Student Assembly

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

N. Raps called the meeting to order at 4:47 pm

1.  I. Call to Order / Roll Call

• Voting members present: G. Block, S. Breedon, A. Chopra, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, R. Gitlin, D. Goldberg, M. Gulrajani, G. Hoffman, J. Lee, A. Meller, J. Mueller, D. Muir, A. Nicoletti, A. Pinkney, N. Raps, J. Rau, P. Scelfo, U. Smith, E. Szulman, N. Treffeisen, A. Wolford, E. Yeterian
• Non-voting members present: A. Bores, A. Ravaret, A. Santangelo
• Excused absences: S. Balik, J. Kay
• Unexcused absences: D. Brown, D. Kuhr

2.  II. Approval of the 9/29/11 Meeting Minutes

• On page 6, change J. Mueller to D. Kuhr
• In title, change times of meeting to reflect planned time of meeting (4:45pm to 6:30pm)

3.  III. Open Microphone

• None

4.  IV. Announcements / Reports

• Owego Update — R. Desai and A. Bores
  • Over 100 responses within first hour after the email was sent out
  • Goal to send 1000 people to Owego in the next four weeks
  • Thanks assembly — last week’s work has come to fruition
• Gorge Safety Update — A. Chopra
  • Still working on adding note about gorge safety to emails sent out to students
  • Making a video to get he information out — hope to finish by Thanksgiving
  • If members are interested, please contact A. Chopra
• Outreach Update — U. Smith
  • 11/8: Cornell Minds matter — organizing event: Random Acts of Kindness — asks SA to participate from 6:45 to 7:30 to pass out candy and give free hugs to students after exams
  • Next week at 626 Thurston: talks with the Judicial Administrator — free lunch as always
  • Email U. Smith with any outreach ideas / questions / concerns (questions about accessibility, getting information out, etc.)
  • If there are organizations that the SA would like to reach out to, email U. Smith

