Student Assembly

MINUTES — April 19, 2012
Cornell University Student Assembly
4:45pm — 6:30pm, GO8 Uris Hall

I. Call to Order/Roll Call

A. Gitlin called the meeting to order at 4:52 pm

Members Present

S. Balik, S. Breedon, D. Brown, A. Chopra, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, R. Gitlin, D. Goldberg, M. Gulrajani, G. Hoffman, J. Kay, J. Lee, A. Meller, J. Mueller, D. Muir, A. Nicoletti, A. Pinkney, H. Pittell, N. Raps, J. Rau, P. Scelfo, E. Szulman, N. Treffeisen, E. Yeterin

Excused Absent

Geoffrey Block, B. Francisco

Unexcused Absent

A. Wolford

II. Approval of the 04/12/12 Meeting Minutes

R. Gitlin motioned to approve. Seeing no opposition, the minutes were approved.

III. Open Microphone

None.

IV. Announcements/Reports

C4 Recap — Nate Treffeisen & Mohit Gulrajani

N. Raps commended N. Treffeison and M. Gulrajani on behalf of the UA for hosting a spectacular event.

V. Business of the Day

R. 42: Proposed Changes to the SAFC Guidelines — Lawrence Kogos, Brandon Coulter & Roneal Desai

L. Kogos spoke about the proposed changes implemented in the guidelines and the work done by the SAFC on the proposal. He further said that the last week, the SAFC had held a forum, in which they had received a lot of valuable input. L. Kogos spoke of price codes and its advantages. One of the suggestions the SAFC had got during the forum was special cancellation requests to economize on the budget of some groups. A. Nicoletti and R. Desai agreed that this would make the process fairer. L. Kogos also spoke of negotiated rates with groups.

He then wanted to hear questions or comments on these proposed changes. N. Raps opened the speaker’s list for discussion.

A Gitlin asked if these changes addressed concerns of people who spoke at the forum. B. Coulter said that was the driving force behind a number of changes, especially the idea of special cancellation requests. He said the forum, the website and the internal ticket system had given the SAFC a lot of helpful input on issues.

L. Kogos said that based on a tier system, the SAFC had decided to map out a criterion for analyzing funding for groups. They would then make an informed judgment and not an arbitrary one, to benefit the Cornell campus. He emphasized that there would be adequate transparency on the matter.

A. Nicoletti asked about the issue of negotiated rates for transportation, what the SAFC thought of negotiated rates for mileage as gas prices fluctuated with travel. He wanted to know what would student groups would do if they traveled more or less than their estimated travel. L. Kogos said that the SAFC issued reimbursements based on a group’s travel distance and gas usage. One way of doing so is by filing a special cancellation request. Another way would be by an estimated budget a group would provid for travel. The SAFC would finalize it in a way that would not hurt student groups. A. Nicoletti said this funding proposal has been carefully thought out and is a big leap forward in terms of what the SAFC will provide to students.

A. Bores wanted to know how limits for each tier would be decided. L. Kogos said it depended on how many groups ended up falling into each tier, and how much funding would be applied for in the Fall. An issue the SAFC plans to address is continuity; according to this students would be aware of what tier they would fall under and would have to apply for funding accordingly.

D. Brown wanted to know if in creation of this proposal what their starting point was, if they looked at models from other universities. B. Coulter said they would look at this based the amount of left over funds for groups and caps. One main goal for them would be redistributing funds of groups with a lot of leftover funding to make matters more efficient.

R. Desai spoke of a comparative study done with Harvard and how this was a very limited structure. L. Kogos said one thing unique to Cornell is the huge number of student groups it has with respect to other colleges and how they have to look at these unique issues from a particular perspective. R. Desai said they are very receptive to change though.

J. Mueller said for the coming year, people would be placed in tiers 2,3,4,5, and 6, with no one in tier 1. He asked since no one is in the top cap, would all caps would be higher? He also wanted to know what would happen in the subsequent years when people moved to tier 1, would funding for all groups drop accordingly?

R. Desai said they didn’t have anyone in tier 1 currently, as they didn’t have enough information they needed. They would have to alert groups in tier 2 if they wanted to be considered to be put in tier 1. He felt groups moving down tiers would generate money to pull people up tiers. L. Kogos felt that the caps for tier 1 would be higher but not much higher so as to create problems.

D. Muir was interested in the mechanism for changing tiers. His concern was with the type of tiers, would it incentivize groups to spend excessively? L. Kogos said this was one of their biggest concerns. He said groups could not spend indiscriminately; they would have to spend according to their budget and receipts. He also said a lot of groups didn’t spend even their stipulated amount. Therefore, he didn’t think a lot of groups would spend excessively.

B. Younger from CU Tonight had issues with the tier system. He felt that the SAFC is not a student elected body and the tier system would need micro-managing, which would stunt the progress of organizations on campus and would not provide groups with an incentive to grow. He felt that the SAFC is not representative of the Cornell community and therefore does not have the power to dictate and micro-manage groups.

To this, L. Kogos said that the SAFC takes applicants by an application and interview process and this is a very objective and fair system. They only take people who are dedicated and make informed decisions. He also said that the new tier system would provide groups guidance on how to apply for funds. This would not hurt groups but would instead benefit them. If a smaller group needs more money, they always have an avenue to do so. R. Desai said that though the SAFC is not an elected organization, they do not take any arbitrary decisions, any changes even in their by-line funding has to go through the SA. He felt this new tier system would not hurt small groups but would instead help them to grow and gain access to more funds. R. Desai also said groups that represented diversity would be considered in the tier placement for their unique contributions to campus.

