Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
March 10, 2011
4:45pm — 6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

V. Andrews called the meeting order at 4:46pm

II. Roll Call

Representatives Present: S. Agard, V. Andrews, A. Bajaj, R. Desai, M. Finn, A. Gitlin, M. Gulrajani, C. Jenkins, J. Kay, D. Kuhr, R. Mensah, G. Moon, A. Nicoletti, N. Raps, J. Rau, M. Scheff, U. Smith

Representatives � Excused: M. Danzer

Representatives � Unexcused: G. Block, A. Brokman, C. Feng, A. Pruce, A. Yozwiak

III. Oath of Office

New SA member Gina Moon repeated the Oath of Office which can be found here at http://assembly.cornell.edu/SA/20080904Oath

IV. Approval of Minutes

� March 3rd, 2011 They did not approve the minutes.

V. Open Microphone — Ray Mensah

No one came forth to speak

VI. Announcements/Reports

There were none.

VII. Business of the Day

VIII. New Business

1. Resolution 64 — Spring 2011 SAFC Appeals — Part I

A. Nicoletti explained the background of the process. There is around $28,000 left. Special projects come out of the same fund. Lauren said there is a demand for the money.

The first group which asked for an appeal was Cornell Shake Ultimate. R. Mensah said that he understands that we should give great weight to the guidelines but are not bound by them.

A. Nicoletti stated that by 9.4.2 shouldn’t be funded because it didn’t include the proper documentation.

Shake Ultimate explained that SAFC is claiming we didn’t submit proof of dates of travel event, which is true. Issue being quoted “and the dates of the event” on the budget online, they put the dates. They did not do “proof of a travel event.” One is a print out with title and description of dates OR a letter from the organizer as long as it includes contact information. They believe that SAFC will contact event organizer with that contact information. Submitted two emails. Did not submit a printout from a website. The ultimate community doesn’t update its website in time. They have the email document. They told the SAFC what dates, we just didn’t give specific proof. Guidelines don’t require that.

G. Block asked if this event already happened. Are you in debt? Yes. He reminded the assembly that at the point where we funded the Hangovers, there’s no way to fund one organization and not another. Move to amend the Be It Therefore Resolved clause. V. Andrews reminded the assembly that each situation is different and make individual decisions based on that.

M. Scheff agrees with Block. He sees exactly what the team is talking about. It seems reasonable given that they provide the dates. And that proof of event organizer is enough. It seems like it would make sense to have the dates.

R. Desai first, cautioned assembly members to move on the precedent that because we funded the Hangovers, we should fund them. He has gotten multiple appeals saying “can you treat us as you treated the Hangovers?” That was a separate situation, which involved the reimbursement and not allocation. He doesn’t agree with the argument. In the past, letter is suitable for proving the event, but while it does say it’s suitable for proof of TRAVEL, it says applicants provide letter, etc, DATES specifically.

A. Bajaj said that on that point, yes we have denied it but that doesn’t make it right. It says that the applicant must provide proof of travel event whereas here it states that it doesn’t. In the section Roneal is talking about it, it says the dates but they WERE included. It doesn’t say PROOF of dates, it says THE DATES. Would be ridiculous given the understanding of English to deny funding because proof says either are acceptable. Perhaps amend the thing.

G. Block crosses off the not as his amendment.

Lauren explained what the special projects route IS which is what they would suggest. They always require dates. As commissioners interpret this, the date needs to be included in it.

On the Amendment —

R. Desai said that if we were to extend the practice to durable goods and travel events, instead of a price quote, could just say the price was listed in an application. Doesn’t logically make sense. Whole point is required.

M. Gulrajani asked why the appropriations committee denied funding. What was the rationale? A. Nicoletti said that they felt that the group did not follow the SAFC guidelines. M. Scheff asked did group include dates. Lauren said that the date is on the online budget, but not on the actual documentation printout to show.

A. Bajaj is not saying that you don’t need to follow the guidelines. His point is that under eligibility guidelines, the entire point of the SA is to navigate murky waters. Seems obvious to him that because it’s unclear, it seems like option A must include dates and option B which doesn’t. because it’s unclear, SA should fund them.

J. Rau is on Appropriations and he did vote against this. Looking at documentation on SAFC website. But they don’t need proof of the dates. We’re arguing over semantics. Needs to be clarified now or in the future. They can’t penalize the group for it. He motioned to vote. It was seconded. By a 15–5−1 placard vote, amendment passes.

