Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
March 5, 2009
4:45 — 6:30pm
Memorial Room, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

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

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: V. Andrews, C. Basil, E. Cusick, E. Diakow, A. Garcia-Verdin, M. Heinz, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, A. Latella, R. Lavin, M. McDermott, G. Mezey, T. Miller, N. Raps, R. Salem, O. Sandoval, R. Stein

Representatives Absent, Excused: N. Baker, A. Craig, L. DeLencquesaing, E. Shannon, B. Smith

Representatives Absent, Unexcused: A. Brokman, Y. Yao

Liaisons Present: A. Miller, S. Tata

III. Open Microphone

No one came forth to speak.

IV. Announcements/Reports

Elections Update — Michael McDermott

Voting is finished. There has been a record voter turnout with 4,432 votes this year. This is a big increase. There are 14 challenges which will be addressed tonight. The results should come out tomorrow.

Academic Integrity Announcement — Chris Basil

VP Basil wanted to let everyone know they’re set to present to faculty senate with an honor statement because it falls under faculty senate’s jurisdiction. They want to present an honor statement for their approval. Then hopefully merge code of integrity into honor code and structural system. They’re going to schedule a meeting Tuesday or Wednesday and to try to draft an honor statement. They can finish it up after spring break.

Ivy Civic Engagement Conference Announcement — Alex Latella

He sent an email last night about an Ivy Council Civil Engagement to DC. It’s set up differently. He would like it if people would apply. It will be held from April 23-. They meet with policy leaders in DC and six other students from each of the other Ivies. Let him know if you have any questions. Vp Junewicz will send more information over the SA Facebook group.

R Lavin had an additional announcement. They had their semesterly meeting with President Skorton. One thing brought up was student involvement in financial decisions such as department and program cuts. How things are progressing is that the presidents have been kept informed before the media outlets but haven’t had much direct input. Partly this is because decisions had to be made very quickly. For the next couple of years there’ll be a standing strategic committee where administrators will involve students so they can have a say. For example using the Tower Caf� as an example. That’s the game plan as far as cuts.

V. Business of the Day

R.24 Appendix A Changes — Greg Mezey

Basically, VP Basil, Junewicz and other representatives of the assembly met to draft changes to talk about ways to improve this and discussed it further at the e-board meeting and through emails. They came up with friendly changes and they’re in the document. They are highlighted in the new document. The biggest change is in section C. Basically the vp of finance can’t say you need to get back in 30 minutes, they need to give a full day’s notice. Also basically if group doesn’t want to appeal, the assembly can motion to overturn the recommendation and go into it but if group does want to appeal, it basically goes into an automatic discussion with the assembly.

VP Basil thinks they’re great. He wanted to thank Nikhil and Asa for helping with the changes. He thinks it’s a great balance between allowing groups to appeal and have a full process and the fact that it’s automatically reconsidered cuts out time and is a great step towards efficiency. He would recommend it.

VP Miller thanked everyone for working on it. It’s the way things should be done. It’s a great document and he called to question. It was seconded with no dissent. The vote was 12- 0 — 3. This failed because for a charter change, they need 2/3 of the assembly members to pass and 12 is not 2/3 of the members.

R Lavin re-opened the speaker’s list

E Diakow has been trying to find the amendment she wanted to add. She was going back to putting the resolution about environmental statement about it putting in there. And wasn’t made to the document.

R Lavin noted that you can always add things after this is approved.

E Diakow motioned to amend would go under part four, procedure A3. Where the * and crossed out new applicants thing. Right above A4 she would like to add, “a description of sustainable practices an organization has taken in the last two academic years and any effect these measures have had on cost and the description of intended sustainable practices for the upcoming two years funding is requested not to exceed two pages. Help can be provided by the SAEC if solicited.”

