Minutes
University Assembly
Wednesday, April 29, 1998
Uris Hall, Room 153
4:30 p.m.

I. Call to Order

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

II. Roll Call

Present: J. Austin, H. Chung, L. Clougherty, C. Cole, M. Esposito, D. Grubb, J. Johnson, J. Kozlow, D. Levitsky, B. Lewis, D. Marsh, L. Yannone

Absent: S. Caldwell, J. Cisne, J. Kang, E. Loew

Excused: M. Hartill, A. Mathios, A. P. Pirondi

Others Present: Cris Gardner, Mark Frontera, L. Hammer, W. Wendt, J. Adams, J. Talbot, L. Russell, D. Carlson, K. Rourke, B. Krause

III. Additions to the Agenda

No additions were made to the agenda.

IV. Open Forum

No comments were made during Open Forum.

V. Report from the Chair

M. Esposito reviewed the topics discussed at the Assemblies Leadership Meeting, held on 4/28/98. He commented that the SA brought the issue of the use of the athletic fields by the club sport teams at Cornell. Presently, club sport teams have been forced to look for places to practice off campus, due to the lack of available fields on campus. This restricts participation on these sporting teams because some members of the team do not have access to off-campus transportation. Vice-President S. Murphy noted that she was aware of the problem and that the administration is trying hard to find a solution. A possible solution was to create fields by the polo barn or the tennis club. M. Esposito added that it was also brought up that the Ultimate Frisbee team and the Rugby team are performing exceptionally well nationally and it is a shame that they cannot participate in these events on campus.

M. Esposito also announced that the Alcohol Policy was brought up at the leadership meeting. He added that the UA will address this issue later in the meeting when reached on the agenda.

M. Esposito commented that a 1998–99 University Assembly organizational meeting took place on 4/28/98. He explained that the entire 98–99 UA had not been seated, therefor, the executive committee selections were made on an interim basis. M. Esposito was appointed as the Interim Chair, D. Carlson as the Vice Chair, B. Lewis as the Faculty Representative, and P. Righter as the Student Representative on the Executive Committee. He remarked that this board will serve until an assembly is fully seated, however until then, this executive board will allow the University Assembly to remain active over the summer.

VI. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes of April 22, 1998 were passed with the following amendments.

In Old Business, an addition was made to M. Esposito’s comment. “He felt this extra check is very necessary and requested it be left in the document.”

In the amendment to the UA Charter, Article 10.7.1 the sentence, “Policies and policy changes shall be recommended to the University Assembly for deliberation, endorsement, and transmittal to the President for approval.” was added.

In the section containing the discussion of the Campus Code of Conduct, Title Four, Article VIII.C.4.h the comment, “It was also noted that in Title Four, Article VIII.C.4.h that the suspension outline included, “the activities of” the Registered Organization. .”

VII. Business of the Day

CURW Program Document

L. Hammer, a member of the CURW Advisory Board, reviewed the main events concerning the 97–98 Cornell United Religious Work (CURW). He announced that this year was filled with a number of great speakers. He mentioned that the future holds an increased number of more popular speakers that will be brought to the Cornell Campus by the CURW, including Howard Bloom. He announced that all the facilities have experienced increased utilization over the past year. He explained that the changes in the fees for next year are minor. The only exception to this is the increased fee of the Cafe. The event price was raised from 35 to 50 dollars. He commented that the budget has remained basically the same from the past year. L. Hammer remarked that a group entitled the Vinyard, a Christian based group stemming from California, has recently been added to the groups participating with CURW. This group is being led by Robert Wilson, one of the more well-know chaplains on campus. He reported that a few of members of the CURW community have recently made television appearances, some stemming from the pumpkin incident on campus. He announced that a few building projects were completed. The light and sound renovations were completed as of this year. He announced there is a plan to redo the walk in front of Anabel Taylor to repair the sections of the walk that are coming up, but this is dependent on the time constraints of the summer.

L. Yannone questioned when the meetings of CURW took place.

L. Hammer responded by stating that the meetings take place the last Wednesday of each month from 4–5 o’clock on the third floor of Anabel Taylor.

