Minutes
University Assembly
May 1, 2002
Art Gallery, WSH
4:30 — 6:00 PM

I. Greetings and Call to Order

D. Tobias called the meeting back to order at 4:39 p.m.

II. Attendance

Present: Carol Bader, Scott Beemer, Josh Bronstein, J.S. Butler, Karsten Hueffer, Ellis Loew, Dawne Martyniak, Alan Mathios, Peggy McKee, Kristie McNamara, Tom Mendez, Jane Mt. Pleasant, Gregory Pratt, Aaron Saathoff, Adam Schleifer, Donald Tobias

Excused: Tyrell Haberkorn, Ken Reardon, Joshua Roth

Also Present: H. Mandeville, K. Nobles, K. Riley, new members of the ‘02-‘03 University Assembly

III. Business of the Day

Resolution Regarding a Joint Multicultural Committee - T. Mendez

E. Loew made a motion to accept the resolution.

S. Beemer seconded.

D. Tobias stated that the matter was open for discussion. He prefaced by saying that early on last year there was a duplication of committees and they wanted to reduce the number to make them more functional. He noted the issue of being sensitive to representation.

T. Mendez stated that the resolution follows both the SA and UA charter. He stated that it had been a long process of meeting with the SA and UA. He said he got a lot of input as to how and why to restructure the committee. He stated that many multicultural/minority students feel left out and without enough representation. Some of the problems cited were ineffective leadership and getting stuck on a committee. To solve this problem, he explained that there will be two chairs, one from the SA and one from the UA. This will ensure that if one person is not involved enough there will be someone else to pick up the slack.

A. Schleifer stated it seems strange to have this when there are already specifically designated minority representatives. He asked for more explanation on why there isn’t already enough representation and where this resolution is coming from.

T. Mendez stated that the UA and SA committees were originally created to address minority issues. He said the problem now was overlap, which is why he wanted to combine them. He stated that although there could be a philisophical debate about needing the committee that is not relevant to this discussion.

A. Schleifer asked if there was some sentiment that there was not enough minority representation? He noted that there is a guarentee of minority representation already through the allocation of specific seats.

T. Mendez stated that there was sentiment that when minority issues were brought up there were not many people that took them to heart.

K. Hueffer asked if there is a committee for international students? He stated that he cannot see the connection that he would have with minority issues.

T. Mendez stated that this was the committee on minority affairs but noted that this deals with multicultural issues which include international students.

K. Hueffer stated that oftentimes multicultural really means multiethnic. He noted the barriers international students face in that they are denied oppurtunities open to minorities in terms of grants and programs. He stated his concern that the international group might get brushed away. He noted that the minority population is much more vocal than the international students. He stated that he is not happy to be represented by a committee whose focus would be much more on minority issues than international ones. He noted that there are many issues coming up for international students such as visa restrictions that could be addressed. He said he wanted a committee that is relevant for international students.

T. Mendez said that his idea was to create a forum to investigate certain issues. He explained that the chair would have enough leeway to include separate focuses for each subcommittee.

It was stated that the ISSO office is for international students.

K. Hueffer stated that the office was extremely helpful, but noted that they are administration not an assembly. He stated that international students do not feel helpless, they just do not see themselves as fully represented.

D. Tobias stated that perhaps this concern could be addressed by a subcommittee.

K. Hueffer stated that in some ways the interests of the two groups are completely opposite.

D. Tobias stated that he thought the best strategy would be to proceed with the merger and then work on this issue later.

K. Hueffer explained that he had thought that one of the committees had an international focus that would have been lost.

T. Mendez restated that it was only a minority affairs committee. He stated that he had a small addition made by the SA to change “diversity of culture and races” to read, “diversity of cultures, religions and races.”

J. Butler asked if the SA adopted the resolution with that word included?

D. Tobias noted that this was recorded in the minutes for future reference. He asked of there was any further discussion?

The UA voted to accept the Resolution regarding a Joint Multicultural Committee by a vote of 13 for and 1 abstention.

Resolution on Proposed Campus Parking Permit Increases - A. Saathoff

A. Saathoff made a motion to accept the resolution.

E. Loew seconded.

A. Saathoff stated that he was initiating this because the graduate assemblies had stopped meeting by the time this was proposed. He stated that they felt an injustice. He noted that he had collected opinions from graduate students on the matter.

