Student Assembly

MINUTES
Student Assembly
Thursday, March 27, 2014
4:45PM-6:30PM
Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room

I. Call to Order

U. Smith called the meeting to order at 4:50pm.

Members Present

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

Members Absent (Unexcused): R. Gademsky, F. Jimenez, Y. Ma, N. Vasko

II. Open Microphone

M. Lukasiewicz asked for community members who wished to present to the SA for the open mic session.

• Co-presidents of Into the Street, Lara Keskinkaya Dambra- 2015 and Jourdan Norman-2014, came forward in representation of the group to speak about the statements made at the March 6th SA meeting.
  • It was not the intent of the board members to assign any group to the incident that occurred and would like to clarify the protocols the group has in response to an emergency.
  • E. Bonati asked for clarification as to what prompted them to come forth to the SA. Response: The person who presented before did not answer with the most appropriate representation of what the group protocols entail.
• Michael Alter- 2016 presented information on In Bloom and asked for SA support in creating a resolution dropping the use of this system at Cornell.
  • M. Lukasiewicz explained the procedures for presenting a resolution.

III. Announcements and Reports

Breaking the Silence Recap Announcement- Vice President of Outreach J. Batista

• J. Batista thanked everybody who attended and noted over 100 people, including many faculty members, attended.

FARC Update- Representative Henderson

• The committee worked on changing the policy and they settled on the amount of $2000. If the student’s possessions are not lost then only $300 will be covered.
• The committee also worked on Resolution 68 - to be presented later in the meeting.

Community Life Committee update- Representative Stefanko

• Working on board and training, specifically getting ready for next year.

Communications Committee Update- Vice President for Public Relations Harris

• None

Appropriations Committee Update- Vice President for Finance Block

• The committee met Monday, March 24, 2014, and worked on resolutions. They will be meeting with the Concert Commission in regards to their finances and the lack of upcoming concerts.

University Assembly Update- Vice President for Internal Operations Lukasiewicz

• UA met on Tuesday, March 25, 2014, where the major topic discussed was TCAT. The UA will be voting on the Resolution 14: Addressing the TCAT Deficit on April 22nd.
• The April 8th meeting will focus on divestment and will feature the VP of Finance and A.J. Edwards, who will discuss counter points to the arguments presented.

SACIDI Update- Representative Liu

• DIP evaluation is almost finished with the goal being to complete the process by April 18th.

SADAC Update- Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion Tulsky

• None

Dragon Day Announcement- Representative Drucker and Zhou

• Dragon Day is on March 28th and will begin at 1:00pm at Milstein Hall. Congratulations to all the freshman for their hard work.

IV. Business of the Day

R. 67: Qualifications for College Specific Representatives

• There were no amendments to the resolution. Call to Question. No dissent.
• Vote 21–0−0. Resolution Adopted.

V. Old Business

R. 56, R. 57: Creation of Student Assembly Judicial Commission — Bylaws Change

• U. Smith: Presented two amendments to resolution 56 and one amendment to resolution 57. Purpose of amendments is to provide clarity to resolutions.
• T. Talbot: Asked what authority the judicial committee has if the decision to go to a mediator is not binding. Response: The portion of the resolution that is non-binding only pertains to individual students who submit a dispute but not necessarily a formal charge.
• Motion to Vote on R.56. No dissent. Vote 20–0−0. Resolution passed.
• Motion to vote on R. 57. No dissent. Vote 20–0−0. Resolution passed.

VI. New Business

R. 68 Financial Aid Review Committee Membership Revisions-

• Proposes the increase of undergraduate committee membership from five positions to ten positions. This would allow for people to join the committee in both the fall and spring semesters.
• M. Lukasiewicz: What is the conversation that has to happen with the Office of Financial Aid in regards to confidentiality? Also how was the number of ten undergraduates decided upon? Response: Financial Aid presents the details of an individual’s situation but the names are anonymous so the decision remains confidential. The number ten is arbitrary, the committee is just hoping to have more than five. The Finance Office believes ten people would be a good cap to have now in case in the future the committee membership grows in popularity.
• E. Bonatti: Questioned the four out of five ratio for students on the committee who receive financial aid. From the prospective of international students, most do not receiving funding from Cornell and this could restrict their membership. Response: It is a big priority to have people with financial aid on the committee.
  • E. Bonatti suggested changing the wording from “institutional financial aid” to just “financial aid”. Response: Agreement with idea.
• G. Block: Resolution cannot be voted on today.
• Resolution tabled until April 10th SA meeting.

