Minutes
University Assembly Meeting
April 25, 2001
WSH Art Gallery
4:30 - 7:00 PM

I. Greetings and Call to Order

M. Brown, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:47 p.m.

Attendance:

Present: Matthew Banner, Leslie Barkemeyer, Scott Beemer, Mike Brown, J.S. Butler, Dawn Darby, Jeff Ehrenberg, Amy Gerhard, Brian Goodell, Krysta Levac, Jeremy Rabkin

Absent: Timothy Anguish, Linda Clougherty, Bhaskar Krishnamachari, Jane Mt. Pleasant, Subrata Mukherjee, Aaron Saathoff, Daniel Schwarz, Donald Tobias

Also Present: M. Grant, H. Mandeville, K. Riley, L. Sekaric

II. Reports

Assemblies Leadership Meeting

H. Mandeville announced that Carolyn Ainslie, VP of Planning and Budget, made a presentation about the evaluation team. They would like to talk to the University Assembly on Monday, April 30, 3:30 - 5:00. The Draft WSH Space Report was discussed. Students felt they were not consulted about the report.

Public Hearings Program Document Outcome

M. Brown reported that the program document presentations received poor attendance. No one attended the Transportation Services program document presentation and only one or two persons attended the presentation for the Campus Store and University Health Services presentations. In order for the presentations to continue, next years Assembly will need to revamp the presentations or return to the old method.

K. Levak commented that M. Brown was recently elected President of the 2001–2002 Ivy Council. The Ivy Council is the student government system for all Ivy Leagues.

III. Additions to the Agenda

There were no additions to the agenda.

IV. Approval of Minutes

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of March 28, 2001. The minutes of March 28, 2001 were approved as submitted.

V. Business of the Day

Transportation Services Program Document

Carl Cohen, Assistant Director for Commuter and Parking Services, introduced Bill Stebbins. He stated that the mission of Transportation Services is to provide leadership in circulation issues, facilitating parking and transit on campus.

Statistics
Some statistics may surprise people. 44% of Faculty and Staff are paying no fee program or enrolled in our no fee program; 1,263 participants in the Omni ride program; 471 are in rideshare groups where there is no fee; 32 participants get rebates and reserved space; 76 are enrolled in the occasional parker program. Some discounted programs include rideshares at a discount. There is also a program for volunteer fire fighters and emergency medical technicians. Only 47% of faculty and staff are paying the full fee for parking.

Accomplishments

1. Improved multi-space meters for visitor lots.
2. Partnered with North Campus Residential Initiative Team.
3. New 130 space lot for the newly built community.
4. CU Lifts a program that has been offered for several years to students with disabilities.
5. Working to increasing pedestrian & traffic safety on campus.
6. Increase in bike racks on campus.

Cornell ID Com TCAT
This system will record bus usage, so Cornell is more accurately billed for TCAT services. For individuals with Omnipass, they will use their ID to record a trip. TCAT received a grant to add Smartcard Readers to buses starting in the Fall.

TCAT Fare Increase
They worked with administrators to get $345,000 to offset the fare increase. The staff/faculty are still charged no fee. Students had only a 25% increase, instead of 33%.

Initiatives for ‘01-‘02
They plan to work with the West Campus Residential Initiatives Team to address the impact on transportation issues of the west campus renovation plans. They hope to develop a plan to address parking and circulation.

They plan to work with the Student Assembly on bridge safety issues.

Budget
Most of the revenue comes from university support as a subsidy. A secondary source is faculty, staff, and student permits.

The funds are then used in the upkeep of parking lots, fares for faculty and staff, and salaries of the Transportation administration staff.

D. Darby asked why install machines on buses?

B. Stebbins replied that is a TCAT decision. It gives a more accurate reading of who is riding the bus, and should save the University money.

D. Darby inquired as to how the cards would be administered?

B. Stebbins replied that the cards would be instituted next spring. This project will be funded by a grant.

J.S. Butler questioned how the comments regarding transportation issues are processed?

B. Stebbins replied that they are funneled to appropriate managers and monitored by upper level administration.

C. Cohen added that the department tries to respond to most of the comments they received.

L. Barkemeyer asked if the department was committed to Kyoto Now? She also asked if Transportation looked into ways to decrease emissions?

B. Stebbins responded that the buses do not belong to Cornell, they only partner with TCAT, but they are looking into lower emission vehicles. He added that the Mail fleet is powered by natural gas.

C. Cohen pointed out that they are trying to reduce single occupant vehicles on campus by getting people to rideshare, take the bus, and use other alternatives.

B. Goodell noted that he was a liaison for TAC. It has reversed some of his beliefs and it has changed his views of the department. He endorses this program document.