Human Flight Project

They need to provide storage location of durable good in application or inventory report form. They failed to include inventory report. Appropriations committee voted 1–8−1 that they not be granted their appeal and have the SAFC decision stand. The group said that they left out one sentence and it wasn’t fair for new groups. This was their first semester applying for durable goods and because of a single mistake, they left it out. Not because we didn’t plan, merely that it slipped our minds. Problem is that these guidelines are in case to make sure groups properly plan, used, and not going to waste but as they’re currently being used, no way for groups to correct application. As he sees it, it’s being used to deny groups funding. Lauren said that she urged the SA to consider did WE make the mistake or did the organization make it.

U. Smith said it seems like you guys made the mistake. Lauren, could you explain, is there a point where groups were counseled to help review while writing, what needs to be in there. Lauren said that they held three help sessions before it was due. 3.5 hours total where commissioners could answer any questions, could use SAFC email address and answer within 24 hours. Plenty of modes of communication with questions or to double check. Was an opportunity. The group said that they talked to Terry multiple times. We’re a new team and we’re likely to make one mistake. To cut off funding is detrimental. Lauren noted that first semester organizations are capped at 500. The Group said they are a second semester group, so 1000 is limit. Penalties would be fine, but shouldn’t lose all funding. V. Andrews noted that we are looking into it and the report is public but it doesn’t have bearing on this incidence. General knowledge, it has been addressed and will be.

S. Agard understands where the group is coming from, but they have denied a lot of groups for missing the one line. If you re-read it, you would’ve noticed. Understands that we’re making our judgment on if the SAFC did or did not err. Call to question. Second. Dissent. By a vote of 18–4, they will be voting. Need a majority to affirm app comm. Decision. If we do not obtain it, will go back into debate. By a vote of 13–4−3, group does not get funding.

Cornell International Affairs Society.

A. Nicoletti said that the group went on a travel event to Montreal. Included a letter from the conference organizer except for it isn’t according to some rules in the guidelines and didn’t include the dates. Also wanted to remove cap on travel and isn’t the motion present.

A. Bajaj said that this case is the same as the first thing. Asking SA given the most recent ruling, given the two different types. Also includes contact information for relevant officers. Contact info for hosting is also included.

Kevin said they don’t have contact information on the sheet. Doesn’t specify dates of event. In application itself, didn’t explain how it furthers the mission of the club and didn’t follow the guidelines. A. Bajaj said both documents were together. Second document contains the contact information. Lauren said there is contact information on the invoice talking about the person in charge of business and the chief finance person.

G. Block motioned to cross out not and fund 1500 dollars.

M. Danzer said that the SAFC did NOT err. A. Bajaj explained the distinction we were making is the dates were included, but because it is unclear in that section that it doesn’t say proof of dates, it says dates. Written explanation is included in the letter. Part of info submitted. Proof of how it furthers our mission is there. It seems pretty obvious.

Point of Information does SAFC take other people’s letters as proof? No, you have to explicitly write how it furthers your event. They’re not going to interpret. They would rather it be written out clearly. The group said it was not unreasonable for SAFC to sift through documents. Seems clear that if we had copy and pasted it, they would have accepted it.

V. Andrews clarified that one issue is with the dates, second is with the contact information, on invoice but not letter. Third is demonstration that the conference will further the group which is on information on the letter. Dates were there, proof of contact on invoice. A. Bajaj read the mission statement and the paragraph in question.

A. Pruce said for proof of travel, believe the hotel paperwork sufficient. Remember having the problem figuring out whether or not they could fund past 1500 dollars. But think we should pass this in favor of funding up to 1500. Call to question. Second. The amendment was that the “SAFC did err” and the “SAFC decision will NOT stand.” By a placard vote of 13–5−4, the amendment passes.

Phi Gamma Nu Professional Business Frat

A. Nicolettie said there were two items in question, one travel, one local. PGN applied for a trip to U Penn to meet another chapter. Appropriations felt it was a retreat. The second was their Ruloff’s event. They believed it was a social event. They submitted a receipt with food, which makes it invalid, and it was not open to the Cornell community. The group sad that for Ruloff’s, he understands the document wasn’t valid so he’s not going to refute that. In terms of a social event, DSP brothers can attest to the second event of rush, it’s to see potential in people, don’t know how it’s a social event. As for U Penn trip, his treasurer has been going to the appeals. Not a retreat. They’re going to meet other brothers, U Penn is established, we’re new. We’re going to learn how to expand and establish ourselves. There are panels, networking, resume critiquing. SAFC thinks majority of our opinions have been articulated by Nicoletti. Says explicitly that it’s for their “Social round” which is interpreted as social. There wasn’t a room reservation, there was food on the receipt. The price quote has two different amounts listed. You don’t need to pay a 250 dollar fee to get the basement of Ruloff’s.