5.  V. Business of the Day

• Appropriations Committee Recommendation, Convocation — A. Nicoletti
  • Received $8.50 per student in the previous funding cycle
  • Requested a $3.10 increase for a total of $11.60 per student
  • Committee Recommended a $2.00 increase for a total of $10.50 per student
  • Convocation is the day before Commencement and is a fully student funded event in which a speaker is asked to come to campus
  • Committee felt that Convocation is a highly demanded event by both students and members of the community
  • Committee tried to balance importance of Convocation with amount of other requests submitted
  • The recommendation of $10.50 will cover costs of a high honorarium (payment for speakers) which will cause a deficit next year
    • Hope to reach out to bigger speakers
  • Committee felt that ticket selling was not appropriate during Convocation — “nickel and diming” parents
  • J. Mueller — mentioned in report that the Committee would like the University to fund some of Convocation since they deem it important. Would not like a class to enter the Convocation Committee with a deficit
  • A. Nicoletti — It has been a long standing issue among students who have tried to get the Administration to cover some of the bill for Convocation. Speaking with them is not high on the list of priorities
  • A. Nicoletti — There has been talk in the Administration t make Convocation and Commencement on the same day
    • Over $40,000 spent o set up Scholkopf for Convocation, take it down, then set up again for Commencement
  • A. Nicoletti — Reason why full request for $11.60 was not granted: when there are cuts, the Student Activity Fee cannot cover all deficits
  • P. Scelfo — Do we have to pay each speaker? It’s not something that they just do?
  • A. Nicoletti — Each speaker is paid an honorarium (unless they are public speakers), as well as an additional amount to cover for transportation, lodging, etc.
  • R. Desai — To clarify, he had no say in the decision of the Committee. If the Committee feels that the University should be supporting Convocation to a higher agree, then the Convocation Committee (led by A. Nicoletti or N. Raps) should approach the administration
  • N. Raps — Point of information: if a member would like more time to speak, he or she can make a motion to ask for it.
  • R. Desai — Point of information: What exactly is the SA voting for?
  • N. Raps — The report is basically the appeals process. SA is voting to approve funding for the next two years
  • A. Nicoletti — Everything is passed in a final resolution at the last SA meeting
  • N. Treffeisen — Point of information: If the resolution does not pass, does it go back to the Appropriations Committee?
  • N. Raps — No, a new resolution would have to be made
  • A. Wolford — Are there other increases in price for Convocation?
  • EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD to discuss information that cannot be divulged in a public setting
  • A. Gitlin — Having unique speakers is important — they bring prestige to the university. Convocation may support more buzz among students. In full support of funding
  • J. Rau — Is a member of the Appropriations Committee. Believe ticket sales are a good idea — allow people who want to attend Convocation a chance to do so. Does not see it as “nickel and diming,” as putting a majority of Convocation payment on the Student Activity Fee is irresponsible
  • R. Desai — In the past, the SA did not think ticket sales would not paint a good image of the University for parents attending Convocation. Ticket sales have not been held in consideration for students and the community rather than in disservice for them
  • G. Block — Something that should be debated is the reason for price increase. Many people have said that more money equates to a better speaker, but his opinion is that more money equates to a more expensive speaker. The quality of a speaker should not be based on how much the University needs to pay them
  • R. Desai — Students choose the speaker that they want at Convocation.
  • M. Gulrajani — This issue can be discussed for hours. SA should wait until next week so that the Convocation Committee chairs can prepare something for next week. Asks that the SA respect the opinion of the Appropriations Committee and wait until next week to make a decision
  • G. Block — Point of information: does postponing the resolution change the ability of the school to send contracts out to potential speakers?
  • Motion to move resolution to next week’s meeting, dissent expressed
  • J. Rau — Convocation committee expected the SA to discuss the issue this week
  • Motion withdrawn
  • J. Muir — he is a new member of the Appropriations Committee and thinks ticketing could be a good alternative to a price increase, but is still against it. None of Cornell’s peer universities has ticketing for convocation, so ticketing would look bad for the university. Also, the Convocation speaker has a definite prestige factor — has leverage over some students’ college decisions
  • J. Rau — point of information: searched and saw that no other Ivy Leagues charge tickets for Convocation. Do other Ivy League Convocations get funded by the administration or a student fee?
  • A. Chopra — Increasing the amount would increase the level of speakers, which improves and keeps the reputation of the school at a high level
  • N. Treffeisen — If there is no appeal for the Committee’s recommendation, is $10.50 sufficient?
  • R. Desai — the Convocation Committee budged around the full increase ($11.60). At the same time, they respect the decision of the Appropriations committee and do not want to be overbearing
  • H. Nord (Convocation Chair) —A $3.10 increase was requested because that is what is needed, but he is humbled and appreciative of the $2.00 increase. Other Ivy Leagues are getting Tier 1 speakers and if Cornell can start with a high honorarium, the chances of getting a top tier speaker is more likely