A motion was made to accept the program document for Transportation Services. The motion passed. The Department of Transportation Services Program Document was unanimously approved.

Gannett: University Health Services Program Document

Gannet is responsible for the integration of medical and counseling services for the entire community.

Medical Services
One of their challenges is the increase in walk-in business - 1/2 of their business is walk-ins. The average wait time for walk-ins is 8–9 minutes, and there is health care staff available 24 hours by telephone. Some other responsibilities are sports medicine, psychological care, and women’s health issues.

Psychiatry
They have had an increase in visits by 7%. This has resulted in a longer wait time of 2–3 weeks. But, they do keep emergency hours. They are adding a psychiatrist and a therapist, but are still working to meet demand by finding additional staff.

They also have the Student Assistance Program, to identify earlier those students who may need help. This program can help identify eating disorders and substance abuse problems.

Accomplishments
Accreditation was achieved in the year 2000. They received the highest rating in all 17 areas, and were accredited for three years.

Community Relations
They are primarily responsible for the education of community.

They have been rated by 97% of patients as ‘good to excellent.’

They will also be piloting a newsletter for the parents of 1st year student in the fall.

Health promotion activities include education about high risk drinking for Slope Day.

Student Insurance
There are still many uninsured or underinsured students on campus, and they are working on education for this issue, to make sure insurance is adequate.

Facilities
They are starting to experience space constraints and will be addressing this issue down the road. Also, the heat / air conditioning ventilation work will be beginning its 2nd phase.

Budget
The budget has been increased for the coming year, with the extra to be covered by donor financing. They are also expecting an increase in revenue with more utilization.

J. Rabkin pointed out that the average number of visits for counseling was 6, and for other services, 4. He explained he found it strange that it appears that students are going four times a year but most do not go at all. He asked if a small portion of the student body goes a lot? The Gannett representative explained this speaks to the breadth of services offered, as the percentage of student who never go is only 28%.

B. Goodell pointed out that the report does not reflect the number of visits of staff and students separately. The Gannett representative explained that Occupational Health is responsible for different programs for different departments, and the departments must approach Gannett to request programs.

A motion was made to accept the program document for Gannett: University Health Services. The Gannett: University Health Services program document was unanimously accepted.

Cornell Store Program Document

Remodeling
The store is now open and wider. This has improved operating efficiency and gives a better presentation.

They have changed the name of the store to The Cornell Store, to emphasize its presence at Cornell.

They now have video display walls to advertise services and for student groups to communicate upcoming events.

Also new are kiosks with internet access, so students can get information on what course materials they need.

The feedback on renovations has been positive.

Upcoming Projects
The Million Dollar Campaign is a program to help save money on course materials by purchasing more used books. Work will continue on this project by working closely with faculty members to determine which books should be bought back.

They also hope to use the caf� area to host events.

B. Goodell pointed out that the planned number of employees is 81, but the actual number is 71. Why the drop? The Cornell Store representative explained they have changed arrangements in the store to become more efficient in data entry.

A. Gerhard asked if the space in the campus store could be used for other events? The Cornell Store representative explained that this issue is covered in the Environment section, but it might not be detailed. A lack of staff may be a factor in addressing this issue.

A motion was made to accept the program document for Cornell Store. The Cornell Store program document was unanimously accepted.

Hearing and Review Board

The recommended candidates for the Hearing and Review Boards were presented.

M. Brown asked if there were any questions about the process?

D. Darby motioned to approve full slate of candidates.

A. Gerhard seconded the motion.

No objections were seen. The candidates were approved.

Proposed Amendments to the Campus Code of Conduct

Amendment A
M. Brown asked if there were any comments on part “A?”

L. Sekaric that this section has been updated - Professors Rabkin and Hatch worked on the revision.

M. Hatch stated that there were a few changes to amendment A Title Three, Article II (Violations), item I (p.14). It should read:

I. To intentionally harass another person by (a) following that person in or about a public place or places, or (b) by acting towards that person in a manner which, by prevailing community standards, would be considered threatening, severely abusive, or repeatedly abusive.

L. Sekaric explained the objections of Counsel’s office.

J. S. Butler commented that generally he liked the amendments. He would like to define community standards. He agrees with changes as proposed.

J. Rabkin thinks the changes are fine. He pointed out that the Supreme Court just ruled on sexual harassment. They voted 9–0 and what they said is reassuring to him. One incident does not constitute sexual harassment. The relevant issue is not how the complainant feels, but what is objectively offensive. He likes ‘community standards’ better than ‘reasonable person,’ as it is much more abstract. A college community may have different standards than a business district. In reference to 1.B., defending to people who may think it’s a little wordy, they are trying to distinguish between severely abusive and repeatedly abusive. It is worth the extra wordiness to convey the correct message.

