Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
December 4, 2009
4:00–7:00pm
Room 131, Warren Hall

I. Call to Order

R. Salem called the meeting to order at 4:07 pm

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: V. Andrews, C. Basil, C. DeLencquesaing, M. Danzer, M. DeLucia, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, Z. Glasser, N. Junewicz, N. Kumar, A. Latella, J. Min, N. Raps, J. Rau, R. Salem, U. Smith

Representatives Unexcused Absent: G. Phillips, O. Williams, H. Yang

Representatives Excused Absent: I. Akinpelu

Non-Voting Members Present: A. Cowen

Non-Voting Members Absent: P. Eliasinski, A. Flye

Representatives � Absent: A. Nicoletti, A. Ravaret, K. Welch

III. Open Microphone

No one came forth to speak.

IV. Announcements/Reports

Announcements and reports were gone through.

V. Unfinished Business

R. 37-Approval of the Student Activity Fee�Chris Basil

It was opened up for questions and amendments.

M. Danzer proposed raising Haven from $2.20 to $2.31. They had requested $2.75. N. Kumar reiterated that the Student Activity fee has to be presented as an even whole number. VP Basil said that the SAFC could always be rounded up or down.

U. Smith requested to increase Cornell Cinema to $10.25.

The Cornell Cinema amendment was made from $8.60 to $10.25. It was now open up for discussion.

VP Kumar added that the Appropriations Committee decided based on numbers. The rationale for $8.60 was thought out. He wanted to know exactly what would be gained from such an increase.

Chris from Cornell Cinema said that if they were given $10.25 there would be less of a deficit than if they were funded at $8.60.

Community member Yi Kay is a box officer and student advisory board member. One of arguments into moving Cornell Cinema into volunteer based system is that EMS is volunteer. She felt that was not a valid comparison. EMS skills are highly marketable. Selling tickets and popcorn isn’t a resume booster. It is unrealistic to expect students to work for no reward. She wanted to point out that cinema is different from the concert commission or slope day. The Cinema aims to provide education and not just entertainment. Students are not knowledgeable enough on their own to entirely run it. It takes someone like Mary to do this.

M. Danzer thanked people for coming. He wanted to say that the thing that hasn’t been focused on is that a 30,000 dollar deficit is a lot, but SA has given a clear way to fill this deficit. Volunteers. While he understands that it’s difficult to find people, providing some benefits like free movies for employees, plenty are able to make due with volunteers. People are passionate enough to support cinema for free.

There was a video from community member Dan which explained how people in the community felt about Cornell Cinema.

Z. Glasser said that he knows a lot of people enjoy it, but he is paying money for other people to see movies. He feels that if you charge more money for movies, it would make up the deficit. He doesn’t want to be paying for other people to be going.

VP Andrews said that as a member of the Appropriations Committee, when he looks at Cornell Cinema’s budget, one of the biggest issues he has is the size of the cash reserves. If you look at every other by-line funded org, they don’t request extra funding when they have 14% of their budget in cash in an account. When they have others who come up with the budget deficit, they have x amount of budget to make up, they did these things to cut costs and they need SA to make up the difference, it is valid and reasonable. But when you have an organization who asks for an increase, but doesn’t come up with a plan to cut the deficit, he doesn’t see where the ball stops rolling. If vote were to change, he would need to hear how the surplus is brought down and how the deficit will be cut.

Mary Fessenden said that $78,957 is the current reserve amount. They are anticipating $15,000 to pay for out of reserve. That leaves them with $63,957. It costs $40,000 for the Uris projectors to be replaced which leaves them with $23,597. If there is no additional funding next year. And maintain current level of funding, they will face an $18,000 dollar deficit. That leaves them with $5,957.

Daniel Rodriguez. Asked to support the amendment of Ulysses Smith. Public outbook cry. 2277 members on facebook group 1465 members in the online petition. Existed long before tenure and long after. Allow 10.25. investment in quality of life. Also, don’t think danzer and glasser know what they’re talking about.

