Minutes
University Assembly
Wednesday, April 22, 1998
Art Gallery, Willard Straight Hall

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m. by M. Esposito.

II. Roll Call

Present: J. Austin, S. Caldwell, H. Chung, J. Cisine, C. Cole, M. Esposito, D. Grubb, M. Hartill, J. Johnson, J. Kozlow, D. Levitsky, B. Lewis, D. Marsh, A. Mathios, M. Travis

Absent: L. Clougherty, J. Kang, E. Loew

Excused: A. P. Pirondi, L. Yannone

Others Present: Cris Gardner, Mark Frontera, Tom Kern, R. Mc Daniels, K. Rourke

III. Additions to the Agenda

No additions were made to the agenda.

IV. Open Forum

No comments were made during Open Forum.

V. Announcements

M. Espostio announced that the UA would be meeting for the last time on Wednesday, April 29, 1998 at Uris 153.

He added that an organizational meeting for the new and returning members of the UA would take place on Tuesday, April 28, 1998 at Uris G08.

VI. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes from March 25 and February 25, 1998 were both as presented.

VII. Old Business

M. Esposito announced that due to the lack of a quorum at the last meeting, the vote on the University Health Services and Campus Store Program Documents had to be postponed until today.

He noted that the University Health Service Program Document had been approved in the respective committees. This document was then brought to the UA for an approval vote.

The University Health Services program document was approved.

M.Esposito noted that the Campus Store Program Document had been approved in the respective channels. This document was then brought to an approval vote.

The Campus Store program document was approved.

VIII. New Business

M. Esposito announced the first topic of New Business, the proposed amendments to the University Assembly Charter. To begin, he introduced T. Kern, Chair of the Board of University Health Services, to discuss the proposed amendments to the UA charter concerning the Board of University Health. T. Kern reviewed the changes to the Charter as an attempt to update and reflect the Contemporary Board and to clarify the procedures of the Modern Board. The proposed amendments to the Charter dealt with the source of membership for the Board, the clarification of operating procedures, and the enhancement of communication with the University Assembly.

M. Esposito brought up a concern dealing with the deletion of the paragraph consisting of policies being recommended to the University Assembly for approval. He felt that the concerns dealing with University Health Services (UHS) on campus needed to have this additional check.

T. Kern responded by commenting that without directly recommending policy alterations to the UA, other forms of reporting back to the UA do exist.

M. Esposito reiterated that this proposed change would open up possibilities for changes to be made without an extensive deliberation on the topic. The UA serves as an important opportunity to discuss changes, based on the make-up of the assembly, which consists of many constituencies. He felt this extra check is very necessary.

In response to a question by D. Grubb, T. Kern noted that University Health Servicea is responsible to the Board on Univeristy Health Service (BUHS) but UHS does not report to the BUHS. He commented the amendments to the Charter will clear up the fact that the BUHS holds no power over UHS and that this Board is not the architect of UHS. He stated the purpose behind these changes was to provide a more specific charter for the future Board on University Health Service.

A question was brought up as to why this amendment was instigated.

T. Kern announced that the amendment was a concern of BUHS and not UHS. The BUHS has been striving for universal wording to clarify the structure of the BUHS. He noted that the past heads of the committee and UHS have been extremely tolerant of this blurred structure. Due to the difficulty of comprehending the past charters, T. Kern wanted to pass on the experiences of the recent board by clarifying the language in the Charter.

J. Johnson stated that this issue is important and should be voted upon.

M. Esposito called for a vote to approve the amendments with the changes as proposed.

The amendment of Article 10.7.1 was approved as follows:

University Assembly Charter
Charge to the Board on University Health Services

10.7.1

The Board on University Health Services - shall consist of four faculty members chosen by the faculty, two employees appointed by the Employee Assembly, two graduate/professional students, appointed by the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, five undergraduates (two of whom may be seniors) appointed by the Student Assembly, and two members of the Cornell community chosen by the professional staff of the University Health Service.