M. Esposito called the program document to an approval vote.

The program document for Cornell United Religious Work was unanimously approved.

Transportation Services Program Document

W. Wendt reviewed the main events concerning the 97–98 Office of Transportation Service. He reported that the 97–98 Committees on Transportation Services experienced the best participation, especially from students, from the assembly system in the past 20 years. He noted the graduate students participated at all meetings and the undergraduate students were also very involved in the transportation issues of campus. He commended B. Lewis for her work on the committee, and credited M. Esposito for getting the committee up and running during the initial stages of the year. He stated that the work performed by the committee proved to the administration that the members of the Cornell Community did have transportation concerns dealing with the services the campus offers. W. Wendt commented that due to decrease in some fees in last year’s budget, the maintenance of parking facilities is still behind and will have to continually be improved in the future. He noted that the big accomplishment of the past year has been the work involving the graduate and professional students, as well as other students. He announced that any student that parks in the peripheral parking spots on campus will receive, for the same charge, a Campus Plus parking pass, which will allow a student to park on campus in hopes to stimulate campus involvement with the vet students. This will also provide a cheaper alternative to parking. He commented that due to the increased employee involvement in the Omniride program, increased parking has been made available in parking lots. W. Wendt announced that the Omniride program Employee benefit has been extended to the grad. and prof. students, offering them free emergency ride service, and peripheral parking service. He commented that the majority of these changes do not require additional resources, due to the efforts of the transportation office. He commented that these alterations will require additional and updated mailings, but he felt that it is better to partake in such work in order to provide better options to the members of the Cornell community.

W. Wendt also commented that they are presently working with the city in a joint parking study in order to create a joint residential parking system to allow for parking in the neighborhoods adjacent to the campus. He announced that the study is complete, which was performed by aerial photographs, and has led Cornell and the city to discussions to acquire the best solution to the parking situation on, and surrounding, the Cornell campus. With the introduction of residential parking plans there will be an increase in demand for campus parking, and W. Wendt noted that he is confident they have the necessary resources to meet these demands.

W. Wendt commented the first year of the tiered parking rate structure has resulted in many positive comments, once all the hurdles of past June were overcome.

W. Wendt addressed the issue of a strong voice in area-wide transit, due to the effect on the Cornell community. He announced that Senior Vice President Rogers, Vice President Dullea, and Vice President Craft have been announced as the Cornell representatives on the TCAT Board of Directors. He noted that this board will meet for the first time in May. He commented that the community-wide transit scheduling project results will be released next month with the first series of recommendations. He noted that these results will be discussed in the fall along with the details of the scheduling alterations. He mentioned that the support of the community will lead to increased satisfaction for the transit service.

M. Esposito questioned if the program document had been approved by the committee.

W. Wendt affirmed that this document had been approved.

C. Cole expressed his appreciation in the response of the transportation system to the concerns of the graduate students throughout the year. He is very optimistic of future collaboration with the community and how the three representatives nominated to the TCAT Board will correspond with the concerns of the Cornell community. A question was raised as to what feedback has been received by the ten minute bus system serving Buffalo Street.

W. Wendt reported that the feedback has been very positive. Until recently, buses have not been allowed on Buffalo St., but through the use of smaller buses, a ten minute service has been provided. He noted that a very large market has opened up due to this route. The complaint of this route has been that the hours are restricted. He commented that the hours will most likely be extended to serve the entire day. W. Wendt mentioned that although the fare was a reduced 25 cents, the popularity of this route has been the convenience of the route. He indicated that the President is looking for the same involvement in the future by the student community. He explained that it is extremely easy to make positive changes when a strong group is working with the transportation board, such as the graduate students this year. He noted that it is frustrating not to be able to perform changes due to the lack of support. He added that the changes being made are not just affecting the students working on the changes, but affect the future students by making the campus a better place. He announced that the campus may be integrating more environmentally friendly buses and an electronically monitored bus tracking system at each bus stop. These alterations are all future plans that may be integrated into the transit system. He reported that the state was extremely pleased by the Bikes-On-Buses program and will lead to more support at the state level.