VP Basil suggested to perhaps discontinue at the Uris location and maybe just focus on Willard Straight Hall. Netflix and dc++ makes the demand not there for 2 locations on the same night. He believes that attendance would be worse. The audience audibly expressed their disagreement.

J. Min disagreed with the cut and still does. He thinks there needs to be an increase but that is a minority opinion on SA currently. They have made it clear that it wouldn’t go to student workers. As far as surplus, they have given more than enough reason is that it might be needed, projectors are bound to break. Just from outcry, SA does need to be logical and rational. But this isn’t 1 or 2 students disagreeing with heavy cut. It’s a large outcry not just from students, but from the faculty and greater Ithaca community. As a theater double major, he has seen the importance of Cornell Cinema. He really hoped that as an SA they listen to constituents. If there’s such a large outcry, there is a need for compromise.

Community member Tyler Dennis has been in contact. They had the opportunity to meet with people. All interaction has convinced that through discussion, they can work together on solution. It isn’t us vs. them. He believed that over the past few weeks, supporters have done their best. SA members said they would take it into account. Even if you have no interest or connection, consider students who do. Reflect on constituents. You are representing these people. Begged and pleaded and running out of ways to say it. Do not drastically cut. $8.60 vs. $10.25 is VERY significant. He urged them to support Representative Smith’s amendment.

J. Rau said that his vote is for all the students, including the ones who don’t go to cinema.

N. Raps wanted to thank people for coming. She was on the Appropriations Committee and defended her decision for voting for $8.60. After hearing support and reading rationales, she has had a lot of time to think. Her idea is as representatives, they may not believe that Cornell cinema is representative of us and is representative of the community. She believes that cutting would jeopardize a lot of what it has to offer. While she was supportive, she has amended her ideas. When they had other people to appeal, it was just heads of groups. This is students. She doesn’t know if she’ll vote for $10.25, but she wants to increase support.

Lloyd Elman said that he has no formal affiliation. He wanted to speak as one of the students who elected people. Each member of the organization is a figurehead for a large, diverse, open-minded community. They have the responsibility to carry out their demands. Many have expressed their reactions. As a peer and constituent, he urged respect for voices of students.

C. DeLencquesaing said that one thing to keep in mind is that it is not a “you versus us” issue.

A. Gitlin wishes he could’ve heard more comments. He wanted to see a story for testimony.

Community member David Blye wanted to talk about pride. His parents went here. He was at Cornell and has known the cinema for long time. Cornell is not known for having a national reputation in a lot of things, except for Cinema. It is something that Cornell as a university and its students need to be proud of. Earlier, they decried the administration for trying to get rid of Dutch and Swedish. This is not just an entertainment outlet, but also an educational outlet.

R. Desai thanked everyone who’s been here. Tyler sent him an email which was strict and well thought out. That’s support he’s been impressed by. Topics he’d like to touch on are that he doesn’t think the SA is demanding volunteer based. He explained his opinions and is in support of raising somewhat, maybe not full 10.25. He proposed 9.50.

U. Smith asked how many people have been to the cinema. More should try to experience it before trying to cut funding. He wanted to thank Tyler who swayed him. He took time out to send long, well thought out emails. The idea of free movies that Danzer proposed, he doesn’t agree with. It doesn’t make sense. Maybe don’t have emotional ties, as Raps said, it’s our job to represent these people. A lot of other issues, like with the Ken Glover thing, he doesn’t remember seeing all those people in EVERY meeting like these people. Their passion is unrivaled. At least meet halfway with 10.25. Give them time to fix things. All ideas make sense but maybe talk. Give 10.25 with stipulations, work together. Talk about it. Come up with ways. If you’re helping, by time next cycle, they won’t ask for increase.

