Student Assembly

Minutes — February 14, 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 4:50pm

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. Lukasiewicz, J. Marshall, J. Mueller D. Muir, P. Scelfo, U. Smith, M. Stefanko, N. Terrones

Members excused

C. Pritchett

II. Approval of the 2/7/13 Minutes

• Minutes approved by unanimous consent

III. Open Microphone

• None

IV. Announcements/Reports

Elections Update — J. Weinberg

• Deadline for candidate materials: Monday at noon
• Currently working on a bunch of initiatives regarding vote turnout and education

Financial Aid Announcement — D. Kuhr

• Encourages students to pick up financial aid materials now as the deadline is in the middle of finals — will be putting up posters around campus, etc. to increase awareness

Appropriations Committee Announcement — R. Desai

• Will be seeing the three big programming boards: Slope Day, Cornell Concert Commission, and Cornell University Programming Board
• Not open to the public — financial reports are confidential

Collegetown Community Plan Update — D. Iwaoka

• He and Eric Silverberg gave a presentation at the Collegetown Council meeting on Tuesday — mostly well received

V. Business of the Day

R. 34: Amendment to Appendix A of the Student Assembly Charter — R. Desai, D. Muir, C. Pritchett

• A. Gitlin steps down as the Chair and passes control to EVP J. Mueller
• Summary: attempt to formalize the Appropriations Committee procedures during non-by-line funding years
  • Organizations are required to have hearings with the Committee
  • VP Finance gives detailed report on recommendations given, including a vote total from the Committee
  • Follow up task force: meet with organizations after repot is given to follow up about feasibility and progress
• U. Smith: Aren’t there liaisons to each of these organizations? How much should the SA be involved in internal operations of these groups?
  • Liaisons are not meant to be involved in operational positions — merely a form of communication between the SA and the organization
• E. Bonatti: Strongly feels that the reports be made available to the whole SA so that everyone s involved
  • Feedback given to groups seems irrelevant to the SA — reports would be recommendations to the future Appropriations Committee — it would be up to their discretion as to whether or not to follow them. If given to the SA, they might feel obligated to follow up with the recommendations
• D. Kuhr: Believe this is a good idea. Take for example the issues with Outdoor Odyssey last semester — a lot could have been avoided had these task force meetings happened
• D. Kuhr: Motion to amend : B.3: add “and the Student Assembly” after both instances of the word “Committee”
  • Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed: another amendment to add
  • M. Lukasiewicz: Motion to amend: B.3: add at the end “However, the report should remain confidential within the Student Assembly and the Appropriations Committee”
    • Believe reports should be confidential because they are not final decisions, but rather conversational pieces
    • D. Iwaoka: SA is a public meeting — don’t see the benefit of confidentiality, especially since the SAF affects everyone
    • Call to question, seconded
    • Vote: 1–20–1
    • Amendment fails
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Vote: 25–0−0
  • Amendment passes
• A. Gitlin: Believe it’s the right of the SA to keep a check on the Committee. Motion to amend: C.1 add “and the Student Assembly will confirm” after “The Appropriations Committee will appoint”
  • R. Desai: Not opposed to the amendment, but think it is inefficient. On the same page, motion to amend: change “The Appropriations Committee will appoint” to “The Vice President of Finance will appoint”
    • Amendment passed by unanimous consent
  • A. Gitlin: As an organization, you wouldn’t want two random people coming and telling you what to do — SA should have the final stamp on the appointed co-chairs
  • R. Desai: To clarify, the co-chairs are not going around giving personal opinions — they are to physically write down how organizations are responding to recommendations
  • D. Kuhr: This motion strives toward transparency which is what the SA has been working really hard on
  • G. Lovely: Believes the SA would only approve people they are familiar with — believe the VP Finance should be allowed discretion in his decision
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Vote: 21–3−1
  • Amendment passes
• G. Block: Believe this isn’t the way to go about things. There have been concerns about the Committee having too much power — this would only give them more. Believe the responsibilities laid out in the resolution should be given to the liaisons. Also, the follow-up task forces seem to focus on organizations that are doing poorly — focus should also be placed on organizations that are doing well to help them improve
• R. Desai: Do not believe liaisons have the insight to follow up on Committee recommendations. They won’t provide more transparency than a public report
• D. Iwaoka: Supports G. Block: the relationship between the SA and the by-line funded organizations will greatly improve if liaisons are sent to do the follow up. The report is a good idea, but the task force idea seems invasive
• E. Bonatti: Motion to strike all of Section C
  • R. Desai: Many organizations want multiple meetings if they are not happy with Committee recommendations — the task forces will greatly alleviate the pressure on the VP Finance
  • M. Stefanko: There is a misconception that the task force is a consulting group — it is clear that they will have no influence, their purpose is merely as a feedback mechanism
  • Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed
    • Vote to vote: 14–10–1 Discussion continued
  • U. Smith: Agree in theory with the resolution, but the task force is stretching the limits of the Committee. Motion to commit to the Appropriations Committee
    • R. Desai: This has been discussed for the past 4 weeks in the Committee — everything should just be hashed out in the SA
    • Motion withdrawn
  • Clerk Cheng: SA is harping on giving more power to a committee they have already given power to. It’s a great idea to provide a continuous mode of communication between the Committee and the by-line funded organizations. The task force might not be implemented in the right way (makes sense for liaisons to be involved, even if indirectly)
  • J. Marshall: Believe this is a good idea — why not use students that specialize in these topics to help the organizations
  • E. Bonatti: Withdraws motion
• J. Marshall: Motion to amend: C.2 in the last sentence add “and their respective liaisons” after “The Task Force”
  • Approved by unanimous consent
• A. Gitlin: Believes this is a great idea, but even though the Committee has grappled with it a lot, the SA still needs more time
• Call to question, seconded
• Amendment passes by a vote of 21–0−1
• Motion to table, seconded
• Point of information: committing the resolution means that the sponsors can edit it before bringing it back. Tabling means no edits can be made — the same version of the resolution will be brought back
• Motion passes by a vote of 13–12–0 Resolution tabled

VI. New Business

R.36: In Support of the Establishment of the International Student Center — E. Bonatti

• Thousands of international students are in support of this
• A. Bores: Nothing against the resolution, but believes it should be more direct
• G. Lovely: Shouldn’t this be a Sense-of-the-Body resolution?
  • No, as this is a policy change under the ISSO
• M. Cho: What are the needs? Why not 626 Thurston?
  • International students have different needs than minority students
  • Language barriers, culture shock, etc.
• Motion to table, approved by unanimous consent

R.35: Increasing Member Accountability Through a Revised Initiative Tracker — J. Mueller, M. Lukasiewicz

• Requiring an initiative tracker for each member to increase communication, transparency, and accountability
• G. Block: Why should announcements be placed on the initiative tracker?
  • Will be more strict with announcements — should only be related to what the SA is working on, therefore it is reasonable to put them on the tracker. Un-related announcements can and should be sent through the SA social listserv

A. Gitlin adjourned the meeting at 6:30pm

Respectfully submitted,
Chelsea Cheng