Student Assembly

Minutes — Student Assembly
October 3rd, 20013
4:45pm — 6:30pm
Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

U. Smith called the meeting to order at 4:45pm

Members present

S. Ali Khan, S. Balik, J. Batista, Y. Bhandari, G. Block, E. Bonatti, R. Gademsky, I. Harris, M. Henderson, T. Hittinger, J. Hutson, L. Liu, M. Lukasiewicz, S. Lutsic,N. Mileti, U. Smith, M. Stefanko, B. Thompson, N. Tulsky, L. Wershaw, A. Zhou

Members tardy

T. Drucker

Members excused

Y. Ma, A. Murphy, C. Pritchett, N. Vasko

Members unexcused

T. Talbot

II. Approval of 9/26/13 Minutes

Minutes approved by unanimous consent

III. Open Microphone

Matt ‘16 � DIPs are due this weekend, when R.45 will really go into play � Would like the SA to reconsider or scrap the resolution � The resolution is targeting groups and is not letting individuals be individuals — it is doing the opposite of what it was intended for � U. Smith: Really appreciates the feedback. The resolution really is a first step — no one is married to it, which is why they are doing a phased implementation so that they can adjust the plan is it moves forward

Trustee Gitlin � Trustee Council’s annual meeting is coming up — if there’s any question or comments that SA members want him to bring to that meeting, let him know

IV. Announcements and Reports

FARC Update — A. Murphy

M. Stefanko speaks for A. Murphy. In the next few weeks, they will be discussions the Student Helping Students Grant and considering moving a portion of the interest generated for the grant into other places that can benefit from it.

AAP Outreach Announcement — T. Drucker

Made question boxes around the college and has gotten a lot of feedback — plan to use the responses to hold an open form with the dean.

Arts and Sciences Outreach Update — L. Liu, B. Thompson, N. Tulsky

Working with 4 other organizations to hold a bake sale — like event on the Arts Quad. Currently designing the survey to hand out to students that attend the event.

SACIDI Update — C. Pritchett

C. Pritchett not present.

Community Life Committee Update — M. Stefanko

Initiatives: composting on North campus, changing UUP for people with disabilities, neurological ALLY training sessions for RAs, IFC, and Panhel

Appropriations Committee Update — G. Block

Will be seeing Class Councils, Alternative Breaks, and Cornell Cinema next Monday

Communications Committee Update — I. Harris

Working on an SA Video Update initiative, to be filmed by Slope Media

Dining Committee Update — R. Gademsky

Initiatives: composting on North campus, increasing vegetarian/vegan options, extending dining hours so students have more late-night options

V. Business of the Day

Appropriations Committee Recommendation: North Campus Program Council — G. Block

• NCPC is an offshoot of community life — do a great job of creating a sense of community on North campus
• $0.50 cut since last allocation - Appropriations Committee felt there were several big events held that were excessively expensive
• E. Bonatti: Was the cut more like a punishment or a sign that the organization is of less importance?
  • Definitely not a punishment — in fact, the NCPC has shown constant improvement
  • The point is for them to really consider their costs
• Motion to approve, seconded
• With a 2 proxy yes vote from A. Murphy and C. Pritchett and a proxy no vote from N. Vasko, NCPC approved by a vote of 23–1−0

Appropriations Committee Recommendation — Cornell Minds Matter — G. Block

• Provides mental health outreach and support efforts on campus
• Appropriations Committee felt the CMM is great at effectively spending their money and they have no rollover (not necessarily a good thing)
• Historically, CMM has been funded by a $5,000 grant from a trustee. The trustee is taking the next 5 years to come up with $100,000 for an endowment for CMM so the grant will not be given
• CMM asked for a $0.50 increase to make up for the grant loss, which the Committee was happy to grant
• Motion to approve, seconded
• With 3 proxy yes votes from A. Murphy, C. Pritchett, and N. Vasko, CMM approved by a vote of 24–0−0

Appropriations Committee Update — Outdoor Odyssey — G. Block � OO did not present their cumulated rollover, so the Appropriations Committee decided to postpone their decision until that information is reviewed

