Student Assembly

Minutes
Cornell University Student Assembly
March 31, 2011
4:45pm — 6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall, Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

V. Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:47pm.

II. Roll Call

Members Present: S. Agard, V. Andrews, A. Bajaj, G. Block, A. Brokman, R. Desai, C. Feng, M. Finn, A. Gitlin, J. Kay, D. Kuhr, R. Mensah, A. Nicoletti, N. Raps, J. Rau, M. Scheff, U. Smith, A. Yozwiak

Members � Absent, Excused: M. Danzer

Members Unexcused Absent: M. Gulrajani, C. Jenkins, G. Moon, A. Pruce

III. Approval of Minutes

� March 31, 2011 The minutes were approved by acclimation.

IV. Open Microphone — -- Ray Mensah

No one came forward and open microphone was closed.

V. Announcements/Reports

1. Arts, Eats, & Beats — Ulysses Smith

This is a project going on that SA is funding. It will be in east Sibley because of the rain. Please come out, from 2–6pm, there will be free catered food

2. SUNY SA — Matt Danzer and Ray Mensah

Tomorrow, R. Mensah and M. Danzer are traveling to Syracuse for the SUNY SA conference. If there are any issues to bring to the SUNY SA, email them and they’ll make sure you’re heard.

3. Presidential Update — Vincent Andrews

On Friday, he met with President Skorton with other student leaders. They spoke about transparency and during the meeting, he committed himself to creating a standing group, which would be a group of all representative constituency groups and the president would use it to run decisions options before it’s announced and before the decision is final to increase the amount of student input. It came about mainly from D. Evensen and him pressuring, and it was committed so hopefully it’ll come into effect next year.

VI. Business of the Day

1. Resolution 74 — Cornell Cinema Ticket Price Increase Approval

As a backdrop to increased communication and continuing discussion that happened last year, the cinema is coming to increase ticket price from $4 to $4.50. This was written to protect against ticket price increases. The document is in the back of the resolution, what the cinema has provided to make decision.

Tyler is president of Cornell Cinema student advisory board. It explains rationale. Change would affect differential in allocation from grad to undergrad. He explained why. They risk losing money for next byline funding process from GPSA if they don’t raise the undergrad price. They hope to bring in 7–8,000 dollars of additional income.

U. Smith stands in support of this. One solution that came up was to raise ticket prices, and when they came, we shot it down and it didn’t make sense. Here asking again, makes perfect sense. He still will go with extra fifty cents. Cinema is more of a pivotal part of the university than we give it credit. Number of films series, think it’s important to stand in support.

A. Nicoletti said that obviously they’re a business with a substantial budget, we should allow them to manage income and what we’re considering now and is the rise an abuse of the power and will it create unnecessary. We just want to protect students, not micromanage M. Danzer said that when we think about the Student Activity Fee, it’s a subsidy to organizations. Seeing as we removed part of the subsidy, it’s only right to allow them to fill in the gap.

D. Kuhr said that they need to remember that cinema prices are very low and if you’re to go downtown or near the mall, even at the discount, you’ll be paying 7–10 dollars. Extra fifty cents is pocket change and is still significantly cheaper. This is not price gauging.

R. Desai agrees with Nicoletti. A lot of people last year said ticket prices SHOULD be increased and a lot of people took contention with lowly attended screenings and is hypocritical to tell them to be more responsible and say no to raise.

A. Yozwiak said that they should look at this as a business. He trusts that they know the best way to do that. It’s not an egregious number to increase the price. He called to question; it was seconded. There was dissent, he retracted his motion.

A. Brokman was wondering, what percentage of grad students regularly attend Cornell Cinema and what percent of undergrads. Do grad students use facilities more often? Chris said that the breakdown in population is roughly the breakdown of the undergrad: around 30% grad to 70% undergrad.

A. Brokman called to question. It was seconded. By a vote of 18–0−0, the resolution passed.

2. Approval of the Cornell Cinema Student Advisory Board By-laws

There is not a resolution but in Appendix A or B, we do request organizations create bylaws if they use activity fee money. In accordance with that, it’s requested they notify SA. In discussions, we asked them to draft up bylaws and here they are.

M. Danzer said that essentially last year one issue was how involved they were. We realized this year there was no governing document so we asked them to draft bylaws to formalize it and created what’s in front of you.

Tyler said there was nothing out of the ordinary in it. Committees are SA relations committee, programming committee, responsible for researching possible programming, screening movies that might be shown, promotions committee does a lot of stuff on facebook and other promotions, events committee. There is a secretary, a president, a vice president, and meetings are once a month, more if need be. Elections happen each year in the spring, will happen this week. They also have a nondiscrimination clause and procedures for voting. This represents progress.

There was a voice vote no one was opposed. It was approved.

VII. Unfinished Business

1. Resolution 70 — Calling for a Constitutional Convention

The main differences are that the new version says the time. He spoke about last week. Plan is an open style SA meeting where community members give input. Could go two routes, 1 student bill of rights is university policy or affirmation of rights. He listed people confirmed and the advertising plan.

