Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
April 15, 2010
4:45pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:47 pm.

II. Roll Call

Voting Members Present: V. Andrews, C. Basil, A. Brokman, Z. Glasser, N. Kumar, A. Latella, C. Moreno, A. Niccoletti, S. Purdy, N. Raps, A. Raveret, J. Rau, R. Salem, U. Smith, K. Welch, H. Yang

Voting Members Excused Absent: M. Danzer, M. DeLucia, J. Min,

Voting Members Unexcused Absent: I. Akinpelu, A. Cowen, , A. Gitlin, N. Junewicz

III. Approval of Minutes

The minutes from April 8th were approved.

IV. Open Microphone

A member of the GPSA introduced himself and speaks about his extensive experience servicing Cornell through different assemblies and committees. Right now he is working on a committee regarding strategic planning. Although he was unable to answer questions due to the time constraint on the open microphone, he encouraged Student Assembly members and the Student body to each out to him via email or Facebook. R. Salem commends the SA for their “hilarity”. He explained that they have been mentioned in the Cornell Sun both in the “overheard” section and in a section titled “A Day in the life of an SA Rep”. R. Salem explained that, in regards to office hours in the library cafe, the SA sign has been removed. The Olin staff does not allow signs on the walls, but the SA will now have a sign hung from the edge of a table.

V. Announcements/Reports

1. Charter Review�Alex Cowen

A. Cowen explained that this weekend there is going to be a meeting for an ad hoc charter review committee. He further explained that by the next meeting the entire charter should be ready. He extended and invitation to all liaisons who may be interested in being part of the review committee.

2. Appropriations Committee Announcement�Chris Basil

C. Basil explained that the appropriations committee voted yesterday to fund $200 in special projects for the Phoenix Society. The outcome was a vote of 10–3. The Phoenix Society needs the fund for construction materials that had not been funded by the SAFC. Basil asked if the assembly had any questions pertaining to the allocation made.

3. Focus Group on Bridges�Nikhil Kumar

N. Kumar explained that volunteers are needed to participate in a focus group that will be brainstorming ideas for long-term solutions to bridge restriction. Thus far, he has received interest by twenty individuals. He asked the assembly and student body to let him know if anyone else is interested in the issue, and wants to become part of the focus group.

R. Desai gives further information on this focus group, by explaining that President Skorton often attends some of the meetings held, and as a result, they are very productive. He explained that designs from Cornell undergraduate architects and engineers are being considered. He encourages more students to get involved.

4. Big Red Bikes�Jackie Chen

Jackie Chen, a junior, and three other students provided the student assembly with an update on the Big Red Bikes effort. J. Chen explained that the committee has been working hard this semester in order to recruit new members. They have had several general body meetings. J. Chen explained that the committee is divided up into groups, each of which is in charge of different tasks. For example, the operation team is in charge of guiding students through the process they needs to go through to obtain one of the bikes. J. Chen explained that the committee is currently in the process of creating a list of recommendations to send out to different Cornell departments. The recommendations will be going to facilities such as the libraries, and community centers. J. Chen noted that the committee is working in conjunction with a steering community. Since the effort is coming from this steering community and not just students, it is more enforceable.

V. Andrews asked if there was an update on when the program might start doing purchases? When will bike racks be installed?

J. Chen explained that purchases are going to begin in the fall of next year. Bikes have been ordered to get the word out and get students at Cornell excited about the program

N. Kumar asked the Big Red Bikes committee how communication with library staff is going.

The committee explained that the libraries are in favor of the program. Recommendations should be coming out within the next two weeks.

5. Dining Committee Meeting-A. Latella

A. Latella explained that Cornell Dining has several dining events going on during commencement week for people who cannot get reservations elsewhere. He encouraged the student body to look into these events.

6. Environmental Committee- A. Raveret

A. Raveret explained that earth day is coming up. The Student Assembly will have a table up on Ho Plaza. There will be water bottles available with a Student Assembly emblem on it.

7. AAP Update- U. Smith

U. Smith mentioned several things in his AAP update. Firstly, he commented on an exhibit currently up displaying the work done by an AAP student while in India. Next, Smith explained that the chair of the art department has received a fellowship, and has stepped down as chair. The department is currently seeking a replacement. Lastly, U. Smith explained that the fine arts library is going to be placed in Rand Hall. He explained that he has the complete plan for the new library if anyone wants to see.

8. Executive Update- R. Salem

R. Salem explained that the deputy mayor is going to be visiting Cornell this evening. He will be in Keeton dining hall as 7:30PM if anyone is interest in New York City politics and would like to meet him.

VII. Business of the Day

1. Resolution 71

This resolution is a proposal for an ad-hoc charter review committee. The committee will be in charge of authorizing charter revisions, so that revisions do not have to go through the usual, more complicated process of authorization. The resolution also sets a deadline for when the committee should present a charter. The deadline is Thursday April 22nd, 2010.

N. Kumar commends Alex for his hard work in the movement for an ad-hoc charter. There was a call for acclamation for resolution 71. The motion was seconded. There was no decent.

The Ad-hoc committee was formed.

VIII. Unfinished Business

1. R. 69- Student Innovation Council�Nikhil Kumar

The Student Innovation Council is a group that will serve as a mechanism for students to generate and implement new ideas for the betterment of student life.

