Minutes
University Assembly
February 26, 2003
Art Gallery, 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: J.S. Butler, Pat Haugen, Tammy Johnson, Umair Khan, Ellis Loew, Alan Mathios, Michael Matly, Timothy McConnochie, Leti McNeill, Bryan Preston, Ken Reardon, Dena Ruebusch, David Schmale III

Absent: Stephanie Adams, Shelley Feldman, Melissa Hines, Carl Jones, Jr., Josh Katcher, Peggy McKee, Jane Mt. Pleasant, Gregory Pratt

Also Present: Mary Beth Grant (JA), Richard Helms (CJC), Hope Mandeville, Katrina Nobles, Bridget Tracy

II. Introductions

K. Reardon, Chair began the meeting by running through the agenda and starting introductions. He thanked the representatives from the Judicial Administrators Office and the Codes and Judicial Committee.

III. Reports

There were no pressing reports.

K. Reardon announced that U. Khan would be the new TAC representative from the UA.

All written committee reports were asked to be sent to Trina Nobles in the Office of the Assemblies.

IV. Approval of the Minutes

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of January 29, 2003. The minutes were approved as written.

V. New Business

Presentation of the Impact of Slope Day on the Cornell Community

K. Reardon stated that U. Khan had asked a presentation and question session be given on the impact of slope day and where the slope day planning committee is at in there planning.

U. Khan thanked Mary Beth Grant for coming. He then asked if there was an overload of slope day alcohol-related cases at gannett and how does this affect the Judicial system.

M. Grant stated that the cases had remained constant/consistent over the years. From the information from surveys and the hospital, it seems that referrals and health emergencies have stayed proportionate.

U. Khan inquired about the new recommendations, and how this would affect underage students and the drinking problems they’ve had in the past.

M. Grant started by saying there will be greater enforcement by Cornell, and Cornell Police of the state laws, as well as any policies that are put in place. The main message the University will be trying to stress to students is that state laws and University Policies are not suspended for the day, therefore they must still follow all rules.

M. Matly questioned what repercussions would be if an of-age person bought an underage person an alcoholic beverage on the slope.

M. Grant explained that would fall under the trafficking section of the code, as well as it being against state law. This particular violation of the code would probably warrant a sentence community work.

K. Reardon asked what the University Assembly could do to educate the Cornell Community on the changes to Slope Day.

M. Grant reminded the group that the administration wants the event to be fun, but safe. They have given a large amount of money for food and music, in hopes that this will promote fun rather than underage drinking. This could also be compared to an event such as homecoming.

M. Matly suggested that the University Assembly commend the administration for the $100,000 they have given for the Slope Day festivities through a resolution. Also, within the resolution, he would suggest that the University Assembly encourage the administration to maintain interest through discussion and monetary assistance for upcoming years. U. Khan volunteered to draft such a resolution with M. Matly.

M. Grant also reminded the University Assembly that this is an important monetary gesture that’s being made by the Administration, especially when so many staff members are losing jobs.

T. McConnochie questioned if the University Assembly’s voice was needed to counter the Student Assembly’s voice. He also suggested that the group wait to endorse until after it’s actually successful.

M. Matly reiterated that he thought it was important for the group to encourage continued fiscal aid to Slope Day.

Codes and Judicial Committee Business

R. Helms presented the three changes to the code. The first adds “disability” as a protected class toTitle Three, Article II Violations, P. The second change was a language change to Title Four, Article XIII, C3b(7) (page 49) to ensure that there isn’t a loophole allowing students to avoid being found guilty of a violation by simply not showing up to a hearing. The third change to the code would be to change “community service” to “community work” as it appears as a sanction under Title III.

M. Matly asked about the appearance of “organization” in the second change.

M. Grant explained that the placement and removal of the word simply eliminated redundancy.

T. McConnochie asked who would decide if a student was “unexcused” from a hearing.

M. Grant explained that was the decision of the hearing board chair, although the JA must prove the person received notice of the hearing. Also, the burden of proof of a violation still remains with the JA.

M. Matly made a motion to approve all changes.

The code changes were unanimously approved.

Staff Report

H. Mandeville reviewed that elections would be taking place on Monday and Tuesday, 3/3 and 3/4, which included Student Trustee, Student Assembly, and undergraduate members to the University Assembly. She also said that the Employee Assembly was in need of more candidates if they were to hold an election.

M. Matly asked when the email for voting online would be sent out to students?

H. Mandeville explained that starting at 8 am on Monday, 3/3, they would be sent.

U. Khan asked if seniors could vote.

H. Mandeville explained that seniors would be sent an appropriate ballot and were able to vote.

Governance Committee Proposals

University Assembly recommendation on setting the agenda of the meetings of the Leadership Committee

A.Mathios started by presenting the first resolution formulated by the Governance Committee: University Assembly recommendation on setting the agenda of the meetings of the Leadership Committee. He explained that this was a basic recommendation that the University Assembly give the structure to the Leadership Meetings.

H. Mandeville asked if the constituent assemblies would be bringing concerns to the University Assembly meetings or no.

A.Mathios said no, and explained that agenda items for University Assembly meetings would be to suggest discussion for Leadership Meetings.

D. Schmale requested the administration also have agendas for the University Assembly during these meetings. He asked if the resolution could incorporate the administration providing an agenda as well.

