types of absences in the absence policy. His rationale is that legitimate excuses should be given more consideration when considering vacancy.

M. Heinz said that the point of the resolution is to differentiate between excused and unexcused. In passing the resolution the assembly lowers the number of unexcused absences that are considered unacceptable. He called to question.

R. Salem seconded the motion.

R. Stein dissented. She said that she feels that there is still a lot to discuss.

By a hand vote of 12–5−0, the previous question was called.

By a roll call vote of 13–5−0, Resolution 11 passed.

R.12 P&T Handbook Test — Becca Smith

B. Smith said that the point of the resolution is to make all assembly members more aware of the SAFC policies and guidelines. As evidenced from the last two weeks of appeals, it is really important that the assembly knows what the rules are and what the effects of their decisions on appeals really means.

C. Basil said that this is his third year on the assembly and the third time he has seen a resolution with the goal of getting all assembly members to take the P&T Handbook Test. These resolutions failed the past two years because some assembly members didn’t feel that the penalty of an unexcused absence for not taking the test was appropriate. Very rarely is anyone opposed to actually taking the test. Again, they are opposed to the penalty for not taking the test. He however feels that the penalty is appropriate. It is an entirely laudable goal to make sure that assembly members are more aware of SAFC policies and procedures. He supports Resolution 12.

M. Heinz said that he does not think that is necessary to have the requirement in the S.A. bylaws. The SAFC is aware of the rules and can then present them to the S.A. during appeals as they explain why the commission made the determination it did. It is then up to the S.A. to evaluate the appeal from a broader perspective. It is not necessary for the S.A. to be aware of every little rule.

B. Smith said that she does not think that assembly members can just be made aware of the rules when the appeal is presented to the assembly. The point of taking the test to help assembly members gain awareness of and appreciation for the entire process not just to know the specific rules. People really can’t process a general presentation of the rules fifteen minutes before appeals start. There are a lot of steps in the funding process and the assembly should be aware of its own process.

R. Salem said that he thinks that there is a fundamental difference between having someone tell you something for the first time and knowing it yourself. If he was a part of a student group presenting an appeal, he would wonder why assembly members get to make the ultimate decision when they do not have complete familiarity with the rules. Because they are elected by the students, representatives should take responsibility for knowing SAFC policies and procedures. He doesn’t see why taking the test would be an added burden on anyone.

O. Sandoval said he agrees with M. Heinz in that he doesn’t see the necessity of taking the test when the background information is presented to assembly members prior to appeals. Also, not being able to fail the test undermines its significance.

T. Miller said that all assembly members take a Charter test at the beginning of fall semester because it is best for them to know the S.A. Charter. As those representatives who have looked at the Charter know, the SAFC is a committee of the Student Assembly. The assembly ought to be familiar with its committees. He thinks that it would be very irresponsible towards the students if the assembly takes their money and is not familiar with the policies for allocating it. It is the assembly’s duty to be responsible with students’ money and to understand how the appeals process works.

V. Andrews said that even though the assembly looks at broader circumstances in considering appeals it is important that members are aware of the funding process.

R. Stein said that she does not understand how anybody in the room could find that it is unnecessary to take the test. The assembly allocates so much money to different groups and makes decisions with the students’ money. The assembly cannot possibly know whether or not the SAFC erred if they don’t know the rules themselves. What is not to gain by requiring assembly members to take the test?

L. De Lencquesaing said that he agrees with R. Stein. Because you can’t fail, you are required to keep going through the test so that you learn the correct answers and thus the policies. The test is more so what it means to receive and spend money not just small details. This should not be a contentious issue. The assembly should be prepared for the appeals process. If assembly members are unaware of the process they seem out of touch.

A. Latella said that he would like to second the views of T. Miller, R. Stein and L. De Lencquesaing. In addition, for those who think the unexcused absence penalty is inappropriate, he does not see a problem with the penalty. If an assembly member shows up to an appeals meeting unprepared they may as well not be there. Anyone voting against this resolution is really just being lazy.

N. Junewicz seconded what other representatives had been saying. She thinks that passing the resolution is a great idea�anything that makes the assembly stronger as group is important. Groups come before the assembly during appeals expected them to be professional. It reflects badly when assembly members whisper to each other to try and figure out appeals situations when groups are presenting.

A. Craig said that he sees both sides of the issue. It really does help to have an understanding of the system. But at the same time, it behooves the assembly to have an understanding of the system but not a great exactness of knowledge. For him the whole point of the appeals process is getting a third opinion. Otherwise, the assembly is just the same as the SAFC. Maybe knowledge of SAFC funding policies and procedures could be incorporated into fall orientation.

E. Shannon said that the assembly has probably spent more time just now talking about the exam than it would actually take to take the exam.

R. Lavin called to question on the resolution.

By a roll call vote of 19–0−0, Resolution 12 passed unanimously.

VIII. Adjournment

R. Lavin concluded the meeting and said that the assembly would go into Executive Session.

Respectfully Submitted,

Liz Patrun
S.A. Clerk