All members shall serve three-year staggered terms with the exception of the underclassmen who shall serve two-year terms and the seniors who may serve one-year terms. The non-voting ex-officio members shall be the Director of University Health Services, the Health Center Administrator, the Director of Counseling and Psychological Services, and their designates, and the University Assembly liaison. In addition, three undergraduates, two graduate/professional students, one employee, one faculty member, and one Cornell community member shall serve as “alternates.” Alternates will represent their constituencies and be full voting members of the Board when the full complement of each constituency is not present at any given meeting. One-half of the voting membership, with at least two students and two non-student voting members present shall constitute a quorum for voting purposes. In the absence of a quorum, an oral vote of the seated membership will be supplemented by mail ballots to absent members to achieve the quorum when required.

The Board’s charge shall be to advise, consult, and communicate on matters related to the development and implementation of UHS policies and programs. The Board shall offer advice and counsel to the UHS administration that originate from its membership and the Cornell community at-large and shall provide consultation to the UHS when requested. The Board shall independently research and distill issues of concern and importance to the Cornell community and develop concepts for policy and program development and management for discussion with and consideration by the UHS administration. Board members will provide communication to and from their respective constituencies in fulfillment of the aforementioned obligations. Further, it shall review the UHS Program Documents, UHS budgets, and fee structure. To these ends, the Board shall be adequately informed by the UHS staff on aspects of policy, programs, and budget germane to its charge by the Director of University Health Services.

The Board shall maintain regular and timely communication with the University Assembly through the Office of the Assemblies. Copies of minutes of regular meetings as well as of other working documents generated by it in fulfillment of this charge shall be filed with that office. As indicated, the Board shall report important issues within its purview to the University Assembly for deliberation and guidance.

---

C. Gardner noted that some typos existed in the present document and would be corrected before being published.

Article 2.1 and Article 2.2

M. Esposito then moved on to the topic of the amendment of Article 2.1 and Article 2.2 concerning membership. M. Esposito reviewed the background of this amendment. This amendment was instigated by the desired alteration of the election process of undergraduate student representatives to the UA. He noted that the amendmets still required the constituent assembly keep the UA updated on the election/selection process. Aside from the required number of representatives that must come from the constituent assembly, all other UA members may be elected/selected by a process determined by each assembly.

C. Gardner noted that the other assemblies have been following the actions of the UA. Both the SA and EA have modified their respective charters pending amendments to the UA Charter.

The proposed amendments to Article 2.1 concerning membership were unanimously approved as follows:

2.1

Members of the University Assembly, insofar as possible, shall be chosen by and from within the membership of the separate constituent assemblies, Members of the University Assembly shall be chosen by and from within the membership of the constituent assemblies as follows: at least, but not limited to 1) two each from the Student and Employee Assemblies; and 2) one each from the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly and the Faculty Senate. Individual constituent assemblies shall determine a means of identifying/selecting/electing the remaining members as defined in Article 2 of the University Assembly Charter. All members shall serve for two-year staggered terms which should be contained within their constituent assembly terms, except for student members who shall serve one-year terms. The Faculty Council of Representatives Senate (FCR) should be thought of as one of the separate constituent assemblies. The University Assembly shall be informed annually of the appointment procedures to be used prior to the appointment taking place. Vacancies shall be the responsibility of the constituent assembly to fill as soon as a vacancy occurs.

The proposed amendments to Article 2.2 concerning membership were unanimously approved as follows:

2.2

A voting member of the University Assembly may not serve concurrently as a University Trustee, or as a member of the Assembly’s standing committees and boards, except where specified in this Charter.

Article 7.1.a. and Article 7.1.b.

M. Esposito presented the amendments to the UA charter concerning committees. He announced the amendment calls for the filling of a seat on a committee that was made vacant due to the violation of an attendance requirement. This amendment will promote the filling of the empty seats on many of the committees.

J. Kozlow commented this amendment is important in stimulating the actions of the committees.

The proposed amendments to Article 7.1 a, 7.1 b concerning committees were approved as follows:

Bylaw 7.1.a

Committees of the UA shall establish bylaws that define attendance requirements. If the attendance requirement is not fulfilled by any member, the seat will become vacant, and the committee will request that the constituent assembly responsible for staffing fill the vacancy.

Bylaw 7.1.ab

Ad hoc committees shall be established and function in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order.