Rory Wagner has been here for 5 years. They know they can’t read everyone’s email what everyone’s said back, but had the chance to meet SA member and words were “you are the enemy” was still here and standing strong. Met with this week, worked together. He thinks the problem they have as people who go to the cinema is that the goals seem unclear, there aren’t steps. They just want cinema to be at same quality. To cut tens of thousands of dollars if they haven’t been able to meet goals without money, cutting programming, they are already scrambling to meet with the deficit. They do want to work together.

VP Basil said that the other difficult thing is talking back and forth between dollars and cents. Between passionate. Balances responsibilities. There is a reason why there is difficulty year after year with byline funding. This is student activity fee, not program support fee. The university should be providing a lot more support. Programmatic support is a roadblock. 5.80 is less than half and that’s the difficulty. Long term, they want the university to pay the amount they should. The question is how to get there and look at it realistically. To him, the answer is have to set precedent and stand firm in a way as an assembly to mandate change and isn’t easy to brush aside. It is a bold goal. He wants it to catalyze change and doesn’t think 10.25 is right allocation.

VP Kumar had discussion and was unclear about why the $40,000 wasn’t there. Mary Fessenden said that the projectors are seventy years old. They don’t want to wait till they break down to have to replace them. VP Kumar commended the Cinema for meeting with them. They have shown a tremendous amount of leadership. When allocating activity fee, allocating to them. Next semester’s goal is to establish a separate student organization to control non-educational programming. They wouldn’t be funding cinema as an institution. It is a shame that they didn’t have conversations earlier. They don’t know what the reserve should be.

David Dixon is a graduate student in fine arts. As a grad from NYC, with access, was difficult choice to come to Ithaca. Film forum is world renowned in NY but nowhere near Cornell Cinema. Theater space here is fabulous. Wanted to speak about cinema and going to see. Like jazz and symphonic music, should be proposed. Don’t want new theater. Cinema’s adapting to change. Much of programming has live elements that need to be maintained.

M. Danzer personally supports the cinema and values its riches. The question is how much monetary support. He would never support cutting them from the fee. He thinks they deserve support. Question is what does support look like. He explained his proposed changes.

Z. Glasser took a poll. His job as engineering representative is to vote in their favor. Movies are privileges not rights. Should pay, not shift burden to other people.

Andrew Brokman spoke about because SA funds $5,000 to pay clerk. That’s how they evaluated Cornell Cinema. Didn’t the SA allocate $10,000 for web designers over the summer. Yes, for SAFC database.

J. Min said that in response to Basil’s comment. If they were to have cut, it would have negative precedent. It would be detracting away from flourishing program. Think SAFC if they were to provided raise to 10.25. Mary assured promise to try to lower. He thinks setting that precedent would show to work with administrators. That is a promise. Second of all, in regards to attendance, a lot of organizations funding, a lot go under minority groups. Don’t think it’s about what we’re targeting but looking at how it affects a student body. He wouldn’t care if 20,000 came or 10,000. It’s about principle and support programs which are education and provide entertainment outlet. Attendance shouldn’t be such a big issue. Other things also target minority groups.

R. Desai doesn’t see how can declare it was 40,000 knew had to spend. Didn’t include when proposed budget. Mary Fessenden did explain why reserve was in place. In proposal. R. Desai looked over the numbers.

Ian is a head house manager. Questions about what he does, he would be happy to answer. Lot of repeating of same points. Would like to address more blatantly untrue claims. As head manager, oversees scheduling and hiring decisions. Know how hard it is to get people to work. Working 5–6 hours in an evening. Handling 100s of dollars in cash. Tens of thousands of dollars in valuable equipment. Confined to booth, concession stand, box office. It is not feasible to get people to do that for free. Terrible idea. Need incentive to get people to not walk away with bank. Have hard time scheduling some shifts even WITH paid employment. People are busy, have work, parties. It is very hard to incentivize people. The claim that they can get people to work for free is not true. Have seen increase in funding. Worth considering what sort of orgs. Increased grant money. In 2007 specifically. A lot is arts grant money. Specifically give money because impressed by financial management. Suggest that the problem is strange. Getting money is vote of confidence. Much is allocated on understanding to DO arts funding, to do large scale events not as profitable. Hope to consider. Do consider full allocation.

