Student Assembly

MINUTES — December 2, 2011

Cornell University Student Assembly

4:45pm — 6:30pm, 132 Rockefeller Hall

I. Call to Order/Roll Call

N. Raps called the meeting called to order at 4:51 pm.

� Voting members present: S. Balik, G. Block, S. Breedon, D. Brown, A. Chopra, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, R. Gitlin, D. Goldberg, M. Gulrajani, J. Kay, D. Kuhr, J. Lee, J. Mueller, D. Muir, A. Nicolleti, N. Raps, J. Rau, P. Scelfo, U. Smith, , E. Szuman, N. Treffeisen, A. Wolford, E. Yeterian

� Non-voting members present: A. Bores, A. Ravert, A. Santangelo

� Excused half absences: G. Hoffman, A. Meller

� Unexcused absences: A. Pinkney

II. Business of the Day

a) Appropriations Recommendation, B.L.U.E./WRC — Adam Nicoletti

� A. Nicolatti introduced Blue Shuttle Service and said that it was a project organized by the Women’s Resource Center to uphold student safety in lieu of students studying late in libraries during Finals Week. Some felt that this was a part of student transportation and its costs should be included in the student activity fee, while others felt that it should be funded by the SA special projects funds.

� N. Raps then opened the Speakers’ List for discussion.

� D. Kuhr that the first steps of this project would be proper publicity to get students to be aware of this service so that they could use it.

� G. Block said that the late night shuttle service during finals week was a good concept and definitely important for student safety. However, if the SA was going to fund this project, it also needed to do a good job of advertising and promoting it.

� R. Gitlin commended this service and said that it was a very useful tool for students and as it grew in scope, it would become an integral part of ensuring student safety.

� A. Nicolatti felt that the program might be effective in the future However, he also felt that they should wait and consider in the next 2 years if they should permanently make it part of the student activity fee, based on its success. He further said that if this service did not work out, they couldn’t remove it as part of the student activity fee later. For the moment, he felt that it should be treated as one of the special projects of the SA and be funded out of the SA’s special funds on a semester-to-semester basis.

� A. Lomanog said that there still remained certain stigma among students about this project due to personal independence and a desire to do things on their own, not asking for help from a blue line shuttle. She also said that this service was required since many areas were not properly covered the Tcat, which also did not run frequently in certain areas on weekends. She felt that with good publicity, it would be a good source to make certain students overcome the stigma of seeking help and get proper transportation in and around campus. It currently had full support of the Campus Transportation Committee and the Women’s Resource Center for this project and she hoped that the administration would provide funds for this project.

� D. Brown said that she just got posters to advertise this service and it would be put up in all libraries to raise awareness for it. She also felt that the SA should look at the larger implications of this proposal not just for finals week but for other late night events as well as this would help raise student safety and foster a safe environment.

� A. Chopra asked regarding the viability and timeline of the project, if they could fulfill this through special projects for that timeline. A. Nicolatti said the SA had adequate funds in their budget right now and could fund this project till the administration would look into it in the next 2 years.

� E. Drago said that the SA should reassess all byline funding decisions that it had made in the past. She felt that the Women’s Resource Center was being penalized for being the last organization to ask for funding. She further felt that the shuttle service was a great way for students to take ownership for issues of campus safety and reduce sexual assault cases. This would be a great step in keeping both men and women safe on campus. She felt a lot of these programs wouldn’t happen if students didn’t take initiative and push for taking action.

� E. Yeterian felt that there was a pivotal difference between Coffee Hour, which dealt with programming, and this shuttle service, which was a safety issue. She felt that more than programming concerns, campus safety should be top priority and funding should be done for this right now.

� J. Rau said that based on the list of crime events in the past year, crime happened all throughout the year and not just during study week. He wanted to know why this service was only going to be implemented during study week. Furthermore, he also felt that if this service was going to be expanded throughout the year, it would require large funds but it was not something that should be deducted from the student activity fee, as the fee was meant for programming and not safety purposes.

� E. Drago said that the Women’s Resource Center would look into late night transportation services for the entire semester and implement it in the future. This would be part of a larger project.

� A. Gitlin responded to J. Rau and said this would actually be a programming issue of the Women’s Resource Center. He also said that with regard to the student activity fee, though they had to be prudent in presenting demands to the administration, there had also been a great reduction in funds in the past few years due to budget cuts by the administration. So in lieu of these budget cuts, it would be understandable if student organizations needed more funds to match their growing projects. He also felt that in the grand scheme of tuition, it would be a relative drop in the bucket. He said that once this project grew, more people would use it and it would be a popular system.

