Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
February 19, 2009
4:45 — 6:30pm
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, E. Diakow, M. Heinz, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, A. Latella, R. Lavin, M. McDermott, G. Mezey, T. Miller, N. Raps, R. Salem, O. Sandoval, E. Shannon, Y. Yao

Representatives Excused: L. DeLencquesaing, A. Garcia-Verdin, B. Smith, R. Stein

Liaisons Present: S. Tata

Liaisons Absent: A. Miller

III. Approval of the Minutes — February 12, 2009

There was a call for acclimation. It was seconded without dissent. The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

No one came forth to speak on Open Microphone

V. Moment of Silence for the Hydraulics Lab

VI. Announcements/Reports

Elections Update — Mike McDermott

M. McDermott apologized for the missing names in the Sun. This year there was a record number of at large candidates. There is a total of 45 candidates for SA and UA. There are 2 unopposed races and 3 positions which won’t be filled. In spring of 2008, there were 26 candidates and six races unopposed. In the Spring of 2007 there were 24 candidates with 8 unopposed races. They’re almost back to where they were back when tickets were allowed. Tomorrow is a mandatory campaign meeting. There will be updates at the mandatory meeting with changes to the calendar and more events added. He wishes people the best of luck. The meeting is in 163 day hall at five pm.

ResLife Committee Update — Nikhil Kumar

They had a meeting last Monday. They went looking for volunteers for guide committee. It looks at ways to reduce cost of the university. Forward to his name if you’re interested. There has been a lack of interest in program houses. They’ve been trying to ramp up interest in that. If you’re a freshmen or have friends who are freshmen, encourage them to sign up for the lottery. They’re looking for ways to utilize the group after the lottery. Finally, he got an email from off campus housing office about tenants rights and responsibilities. They have a meeting on March 9 at four pm. He will send an email about that.

CIT Committee Update — Mike Heinz

Polly was talking about letters students were getting in the mail and students didn’t know what to do. Best way is to ask recipients of letters what they were about, what they ended up doing, etc. They’re putting together a short questionnaire for all students. It’ll be anonymous through her. Next week he’ll bring the survey to the assembly and present it. If you want a bigger hand in making it, come Tuesday February 24 in 605 Willard Straight at the CIT meeting.

N Kumar thought the RAA switched their strategy over suing people.

M Heinz wasn’t sure if they have or if it’s true. Thinks it would be good regardless.

University Bias-Related Incident Protocol — Nikhil Kumar and Rammy Salem

N Kumar said that last semester they talked to a lot of people regarding it. Right now there’s a program that if anyone sees or experiences a bias related incident, there’s a whole procedure. There’s concern that it’s more about gathering info than exploring. If anyone’s interested in helping with the process, give your names to R Salem or N Kumar.

SA Newsletter Announcement — Nikki Junewicz

VP Junewicz said that the newsletter is completed and she would appreciate help distributing it within college and constituency. It’s available on the website as well.

Zimride Update — VP Miller

VP Miller replied that they have purchased the contract however after talking with Peggy Beach, they realized there was an administrator needed. There is a transportation advisory committee meeting tomorrow in day hall and hopefully they will get more information about that.

First Annual Summit International Women’s Issues In Global Health and Development Announcement — A. Latella

A fellow Icy League Summit member is hosting this and it is happening from March seventh, 9 am- 9pm in the biotech building. There’s more information on the website and he’ll forward it out.

Other Announcements - Eric Shannon

With Ivy Council, there is an LGBTQ conference this spring. They’re currently deciding when and where. If you’re interested in going or participating let him know and he’ll keep everyone posted.

VII. Business of the Day

Letter of Expectations to By-line Funded Groups — Ryan Lavin

R. Lavin read this aloud to the group as it was just given out today.

A Craig was reading over and thinking of things talked about. In the second paragraph for groups that don’t submit, will there be a penalty? R Lavin said that they’re discussing and voting on this in appendix A. Previous cycles need to have their applications in the spring semester. At that meeting there was concern that it wasn’t enough time, that the fiscal year ends in June. It was inefficient. The timeline allows SA to see what people’ll be applying for and nothing’s official till September but is mandatory. A Craig said that in 3rd paragraph, he mentioned last week newer groups who’ve asked for a certain amount, is there a way to say extenuating circumstances because groups have grown. Perhaps there’s a way to put that in. R Lavin said perhaps we could exchange the no expansion of programming. A Craig said that if there’s a group operating for ten years versus new group in 06 and only had five members but now have more members by nature of their growth, so we can’t penalize newer groups. R Lavin understands that but if you’re spelling out exceptions, it becomes less of a standard. This is a letter of expectations. And it’s a new assembly next year. It’s not an end all be all. They know what they’re doing in terms of financing. If they NEED it, they’ll still apply for it. He can put in there exceptions will be entertained by the SA but thinks that’s inherent. A Craig appreciates that there’s some way to get at that. R Lavin will have another final draft next week.

