Student Assembly

Agenda — January 31, 2013 Cornell University Student Assembly 4:45pm — 6:30pm, Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room

I. Call to Order/Roll Call

A. Gitlin called the meeting to order at 4:45pm

Members present

S. Balik, J. Batista, G. Block, E. Bonatti, G. Braciak, S. Breedon, I. Chen, M. Cho, A. Chopra, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, R. Gitlin, I. Harris, T. Hittinger, D. Iwaoka, D. Kuhr, J. Lee, G. Lovely, M. Lukasieqicz, J. Marshall, J. Mueller, D. Muir, C. Pritchett, P. Scelfo, U. Smith, M. Stefanko, N. Terrones

Also present

Ari Epstein, Amy Edwards, Dr. Renee Alexander, Chelsea Cheng

II. Approval of the 11/29/12 Minutes

• Minutes approved by unanimous consent

III. Open Microphone

• Katarina Athanasiou ‘13: As a senior on campus, she is noting the gap between students and the Administration. Heard about town hall meetings that are being held — encourages these as well as other programs to help increase communication between the two groups

IV. Announcements/Reports

Announcement by Dr. Renee Alexander, Associate Dean of Students

• The University Diversity Council is in the middle of its second year
• Towards New Destinations is a marathon, not a sprint, and will evolve over time
• Launching a town hall meeting series — first meeting was last week for Black and Latino males
• Other groups in the works: Black women, first-years, graduates, Hispanic women
• Looking for collaboration and support from the SA to help gather large groups of students and begin a dialogue
• A. Gitlin had proposed having student organizations coming up with their own diversity initiatives (currently there is a heavy focus on faculty/Administration) — interested in flushing out the idea
• R. Desai: How do we involve students that don’t fit into the current spheres of conversation?
  • It is definitely a challenge that is being tackled — no concrete answer
  • Question of how to engage students and keep their interested
• D. Iwaoka: Working on a diversity initiative for Collegetown — would like to cooperate with the efforts being made on campus
• Katarina Thanasiou: Would like to see the formation of a consistent, non-targeted town hall meeting program where any student can go with any issue. The idea is to engage the average student — to provide them access to administrators to help them with their ideas
  • The fractured relationship between students and the Administration is a large question to be addressed by multiple parties
  • The town hall idea is great — encourages work with the SA to find a solution
• U. Smith: What can be done to facilitate the creation of a community within our communities?
  • Currently underway with the beginning of campus dialogue— a lot of small steps must be taken
  • As more resources become available, more programs will be seen

Public Safety Update — A. Chopra

• Fire safety, helmet safety, and BLUE are all in the works
• The ResCUer app was sent out with the monthly SA email — working with CU Collaborate to improve the app

North Campus Project Announcement — J. Batista and M. Stefanko

• North Campus Grounds Project — hoping to create a new landscape as the current area is looking worse for wear
• Outreach event to be held next Friday in RPCC

Elections Announcement — J. Weinberg

• Material is officially online — help get the word out!

Transfer Coffee Hour Announcement — I. Chen

• Outreach event happened last week — big success, thanks members who went

~75 students (both fall and spring transfers) and many exchange students

Appropriations Committee Announcement — R. Desai

• The Committee will see Cornell Cinema and Club Insurance next week

Finalized Late Night Safety Survey — S. Balik and R. Gitlin

• Survey was finally completed and sent out in the monthly email

Report on the Implementation of a Social Justice Requirement — Chelsea Cheng and U. Smith

• Goal: to look into the possibility of adding a social justice requirement across the university
• After meeting with deans from all the colleges and sitting down to analyze the various ideas discussed, there appeared to be 3 feasible options for the implementation of the requirement
  • Creation of courses, using existing structures, integration
• G. Block: What’s the difference between social justice and diversity? How will this engage students and give them something to gain?
  • There are many different names as we don’t know what the requirement looks like
  • That is also one of our main concerns
• M. Lukasiewicz: Should ask what students would want to see covered in this requirement — go through college reps and outreach events
• G. Lovely: See option 2 as the most feasible — don’t see how changing course goals would help
  • There are pros and cons to all the options. Option 3 is not asking that course goals be changed, but rather that a section be added so that professors teach matters of diversity in parallel with key concepts of the course — more feasible for some colleges than others
• Dr. Alexander: Recommends working with academic deans in each college — be consistent in keeping contact and stay persistent
• T. Hittinger: How did the deans respond? Have you considered other options?
  • Every dean seemed eager to look into the idea
  • Aside from the options in the report, others were considered but tossed out as they were infeasible