A. Nicoletti listened rather than participated. He really doesn’t have a strong opinion. But that brings into fact of extra amount to pay would be 1.40 if we go with 10 or 1.65. That’s half a cup of coffee. For students who don’t care either way. 1.65 for one year. For a group that really does care, would say, give the group the benefit of the doubt. To most students that doesn’t matter, but to a group, it does matter. U. Smith said there was a movie watched in his college, the garden. About a group of Hispanic people who had a community garden in the middle of LA and the government tried and succeeded to set them down. But garden was their livelihood, lived there, was everything and lost it. If they cut, going to do the same things. Important. can’t answer programming questions. Can tell they are willing to work with you. Need to reach middle ground. 10.25 are middle ground. A lot of activities that he doesn’t go to and never plans on going to. Not a member of Greek orgs, or bikes. His job to see people happy.

R. Salem agrees that there’s been a lot of passion shown by students and he is impressed. He hasn’t seen this passion. They can’t be ignored, however, he is not a fan of arbitrary allocations. Think it’s been said 10.25 is a middle ground, but no justification provided. Disagreement on figures. Think need to take next semester to come down to it. Propose 9.80 which is � the employment and even with, think whatever money, excess would go into that and in 2 years, would go into that. If were to fund at increase, would you be willing to work with to form committee. They are very interested in lowering dependence. Ask that because you can’t come up with alt sources quickly, proposed to fund at 11, which is maintaining to give time over two years. Can say we can sit down and get a committee. If cut from 11 dollars it means not only to deal with 15,000 shortfall. Will have to deal with that. Energy and time is to deal with extra cut. Want to deal with long range. Easier to focus on long range.

There was a five minute recess.

R. Salem said that three new allocations proposed. Now number on floor is 10.25 and going to vote on. There was dissent. The vote to vote was 9–8. The motion fails and discussion continues.

K. Welch said that there are reasonable, rational, logical people. They want to know why 10.25. Obviously cutting to 8.60 cuts because it’s not feasible. Programs cut for 10.25, would bring some back. With regards to Rau, most people are here from Arts and Sciences. She knows that he doesn’t go there, but a lot of your constituency does, as a representative you should represent. She asked that Glasser keep an open mind.

Rau said that sentiment has changed because in this room. Know it’s easy to tell what people want to hear. Not popular decision. Question those who see it. As to if they’re doing it cause they think it’s right or worried about re-election.

Lauren Wagner said that her sister’s here, a junior and she texted her asking the following. Isn’t it hypocritical to cut something which provides an alternative to drinking every single night of the week? Want to work together to decrease dependence. 1st message is you have to do something admin. Second is students don’t support cinema. No one will remember debate in this room two years from now, but will remember 8.60.

M. Danzer has been thinking about what have been talking about. Definitely merits for continuing discussion. Too much is talking past each other. Will be a chance to discuss where cinema goes from here. Increasing tickets would increase revenue. That would allow reduction in SA fee. Raising by dollar is 30,000. Finding happy medium and will continue to work out numbers. Think happy medium. Ensure to know where money is going to and where the rest of the money is coming from. Starting basis is necessary. Where is money going. Where is money losing coming from. Supports cornell cinema. Supports what they do, culture. Question to face now is the money.

Basil pointed to the third page of cinema’s packet. Since 2000, total subsidy of undergrads has increased over 210,000. For him, using Danzer’s request to look at money, 14% increase per year. Wanting to put a stop to year after year increases and subsidies. SA fee capped at 4% increase. Looking at in fiscally responsible way, can’t keep. Call to question. Second. Dissent. By a vote of 5–13–0, the allocation fails so going back into discussion. Next person on list can now amend for new numbers.

