Minutes
University Assembly
Wednesday, October 29, 1997
Art Gallery, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by M. Esposito at 4:32 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Jon Austin, Steven Caldwell, John Cisne, Linda Clougherty, Chris Cole, Michael Cameron, Michael Esposito, David Grubb, Marian Hartill, Joy Johnson, Jeff Kozlow, Betty Lewis, David Levitsky, Dianna Marsh, Alan Mathios, A. P. Pirondi, Linda Yannone, Jonah Zern

Absent: Henry Chung, Dianne Geohring, Ellis Loew, Richard Moore, John Sherry, Michele Travis

Others Present: Chris Gardner, Mark Frontera, Gary Hartz, Barbara Krause, Rodney Ghearing, Ben Perry, Julia Gordon

M. Esposito introduced Linda Clougherty as a new member of the University Assembly, representing the Employee Assembly.

C. Cole introduced Michael Cameron as a new UA member representing the GPSA.

III. Additions to the Agenda

J. Kozlow requested to add the resolution for making Committee on Committee members ex-officio members on all UA committees, with the exception of the Budget Planning Committee.

IV. Open Forum

No one spoke during the Open Forum.

V. Announcements

M. Esposito announced that due to the meeting schedule, there was no December meeting scheduled. Therefore he proposed that a meeting date be established on the 10th of December. This was agreed upon by the members present.

Marian Hartill brought up a concern for the new hunting procedure for sections of the plantations. She spoke cornering the safety of this issue and the necessity of opening this area for bow and rifle deer hunting. She voiced her concern and looked for future support with this matter. She asked if people had concerns they should approach Don Rakow, Director of Plantations.

VI. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes of the 9–24–97 UA meeting were passed by acclimation.

VII. Report From the Chair

M. Esposito reported on the Assemblies Leadership meeting the evening prior with President Rawlings, Don King, Mary Opperman, and other members of the Cornell administration. The Employee Assembly inquired as to what the greatest concern was that the administration held for the Cornell community and to what extent the EA could support this concern. The President requested that the employees take more control of their career development and a more flexible, creative approach to their work.

The GPSA asked questions about the employee degree program and was mainly concerned if more flexibility could be instilled in this program. The administrative response consisted of the fact that due to the lack of enrollment in the Employee Degree Program, not many options could be implemented in the program. Presently, there are only about 100 employees in this program, which is an extreme minority to the remaining student population.

M. Esposito reported that the Student Assembly brought up the concern of the recent housing solution to the administration. J. Kozlow reported that this question helped to clarify the details and effect of the housing solution. He also stated that the SA voiced a concern as to how much impact they had in this decision, and the impact of this decision on the influence of the Assemblies in the future. J. Kozlow stated that the main concern of the SA was to clarify the details of the housing solution.

M. Esposito stated that the UA representatives voiced a concern about the decline in Cornell’s rank in the media. The administration representatives reported that the rankings of Cornell by the media are biased due to Cornell’s size, their public/private status, and other factors. They also stated that the rankings of media do not have a significant effect on a student’s choice to attend the university. They stated that students use other resources to compile the proper choice for their college education. Therefore, the media rankings of Cornell do not have a significant impact upon the community. The administration is concerned about the issue of ranking, however ranking does not influence the quality of education offered at Cornell.

M. Esposito also reported that the Assemblies jointly addressed the issue of the Data Access Policy. It was settled that the Assemblies would meet with M. Hodges, when she became available, to clear up details concerning the policy. J. Kozlow elaborated that the main question of the evening was whether the Assemblies at Cornell were being involved in policies and procedures on campus. J. Kozlow expanded that the students do not use the ranking of the newspapers in their decisions as a final deciding factor, and that being a representative of the student body, he agrees with the fact that ranking does not have a significant effect on admission procedures.

VIII. Constituent Assembly Reports

Employee Assembly

M. Esposito reported that the Employee Assembly held two meetings this month, one concerning the Data Access Policy and one concerning a Project 2000 question and answer period. He stated that the format of the Project 2000 question and answer format worked extremely well and in the future the EA is planning on using this format for other subject areas. He reported that the EA also moved to support the upcoming Hockey Tournament. M. Esposito also reported that the EA passed a resolution commending all parties on the recent contract negotiations.

Faculty Senate

David Grubb declined to report on the Faculty Senate operations.

