UA: October 22, 2003 Minutes

Minutes
University Assembly
October 22, 2003
Willard Straight Hall
5:00 — 6:30 PM

I. Greeting and Call to Order

Leti McNeill, Chair, called the meeting to order.

Attendance:

Present: Denis Achacoso, Stephanie Adams, Alissa Fagadau, Michelle Fernandes, Jermaine Gause, Henry Granison, Pat Haugen, Elliot Klass, Toby Lewis, Ellis Loew, Kurt Massey, Leti McNeill, David Schmale III

Excused: Melissa Hines

Also Present: Hope Mandeville, Trina Nobles, David Lieb (Transportation and Mail Services), Judy Echard (Transportation and Mail Services), Rich Helms (CJC), and Mary Beth Grant (JA).

II. Introductions

Everyone in attendance introduced themselves.

III. Orientation

Robert rules:

T. Nobles gave a brief overview and the uses of Robert Rules and provided a “cheat sheet” of these rules which were given to all in attendance. She encouraged everyone to ask questions during its usage and mentioned that the top section of motions on the sheet were the most important points.

IV. Pending Issues

D. Schmale III discussed a letter presented to President Rawlings at the end of last year about what the University Assembly does and what it did last year and see where it is going this year. Outline of some of what the University Assembly did last year:

• Slope Day: Discussion with Mary Beth Grant last year involving such issues such as alcohol related health incidents, an engagement that will most likely continue this year with the UA. The UA worked with representatives from the Cornell Store, University Health Services, and Cornell United Religious Work to provide program documents.
• Formulated three task forces that focused on three issues: governance, public service, sustainable development and the program documents are provided in the binders.
• Action Items: UA approved several changes in the campus code of conduct.
  • University Hearing and Review Board appointments recommended by CJC
  • Renewal of Mary Beth Gants appointments
  • Resolutions:
    • Recommendation for setting an agenda for the Leadership committee
    • Increase the number of employee elected trustees
    • Increase the number of graduate student elected trustees
    • Establishing a new charter joint multicultural issues
    • Formation of a ad-hawk committee to appoint two members of the UA to the Student Assembly ad-hoc committee

V. Resolution Processes

L. McNeill explained the resolution process as follows: A committee or an individual can propose of a resolution in a written format to the University Assembly and as a group the UA has to decide to approve or decline the proposal. With an approval, the resolution is passed on to the president and has thirty days to reply. After the thirty days and there is no reply, it is taken that the resolution is accepted by the president.

L. McNeill also added that all of the resolutions mentioned above were presented to President Rawlings.

VI. Campus Governance Task Force

L. McNeill talked about the idea of having the UA in a position to help support resolutions of the other assemblies so that the rogations passed by the SA can come to the UA and add the UA’s approval to give it more weight when it goes up to the administration.

VII. Goals/Accomplishments

L. McNeill talked about coming up with some goals for this year and asked what others would want to see done this year.

Henry’s idea: The executive committee gets copies of some of the resolutions of other assemblies. The proposed resolution is to make sure that each assembly knows what the other is doing by putting out the resolutions that are being passed.

D. Schmale III motioned to approve the minutes with amendments. The motion was seconded

After some corrections, the minutes of the last meeting was approved by the UA .

T. Nobles talked about there being an opening for Campus Planning Committee; Tammy Johnson was the liaison but had to resign.

There was a discussion of who was the liaison to what committee.

VIII. Overview of the Committee System

T. Nobles spoke about the committee system: the UA committee’s are made up of all of the constituencies on campus: employees, faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students. How it works is each of the various assemblies-the UA, SA, GPSA, Dean of Faculty-works with supplying the people for filling spots. The UA can suggest to whatever constituent group people who are interested. It is not the UA’s job to staff the UA committees.

T. Nobles announces that for anyone who is interested to come to the office and pick up an application. Staffing committee approves applicants.

T. Lewis asked if those who are not yet approved, could they come to the meetings?

T. Nobles replied yes, as long as it is not an executive meeting or something along those lines.

L. McNeill on committees: Some committees are more productive than others and we need to examine these committees and make cuts. She also announces that some might be merging to make them more effective.