A. Ravaret said that it has come down to a horrible situation. Think that’s disgusting. Mutual disrespect needs to stop. They are all students who are all here for each other. Trying to represent students. He sees their passion, love to represent. In a tricky situation. SA fee might not be the right funding option. Think recognize and trying to do things to change. What to do to get new point. In no way want to hurt cinema. See people rolling their eyes, shaking their head. That hurts. Want to vote on a number like Rammy said, a lot of arbitrary. Want to vote on a number to solve the problem. What is minimum number. He yielded his time to Mary. Mary said that basically whatever is cut, they will have to make programming cuts. Kinds of things likely to go are foreign language films, classic films, fewer visiting filmmakers, requests from student orgs, more cut, less to do. Can’t say specifically how many numbers. At this point, it is hard to say a number. Important thing now is that they do want less dependence on fee. In two years, they will ask for less than eight sixty. But will have easier time asking for that if you don’t cut funding that much now. Makes it that much harder.

N. Raps proposed 10 dollars. It was seconded. There was a call to question by VP Basil. There was dissent. The vote to vote was 11–5. By a vote of 9–6−1, ten dollars is approved.

Z. Glasser proposed 8.55 which is all else equal, 30% ticket increase. J. Rau seconded.

C. Delencquesaing called to question. It was seconded. By hand vote of 2–13, the motion fails.

VP Basil proposed nine dollars and fifty cents. It was seconded. For everything said, 9.50 is right.

Community member Sinead Lykins said that is just as arbitrary a number. She doesn’t understand where numbers are getting and where trying to cut from. Jobs are all essential. Can’t be done by students. They have to know international laws to get films from Sweden. Can’t happen with undergrads. Freshmen don’t know. Mary and chris graduated college. Been working a long time to understand. Asking how to run. Ian is the max of what a student can do, does it well. What would other suggestions be to cut to nine fifty.

VP Basil said there are a lot of changes to budget. That’s what next semester’s looking at. 10,000 dollars printing calendars. Direct printing costs, opportunity looking at exorbitant expense. Budget is 500,000 dollars a year. Other than SAFC, 3rd largest org fund.

M. Danzer was crunching numbers. Additional time, based on numbers, in addition to 75 cent, it would be friendly to 9.56. 9.56 is new amendment.

N. Raps is upset with comment to vote on ten dollars to get to dinner. Overwhelming voted for 10 dollars. She wants to end discussion. Vote on 9.56, vote down, finish meeting. It was seconded. By a vote of 7–9−0, the motion fails.

M. Danzer proposed an amendment to haven. 2.31. The rationale is asked for 69 cent increase. Believed they should increase educational programming, what happened was 14 cent increase which is 1800 dollars which considering breadth, 11 cents is 3000 dollars which is adequate to show they can use it properly.

VP Basil said that the reason appropriations made decision was because filthy gorges costs $26,000 and only attracts 500 students. They believed it was excessive. Should cap a contribution to filthy gorges, which would then give them more money. Should keep allocation.

N. Raps echoed what VP Basil said. Upping funding to reflect needed programming. Decided that anything above would be a waste. This would be more toward programming that already exists. The increase is enough to represent increase which needs to happen.

N. Kumar asked that when the appropriations committee made their recommendation, what was response from haven. It was accepted because didn’t want decrease. Think any increase will allow them to create more programming to better serve. N. Kumar respects that, but thinks their rationale was correct. He called to question. It was seconded. By a vote of 1–14–1, the amendment fails.

Now open to general SAF discussion.

VP Kumar said that when he ran for re-election, he made a pledge to vote against any increase. This is outstanding budget for historical budget. Appropriations Committee, led by Chris, has done an outstanding job. This is a very good budget. They would like to see increase lower. Understand why vote yes.