M. Esposito questioned the changes in the service parking permit.

W. Wendt announced that the alteration to the service permit has been being worked on for the past two years. He reviewed that in the past years, the S-Permit (service) has been for service vehicles and merchants on the Cornell campus. However, in recent years many permits were being distributed to departments that did not require the permit. Therefore, more permits were distributed then the number of spots available on campus. This led to the creation of M-T permit (maintenance and trade) and Business permits. This will allow the M-T users to have access to the spots they need and provide altered rates to both permits.

M. Esposito called for the approval of the Transportation Program Document.

The 1997–98 Transportation Program document was unanimously approved.

VIII. New Business

Alcohol Policy

M. Esposito question when the proposed alteration to the Alcohol Policy would be made.

J. Talbot, Director of Health Education, replied that they would be referring the proposed alterations back to the editorial committee and the changes to the document would be made within a few weeks.

It was presented that the only approval necessary is that of Vice President S. Murphy. After her approval, the document will be presented to the Policy Advisory Group and the Executive Policy Review Board.

M. Esposito commented that he felt the UA would feel more comfortable if they could see the presented changes before approving the document.

J. Talbot questioned if they should return to the EA meeting the following week?

M. Esposito asked if the alterations would be ready at that time period?

J. Talbot noted that they would return to the EA with any changes made.

M. Esposito stated that any additional input to the policy would be influential to the document.

C. Gardner questioned why this document was placed in the Human Resources section of the Personnel Manual, she felt that this subject area did not comply with the general contents of the Human Resources section given that the alcohol policy is a university-wide policy.

J. Talbot stated that the policy library is split into 7 sections. It seemed that the placement of this document best applied to this subject area.

M. Esposito invited J. Talbot back to the UA for the following semester for further debate on the policy.

J. Talbot noted that meetings are always very helpful, in that points are brought up that are often overlooked during the drafting of a document.

Hearing and Review Board Appointments

M. Esposito then addressed the issue of the Hearing and Review Board Appointments.

K. Rourke presented the 1998 Hearing and Review Board Appointments to the UA on behalf of the Codes and Judicial Committee and the Committee on Committees.

M. Esposito questioned the process of selecting the individuals to the boards.

K. Rourke explained that each individual must endure a interview which consists of scenarios to evaluate their thought processes. The individuals are ranked on a scale of 1 −6 and each individual has their scores grouped. The individuals with the highest scores are assigned to the Review Board and the next highest ranking applicants are assigned to the Hearing Board. She stated the lowest score received of the proposed candidates was a 4. Any individual receiving a ranking of three or lower was not considered for any board. The individuals not receiving a high enough ranking to be selected to the fall boards were recommended for the summer boards. These students will then be asked to join the Codes and Judicial Committee during the fall semester.

M. Esposito questioned if there were a lot of candidates.

K. Rourke commented that in previous years, everyone who applied was selected, however this year they had the luxury of not accepting anyone with a score of three or under.

C. Cole questioned the gender bias of the University Hearing Board.

K. Rourke commented that gender has no effect on the selection process. She remarked that they are looking for the best judges, not based on gender.

C. Cole reiterated that many issues that surface on campus require differing backgrounds to properly determine the correct decision. He noted that all higher courts are diverse in order to receive an equal and fair representation for the accused.

K. Rourke responded by noting that there exists no regulation for the make-up of the Boards. She then expressed that only 7 employees expressed an interest in running for a board, of which two individuals, from their name, appeared to be male. One of these individuals could not be contacted. That would mean that the final male should be selected based on his gender. However, the scores of this male were well below the standards set by the selection committee.

C. Cole mentioned that he is not suggesting that inadequate judges be placed on the board, however a more diverse board should be chosen.

K. Rourke stated that the gender issue is not an issue at all in the selection.

J. Kozlow commented that it was not the selection committees responsibility to chose the candidates. They are making the best selection from the presented candidates.

