Student Assembly

Minutes — March 7, 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, I. Chen, M. Cho, A. Chopra, R. Desai, A. Gitlin, R. Gitlin, I. Harris, T. Hittinger, D. Iwaoka, J. Lee, G. Lovely, M. Lukasiewicz, J. Marshall, J. Mueller, P. Scelfo, U. Smith, M. Stefanko

Members tardy

D. Muir, C. Pritchetet

Members excused

S. Breedon, N. Terrones

Members unexcused

D. Kuhr

II. Approval of the 2/28/13 Minutes

• Minutes approved by unanimous consent

III. Open Microphone

• None

IV. Announcements/Reports

Elections Results Announcement — J. Weinberg

• > 40% voter turnout!
• Results of unchallenged races will be released a few hours after the meeting
• Challenged race results will be released once resolved

Unity Hour Recap — U. Smith

• 1st Unity Hour with Ujamaa
• Discussion about how diversity is being addressed
• Talked abut the social justice requirement — split responses on the subject: some feel it’s necessary, some didn’t

Social Justice Roundtable Dinner Update — U. Smith

• Monday, 3/11 SA is co-sponsoring a Roundtable dinner with OADI to discuss whether or not student government is a benefit or a hindrance to achieving social justice.

Appropriations Committee Announcement — R. Desai

• Waiting for approval of Resolution 34 from President Skorton — once approved, the reports will be released

VI. Business of the Day

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

• The resolution was sent to President Skorton and a few small changes in the last paragraph were made
• Call to question, seconded
• Resolution 29 passed by unanimous consent

R.38 Establishing a New Events Calendar — J. Batista and I. Harris

• Changes from last resolution: Last Whereas clause, last two Be It Therefore Resolved clauses, pilot program timeline included, draft email, list of target organizations for pilot program
• G. Block: How did you decide on the target organizations?
  • A GoogleDoc was sent to the SA — targets came from those suggestions
  • Eventually all groups will be included, but this will form the sample pool for the pilot program
• E. Bonatti: Under whose purview is the email? Has Denice Cassaro agreed to this?
  • The draft email was written by her — she is willing to do whatever the students want
• A. Chopra: Have you talked to the groups you plan to involve? Have you considered requiring that events be posted on the calendar in order to be held?
  • Have not contacted the groups as they want to make sure the program will happen
• G. Lovely: Have you considered giving students the option to share their interests and have a system send them emails about relevant events?
• D. Iwaoka: The point this is to expose students to everything around campus. Disagrees with the email since he doesn’t want anymore, but agrees with the calendar requirement
• U. Smith: Agrees with the calendar requirement, but recommends getting buy-in from groups as they don’t want to spend money on a program that people won’t use
  • Won’t be spending extra money since the platform is already in place
  • Emphasis on the fact that this is a pilot program
• Motion to change title to “Revamping the Events Calendar”
  • Motion passed by unanimous consent
• I. Chen: Questions implementation — how will everyone be trained?
  • The process is really very simple — shouldn’t be a problem
  • Concerns and details will be hammered out during the pilot program meetings
• M. Cho: Will events be sent out through this as well as listserv email or will listserv email be gotten rid of?
  • This will not affect listservs — merely consolidating all general event notification emails into one
• Call to question, seconded
• Resolution 38 passed by a vote of 22–0−1.

R.39: In Support of the LGBTQ Ally Ambassador Program — D. Iwaoka, Emily Bick, J. Toledo, Carlin Van Holmes, Colin Foley, William Jackson