V Andrews said that it might be nitpicking, but theoretically no expansion could be changed to no monetary expansion. R Lavin said he’s going to strike that, as it doesn’t sound nice.

E. Diakow thinks that expansion should take place through internal cuts and moving money around. She thinks no monetary expansion, but encouraging internal moving it around.

VP Basil asked if the letter on April 27 is a hard and fast allocation request. VP Mezey responded that it’s a projection. A. Epstein replied that there was a meeting with advisors of student organizations who received byline funding. A number of concerns were that they had a rough agreement and then appendix a came from that and a meeting with Greg. The details will change a bit as appendix a is reviewed and finalized. Appendix a says that the spring deadline for new organizations need 1500 signs. And total funding amount and contact info. The idea is that outgoing VP of Finance can report to people for next year the amount of requests and broad picture. They still have till Friday in third week of classes to submit the details.

R Salem asked if so it’s not binding but if for some reason the assembly decides to make it null and void, how much time would they have to apply for more funding. R Lavin replied that it is a hard question. VP Mezey said that the biggest thing is what stipulates it, which is appendix a. Regardless of the letter, it’s what goes into appendix A that matters. R. Lavin replied that this was written as a request from advisors. They wanted to know what’s going on with SAF. It’s clear that it’s not binding but being as fiscally responsible as possible. With the new timeline, there’s more opportunity for aggregate planning of student activity fee.

VIII. Unfinished Business

R.23 Appendix B Changes — Greg Mezey

There’s one change under CUEMS. The addition was made, taking out the part about the defibrillator. They don’t cost $7,000 anymore. The $5,000 per year for new vehicle was moved around as they wanted it for a more general sense, new equip, etc. That’s where the reserve fund comes in. That was the major addition. All of it should’ve been added at the end of last year. The athletics portion and minds matter, should’ve been added last year but never got done.

R. Salem remembers bringing it up last year. Why are they stipulating minds matter report activities and not all the groups. VP Mezey said he believes they were a newly funded group, and because they were new, they wanted to be able to address all the issues and such

There was a call for acclimation. It was changed to a call to question. It was seconded without dissent. By a roll call vote of 18–0−0 it was approved.

IX. New Business

R.24 Appendix A Changes — Greg Mezey

These changes need to happen. After discussing with several different organizations, advisors, leaders, members of the assembly and the office, they decided to make revisions, updates and streamline the process. Appendix A was last revisited in the spring of 2004. The strike through aren’t drastic changes. This procedure lays out the process talked about with deadline. A3 there are some page limits discussed and decided to put in because last year, the cost of copies were between 1 and 2 thousand dollars. It was an incredible amount of waste. Page limits put in there and discussed with the advisors. This forces them to have concise language.

First section in section a, some changes about page limits, due dates. Changes are meeting 3–4 times per week and report actions to assembly. The week before the appropriations committee meets with group, budget packets are sent out electronically to the assembly so they can review them ahead of time. They can come to the appropriations committee meeting or submit questions. They’re hoping to change balance of assembly members to non-SA members. That way it’s SA with some other undergrads. The hope is that the appropriations committee will come back; then it can be motioned to disapprove. Then the following week, the group will be called in. They can ask questions, basically another budget hearing. Logic was no point for appropriations committee. They’re trying to streamline the process.

R. Lavin reminded that today was only questions.

V Andrews asked what is to him the biggest change that’s taken place. VP Mezey said that he hopes to next week change structure of appropriations committee and make it a true SUB committee, ability where appropriations committee does its job, and then submits final process and then that is approved by assembly, not having 2 budget hearings. If assembly wants to allocate money in that way, get rid of app committee. Based on committee structure and nature of SA to do more than just hand out money, that cultural shift that we don’t need to hear everything, job of VP Finance to say here was vote on this. It was a close vote. Then assembly member/committee member can discuss it. Also streamlining. V Andrews asked if that was in there VP Mezey said that it was not amended yet. V Andrews replied that this is how it’s decided and assembly is.. VP Mezey said that they are the approval/disapproval and not funding hearing. V Andrews asked where that is in the document. VP Mezey replied that it was in Section C.

