Minutes
University Assembly
October 30, 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, Pat Haugen, Melissa Hines, Carl Jones, Jr., Josh Katcher, Umair Khan, Alan Mathios, Timothy McConnochie, Peggy McKee, Leti McNeill, Bryan Preston, Ken Reardon, Dena Ruebusch

Absent: Ellis Loew, Dawne Martyniak, Michael Matly, Jane Mt. Pleasant, Gregory Pratt, David Schmale III

Also Present: Hope Mandeville, Mary Beth Grant, Richard Helms, Kathleen Rourke, Bridget Tracy

II. Reports

Introduction of Members

K. Reardon had each member present introduce themselves, including two new members, Melissa Hines and Josh Katcher.

M. Hines introduced herself as the professor of Chemistry 208 in the spring and expressed her enthusiasm to be at the UA meeting.

J. Katcher introduced himself as sophomore majoring in the AEM program of the Agricultural and Life Sciences school. He is currently a student representative in the SA.

Staff Report

H. Mandeville introduced herself and said that Trina Nobles would also be working with the University Assembly. She asked that anyone without a binder or nametag let the Office of Assemblies know.

Constituent Assemblies’ Reports

J. Katcher said the Student Assembly was working on a Student Housing Rights Bill to create a better system for students to find off-campus housing, negotiate a lease, and provide a guide to the process and pitfalls of off-campus housing.

B. Preston reported that the GPSA has been discussing the unionization prior to last week’s vote. They have also discussed assigning people to committees per the UA decision on September 25, 2002 for Assembly-wide projects. There was confusion within the GPSA regarding the UA’s goals for the committees and what projects were being pursued. There seemed to be some communication breakdown.

K. Reardon acknowledged the GPSA’s concern and said that the UA would try to address it in old business.

L. McNeill reported on the success of the President’s Address that the EA recently sponsored. She said that they were currently planning a workforce planning series of “brown bag lunches.” The EA also held an auction for their Emergency Grant Fund which Ken Reardon led. They earned $3000 this year.

H. Mandeville added that the first session of the brown bag lunches would be Tuesday, November 5th from noon to one at the Biotech building.

University Assembly Reports

L. McNeill said that the Assemblies System Review met the week before and was comprised of Leti McNeill, Peggy McKee, Michael Matly, Ellis Loew, Bryan Preston, and Marybeth Grant to discuss the JA term limit. They plan on discussing campus governance in the future with the help of Hope Mandeville.

U. Kahn asked whether the Assemblies System Review had any set goals for the semester and plans to achieve them.

L. McNeill responded by saying that goals are underway, though not formally established as well as the committee to examine campus governance.

U. Kahn asked if the committee would consist of just two representatives from each assembly or if others can sit in once the spots are filled.

H. Mandeville said that the structure of the committee was not firmly established yet and that the goal of the committee on campus governance is to reach out. The structure should be more set by the next UA meeting and discussions about who can sit on it can continue then. One of the main focuses of the committee would be looking at and possibly changing the charters.

K. Reardon asked to hear from the Campus Planning Committee.

U. Kahn reported that the committee is currently trying to find out its charge and what it can and cannot do. It is currently chairless.

P. Haugen reported for the Campus Store. The meeting in September was full, but the October meeting was deferred until November. The store administration is active in finding customer friendly procedures and have recently had a security review in response to a pilfering issue. The store has had several faculty and customer satisfaction surveys and is developing action items to address issues brought up in these surveys such as: store hours, book adoption, buy back prices, and coffee service. There was a recommendation to have faculty involved earlier in the ordering process to increase the number of used texts. There was discussion on web fulfillment centers, a possible retail center in the Business School, and a faculty initiative regarding textbook reservation.

R. Helms reported for the Codes and Judicial Committee. The members wanted to reorganize and clean up the Code of Conduct. They wanted to identify confusing points, look at the entire code, and came to this meeting to ask the UA’s willingness to consider this undertaking.

K. Reardon opened the floor for discussion.

H. Mandeville noted that the proposal was attached to the agenda and suggested the UA suspend the agenda to address this.

J.S. Butler asked whether the UA should have a full discussion on this when they address new business as it might hold up committee reports.

H. Mandeville clarified that the Codes and Judicial Committee wanted to know if this made sense to the UA or if the UA needed to discuss it further.

J.S. Butler said that he felt that revising the Code of Conduct made sense.

U. Kahn agreed, saying that if the CJC could make the Code better and more universally understandable, he could see no objection. He wanted to urge the CJC to have faculty and especially student input so that everyone can clearly understand their rights.