V. Business of the Day

R.29: Crisis Management Follow Up Process — M. Lukasiewicz

• Whenever a student experiences a crisis, a manager (faculty members) is assigned to help
• This resolution formalizes a follow up process after the crisis has been resolved
• A. Gitlin: How has this resolution changed since the one presented in December?
  • Not much has changed — discussed it more with Tammie Hall (contact) and got confirmation from the Legal Council that this would be okay
• J. Marshall: Can you be more specific about the actual process?
  • A procedure would be created in the Maxient system (used to logic crisis cases)
  • Currently see it as a notification to the manager that a follow up is in order
• U. Smith: How many crisis managers are there? How many cases do they each see in a semester?
  • Don’t have specific numbers, but Tammie Hall said that this is definitely feasible
• J. Batista: Why hasn’t this gone through any committees or task forces? The language is inconsistent and a bit vague — if this is to be a piece of legislation, it should be more succinct
  • Brought it up in her task force — no words against it. As the subject didn’t fit into any committee’s jurisdiction, there seemed no need to bring it to them
  • This resolution has been on the docket for 2 meetings now, as no one has brought up any issues, there shouldn’t be a problem with its passage
• D. Kuhr: Resolution is perfectly tailored to the need on campus — needs to be purposely vague as each students’ crisis is different
• Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
  • Vote to vote: 18–7−1 Move to vote
• Resolution 29 passed by a vote of 25–0−0

VII. New Business

R.32: Toward a Responsible Endowment: S. Balik, Rebecca Macies, Anna-Lisa Castle

• Friendly amendment: change resolution to a “Sense of the body”, not “Legislation”
• Anna-Lisa: A&S, senior, ex co-president of KyotoNOW
• Rebecca Macies: CALS, junior, ex co-president of KyotoNOW
• Would like to see endowment policies align with university goals
• Looking for a reasonable transition from fossil fuels to more sustainable sources — part of a national movement toward green investment
• S. Breedon: Can you defend the statemtn of “no negative financial impact”? How did you come up with 30% for the reinvestment of funds?
  • Statement is telling the university not to put finances at risk (no decrease in endowment) — only want to see a responsible transition
  • STARS (Sustainability Tracking and Rating System) — looking to move from rank gold to rank platinum (highest)
• D. Iwaoka: Have you spoken with the Administration? What was their response?
  • No response from the Endowment office — unable to get facts and figures
  • Investment and sustainability offices are familiar with this resolution
• M. Lukasiewicz: How large were previous endowment changes compared to this one? Would you be willing to revise the resolution to something along the lines of making a transition to the degree to which there won’t be a negative financial impact?
  • That is the reason for the clause — they want the university to know that they are not asking for them to risk the endowment
  • Unsure of how big the changes are — unable to get non-vague information on past divestments
• G. Block: Is the divestment predicated on the fact that the endowment won’t be negatively affected? What do you consider to be fossil fuels?
  • Negatively affected means that the endowment shrinks, that invest money somehow disappears
  • If the university cannot completely move away from fossil fuels, they are asking for them to invest in any better option
• T. Hittinger: As the endowment is a sensitive issue, would passing this resolution before getting in contact with the Endowment office be the best idea?
  • Believe that getting this passed will be a way to facilitate communication with the office
• M. Cho: Where does the 30% figure come from?
  • Reflection of standards in STARS — right now, Cornell is severely lacking in the investment category — 30% is a STARS perfect rating

Resolutions 33 and 34 tabled until the next meeting.

A. Gitlin adjourned the meeting at 6:28pm.