Minutes
University Assembly
Wednesday, April 28, 1999
Conference Room, Day Hall

I. Call to Order

M. Esposito called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.

II. Open Forum

M. Esposito introduced new representative Andrew Veil to the Assembly.

M. Hartill announced that there would be a University Faculty Forum Monday, May 3rd at 4:30 p.m. She encouraged everyone to attend.

III. Announcements

M. Esposito announced that this would be the last regular meeting, however there will be an organizational meeting for new and continuing members on May 5th in G08 Uris Hall.

IV. Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the March 31, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted by acclamation.

V. Roll Call

Present: D. Carlson, R. Jacobs, K. McNamara, P. Righter, M. Schaffer, T. Sokolsky, A. Veil, G. Brandt, M. Esposito, M. Hartill, Y. Grohn, B. Lewis, A. Mathios, M. Pritts

Absent: R. Thomas, D. Di Bene, D. Levitsky, E. Loew

Others Present: V. Lyon, B. Stebbins, C. Cohen, L. Hargett, R. McDaniel, P. Kellogg, A. Freeman, K. Rourke, M. Kalogiannis, C. Salas-Humara, M. Banner, K. Mayo, J. Saidla, J. Halpern, K. Barnes, U. Asonye, J. Corsan-Riker, C. Gardner, J. Bozzolo

VI. Report from the Chair

Athletics Task Force Report

M. Esposito announced that the report drafted by the Task Force on Athletics is now available on the web at http://www.athletics.cornell.edu/taskforce

Judicial Administrator Search Committee

M. Esposito announced that the search is still underway. The committee has brought the five candidates to campus. They will hold a meeting to decided which three candidates will be recommended to President Rawlings, who will make the final decision which will be verified by the University Assembly.

Codes and Judicial Committee Attendance Policy

Kathleen Rourke, Chair of the CJC, reported that group felt that an attendance policy needed to be outlined and formalized due to the fact that many students have poor attendance.

Letter From President Rawlings

M. Esposito explained that the leadership of the assemblies brought a proposal to the President for better communication between the assemblies and the administration as well as between the assemblies themselves. He reported that Susan Murphy and Fred Rogers were working on their own draft of the same policy, which was approved.

VII. Business of the Day

University Assembly Program Documents

Cornell Campus Store
Rich McDaniel, Director of Cornell Business Services, focused on the “Changes” section of the document. He discussed the networking efforts of the Campus Store; the store is now directly connected to it suppliers which allows for very cheap and easy access to millions of items. He discussed the Campus Store’s direct customer service through the web; the store recently piloted a program called ‘Courseweb’ that allows students to view the materials needed for any given class and to see which are available at the Campus Store. Also, he discussed ‘customized print on demand’ which is the ability to view and print parts of a book that are necessary for a class as opposed to buying the entire book. He mentioned that these programs are all part of an effort to connect the Campus Store to the world, the students and directly to publishers.

Members of the University Assembly responded with various questions and concerns:

Will the courses available on the web be standard across the entire curriculum?
Where does the revenue come from?
How is the campus store dealing with copyright laws?
How does the store fare in its sales of items which students can find elsewhere for cheaper, such as software?

A lengthy discussion was held on the book buyback process and several of the students present voiced their concern that they are being cheated not only in having to purchase the books from the Store at such steep prices, but also in receiving so little when the books are sold back to the store.

R. McDaniel replied that book sales is a very competitive market and that the Campus Store is doing what it can to sell merchandise to student at affordable prices while competing with other companies.

The Cornell Campus Store Program Document was unanimously approved.

University Health Services
Janet Corson-Rikert, Director of Health Services, highlighted the major changes and programs for next year:
Medical Services: They will be working more on connecting with new students when they come in. They will continue using same-day appointment services as that recent change has worked out well. After hours care is not being utilized as much as Health Services would think is ideal. Next year more energy will be put into advertising the fact that after-hours telephone services do exist.
Counseling Services: A staff member and a couple of training positions are being added. They will be monitoring the effect of these additions closely with respect to the two to three-week wait for an appointment.
Information Technology: A new system has been put in place, which has been going smoothly thus far.
Accreditation: Health Services is up for accreditation in the fall. As a result a lot of energy has gone into quality improvement and reviewing policies, programs and procedures. Community Relations: Health Services will be working to do more outreach communication than in the past- particularly in getting feedback from students who have used the services in the past.
Substance Abuse Services: A new director was hired who has been active in working on a general environmental approach to alcohol and substance abuse. Transportation: This has been an increasing concern and is still not resolved. Campus police has decided to eliminate transport services for reasons of health because they do not feel they are available enough to do it.
Occupational Health: They have discussed doing more with disability case management and communicating with physicians in the area about disability case issues.