Celebration Time Resolution

M. Esposito brought up the topic of the UA resolution regarding Celebration Time. He announced that some revisions had been made to some of the language of the document since last presented to the Assembly. For example, the word “drinkfest” had been eliminated.

B. Lewis questioned the wording of the 5th whereas clause of the document. By stating that the numbers are unacceptable she felt this may not be stating that all incidents are unacceptable and not the amount of them.

C. Cole stated the driving force behind the document was the fact that any serious injuries at all are unacceptable.

M. Esposito suggested a language change that would state that any incidents and injuries are unacceptable.

C. Cole proposed that this should state incidents requiring hospitalization.

It was pointed out that the wording of the third whereas implied that all participants were rowdy. This whereas appeared to be too inclusive, as if stating that everyone was destructive.

C. Gardner commented that the event has proven to be destructive in general.

It was noted that the 2nd to last be it therefore resolve clause implied that only students have been working to correct the problems with the celebrations.

J. Kozlow pointed out that the community in general is striving to improve these events.

C. Cole stated the students are not solely responsible, but are contributing to the changes.

C. Gardner pointed out that the statement is reflecting other people’s contributions.

D. Grubb questioned the use of the word beguile in the document. He explained the use of the term did not fit the meaning of the passage. The term spoil was substituted for beguil.

J. Kozlow mentioned that the sentence including “measured by a continued reduction. . . “ should be stricken. He stated at this point the idea of community involvement should be inserted.

C. Gardner observed that the presented report was a measurement of serious incidents.

M. Esposito reviewed the proposed alterations. In the second to last be it further resolved statement, it was suggested that “and others” be added after students, or that it was changed to “. . . allow students and community members to fix the problem” and to strike the remainder of that clause.

A. Mathios commented that J. Ford is trying to involve more faculty members in the activity. This is an example of the community involvement in the safety of this activity.

D. Marsh suggested that “Cornell” be added to community.

J. Kozlow reminded the UA that there is a total community involvement of Cornell and the surrounding environment.

C. Cole noted that the rights of the students must not be infringed upon.

It was agreed upon to alter the second to last Be it further resolved clause.

H. Chung questioned the significance of the first Whereas.

M. Esposito responded by stating that the first whereas states the purpose of Slope Day as a celebration of the completion of all the difficult work throughout the year.

J. Kozlow pointed out that the second whereas already covered the reasoning behind the Slope Day celebration.

It was agreed upon that the first Whereas was superfluous.

J. Austin questioned the lack of the usage of the term alcohol in the document. He recommended that alcholic beverages be added to drinking.

A. Mathios stated that no drinking is acceptable in a public open area, therefore he questioned if the term excessive in “excessive drinking” should be deleted. It was brought up that Cornell is aiming to establish an atmosphere that allows freedom with responsibility.

J. Kozlow questioned if any drinking on the slope would be wrong, even if done responsibly.

It was noted that deleting the term excessive was not consistent with the remainder of the document. The document is trying to halt excessive drinking.

It was decided to leave the term excessive in the document.

H. Chung suggested that the term celebration be changed to events. He felt the activities at the end of the year should not be considered celebrations, but should just be recognized just as other events of the year are recognized. He stated that an event in which individuals could be injured very easily should not be considered a celebration, and was decided to leave celebration in the document

J. Kozlow encouraged the usage of celebration.

M. Esposito then reviewed the alterations made to the document.

• Strike the first Whereas clause
• in the Whereas clause 4th strike “incidents unacceptable”
• beguile was changed to spoil
• “of alcoholic beverages” was added to the places where the term drinking was used
• the word “allow” was changed to “encourage”

M. Esposito then called for a vote on the resolution on celebration.

The Resolution on Celebration was passed with the discussed amendments as follows:

CELEBRATION TIME
UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY
RESOLUTION TO THE STUDENT BODY

WHEREAS celebrations such as Slope Day that marks the successful conclusion of the academic year, and Senior Week, which marks the culmination of one’s years at Cornell, are a time of celebration to be shared with friends and classmates, and

WHEREAS in recent years these time-honored, festive communal gatherings have become both disruptive and destructive and the irresponsible behavior of some participants has put in jeopardy the future of such celebrations, and

WHEREAS on Slope Day in 1995, 34 participants were taken to the hospital, 32 in 1996, and 22 in 1997, and