� M. Gulrajani wanted to know if they could delay the decision of byline funding and implement it after the winter break had passed, based on the level of participation, so that SA members could know what they were voting on. To this, Adam Nicollati said that it would not be possible.

� S. Breedon said he was initially he was in favor of this project but now, a lot of decisions now are speculative. He had a problem with increasing student fee for the next couple of years for this project as during the last semester, this service was only used by a mere 75 students. He would rather it be funded as part of the SA’s special projects.

� P. Scelfo said he was in full support of this project. He said this was just the start a service that could extend to every single night. The SA just had to take these risks to really know how popular it was. To this, N. Raps responded by saying that this service couldn’t grow to every single night as it would be very expensive.

� D. Goldberg felt that student activity fee was meant for programming issues and not for safety issues. He didn’t want every student to pay for a service that was just going to be used by very few numbers. E. Drago however felt that they should increase shuttle service over study week and then see how popular it gets and based on that, allocate funds for it.

� D. Muir felt it was unfortunate that this issue had come up right now. He wished that there was a survey conducted earlier so that they could judge from data how high the demand for the service really was if they were going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on it.

� C. Cheng felt that all in all, safety was an issue regardless of how the SA were going to implement it. She felt if byline funding was an issue, it be reasonable to fund this service as part of the SA’s special projects, as they had a surplus, and then see how it grew. A. Nicollati and E. Drago clarified that in the past, the SA had funded 2/3rds of this shuttle service and the Women’s Resource Center 1/3rds. N. Raps said they could include this scheme as part of their future special projects scheme. C. Cheng further said this wouldn’t be forever but just as part of a trial period.

� D. Kuhr said that the social costs of not having this service could be far more than the costs of incurring it. He said the risk of someone getting raped or assaulted on the way back was far too important not to fund this project. He wanted the SA not to be risk aversive. Additionally, P. Scelo said this project could also save time and efforts of the Cornell Police and the CJC in combating crime on campus.

� N. Trefeisson said if the SA spent all out of its special projects fund, it would have nothing left for outreach projects in the future. He said that this issue had expanded beyond just women to anyone, namely the LGBT and minority community, and representatives of those communities should also speak out about this issue.

� N. Raps said she saw both sides of the issue. She felt very strongly about having this shuttle. She also said that the SA required more data if they were to increase the student activity fee. She felt there should be an appendix fee for this project, which would protect the student activity fee and still have the required funds for this. She felt that the SA had to take the burden away from the Women’s Resource Center, which had exhausted its funds over this service. All in all, she acknowledged both sides of the issue. She didn’t want the student activity fee increased and she suggested looking at funding for other organizations that the SA had granted in the past.

� A. Nicollati said the SA should asses how risk aversive or risk loving as an organization they were. He felt that for the Blue Project, the SA should tax its special projects funds and not increase the student fee. According to him, if the SA felt so strongly about student safety, they should pay from their own funds and work on reducing spending on other items like food.

� A. Bores said that at this point, it has become clear that the project should go forward and exist because of its potential safety issues. Their only issue was how to fund it. He felt that this project belonged to byline funding and 50 cents was too less a price to pay for a safety issue. If the SA really felt, this was a good project, it should increase the activity fee as it was too small a sum to pay for safety on campus.

� Adam G. then moved to the secondary speakers list.

� G. Block asked if it was just an issue of increasing byline funding by 50 cents or if they were to increase it by a relative amount. He said if this project was unsuccessful, it could be at the decision of future assemblies to disband the service completely. He was thus in favor of increasing the student assembly budget and keep this service as part of the special projects funding.

� E. Drago further said that if it this project didn’t work, the Women’s Resource Center would return the money it had taken for it. In the past, they had cut down programs that hadn’t worked successfully and all in all, they were a very frugal group. She further said that the Women’s Resource Center, from its past, had been very wise with allotted funds.

� A. Nicolleti said that he felt this was not a program that should be funded by increasing the student activity fee. He also said it was ridiculous to raise the SA Budget. He felt that they should vote on Appropriations Recommendation and decide this.

� R. Gitlin dissented to this as he wanted to continue the discussion.

� N. Raps then moved to a vote on voting on the Appropriations Recommendation. 15 in favor, 6 against, 1 abstained. Therefore, it was decided that the Appropriations Recommendation would be voted on. The SA then moved to voting on the Appropriations Recommendation. 13 In favor, 7 against, 1 abstained. The Recommendation passed.

b) Appropriations Recommendation, SAFC — Adam Nicoletti

� A. Nicolleti introduced the SAFC Appropriations Recommendation. N. Raps then opened the speakers’ list for discussion on it.