R. 69: Transitioning to an Opt Out Emergency Mass Notification System

• Transitioning from the current opt in system for emergency mass notifications to an opt-out system. Currently, the opt-in system is only utilized by 28% of undergraduates and is not publicized as critical program. This resolution would help to push the importance of emergency mass notification and change the current system to an opt-out program.
• Motion to move to Business of the Day. No dissent. Item is now open for general discussion.
• G. Block: Supported resolution because more students remain in the system if it was opt out versus knowing they have to opt in.
• M. Lukasiewicz: Does IT have a possible timeline as to when this could be accomplished? Response: There is no timeline because IT is currently extremely busy. However, this resolution would help to push the process along.
• T. Talbot: Full support of resolution. He asked if the resolution would be for undergraduates only or would graduate students be included? Response: It is for anyone with a Cornell I.D.
• S. Ali Khan: Have you considered making this part of boarding program for first year students? That way everybody is included and they can decide themselves to opt out. Response: They are trying to put signing up for emergency mass notification on the freshman checklist.
• T. Drucker: Can anything the SA could do as a part of PR in the mean time to get people to opt in until the program is changed? Response: This is something the SA could look into and could involved publicity through social media.
• B. Thompson: Will current students be transferred to the opt-out program? Response: Yes, anyone registered at Cornell will be switched to the new opt-out system.
• Motion to vote. No dissent.
  • Community vote 3–0−0.
  • SA vote 19–0−1. Resolution passed.

R. 71: Addressing the Student Activity Fee Endowment Fund-

• Proposals on how the SA should allocate the funds from the former SAFC endowment. The resolution presented is the same resolution written last year. One idea for how to use the money is to create an innovation fund that would provide larger amounts of funding for students or groups who did not receive byline funding. A new idea for this money is to spend only a yearly amount of 1.4% and maintain the rest in the account. The money taken each year could then be used from smaller, student-planned renovations on the campus.
• G. Block: Suggests the SA vote no on this resolution so they can get away from the wording *Motion to move to Business of the Day. Not dissent. Item is now open for general discussion.
• N. Mileti: Concerned there is too much assemblies involvement. Suggested amendment the resolution to be worded so it is for the promotion of entrepreneurship in the university. Response: Depending on which of the options is being discussed there will be committee involvement; however, the level of SA involvement will vary between the three plans.
• E. Bonatti: This should be an SA matter as the members are elected officials and therefore represent the general student body. He also noted this money is not for entrepreneurship but rather for the community and the campus.
• J. Hutson: In favor of the small campus project idea because fixing smaller areas on campus can allow for more engagement for students.
• T. Drocker: Also in favor of the smaller yearly campus project idea and suggested making it a design competition that could help facilitate ideas. Response: Soliciting ideas is a good idea but the SA should select the projects each year so it can benefit the most students.
• S. Ali Khan: This is an expansive campus and we get input from a variety of people so we need to take into consideration ideas from various people on campus.
• T. Talbot: The small campus projects idea seems to be the most inclusive of the three ideas. This money should be used for clubs that do not fit for byline funding. Response: The yearly campus project would not focus on groups as much but rather it would be something that is available to everybody on campus. The purpose of the money is not to just give it to the university and say “fix it,” but to have students work on an idea with the help of the university. There has to be definitive goal for the committee.
• L. Wershaw: Should the money be given to TCAT to help with the deficit? Response: The yearly 1.9% could be given to TCAT; however, this is only approximately $30,000, which would not cover TCAT’s $700,000 deficit.
• E. Bonatti: Point of clarification, the 1.9% would not include the five dollars being pulled from the students yearly. Response: There is no longer $5 being added to the endowment. The 1.9% is what can be removed yearly from the account and still allow for yearly growth.
• Y. Bhandari: Agreed the small yearly projects will increase student involvement.
• N. Tulsky: What would the process be for contacting the university and talking to the head architect? Response: This process is still being researched.
• M. Lukasiewicz: In favor of the small campus projects. Would like to see some wiggle room in the amount used per year. Response: The 1.9% is a conservative number but it could be up to the committee to consider removing more or less for the one year.
• B. Thompson: Do you foresee this money going to only one project or a number of small projects per year? Response: The committee will have to decide where the money should go.
• E. Bonatti: We need to be careful for people applying to committee. There should be a clear separation between members of the allocation committee and this committee. Response: This committee might benefit from some overlap with members who have funding experience.
• Discussion tabled until the next meeting.

VII. Adjournment

U. Smith adjourned the meeting at 6:30:15pm

Respectfully submitted, Claire Lender Clerk, Office of the Assemblies