VP Mezey does not find it friendly because he doesn’t know based on the fact that groups haven’t been educated before this cycle on sustainable practices. He doesn’t know how comfortable they are. He Doesn’t know how comfortable he would feel by adding that as a stipulation when they haven’t educated people on how to be more sustainable. That’s where the reservation comes in. If you want to put it for next byline funding cycle okay, but not appropriate now. Speaker’s list open on the amendment

VP Miller thinks it’s great but doesn’t think it should be a part of this document. He thinks this could be a separate thing. He doesn’t want groups to think it would affect funding.

R Stein genuinely believes that it needs to be a choice because there are some groups that can’t become more sustainable without great costs. This should be something encouraged not forced or pushed. No group should have it determine funding.

R Salem agrees with the proposal. He feels like it is a great place to add in. People do it with corporations. It’s not putting restrictions in, it’s just asking them to become aware and wouldn’t threaten ability to receive funding.

E Diakow said that this is very different and doesn’t say they need specific things. Just says any things they CAN put it. She agrees that if they’re not educated they might feel uncomfortable and help session can say that if they don’t put it in it’s fine. But groups need to know that they need to be educated about it. She doesn’t think it’s restrictive or horrible.

V Andrews thinks it’s a good amendment. It’s just asking to think about sustainability and doesn’t hurt application. If they realize, it would be good and call to question. Seconded. Dissent.

R Stein explained her dissent. She wanted to reiterate that as VP Miller said, groups will feel funding is going to be impacted.

Vote to vote on the amendment. Call to question fails, so they reverted back to the other speaker’s list.

VP Mezey asked if adding additional two pages to application is the most sustainable thing? This is the appropriations committee. Being sustainable isn’t always the most cost effective. The Appropriations Committee has a fiduciary responsibility. His hesitation is Appendix A is funding and process. They might not have an effect. But a statement of: we do not have sustainable process, it could be taken as negative but sometimes the most sustainable thing is to get NY water as opposed to Iowa water. He wants to suspend discussion.

S. Purdy has reservations. First is sustainability practices don’t apply to all groups. Some it applies to, others it doesn’t. It could end up with one year all about sustainable. And next year could be opposite.

E Diakow said that this is only byline funded groups. Some might not. They won’t NOT apply because of this. She doesn’t agree with the argument that they won’t apply for it. The whole funding process is subjective.

A Latella does agree with the initiative. Especially progress of university groups. But it does belong in a different section, maybe appendix B.

A Garcia-Verdin said that she thinks as leaders they should set the bar. It doesn’t hurt to look into it. She’s pretty sure that ones who might not have it due to specific things, will look at it on a case by case basis.

R. Lavin closed discussion for the time being to move on to SAFC appeals.

SAFC Appeals

Translator-Interpreter Program

They were not here yet.

Careers in the Fashion Industry 5:10

The SAFC said that on page 29 of guidelines it says that applications must include documentation of room and if they do not have documentation, they’re not able to fund for the entire event and they did not submit that. The group replied that they were not fully prepared. Once they found out, they made a reservation for MVR. The purpose is to allow students to meet. They only had one speaker reply. This was the only one willing to come. The only way to come is if they have the funding. The Appropriations Committee recommendation was that SAFC did not err but they encourage the SA to consider the case and the impact it has on students it represents but did not feel that SAFC made a mistake.

V Andrews said that it is clear that the group made a mistake but feel in effort to be subjective in analysis this one event is the sole purpose of this group and if they don’t fund them. This will help community. It’s not that much money, they should grant them. He says to vote yes.

VP Miller said that the chair can correct him. But he believes the decision was reported incorrectly.

M. Heinz said that in this case, it was clear that they did not meet the guidelines and SAFC was not wrong and if SA was to overturn would be saying that if you clearly break a rule, SA will be sympathetic and do we want to make that standard.

O Sandoval wanted to know more about the event The Group replied that Julia Durgy was a graduate of Cornell and has been working as a creative director and runs a website and thinks it would be a good experience for students to go and network. It would help to find out how she got the job, what she does. O Sandoval agrees that if it benefits the community, it should be funded.