  • G. Hoffman — the Convocation Committee works to get the top speaker off of a list of speakers requested by the students. They are currently moving down on the list
  • H. Nord — This issue goes beyond what students want — want the prestige of Cornell to match other schools. The name of the speaker has an affect on this.
  • R. Desai — A survey was sent out regarding the Convocation speaker. Out of 3200 students, 1300 responded — shows the prestige and recognition of the speaker. How often does an email get a response rate of 1/3?
  • A. Nicoletti — When looking at Convocation and comparing it to the other events requesting funding, he believes that Convocation is very important. However, not granting the full increase is indicative of the importance of supporting other requests that foster community everyday at Cornell rather than on one day at the end of the year
  • J. Mueller — Convocation is essentially running on a deficit — taking money from a future class to support current year’s Convocation. It would be irresponsible of us to not fund for the full request. Convocation is still relatively new and the speakers have yet to reach the caliber that is expected. We should spend the money for good speakers, then maybe in the future when the honorarium is lower and we have a surplus, then we can scale back on funding
  • R. Desai — They budgeted for the fact that two out of ten speakers in the past have been public speakers (free honorarium)
  • A. Nicoletti — Deficit is needed — they cannot get higher speakers without the deficit
  • N. Treffeisen — motion to request the full increase to $11.60
  • J. Mueller — motion to decrease speaking time
  • N. Raps — Speaking time halved to one minute
  • A. Nicoletti — Highly advises SA to vote down on the $11.60 request. They should respect the decision of the Appropriations Committee and support that the Committee is giving funds to other programs. It would be irresponsible to increase funding for a one day event that most students do not attend
  • J. Rau — Strongly recommends not voting on $11.60 as well. The Student Activity Fee is meant for all student events, not just Convocation
  • G. Block — Convocation is really important. It is one of the only things that an entire class gets behind, compared to other things funded by by-line funding. Thinks that Convocation is one of the best uses for the Student Activity Fee
  • R. Desai — Convocation chairs have zero say in who is chosen for speakers. The speakers are chosen by the students
  • A. Gitlin — Strongly against voting on $11.60. The SA should be looking at a bigger picture. There are over 30 requests to the Student Activity Fee so relatively speaking, Convocation has already asked for a very large increase
  • N. Treffeisen — Considering that the Appropriations Committee has not looked at all requests, the SA should consider Convocation specifically and worry about the other requests later
  • A. Nicoletti — Disagrees. All the other requests are online and Convocation should not overshadow all of them
  • R. Gitlin — Also disagrees. Convocation is only one hour of speaking. The Student Activity Fee is meant to fund for the full four years of students — should not be limited to one day. Is the $2.00 increase that significant?
  • H. Nord — Yes, the $2.00 increase would be very helpful. It would still not land the Committee within the top five on the list of speakers, but it would definitely help
  • R. Desai — Convocation is not a one-day event. The committee is bigger than other by-line funded committees on campus and they spend hours each week planning for this event.
  • R. Gitlin — Means no disrespect to the Committee, meant to say that Convocation is a one-day event for the people that attend
  • Call to question on the amendment, seconded
  • N. Raps — Wants to tell the SA to be respectful of the Appropriations Committee, as they have spent a lot of time considering Convocation funding. Also, be respectful of what Nicoletti has been saying, especially regarding awareness of the committee’s decision. This is one of the more contentious issues among the SA — keep a conservative eye on the issue
  • A. Nicoletti — Where is the SA at this point in time?
  • N. Raps — They are on the speaker’s list for the motion for vote for $11.60
  • Amendment for $11.60 is dropped. Motion to amend to $11.00
  • D. Muir — Believes that, relatively speaking, the additional $1.10 that was not granted would much better benefit a smaller organization
  • M. Gulrajani — Notion of increasing now and decreasing later never happens. Looking at the big picture, the Appropriations Committee still needs to consider funding for many other organizations. The SA tends to make high-level decisions and overlooks smaller groups. Thinks that the $2.00 increase is very fair, as a lot of time and effort was put into that decision. The SA should move on
  • J. Rau - $10.50 vs. $9.50 vs. $8.50 — What would be the difference in the quality of speakers?
  • J. Mueller — Point of information — Did they not just decrease the amount of by-line funding?
  • A. Nicoletti — It is extremely rare that money will be taken away from groups. If a group gets its money cut, they will appeal and that appeal would most likely be granted
  • G. Hoffman — It s important that we look where money will have the largest, tangible impact. They do not know that the full increase ($11.60) will really get a better speaker. Take the slight increase and get a speaker, then compare the quality of speakers next year to determine whether or not the increase had an effect
  • Call to question on the $11.00 amendment, seconded
  • N. Raps — If the vote is no, they will return to voting for $10.50
  • A. Nicoletti — Is the vote required 2/3 present or 2/3 of all voting members?
  • A. Santangelo —Thinks it is only voting members present, but will check to make sure
  • N. Raps — In the meantime, requests A. Nicoletti to discuss caps on funding