L. Sekaric responded that the University Counsel’s Office was concerned: how do you support what a “community standard” is?

J. Rabkin asked if there was input to the President after the UA approves the amendments.

L. Sekaric responded no. The president will contact the Counsels office regarding the changes.

K. Rourke stated that her understanding is that changes to the Code go in a letter to the President for approval. They are trying to avoid a situation where the President sends changes back, if they already know Counsel’s Office will object to specific parts.

M. Brown mentioned that the President can adopt all changes made or reject just parts of them. The President has the final veto power that cannot be challenged.

M.B. Grant suggested that the UA might find language that satisfies both concerns.

M. Brown didn’t feel that the UA should pass something knowing that it will be objected to. They need only be the expression of the Assembly.

B. Goodell asked if the amendment to Part A: “I. To intentionally harass another person by�” is referring to both section a) and b), or is it one or the other?

L. Sekaric responded that it was either/or.

A. Gerhard shared that she feels that the statement “community standards” is vague. She is not sure what community is referred to. Are they comparing a university community to a residential community? She proposed the following amendment: Strikeout ‘by prevailing community standards’ and replace with ‘by standards of a reasonable � standard community.’

J. Rabkin amended the amendment ‘by standards which would be considered by a reasonable member of the Cornell community.’

D. Darby seconded the amendment it.

M. Hatch explained that the word “prevailing” is important. The Hearing Board is diverse. Construction of this clause was to have people specifically think about prevailing standards. It is an important element, and she recommends leaving it. He also doesn’t recommend using “Cornell,” as we live in larger, diverse community.

L. Sekaric pointed out the first suggestion could be based on one person’s feelings they were being harassed.

A. Gerhard withdrew her amendment

B. Goodell recommended saying “such as.”

M. Hatch pointed out that that opens it up to other examples and this is a specific definition.

B. Goodell adds “against the will of said person.”

J. Rabkin said he is against ‘will’ or it’s not a complaint. B Goodell proposed the following amendment: “�by following in or about said place or places against the will of that said of that said person.”

M. Brown asked for a second to the amendment. Seeing none, they moved on.

K. Levac asked if the Counsel’s Office would reject this wording? Can the UA convince them this is legit?

L. Sekaric said that for the most part, they agreed.

K. Rourke remarked that President would not approve this wording if Counsel’s Office objects.

M. Hatch suggested making a case for what is suggested and not change it further.

M. Brown expressed that the UA should say what if feels.

M. B. Grant stated that she suspects if the Counsel’s Office disagrees with the wording, the President will reject the changes, and these hypothetical situations do happen. It is a real concern.

J. Rabkin had the following comments:

1. How much deference is there to Council’s Office? Very, very little. Lawyers reduce Cornell’s liability externally. We should go with what we are most comfortable with. If we have to come back to it in September, so be it.
2. He thinks “reasonable” is a more general, abstract standard. Cornell can have it’s own standards. They shouldn’t get carried away by reasonable standards.
3. What if 99% of the Cornell community accepts the harassment of a group? It’s wrong. It’s not a question of being in one group or another. This wording is very good.

J.S. Butler expressed that he won’t vote for or against the amendment just because of the Counsel’s Office.

M. Banner stated they were using something big to narrow something down. He suggested striking “�by prevailing community standards.”

This was seconded.

A. Gerhard expressed that the group feels that there should be an amendment. She suggested that they come up with a decision soon.

J. Rabkin doesn’t feel that the changes are not meaningful, and what is proposed is confusing. He feels that something important is lost with the proposed amendment.

J.S. Butler calls to question the previous amendment.

The amendment failed.

Call to previous question. Amendment as corrected to include grammatical corrections. Amendment “A” passed by a vote of 7–0−2.

Amendments C, D, E, and F
L. Sekaric presented amendments C, D, and E to the UA.

J. Rabkin proposed to vote on amendments C., D., and E. as a block.

There was a motion to end debate. The motion passed.

J. Erhenberg asked what was the composition of the 12 panel board? Why was section D. reduced to a five person panel?

M. Grant responded that each constituent group was represented.

M. Brown call to end debate on C, D, and E, and called for acclamation. Sections C., D., and E. were unanimously approved.

L. Sekaric explained amendment F.

M. Brown asked for clarification.

J.S. Butler proposed the following amendment: strike the first 11 words of the footnote F for clarification.

J. Ehrenberg pointed out that there is a need for the footnote.

K. Rourke replied that the CJC raised the same questions.

Bottom line will read “Or with a duly promulgated policy of which there has been reasonable notice.”

Amendment F was approved as amended.

VI. Adjournment

M. Brown thanked all members of the UA for their hard work on the Assembly this year. He adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Connie Cook