Minutes
University Assembly
March 31, 2004
Clark Hall
4:30 — 6:30 PM

I. Greeting and Call to Order

David Schmale III, Chair, called the meeting to order.

Attendance:

Present: Denis Achacoso, Pamela Dusseau, Harley Etienne, Alissa Fagadau, Ermine Gause, Vladimir Goish, Henry Granison, Ken Hover, Robert Kay , Elliot Klass, Douglas Kysar, Stephanie McConnell, David Schmale III, Timothy Setter

Absent: Stephanie Adams, Michelle Fernandes, Melissa Hines, Ellis Loew , Kurt Massey, Randy Wayne

Also Present: Katrina Nobles, Rich Helms (CJC), Mary Beth Grant (JA), Sean Davis, and Mat Dos Santos

II. Announcements

The campus code issues will be discussed but the UA is awaiting the arrival of two undergraduate representatives. The issue was tabled last meeting for the lack of undergrads in attendance, some will be arriving shortly.

III. Updates

Faculty Senate: The Faculty Senate met on the 10th of March discussing the issue of academic freedom regarding the suspension policy for faculty, a consequence short of being kicked out. The policy was last looked at in the fifties. Suspension is at least thirty days.

A question was asked if this policy was for tenured and non-tenured. -Yes, suspension for actions of misconduct.

Employee Assembly: P. Dusseau reported for the EA. The results on the EA election and new membership will be out tomorrow. There were eight empty seats and ten candidates. Their next meeting will be April 7. The communications committee currently runs the G-Pad awards (the George Peters awards) recognizing awarded to outstanding staff. This award ceremony will be held tomorrow morning.

GPSA: H. Etenne reported. There was a meeting on Monday. One Issue discussed was the response to the Call to Engagement in which the GPSA encouraged individual students to get involved instead of a collective GPSA response but a letter will be sent this week. This will be posted on the web site. The second issue discussed was the revise of the committee structure. There always was an internal operations committee but it is weak and the GPSA has made the secretary of the GPSA chair of that committee. The GPSA elections are on April 12th. Also after the letter is posted on the website the GPSA is asking the graduate school to send an email to all graduate schools to respond to the Call to Engagement.

Student Assembly: V. Gogish reported that the SA met right before break and discussed the elections which were sometimes controversial. New officers will be in place in the fall. The SA has also been working on the Call to Engagement. Specifically because the questions were so broad, the SA was trying to rework the questions towards undergraduates. An event will also be held at Ho Plaza in which the question on the Call to Engagement would be asked to students personally.

Leadership Meeting: D. Schmale III reported. The president attended this meeting. The focus of the event was to talk to Lehman about meetings with assemblies. The meeting with the UA and the President was cancelled due to lack of attendance but he did meeting with the other assemblies. He talked a little about his interactions with the other assemblies and the bulk of the meeting was on Academic integrity in the undergraduate level, then on to TA’s and professors. Another thing discussed is how the assemblies could interact better with the President on a regular basis.

IV. Campus Code Issues

Richard Helms gave a summary on the proposed change: The campus code policy on underage drinking does not allow placing it on their personal record no matter how many violations that person has. Having this one part of the code set aside send a wrong message to the students and gives the impression the University does not take underage drinking seriously. Without the ability to put this on a student’s permanent record, it severely limits the power of the JA. The policy of the JA has always been to not place a student’s first violation on their permanent record but there should be discretion for repeat offenders.

D. Schmale III mentioned that this discussion was tabled before to hear the undergrads opinions.

E. Klass asked if it was possible to put it in writing that the first offense will not go on ones permanent record. This would put students at ease.

R. Helms commented that the first offense can go on the permanent record if they are so severe so putting that in writing would not be an option in order to continue to have this flexibility.

M. B. Grant commented of an instance were a first violation would go on ones permanent record. At homecoming, a student was caught with something like ten cases or another student with three kegs.

S. McConnell stated that students should take responsibility for their own actions.

J. Gause commented that this is serious enough to affect a students life chances, affecting their chances of getting into graduate school. It is not fair to affect their future for drinking a beer.

R. Helms commented that this single case of underage drinking in college will not affect their chances in admissions. Repeated violations, which are serious, may have an impact on admissions but this is an issue of honesty. Also there is needed leverage to discourage these kinds of actions.

P. Dusseau asked about downloading MP3 files, would this go on ones permanent record?

M. B. Grant answered that up until about a year ago the sanctions for this were about twenty hours of community service and on record until student’s graduation. About a year and a half ago the JA re-evaluated all of its sanctions and tried to have a greater discrepancy between lower level offenses and more severe ones. It was changed to include much less community service or an option of fine and in first offense just an oral warning. In general this is what the JA is talking about in being able to have discrepancy.

A question was asked on when this alcohol policy was first implemented and what was the reasoning for having the policy the way it is now. This is in reference on not having violations on permanent record.

M. B. Grant that she did not know but had a good guess. From Steven Blake, he stated that the underage alcohol provisions were added at the tome when New York State changed its drinking age. Best guess is that at the same time this was done, the school also put in that limitation. It has been effect since before 1993.

V. Goish commented that extreme offenses would signify addiction and alcoholism. Under the current policy, the permanent record does not seem to give leverage because some with this addiction, this does not seem effective.

M. B. Grant replied that Tim Marshell, who works at Gannett, testified that when a student does have an alcohol problem as described, they do respond to some sort of wall. They need enough pain to make it worth their while to look at the issue and enough support so that they can recover. The vast majority of students receive in the JA office for alcohol related incidents are not alcoholics.

