Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
April 16, 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: N. Baker, C. Basil, A. Brokman, E. Cusick, L. DeLencquesaing, E. Diakow, A. Garcia-Verdin, M. Heinz, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, A. Latella, R. Lavin, T. Miller, N. Raps, R. Salem, O. Sandoval, E. Shannon, B. Smith, R. Stein

Representatives Excused Absent: M. McDermott, G. Mezey

Representatives Unexcused Absent: Y. Yao

Representatives Excused 1/2 Absent: V. Andrews

Representatives Unexcused 1/2 Absent: A. Craig

Liaisons Present: A. Miller, S. Tata

III. Approval of the Minutes — April 9, 2009

There was a call for acclimation. This was seconded. There was no dissent. The minutes were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

Micah, a junior, introduced herself. She was part of the alternate breaks program. They send undergraduates to different locations over spring break. This year they’re seeking byline funding. They are here to ask for support and signatures. This shows they have the support of the students.

She passed around a piece of paper for people to sign if they were interested.

Jack Chow is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He is here to ask the SA to participate in a survey for his class, government 312. It’s a survey to look at how the political attitudes process information. She really wants them to be politically aware. It’ll take 10–15 minutes and he welcomes them to have as many people participate as well.

V. Announcements/Reports

Ivy Council Announcement — Alex Latella

He wanted to thank everyone for receiving emails and giving feedback. He appreciates it. His goal is to get more people involved in Ivy Council. There are 2 updates. First, Eric is working on finding an LGBTQ representative from Cornell. Cornell’s looking to host an Ivy wide event. Also, next weekend, there is an Ivy Student Government Retreat. That is the 24th and 25th at U Penn. Let him know if you’re interested.

E Shannon added that if you know anyone who’s not graduating, and is interesting in working in LGBTQ branch of Ivy Council, let him know.

UA Announcement — Natalie Raps

She just wanted to update everyone on the gorge resolution they discussed last week. They had a really long discussion on whether it should be passed. In the end, the vote was 6 saying they didn’t want it and 4 abstaining, so nothing changed. There was a little debacle because the graduate students brought the law students and some people did not like that. Nothing got resolved, people got touchy.

Additional Announcements —Ryan Lavin

There will be an RSO task force meeting from 11 am to 5pm next Saturday. This is the part of the task force to do analysis. They will be reviewing all of the groups. Thanks to everyone who’s been involved, Emlyn, Vincent, SAFC, Yuliya. It is in McGraw 145.

He congratulated the trustee candidates in the room and wished them good luck.

VI. Business of the Day

R.35 Creation of Liaisons Between the Club Sports Council and the Student Assembly Finance Commission — Emlyn Diakow

Yuliya from SAFC and Katie from the Club Sports Council were co-sponsoring the resolution.

E Diakow said that teams that need funding should get it when they need it. This is to help the club sports council to have more representation with the SAFC and help them understand the process and vice versa. Yuliya said that unlike anything else, club sports are allocated a set percentage. What she’s heard is that there is clear overpadding of the budget. The club sports really hurt each other. There is an opportunity to put a subjective process to pre-approve club sports budgets as they have knowledge about what tournaments would happen and then SAFC would objectively go through the budget. Katie added that at the current point, they are in the process of restructuring. The big achievement was upping the cap from 10% to 25% of funding. The next step is to have more formal membership as they’re moving for eventually possibly going for byline funding, but ultimate goal is to allow them to help each other out. Right now it’s a battle between every team. Working against each other instead of with each other. Club sports aren’t receiving the funding they need. The funding cap dropped $3,000 but teams within were requesting $10,000 when they only need $3,000. R Lavin asked if he CSC (Club Sports Council) organization has an appropriate structure. Katie responded that presently they are basically an E-board and not a set meeting time. Goal is to get an official liaison from every team. Without this, they wouldn’t be eligible. They want formal membership requirements so that there are strict membership guidelines for teams not participating and receiving the funding.

