Minutes
University Assembly
January 31, 2001
WSH Art Gallery
4:30 — 6:00 PM

I. Greetings and Call to Order

M. Brown, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:44 p.m.

Attendance:

Present: Matthew Banner, Leslie Barkemeyer, Mike Brown, J.S. Butler, Linda Clougherty, Dawn Darby, Amy Gerhard, Bhaskar Krishnamachari, Krysta Levac, Jane Mt. Pleasant, Subrata Mukherjee, Jeremy Rabkin, Aaron Saathoff, Donald Tobias

Excused: Daniel Schwarz

Absent: Timothy Anguish, Jeff Ehrenberg, Brian Goodell

Also Present: Hope Mandeville, Kristen Riley, Susan Piliero, Lidija Sekaric

II. Reports

Midterm Words from the Chair

M. Brown pointed out to the UA members that there are only four UA meetings left. He urged members to take advantage of the remaining time to bring important issues to the Assembly.

President Rawling’s Letter

M. Brown read a letter President Rawlings sent to the UA in response to the actions the UA has taken.

M. Brown mentioned that there were three initiatives he felt the UA had fully undertaken during the Fall semester. First was the letter sent to various publications regarding staff recognition and compensation. He felt that this issue had been fully accepted by the President. The second issue was the Holiday Observances Resolution. The letter explained that the Dean of Faculty was making a significant effort to address this issue. M. Brown commented that this issue had been partially accepted by the President. And third was the Transportation Resolution, which not was accepted by the President.

M. Brown commented that the President’s reaction indicates that the UA is actually more of an advisory body that can express it’s opinion to the administration, more than it is a body with real legislative power. He asked the UA members what they felt the UA’s role currently is, and what they feel it should be.

J. S. Butler commented that the UA’s role is to be an advisory body to the President. He also remarked that it was beneficial that the UA brought these issues to the attention of the President and got him to think about them.

M. Banner pointed out that the President might not currently get the full benefit of the UA’s work, because he hasn’t had the opportunity to hear the UA members speak about the issues. He suggested inviting the President to a meeting.

L. Barkemeyer remarked that all the power an assembly member has comes from their constituents. She said that they should be addressing issues the constituents feel are important.

J. Rabkin pointed out that the UA is not a very visible body and most people don’t know it exists. He explained that it’s a misconception to think that the UA has greater power because it is an assembly of all the assemblies. He also commented that a constituent is more likely to go to its immediate assembly for action on an issue. This leaves the UA’s role as more of an advisory one.

J. Rabkin also suggested that, to make it more effective, the UA should instead work with the other assemblies to improve communication between the constituencies. He pointed out e-Cornell as an example, as most non-faculty constituents have not expressed opinions on this matter. The UA could serve to encourage the expression of opinions on matters affecting the entire community.

A. Gerhard commented that it appears that the UA has not been effective, as it spent so much time and hard work on issues, only to be told that they are not accepted.

A. Saathoff remarked that the decision-making power would always lie with the administration. He suggested that the UA accept that limitation and try to work within it.

L. Clougherty commented that the UA could make an impact simply by bringing issues to the attention of the administration.

D. Tobias suggested that the UA chair contact the leadership of the other assemblies to find out what issues are currently under discussion. The UA could then offer their opinions on those issues and the other assemblies could benefit from that feedback.

M. Brown remarked that personal communication with the President would be beneficial, but it would be difficult for the President to attend a meeting. On the matter of constituent relations, M. Brown stated that the committee structure will soon be revised, and that will improve how constituent concerns are addressed. He also pointed out that the UA’s communication with other assemblies has been good to this point, but formalizing that communication would be beneficial.

III. Approval of Minutes

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes. The minutes of November 29, 2000 were approved by acclamation.

IV. New Business

University Calendar

Susan Piliero, Chair of the Education Policy Committee, explained the current debate over the University Calendar. There has been discussion as to whether the University should hold classes on Labor Day. She explained that even if the students were given a day off, laboratories and recitations would still need to be held. There was opposition from the graduate students, as they would then be the only constituency working.

S. Piliero explained the current options being reviewed by the Education Policy Committee. They first considered not starting the Fall semester until after Labor Day. That idea was dismissed because it would not leave enough time for all final exams. The second option was to hold classes on Labor Day, but encourage professors to allow students to participate in Labor Day programs and make up the class at a different time. The third option would be to hold Labor Day classes on the Wednesday before the classes. The classes held on Wednesday would follow the Monday schedule.