GPSA

R. Gary Hartz, GPSA president, was in attendance to report on the actions of the GPSA. He reported that the GPSA has been dealing with the Employee Degree Program. He stated that there is a need to correct this program so that more flexibility exists in the system, making it easier for employees to gain access to this program. Another issue pressing the GPSA was the phone service to graduate housing. As of now the phone system is monopolistic in using AT&T as the only phone company. This does not allow graduate students the freedom to discover competitive prices on long distance servers. R. G. Hartz also reported that the GPSA was concerned about the upcoming Data Access Policy and the influence the Assemblies will have on this policy. He voiced a concern that the Assemblies need to work together in the future in order to have an impact on this upcoming policy. Another issue R. G. Hartz addressed was the upcoming decision on the direct election of UA representatives. He felt the short term response of the GPSA was negative, however, he felt a system such as the direct election of UA members, would benefit the University Assembly. However, the GPSA is not included in the Student Assembly’s plan for direct election of University Assembly representatives. R. G. Hartz stressed the fact that the Assemblies must work together on the Data Access Policy. He stated that it is essential that the Assemblies establish an active role in this decision.

Linda Clougherty questioned the role of the GPSA in supporting the Employee Degree Program. R. G. Hartz responded by stating that many graduate students end up becoming employed at Cornell while completing their education. In these instances the employees turn to R. G. Hartz for support.

Student Assembly

J. Kozlow reported that the establishment of the 1998–2000 Student Activity Fee has monopolized the time of the Student Assembly for the past few weeks. Presently the Student Assembly is also working on course evaluations. The Student Assembly has also been preparing for the issue of the housing solution, which will escalate into a larger issue in the ensuing months.

IX. Business of the Day

Barbara Krause, the Judicial Administrator, reported on the present situation of Cornell’s JA office. The final number of cases from the 1996–1997 school year decreased from 497 cases to 483. She stated that the theft cases were rising, this category is dominated by theft in the Campus Store, Library, and Dining Halls. She added that computer violations were also rising from last year’s numbers. B. Krause stated that Alcohol/ Drug offenses and Alcohol Related offenses decreased drastically from last year. The Alcohol/ Drug offenses reduced from 90 to 58 and the Alcohol cases declined to 81 from 129. However, this does not mean that drug and alcohol abuse is declining. She reminded that the numbers presented only represent the cases reported. B. Krause also cleared up the issue that the JA is not responsible for campus crime, this is covered by the Cornell Police division. The JA is only responsible for the violations of the Campus Code of Conduct.

J. Kozlow added that in the previous academic year, no cases were seen by the University Review Board.

A. Mathios questioned if Slope Day had an effect on the number of cases seen by the JA. B. Krause responded by stating that although Slope Day represents 6 - 7 cases on average, this is not a significant number. However, the reason this number is so small is that many of the incidents occurring on Slope Day are not reported or acted upon. Due to the extreme number of participants, not all actions can be reported.

C. Cole questioned the prospected strain the new Data Access Policy will place on the JA’s office. B. Krause stated that they are expecting an increased number of computer violations, but the JA office has played an active role in the Data Access Policy to date. She also added that the Data Access Policy does cause some issues with the JA office. B. Krause is strongly in favor of the confidentiality of students and their cases, as presented by the office. Students represent the greatest number of referrals to the JA office and it is essential that their records be confidential. The JA office has been working very closely with CIT as a result of the Data Access Policy. B. Krause also stated that the JA is suffering from understaffing. The office has been staffed the identical way for the previous 10 years, even though the case number and complexity of cases continues to rise. Presently the office is working hard to stay on top of this added work load, but in case of an emergency situation, the office will suffer.

M. Hodges questioned if part-time help would ease the strain of the office. B. Krause responded that this would help, but a problem arises with the amount of office space. There is no room to place extra help in the office. She added that the idea of a satellite office has been brought up, however this would threaten the confidentiality of the office records.

Joy Johnson questioned the new policy formed that entails the residents of a hall splitting the cost of broken furniture in the lounge, should the perpetrator not step forward. B. Krause stated that this policy was passed by Campus Life, not the JA. This new policy is aiding the JA office in that the responsible party will step forward in order to save the entire floor from facing the charges that results from the individual’s actions.

B. Krause added that a result of the decline in alcohol and drug related issues may stem from the increased education program. She stated that many positive responses have resulted from the education classes, that are mandatory after an offense. She feels that perhaps these education classes may be having an effect on the number of code violations committed.

