SA Comments: Internal Oversight

Initial Findings

The Student Assembly lacks any significant mechanism for internal oversight. As a governing organization, it lacks the equivalent of a judicial branch. There is no check on the actions of the assembly or the leadership of its Executive Committee.

The Executive Committee is forced to act as both the executive arm and the judicial arm of the Student Assembly to balance the legislative arm of its representatives. This places undue stress on the Student Assembly leadership, and places too much power within the control of too few individuals. The Executive Committee is often alienated from the rest of the representatives due to ongoing questions about the prescribed extent of its oversight.

Without a judicial mechanism, the Student Assembly does not include a penal mechanism to address any impropriety of its membership. Short of recalling a representative in a special-election with a super-majority of one’s constituency, the Student Assembly cannot enforce ethical standards or a standard of professional conduct.

Potential Solutions

1. The Student Assembly must create the equivalent of a judicial branch to check the decisions of the Executive Committee and to assist in interpreting the charter. This is of particular concern when conducting byline funding hearings with millions of dollars in question. This mechanism should include community members, selected for 2-year terms, and confirmed by the Student Assembly.
2. The Student Assembly can utilize an existing component of Cornell’s judicial system (i.e. University Hearing Board) for issues concerning Student Assembly oversight. The Student Assembly should avoid creating additional levels of bureaucracy.

Community Comments

Copyright © 2005–2019, Cornell University.