Student Assembly

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC erred in denying funding to Alternative Breaks by a vote of 5–2−2. The Committee felt denying Alternative Breaks funding under the grounds that its reservation letters did not constitute acceptable documentation was unreasonable. The Committee felt that the amount of information on the letters was sufficient to conclude with reasonable certainty the accurate cost of trips;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC erred in denying funding for shuttles to Badminton Cornell by a vote of 6–1−2. The Committee felt denying Badminton funding for shuttles due to the lack of an inventory report was an unreasonable application of the guidelines since the entire inventory of shuttles, by their nature, depreciate over the course of a semester;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC did not err in denying funding to Cornell Bridges to Community by a vote of 1–8, and the SAFC decision will stand. The Committee felt the sign on the door directing students toward the online budget application did not constitute sufficient cause to warrant an error on the part of the SAFC;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC did not err in denying funding to COLA by a vote of 0–5−4, and the SAFC decision will stand. The Committee felt that the transition of the group’s treasurer position did not create a situation where the group could not have submitted correct documentation on time. The Committee noted that the organization’s president was not revised on the RSO registry, so a current officer would have received all notification emails. Moreover, information necessary for correct budget presentation is available to students not registered as group officers;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC did not err in denying funding to Dilmun Hill by a vote of 0–9, and the SAFC decision will stand. The Committee felt that though the SAFC website may have been unclear in indicating the budget deadline, the several emails sent to both presidents and treasurers and the presence of office staff and commissioners to answer questions was a sufficient resource to correct any misunderstanding;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC did not err in denying funding to Cornell Elderly Partnership by a vote of 0–9, and the SAFC decision will stand. The Committee felt that the transition to an online budget system did not constitute sufficient cause to justify unfair SAFC procedures. Moreover, the items requested for other than the newsletter were largely expenses the SAFC does not fund for anyway, including plants, art supplies, and video games;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC erred in denying funding for the Society for Human Resource Management for conference expenditures by a vote of 6–0−2. The Committee felt denying Human Resource Management funding was unreasonable since all necessary supporting documentation was provided as a link on the online form rather than in print;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC erred in denying funding to the Institute of Biological Engineers by a vote of 5–0−3. The Committee felt denying Institute of Biological Engineers funding for their Duffield Hall event for lack of a room reservation was not a reasonable interpretation of the SAFC guidelines. The College of Engineering room reservation form presented, though not in the typical UUP format, included all necessary information to determine proof of room reservation;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC erred in denying funding to Last Call by a vote of 7–1−1. The Committee felt that Last Call, having all of its application materials prepared before the online submission deadline, had made an impressive effort to turn in all budget materials including the online portion as a paper submission. The Committee felt that the miscommunication surrounding the group’s efforts to change officer registration with the RSO was not the fault of the SAFC, but that the group should still receive funding. The Committee recognized Last Call’s efforts to submit its budget packet and also the fact that no confirmation email was sent from the RSO to the group.

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC erred in denying funding to Let’s Get Ready by a vote of 6–2. The Committee recognized that the issue in question is identical to the one that the Committee heard last year. In deliberating, the Committee felt that the program materials purchased did benefit Cornell students, who had an opportunity to learn valuable teaching skills. Additionally the Committee recognized the centrality of the program materials to the program’s existence and questioned the wisdom of allowing copies of one book to be considered a durable good, but not allowing multiple published copies of a book (bought at a lower cost than photocopying one book) to be considered a durable good. Considering all of this, the Committee voted that the SAFC had erred by unreasonably applying their guidelines to the Let’s Get Ready funding application;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC did not err in denying funding to One Cornell by a vote of 2–7, and the SAFC decision will stand. The Committee felt that the SAFC applied their guidelines reasonably and fairly in denying funding for a digital camcorder due to a lack of price quote. Though the Committee recognized the group’s expressed need for a second camcorder, no mitigating circumstances were presented;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee took two votes in regard to the Phoenix Society. The Committee voted that the SAFC erred in denying $59.94 in funding for pliers and wirecutters by a vote of 6–0−3. However, the Committee decided that the SAFC did not err in denying funding for other construction materials by a vote of 0–3−4. The Committee did not feel that the other construction supplies constituted durable goods. However, separately, the Committee encourages the Phoenix Society to apply directly to the Appropriations Committee for Student Assembly special projects funding;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted that the SAFC did not err in denying funding to Cornell Women’s Health Alliance by a vote of 0–7−1, and the SAFC decision will stand. The Committee felt that the SAFC applied their guidelines correctly and reasonably in denying funds for a lack of room reservation documentation;

Whereas, the Appropriations Committee voted today that the SAFC did not err in denying funding to Yours by a vote of 0–9, and the SAFC decision will stand. The Committee felt that the SAFC was not unreasonable in judging the original letter of intent to be insufficient to constitute acceptable proof of contact. Moreover, since the intended speaker is a Cornell Staff member, no funds could be granted for a speaker fee even with proof of contact;

Be it therefore resolved that, the Assembly adopt the following recommendations of the Appropriations Committee:

• The SAFC shall consider Alternative Breaks’ conference registration forms to be valid forms of documentation;
• The SAFC shall consider shuttles for Badminton Cornell to be an exception to the durable goods funding rules and shall deserve funding;
• The SAFC did not err in denying funding to Cornell Bridges to Community;
• The SAFC did not err in denying funding to the Cornell Organization for Labor Action;
• The SAFC did not err in denying funding to Dilmun Hill;
• The SAFC did not err in denying funding to Cornell Elderly Partnership;
• The SAFC shall consider the Society for Human Resource Management’s digital forms for conference expenditures to be valid documentation;
• The SAFC shall consider the Institute of Biological Engineers’ Duffield Hall reservation form to be valid documentation;
• The SAFC shall consider Last Call’s paper submission to be a valid replacement for an online submission
• The SAFC shall consider Let’s Get Ready’s request for SAT books to be necessary program materials rather than non-durable goods;
• The SAFC did not err in denying funding to One Cornell Media;
• The SAFC erred in denying fund the Phoenix Society for wirecutters and pliers; additionally, the SAFC did not err in denying funding to the Phoenix Society for construction materials
• The SAFC did not err in denying funding to Cornell Women’s Health Alliance;
• The SAFC did not err in denying funding to Yours;

Be it further resolved that, the SAFC shall only allocate money if all other funding criteria not considered by the Appropriations Committee are met, including funding caps or other guidelines issues.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher Basil
Vice President for Finance