VP Basil thinks this is a great resolution. He is looking forward to developing CSC to seek byline funding which would go a long way toward solving club sports issues so SAFC could focus on funding student groups.

VP Miller said that this is a good intermediary step. A lot of times there are processes with a lot of people who don’t want to start. SA needs to approve organizations structure before but this is fantastic.

E Diakow said that under the first Be It Therefore Resolved and the second bolded part. We thought it might be better if in the fall it’s the first term not voting member but subject to same. But all subsequent semesters would get voting.

Yuliya said that their representative’s purpose is better used in the spring. No other organization has that kind of representatiion. The voting’s not something necessary until the spring and that’s contingent on the group going through the rest of the processes.

E Diakow said that they would serve as a non-voting member of the SAFC.

R Salem asked who are the current members who serve on SAFC by virtue of their position E Diakow responded that it is the commissioners and SA liaison. R Salem said that the only addition would be a liaison since there aren’t any other members. He called to question. It was seconded. There was no dissent.

Yuliya said that they should vote yes. SAFC just had the nonvoting member issue. The whole purpose of the moratorium was to examine SAFC and to improve efficiency. It’s time to be more efficient with how allocating money. This is favorable to SAFC and CSC. Katie said that this is a great step to move towards byline funding and get formal requirements set up. Knowing they have relationship will help make that step.

By a roll call vote of 16–0−1 the resolution passes.

VII. Unfinished Business

R.33 Staffing Committee — Nikhil Kumar and Tony Miller

Nikhil said that they have brought this forward a week ago. Got feedback from Ari and streamlined the process. The executive committee would have this responsibility. The VP would be able to do what he has. This just reflects what’s happened this past year.

R Salem thinks it’s a good idea. And that Nikhil realizes that might need to ask for help.

A Miller thinks the committees have struggled to find people join them. He supports it.

R Stein found that in the past the staffing committee has been unable to find six dedicated members. So now force exec committee to do staffing? Maybe they should be more flexible when they meet. She knows she helped tony. It seems unnecessary to add additional requirements. VP Miller responded that in this, they are not specifically told what to do. There is no formal extra burden with exception that VP internal will be chair. This is more of a formal setup of who shall be on committee. For instance, when he asked her to help out it was informal. This is just to say that he can go TO them. If a member feels burdened.

E Diakow asked Tony if he thought it was a good change. He did. She called to question. It was seconded and there was no dissent.

By a roll call vote of 18–0−0 the resolution passed.

R.34 Appendix A Rules Clarification — Chris Basil

They moved to unfinished business.

VP Basil said that the bursar feels that families when getting their bill find whole numbers friendly. Rounding benefits, the bursar’s office ask that we re-add rounding SAF to a whole dollar amount. This could be done by precedent but they want the comfort of it being official.

R Lavin said that the Appendix A changes are in the presidents office, going through them. This was one, our original sentiment behind was not to take money that we don’t need but financial aid rounds up as well.

E Diakow summarized that the most it could be is that the SAFC would be 99 cents more for every student at the most.

VP Miller: motions to amend 3 where the bold stops. “in no circumstance shall the SAFC receive less than 35% of the total amount of the SAF if the amount allocated to the SAFC is less than 35% of the total of the SAF, the allocation of the SAFC shall be automatically adjusted.” R Lavin said that he was emailed by Susan Murphy and in the 1999 trustee specifications was a stipulation they gave to us. They took it out because it never gets close and it would be common law. But the presidents office wants it back in. VP Basil finds it friendly.

VP Miller called to question. It was seconded without dissent. By a roll call vote of 18–0−0, the resolution passes.