H. Etienne asked if there are any long term impacts, examples being professional certifications, sitting on the bar, etc.

R. Kay responded that has sat on admissions and stated that there is no reason to think practices are different from other schools. There is not a move to give much weight on minor infractions involving alcohol. Only when it becomes a pattern or drinking and driving or the degree of the violation, does it become an issue. In these cases is where judgment comes on the individual to be not only an outstanding member of the bar and their own ability to survive an intense educational procedure like laws school. In his own view, he believes that it should not be treated any different than any other code infraction. He is sympathetic and understands the concern but trust the CJC to be compassionate in every context.

R. Helms added that the reason why the JA or CJC specify the severity of the violations because the mechanism of the code for looking at the severity of an individual case is the hearing board.

P. Dusseau added that she had gone through the JA and experienced it first hand. It was not a structure of a “bottom line” policy but of a positive experience in talking to the JA. Law is law and honesty is important. The advantage of admissions is to have an honest view of candidates.

R. Kay also added that the bar certification after law school does not ask for record from law school.

E. Klass commented that he fully acknowledges that the code as it stands is not correct and there should be consequences. He feels that people who have never had an offense has no knowledge of the code until they have a problem. There is nothing written about having the first offense as a separate category. Concern as a student is to have students educated on responsibility.

R. Helms added that it I important to make sure incoming students understand the code and it will be sent to them before coming.

D. Schmale III asked two questions: is underage drinking a problem? Yes. Can this policy improve the problem?

A. Fagadau commented that it is fair to increase the punishment if the students are fully aware of the policies. She believes that it is not fair to assume that students will read the campus code book. She also asked in terms of value added is there so much more value in having that being a disciplinary possibility for the first infraction rather than the second infraction.

M. B. Grant responded that most likely it wouldn’t be part of the first infraction. The point that Elliot made is the plan of what the practice would be, first time offense would not be put on record. But to put it in the code is philosophically wrong because it is a micromanagement.

J. Gause asked what is the end result in support.

M. B. Grant responded that for first time offense, the educational sanction is to go to Gannett for a class. It is a two session course with a survey and an information session that compares students drinking to others at Cornell and nationwide, a harm reduction approach. Gannett is planning on doing surveys to see if risk change.

D. Achacoso commented that not recording violations would lead to rewarding negative behavior and is a disservice to those who obey.

H. Etienne asked if a stranger were to pick this policy up, how would they interpret this? How would the JA interpret this rule in the future? There still is a need for forgiveness.

R. Helms commented that the JA comes and goes but if students want a hearing, there still is that option. We rely on the JA to have this compassion.

K. Hover asked for an explanation further into what the record is.

M. B. Grant responded that in the JA office it is not a transcript and are released the same way other academic records are kept. They are released the same way other academic records are released.

K. Hover asked if these records are only release of the student says so.

M. B. Grant replied yes. All offenses are kept track physically until gradation.

V. Gogish commented that students should not be punished twice. Students are punished by going to classes and community service and should learn from their mistakes but going on their record punishes them again. This smug on their record could have the potential to affect their chances in competing for jobs or graduate school.

E. Klass comments that the first offense if punished regardless if it goes on record or not. Not convinced that there is no reason that a policy written allowing a first offense is not feasible or a proper punishment.

R. Holms commented that how much leverage does the permanent record have? There have been two extremes.

E, Klass commented that he was convinced that the record is not a huge burden however the idea of having a permanent record follow someone is a problem. It can be overly punitive.

Motion to make changes. Motion seconded.
Yes: 7
No: 6
Abstentions: Henry

With abstentions, it is unclear if motion passes. K. Nobles will check Robert’s Rules of Order and get back to the UA by email.

V. Resolution

This resolution is for the equal opportunity in Law school recruitment. Presenting were Sean Davis and Mat Dos Santos.

This resolution is similar to the ones passed buy the SA and the UA. It is to take a stronger stance against the Solomon Amendment. This amendment restricts funding to a school if it denies military recruiters the same accesses and privileges afforded to other employers. However the military discriminates against gays and lesbians and violates the equal opportunity provisions.

D. Kysar asked why this resolution was drafted with the Law School as opposed to all others?

The presenters read aloud the proposed resolution.

It was decided that there should be a change in the wording of unanimous on SA and GPSA because some abstained from voting.

T. Setter asked to join the fair, what does that involve?

S. Davis responded that it was to give evidence of the way the military request for recruitment or policy.

K. Hover asked if this is passed, what are the short term repercussions on the Career Service or ROTC?

M. Do Santos commented that it would not change the policies in the offices. President Lehman would have to respond and take a publicized stance.

S. Davis added that this resolution merely adds the UA’s endorsement.

H. Granison added that it is to speak as one voice and that other assemblies have passed this.

D. Kysar commented that there are serious consequences of the school does not comply with the Solomon Act. Instead of loosing millions in federal funding, we bite out tongue. Yale and Pen and others have attacked this in a direct way that would not effect their funding.

H. Graison added that this would hurt students by giving up millions so it is challenged legally.

Motion to Vote. Motion Seconded.
Yours sincerely


All-1
N: 0
A: Ken Hover

VI. Approval of Minutes

After some minor adjustments Motion was made to approve the minutes. Motion seconded.

Motion to approve minutes is unanimous.
Motion Passes. Minutes approved.

VII. Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 6:00pm.