� G. Block said that the SA was really underfunding the SAFC and since it now took on more projects from different groups, it needed more funds from the SAFC. He felt that since the SA was funding over 800 student groups, most of which needed more funds, they should raise the budget cap.

� A. Nicoletti agreed with G. Block. However, he wanted to know would the SA rather have the SAFC and other student groups get more funds or increase the student activity fee.

� N. Treffeisen said that considering the way the SA paneled its structure in the past, it would be unfair to not give funds to the Women’s Resource Center for the Blue Shuttle Service merely as they appealed last.

� R. Desai completely disagreed with the notion that the SA did not care for students. He agreed that the SAFC was really getting underfunded and needed more funds for their various activities. He advocated raising the student activity fee to 230. He felt that the SA should vote on this and put it across to Susan Murphy and President Skorton. If they dismissed this proposal, the SA could go forward with other methods. He thereby motioned to increase student activity fee. G. Block seconded this motion.

� N. Raps then opened the secondary speaker’s list for discussion.

� N. Raps said that this would not be feasible to further increase the student activity fee.

� A. Nicolleti further said that it would be embarrassing for the SA if its recommendation to increase the student activity fee was rejected by President Skorton. Therefore, he was against this suggestion. R. Desai reduced this amount from to 230 dollars to 229 dollars. The secondary speakers list was thus closed.

� J. Rau said that all decisions depended on the larger byline funding that was taking place.

� R. Gitlin said that that it would only be a 0.2 percent increase in byline funding and it would not be such a big deal. He felt funds like lavish preparations for events such as Senior Day should be reduced and more priority should be attached to safety issues instead.

� D. Kuhr felt that there would forever be an SAFC funding crisis. Realistically, he did not see President Skorton rejecting the SA’s recommendation for an increase in funding as it had undertaken so many great initiatives and funded so may students groups in the past. � N. Raps felt that cutting for organizations should not be made and it was within the SA’s budget to increase funding.

� The SA then moved to voting on the amendment to increasing funding for the SAFC to 84.16. 22 in favor, 0 against, 0 abstained. The amendment passed.

� Finally, Adam Nicoletti presented the entire budget. He said the SA was now going to be voting on increasing student activity fee to 229 dollars, an increase by 13 dollars and by a 6.02 percent. The SA then moved to vote on the decision to pass the student activity fee proposal. 22 In favor, 0 against, 0 abstained. The student activity fee proposal passed.

� N. Raps thanked everyone and especially Adam Nicoletti for undertaking so much effort in preparing the recommendation.

c) Student Assembly Election Rules 2012- Adam Ravert

� A. Ravert introduced the changes to the Student Assembly election rules. N. Raps then opened the speaker’s list for discussion on the topic.

� G. Block asked that since candidates weren’t allowed to hand out anything except material handed by office of assemblies, could they not hand out posters for their campaigns as well. He also wanted to know that since had 50 dollars for campaigning use, were they going to scrap the provision of the use of these 50 dollars completely. To this, A. Ravert said that the Office of the Assemblies provided each candidate with the required material for campaigning and candidates didn’t need to give out any more material. N. Raps said that the 50 dollars was not to be used on for handing out material which would incentivize people to vote for a particular candidate. Candidates could use the money on things like posters but not on stuff like candy, to ensure equal access for everyone.

� D. Goldberg wanted to know that if a candidate could hand out things like colored flyers that couldn’t be given out from the office. A. Ravert said replied with a No but he said that D. Goldberg could make an amendment on this if he wanted to.

� J. Rau said that he didn’t agree with the prohibition with items of material value. The candidates could use the money in any manner that they wanted to. This prohibition would give way to a lot of monitoring and room for a lot of disqualification, which was problematic. He still wanted to keep the ethical part of the campaign intact though.

� A. Ravert said that the rationale for this change was with the case of regulating these funds. If someone bought stuff for more than 5o dollars, there would be no way to keep a check on this and this could lead to a breakage of election rules.

� J. Mueller felt that if equality of access and regulation was the issue, then the SA should just reduce the funds allowed for campaigning from 25 dollars to 50 dollars per candidate, with a receipt of how much each candidate spent.

� J. Kay said she really liked the regulations in the new election rules and it was a way to make sure the election committee enforced rules and disqualified candidates who broke rules. She stood by Adam Ravert’s recommendation.

� A. Chopra also went along with A. Ravert’s recommendation as she felt that this would ensure equality of access to every candidate.