J. Corson-Rikert discussed with several UA members the need for more staff in order to reduce the 12-visit limit for students. She also discussed a misconception that some people seem to have regarding the 12-visit limit: several people have voiced their concern that a student needing extended care would be denied services due to the cap, but J. Corson-Rikert explained that this has never been the case. Each case is taken care of individually according to the needs of the student�a point that she recognized needs to be stated more clearly and better understood by all.

J. Halpern mentioned some problems that arise due to a policy of mandatory health insurance for students.

C. Gardner suggested that Gannett look into using the EMS truck which is not used from 7am-3pm in order to aid in resolving the transportation problem.

The University Health Services Program Document was unanimously approved as submitted.

M. Esposito reported that he has not yet heard back from President regarding the CAPS resolution passed by the UA.

VIII. New Business

Campus Code of Conduct Amendments

Kathleen Rourke, Chair of the Codes and Judicial Committee recommended several amendments to the Campus Codes of Conduct: The first was made in order to be consistent with Title three and also to give people the weekend: Under Title Four Section VIII C.4.g.3a she noted that the phrase “Within 48 hours” was replace with As soon as possible, not to exceed 5 calendar days. Also, the “University Review Board” has been changed to ‘University Hearing Board”.

The two amendments were approved by the UA with two abstentions.

Funding Requests - Indexing of the Campus Code of Conduct and Transcription of Hearings

K. Rourke added that the Committee is concerned with the complexity of the code as it is not at all user-friendly. She explained that the CJC has decided that a good solution would be to create an index. They would like to hire a professional to take on the project and therefore add the cost of that job to the budget. The Committee also asks that the cost of transcribing the Hearing Board meetings also be placed in the budget. Both suggestions are strongly recommended by the CJC and they asked that they be passed on to the appropriate party.

Approval of Hearing and Review Board Members

K. Rourke distributed the recommendations of the Hearing and Review Boards Members. She noted that though there was not a large pool this year, � of those recommended were exceptional.

The appointments were approved unanimously by the University Assembly.

IX. Old Business

Approval of Office of Transportation Services Program Document

As the Transportation Representatives distributed the final version of the Program Document M. Esposito read the following statement from Brian Goodell:

After reviewing this document I can’t help but come to the conclusion that his document is very vague and uncommunicative. This document doesn’t answer all the questions that will arise from what is on it. I would like to know before this document goes any farther:

In Section B. 1) under partnership an TCAT. Who pays for the no cost weekday service on the Cornell campus for faculty and staff with ID cards? Who pays the no cost daily evening service? Who will do most of the Charters? Which bus service and will they be DOT busses? Under 2: Accomplishments; It was mentioned that new route schedules were developed by TCAT and shared with the community. This has an impact with the drivers who are Cornell employees (about 60 of them). Each union CSEA and Cornell’s UAW has territorial rights at stake. How will this service be implemented during the summer of 1999? This first consolidated transit budget for TCAT was implemented in January 1999. Cornell stands to gain out of this consolidation because now Cornell isn’t paying 75% of the transit cost in Tompkins County anymore. They are only paying 1/3. What and where is the capitol that is being saved going? With the new fare structure there will be an increase from 50 cents to 75 cents. Why? And why will the students have to pay more if the consolidation is supposed to save them money?

Under Article III, A. Current Staff: Under additions to staff 1999 this document states that no additions are planned. When in fact if the new “proposed” schedules happen, there will have to be? There has already been one new non-exempt staff member added. Not to mention three exempts. Who will pay the added cost to expand zone one?