C. Cole suggested that the process should be altered to create a more diverse board.

C. Gardner commented that in past years, many concerns have been voiced at the diversity of this board. However, the pool is randomized when selecting a hearing panel to hear a particular case, therefore, the gender or background may not be the correct one with regard to diversity, to judge a case. To create such a diverse board to mirror the community given our selection process for the hearing panel is impossible. She noted that the representatives to the board are chosen because they are open-minded, flexible, not prejudging, and fair to the situation. Through the interview process, the best individuals that fill these characteristics are chosen.

C. Cole noted that this process is flawed.

K. Rourke commented that the CCC states that the board should be representative of the community.

M. Esposito noted that a valid concern does exist, but he cannot predict a solution to this problem.

C. Gardner suggested in the future a more aggressive approach be taken to acquire a larger pool of candidates to select from so that diversity is achieved in the boards.

M. Esposito called the approval to a vote.

The approval of the Hearing and Review Board Appointments passed with one opposition.

IX. Old Business

Campus Code of Conduct Amendments

M. Esposito requested a review of the proposed changes of Title Four, Article VIII.C.4.g and h of the Campus Code of Conduct.

B Krause responded by explaining that the current g section explains the process when an individual is suspended on an interim basis. The temporary suspension would require a violation serious enough to validate an action before a decision is made on the merit of the accused. She explained that it has become apparent that the Campus Code of Conduct does not include a clear procedure for an interim suspension of a student organization. She reiterated that this suspension encompasses the activities of the organization and not those of the individuals of the organization.

M. Esposito question if there was a difference between student organizations and other organizations on campus.

B. Krause, Judicial Administrator, replied that the actual wording is “registered organizations”.

M. Esposito questioned if g included students and other members of the community.

B. Krause replied that g is concerned with the suspension of an individual. She noted that the jurisdiction of the Campus Code of Conduct over faculty and staff includes actions that occurred outside the time period of employment. All other violations would be handled by the Office of Human Resources. She explained that her typical case involving Faculty and Staff would be after receiving a parking ticket. Because this is not directly work related, her office would be responsible for this jurisdiction.

B. Krause commented that the root of this amendment has been in situations when an organization committed a violation and other members of that organization would not reveal which member of the group was responsible. She felt in this instance she was not comfortable with suspending individual students, however she thought it would be beneficial to suspend the actions of the group. However, after consulting the code, this process of suspension was not expressed in the CCC. Both B. Krause and C. Holmes, Student Services Associate, found that this power of suspension did not fall in their sphere of influence.

K. Rourke added that C. Holmes has been involved in this amendment process.

M. Esposito questioned who had the authority to suspend a group prior to this amendment.

B. Krause commented that no power was given in the CCC and that her only power consisted of suspending a group after the decision was made on their guilt or innocence. She added that the Codes and Judicial Committee felt that this power of suspension should fall into the CCC. She noted that a memo from Council’s Office exists stating that they acknowledged that neither the JA or the President has the power to suspend a group during investigation process.

M. Esposito commented that he wanted to make sure that the power did not previously exist.

C. Gardner added that the Student Assembly does have the power to remove their funding of student organizations. She noted that this was the only power that was previously given to control group activities.

It was brought up that if an organization was inadequately funded, the SA’s influence on funding would have no effect on the group.

C. Gardner added that most of the groups do not have independent funding.

J. Kozlow questioned how fraternities and sororities fit into this new suspension process.

B. Krause replied that the CCC covers campus organizations, which does include the Greek system. However, historically, if allegations are made dealing with the misconduct of a Greek organization it will be referred to the Associate Dean of Students and will be considered under the Greek Judicial System, and individuals are referred to the JA’s office. She commented that this process will not be altered due to this amendment.

M. Esposito questioned if other offices could be included beside the Dean of Students Office, based on the fact that this amendment does not include only student organizations.

K. Rourke suggested the wording be altered to read “. . .Dean of Students Office and/or other offices.”

D. Grubb questioned the consistency of the document. He stated that in reading the document, it appears that the President can assign the power of suspension to either the JA or another individual, however, the JA must consult with the President before reaching a final decision. He felt that this process would lead to presidential influence in the decision that he assigned to another individual.

