Student Assembly

MINUTES
Cornell University Student Assembly
September 23, 2010
4:45pm — 6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

V. Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:46 PM.

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: S. Agard, V. Andrews, A. Bajaj, G. Block, A. Brokman, M. Danzer, R. Desai, C. Feng, M. Finn, A. Gitlin, M. Gulrajani, C. Jenkins, J. Kay, D. Kuhr, T. Lenardo, R. Mensah, A. Nicoletti, S. Pendleton, A. Pruce, N. Raps, J. Rau, U. Smih, A. Yozwiak.

III. Open Microphone�Ray Mensah

D. Kuhr announced that there is a glee club concert for homecoming, this Saturday at 8.

Oath of Office

The newly elected SA members took the Oath of Office.

V. Announcements/Reports

a. Communications Update — Natalie Raps

Tonight is Red and White night at Dino’s. Dollar bracelets have been sold and will continue to be sold at the door as well. There will be free food and drink specials for all undergrads. Also, the SA is participating in the homecoming parade thanks to Asa Craig. All SA members who are interested, it starts at 10:30 am on Saturday; email her if you’re interested.

b. Library Committee Report — Emily Cusick

The fire safety updates in Olin are going along well. They have finished 4 of the floors. The basement is done and will be opening up after fall break. The first floor will be reconstructed over winter break. They can get those books from the reference desk. They are almost finished with the library review. They just finished ILR, Hotel, and JGSM. If you have any question about your library, email her. As for security, 9/30 is going to be the last day to log on without netid and password. The reason for it is because the TAs and professors have access to your ID numbers. Librarians don’t want people to know what you’re taking out. The ILR, Hotel, JGSM review passed. Come talk to her with concerns. There were 11 major recommendations. All physical collections are moving to Catherwood library or the annex but the study spaces will remain.

c. Housing Lottery Update — Ray Mensah

As some of you know, last year the SA passed R13, reorganizing the housing lottery system. In the past, rising seniors went first, then juniors, then sophomores. R13 reorganized it so that sophomores go first and seniors go third. It has been a lot of concern mainly from upperclassmen that the changes will leave them locked out of the process. He had some of those concerns himself. Last week, he and Vince met with Director Burke at RP and assured them that will not happen and that only 180 more rooms have been made available to the rising sophomore population. So please encourage friends that are upperclassmen that there will not be a big change in room availability. Encourage to remain in housing lottery process.

U. Smith also met with ResLife and also assured that while administration wasn’t sure how it was going to work, students don’t understand HOW it’s going to work. They’re looking at disseminating information. Upperclassmen will not be pushed off of west campus.

d. Residential Life Committee Update — Ulysses Smith

He would like to direct everyone’s attention to Jessica Mounessa. She’s VP of RSC. When people have resolutions going through ResLife, they will also send them through her. They want to get more input from residence halls. Next meeting is next Wednesday at 4:30pm in GSH 150.

e. Cornell Concert Commission and MGLC Report — Adam Nicoletti

There are two reports from Byline funded people. CCC is doing a terrific job. Praise them for the diversity of high quality and high attendance events. Since they have a lot of roll over money, should look to expanding co-sponsorships to share with the student body their knowledge. MGLC gets 50 cents a year toward events. They have improved from last year but need to go farther for greater organization structure and oversight. Formalizing structure and a way for requests to go in would encourage MGLC to only fund on food when it’s necessary. Next week’s hearings are EARS and Minds Matter. If you’re interested, come out.

f. Dining Committee - Jon Rau

Last dining meeting, 20 people showed up. Next is Tuesday 28th in Trillian. Going to hear from Matt Larou at 5:30pm, Trillium, second floor. Fall harvest dinner at RPC is Thursday.

VI. Unfinished Business

a. R. 2 — Conflict-free Campus Resolution

They encouraged them to invest only in conflict free companies. Before they asked for CIT budget. What they really want is a list of vendors. So they changed that. Emphasizing that investments is where the meat is. The resolution was stalled because A. Yozwiak wanted them to meet with CIT. It was a productive meeting. Nothing in the resolution seemed to be a problem for them. A. Yozwiak said that his only advice was to steer away from recommending that Cornell stop purchasing dell computers, but target the resolution to inform the investment committee here to refrain from investing in companies that are known to be conflicted.

R. Desai commended on doing a great job. Last time the only concern was whether or not CIT would be responsive.

A. Gitlin called to question. It was seconded. There was a call for acclimation. No dissent. Resolution passed by acclamation.

b. R. 12 — Request for an Annual Report on Executive Compensation

There has been reporting on the resolution already in the Sun. A. Brokman explained the resolution.