VIII. New Business

R.36 Creation of a Cornell-Collegetown Committee — Chris Basil and Allen Miller

A Miller said that basically this was generated from recent issues with common council. This is to create a better relationship with collegetown. Informing students about government issues, mobilizing student issues. Brainstorming ideas with how to work. This is ad hoc so it can be dissolved at any point. He envisions this as a committee to work in coalition with the residential community life committee. VP Basil said that one reason he’s working with Allen is collegetown is heavily Greek. Collegetown is 97 percent students. Moving forward, especially with the retirement of Mary Tomlin will be very important to continue work. Res life, Greeks, SA, to lobby with government to make sure collegetown is a community for students.

R Salem asked if the one member of campus life is referring to student or staff. A Miller said that ideally it would be a staff member. The composition numbers can be changed. Should be left to committee. VP Basil said that the point was that the initial input would include voice from all sources.

R Stein thinks it is great except she has a problem with the composition. 4 members from Cornell committee should be larger. Perhaps cut in on other requirements. She motions to amend changing 4 to 6. VP Basil finds this friendly.

VP Miller asked if SA committees are allowed to have non-Cornell people in committee. The answer was yes. Dean Hubbell added that it is important to coordinate with Gary Stuart and neighborhood council.

N Raps asked why two members of the TriCouncil. VP Basil said that it is because Collegetown is double disproportionately Greek.

A Latella thought that this is a great idea. A lot of people don’t understand what the problem is. More specifically how plan on getting word out. A Miller hopes that that this board will help. He and Chris will do everything they can. A lot of people are interested. VP Basil said that this is both a relationship and crisis committee. When things happen, this will be a focal group to mobilize student interest.

VP Miller asked what sort of time frame they are looking at. A Miller said that they would like to pass this now, so it could be established in the fall. VP Basil said that he would like it to start this semester, to form a relationship and stay on ball. VP Miller asked if they eventually WANT to make it permanent. A Miller said that it is hard to say. He doesn’t know if there’ll be another issue. It can be dissolved whenever it stops being useful. More so, it is good to have a committee to help the relationship.

N Kumar thinks it is a great committee and will compliment the Residential Student life committee. He motioned to move to Business of the Day. It was seconded with no dissent. He called to question. It was seconded with no dissent.

By a roll call vote of 19–0−0, the resolution passes.

R.37 Housing Lottery Recommendations- Part 1: Information — Nikhil Kumar, Emily Cusick, and Natalie Raps

N Kumar said that they have been hearing committee updates. Over past couple of weeks, students were very concerned with housing lottery. Over past couple of weeks looking for specific realistic solutions. Right now, SA has legislative authority over student life. Presenting them in form of recommendations. Campus life has been extremely receptive. Part of what they’re doing is providing feedback. Part one is information getting this from campus life to students. For instance, floor plans through secure server. Students would be happy. The committee talked about that. Live information. Buildings, floors, how much allocation changes throughout process. The entire community realizes technological constraints. He offered the recommendation that campus life reduce the amount of time to sign up. They have over five weeks. This would make it four and a half. This is only a big deal for campus life in order to get information out sooner. N Raps said that they began with campus life and thought a lot of things would change this year. She thinks this set of guidelines will start on right track to get everyone happier. They need the SA mandate to help along. N Kumar added that the RSC has talked about this.

VP Junewicz thinks it’s fantastic. Everyone talks about improving process. Fantastic step. She loves the information idea about being available online. One thing is a lot of students don’t know of odds of getting single, double, maybe to make that info available would be helpful. N Kumar said that yes, they are trying to address lottery and room selection. Can include that next week.

VP Miller remembers being in the res life meeting. Wasn’t there an issue with security? N Kumar said that’s why they recognized constraints. He thinks the model was Brown University and they put it up through a secure server. Right now they can go to campus life physically to look at. VP Miller asked if he would you consider squeezing into one resolution. N Kumar wanted to put option on the table. For the second part he is probably going to table till next year.

B Smith was wondering when to have information available. It would be useful as early as possible. Is there a timeline N Kumar said that a major impediment is that a lot of allocation numbers depend on how many people sign up. Right now choices are senior, junior, sophomore. But sophomores are guaranteed housing and allocation numbers change. Hopefully reducing amount of time to sign up gives that. The committee is meeting Monday.