WHEREAS the trend in the reduction of serious incidences and injuries is recognized and applauded, and

WHEREAS the disrespect for the rights of others by those whose indulge in excessive drinking of alcoholic beverages has called into question the continuance of the celebrations, and

WHEREAS disruptive students must not betray the rights of other students and other members of the community nor be allowed to spoil the festivities,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Cornell University Assembly, composed of faculty, staff and graduate and undergraduate students, reminds all Cornellians that responsible enjoyment and exercise of ones rights as a citizen of this community means respect for the rights of all, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that disruptive and destructive behavior infringes upon the rights of others, interferes with enjoyment for many of these celebrations and violates the basic principles of freedom with responsibility which have long been valued in our educational community, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the University Assembly calls upon the student leaders of today and tomorrow to fix the problem by urging your fellow students and other participants to use restraint on the slope and during Senior Week events so that future Cornellians may have the same opportunities you have been afforded, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University Assembly urges the administration to continue to encourage community members to fix the problem as measured by a continued reduction in the number of serious incidents and complaints of aberrant behavior, and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the event should continue to receive an annual review and with the significant reduction in the drinking of alcoholic beverages and high-risk behavior as evidenced by the number of incidents reported, the administration provide programming assistance to make Slope Day and Senior Week festivities truly memorable, yet safe events.

As approved by the University Assembly 4/22/98 with one abstention.

Campus Code of Conduct

M. Esposito introduced the topic of amending the Campus Code of Conduct. K. Rourke began by announcing that some of the amendments were made to increase the consistency of the Campus Code of Conduct. She began describing the amendments to the Campus Code of Conduct by addressing the amendment to Title Four, Article IX.C.2. She noted the necessity of having a non-voting chair to ensure the meeting is kept on track. She then addressed the topic of the suspension of organizations. This topic was contained in the amenments to Title Three, Article III.C and Title Four, Article VIII.C.4.g and the addition of h. K. Rourke commented that the changes to the code on this subject was to include the suspension of organizations under the power of the JA. She noted that the added h. section included checks and balances to regulate the suspension of an organization. In the Codes and Judicial Committee meeting, she reported that this decision for the suspension of organizations was not unimanious. She explained the faculty members were fearful that this power would infringe upon the freedom of organizations on campus. However, K. Rourke added that this suspension only applied to the organization itself and not the individual members.

M. Esposito commented that the JA did approve the proposed changes.

A question was raised as to who is informed of the suspension of an organization.

K. Rourke responded by stating the JA informs the necessary offices and does not follow a specific path. She added that the necessary offices are notified of a students suspension, therefore the organizations would follow this same method.

C. Cole questioned if it was a contradiction to suspend activities instead of the actual organization.

K. Rourke replied by noting that this suspension is attempting to stop the organization from doing anything.

H. Chung noted that the suspension is meant to affect the organization and not the individuals.

K. Rourke cleared up the issue that activities are actions that an organization does, and to suspend them means to stop the activity.

C. Gardner explained that there are two steps that could be taken. First, the activities of the organization may be suspended temporarily, followed by the suspension of the organization and its ability to be a registered organization.

K. Rourke explained that only the activities of an organization will be suspended.

C. Gardner questioned who can presently suspend an organization.

K. Rourke replied by expressing that at the present time, the power to suspend an organization is not assigned. Thereforee, the CCC is being altered to give this power to the JA. She added that after the trial of the organization, the situation is completely different.

M. Esposito called Amendment to Title Four, Article VIII.C1.a to a vote.

The amendment to Title Four, Article VIII.C1.a was passed as follows:

If a complainant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Judicial Administrator not to prefer charges or with a summary decision which has been accepted by the defendant, he or she can within 72 hours after the decision becomes final request in writing a review of the decision by the full membership a twelve-person panel of the University Hearing Board.

M. Esposito then called Amendment to Title Four, Article IX.C.2 to a vote.

The amendment to Title Four, Article IX.C.2 was passed as follows:

A twelve-person panel of the University Hearing Board consisting of four students, four faculty and four other employees shall review instances in which the complainant is dissatisfied with the action taken by the Judicial Administrator on the complaint.