J. Rau asked if our tuition was going toward faculty or administration. But there is also the endowment and the donation. A. Brokman said that’s a great question, but all we get from the annual report is a pie chart. Can’t give an exact figure of tuition because it’s going in one pot and being taken out of one pot.

D. Kuhr asked what is the goal of requesting the ratio of the presidents to the median. A. Brokman said it is a common ratio to think how many times more money is the top person making than every other employee. It is a ratio that can easily be figured out by HR. D. Kuhr asked if the president is the highest paid. A. Brokman said no and explained what currently needs to be reported by law.

N. Raps would like to call dean Hubbell up to speak. There are other ways of getting the information, and Dean Hubbell had a few ideas. Dean Hubbell explained that he doesn’t have an opinion about the resolution. But does have experience being a faculty member at University of Michigan that the information was published in the paper. It is probably very healthy in terms of transparency. Cornell is a PRIVATE university. It has the discretion of NOT disclosing. There may be another way to look at this or in addition. As you know, your parents/someone pays a princely sum to come here. Would venture to say that there is another someone that admits Cornell to have you at school here. May take as much as 100,000 for you to go to school here. If you can substantiate the real cost of your education vs. tuition, it may help understand how students and families play their financial part in the university. Just one is tuition, albeit a large one. A. Brokman added that another source, beyond tuition, is tax dollars. When you calculate the grants, etc, is ~ 600 million dollars.

U. Smith asked if he is making the distinction between land grant and endowed. Who is this including now and is it only going to be highest paid from land grant or are you now including endowed. A. Brokman said that he is making no distinction between endowed and land grant. Sent link to annual report, p 61, listed all admins, they’re the less than fifty people spoken about. No distinction between land grant vs. endowed.

R. Desai did research on it. Thinks it’s great. Take a look at what the UCs disclose, they do release the summary of compensation but none of them have in BITR clauses 2+3, the philosophy/rationalization. Took into question whether or not it’s feasible. Goes into the HR practices of the university. Not fair to recommend if it’s detrimental. A. Brokman said that the difference is the why and that part is feasible according to VP Mary Opperman. He called to question. It was seconded. A. Gitlin dissented citing the need for more discussion. The motion was withdrawn.

M. Danzer thought it was a very good resolution. He is encouraged that A. Brokman spoke with the VP for HR. To comment on Dean Hubbell’s recommendation, would it be feasible to request info on what the ratio of our tuition dollars that go into paying or do they simply hold it as pots of money? A. Brokman doesn’t think they break the money down and do pool it all.

R. Mensah commended him for filing this. It is a good resolution in a time where tuition is rising each and every year. This is a sound recommendation for a more transparent recommendation.

A. Gitlin sees the nature of the resolution and like the energy and passion for the transparence but on the other hand he also doesn’t see the end product of how he’s going to use this info, how it’s going to help students vs. maybe refraining conversation vs. how to make difference in student’s lives. Instead of holding admins responsible for salaries, why not saying we know you make a certain amount of money but there are a lot of things on campus we need improved. He understands where you’re coming from but doesn’t know how to use the transparency to better lives of students. A. Brokman does think this holds administrators accountable. It won’t overnight make people more accountable but in the future, will hopefully make a more transparent HR department. This is an important thing to make more accountable.

A. Nicoletti asked how Brokman thought the firestorm is going to impact the faculty and staff. A. Brokman did not think there would be a firestorm. Why not make things more transparent? A. Nicoletti said that this regards the privacy and personal lives of people having their livelihoods exposed. These human resources have the knowledge we want. They’re imparting this knowledge on us. He doesn’t know if either of them are qualified for interpreting the industry standards. It is going to create unnecessary public fervor and will harm the ability for Cornell to be more competitive. Can’t compare us to the average. A. Brokman said that Provost Fuches doesn’t see it as an issue.

A. Craig heard a few concerning things. He explained the process. There is a compensation committee within the board of trustees; they discuss it. Then they present to the board of trustees. Plenty of diverse minds go into the discussion of the process. He cautions not to say specifically why this or that. That won’t necessarily be illuminated in that report. Would like to follow up with what Nicoletti was saying what are we trying to do. Our location, our institute, our status, within the Ivy League. Sets a challenging agenda for us when confronting pay for faculty/administrators alike.

M. Gulrajani understands the motivation toward resolution. Wondering if you had any plans to process the data or do you have a next step? Is there a correlation with increase in tuition and salary? Any help? A. Brokman is not trying to make charts. He thinks it is a good thing to have this produced every year. He doesn’t think it needs to be compared to flow of transition. Thinks this is small compared to what is required of public institutions. The more we know, the more it’s accountable.