N. Kumar explained that he is trying to ensure that the entire operation is as efficient as possible. He explained that some students were concerned that they did not know the opinions of the co-chairs.

V. Andrews explained that he recently spoke with one of the co chairs, who explained that the Student Innovation Council was the best coarse of action.

Resolution 69 was called to question. The resolution was passed by a hand vote of 13–0−2.

2. R. 62�”The 1st Amendment Clause”�Mike Wacker ‘10, Jon Rau ‘12, Alex Latella ‘10, Ray Mensah ‘11

The next order of unfinished business was resolution 62: “The First Amendment Clause”, which seeks to protect the first amendment rights of Cornell students and student organizations.

M. Wacker emphasized the fact that public universities are obligated to uphold first amendment rights.

Some student assembly members expressed their concern with this resolution, stating that it conflicts with the Resolution 44 Non-Discriminatory Clause, sponsored by M. Danzer and A. Brokman.

C. Basil expressed the fact that he does not see how Resolution 62 and Resolution 44 come into conflict with one another. Basil explained that in his four years at Cornell, Ki Alpha has been the only act of discrimination of its kind. He emphasized the fact that we are not dealing within n epidemic of discrimination on Cornell’s Campus, and therefore, the two resolutions should not conflict.

M. Danzer asked M. Wacker if this resolution will allow groups to prevent students from joining based on their failure to meet some given group status (based on race, gender, orientation, etc). To be more specific, M. Danzer asked if resolution 62 would reverse the current policy (as instituted by resolution 44).

M. Wacker responded that the resolution at hand would not reverse current policy.

N. Kumar took the opportunity to that Mike Wacker for his efforts in the process of passing this resolution. Kumar explained that his concern is that he is not sure what problem this resolution is trying to solve. He is not sure that the resolution meshes well with other policies. N. Kumar asked if the resolution would prevent university groups from imposing discipline on discriminatory groups.

M. Wacker answered N. Kumar’s question by reading a line directly from the resolution, which states that the resolution does not prevent punishment unless constitutionally protected.

A. Brokman firmly stated that he believes that the resolution is a setback from the policy already in place, and he therefore urges the assembly to vote against it.

M. Wacker responded by explaining that this law has been the law of public universities, and has been in place for a long time.

S. Purdy voiced his support for the resolution, stating that the language of the document does not conflict with current policy.

V. Andrews asked M. Wacker what his motivations are in presenting this resolution. He asked if M. Wacker has had his freedom of speech violated, or been in a situation in which he has witnessed someone’s freedom of speech being violated.

M. Wacker explained that he had never been in a specific situation in which his freedoms of speech rights have been violated, but he believed that in heated situations, there is always such temptation.

R. Desai explained that he advocates the effort to strengthen first amendment rights, but wants to make sure that it is not at the expense of the rights of other students.

M. Danzer expressed his concern that this resolution is vague and ambiguous enough to pose a problem of confusion. If passed, M. Danzer explained (as an example) that the SA would have the jurisdiction to vote out any assembly member due to their affiliation with a certain group. He summed his opinions by explaining that the resolution brings us back in time, rather that forward.

U. Smith explained that although he did not support Resolution 44, he also couldn’t accept this resolution right now. He does not understand the motivation behind it.

C. Basil again iterated his stance, explaining that if you look at the specific clauses, the resolution is not regressive.

A. Brokman motioned to table the resolution. The motion was seconded. Resolution 62 was tabled by a vote of 10–5−0.

IX. New Business

1. R. 70- Extension of Voting Rights for Members of the Undergraduate Community-“The Community Clause 2.0”�Rammy Salem

Next, the Student Assembly discussed Resolution 70. R. Salem presented the resolution. This resolution was an attempt to extend voting rights to the student body, and not just have such rights exclusive to Student Assembly members.

J. Rau asked R. Salem that is the SA extends voting rights, where do we draw the line?

N. Raps explained that she had disagreed with the resolution at first, but now believes that it is worth giving it a shot. She believed that this resolution could transform the Student Assembly.

S. Purdy voiced his concern with the resolution. He explained that a resolution that extends voting rights, would lead to situations in which only some of the student body is voting. In Purdy’s opinion, the SA needs to go with representation or go with true democracy. This resolution sits on a point in between the two.

M. Glasser called the resolution to question. The motion was passed by a vote of 11–4−0.

2. R. 72- SAFC Guidelines Reform�Dan Gusz ‘11, Charlie Feng ‘11, Justin Min, Roneal Desai, Vincent Andrews

Resolution 72 makes several changes to SAFC procedures. The resolution includes a change to make sure publication allocations are being made out to groups more likely to use them. The resolution will split criteria for special projects. The first category includes new circumstances that come up for which an organization needs funding for. The second category includes any organization that applied for funding and received administrative expenses. If an organization did not submit any documentation, they are allowed one special project request under one category.

Voting on Resolution 72 was postponed until the next meeting.

3. R. 73- Appendix B Revisions�Chris Basil

C. Basil read aloud all the changes made to Appendix B. Language was added in, and extracted in order to better clarify each section. Amendments were made to Sections A, F, and G of the document. The assembly will vote on the Appendix B Revisions next week.

4. R. 74- SA Special Projects and Appropriations Committee Charge�Chris Basil

Resolution 74 will be voted on next week.

X. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:32pm.