Minutes
University Assembly
December 3, 2003
Clark Hall
4:30 — 6:30 PM

I. Greeting and Call to Order

David Schmale III, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:45pm.

Attendance:

Present: Denis Achacoso, Alissa Fagadau, Michelle Fernandes, Jermaine Gause, Vladamir Gogish, Pat Haugen, Melissa Hines, Ken Hover, Robert Kay, Elliot Klass, Douglas Kysar, David Schmale III, Timothy Setter, Randy Wayne

Absent: Stephanie Adams, Henry Granison, Ellis Loew, Kurt Massey, Leti McNeill

Also Present: Hope Mandeville, Katrina Nobles

II. Assembly Updates

Student Assembly:

An update was given by Vladimir. Vladimir reported that there was no meeting the previous week. However, he commented that throughout the semester the SA has been very active in setting the student activity fee for bylined funded groups. There are various student groups who have approached the SA for funding for the next two years. Vladimir commented that this task has been difficult because groups have been asking for increases across the board. In addition, the SA has been working on a resolution regarding slope day as well as forming a committee about Cornell’s image.

A question as asked inquiring more information about the slope day resolution.

V. Gogish responded that the SA has increased funding to $12 out of the $124 of the student activity fee, which is about a $10 increase per student, in hopes of attracting more students and obtaining higher profile to come in and to overall make slope day a more new experience for the undergraduates at Cornell.

Employee Assembly:

P. Haugen gave an update on the Employee Assembly (EA). The EA is working on a staff outreach to educate and advertise the EA, GPSA and other groups. The EA has a meeting to meet with President Lehman in January, which will be a “show and tell” on how valuable the employees and staff are and this will setup the opportunity to talk about the questions the President has raised in the Call of Engagement. The EA also has a committee that will be looking at the restructuring of the EA to format it in a way that is similar to the GPSA.

D. Schmale III asked will the EA engage in a practice session for the Call to Engagement.

P. Haugen replied that these sessions have not happened.

D. Schmale III requested if the EA could talk about there strategy for the Call to Engagement.

P. Haugen reported that what the EA is planning to do is to have four meetings at various parts of the campus. These meetings will occur around three o’clock in the afternoon to attract those unavailable at earlier times, such as campus life and dining, and create venues people can come to talk about these questions. The idea is to create a process to engage people in a discussion and have that information passed along.

Hope Mandeville commented that an idea came up in one of her meetings talking about the Call to Engagement and how to address it is partnering up with other assemblies and make a joint engagement.

D. Shmale II added by posing a question to the UA about there thoughts of approaching the situation in that regard. Problems/Comments?

GPSA:

D. Schmale III reported that at the last GPSA meeting, the activity fee was set to $62 from the previous $50 fee. It was a big increase that will provide more money for student activities. A resolution was passed recommending the addition of a graduate and professional student elected trustee on the board of trustees. President Rawlings formal response to those resolutions was to pass it on to President Lehman, therefore the process has to be redone. Ultimately it is not up to President Lehman but to the board of trustees. If the GPSA can get the Presidents support for the addition of the seats, it will carry more weight for presentation to the board of trustees. Another resolution was passed for equal opportunity in law school recruitment. The basis of this resolution was for encouragement for President Lehman to permit the Cornell Law School, and its faculty members, to join FAIR (Form for Academic and Institutional Rights). Additionally, the GPSA passed a resolution regarding Cornell’s logo. The SA also passed a similar resolution. This resolution promotes the idea of returning to the Cornell seal instead of the red box with Cornell lettering, similar to JC Penny logo.

Pat added that the EA passed a resolution to support the GPSA resolution today.

H. Mandeville had a couple of announcements: An email will be sent to everyone about an off-campus housing form Tuesday. It is to make sure students know what their rights and responsibilities are.

There is a committee called a trustee nomination committee and there are two trustee spots, one being an employee selection and the other a student selection.

The President has agreed to meet with each of the assemblies and the UA will be willing to meet with each of the assemblies.

Faculty Senate:

The meeting for the Faculty Senate is convening at 4:30PM.

III. Letters

There are two letters, one is the summary of FYO3 and the other is on the task forces. They provide good summary of what the UA have done last year and the responsibilities continue to be.

Task Force: D. Schmale gave an overview of the task forces. These task forces are similar to committees but more informal groupings established last year form the UA. It came out of the annual advance with President Rawlings at the beginning of the former academic year. These task forces were: Sustainable Development, Campus Governance, and Public Service. These task forces took on a number of projects and ideas. Their reports are included in the program documents in the binders. These task forces would like to be continued for this year but has not happened the last few meetings but hopefully continue them next year.

IV. COC Issue

A. Fagadau reported on last night’s executive board meeting of the SA. Dissolving the Committee on Committee (COC) and replacing it with something that functioned was the main issue discussed. Some ideas were developed based on the EA charter and the current UA charter. A position was developed called the Vice President of Internal Affairs, who would be in charge of the internal affairs committee.