X. New Business

TCAT- Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit

R. Ghearing, General Manager, Transportation & Mail Services of TCAT, presented the company’s recent service and fare study. He described that this study was formulated to enhance the service of the TCAT bus services. The plan of the study is to reduce duplication of services, formulate a uniform fare system, and to offer new destinations based on consumer response. He described that the present fare system has a strong base in who happens to be driving the bus, in other words a uniform fare system has yet to be established. R. Ghearing reported that there have been community meetings taking place on campus presently and more meetings will be formulated in the future. These meetings are aiding the company to establish a list of needed improvements. The voice of the populace will set the ranking of the most essential issues. Other similar meetings are taking place throughout the neighboring towns of Ithaca. R. Ghearing reported that in addition to these meetings, literature is being distributed throughout the entire area. These brochures and surveys are polls that will be returned to TCAT representatives to aid them in creating new routes. Included in the survey are maps of the surrounding area where customers can mark future locations they would like served. These surveys are also available on the Tompkins County Website. The new routes established will be based on the results of these meetings and surveys. R. Ghearing announced that the second round of meetings will be beginning on December 8th. Notification of these meetings will be posted throughout campus. R. Ghearing also announced that verification meetings of these proposed routes will take place before initiating the routes into public service. The time frame planned for these changes is in the months of February to March.

J. Kozlow questioned the effect these alterations will have on the Cornell Bus Service. R. Ghearing responded by stating that the realigning of service will provide the same routes to Cornell, but the on-campus service will also be based more on public service.

J. Kozlow then questioned if the other branches of the busing service of Cornell have been approached on these alterations? R. Ghearing responded that they have been working on establishing a consolidation of the bus services. He said that there are hopes to integrate all members of the bus system to aid the enhancement of these improvements.

M. Esposito questioned the involvement of the Transportation Advisory Committee. He explained that this committee should be serving as a mediator between the UA and the Transportation Board. His concern was if this committee was involved in these negotiations. R. Ghearing responded by stating that the committee should look to attend the upcoming meetings in the week of December 8th. He stated that this should be their approach for an influence in the transportation adjustment program.

J. Zern questioned the steps TCAT was making in advertising. R. Ghearing responded by stating that the problem with the college campus environment is that each four year cycle provides a new medium that must be educated through advertising processes. He exclaimed that this creates a difficulty in advertising, in that the projected audience is new to the policies of the busing services every four years. He said that once these new routes are formulated and finalized, TCAT is planning on investing effort into advertising the policy changes. He exclaimed that they are planning a system to be placed on the Internet in which the public would be able to access route information and fare rates. There are also plans for brochure distribution, similar to the present system. R. Ghearing also reiterated that the partnership between the services is being formed, this is creating a control of public transportation. In taking steps towards these alliances this is a step toward formulating a transportation authority.

C. Cole questioned if this alliance would reduce price competition between the companies. R. Ghearing responded that this alliance will make it easier on the customer by establishing a uniform rate, therefore, the consumer will not have to worry how much money to pay depending on the service. By creating a uniform system of transportation, this will reduce the amount of fares overall, providing the consumer with the optimum fare.

J Kozlow questioned the involvement of students in the rerouting process, especially the Student Assembly’s involvement. In response, R. Ghearing stated that the meetings were publicized and were not attended by the numbers they had expected. He stated that these meetings were advertised and were designed for the students to step forward and voice their opinions on the matter of transportation.

J. Kozlow then brought up a concern dealing with the matter of unifying all the busing systems to have a consistent fare. He stated that the University Assembly Charter grants the UA the power to control transportation policies on campus. J. Kozlow then inquired how the University and students would have a voice in transportation should this board of directors of all busing companies be established. R. Ghearing responded by stating that the Cornell Community would be grated seats on this board of directors. J. Kozlow responded by stating that this unification with CU Transit would, therefore, eliminate the UA’s ability to influence the transportation services. This would cause the UA not to have sole leadership over the Campus Busing System. R. Ghearing agreed with this assumption.

R. Ghearing then reiterated that the second round of public meetings would take place during the week of December 8th. He stated that these meetings would be advertised to the public closer to that week. R.Ghearing left by stating that he would be available for further questions if contacted.

It was also stated that if R. Ghearing and the unified busing company decided to raise fares due to the monopoly they hold on the Cornell Campus then they would just lose the support of the student body. This in turn would reduce profit by the companies. This idea would serve as a guarantee that the companies will not take advantage of the monopolistic hold over Cornell’s busing needs.

JCC & Ombudsman Search Committees

M. Esposito stated that he is frustrated at the lack of movement of the appointing committees on both the JCC and Ombudsman positions. He stated that the present JCC is working alone at this position and the work is beginning to interfere with his course load. M. Esposito stated that there is a need to become motivated on this process. He asked that the people on these committees contact him by the next day. M. Esposito announced that the JCC is planning on attending the next UA meeting.