N. Raps remembers in the fall, the subjective/objective discussion. She thinks the SA has the moral guideline to do what’s best for the students. She wants to call to question. It was seconded but there was dissent. R Lavin decided that as chair he would not recognize the motion and continue the discussion.

VP Basil said that SA subjectivity comes into play with gray area. In cases like this with clear facts and guidelines, it’s explicit. He thinks the SA should go on objectivity and gray area is subjective.

R Salem asked if since then they have booked the room. The Group responded yes. R. Salem thinks the event will help the community. It’s the only event of the year. Call to question.

R Lavin noted that this is not an appeal to humanity. It is up to representatives interpretation if they want to be subjective. If there are areas where they can be subjective that is fine. The rules are whether or not the SAFC erred. Not to say that you can’t take these into account but is not the purpose of the appeals process. Not absolute statements.

V Andrews as a point of information noted that the consensus on the appropriations committee was that the Committee is objective and SA is the subjective body. R Lavin noted that it is not the job of the Appropriations Committee to decide that.

It was seconded. There was dissent.

E. Diakow thinks that the SAFC process has these rules for a reason and if they set this “precedent” they clearly didn’t have a room reservation and that it’ll seem like if you appeal to the SA you’ll get money anyway. And it’s unfair to groups who did everything right.

They voted to vote. By a hand vote of 12 — 1, they can now vote.

By a roll call vote of 5–8−2 the motion fails so the motion to overturn the SAFC decision fails.

Let’s Get Ready 5:20

The Appropriations Committee Recommendation was that if you find the let’s get ready packet, it’s a national organization with a local chapter here. They provide SAT and test prep services to low income and minority students. They have a member fee of $4750 to be a chapter at Cornell. They receive materials, books, and other things to provide during tutoring. One thing to note is that SAFC guidelines require an itemized breakdown. The recommendation of the Appropriations Committee is that the SAFC did err due to materials essential to the mission. Because SAFC does not fund for non-reusable books. There was a point about pencils, mugs, and t-shirts that the group did not receive and the Appropriations Committee felt that textbooks and books WERE essential to the group’s mission. Just like the glowstick club gets glowsticks that are not reusable, they felt they were responsible and last two times they did receive full funding for their allocation. So that’s why they decided to fund. The recommendation is $2,710 which is with $250 grant subtracted and amount already allocated subtracted. They also understand that there is a 3500 cap on org so 10% cut for initial allocation so total amount will fall at the cap.

The SAFC said that first there were items which SAFC never funds for, such as pens and pencils. And the main cost was for SAT books which they don’t fund for because they’re not usable for multiple years. On p 36 it also notes that they do not fund for personal items that are not stored on campus. They also don’t fund for local events whose sole purpose is charity.

The Group said that first it’s not a charity. It is charitable but they’re not just getting books and giving to them. It’s for Cornell students to tutor and mentor the students. The point is they’re teaching them. Also on SAFC side only certain things are mentioned like art supplies. If it’s essential to the program. He wants to emphasize that its beneficial to Cornell students that coach because kids are dedicated and they spend hours every week, teach them to do better. The average increase is 150 points. The students get a lot out of it such as experience, leadership, etc.

VP Mezey said that $4,750 is a fee they pay regardless of the number of students tutored. The Group replied that it is the fee for the national organization. They didn’t receive them, it’s just what they put in the itemized budget. All they received were books, coaching materials, etc. VP Mezey said that the Appropriations Committee wanted to say this bill is something that LGR national spit out for standard. It’s just a hypothetical breakdown b/c SAFC requires itemized breakdown. But if it’s a membership fee, is no good way to break down. That’s why they felt it was appropriate.

VP Miller was concerned because of the t-shirt aspect they asked. It seemed that SAFC didn’t fund other groups unless it’s reusable. He completely agrees that they should fund for books.

R. Salem feels like the Appropriations Committee made the right decision. If anyone’s going to benefit community they will. Call to question. Second. Dissent.