B. Krause stated that in other instances, along with this new process, she is required to consult with the President and other offices. However, she feels that ultimately the final decision is placed in her jurisdiction and the other consulted people do not have a say in the final judgment. She commented that the ultimate power to suspend goes to the President who in turn delegates the power to the JA. Based on the theory that this campus operates on an independent judicial system, B. Krause feels the President cannot present the case to her and then give her instances in which she may base her decision upon. Such an action would violate the process of the independent system.

B. Krause stated that she does have the protection of the delegation of authority to be totally independent from any applied pressure by the President to direct her decision in a certain direction.

It was suggested that the entire comment of consulting with the Dean of Students Office be struck from the document.

K. Rourke commented that the committee felt very strongly about this added check when drafting the proposed amendments.

It was brought up that the wording of the document presently outlined two entirely different processes depending on who was selected to decide the suspension of the organization. If that selected person had been the JA, it is noted that the JA should be in consultation with the Dean of Students. This presents a discrepancy that may indicate that the JA would be influenced by the Dean of Students and according to the third section of the amendment, the JA should be able to make this decision without any exterior influence.

It was suggested that the wording be changed from “in consultation with” to “after consulting with”, which would clear up any discrepancy between the differing procedures.

M. Esposito highlighted the final alterations as reading that in both 1 and 2 the phrase “after consulting with the Office of the Dean of Students and/or other offices as deemed appropriate” be added to ensure that any selected representative will consult with the Dean of Students office and any other necessary office, even if this representative were the JA. This alteration cleared up any discrepancies that would arise, should the JA be selected to determine the suspension of an accused group.

H. Chung felt it would be more consistent to only include the Dean of Students Office for consultation.

C. Gardner reiterated that situations may occur in which it is necessary to consult other offices, such as the Office of the Assemblies.

K. Rourke reminded that this delegation also covers staff and faculty organizations.

B. Krause, in response to a question from C. Gardener, stated that the severity of the temporary suspension reflects the seriousness of the violation by the individual or organization, therefor this violation would be included in Title Three of the Campus Code of Conduct.

M. Esposito called for a vote to the amendment to Title Four, Article VIII.C.4.g

The following amendments were unanimously approved.

M. Esposito called for a vote to the amendment to Title Four, Article VIII.C.4.h with all the amendments made from this meeting and the past discussions.

The following amendments were unanimously approved.

AMENDMENTS TO CAMPUS CODE OF CONDUCT

Amend Title Four, Article VIII.C.4.g. and add h (refer to page 66) to read as follows:

g. Suspension of an Individual Pending Hearing Under Title Three Violations

h. Suspension of the activities of a Registered Organization Pending Hearing Under Title Three Violations

1. In extraordinary circumstances and for the purpose of assuring public order and safety, the President or a designated representative, after consulting with the Office of the Dean of Students and/or other offices as deemed appropriate, shall have discretionary power to suspend the activities of a registered organization pending completion of an investigation of a formal complaint.
2. The Judicial Administrator may accept from the President this power to temporarily suspend pending hearing, but only if the Judicial Administrator may exercise the power at his or her own discretion after consulting with the Office of the Dean of Students and/or other offices as deemed appropriate.
3. When the President or a designee exercises the above-outlined power to suspend the activities of a registered organization from their University-related status pending a hearing, these procedures shall be followed:
   1. Within 48 hours after any registered organization is suspended, the University Review Board shall meet to determine whether good cause has been shown for the exercise of the President’s suspension power.
   2. If the University Review Board determined that (a) good cause has not been shown for the suspension or (b) that circumstances have changed so that suspension is no longer necessary, the suspension shall be lifted immediately.
   3. If the suspension remains in effect after the University Review Board’s initial meeting, upon motion by any member of the Board or upon the request of any suspended registered organization, the Board may decide to reconvene to determine whether circumstances no longer require suspension.

Page references are made to the “Campus Code of Conduct” section in the Cornell University Policy Notebook For Cornell Community

K. Rourke stated that she would like to commend the Codes and Judicial Committee in conjunction with B. Krause and C. Holmes for their effort throughout the year.

X. Committee Reports

M. Esposito requested that a summary of each of the committee’s actions throughout the semester be sent to him for review.

XI. Adjournment

M. Esposito adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Mark A. Frontera