M. Esposito called Amendment to Title Four, Article IX.C.2b to a vote.

The amendment to Title Four, Article IX.C.2b was passed as follows:

b. The non-voting chair appointed by the president under Article V A 4 shall preside over these proceedings.

M. Esposito suggested the offices be informed of a suspension on a need to know basis.

K. Rourke agreed to alter this statement.

M. Esposito then called Amendment to Title Three, Article III.C

The amendment to Title Three, Article III.C was passed as follows:

If an offender has not complied with the prescribed penalty or remedy within the required time, the Judicial Administrator shall notify the Registrar or Dean of Students’ Office that the individual or registered organization is suspended. The suspension takes immediate effect, but the offender may request a hearing in order to show the fact of compliance. The suspension continues until the offender has complied. A transcript issued during the pendency of a charge or a period of suspension shall indicate that a charge is pending or that a suspension is in effect.

D. Grubb questioned the part to the amendment to Article Four, Article VIII.

K. Rourke explained that h. is just the replication of the suspension process established for a student.

K. Rourke added that the amendment is utilizing the checks and balances system in order to prevent a future JA from acquiring to much power over the campus and utilizing the position for their own agenda.

C. Cole suggested that the suspension of an organization be made with the consent of two or more deciding individuals.

It was noted that the JA should not be given that much power.

M. Esposito called for a motion to postpone the voting on this article until the next meeting.

The article amendment was postponed till the following meeting.

Employee Participation in Campus Governance

M. Esposito addressed the resolution drafted by D. Grubb concerning Employee Participation in Campus Governance. He reviewed that this document was in response to the situation presented to the UA concerning the fact that employees are having a difficult time receiving time off from work to serve on the EA.

H. Chung questioned the use of the question mark in the document.

D. Grubb commented he was unsure if two hours per week would be ample time to serve on the EA. He felt the use of the question mark would set that two hours at a minimum.

D. Marsh stressed that the time allotted should not drop below 2 hours. She commented that in addition to the actual EA meetings, representatives still had to serve on several committees.

C. Cole expressed that he felt that two hours was amble time, and any more time per week would hurt the office of the representative.

D. Grubb felt that it would be better not to define the parameters of the regulations and in turn leave the question mark in the document.

One alteration to the document was made.

M. Esposito called for a vote concerning this resolution.

The Resolution in Support of Employee Participation in Campus Governance was passed as amended as follows:

DRAFT
University Assembly
Resolution in Support of Employee Participation in Campus Governance

It has come to our attention that some University employees who are members of official university committees are having difficulty in obtaining the time away from work required to fulfill these duties. The published Human Resources Services policy on this matter, given in Policy number 408 “Time Away From Work” (1995) allows time off with pay for attendance at official committees, but requires that the work unit should be able to perform satisfactorily during the employee’s absence and that the supervisor gives approval for the absence from work.

This policy should be reviewed. Many units are running at full stretch today, so that supervisors could refuse all time away under the existing policy. Guidance is needed in balancing the good of the University as a whole (in having employee representatives appointed on official committees) and the good of the individual unit. Possibilities for consideration are:

1. require a written note from the supervisor to the chair of the official committee informing him/her of the decision to refuse time off work.
2. require that a small amount of time (2 hours per week?) be granted unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Furthermore, some employees have been impeded in running for or serving as elected members of assemblies. There is a pre-existing but un-advertised policy from 1992 which allows time off with pay for attendance as an elected member of an assembly, requiring only that the supervisor be notified in a timely fashion. This policy should be properly publicized.

Be it further therefore resolved:

The Office of Human Resources should be asked to take the following actions:

1. Immediately add the 1992 policy “Campus Governance Release Time From Work” to the HR policy web site, and properly publicize this addition.
2. By policy creation or otherwise, advise supervisors that employees who inform them of their plans to run for election as an assembly member are doing so out of courtesy, not for approval or disapproval.
3. Review Policy 408 “Time Away From Work” (1995) and specifically consider requiring written notice of a refusal to allow employees to attend official committees to which they have been appointed.

Respectfully submitted

Prof. David Grubb
Faculty Representative to the UA

March 25, 1998

IX. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. by M. Esposito

Respectfully Submitted,
Mark A. Frontera