The vote to vote was a hand vote of 12–3. The Group mentioned that the t-shirts were included in the invoice but they didn’t receive it.

The vote was a roll call vote of 14–1−0 which overturned the SAFC decision.

The Speakers list to discuss the new allocation was opened.

After clarifying, the allocation was so that the group eventually gets capped at the 3,500.

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

VP Mezey replied that they would be funding them $2710 minus $288 knowing it’ll be capped at $3,500. This passes 14–0−0.

Cornell Caribbean Students Association 5:45

VP Mezey said that the Appropriations Committee recommends that SAFC did not err but documentation was there but was not initialed. The SAFC said that one issue is proof of room reservation and the other is documentation. So room reservation documentation was provided was a UUP form which listed approval as pending and SAFC can’t consider pending approval as proof of room reservation. They would need to see the email. The second is price quote attached was that the group told the SAFC that it was written by a Duffield hall coordinator and SAFC requires that it should be initialed. It’s on back of tenth page of packet. The Group said that the documentation provided on page ten was handwritten because she sent an email and the only thing was that understands that the UUP was pending. The policy is that if you get a quote you have the room. At the hearing, they submitted the official form saying it was hers.

VP Miller said that this is the gray area. He recommends they overturn it.

E Diakow seconds it. It’s tricky and they did get verification that it’s authentic. Although SAFC did they right thing. She call to question. It was seconded without dissent. The SAFC agrees that it was authentic but nothing confirming it was observed. It was something they couldn’t take in good faith but has been confirmed.

The Group understands why now and knows it has to be official.

Yes is to disapprove the SAFC and fund. No is to uphold the SAFC’s decision.

By a roll call vote of 15–0−0, they have overturned the SAFC decision and speaker’s list is open for new allocations.

E. Diakow says they should be treated as other groups. So 1500 equally funded and then 10 percent cut. That’s automatic. VP Miller called to question. It was seconded. By a vote of 13–0−0, the new allocation passed.

Translator-Interpreter Program

VP Mezey said that the group didn’t show up to their appeal or now and they haven’t responded to emails. The Appropriations Committee said that the SAFC did not err.

The SAFC said that they didn’t have a room reservation.

It was called to question and seconded with no dissent.

The decision was upheld.

R 24. Was tabled because there were not enough voting members to have a 2/3 vote.

R.29 Creation of an Undergraduate Housing Rate Scale — Sanjiv Tata and Nikhil Kumar and Allen Miller

N. Kumar said that Campus Life has been looking at everything relating to housing. They hired consultants. During focus groups, the main issues were the cost differential. Right now suite/traditional/old/new all cost the same. Looking at scaled housing rates. S. Tata said that once a month, students meet to see if it’s feasible, etc. The big thing is that it’s flexible. Allows for flexible timeline. Ready to field questions. A. Miller sat in on the RSC meeting, and this was passed 23–0. It’s comprised of students who live on north and west campus. The resolution is really getting the process started. It’s getting ideas out there.

VP Miller first asked if they have a rate schedule in mind. S. Tata said given the economic climate, they were hesitant to put exact numbers. Also, this way, they decide that within the committee as the consultants have access to information. VP Miller would feel more comfortable with numbers. N. Kumar said that they want to work with campus life. With peer institutions, Columbia ranges between 50–300 dollar differences. Mainly want to work with campus life for scaled rate appropriate VP Miller asked if this would happen every year. Tata didn’t want to push. Once a semester at least it will be reviewed. This would be subject to re-evaluation. The key part is that it will allow for student input. VP Miller asked if they considered financial aid. N Kumar said they they will work with campus life. A Miller reminded that this is starting a process. This is to vote to get the ball rolling.