� D. Brown dissented to this recommendation and wanted an amendment made about students who wished to campaign while they were studying abroad. To this, N. Raps responded that while candidates could campaign from abroad, they had to attend physically attend SA meetings for their elected term. N. Raps allowed this dissent to be made into an amendment but she also cautioned D. Brown that they would make no compromise about commitment to attend SA meetings. A. Ravert responded to this saying that they was no way they were going to allow people to leave half way through the year. D. Brown said the election rules should allow more flexibility to students wishing to study abroad, if they were not on the executive board. E. Yeterian suggested an amendment to the resolution. This amendment was seconded. A. Ravert found the amendment friendly and agreed to add a clause to clarify the point.

� R. Desai proposed an amendment to reduce campaigning funds from 50 dollars to 20 dollars per student. He suggested returning to the speakers list to discuss the allocation of campaigning money, instead of moving on to discuss the resolution.

� Hereafter, there was voting done in favor to pass the resolution with E. Yeterin’s amendment. 12 In favor, 8 against, 1 abstained. Therefore, the SA returned back to the discussion on allocation of election funds.

� A. Gitlin found this amendment unfriendly as he felt that 50 dollars was not an excessive sum of money for campaigning costs. If a candidate did not have 50 dollars, he could have people donate and raise money for his campaign.

� A. Nicolleti felt reducing campaigning costs to 20 dollars would limit the student government’s influence to reach out and inform students about election platforms. He felt 50 dollars was not too great an amount.

� A. Ravert felt distribution of candy and manterial goods was unfair and hence the election committee had implemented that decision.

� R. Desai felt 50 dollars was a lot of money for some people and he said that for elections, he wanted candidates to be judged on the merits of their applications not by distribution of goods.

� R. Gitlin felt 20 dollars was not an adequate amount for campaigning and it was just about enough to spend on chalk. He was therefore against lowering the sum to 20 dollars.

� Adam Nicolleti then motioned to vote to vote on E. Yeterian’s amendment. This was seconded. 19 In favor, 0 against, 1 opposed. Therefore, the amendment would not be voted on. The SA then moved to voting on R. Desai’s amendment to change each candidate’s campaigning funds from 50 to 20 dollars. 4 In favor, 18 opposed, 1 abstained. This amendment therefore failed.

� The SA then moved to voting on the revised election rules. Voting was done by roll call. 19 in favor, 2 against, 2 abstained. The Eeection rules therefore, passed.

� The SA then moved to discussions on the Election Calendar. A. Ravert said that now elections were being pushed back by a week. Elections will now be from a Monday to a Wednesday as opposed to a Tuesday to a Thursday. The mandatory campaigning meeting was shifted from Friday to Wednesday to give candidates more time to campaign.

� There was a call to question. This was dissented by P. Scelffo. He felt that the mandatory campaign meeting shouldn’t be shifted as during his campaign, he felt there was too much time for campaigning. His dissent was withdrawn.

� Therefore, there was voting done on the campaign calendar. 21 In favor, 1 against, 0 abstained. The SA 2012 Elections Calendar therefore passed. � The SA meeting extended by a few minutes to discuss Resolution 29. N. Raps formally apologized to the speakers, whose resolutions they couldn’t cover at that meeting, due to a shortage of time.

d) R.29: Endorsement of the Dream Act

� C. Martinez and X. Cruz introduced the dream act. They said that were asking the SA for an endorsement to show support for the Dream Act. A. Nicolleti motioned to move this to Business of the Day. Seeing no opposition, this resolution was moved to Business of the Day. The SA could now discuss the resolution and vote on it that day.

� U. Smith said that this was a very sensitive issue and thanked people who worked on it. It was going to have a great impact on the lives of a lot of people.

� G. Block said he had a problem on debating on matters of national legislation like this. He didn’t think that the SA should focus on national legislation and if it did, it could not focus on student issues. He felt that the SA shouldn’t waste time debating on national issues instead of student issues and this was not a student issue. He therefore voted a No to endorsing the Dream Act. He said that that he wasn’t against the dream act, he was against the SA voting on a piece of national legislation.

� A. Gitlin agreed with what G. Block said in theory but he also said that the issue was under the SA’s jurisdiction and it was relevant since it concerned students at Cornell and President Skorton had also raised this as an important issue. He then a raised Call to Question. Seeing no opposition, voting was done on endorsement of the Dream Act.

Voting Results by the General Public: In favor, 0 against, 0 abstained Voting Results by SA members, 17 In favor, 3 against, 1 abstained. The Resolution therefore, passed.

� U. Smith said this was a very sensitive issue. Since it was big being passed by the SA, he asked students to be very cautious and aware of these issues.

III. Motion to Adjourn

N. Raps motioned to adjourn. Seeing no opposition, the meeting was adjourned at 6:47 pm.