On the page ii. Usage Statistic. Under out-of-town charters where is the data for this column? On the pie charts, why are we redistributing our saving from the merger into other areas? If we don’t need the money, why spend it? Parking fees are going up. Transit services are going up. Why not take the saving and drop the prices? I see no mention of socialized parking, why not? Is it our intention to continue to take what we don’t need and to create what we don’t need to have something we don’t want? Until these and other questions are answered, I believe that this document should not be approved, consumed, not even recommended to anyone.

Thank you for your time,
Brian Goodell

In response L. Hargett, a representative from Transportation, stated that there is a lot of misinformation in the letter just read. Furthermore, in response to G. Brandt’s question of whether B. Goodell has a conflict of interest, L. Hargett explained that B. Goodell is a bus driver and therefore finds himself in the middle of some of the issues. He is also a representative of his union.

Several members of the UA asked the following questions and brought up various concerns about campus transportation:

Will there be bussing on Sundays in the future?
Could bussing extend later into the night on weekends?
Is the parking garage open to students?
Where does the money paid for by students and staff in parking permits go?
Some members felt that it is unfair to have to repay for a bus pass that has been lost or stolen.
The issue of limited on-campus parking space for students was discussed.
A lengthy discussion ensued concerning the increased bus fare and its origins. Members of the assembly were concerned that Cornell is powerless in its partnership with TCAT to maintain a reasonable fare for students and faculty. Many of the UA members agreed that $.75 is too much to ask for on-campus busing, while Cornell Transportation representatives explained that the fare increase is under the purview of Cornell Transportation and should not affect the assembly’s feelings toward the program document.

The University Assembly failed the Transportation Program Document by a hand vote of 3–7−2. The composition of the votes were as follows: Yes: 2 faculty members, 1 undergraduate student; No: 3 undergraduate students, 1 graduate student, 3 staff members; Abstentions: 1 graduate student, 1 faculty member.

M. Esposito explained that the document will be revisited next year.

Holiday Obsevances

Andrew Freedman, President of Hillel, presented a document that he would like to see become a part of University Policy. It stems from at least two years of research and much discussion with various deans, key administrators and many students. Each year Hillel solicits stories from students regarding violations of New York State law concerning holiday observances. Without fail at least 30 stories are sent in every year about how instructors fail to accommodate students or make it difficult for student to catch up on work because they chose to skip class in order to observe a religious holidays. Since Cornell does nothing to enforce the law which prohibits this behavior, it continues to be violated. The document in question suggests that a record be kept of these incidences so that repeated violations by a single person can be dealt with.

M. Esposito asked that he clarify the demands of the document.

A. Freedman explained that he is not asking that classes be canceled in order to observe religious holidays, only that student be protected by the University should they choose to do so and run into conflict with their instructor.

A. Mathios mentioned the document is vague in describing what an instructor should do to compensate for the absence of a students.

A. Freedman said that he did not want to include any specifics because every class requires something different. The document demands that instructors be flexible in providing the opportunity for students to make up what was missed.

Several members of the UA questioned the inclusion of holidays that did not have a religious purpose; A. Freedman explained that he was open to discussion concerning those holidays.

Various members of the Assembly made suggestions as to the next steps Hillel should take with this document.

X. Constituent Assemblies Reports

Faculty Senate

Betty Lewis reported the rescheduling of the Faculty Forum; a committee was formed to look at the issue of escalating tuition for students; discussed resolution on dissection alternatives.

Employee Assembly

M. Esposito reported that elections were held last month, officers and committee members where elected for next year, and there are still two vacant seats for the UA.

Graduate and Professional Student Assembly

D. Carlson reported that the GPSA will be keeping the same President and Vice President, three UA members have been seated.

Student Assembly

K. McNamara reported that the SA has been working on their charter, have passed resolutions regarding weekend busing, exam scheduling, CAPS, and discrimination in the ROTC program to name a few. M. Schaffer added the SA heard back from the President regarding their resolution on an investments committee; they will be establishing an ad-hoc committee.

M. Esposito announced that there will be an organizational meeting on May 5th at 4:30pm in G08 in Uris Hall.

XI. Adjournment

M. Esposito thanked the members of the Assembly and C. Gardner for such a productive year. He adjourned the meeting at 6: 53pm.