G. Hoffman said that since no groups are currently in the top tier, as groups moved up tiers, wouldn’t it become easier to decrease caps? R. Desai said they didn’t expect every group to move up to top tier levels in a few years. If groups didn’t spend what they were given, they would instead move down tiers. L. Kogos said all groups couldn’t move to tier 1. Groups in the top tiers would be evaluated at the end of the year based on their budget and performance levels. R. Desai said eventually, they might also increase performance levels of top tiers. B. Coulter said if caps and tier percentages would become problems, they could change requirements for efficiency spending to keep things balanced out.

H. Pittel asked if funding was considered on account of number of students in a group. B. Coulter said that the SAFC believes in integrity of the system and would implement a balanced validity system. R. Desai said that number of members is not as important as performance. According to him, the SAFC could not make unilateral decisions based on merely one dimension.

A. Epstein asked about the appeal process. R. Desai said they currently allowed a group to submit extra documentation; a majority of hearings was just turning in documents. L. Kogos felt submitting an application would be enough to be considered for funding.

N. Raps then opened the 2nd speaker’s list.

A. Nicoletti asked about funding deadlines and when the SAFC would set the calendar for the calendar period. L. Kogos said they would set the deadlines on the last day of a particular semester for the next semester. He would modify the wording of this clause. He said the deadline for next semester funding is May 8th, they couldn’t tell anything before they had the actual numbers, as most groups would not think of their budgeting for the semester before the beginning of the semester. A. Nicoletti felt the new system would be limiting the growth of new groups and would instead provide for already established groups to grow, and this would be problematic.

S. Breedon said he wanted more emphasis on initial tier placement as stated in the resolution. K. Logos explained the proposal with respect to initial tier placement and how this is a practical solution. B. Coulter said performance is going to be the main criterion for the first tier.

P. Scelfo asked the SAFC to work with disability initiatives to help improve awareness on campus. B. Coulter agreed with him and called this a great idea.

Seeing no more discussion, the issue was tabled till the next week. N. Raps thanked the SAFC Executive Board for presenting their case. L. Kogos asked anyone with any questions or feedback to contact him.

VI. New Business

R. 44: Changes to S.A. Bylaws — Jon Rau

J. Rau spoke of the rationale behind proposed changes in the SA bylaws for better resource allocation with regards to committees. He said that the executive board had discussed these changes in detail. He then explained the proposed changes to the bylaws.

Three changes had been proposed:

1. The CIT committee: J. Rau spoke of how the purpose of this committee was outdated and it had barely met this semester. It had therefore been decided that this committee would function as a review committee. It would be staffed on an ad-hoc basis by the VP of internal operations. The membership requirements would also be lowered from 10 to 3, as they did not have sufficient members to work on it.
2. The Environmental Committee: J. Rau spoke of how this committee served a unique purpose but other clubs like the Substantiality Hub had taken on a lot of its purposes. The chair of the environmental committee would now be a liaison to the Sustainability Hub.
3. The SAORC: J. Rau said this committee was to be completely scrapped. Though it had a role to review new and existing student organizations, it is not politically and economically feasible. M. Gulrajani further said that this committee is good in theory, but not so much in practice.

In lieu of these 3 proposed changes, J. Rau felt it was better to have a few strong committees than many weak committees, as these were a waste of the SA’s time and efforts.

N. Raps then opened the speaker’s list.

J. Kay spoke in support for the environmental committee of not being a structured committee. She felt it would be better to have this committee advocate on behalf of other campus environmental groups in a time of limited finances. She further stated a lot of members on the environmental committee already worked with other environmental groups. That would be a better way of mobilizing better initiatives and facilitating cooperation on campus.

J. Kay also said that it would be beneficial if the chairs of committees could collaborate on efforts. She suggested adding some language pertaining to this. J. Rau said he would take this into consideration.

E. Szulman said that the environmental committee couldn’t always be teamed with the sustainability hub, though a lot of their issues intermingled.

E. Szulman also felt the CIT committee would be a great resource for the mobile governance board. N. Raps said as mobile apps and other initiatives are being implemented, the SA would have a part in these procedures. The CIT Committee would be the center for identifying a lot of these issues, to make sure the SA would come to the forefront.

A Gitlin asked anyone with suggestions pertaining to changes in bylaws to get in touch with the SA executive board.

Seeing no more discussion on the resolution, it was tabled.

R. 45 : Student Assembly Support of a Tiered CU id Replacement System — Peter Scelfo & Alex Bores

P. Scelfo introduced the resolution and its key clauses. He also informed the SA that they would not be voting on the resolution till the registrar came to speak about it at a meeting.

P. Scelfo spoke of the exorbitant prices associated with replaced id cards, and how this is a problem. He suggested a tier system where the first lost id would be replaced with one with costing 20 dollars and the prices would subsequently go up.

J. Kay asked if a student having multiple ids would create problems. A. Bores said it would not be a problem as if a second id was issued, the first one would automatically get deactivated.

A Nicolleti asked about lost id’s for faculty and staff lost id’s. P. Scelfo said ids for faulty and staff are managed by the human development office; consequently they are free for staff and faculty.

N. Treffeisen asked how the Registrar’s Office is funded as this would be a big concern for them. A. Bores said it came out of the operating budget at Cornell. They initially replaced the first lost id for free but with their current limited budget, this would not be feasible. Therefore, this proposal suggested the first replacement at a pro-rated cost, which would go up subsequently. P. Scelfo felt this would also increase student responsibility.

VII. Adjourn

N. Raps adjourned the meeting at 6:05 pm.