N. Raps has a few concerns. What about the feasibility? She doesn’t think campus is ever going to say they can cut down on housing costs. S. Tata said that the fact that they don’t have scaled rates is very recent. Ever since they’ve had it they used to have scaled rates. Surprising thing is uniform. N. Raps said that she thinks being in a double, single, triple is different from different houses. S. Tata said that they should put a pin in north campus. This is not a new issue. The RSC has been working with campus life. Regarding loss of revenue, would be handled by committee. N. Raps is nervous about doing it by houses. People would make it a country club system. How to stop people who can afford would live in really nice ones versus people who save money live in not as nice. N. Kumar said that in terms of the selection process, when they were beginning it, they talked a lot and that’s what they said, the feasibility. They said that there was a scaled rate 10–15 years before north campus. Issue wasn’t revisited. A Miller said that 1- in real life, off campus, people are faced with a wide range of options. 2. A lot of people want simple housing.

M Heinz would recommend changing to that you’re charging committee with it or saving it till you have a plan. A lot have questions specifically about how it’ll be implemented. No one’s ready to say okay let’s make it mandated to say there WILL be. N Kumar said that they are beginning the dialogue. That’s why they went through RSC. Need more specifics but can’t get them till the guiding principle. Want the rates consistent with peer institutions. S Tata thinks its for the best when student governance are working in cohesion. M Heinz thinks it’s a good idea but isn’t ready to say it WILL happen S. Tata can’t predict because of situation. This way it appears ON the plan and made a priority.

R. Salem agrees with this resolution. It was unanimously approved. The president and chair are proposing it. This is a concern on many students’ minds. This is advantageous. It leaves options open TO explore it. Like Liaison Tata said, it’s laying groundwork for how to move forward. He called to question. It was seconded without dissent.

S. Tata would like to reiterate that students who are affected by this have approved it. He would like to point out that it’s not the result of their wishes but are trying to work with administration.

By a vote of 12–1−1, the resolution passes.

VI. Unfinished Business

R.27 Survey of Students Involved in Illegal Filesharing — Mike Heinz

Over the past week, M Heinz has met with Tracy and spoken to her about the survey. It is her opinion that the threat of letters is gone. Apparently Nikhil was very correct about threat being gone. People are very unlikely to get letters. This might not be worth doing. There is still information to be gained which is why he’s still here. In his opinion, it doesn’t have benefits. He would still like to open it to discussion. The RIAA is changing strategy. They’re the only agency we’ve gotten letters from. Other is “just RIAA is changing.” They’re the only one big enough to do it. Apparently the strategy was too costly. Is possible to change strategy again. Seems like they don’t need to address.

N Kumar will be voting no, but commends committee for looking so hard into this. He thinks all the work in case there is another change will be useful. Great job with committee.

N. Raps wanted to also say good job. She thinks it’ll be helpful for the people who came to talk earlier in the semester. She thinks if they get good feedback, they can decide as an assembly their stance. And help university decide what to do.

VP Basil is curious as to why Nikhil is voting against it. N. Kumar said that he feels like it is because they’re changing strategy. M. Heinz saidt hat there are 59 to send via email. He wanted to bring it up but doesn’t think it should be voted on. He doesn’t think there’s much to be gained. If you look at survey, it’s changed. First six questions cut out because that info is already had. Only information is from questions 7–10. Those pertain to people who did not decide to settle and asking about lawsuits. As far as CIT committee knows, at most would gain info from 1 person. No info to gain. R Lavin said that the whole industry is volatile. If in six months it starts again, no reason not to vote yes. But if it is, they shouldn’t vote no to be preemptive.

V Andrews said that just to communicate, it’s great to have dialogue. In case it DOES change, they have information. Also it’ll help to create website with information published on who went, what they said, what course took. He called to question and it was seconded. N Kumar dissented.

N Kumar said that because he wanted to make a motion to table indefinitely to bring back.

By a vote of 10–1−0, it passes so it can be voted on.

M. Heinz said that sending it out will be work. And don’t know if you understood, there’s not much information to be gained. New survey all pertain to people who didn’t settle. Of 59 only know of 1 who did not. Might be best to table.

By a vote of 6–1−5, the chair votes yes and passed the resolution.

VII. Adjournment

Adjourned at 6:18 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Brittany Rosen.