C. Feng said that regardless of whether or not it’s a social event, if there’s food we can’t fund. Because there are cuts before that round, you don’t invite everyone. It’s not open to all of Cornell.

A. Bajaj agrees with Feng. Regardless of whether it’s a retreat is another issue. For the social, interview round, they should not be funded. Regarding the retreat, the way that Justin presented, it’s the definition of a retreat. That’s great, but it should be done on the university’s dime, not the Student Activity Fee. The Group doesn’t see how it’s team building. Not going there to build team skills. But if he were to attend a national convention would you fund it? It’s a mini-version of that. Going to have 2 panels talking about schools, rush, pledge. Going to learn from each other. Not team building.

Lauren said they do fund trips to national conferences as long as there’s proper documentation. She has read through the emails and budgets. Informal language. However you want to interpret it, when you read the email chain, it seems more like a retreat than a conference.

S. Agard said that your treasurer was at the appeals, and the way she presented it was saying we’re a new chapter, want to come to your school learn from you. It wasn’t a formal conference. Think that’s how they based. Call to question. There was a second. By a vote of 15–0−4, group doesn’t get funding.

Tennis club

A. Nicoletti said that tennis club would like the local event to fund memberships. They are being denied because of two things. 1) submitted a spreadsheet, no logos, discerning marks of tennis center, required by guidelines. 2) no price quotes included in documentation at all. The group said that in terms of the officialness, this was here. They did go to help sessions and they didn’t say anything wrong. SAFC said that terry takes in the budgets and answers questions, she doesn’t review the budgets, she’s there for information purposes and doesn’t look through.

C. Feng said that regardless of how legitimate the documentation looks, if there is no price quote, they can’t fund. He’s fine with accepting documentation but if there is no price quote, can’t allocate funds. The group said that afterwards, they drew up quotes, brought to tennis center, and they looked over and signed. A. Nicoletti said that they can’t enter more documentation after the deadline’s past, can’t be considered.

D. Kuhr asked if this was a problem last semester. The group said that the last time we applied for funding neither of them were there and didn’t know. R. Desai said they didn’t. There was a motion to vote and a second. By a vote of 15 — 1 — 2 decision stands.

Theater Club

A. Nicoletti said that the group has requested an engagement fee for artist to come. If it’s more than 500 dollars, it needs to be on a university form and needs to be signed by the artist and the group. Aaron said there was a simple miscommunication. They are a first semester organization and are being backed by Schwartz Center. They’re starting to keep putting on productions. Searched website, but couldn’t make help sessions and didn’t think he had questions. Site wanted info which was a letter of intent. Which he interpreted as a letter for what the money’s for. Doesn’t explain it, not a link to the form. No idea it existed. On the form it explains you need those two signatures that he wasn’t aware of. A matter of the website being unclear. As to the 1600s, he knew it was capped at 500 for the first semester organization.

Lauren noted that there is a section with all the downloadable forms and documents. The letter of intent form is fairly easily accessible on the website. Again, ask if we made a mistake or the organization did. Kevin said that it is clearly stated in the guidelines. And if you scroll down, you see what the form is, and where you can get it.

C. Feng asked if they have proof of contact. Not that Lauren can find. The group said that in the letter he wrote, he stated that the speaker is a member of the Cornell faculty called RPTA program and before the season was cut, he was going to be rehearsing it. C. Feng said that if he is faculty, the SAFC cannot fund engagement fees for faculty or students who graduated the past five years. There is a motion to call to question. There was a second. By a vote of 13–1−4, the decision stands.

M. Danzer motioned to turn to duff ball to amend that “did not” err. A. Nicoletti said in the case of duff ball, it is May 14, 2011. The Saturday after last day of classes. SAFC said in the past, it’s been funded and said because SAFC has made a mistake in the past, they changed it. It is Co-organized by united way, mortar board and those members abstained and recused themselves.

Lauren said that the fact that it’s been funded in the past, they don’t know what happened. We make mistakes. But this year we didn’t make the mistake. Don’t think it should be funded. Truth of the matter is that it doesn’t fall within the guidelines, not supposed to fund it.