U. Khan suggested that the second “Be it therefore” clause should be worded as “�list presented by the Chair of the UA or designate,” rather than, “�list presented by the Chair of the UA or her or his designated substitute.”

L. McNeill wondered if this resolution really gets at the goal of campus governance meeting. It seems one-sided, and it also seems as though it’s more of a resolution for the administration, when in fact it should be an internal operations resolution.

T. McConnochie suggested that the University Assembly lead by example before asking the administration for results.

A.Mathios explained that agenda setting is important to achieve the outcomes that are desired. Plus, the administration will be fully aware of the items that the community leaders would like to discuss, and can then be better prepared for discussions surrounding those issues.

U. Khan described that this would create constructive dialog, it would make the administration aware of our concerns, and would create an awareness among the University Assembly as to what the administration wants. Stating this, it is also true that there needs to be an joint agenda that is productive for all at least a week prior to the meeting.

H. Mandeville wondered if this may fall under a Bylaw of the Charter rather than a resolution. This way it would be the University Assembly coming to the administration and saying, “we have changed our bylaws to reflect that we’d like to meet the administration half way on this issue.”

P. Haugen asked if the job of setting the agenda was part of the Leadership group itself, rather than the University Assembly’s.

U. Khan reminded the UA that there is a new President coming in, and it is important for the Assemblies to have their act together.

D. Schmale suggested since it seemed as though this was an internal resolution, a vote on the resolution be taken.

U. Khan made the motion to remove “or her or his �substitute.” The amendment was found friendly.

D. Schmale motioned to remove the third whereas clause. The amendment was found friendly.

K. Reardon called for unanimous consent. The resolution was unanimously approved.

Resolution on University Assembly consideration of recommendations and resolution submitted by any of the Constituent Assemblies

K. Reardon asked if one of the Governance Committee members would like to present the next resolution.

T. McConnochie briefly explained that this was a resolution to keep the University Assembly apprised of other assemblies’ activities. It would also give the UA a chance to endorse other groups’ resolutions and ideas.

L. McNeill said that on one hand this would make sense. However, with the University Assembly only meeting once a month, other groups may have to wait to send their resolutions off to the president if they’re waiting for UA endorsements.

D. Schmale asked if this resolution were to pass, and the UA were to endorse other groups’ resolutions, and each assembly only passed one resolution each time, how would the University Assembly make the time for all of these resolutions. Plus, what would we do if we had problems with a resolution?

U. Khan suggested that the legislation would get reworked with the University Assembly’s consultation, and then it would come back for approval.

A.Mathios asked if the SA would give an endorsement to this body as well?

H. Mandeville asked if the UA has other groups take back comments to their respective assembly, who keeps track of the resolution? Would it fall into the hands of the Office of the Assemblies?

K. Reardon asked if the UA could send a letter to query the other assemblies about this particular resolution and their feelings surrounding it.

L. McNeill requested the group figure out what their consultation method would be first.

T. McConnochie explained that the UA would only look and make suggestions on the resolutions that were presented to the UA.

K. Reardon asked if this would mean that it would go back to it’s respective assembly without going to the president for approval.

L. McNeill thought that the UA would still have authority over it.

D. Ruebusch also reminded the Assembly that the other assemblies would be sending only what they chose to the UA for an extra stamp of approval.

D. Schmale asked what was stopping any assembly from doing this now.

E. Loew also pointed out the difficulty in differentiating between a resolution that was rejected by the UA and a resolution that was never sent to the UA for approval.

U. Khan also wondered if this would create a power struggle between the assemblies if the UA mandated that resolutions must go through them first.

K. Reardon suggested that he and T. McConnochie write a cover letter to the other assemblies, requesting input on the procedure for reviewing and the specific items the UA has authority over.

T. McConnochie asked what was preventing the other assemblies right now. Has the UA ever asked the other groups for their resolutions, or no? The other groups also have their own charters, so if they disagree with what the UA would like to do, they do not have to include in their respective charters.

P. Haugen reiterated the value in having the endorsement of the UA included in the cover letter to the other assemblies.

D. Schmale questioned whether this was really necessary.

K. Reardon asked the group if they thought this was a necessary and good resolution.

Following-up on our letters to President (Rawlings and future President Lehman)

K. Reardon did a brief follow-up of his letters to the President and encouraged discussion on the policy groups and their upcoming meetings with the President.

The group decided that the Governance policy report would take place at the March meeting, and the Public Service report and the Sustainable development report would take place at the April meeting.

Consideration of Resolution Against the War in Iraq

U. Khan began by explaining that this resolution was also co-sponsored by M. Matly and K. Reardon. This resolution is similar to the one that was passed by the SA. Also, this would show solidarity with the GPSA, SA, and the City of Ithaca, which have all passed resolutions condemning the war in Iraq.

A.Mathios stated that he was not in support of this motion.

D. Schmale questioned the appropriateness of the resolution.

D. Schmale moved to vote on the appropriateness. T. McConnochie seconded the motion.

E. Loew called point of information and asked how he would bring the opinion of the Faculty Senate, of which he is representing, to the floor if he hasn’t had the chance to bring this resolution to them prior to this meeting.

B. Preston motioned to end discussion. K. Reardon calls for a vote. Resolution fails.

VI. Adjournment

K. Reardon, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 6:27pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Bridget Tracy