D. Kuhr said that the exact statistic according to financial aid is that is 60% of cost of coming in goes to HR. He knows the university was considering how it takes in tuition but do not know if that is how the money works. As of now it goes toward individual colleges if he understands A. Craig said that as many reports over the past year and a half, the new budget model was presented to the trustees in April and May where yes, we will be going to a more centralized model.

M. Danzer would like to say his thinking toward why it’s valuable. It was mentioned that the resolution doesn’t help us with broader issues, but what this would do annually puts those reports into a certain context. Are these problems because the university is crunched for money or are they creating extravagant salaries for administrators. With regards to people, yes it is affecting personal lives, but the money, a good chunk is coming from us, but it affects our lives and students around campus. Giving us context for other issues on campus is important for their lives as well. Gives students more info with which to use to better their own lives.

U. Smith would like to echo some of the speakers. He does support the efforts to make things more transparent but does not see how the information would make the administration more accountable. These people have lives and other considerations and is intrusive for them to have to disclose info to us and don’t see the point of it. Is difficult to say that just because people are making a certain amount of money, means the university hasn’t been doing much otherwise.

J. Rau thinks this is more than a request/recommendation/policy change. It is a breach of 50 contracts. Their salary information in the contracts is confidential. There could be lawsuits. Maybe in the future have transparency but doesn’t see the point in requesting info but the credibility of the SA comes from the resolutions we pass or fail to pass. If we’re just shooting up resolutions just to be shot down week in/out. He motioned to table indefinitely. There was a second. There was dissent. R. Mensah feels that this is a worthwhile piece of legislation and Brokman has been great in talking to admin and doing legwork. He thinks that with all comments, they do have enough to go on and vote.

There was a vote to vote. The motion fails.

C. Feng asked the exact number of administrators to disclose this. A. Brokman said he believes it is around 43. C. Feng called to question. It was seconded. By a vote of 12–4−6, the resolution passes.

VII. Business of the Day

a. R. 14 — SA Spending Guidelines

A. Nicoletti explained the spirit and reason of the resolution. Currently, there are no rules that exist that determine how you spend the budget. They owe it to future assemblies as well as our own an agreeable way to disperse the budget. Explained the categories.

R. Desai commended him for this legislation. He spoke with a few people earlier in the week and they had a few reservations of funding of 250 without consultation of people. He made a motion to amend rule 5.

M. Gulrajani said that while it makes sense, he doesn’t think it’s necessary but instead is an unnecessary level of red tape. M. Danzer thinks it’s good. He was going to propose something similar. Would say that even making it better would strike the first sentence of rule five. D. Kuhr said that they purposely internally elect the VP Finance and this is adding unnecessary big red tape. A. Nicoletti understands where the impetus comes from but rule 5 exists so small things can happen but you will still be aware of it. R. Desai said that he doesn’t think that this means every request should be gone through but it’s transparency. A. Bajaj does trust the VP Finance and President but if there were significant opinion on it, it should be within our power to look over again and having a safety valve mechanism doesn’t add any bureaucracy but adds a layer of autonomy.

S. Pendleton thinks it’s a good thing and makes people aware if there are any conflicts. A. Nicoletti said that this would essentially confuse rules five and six, adding more complexity. It’s making the gradual ramp up not make sense.

C. Feng called to question on the amendment. It was seconded.

By a vote of 12 — 8 — 0 amendment passes.

They moved back to the main motion and main speakers list.

R. Mensah motioned to add a second amendment in case there was no time for going through the appropriations committee. A. Nicoletti: understand concerns but the appropriations committee is elected by the SA at large to look at financial issues. They’re the ones doing this in more detail. When it goes through the SA, it is going to pass with little scrutiny. It is more efficient and streamline if appropriations is looking at it. R. Mensah doesn’t think any requests for funds will be rubber stamped by this body. This is more for those events and projects that happen after an SA meeting and before an Appropriations meeting and if the president or VP Finance says no.

R. Desai completely agrees with Nicoletti

D. Kuhr understands the reason for the amendment, but it delegitimizes Appropriations and is trying to establish committees as being an integral part. This is unnecessary to use the SA for.

S. Agard called to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. There was a vote to vote. The vote to vote passed, so they voted on the resolution. By a vote of 3 — 14- 3, the amendment fails.

Back to the main motion. M. Danzer thinks this is a phenomenal piece of work He calls to question. It was seconded. There was dissent. Danzer withdrew his motion and yielded his time to Bajaj.

A. Bajaj said that 2/3 vote is too stringent because Appropriations is a committee of the SA. It should be simple majority.

V. Andrews said that traditionally 2/3 vote of committee can be overturned by 2/3 of assembly.

A. Bajaj called to question. It was seconded. By a vote of 22–0−0, the resolution passes.

VIII. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:29 pm.

IX. Executive Session

They moved into executive session.

Respectfully submitted, Brittany Rosen