• All 3 councils are fully behind the resolution and have been added as sponsors
• Clause asking each council to draft their own implementation plans — hope to get a pilot by the end of the semester so that this will really get going in the Fall
• IFC: 18 month plan, not made mandatory as mandates are usually not received well. Have received a lot of positive feedback
• Panhellenic Council: Requiring it — considering putting it under an exec position for next year to provide more momentum
• G. Block: How will you substantively maintain this program? What is the role of the ambassador?
  • The ambassador if the go-to member to talk to about LGBT concerns — they will be familiar with campous resources and will be required to attend orientations
• R. Gitlin: Concerned that the incentive plan for IFC isn’t strong enough to get this initiative off the ground
  • Interest has already been shown, but the will take appropriate steps after outreach is peformed
• Call to question, seconded, dissent expressed and withdrawn
  • Vote to vote: 20–12–0 discussion continues
• G. Braciak: Recommends a greater reward than a plaque to help incentivize IFC participation
• Emily Bick: PEGS (Peer Educators of Gender and Sexuality) will always be a resource as well — maybe the ambassador could help facilitate those events
• I. Harris: Recommends getting information about the ambassador program to freshmen
• Call to question, seconded
  • Community vote: 2–0
  • Roll call vote: 23–0−0
• Resolution 39 passed by a vote of 25–0−0.

V. Business of the Day

R.40–42: Creation of the University Student Supreme Court — U. Smith

• None of this is final
• In the current judicial system, nobody handles inter-student group disputes
• Currently very difficult (near impossible) to overturn SA decisions
• Plan to have this Court housed in the student office
• E. Bonatti: Have you spoken to the Ombudsman? Have you thought about the level of bureaucracy in terms of adding more boards/organizations?
  • Have not spoken to Ombudsman, but have been present at the presentation
  • Have thought the bureaucracy — initial step is an immediate board (deterial) and has to go through 2 steps before it gets to an adversarial level
  • There have been quite a few demands for this
• J. Lee: How will the Court members be chosen?
  • Process is in bylaws, but will be the same process as the University Hearing and Review boards
• G. Block: Where does the SA get the power to do the things laid out in the resolution?
  • Bylaws drafted from a lot of research from other universities — some topics have not been discussed and should be amended
• G. Lovely: What needs to happen in order for a hearing to be held with the Court? Will this completely fail if all 3 resolutions don’t pass?
  • Anyone can apply for a hearing
• J. Toledo: Will this obsorb the Greek judicial process or any other judicial process? Are there any gray areas?
  • No, no processes will be absorbed — this shouldn’t conflict with the Greek system at all
• R. Gitlin: Asks for Dean Hubbell’s perspective on this idea. Also, should this be called a “Supreme Court”?
• Dean Hubbell: Always in support of students helping students and student determining student conduct
• I. Harris: There are already methods in place to question SA initiatives (committees, meetings, etc.) — do you think those aren’t effective? Is this Court absolutely necessary?
  • That is all up for interpretation — the ResLife committee is merely looking for feedback at this stage
  • His personal opinion is that the SA has not consistently done a good job of holding itself accountable
• J. Mueller: Can you explain the Recalling Officers section of Resolution 40?
• Vice President of Internal Operations notes absences and reports that a member has reached his/her limit — the member then has a chance to tell his/her side of the story before the final decision is made
  • This is an internal operation that needs to be developed — idea is to provide a stronger guideline for holding members accountable
• P. Scelfo: Have you spoken with the JCC (Judicial Codes Counselors) office? You mentioned modeling off of other schools whose members are paid (that is their method of accountability) — should the SA be paid?
  • SA should not be paid — they are all students are not better than anyone else
  • Have not spoken to JCC — spoke to JA first
• J. Batista: Can you explain the mediation process?
  • That process was requested by the JA
  • A body convenes with the case members to talk about it before it goes adversarial
• D. Muir: Will this include the Appropriations Committee?
  • Hesitant to touch anything regarding funding, but it might be considered
• D. Iwaoka: Regarding the members of the Court, should the Administration have th power to choose members that are to help mediate student issues?
  • Ultimately, members will be chosen by the students, but it will probably be a good idea to have an administrator on board as a check
• Motion to table indefinitely until the Committee is ready to bring it back

A. Gitlin adjourned the meeting at 6:19pm

Respectuflly submitted,
Chelsea Cheng