C. Cole stated that there was a lack of information on how to put these committees into action. J. Kozlow responded that the letter from the President in September stated that the appointment committees would be founded through the administration. He was under the impression that these committees should not be established under the University Assemblies jurisdiction. Therefore, the question exists if this committee should be initiated by the Administration or by the UA. M. Esposito stated that in either situation this process needs to be initiated, therefore either J. Kozlow or he would look further into this issue and contact the people involved in the committees.

Committee Structure

J. Kozlow brought up the issue of the UA committee structure and turning to the Committee on Committee to assist in stimulating the committee work of the UA. He stated that the plan for this involvement would be to allow two members of the Committee on Committees to be ex-officio members on respective committees. In doing so, the members of the Committee on Committees would serve as a mediator on each committee in order to establish a more involved committee program throughout the UA. It is proposed that each member of the Committee on Committees would oversee two committees. These members would have speaking privileges on the committee. M. Esposito added that at the present time committees are not moving at an acceptable rate because the members do not want the added duties. Therefore, this is the most feasible solution to stimulate committee activity. He stated that this will create a situation in which the committees will have a more direct influence in the matters of the UA by reporting back to the UA. The Committee on Committees would serve as an independent ear to strengthen the committee system. J. Kozlow reviewed the members of the Committee on Committees. The chair is G. Freelander; also serving are C. Hawlet, W. Cohen, L. Landen, M. Esposito and an additional graduate student position.

D. Grubb questioned if this list of committees being assisted was selective. J. Kozlow stated that the list would be selective, with the exception of the Hearing Boards and the Budget Planning committee, due to the fact of their confidential subjects. J. Kozlow also stated that attempts are being made to rejuvenate the Budget Planning Committee. He stated that this committee has lost its effectiveness and will be easy to push to the side. Therefore, efforts are being made to stimulate this committee through reorganizational processes. M. Esposito stated that the Budget Planning Committee is a separate issue.

D. Grubb questioned if the UA Charter would have to be altered due to the changes in this system. C. Gardner responded by stating that the charter could be amended for approval, however it is advisable to send the alteration of the Charter to the President for approval. J. Kozlow added that this change in the Charter, however, would not require community approval.

M. Esposito called for a vote. It was decided by majority to postpone the voting until the next meeting in order to allow more time to review the aspects of this motion.

XI. Old Business

Student Assembly Resolution R3 - Recommendatory Resolution to the University Assembly to Elect Membership from the Community

A. P. Pirondi announced that the UA is not representative enough because of the conflict the commitment the UA requires and the time available for the present members to participate. The resolution calls for the direct election of members except for one representative. The policy has been secluded to only the Student Assembly.

J. Kozlow reiterated that this resolution is not a Student Assembly resolution and reminded members that the UA cannot alter the SA Charter.

M. Esposito stated that Resolution R-3 is on the agenda, not the version that has been distributed at this meeting. He suggested that the resolution be tabled because of the differences in the resolutions presented and the fact that the distributed resolution was not the resolution that was passed by the Student Assembly.

J. Zern cleared up the fact that this resolution only concerned the alteration of the Student Assembly election process and not the other Assemblies. The differences in the resolutions was that in R-3 all the four UA constituencies were represented in the alteration of the election process; in the new resolution, only the Student Assembly’s process would be altered.

C. Cole stated that the change in the resolution was not complex enough to postpone the voting procedure.

J. Kozlow moved to amend the resolution. The recommendation was to strike the last clause in the revised resolution.

Contention still existed as to the properness of voting on this altered resolution.

Julia Gordon pleaded that due to the difference of meeting schedules of the UA in comparison to the SA, it is essential that this voting not be postponed. By postponing the vote, this would put a stop on the resolution until the next UA meeting. She stated that the SA still has to amend their Charter.

B. Perry stated that the SA was going out of their way to incorporate the UA opinion in this matter.

C. Cole reviewed his thoughts on the issue. He stated that this resolution created a win/win situation for the University Assembly. He stated that there would not be an alteration in representation, only the addition of more dedicated students to the University Assembly.

It was decided by the UA to vote on the resolution presented to the Assembly dealing with the alteration in the election process of University Assembly representatives. M. Esposito called for the vote to pass the resolution. The voting resulted in: 6–8−2, The resolution failed

XII. Adjournment

M. Esposito adjourned the meeting at 6:15

Respectfully Submitted,
Mark A. Frontera