D. Tobias suggested that Saathoff synthesize the content.

A. Saathoff referenced an unpleasant experience in which he was forced to walk half an hour to get home because there was no bus. He stated that many buses stop running at 7 p.m. and after that time there is no feasible way to get from one place to another. He stated that personal reasons were not sufficient to introduce legislation, but that he had found that many shared his concerns. He stated that he agreed that there is a need to reduce traffic because of campus congestion and environmental concerns. He noted that he wrote a letter to GPSA asking for direct opinions on the matter and for proposed actions. He stated that he found enough support to pursue the matter further. He noted that there are faults in polling but he stated that the comments were persuasive enough to take action. He explained that faculty and staff rates are not going up, it is coming from students. He cited the fact that faculty and staff may live in places with inadequate busing and that it could be bad for recruiting as the reasoning, but stated that these issues apply to students also. He noted that the 700A lot will still be free. If the figures from transportation are correct then it costs between $800- $1200 to maintain a parking spot. He stated that he had been told that the Transportation Advisory Committee had no input in this decision . He stated that he felt that decisions are made and justified later. He noted transportation’s defensiveness about parking fees and stated that they feel students do not understand the necessity of high rates. He noted that the students have the least ability to absorb costs. He stated that for many, the bus is not a viable option. He noted that some places only get buses twice a day and stated that there was no ride share system for students. He stated that he feels an equitable solution can be reached. He noted that he supports transportation’s efforts just not their methods.

J. Butler stated that he was opposed for a variety of reasons. He noted that he would vote against the whereas and resolved sections separately. He stated that it is impossible to set parking rates without some sort of reaction. He noted that there are many difficulties in figuring out the rate structure. He noted that graduate students are receiving an education that will give them benefits in the future. He stated that faculty are different, they get paid with a set of benefits minus what they pay for parking. He noted that focusing on parking alone is a small detail of the overall picture. He noted that undergraduates do not get paychecks. He stated that he is in favor of the positive environmental effects that can be gained by discouraging cars on campus. He noted that this proposal doesn’t propose to raise prices to cover the cost of spots although that is necessary. He stated that he doesn’t see this as unfair. He stated that there is an optimal way but there will always be objections.

A. Schleifer stated his agreement about the problems with congestion and raising rates. He noted that no one wants to pay fines. He stated that one thing to be in favor was preventing pollution. He described it as subsidizing unnecessary emitions. He noted the two tiered aspect which he found to be unfair. He stated that this makes the new students’ rates arbitrarily higher. He said that there was no reason why juniors and seniors can’t incorporate the new rates also. He stated that he feels this is very unfair. He stated that he is in favor of increases, just not in this way,

J. Mt. Pleasant noted that the two-tiered system was unfair. She stated that the change should be across the board without grandfathering. She noted that the real difference is between graduate and undergraduates. She noted that undergraduates do not need the buses at odd times like graduate students do. In addition, she noted the graduate students work longer hours and are independent financially. She stated her sensitivity to placing undue burdens on graduate students. She said that unless there are viable alternatives then pressure will not mean anything. She stated that it was not right to do this to graduate students. She suggested that faculty be targeted since they are the most able to absorb rates. She stated that it was alright to raise rates for undergraduates because they do not have the same need to park and they have other means of support. She stated that she supported a resolution asking for a moratorium but not now.

M. Matly stated that he applauds the UA for their fulfillment of the charge with overseeing policy. He stated that Aaron made a point that this dialogue should have happened months ago. He noted that the program document was voted on without members knowing the consequences of their votes. He noted that transportation bypassed the UA which is supposed to be an advisory board.

D. Tobias stated that a point of clarification notes that there were a lot of sidebar conversations at the meeting the previous week. He stated that their position was to reject or accept the reports, not to deal with the substance of the pieces. He stated that this brings about the question, what is the process to be used in the future about? He stated this was an example of bypassing the process by excluding a part of the community.

A. Saathoff stated that he liked the comments so far. He noted that graduate students are similar to employees without benefits. He stated that teaching and grading while attending classes makes him feel more like an employee. He noted that they also feel an environmental responsibility. He stated that he believes in the concept of an equal solution for everyone. He noted that many more would take mass transit if there were more options. He stated that it isn’t fair to take away options without giving alternatives. He noted that most graduate students don’t live on campus or even in Ithaca and this forces many to take cars. He stated that the proposal is to increase mass transit and parking fees. He stated the rates must go up but not asymetrically.

