Minutes
University Assembly
March 26, 2003
International Lounge, WSH
4:30 — 6:00 pm.

I. Greetings and Call to Order

Leti McNeill, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.

Attendance:

Present: Stephanie Adams, J.S. Butler, Henry Granison, Pat Haugen, Tammy Johnson, Carl Jones, Jr., Josh Katcher, Umair Khan, Ellis Loew, Alan Mathios, Timothy McConnochie, Leti McNeill, Bryan Preston, Dena Ruebusch, David Schmale III

Absent: Shelley Feldman, Melissa Hines, Michael Matly, Peggy McKee, Jane Mt. Pleasant, Gregory Pratt, Ken Reardon

Also Present: Katrina Nobles, Bridget Tracy

II. Introductions

L. McNeill began the meeting by running through the agenda and starting introductions.

Henry Granison introduced himself as a new member of the UA and Associate Director of Admissions at the Law School. He also attended Cornell Law and served on the Student Assembly and University Assembly as a student.

III. Reports

K. Nobles reminded the UA that the election of Chair and Vice Chair will occur at the May meeting. Nominations for those positions can be given at the April meeting.

IV. Approval of the Minutes

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2003. The minutes were approved as written.

V. New Business

Closing of the Nuclear Reator/Department of Computer Science

L. McNeill stated that J.S. Butler wanted to discuss the closing of the nuclear reactor and shifts in the Computer Science department.

J.S. Butler wanted to discuss these items because of the attention both were given at the Faculty Senate. The administration decided to close the research nuclear reactor despite opposing views of the United States government and researchers in areas such as vet medicine and geology. The researchers approached the Senate and the Senate voted not to close it. In regards to the second item, the department of computer science was cut off from the school of engineering two years ago in response to some computer scientists threatening to leave. The Dean of Engineering had little to no control over the department in the areas of hiring, tenure, budgets, etc. The Faculty Senate opposed the ostracism of the CS department for the past two years, and recently tenure authority has been restored to the Dean, but not budgetary authority. While the Senate continues to oppose this action regarding the CS department, the administration continues to support the arrangement. The provost explained that while the arrangement is unusual, it is working well.

B. Preston asked J.S. Butler what the arguments for closing the nuclear reactor were?

J.S. responded that they were not safety, but rather marginal cost and benefit in operating the reactor. The administration stated that CS offers a service that is important throughout the campus and is, for that reason, set apart from engineering. The Senate argued that the department of English similarly offers a service to the entire campus, but the administration had no response.

U. Khan asked whether or not the point about the reactor is moot considering that the fuel cells will be removed per Senator Schumer’s letter.

J.S. Butler agreed, but said that removing the cells is risky. The other point is not moot.

L. McNeill asked if the Senate has received any feedback at all about changing the CS arrangement.

J.S. responded that the administration has said only that the current situation is unusual, but is working well.

P. Haugen asked if J.S. thought it appropriate for the UA to pass a motion in support of changing the arrangement?

J.S. Butler responded that it is for the UA to decide.

H. Granison asked how tenure control was sent back to the Dean?

J.S. Butler said that the Senate requested that all control be returned to the Dean and the Provost sent tenure control back.

E. Loew asked what school a CS student’s degree is from?

J.S. Butler responded engineering. The Dean is aggravated that budgets and degrees are given through engineering without his having authority over the department.

L. McNeill asked if the UA would like to support the Dean in this situation?

J. S. said that it is not a matter of supporting the Dean, but of questioning the treatment of the CS department.

U. Khan asked if there was a resolution passed through the Senate that the UA could look at and J.S. Butler said that he could bring it to the UA.

L. McNeill suggested that if the Faculty Senate lacks representation at the Leadership meeting then it should brought to the table.

UA’s legislation of Campus Life Committees (Cornell Store, CURW, Health, TAC)

L. McNeill introduced the attached documents. In speaking with Pat Haugen and Hope Mandeville, it was agreed that there were inconsistencies in how the four boards were handled and that they needed more authoritative power. Changes to the documents are bolded. She brought it to the UA for suggestions and/or approval to the changes.