R Lavin said that last year it was two of the same hearings. They can disapprove by 2/3 vote. This treats it AS a committee. Instead of voting to approve OR disapprove, there’s the opportunity to disapprove but doesn’t have to come back.

VP Basil has reservations especially about B and particularly C. He thinks in the real world there exists a committee and leg structure to debate every issue twice so things can’t be pushed through quickly. What will happen is appropriations committee will vote on something, then it will be presented as an announcement with then opportunity to dissent. It’s very quick, cursory and he doesn’t like it. He thinks there are a lot of problems with us pushing through byline funding cause of dealing with 2.5 million dollars. Are you concerned about that? VP Mezey said that it will come down to who is leading the assembly. It’s up to the chair. It is their job as student leaders to do work before meetings start. He doesn’t think we should take time and be ill prepared just by reading through something in the middle of the meeting. Because of the importance of this, the assembly will HAVE to be responsible and then bring to assembly and take active role in appropriations committee and it doesn’t become a funding board.

A Craig said that having sat through the byline funding process last year, trying to analyze section C. One thing he notices was that the idea of decisions laid to him and the appropriations and group’s take. Losing that on having the group not being there can we as an assembly usually take heart by reading an announcement. VP Mezey said that the way which the decision is reported is key. His vision for this is that there should be a decision report sheet. Group, name, rationale, comment/statement from group. He would be happy to put the changes and form so it’s more of a formal here’s what it was, why, etc. If the group says it’s great that’s fine. A Craig felt groups liked to advocate on their behalf . Do you think groups will be for this? VP Mezey said that seeing it, he thinks it’s painful and inefficient and thinks the committee should be a representation of students. Maybe put in “new student rep in the fall” or something. He doesn’t think that by any means they’re not allowing time to advocate.

R Lavin asked for clarification, will groups still have the option to appeal to the SA? VP Mezey replied that yes, they would.

VP Miller said this is great work. He alluded earlier to more SA involvement. Do you have any numbers on the current ratio of SA to non-SA members. It was looked up and the current ratio is 6 SA members to 9 undergraduate students at large.

E Diakow asked if VP Mezey would be friendly to adding in under the procedure section 4, A3. How would you feel about adding at the end of not to exceed two pages something to include 1–2 page limited environmental change. Would he find that friendly? VP Mezey replied that he would.

R.25 Mitigation of Environmental Impact by By-line Funded Groups — Emlyn Diakow

She pulled this resolution to put it on with appendix a next week. This is for being more sustainable and friendly to the environment. They’ve been thinking about how to do that. And then task force representatives and get task force. Then they looked at byline funded groups. Things which put on huge events and thinks it’s important to promote green events. It’s a way to make it part of their application process it’s for a statement. She thinks it would be best to get this into appendix a.

R Salem thought it would be nice to have help and instructions on how to do things.

A Craig asked about timing. There are a lot of stipulations and standards that they need. When is best to do this? E Diakow was hoping that they’ll have their initial due April 25 and will know about it by then but it is reasonable that if they know about it this semester but have to do it for next semester. A craig: so with byline funding packets E Diakow: what she’d like

VP Basil asked how this will work for SAFC? E Diakow replied that for SAFC in general it is byline funded. They had them included but stayed away from specifics. They have no clue where the task force will go. Eventually will work and see questions and work with it. VP Basil is reluctant based on the fact that there are no standards and just a statement. It’s more useful for resource for groups to come to you. E Diakow said that there are circumstances where it can’t apply which it is why more general and it might come across as vague.

V Andrews said that forcing groups to think about it can’t be a bad thing as a requirement to getting funding. But how would they calculate their carbon footprint? E Diakow said that she should change inventory to footprint. Online they have simple things like what do you use and she or someone else can be a resource and while filling out can come to it or a link. V Andrews said maybe as you add it to appendix, put a line suggesting how to do this.

R Lavin replied that it is obviously not going into in appendix a unless details are hashed out. He’s ending discussion. He suggested to forward suggestions and feedback to Emlyn.

X. Adjournment

R. Lavin adjourned the meeting at 5:48pm

Respectfully Submitted,
Brittany Rosen