Minutes
University Assembly
September 25, 2002
International Lounge, WSH
4:30 — 6:00 pm

I. Greetings and Call to Order

K. Reardon, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.

Attendance:

Present: Stephanie Adams, J.S. Butler, Carl Jones, Jr., Umair Khan, Alan Mathios, Michael Matly, Timothy McConnochie, Peggy McKee, Leti McNeill, Jane Mt. Pleasant, Gregory Pratt, Bryan Preston, Ken Reardon, Dena Ruebusch, David Schmale III

Excused: Pat Haugen, Dawne Martyniak

Absent: Josh Bronstein, Ellis Loew

Also Present: H. Mandeville, B. Tracy, T. Bishop

II. Reports

There were no reports.

III. Additions to the Agenda

There were no additions to the agenda.

IV. Approval of the Minutes

B. Preston asked for the minutes to be available prior to the day of the meeting. H. Mandeville said that in the future there would be copies sent via email and posted on the Assembly website. A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of May 1, 2002. The minutes were approved as amended.

V. Business of the Day

Introduction of Members

K. Reardon had each member present introduce themselves and then he gave a brief overview of the agenda.

2002 Program Documents

K. Reardon suggested the UA write a letter thanking each Program Director for creating the 2002 program documents and share with them the reactions and problems that the assemblies had with them. He asked the Program Directors to address the Assemblies’ questions.

M. Matly agreed that Program Directors deserve thank you notes, but wanted to request a follow-up to the work done in the middle of the academic year.

H. Mandeville asked how the letter would be written and whether to send it via the liaisons of each committee?

U. Khan thought that the liaisons would benefit the committees and assembly by maintaining lines of communication.

K. Reardon said that the letter should express appreciation and attach a memo to the liaisons stating eagerness to work with them and an invitation to discuss their progress in January.

M. Matly again suggested to send the letters but with the invitation to Program Directors to return and explain what’s going on within their programs.

K. Reardon assigned the task of writing the letters to the Cornell Store, CURW, Health Services, and Transportation to T. McConnochie, K. Reardon, H. Mandeville, and D. Ruebusch. He asked the assembly whether or not they wanted to see copies of the letters sent.

L. McNeill requested that the executive committee have copies.

T. McConnochie wanted to have drafts of the letters sent to the members of the Assembly in order to take suggestions.

K. Reardon said that a draft would be sent out to the members and if anyone had comments on the drafts they may send them.

H. Mandeville encouraged use of the UA_Members_L listserve to approve the letters.

B. Preston felt that last year, particularly with transportation, the volume of information was so large that it was overwhelming for the committees to handle. He asked if there was any kind of process to make sure that the suggestions the assembly has for them are heard and that the letter serves a purpose.

H. Mandeville responded by saying that transportation was not given a lot of options last year. Her impression was that liaisons could be used to keep lines of communication open.

K. Reardon added that based on what progress reports are made, the assembly can decide what course of action to take in January.

D. Schmale III proposed that each committee submit a formal mid-year progress report.

K. Reardon agreed that an emphasis on a more strategic planning model for progress reports could be included in the letter.

Correspondence

K. Reardon said that the Judicial Administrator and VP of Human Resources have mentioned that the term for the Judicial Administrator is very short: two years with a two-year renewable term. It is under the charter of the University Assembly to address the length of term and the VP of Human Resources has asked the assembly to address it. He said that Mary Beth Grant would address the assembly and give them more background so that the assembly could review information and decide whether the position, structurally requires a longer term in order to reap the benefits of experience.

L. McNeill asked if there was any documentation on how or why the position is currently set up that way.

H. Mandeville offered that the committee named the Assembly System Review, which requires an EA, SA, GPSA, and Faculty representative, could look at this information and report back to the UA in order to save time. The Office of the Assemblies could also help UA members find information on the position. Anyone interested in this could give Hope their name at the end of the meeting.

K. Reardon concluded that the assembly would request the assistance of the Assembly System Review Committee and make the documents mentioned earlier available to everyone in the meantime.