L. McNeill makes a call for amendment: to change the absences of new members be excused because of a miscommunication with the absent members.

D. Schmale III motions to approve amendment. Motions was seconded.

Motion was approved unanimously.

IX. CJC

Richard Holmes, Chair, spoke of recommendations from the CJC employee vacancy. The description of the position is an administration assistant on the computer science department.

H. Mandeville states that candidates (Mary Beth) cannot be discussed before the CJC. The CJC appoints while the faculty committee approves.

D. Schmale III moves to approve the entire faculty on the list (third page of the agenda). Motion seconded.

The entire faculty on the list was approved by a vote of 17–0−1.

1. The CJC proposed changes to the campus code of conduct (page 4 of agenda).
2. The CJC also proposed changes to the rule regarding underage alcohol possession. The current practice is if someone is caught with alcohol, a verbal warning is given and attendance of an alcohol education class. This would not go on someone’s personal record.
   R. Helms states current rulings gives the board a lack of digression to the violations to the code. The JA recommended and the CJC unanimously conferred that limiting the sanction to 15 hours of community service and prohibiting violations from going on the disciplinary record do not make any sense.
   (The description of change is located in the agenda)
   T. Lewis stated that the proposed change seems unrealistic and should focus not on alcohol possession but on responsible alcohol consumption.
   M. Grant states that 24. Section B of the code book mirrors state law, reduces harm to students, and sends students to classes. Violations on the permanent record are more associated with probation, suspension, and expulsion.
   S. Adams commented that this proposal would give the JA too much digression and asked what are the policies of other universities compared to Cornell.
   M. Grant adds that compared to other universities, offenders are given the three strike law, is ignored all together, or have zero tolerance. Cornell is in the middle in its guidelines on alcohol.
   S. Adams asked what is the policy on repeat offenders and why did the JA and CJC want to change the current practices.
   She also states that the reason for change is that the system is not trusted in handling alcohol issues. It fails to add repeat offenders on permanent record.
   T. Lewis commented that there is no way to stop underage drinking and is concerned about students who will be reluctant to call for help, such as in alcohol poisoning, because they would be worried about having their action placed in their permanent record.
   D. Schmale III motions to approve A and B. Motion seconded.
   
   
   The vote resulted in 7 YES, 7 NO. Motion does not carry.
3. Change of language for clarification. M. Beth explains that this change does not change the substance but offers clarification.
   Schmale III motions to vote. Motion seconded by E. Loew.
   The vote totaled 17–0−1.

X. Transportation Department

Presented by David Lieb and Judy Ecker.

The documents first two pages (in the agenda) deal with the program. The third page shows the major change which is the large short fall in the budget that had a huge impact on riders.

Student passes are purchased through the university and is identical to what TCAT offers themselves. $100 a semester and $190 a year: traveling twice a day every day accounts for a 61% discount. The parking fee rose 2.4 percent this year

Implementation of “Ride Share” program: to promote carpooling and available to faculty, students, and staff. People can share the cost of parking.

Meeting was moved to the International Lounge at 6:00PM.

XI. Open Discussion

E. Klass wanted to know who had the jurisdiction on changing or adjusting the times of the buses?

D. Lieb stated that this was through student agencies and depended on the supply/demand of busses.

K. Massey asked about the overcrowding in the morning/afternoon buses. What rout should be taken to address this?

D. Lieb replied that if there is a daily problem on a particular route TCAT would address that problem. People can also address the TCAT board members. However increase in service might cause an increase in price.

D. Lieb discussed the parking fee: everyone who purchases a parking permit is subsided by the school. Taking everything into account- debt services, providing a parking garage (which is expensive), replacements, lighting, drainage, security, maintenance, etc�-adds up to $800-$1200 dollars for maintaining each parking space.

T. Lewis asked why freshman pay the highest rates if they are isolated to only North campus parking?

D. Lieb replied that this is to discourage cars on campus as much as possible. There are so many other students, faculty, staff, and guest that there is a need for flexibility.

XII. Adjournment

D. Schmale III moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded.

Meeting ended at 6:20PM.

Respectfully submitted, Kervin Pillot Student Clerk Office of the Assembles

Copyright © 2005–2019, Cornell University.