R. 10: Creation of University Student Court — Charter Changes — U. Smith

R. 11: Creation of University Student Court — Bylaws Change — U. Smith

R. 12: Adoption of Student Court Bylaws — U. Smith

• U. Smith steps down and S. Balik assumed the chair
• Clarifications:
  • USC is a completely separate entity from the SA
  • Justices
    • Search Committee (on which two SA members sit) will choose 4 justices from a qualified pool
    • President will choose head justice from same pool and the decision will need to be approved by the SA
  • USC does not hear any cases regarding funding
  • USC has the ability to defer cases to other bodies on campus
• Amendments:
  • Motion to amend: strike Section 4.02A regarding holds
    • Call to question, seconded
    • Amendment passed by a vote of 21–0−0
  • Motion to amend: Strike “or employee’ in section 6.02I
    • Call to question, seconded
    • Amendment passed by a vote of 21–0−0
• B. Thompson: In R. 10, lines 25–7, it might be better to let plaintiffs and defendants request to change bodies. Also, would like the requirements for an appeal to be loosened slightly to grant them one re-trial with a different body
  • There is a form for a such a request
  • Current requirements for appeal already cover all cases
• M. Mileti: What makes students qualified to be justices?
  • It’s the same as the assembly — branching of pre-existing power to this new, parallel body
• M. Henderson: Motion to amend the first line of Section 5.04 to read “The justices of the USC shall be appointed by a committee consisting of three (3) members of the UA Codes & Judicial Committee and two (2) SA members.”
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment passed by a vote of 20–1−0
• G. Block: Against the resolution. Disputes should be resolved with a casual discussion on the opposing views leading to a solution — don’t need the USC. Would ask that this resolution be failed and that another dispute resolution body method be found. Previously mentioned that it was difficult to find a Parliamentarian — doesn’t make sense that now we need to seek out 5.
• Motion to amend: In 7.07D strike “If the Court feels the witness�” to the end of that section
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment passed by a vote of 20–1−0
• Motion to amend: Strike Section 10.01
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment passed by a vote of 20–0−1
• S. Seidenberger: Great points — Mary Beth Grant was also a bit uncertain. However, USC is a mediatory body first, hearing body second, and there is no better wording for the bylaws
• S. Ali Khan: Motion to amend: R. 11 p2 lin 11 to read “Matters of elections in the extraordinary circumstance that the SA elections committee cannot fulfill its responsibilities as determined by the committee and the SA”
  • Call to question, seconded
• Amendment passed by a vote of 19–1−1
• M. Lukasiewicz: Motion to amend: 5.04 to read “the justices and the Chief Justice of the USC shall be appointed by�”
  • U. Smith: There are other schools whose student governments choose all the justices — trying to balance the process here. Choice of head justice will be made from a qualified pool — not arbitrary
  • L. Wershaw: Why aren’t the student justices chosen by the entire body, like how the SA members are elected?
    • CJC of UA fills other committees in the exact same way
    • Eliminates some bias
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendment passes by a vote of 14–7−0
• J. Batista: Motion to amend: Strike all of section 8.03
  • U. Smith: That section says that if an organization action harms an individual, they are asked to stop implementation of that action while the hearing is in place — the language might sound too serious, but that’s the best way to put it, and Mary Beth Grant agrees. Also, the language parallels that of the SA charter and the other bodies
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Amendments fails by a vote of 12–5−4
• Motion to table until next week, seconded, dissent expressed
  • J. Hutson: Thinks that members have issue with the structure and legal jargon and tabling for a week will not remedy this. It might be better to just vote on it to gauge opinions, then if it is voted down, the sponsors have a chance to start anew
  • S. Seidenberger: Thinks discussion on this issue has been very healthy and necessary and should continue to happen in this venue
  • U. Smith: This has been brought to all relevant bodies on campus and has been vetted
• Motion tabled by a vote of 18–3−0
• C. Cheng: In clerking meetings for the past two years and seeing how resolutions are discussed and processed, requests that SA members really make an effort to read and understand the resolutions, as well as the motivations behind them, before they make any motions to amend. The sponsors are the most knowledgeable of their resolutions and motions made based on first-glance opinions could produce repercussions if not discussed properly.

VI. New Business

R. 13: Public Relations Plan — I. Harris

• G. Block: There seem to be a lot of buzz words in the plan — what are the actual goals and implementation?
  • In terms of engagement, trying to get more info through the Sun, involving SA members in the news, etc.
• J. Batista: Can you speak more on the mobile app?
  • Long term project: partner with students and administration to improve what is offered through the university

U. Smith adjourned the meeting at 6:31pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Chelsea Cheng