M. Banner commented that changing the schedule in this way would serve to further confuse freshmen, who would already be disoriented. S. Piliero pointed out that they could address this change during Orientation.

A. Saathoff pointed out that the second option could still increase the workload of graduate students, as they would have to prepare make up material.

J. S. Butler remarked that Labor Day falls one and a half weeks after the start of classes, and this could create problems for the third option. S. Piliero explained that this situation only occurs once every seven years. Labor Day is usually the Monday after the start of classes.

A. Gerhard pointed out a problem with the first option. She remarked that it allows the students the opportunity to recognize Labor Day, but the faculty and graduate students would still need to work. H. Mandeville commented that, though it is a staff holiday, there are already many people who must work on that day.

J. Rabkin remarked that there are other important dates in history that are not observed at Cornell. He commented that it would be better for the University to honor labor instead mandating a day off.

An informal poll was taken to gauge the UA’s opinion on this matter. Eight members were in favor of the second option, in which classes are held, but students are allowed to participate in activities, and not changing the current system. Two members were in favor of the third option, in which classes would not be held on Labor Day, and the classes would be moved to Wednesday. There was one abstention.

Campus Code of Conduct Amendments

L. Sekaric, Chair of the Codes and Judicial Committee (CJC), presented the proposed changes to the Cornell Campus Code of Conduct. She pointed out that the amendment proposed in Part D is not changing, so it should not be considered by the UA.

The following changes to the University Code as proposed by the Office of the Judicial Administrator have been approved by the Codes and Judicial Committee (CJC). The changes are to reflect educational nature of disciplinary process or to correct terminology. All changes were passed by the CJC unanimously in favor of the suggestions as stated below. All page numbers refer to the current printed version of the Code.

Please change “to refuse to comply with any lawful order of a clearly identifiable University official acting in performance of his or her duties in the enforcement of University policy in Title Three, Article II, Section A. (p. 13). The change will read as follows:

“To refuse to comply with the lawful request of a University Official, or with a policy of which there has been reasonable notice.1 “

1 Residence staff and other University staff members are considered University officials when acting in accordance with the terms of this section of the RMEE

1 For clarification of the meaning of policy see Policy 4.1 and for clarification of the meaning of University Official, see Policy 4.5. These references are found at http://www.univco.cornell.edu/policy/current.html or through the University Policy Office.

Please add in Title Three, Article II, Sections R, S, and T (p. 14, 15), the footnote so it reads:
R. To sexually abuse another person*.
S. To sexually assault another person*.
T. To rape another person*.
“As defined by the Cornell Sexual Assault Policy, Policy number 6.3.”

In Title Four, Article V, Section A.4 (p. 23) please replace the word “chair” with “Hearing Board Chair.”
[N. B. This section defines the make-up of the hearing boards under REMEE, Title III]

In Title Four, Article VIII, Sections C3 a(1) and b(2) (p.29) please replace “Administrative Chair” with “Hearing Board Chair” (three places).
[N. B. This section defines the make-up of the hearing boards under REMEE, Title III]

In Title Three, Article II, Section A 1 and 2 (p. 15) please add the following penalty so it reads:

1. Penalties-the following penalties may be imposed:
   1. Faculty and Other Employees
      1. Oral Warning
      2. Written reprimand
      3. […community service…]
      4. […suspension…]
      5. […dismissal…]
   2. Students
      1. Oral Warning
      2. Written reprimand
      3. […community service…]
      4. […suspension…]
      5. […dismissal…]

In Title Three, Article II, Section B 1 (p. 16) please add c. with the following remedy so it reads:

1. Remedies
   1. The following remedies may be imposed in all cases arising under the jurisdiction of the university judicial system:
      1. Restitution to the victim of the violation
      2. Order to the offender to perform or to cease and desist from stated actions.
      3. Appropriate educational tools mutually agreed upon by the Judicial Administrator and the accused person (such as, reflection papers, counseling, letters of apology, and directed study).

J. Rabkin remarked that the change proposed in Part A is making the policy more ambiguous.

J. S. Butler agreed, and commented that the change gives the impression that someone cannot turn down any request that is legal.

The UA agreed to send the proposed change in Part A back to the CJC without approval.

L. Sekaric reviewed the changes in the rest of the proposal. The change in Part B is to more clearly define assault. The change in Part C is just changing the title of a section. The change in Part E adds an oral warning as one of the penalties to be imposed. And, Part F adds the remedy of educational tools to the list of remedies that can be utilized.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the amendments proposed in Parts B, C, E, and F. The motion was approved.

V. Adjournment

M. Brown adjourned the meeting at 6:10 pm.