S Tata said that as Nikhil mentioned, he brought this to RSC. This aspect was very friendly, particularly given that at Brown, the RSC’s counterpart was instrumental to posting it. That was where they would be able to help. RSC is one of two organizations that have access to floor plans.

V Andrews asked if this is to give people in res life time to make changes. N Kumar said that campus life tries to put sign ups coordinating with Greek rush. They want to have a shorter time period so that there’s an ability to put information in a place accessible for students. V Andrews asked if it it possible to get a blog, pictures of rooms. Increase traffic on the site. N Kumar said that Brown’s RSC counterpart does something similar to that. Can look into and work with RSC.

E Diakow had a recommendation but doesn’t know feasibility. If there’s a way as you sign up, say it’s public, I would prefer a sing, double, west, north, to see if EVERYone wants one thing, almost like a wiggio poll. N Kumar said if they move forward with forum or blog, it’s a great idea.

R Stein said that one thing addressed, some of west campus houses have OWN housing lottery. Think it’s despicable because of in-house lottery. N Kumar agrees. He’s trying to do information on this part. And that is policy he’s very concerned about. Can talk about in next part. Does touch on larger issues with west campus residential initiative. R Stein said another point — those lotteries, you’re not assigned a number on computer, based on what house dean gives you, who was first, who was last. Doesn’t seem objective.

A Garcia-Verdin works in west campus offices. They do pull out a random number and put it on chart in people’s mailboxes. Have in-house lottery for comfort. Do open up after present residents choose. They don’t keep it closed entirely. S Tata added that perhaps her information is incorrect. It is completely objective.

R.38 Housing Lottery Recommendations- Part 2: Policies — Nikhil Kumar

N Kumar said that this is more of a personal thing. He tried to consolidate all info to talking about policies of housing lottery. They’ve talked about a couple of issues. There are issues need to look deeper into. They wanted to bring up quickly. Little bit of discussion. Will table in a few minutes. Basically, right now seniors, juniors, sophomores, but sophomores are guaranteed. This is an issue that they raised in campus life. It makes it difficult to project beds. The in house lottery system does exist and need to exempt that. If people don’t want roommates, can be in a one person double, and if they do it without, leaves lots of 1 beds open. Some of these are relatively controversial.

R Salem said that he would be interested to hear. Do you think the first recommendation in the Be It Therefore Resolved would eliminate lack of class diversity on west campus. N Kumar said that he is not sure it would have. At minimum, rising juniors would be available to have first pick. Hopefully this still accomplishes the goal.

S Tata said that they discussed this in the RSC. They were worried because part of the reason seniors go first is to offset sophomores being guaranteed housing. Further, they were concerned with lack of diversity of classes. If seniors or juniors go second, less attractive rooms available. Goes for livable process among many classes. Being involved with campus life would suggest that it might not achieve the goals in the way intended and perhaps a better way to look at would be instead to shift order, focus more on number 2, reduce actual number of in house lottery. First would be problematic.

VP Junewicz does agree with number one but sees where Sanjiv is coming from. Her question is with number two and asked if Kumar would mind explaining. N Kumar said that 80–100 beds are allocated to the in-house system. It comes out to about a third. It involves continued occupancy. This only applies to Keeton, Bethe, Becker, and Cook.

E Diakow said that when sophomores go first, she’s afraid there’s not diversity, but in house, 40 beds would still be juniors and seniors so would still have diversity. So all the other non-beds. If they’re choosing not to leave, the problem is she thinks there’ll still be diversity. Understands but is that still up to them. But sophomores could fill ALL the dorms. And why juniors before seniors. N Kumar replied that yes, that was his understanding.

R Lavin said that there is one more res life meeting. Hopefully they will be able to bring it back. N Kumar tabled this indefinitely.

IX. Adjournment

R Lavin adjourned the meeting at 5:51 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,
Brittany Rosen