R. Salem opened discussion on slope day. Why 3 dollars is appropriate for slope day. Mike Walsh echoed Rammy’s comment. As a trustee, entirely up to you. Have been getting questions as to why slope day goes up. Please make decision judiciously. VP Basil formally proposed to amend SAFC to 82.17. This rounding up would happen automatically, but want to give opportunity. Activity fee set to rise at 2.9% per year. This increase to 3.7 which is below 4.

N. Kumar is more in favor toward cutting 1.40 from increase of slope day so they go from 18 dollars to 16.60. He would rather cutting slope day than increase SAFC M. Danzer — think there is merit to cutting slope day. And if the trustees are getting worried, need to take a look. VP Basil said that the increase of 3 dollars to slope day was made because they lost 35,000. Because university is no longer supporting CUPD cost. If university withdraws, then slope day is budget neutral. Also numerous safety and health issues about sufficient artist honorarium. Worse artists leads to a higher rates of alcohol poisoning.

N. Raps said that they did approve of their budget, the entire assembly. To bring up now is unprofessional, should’ve voiced opinions then. Recommend going down and decrease SAFC by 1.40. They are adding a great amount of increase to support organizations. Adding extra sixty cents isn’t feasible. Call to question. Second.

It failed by a vote of 7–8. R. Desai motioned to amend by removing 1.40 from SAFC to change to 8.70.

VP Basil said that the rationale of app comm. SAFC gets around 35% of fee. Base line used was to look at increase to keep SAFC in line with SAF as a whole. SAFC is essentially falling behind. Thinks extra sixty cents is better than cutting 1.40.

Community member Ian said that he is glad they use same fine combed consideration with all groups. Do hope to consider giving extra money to Cornell Cinema. Given that debate has been cut off and is not representative would be prudent to vote and set a statement as to opinion. Size of cut doesn’t send signal. Saying things does. Consider using money where it could be most used and appreciated.

VP Kumar said that it is important to make SAF increase at a low rate. Very in line. Increase is more appropriate. Call to question. Second. There was dissent. A vote to vote was held and by a vote of 13- 1, the assembly was to vote. By a vote of 10–6, the amendment passes.

There was a call to question for the entire SAF. It was seconded. At a total of 216. By a vote of 15–1−0, the activity fee was approved.

VI. Unfinished Business

R. 33-Marcellus Shale Drilling � Adam Raveret ‘12 and Cole Streiff ‘10

Cole from KYOTO Now gave some background. Marcellus shale bed is from VA to NY. A. Ravaret added that they know it’s President Skorton’s decision to make. They just want to make sure it’s educated. This sets up committee to research drilling, hopefully headed by KYOTO Now representatives, and gives facts of harm to President Skorton. UA just passed the same resolution. Almost same wording. VP Kumar thanked him for sticking around. Committee has done a great job. All got an email about UA setting up sustainability committee. Is it integrated or separate? A. Ravaret said that it is set up by Skorton. Not too much with us. This is for HIS knowledge to make educated decision. Not affiliated with environmental committee.

A. Nicoletti said that UA didn’t have material things. Agrees with Ravaret that it’s the same pretty much. VP Basil said that he knows nothing about geology. He wants Skorton to make decision informed by science. Not sure about how committee making decisions. Would like to see geology professors on the committee. Cole said that they want biologists not just geologists. Found people like them interested. Point is that Skorton doesn’t have time to keep up with research. As an organization, they are not against hydrofracking, but don’t know enough about it. They would be staffed by people knowledgeable in the area. A. Nicoletti said that the UA passed unanimously. The faculty senate president of arts came and supported. He thinks 4/5 faculty members on UA are biology so they knew about it. He called to question. It was seconded. There was a call for acclimation. No dissent. The resolution passes.

VII. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn. It was seconded. The meeting adjourned at 6:46 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Brittany Rosen