  • A. Nicoletti — restrictions are made by the administration as to how much of an increase an organization can request within 4 years: 4–6%. The request for a $3.00 increase is a large chunk of what is allowed over four years. The cap is set so that the University has money to award financial aid — they have to ensure that the student body is not overly taxes
  • N. Raps — Voting yes is yes and no is no. Abstaining is like voting no. Vote required is 2/3 of those that are voting. If you are absent, then your vote does not count
  • Vote: 7–14–1
  • Motion for the $11.00 amendment does not pass
  • Call to question for the allocation of $10.50, seconded
  • Vote: 16–2−2
  • SA approves Convocation funding
• Appropriations Committee Recommendations, Class Councils — A. Nicoletti
  • Sister organization of SA
  • Goal to bring together classes of Cornell
  • Each class has a Class Council in charge of programs
  • Received $2.50 per student in the previous funding cycle
  • Appropriations Committee did not grant request of $0.50 increase as it saw no direction for the increase
  • Feels that each class should not be funded equally — Freshmen and Seniors should receive more funding
  • G. Block — Each council gets $0.75 funding (1/4 of $2.50) and it is not enough. His class planned a BBQ that used up most of the class funds. The additional $0.50 would have been very helpful
  • N. Raps — For the future, if a member would like to advocate on behalf of his or her organization, you need to send a representative to the meeting
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Vote: 13–0−3
  • SA approves funding
• Appropriations Committee Recommendation, CCC — A. Nicoletti
  • Received $12.00 per student in the previous funding cycle
  • Committee granted request of $12.00
  • Committee felt that the CCC puts on great events and exhibits great leadership
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Roll call vote: 16–0−0
  • SA approves funding
• Resolution 13: Call on CUPD to Reevaluate their Response Protocol — S. Breedon, R. Desai, Sasha Mack, Chief Kathy Zoner
  • Chief Kathy Zoner was unable to attend — Deputy Chief Honan came in her place
  • Sasha Mack also unable to attend
  • Deputy Chief Honan — CUPD is in full support of the resolution
  • A. Pinkney — How soon will the CUPD reevaluate their protocol?
  • Deputy Chief Honan — The CUPD constantly evaluates their protocol, but in response to the resolution, they will evaluate again and hopefully respond within the next few weeks
  • A. Nicoletti — What does the CUPD how to reevaluate in protocol? What deficiencies are they expecting to find in the way the CUPD responds to situations regarding bias? What problems to they foresee and how will they fix them?
  • R. Desai — When the resolution was written, there was no intent to call out the CUPD. The evaluation process has remained behind closed doors — want to bring the process to light so that students can comment and possibly recommend changes
  • Deputy Chief Honan — the CUPD hopes to improve transparency — will allow students access to and understand CUPD policy and procedures and how they respond to problems and address issues
  • R. Desai — One thing that might change (according to Chief Zoner): new protocols for training in regard to identification of possible suspects
  • A. Nicoletti — Why is this being brought up now? When something is brought to SA meetings, it raises the public specter of information — was there a specific reason why a reevaluation request was brought to the table?
  • S. Breedon — Underlying reason: tension in the community (racial slurs, bullying, people feeling biased against when they are stopped). Also an issue of transparency — wants students to know how to deal with these situations if they arise on campus
  • R. Desai — The issue has been ongoing and is seen as a threat. If students are not comfortable calling the CUPD, then that is an issue to be seen to
  • Deputy Chief Honan — Attention has been brought to the CUPD that there have been negative feelings within groups in the University. The CUPD is open to having discussions and improving relations
  • N. Treffeisen — will this open up a pathway to improving biased response?
  • R. Desai — there is an improved system this year. One of the improvements they are trying to make is responding to students so they know that they are being heard
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Vote: 20–0−1
  • Resolution 13 passes
• Resolution 14: Reviewing the Role of Student-Elected Trustees on the Board f Trustees — R. Desai, N. Raps
  • Advocating an additional student trustee on the Board
  • Resolution has already been passed in the GPSA and UA
  • Reasons: Unfair to classes of odd-numbered years (trustees elected every two years) — Sophomores have a huge advantage of Freshmen that are running
  • There have been difficulties with communication between trustees and the student body — important to have more than one student voice on the Board to represent the entire student body
  • The Board of Trustees is three levels above the SA — even above President Skorton
  • There is a three-pronged proposal of approach to having another Trustee
    • Adding a Student Trustee which requires pushing through the NY legislature
    • Replacing a current member with a student trustee
    • Dual option: two representatives on the Board, but the more senior member gets the vote
  • Not voting for a specific approach — voting to support the idea of adding a student trustee
  • A resolution like this has been passed before, so it carries a lot of weight
  • A. Gitlin — This resolution was on the agenda last week, so it is unfinished business this week and can be voted on
  • N. Raps — amendment to Resolution: in all the “be it therefore resolved clauses,” change “UA” to “SA”
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Vote: 18–0−0
  • Resolution 14 passes

6.  VI. New Business

• There was not enough time to discuss New Business
• Resolutions 16 and 17 will be discussed in next week’s meeting

The meeting was adjourned at 6:50pm

Respectfully submitted,

Chelsea Cheng