K. Reardon brought up the concern over displays of religious symbols on campus and asked H. Mandeville to give a background of the resolution on it.

H. Mandeville explained that a resolution was passed in 1993 regarding displays of religious symbols on campus. Each year the Human Resources office is inundated with questions and concerns regarding the policy. The Senior Vice President’s office asked the UA to review the resolution to clarify where concerns about religious symbols should be directed.

G. Pratt described the resolution as being fairly stringent on what can be displayed and so forth.

H. Mandeville suggested that the CURW might be a more appropriate committee to handle this issue.

K. Reardon agreed and decided to refer the issue to CURW. He then moved on to new business

Evaluation of 2002–2003 Assemblies Advance

K. Reardon asked the assembly to give their general reactions to the Advance. The Advance was a new approach to the fall meeting. He opened the floor for feedback, starting with asking for thoughts on the general format and agenda of the Advance.

P. McKee thought it was excellent and well-planned. She commented that the powerpoint presentation was well-rehearsed.

K. Reardon asked what people thought of the presentations

D. Ruebusch thought the presentations were very concise, organized and well done overall.

K. Reardon asked the group how productive the break-out discussions were.

L. McNeill thought that discussion was slow at first but improved over the course of the night. She thought that not enough specific discussion went on for it to be productive, although it was very interesting.

K. Reardon inquired about the session on public service.

P. McKee thought that the conversation was stimulating but a little confused. While she thought that it was enjoyable she was unsure of how the ideas expressed would be implemented.

S. Adams wondered if each group was supposed to concentrate on one topic and brainstorm. She felt that there was no clear direction for after the Advance. She would have liked the notes from the Advance to be printed out so that the assemblies could build upon what was discussed.

L. McNeill offered that representatives from each assembly were supposed to meet before this meeting and plan out the precise steps to take for implementing the ideas from the Advance.

U. Khan commented that these were all good ideas but wanted to know how to follow up on the Advance. He wanted to know if each assembly would look at these improvements and assess how they fit into their individual charters and then address them.

K. Reardon acknowledged that as an issue and said that they would return to it. He asked if there were any other feelings people had.

G. Pratt thought the purpose of the break-out session was to take the feedback and discuss it within each member’s own assembly. He felt the assemblies should think about how to address the issues brought up at the Advance and how the assemblies can affect the community. He stated that he enjoyed the Advance and thought it was a nice first step forward for the new year.

D. Schmale III considered the break-out discussions as more of a brainstorming activity. He found it very interesting and beneficial to hear several different perspectives on the issues at hand. He also noted that his discussion group talked about all three topics and was pleased that they did not restrict their discussion to one.

L. McNeill pointed out that one topic can and often needs a lot of time to discuss properly. She thought input from the Assembly Systems Review Committee might be beneficial.

T. McConnochie felt that the discussion groups were too large and that several smaller groups per issue might have been more beneficial.

K. Reardon explained that they were limited by the number of available rooms.

T. McConnochie said that he felt unprepared for the brainstorming segment of the Advance and wanted to have more information before the discussion. He suggested sending an email of a basic agenda to prepare people for the Advance.

D. Schmale III thought that the moderators of the discussion groups were very good.

K. Reardon credited the Human Resources department and Assemblies for the moderation.

P. McKee asked what the assembly planned on doing with the information from the break-out discussions.

K. Reardon explained that the plan of which issues to discuss at the Advance was derived from discussions held in the various assemblies. The executive committee evaluated the lists of topics from the assemblies and merged them into three categories that seemed to reflect their concerns: campus governance, sustainability, and public service. The executive committee asked the assemblies to take the three broad topics and identify one or two of the issues that the assemblies felt strongly enough about to work on through a cross-assembly committee. The committee would analyze short- and long-term goals and put policy together for the administration. The plan was to form committees now. He then turned the discussion over to the representatives of the other assemblies for reports.

T. McConnochie reported that the GPSA had not discussed the Advance thoroughly but that the executive committee seemed divided on the issues of sustainable development and campus governance.