K. Rourke said that the CJC drafted the proposal and discussed ways to review the Code. It is difficult for her to understand even with 18 years experience with it. One way to assess the Code is to sort through the Code on the computer and make changes without completely altering the language of it. Another option is to find a day or two to have committees review the entire Code. This option requires funds for room rental and possibly food for the committees. Additionally, a trustee must approve the Code, so no substantive changes would be made to the code, just the language.

M. Grant interjected that most of the task involves simplifying the language.

T. McConnochie asked whether approval was required from both the UA and the Trustee.

K. Rourke answered yes.

J.S. Butler urged the CJC to rearrange the words in a more coherent format and obtain the Trustee’s approval first, then to think about changing language in the Code.

B Preston asked what the support and funding mentioned in the CJC’s proposal specifically refers to. K. Rourke acknowledged that there is not a lot of funding available. The support the CJC is seeking is from the administration. The funding comes into renting the rooms for the committees to review the Code in and possibly lunch for the committees.

U. Kahn asked whether the UA should make a recommendation to the administration that the CJC needs a designated space for an amount of time and additional funding for lunch and what the correct procedure would be.

H. Mandeville said that the request should go to her office.

R. Helms said that they did not have specific plans on what they are going to do, they just want to know if the UA thinks this is an acceptable idea to propose.

K. Reardon expressed his consent to their proposal and there was a general approval by the UA. He asked that they include a resolution when they return with figures for funding. He then moved the discussion back to the committee reports and the Committee on Committees.

L. McNeill reported that they have not met yet. A roster for the members of the committee was recently compiled and they will meet soon.

K. Reardon spoke for CURW. They have been discussing Anabel Taylor Hall, a fifty-year-old building has had some breakdowns such as issues with flooding, and are also examining capital planning for expansion. They have also been active in creating spaces for civil discourse on peace and justice issues, particularly those of the Middle East. He then asked for reports on the Financial Aid Review.

H. Mandeville reported that SA has a joint committee working with the Financial Aid Review to set up a fund to cover the expense of student health insurance.

A. Mathios reported for the committee on Health Services that Hope Mandeville has been working to form a committee.

P. McKee stated that the committee on Minority Affairs had not met and would the following day.

D. Ruebusch reported for the committee on Transportation. The committee has been discussing parking issues in front of Willard Straight Hall that have been affecting traffic.

III. Additions to the Agenda

There were no additions to the agenda.

IV. Approval of the Minutes

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of September 25, 2002. The minutes were approved as presented.

V. Old Business

JA Term Limit

L. McNeill summarized the meeting the meeting held to discuss the conflict of term limits in the Code of Conduct and UA charter for the JA. The charter limits the JA to two two-year terms following reappointment, while the Code of Conduct states that the President may reappoint the JA for an unlimited amount of two-year terms.

H. Mandeville said that the conclusion was given in the memo sent to UA members asking that the UA charter be changed to match the Code of Conduct.

J.S. Butler asked for any arguments in favor of term limits?

L. McNeill offered that limits provide a means to get new people in the JA position.

K. Reardon asked Marybeth Grant to share information on the JA position, which she currently holds.

M. Grant described the position as having a lot of specific information that is learned over time. The learning curve, long-range planning issues, and just getting to know people and the job are factors that are adversely affected by term limits.

P. McKee agreed and said that the group that discussed the issue could not establish the original reasons for the term limits in the position.

K. Reardon asked what the language meant as far as the extension is involved.

M. Grant said that the extension implies additional two-year terms and that the language of the proposed UA charter change does not restrict the President or UA from keeping a qualified individual.

U. Khan asked about the JA’s contract; can he leave at will?

M. Grant said that the Trustees can remove a JA if they see fit and that JA’s have left in the past before finishing their terms for different reasons. The JA comes before the UA every two years, regardless.

P. McKee made a motion to add “for additional terms” to the last sentence of the UA Charter, Article 4.2.

P. Haugen seconds the motion.

There was general discussion regarding the interpretation of “additional terms.” It was decided that the phrase most matches the Code of Conduct and does not imply that multiple terms may be granted to an individual at one time.

K. Reardon called the vote to accept “for additional terms” which was unanimous. The vote to adopt the change to the UA Charter Article 4.2 was approved with 12 for and 2 against. K. Reardon thanked Marybeth Grant and moved on to the follow up issues.