U. Smith thinks this is a pretty good idea. It will really help define stuff for students. It is not guaranteed we’ll get a legit document out but it’s probably our job to represent the students are well as we can. He called to question. It was seconded. By a vote of 15–0−2, the resolution passed.

VIII. New Business

1. Resolution 69 — Making Campus Buildings Accessible and Resolution 77 — Promoting Accesibility in On-Campus Events

Talia Shear, class of 2012, Margaret Chenoff, class of 2012, and Scott Kim, class of 2014 introduced themselves for the record. Scott said that they are proposing a resolution so that clubs have to make their events accessible to apply for SAFC funding. Currently 850 students registered with disability services, not counting ones who are hurt temporarily. It is not fair to not attend an event.

Margaret said that this applies only to events on campus, not off campus or meetings. It is just events addition is to section 9.3.2 eligibility for funding. The statement of accessibility by student disability services. Brief document of five bullet points, stating event is accessible. The purpose is to raise awareness of disability so every student at Cornell has equal opportunity.

Talia said that the diverse range of people in support. Not only mutually beneficial. Statement should only take five minutes to complete and number of rooms available shouldn’t diminish. Have advisors who realize too late that events aren’t accessible. Understand that this may be viewed as a technicality or an obstacle, but this should not be viewed as a technicality. Equal access is a necessity.

G. Block asked if there have been problems with new constructions not being accessible or preventing it. U. Smith said that it is not really new ones, but a lot of older buildings, i.e. Rand did not get an elevator until over the summer, the ramp is just there for construction. The onus shouldn’t be on the student groups to make students accessible. It is encouraging university to prioritize to make older buildings up to ADA code or comparable standard.

D. Kuhr asked if this wasn’t already on the UUP form. Talia said that it is on the UUP form, but there’s no method for ensuring the accuracy of the statement and it’s one sentence. This would require a little more thought being put into accessibility for events. Hoping the checklist can be checked for accuracy. M. Danzer said that one thing talking about in JAMIC is ultimately it should be into the UUP and have it consistently enforced by SAO. Problem is getting in the room with SAO at the same time and if they’ll think it’s a burden for them to implement. Part is an interim measure. Other aspect is, this is leverage. If we have something going into that, they want to institutionalize it and almost do away because UUP would be stronger.

Lauren said that she was notified a few days ago. She’s been a part of Kudo before. She’s one of the 850 students registered through disabilities services. Good idea in theory, but by adding it to the guidelines, adding another piece of bureaucracy if it’s not widely publicized and a lot of groups say “we get caught on these technicalities” and it might appear that SAFC and SA is creating another obstacle.

Ulysses said that they would like to offer it, when we came up with obstacle, and burden, we have a job as SA to make sure we’re representing all students on campus. Will come down to, do we value five extra minutes of filling out the form or the students.

M. Danzer said that also, as a president of a student organization and a number of presidents of student organizations signed on. A lot care about it, and when you tell them, they say, that’s something they care about and didn’t think about. This paper is a way to get something in their subconscious that they care about to bring forward. Minds matters wants to improve mental health of students hold it in the loft upstairs.

S. Agard loved the spirit and this accessibility isn’t a burden, but for the groups that forget to do that, it’s the only way to be a burden. Don’t feel putting it in the local event category, this only goes for groups who do funding. Better for a UUP.

M. Danzer said we can do this through SAFC now and make it now. We want it in UUP but we can’t just leave it to SAO and UUP and we have no follow-up.

R. Desai likes the spirit, but agrees that it should be on the UUP. Said there’s no difference but there’s a huge difference, it’s not a new form it’s adding an existing form. M. Danzer said that groups miss the google doc because there’s no link to take them directly to what they need to do. This is all linked directly from the guidelines. It’s not something they think about.

Ari said that not everything needs a UUP, so it would be adding that requirement to groups that don’t need to deal with UUPs.

Talia said that she doesn’t think it should be viewed as a technicality. Just like any other policy against discrimination. Should clubs that don’t have access be GIVEN funding.

A. Nicoletti said that they discussed this at Appropriations. He agrees with 69 completely. A list of accessible buildings will be published in the fall and there’ll be a map in July 1st. A. Nicoletti thinks that would be a better way to do this than put the burden on student groups and keep information to themselves. But besides that, SAFC guideline reforms are about removing bureaucracy and this puts it back in. even stuff that is linked isn’t in. putting more info on a flyer is going to be cumbersome. For education method, it’s inappropriate. Passing off the burden of talking to accessibility services by doing this.

Ari said that it was on the second page, so you’d have to file a UUP to see it. He read it aloud. M. Danzer said google docs of new guidelines. What is more important? A google doc or that all students can access an event. This is already in SAFC saying people should be able to attend. Other point is that this document is not meaningless. It asks groups to think about things. Affects more groups than UUP. Something tangible and substantive.

A. Bajaj said he really connected with what Ulysses said. Here to represent them. But also representing groups. Sees this issue boiling down to recruiting accessibility vs. bureaucracy. From what it seems like, you want increase in awareness. Is there a better way without bureaucracy?