U. Khan asked for time to review the changes and then comment on them.

P. Haugen mentioned that this issue was discussed at the last board meeting for the Cornell Store. First, they wanted “the campus store” to be changed to “the Cornell Store.” Next, the board discussed their role and their level of expertise in managing or running the store. The board did not feel comfortable making decisions or developing policies in regards to marketing, transactions, online merchandise, or areas related to management. They felt capable of considering and approving but not developing those processes.

L. McNeill asked if any appointed members on the Cornell Store board have the necessary background to make development decisions?

P. Haugen explained that the Manager and Service Manager of the Cornell Store are members of the boards along with representatives from the UA, GPSA, and faculty. The Manager and Service Manager would be presenting the ideas, but the entire board lacks their expertise. The board would then approve their recommendations, but not develop policy.

L. McNeill clarified that the board should not be developing, but rather considering and approving legislation and that major policy changes would be brought to the UA.

T. McConnochie expressed that he thought “developing” is important whether or not the board feels they are qualified to. Someone needs to take on that role and it seems that the most qualified people to do so are the board members.

P. Haugen felt that the board’s role is primarily to give feedback and not develop policy.

L. McNeill suggested that they incorporate both terms and say “develop and approve” in the document.

B. Preston expressed agreement with Pat that the board should not undertake a micromanagement role and that development should not be included in the document.

D. Ruebusch asked to clarify that the change in the document was from “developed” to “developing.”

P. Haugen replied that that was correct and the board discussed that as well.

J. S. Butler stated that theoretically, the board is involved in micromanagement. He asked what the board’s procedure for not granting approval was. He gave the example that the UA sends issues back to the JA if they withhold approval and can ultimately stop that legislation. He asked what the Cornell Store board’s abilities were.

There was a discussion about how the Cornell Store handles the issue of withholding approval on an item. In the current language it seems like “no” is not an option, but the process was unclear as the board has not had an issue with not approving policies.

T. McConnochie said that he disagreed with the board acting in a micromanagement capacity, but that “approval” implies that the board may only address what is presented to them and not suggest changes.

The suggestion to change the language to “consider and approve or not approve” was made, however, some members suggested that perhaps this change became overcomplicated. There was a discussion on disapproval procedures. It was expressed it is an understanding that minor changes should go to the board and major changes come before the UA and need not be expressly stated.

D. Ruebusch suggested that the language be changed to “presented and approved” in order to imply the necessity of approval for an issue to go forward.

E. Loew raised the question of what the difference between a major or minor issue is. A discussion followed that concluded that the UA’s use of liaisons to keep informed on the board’s actions is critical in keeping the UA informed of major issues. The problems experienced in the past with lack of awareness were due to breakdowns in the liaison process.

D. Ruebusch made a motion to change the language in all four documents to “and approved.”

The motion was approved with one abstention and no opposed.

L. McNeill asked if there were any other points for discussion.

A. Mathios brought up the point of required written communication from the Campus Life Committees to the UA as being somewhat burdensome. He asked whether providing minutes of their meetings would suffice to save on an already heavy workload.

L. McNeill said that the liaison would most likely be the person to take care of that communication and that minutes were not the optimal summary of the actions of the boards. She stressed the idea of a monthly summary of progress.

P. Haugen commented that the minutes should reflect the real dialogue in the meetings and should suffice for progress reports.

L. McNeill said that there was a difference and that a summary would be more effective.

A. Mathios again brought up the time and work pressures already facing gannett and mentioned their negative reaction to the task of the UA presentation. A page summary takes time and effort that gannett cannot spare at this moment.

U. Khan agreed that it is a time-consuming effort, but an important one in order for the UA to function properly.

A. Mathios said that there is a trade-off between the frequency and cost of providing information.

K. Nobles interjected that the agendas of the various board meetings serve as an excellent summary of the proceedings and if additional information is needed or concerns are raised, the minutes can be used to supplement them.

D. Schmale expressed concerns that these reports would become time-consuming for the UA while the liaison can update the UA in moments. Additionally, he was concerned that the reports would replace the liaison and that the UA was asking for a lot.

B. Preston was also concerned about creating more work. It seemed to him that this document was in response to the failure of the TAC liaison to work effectively last year that left the UA feeling unaware of major changes going on in TAC. He mentioned that otherwise, the liaison system works very well, perhaps it is just a matter of legislating how often the communication occurs.