Follow up to the Process Memo Regarding University Assemblies’ 2002–2003 Issue Priorities

K. Reardon opened the floor for discussion on the issue committees and the outline for implementation of the committees.

J. Katcher asked for clarification on the meaning of sustainability.

K. Reardon responded by saying that of the topics raised, sustainability was the least well-defined, including issues such as growth, ecological sensitivity, and staffing implications.

B. Preston commented that the GPSA had trouble making sense of the sustainability issue since it was so broad.

K. Reardon reviewed the decision from last month’s meeting to form a committee to review campus governance so that major issues facing Cornell would come before its decision-making bodies. Public service addresses the SA’s desire to support community development.

The issues would be discussed in three committees, meeting jointly at one UA meeting, similar to the advance.

K. Reardon asked for any concerns or suggestions to the proposed outline for the committees.

There was a discussion on the number of people from each Assembly allowed to serve on a committee, and it was agreed to set a maximum of two from each Assembly per committee.

T. McConnochie asked if the UA sends members to the committees.

L. McNeill said that they would not.

T. McConnochie asked who would convene the first meeting if the chairs of the committees would be chosen by their members.

K. Reardon said that the Chair of the UA would convene the first meeting, as it would take place at a UA meeting.

U. Khan asked the logistics of holding three committees at the next UA meeting, how Ken Reardon would preside, and whether members of the UA that are not members of SA, GPSA, or EA can participate in the committees?

A discussion of which members would be allowed to participate led to the suggestion by L. McNeill to change the committee requirement of two members from each Assembly to two constituent body members.

K. Reardon said that he was more interested in filling the committees with motivated participants ready to work on the issues and establish concrete ideas rather than being concerned about limiting the votes.

U. Khan motioned to change “a minimum of two persons,” to “a maximum of two persons.”

J. Katcher said that he did not want to limit the number of people serving on committees.

U. Khan said that if there was a consensus to keep the language as is rather than limiting, then that was fine. He motioned to accept it as presented.

The motion was seconded and passed.

Letter Review

K. Reardon reviewed the decision made from last month’s meeting to ask Program Directors to make a two to three page memo to the UA by the end of December as a report. At the January meeting the UA and Program directors could review the memos in order to save frustration over end of the year suggestions from the UA.

J.S. Butler proposed that since the program that this is focused at is Transportation, could the others be excluded?

U. Khan thought that the memo is great idea to avoid frustration and keep lines of communication open with all the programs.

B. Preston agreed and thought it was a chance to set precedence and that by addressing all groups, the UA could avoid future problems.

P. Haugen asked if the two to three page memo could be made less rigid, a “short memo” might be better.

K. Reardon said that he would make an initial call to each of the Program Directors to discuss the problem, ask if they felt the same frustration last May, and say what the UA’s thoughts are. He would then send them the proposed memo and then meet with them and rewrite the memo to include specific items.

A. Mathios thought that it was not the UA’s place to advocate for the different programs, but to review.

K. Reardon said that he put the wording in his memo because purely regulatory program reviews makes a difficult situation for both sides to be educated, he also thought that the UA might be an advocate for the programs.

L. McNeill asked why the meeting would be in January if the involved programs operate on a fiscal year.

K. Reardon said that for this year, the January meeting would be used and if a fiscal schedule fits better it could be used in the future.

B. Preston suggested that inquiries about the best dates for the Program Directors to address this could be made in the initial phone calls.

T. McConnochie suggested that the UA solicit questions via email from the constituent bodies to ask the Program Directors.

U. Khan motioned to extend the meeting to 6:10 pm. The motion was seconded and accepted with 10 of 13 in favor.

D. Ruebusch asked to remove “more effectively advocate” from the memo.

K. Reardon agreed and motioned to amend the Annual Program Review process to include a preplanning meeting where Program Directors would present their basic agenda for the year to receive early and timely comment from the UA. This is not a substitution, but an expansion of the process with the communication regarding this to the Program Directors to be determined by the Chair.

The motion was accepted.

VI. New Business

K. Reardon reported on the leadership meeting held the previous day. One of the main issues addressed was how Cornell could help international students in good standing return to Cornell and return home if they need to. This was the topic of the press statement made to the Ithaca Journal. The issues of student health insurance, a new task force on student mental health, and the unionization of Graduate students that was turned down.

B. Preston said that while the GPSA has not really discussed the unionization vote, he thought most people were pleased with the voter turnout and outcome.

T. McConnochie added that while the members may be pleased with the vote, it is not a sign that the GPSA is problem-free.

K. Reardon asked that if anyone had feedback for him, as Chair, that they submit it via email to him.

VII. Adjournment

K. Reardon, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 6:10pm.

Respectfully submitted

Bridget Tracy