Kelly Donnelly, ‘12, said that the UUP isn’t checked for accessibility statement, so it’s not checked for accuracy. Yes, while it will raise awareness we’re hoping it’ll be enforced. They’ll be looking at it to make sure it’s enforced, even if all the events can’t be held up to all the standards. For now they can take the burden on if not, they’d hire a student employee which they have the funding for. The disability statement isn’t just for physical disability, perhaps an interpreter, but accessibility in many ways.

M. Danzer reminded people that the motto is “any person any study,” not any group any study. They are here to represent STUDENTS on campus.

Scott said that the UUP sentence is vague compared to checklist as to how accessibility is defined. Please consider this resolution seriously and represent the students who may or may not be able to enjoy all the activities.

R. Desai motioned to move up resolution 75 because chairs have been waiting for a while.

2. Resolution 75 — SAFC Funding Guidelines Reform (discussion only)

V. Andrews said that these changes conclude a year’s worth of work. It was a campaign pledge of his. He has compiled a powerpoint and gave an overview of changes proposed.

Ari said that the co-org stuff wasn’t in report in December and he’s been getting feedback from Terry saying that managing these separate events for just 20 org is very burdensome when it could be done as part of regular budgets. Plus there are changes to how policy is implemented affecting independent org which would make it significantly more burdensome to continue to create separate accounts/rules.

G. Block asked if there will be enough money in the spring. Lauren said that’s one of the complications is that we don’t know how to figure out what the yearlong cap should be. For the first few years there will probably be problems with modeling. Also, moving to a yearlong is beneficial because if you’re on the softball team, it makes it more equitable for organizations who apply for funding in the “wrong” semester. Ari mentioned that although it was more than 40 years ago, this is a back to the future change. Up until about five years ago, SAFC always allowed organizations to apply on an annual in addition to a semesterly basis.

A. Gitlin asked which are feasible and which aren’t because you’re the ones who are doing the budgets.

Lauren said that she thinks that one proposal is to do two budget hearings a semester. Think that is a little daunting because there will be so much time spent on reviewing budgets. However, still time to be committed to setting up and reviewing prior to hearings and although you may not believe us, commission does other things besides budgets and it all takes time and to decide when to fit that in is complicated and it will be time consuming to email groups and go through before. Another issue is by having commissioners review the budget and say now come to the hearing, there will still be errors and by finding it at the budget hearing and possibly appeals.

Dan Gusz said that yearlong budget isn’t really a huge change, opportunity to apply in spring for a budget next year. Think that’s a good thing because then groups won’t have to fund. 4 is fine. Three is the one he has issues with. Changes to nature and timing. Now have help session, then budget hearing. Then what’s getting lost is the value in the budget hearing about what’s in it. Right now, we advise, then they submit and can appeal. This is saying, first look SAFC has is the final look and that’s the one that matters. That’s the one where they look and they aren’t there and can’t ask questions about budget. First period where we recommend and then have second budget hearing it doesn’t make sense.

A. Nicoletti appeals showed us it doesn’t work because they showed they forgot and this will allow to tweak the process and help the groups who’ve had the issues.

A. Bajaj said that he need some time to mull over changes and glad for the talk. On the issue of the spring app, when would they receive notification?

Lauren said that they’ve kind of addressed this. They were thinking we could have groups go to the second budget hearing in the spring, commissioners would review and then it would get passed on to terry and would get notified in the middle of the summer/beginning of the fall.

A. Bajaj said that the deadline like all events can be applied for if events are applying before Sept 1.

Lauren said that there isn’t a deadline because if you want funding for something in august, you need to file everything for that fall or the entire year. A. Bajaj asked if would this system make it very difficult to hedge and guess. Ari said it wouldn’t be as difficult if the allocations are released after the fiscal year ends.

V. Andrews motioned to extend by 15 minutes. Seconded. No dissent.

Jessica Zhou said that she believes strongly that many changes are well intentioned but the greatest concern is that as a member for the past 3 years, don’t see the specifics of how. Transitions make it hard. For the opportunity in the spring, the logistics aren’t necessary feasible because they can’t plan events with necessary room reservations yet. Can’t confirm UUPs and stuff, there would need to be a separate guideline for just these difficulties and challenges. Elimination of co-orgs, student groups can do large headlining events that add to the Cornell community.

V. Andrews said that was a really good comment, one point which needs to be emphasized is that if an org wants to do exactly what it has in the last three years, they can. Only changes are coorgs, otherwise everything else will be the same unless they want to take advantage. Ari said that the jointly organized events are 20–30 events that get somewhere between 60–100,000 dollars each semester. That’s around 20 percent of the funds the commission gives out to a very small number of events. Having them separated means the group has no incentive to balance costs. Those requests seem like they’re out of line and there’s an incentive for groups to be very liberal on spending. 100,000 would have effect on caps. V. Andrews said that coorgs are similar to creating a brand new org with its own budget and it’s very easy.

There were more comments from commissioners and SA members. There was a motion to extend the meeting for five more minutes.

A. Brokman asked for a memo from the SAFC for their opinions and stance.

IX. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 pm.