B. Preston agreed with T. McConnochie and thought that sustainable development might have slightly more importance to the GPSA. He noted that there is some confusion about the exact definition of sustainable development and wanted some clarification on that point. Some people spoke of sustainability in terms of job security and decision making while the GPSA looked at in terms of Kyoto Now!

K. Reardon explained that while there are several massive building programs underway, some units are experiencing downsizing. Sustainability in that sense might also refer to sustaining the current university environment while expanding.

G. Pratt reported the EA’s take on issues of sustainability focuses on how the University is growing and influencing job security and subsequently the student body of graduates and undergraduates. Sustainability also has effects on the faculty and their decisions. He also reported that there is currently a lot of concern over job security within the Employee Assembly.

S. Adams reported that the Student Assembly focused on community service and sustainable development through an environmental angle such as energy conservation. Other issues concerning the SA include residential off-campus housing, but the primary initiative is public service. She said that they plan on getting members of the SA to lead by example and replacing one meeting a month with a community service project to get the focus out there.

K. Reardon stated that two topics, sustainable development and community service, seemed to be of particular interest.

L. McNeill expressed an interest in having the Assemblies System Review Committee assess campus governance.

G. Pratt agreed with L. McNeill and wanted to evaluate campus governance and the effects it has in the community.

K. Reardon said sustainable development sounds like a strong interest. The SA has strong interest in community service, and the EA and the UA seem concerned with campus governance. There is no set number of committees but the goal is to have the Assemblies work together on small projects and doing well. He opened the floor for discussion on where to go now.

There was a general discussion of priorities within and among the Assemblies of the topics discussed at the Advance, whether to have the Assemblies discuss the topics again before forming committees, and whose responsibility each issue falls under.

M. Matly suggested that the UA evaluate the Assembly system as a whole for efficacy.

B. Preston remarked that the UA is at a unique position to evaluate topics that affect all of the Assemblies and their constituents, such as transportation.

H. Mandeville noted that B. Preston made a good point. There are several structural problems in the Assembly system, but a lot of the system works and can be very effective. The UA should use its vantage point to work on campus-wide issues and work to staff committees.

The discussion then led to the following issues being considered for committees: sustainable development, campus governance, public service, transportation, and off-campus residential housing.

T. McConnochie suggested letting the UA handle the issue of campus governance and forming committees to discuss the remaining issues.

K. Reardon inquired about the Assemblies System Review and its ability to evaluate campus governance.

H. Mandeville suggested that those interested in joining L. McNeill’s committee to assess campus governance should contact her after the meeting.

K. Reardon brought the discussion back to the issues of public service, sustainable development, and transportation and what priorities the UA gave them.

A. Mathios pointed out that sustainable development affects everyone and that it is a serious issue. The trend has been to minimize and lay off faculty which has created a fear amongst the faculty. He asked the UA not to minimize the impact of sustainable development.

S. Adams said public service is an issue we need to investigate and make a commitment to.

B. Preston thought that the UA needs to deal with transportation by writ and should form a committee for it.

D. Schmale III felt that the UA should take broad topics and work on them. He worried that the UA was just brainstorming.

A. Mathios asked to motion to extend the meeting ten minutes.

U. Khan seconds the motion and it is unanimous.

K. Reardon suggested taking an informal vote on priority to feel out the most important policy. The vote for the issues at hand was: sustainable development (4), public service (4), transportation (2), workforce development (3), and off-campus housing (2).

P. McKee asked why they chose two topics to work on? She felt that the UA should establish what they are doing and decide what committees they should form.

M. Matly expressed that the UA should set up committee topics and discuss them in detail at the next meeting.

K. Reardon felt that the UA had a good idea of what they want. The topics decided on are: campus governance, sustainable development, and public service.

L. McNeill motions to extend the meeting until 6:15.

U. Khan seconds the motion.

K. Reardon asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to establish two new committees for public service and sustainable development. He then requests that the Executive Committee meet to discuss proposals.

P. McKee motions to vote to form two committees.

S. Adams seconds the motion, the vote is unanimous.

VI. Adjournment

K. Reardon, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 6:15pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Bridget Tracy