H. Mandeville commented that she is trying to fit this resolution into the charter. A1 of the resolution should belong in the officers section of the charter. It would be a position chosen by the remaining members of the executive board. The VP of internal affairs will adopt the responsibilities of the COC and serve as liaison for all committees to the UA/executive board.

D. Schmale commented more on the importance of this idea, stating the COC did not function. He said it would be great to have an internal affairs setup to get committees going because there often is no incentive or motivation for some groups to keep things together.

H. Mandeville expressed some question about this because she was unable to fit it into the charter because of the language. Changing one thing would affect another. She requested if three people will be willing to work with her and then come back to the UA in January with a new document.

D. Schmale asked if there are any objections to considerations of something like this to be part of the UA charter.

No Objections.

D. Schmale also asked if there are any question/comments on the language portion of the charter.

Pat commented those faculties are employees as well. There is a need to differentiate between faculty and staff because there are some inconsistencies in the language, university wide definition that may have to change.

H. Mandeville brought up two points:

• On Bylaws: They are different in that they do not require affirmative votes to approve the bylaws.
• B11b and B11c have changed significantly from what was there before. We have to look at what were the thoughts behind that.

D. Schmale III added that previously the UA has the overriding authority to approve the removal of a member of a committee. 11b is stating that the committee itself can remove that person. This seems very reasonable if a committee itself decides they want to remove someone and be able to do this without having to come to the UA and puts the power into the committee’s hands.

D. Kysar suggested that the word “unfit” in this paragraph be properly defined.

D. Schmale asked everyone if it is unreasonable for committees to bear the authority to remove committee members themselves rather than it reside with the UA as it presently does?

M Hines asked when would people be removed. She also added that people not showing up to meeting would be ok but for some one who is obnoxious or has the minority opinion, there can be an issue there of people wanting them removed.

D. Kysar commented that a provision be added that if a person objects to being removed, that it can be referred to the UA.

Pamela added that there needs to be more detail on the process of how the committee can remove a member and on how the person being removed can appeal. In B11C, there is some detail about what the IAC can do but, there is not as much level of detail in the other.

K. Nobles commented that the IAC is a committee made up of UA members, so the UA charter is giving them more detail because it is actually UA members. As far as putting in provisions for every committee, there are guidelines for committees in the UA charter. Some are general, however the UA in the past has expected the committees to have some sort of charter themselves, rules, attendance policy. Placing rules for every committee in the charter will become micromanaging. There is a section just for guidelines for committees in the charter and change should occur there when looking for extra guidelines.

D. Schmale asked to look at each issue separately and one at a time:

Looking at B11b:

• Doug’s suggestion of defining unfit: “Failure to fulfill duties” was suggested
• Adding a portion to the charter on dismissing a committee member:
  Add a clause for the ability to object by the individual being removed

E. Loew had a question about B1–2, stating the official contact person be the Vice President of Internal affairs and helps to ensure that all committees are fully staffed. He commented that this is a huge job for one person.

H. Mandeville responded that almost all charters have this responsibility on some officer for their group.

K. Nobles added that the SA has Dina, the VP for internal operations, who handles all of the staffing.

E. Loew commented that there are liaisons from all of the committees that are all on the UA and if there are problems that the UA has, it can go to the liaisons instead of the Vice Chair. It seems to take the liaison responsibility away from them. Each member represents their respective committee and if there is a problem, it is there job to report back and do something about it.

E. Loew also commented that he is not sure the UA uses its liaisons very effectively. It has been almost always a one way street. Seems liaisons only report to the UA. A lot of the things we expect the Internal Affairs committee or chair to do are things that the liaisons should already be doing.

V. Gogish commented that to make the liaisons the actual committee, there is an issue between having the IAC being a committee of people who are outside of the actual committee they are judging or having the actual members of the committees serving on this one umbrella committee. He also added that as a new member, he was not familiar double responsibility mentioned.

V. Approval of Last Meeting’s Minutes

P. Haugen commented that an issue similar came up in the EA meeting about having the minutes reflect a third party view rather than verbatim.

P. Haugen wanted added the issue of the space at Willard Straight Hall that was given to Kinko’s.

Motion for approval of minute made. Motion seconded.

Minutes approved.

K. Nobles commented that she encourages the group to do some goal setting and put it up on the UA discussion board on the UA website. A set of goals will be really helpful.

D. Schmale commented that it has been seen at the GPSA already is lighting issues across campus. There are a number of different avenues on campus working on building lighting across campus. There has been a call, at least at the GPSA, to reach out to reach out to the graduate and professional students and ask them of areas in need of light. This is something the UA can work on as well and the other assemblies.

K. Nobles added that an ad hoc committee in the past worked with campus safety on the lighting issue.

VI. Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM

Respectfully Submitted,

Kervin Pillot
Student Clerk
Office of the Assemblies