L. McNeill clarified that the reports were not meant to replace the liaisons, but to serve as progress updates when the liaison could not attend or if the UA did not orally have committee reports at its meetings.

J.S. Butler asked if the amended document was a motion on the table?

L. McNeill explained that the UA decided to vote on it at another time and take time to review it.

J.S. Butler made a motion that it was the sense of the body that the sentence, “The board shall report monthly through written reports to the University Assembly” be stricken from the three documents it is found in.

L. McNeill asked for further discussion.

T. McConnochie commented that he liked the idea of monthly reports, but not written reports.

U. Khan asked whether they were becoming redundant. The point of a liaison is to have committee reports, which may not happen due to weak liaisons. Is it enough to ask for minutes from a monthly meeting.

S. Adams agreed that the use of a liaison in addition to agenda and minutes to keep apprised of the proceedings of the committees.

There was a brief discussion about the consistency of language regarding how the committees should report, periodically versus monthly. This was not to be confused with J.S. Butler’s earlier motion regarding the language on committee reports, which he restated.

H. Granison asked to briefed on the issues with TAC last year that led to the need for additional oversight of the committees.

J. S. Butler summarized that TAC made changes without the knowledge of the UA that the UA subsequently disagreed with and were not made aware of until it was too late.

L. McNeill called a vote on J.S. Butler’s motion. The motion passed with 10 for, 4 opposed, and 1 abstention.

D. Schmale made a motion to strike the last sentence in the second paragraph of 10.7.2.

The motion passed with 10 for, 4 opposed, and 1 abstention.

Campus Governance Committee Final Report

L. McNeill turned the discussion over to the Campus Governance Committee.

T. McConnochie introduced the revised versions of a resolution and bylaw change created by the Campus Governance committee that were previously put before the UA.

L. McNeill directed the members to the bylaw change in section 6.8A. She explained that the revised by-law states that the UA sets the agenda of the leadership meeting.

D. Schmale asked if it included inviting the administration to present agenda items as discussed in the last UA meeting.

K. Nobles clarified that bylaws cannot regulate what the administration does, only the internal workings of the body.

J.S. Butler asked whether the bylaw change or resolution was on the floor for discussion.

L. McNeill answered that the bylaw change would be discussed first.

J.S. Butler moved to put the bylaw change on the floor for discussion. The motion was unanimously accepted.

U. Khan asked for a call to question on the bylaw change. The bylaw change was unanimously accepted.

L. McNeill opened discussion on the resolution.

J. Katcher asked if the members of the constituencies listed in the resolution are typically represented at the leadership meeting.

L. McNeill said that they are supposed to but typically do not.

D. Schmale explained that prior to monthly leadership meetings, a planning breakfast is held with the leaders of the other constituencies to make an agenda.

L. McNeill said that since these breakfasts are poorly attended, this resolution cancels the breakfast and invites them to give input, while the UA makes the agenda.

T. McConnochie did not want the breakfast cancelled as it seems to usurp authority from the other assemblies.

U. Khan commented that this resolution seems to facilitate and organize the process.

D. Schmale said that creating an agenda is important for the dialogue with the administration, but difficult to do and also frustrating when the administration has no planned agenda, despite several suggestions to do so from the UA.

U. Khan made a call to question. The motion was seconded by Carl Jones, Jr. The vote failed with 9 for, 5 opposed, and 1 abstention, debate continues.

There was a discussion on integrating language asking the administration to also create an agenda. The point was made that a bylaw cannot do this, however beneficial it would be in improving the quality of the leadership meetings. The meetings are frustrating because despite several suggestions to the administration there seems to be no progress. Additionally, there is not much time to converse with the administration, but they cannot be forced and this resolution seems like a step in the right direction.

U. Khan made a motion to close debate, the motion was seconded. The motion failed with 9 for, 5 opposed, and 1 abstention.

E. Loew asked if the UA could include the administration in the list of entities invited to create an agenda.

L. McNeill finds the suggestion friendly and adds “the administration” to the resolution.

L. McNeill calls for a vote on the resolution. The motion was accepted.

VI. Adjournment

A. Mathios made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded.

L. McNeill, Vice Chair, adjourned the meeting at 6:00pm

Respectfully submitted,

Bridget Tracy