M. Gulrajani will abstain but wants to say, if you’re going to decide, give them the courtesy of allowing to be here. He proposed to strike the entire duff ball section to put on the next resolution. Ari added, that so everyone has the question in mind to ask, the deadline for payment requests is the Monday after the last day of classes. That happens after all the payment requests are supposed to be in.

The duff ball portion has been postponed by a vote of 9–1−6. Lauren noted that one other part you might want to consider, which is Sitara. This is rule is clear. It should be ON CAMPUS. M. Danzer included with the thing, title, location to store, cost. Issue is that under prohibited expenses, cannot be stored by organization or advisor. Lauren said that technically she could store my car on campus and put in parking garage. Realistically, it’s supposed to be stored on campus.

S. Agard motioned to postpone this section until next week. 16–1−0. This part postponed.

There was a motion to vote, and a call to question. It was seconded. By a role call vote of 17–0−0, the resolution passed.

VIII. Unfinished Business

1. Resolution 62 — Amendment to Article IV, Section 1a of the Student Assembly Charter

A. Gitlin took over the chair. R. Mensah went over last week in great detail. He briefly explain some things. This resolution fixes what should have been in the charter now referring to how we allocate seats on the SA and in the charter, amendment passed was an error. This fixes it. There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was a call for acclamation. There was a second and no dissent. Resolution 62 passes.

2. Resolution 63 — Amendment to Article V, Section 1 of the Student Assembly Charter

M. Gould said that this is more fixing our mistakes. They changed it from and to or as you can see in bold on bottom right because and made it ambiguous. Thought or would be better. And still keeping how it’s been dealt with.

There was a call to question. It was seconded. There was a call for acclamation. There was a second. There was no dissent. The resolution passes.

IX. New Business

1. Resolution 65 — Approval of Amendments to the Haven: the LGBTQ Student Union Constitution

Haven, LGBTQ student union has changed their charter, requires SA approval. They removed two of their e-board members, social programming chair, education chair. They removed those, added a vp. Changed responsibilities of e-board members. Grammar changes. Pretty straightforward. Just clarifying election rules so they can’t be held electronically which they haven’t in the past. Motion to move to business of the day. There was a motion to vote. There was a call for acclamation. There was a second. No dissent. The resolution passed.

2. Resolution 67

A. Gitlin said that this states that professors should not, if possible, assign homework over break. It causes stress and break should be used for students to catch up on everything, sleep. Felt it’d be productive if they didn’t. It is important to respond immediately in support. It is a very big student issue. Break is a week from tomorrow. R. Desai agrees with everything. A. Gitlin added that Roneal and Natalie and Block are cosponsors. R. Desai mentioned this was the first step in response to the resolution we sent to them in response to mental health. They need to make sure it’s not the Faculty Senate’s way of dealing with issue and throwing to side. He is going to follow up.

J. Rau said to play devil’s advocate. If you need to et through 15 chapters of material in 15 weeks, that’s how the professor teaches the class but now “Strongly discourage” may in fact lead to a higher stress level the week before or after break. He doesn’t know if this is a step in the right direction. A lot of kids use breaks to catch up. A. Gitlin said that if students want to get ahead, it’s up to them. If they want to get a chapter ahead, by all means. R. Desai noted that it was not mandatory, it’s a recommendation. Not expecting them to modify on the fly. S. Agard motioned to move to business of the day. It was seconded. There was a call to question. It was seconded. The 1 community member present said yes. The assembly voted 15–1−0. By a total vote of 16–1−0 including the community vote, the resolution passed.

3. Resolution 66 — Directly Appointing a Policy Liaison to The Ivy Council

This is simple. They want to open it to the Cornell community since the policy liaison needs to be versed on student issues. They would like to make sure that just as we elect liaisons to other committees, want to elect a policy committee to ivy council. A. Nicoletti asked what is the elected person responsible for and what privileges does he or she get. S. Agard said that they would be in contact with a lot of the other Ivies and whenever they have a request or want more information, contact to see what the stand is on certain issues or policies. C. Jenkins said they are automatically involved. This is hust lining up in new structure of Ivy Council. J. Kay said that she is on Ivy Council, this is a really good idea. Biggest issue is policy coordination is lacking and head delegate should be from our community and is a good change and supports it.

X. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:38 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Brittany Rosen