G. Pratt stated that he was unclear about the rate increases and who should pay what. He is aware of the income of grad students and also the potential they have for the future because of the education they are receiving. He stated that he feels most strongly about the fact that the document presented at the last meeting didn’t put forth a balanced solution. He stated that he felt that there was shift towards more personal responsibility. He stated that increasing parking fines or fees doesn’t affect the community equally. He stated that he has a number of points. In the third whereas clause the language should be changed to community groups. In the sixth whereas clause he felt there is room for a stronger statement brought up about rideshare not available to students. He noted that there is plenty of dialogue that still needs to go on. He noted that he isn’t sure that the increase is the best way to move.

D. Tobias asked if Pratt’s comments were formal motions?

G. Pratt said no.

D. Tobias reminded the group to think about time.

K. Hueffer stated that the whole group is upset that no one told them. He stated that Phil McKeron asked why the TAC representative didn’t go. He noted that it was not the fault of transportation. He stated that they had their chance and missed it. He said that he doesn’t agree that it is impossible to live without a car. He asked how else did they survive in the fifties? He stated that the problem with the proposal is unfairness between new students and old. He also noted that Cornell subsidizes parking by $200 per grad and suggested that maybe Cornell shouldn’t spend this money.

J.S. Butler stated that this motion means that anytime parking proposes to raise we will hear a response from whoever is affected. He noted that if we don’t let parking raise rates we are telling the university to subsidize parking over other resources.

A. Schleifer stated that the mention of future expectations of income says nothing about fiscal constraints of a graduate student. He stated that it was more feasible for those able to whether undergrad or faculty as long as they have disposable income. He noted that people generally respond to fee increases. He stated that they are in favor of the principle, just in a fairer manner.

G. Pratt noted that these concerns were valid. He stated that he doesn’t believe in a uniform rejection of parking’s proposals. He stated his interest in a more balanced proposal encouraging responsibility. He stated he was much more in favor of a document with a clear vision.

D. Tobias stated that this vote assumes that we are asking the President to create something. He noted that he doesn’t think that anything will actually happen, but that it does send a clear message about the process.

E. Loew stated that the most upsetting part is the arbitrary way that traffic operated. He stated that the only thing they can play with are fines and fees. He noted that there is no reason to settle on consumer price index. He noted a tremendously arbitrary nature in assigning fine changes. He stated that when they made the B lot a pay lot they fell back on vague feelings of inequality because the vet school got to park closer. He noted the plans to park at East Hill but pointed out the irregular busing. He stated that voting in favor will have little effect. He noted that parking is only sensitive when staff is unionized.

G. Pratt stated that he would like to offer his previous comments as friendly amendments at some point.

H. Mandeville asked what would it say that the UA couldn’t use their own committees?

A. Saathoff stated that some cryptic messages made him inquire to the TAC member in February. He noted that the minutes at the February meeting didn’t mention the ridiculous rate increases so he didn’t mention in to the GPSA.

H. Mandeville asked if they passed this resolution could they use TAC?

A. Saathoff said no because TAC is not effective.

H. Mandeville stressed that this is the UA’s own committee.

A. Saathoff noted that they have looked at this problem before.

K. Hueffer noted that in the third whereas clause it says that the advisory board didn’t make a good faith effort. He stated that if they don’t listen they shouldn’t blame them later on.

D. Tobias asked if he would drop the third whereas part?

A. Saathoff declined without a vote.

G. Pratt asked to add his amendments as friendly.

A. Saathoff said they were friendly.

A. Schliefer stated that there was a mention of students sharing permits. He stated that he objected to no viable alternative. He suggested a review of policies because things exist but they aren’t public.

A. Saathoff stated that carpooling is not used enough. He stated that the difference is tag on license plate with rebate which doesn’t exist for students.

D. Tobias stated that this is about the creation of a committee and they will go into details later.

The UA voted to accept the amended resolution by a vote of 11 for and 3 against.

J. Butler noted that no one from the Faculty Senate has asked him to serve again on UA so he is without actual confirmation.

H. Mandeville explained that didn’t get a chance to get to that item when the Senate met. She stated that she believed that Charlie Walcott wouldn’t oppose it.

J. Butler asked if he had made the situation clear to everyone? He noted that he can only vote if he is considered a member.

D. Tobias stated that he felt Butler should vote as a part of the incoming UA. He noted that he can’t see a scenerio where Butler wouldn’t be a part of the group. He asked for unanimous consent to adjourn the meeting.

IV. Adjournment

E. Loew made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

A. Schliefer seconded.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:38 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Gleich