Minutes
University Assembly
April 28, 2004
701 Clark Hall
4:45 — 5:45PM

I. Greeting and Call to Order

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

Attendance:

Present: Denis Achacoso, Stephanie Adams, Pamela Dusseau, Alissa Fagadau, Henry Granison, Ken Hover, Robert Kay, Stephanie McConnell, David Schmale III, Timothy Setter

Absent: Harley Etienne, Michelle Fernandes, Jermine Gause, Vladimir Goish, Melissa Hines, Elliot Klass, Douglas Kysar, Ellis Loew, Kurt Massey, Randy Wayne

Also Present: Katrina Nobles, Rich Helms (CJC), Mary Beth Grant (JA)

II. Announcements

The UA is one person short for quorum. There are twenty total UA members and eleven are needed for tonight’s quorum. No voting can take place without full quorum, therefore there will be a hold on the CJC business and minutes cannot be approved.

New and present members of the UA introduced themselves and their positions.

D. Schmale III announced that May 5 is the organizational meeting but everyone should attend in order to approve the CJC business. This meeting will also consist of final business of the year, vote for chair and vice-chair, and the executive committee will be established and handed over for the new year.

III. Assembly Updates

Employee Assembly: S. McConnell reported. The EA had elections and all seats will be filled starting in June. There was also a meeting with Joan Shepard, Organizational Development Services; she will guide the EA toward a mentorship program with new members. She helped organize what the EA goals are, what expectations there should be, and what mentorship should be.

P. Dusseau added that a resolution was passed in which Stephanie McConnell was the author. Two resolutions were brought to the table, one was passes and the other was tabled. One was to develop a new staff recognition awards committee that would handle the G-Pad award for dedicated service and free the Communications Committee of this and other awards. The second resolution was to make the executive vice chair no longer be required to be the chair of the Communications Committee; it would then be another EA member who would have interest in this. This resolution was tabled to make some adjustments. The EA also met with Tommy Bruce, VP for Communications. He is interested on working with the assemblies on initiatives related to communications.

Student Assembly: K. Nobles reported. The SA was working on appendices to their charter, which has to do with the student activity fee and how they set it. The other is specifically for groups that are in the SAF, what their guidelines are on how to keep their funding.

Call to engagement day went very well. There was a rally at noon on Ho plaza and this later spilt to various dining halls in which the SA members engaged students. Information should be on the web tomorrow.

GPSA: D. Schmale III reported. The GPSA met Monday and discussed various issues. Money for TGIF-beer at the Big Red Barn was approved. Money was also approved for BBQ. Baby changing stations will be added to the Big Red Barn and finally the officers of GPSA took place on Monday.

Faculty Senate: R. Kay reported. There was a discussion of Cornell Strategic Alliance, an agreement between business units and Cornell research and the handling of large sums of money. The discussion revolved around what research will be done, who will call the shots, and the rights and privileges of businesses. There was a UC-Berkley case in which they signed an agreement with business and fine print read that they were not allowed to publish. Because businesses dump huge sums of money, they feel they should have some control. This case is often referred to in discussion. This could be a way Cornell potentially can receive large amounts of money. The details have to be hammered out.

Leadership Meeting: D. Schmale III reported. There was discussion on the role of Gannett in providing medical excuses. There was a buzz that Gannett was being reluctant to continue provide these excuses. There has been issue of students falsifying sickness or death in the family. The question was brought on where this misconduct would lie on the campus code. After speaking to Mary Beth Grant, she explained that it lay under Title 3, section 2 parts B and C of the campus code as well as academic integrity. Ellis has been investigating this and there would be a committee pulled together to see the extent of the problem.

R. Kay added that he received directly from a student an unsealed letter with a medical excuse. He went on to state that he did not want to look at it, just verification that it was a valid excuse. He then gave it to the Arts and Science dean to see if it was a proper excuse. This is something that Gannett should deal with and he does not want to be part of the loop when it comes to the medical history of any student.

D. Schmale III added that part of the problem is that a lot faculty are not aware of the proper process and leave it up to own discretion.

R. Kay added that in this case the student gave the medical excuse directly to him and he does not want to know the students medial excuse nor does he feel like he had the business to know or validate that excuse.

D. Schmale III pointed out that if Gannett does not want to be part of this excuse process, then where would that valid excuses come from?

H. Granison asked if Gannett is not issuing excuses, what is the process. Is it college by college?

A question was asked as to what do other schools do.

R. Kay responded that in engineering, there is a contact person who deals it and works with Gannett. It does not make sense for only Gannett to know.

H. Granison added that in the case of a death in the family, it would go to the Dean of Students. It should be handled by another person.

R. Helms commented that is it that Gannett does not want the administrative hassle of making decision if students are sick enough to receive an excuse. It places a burden on Gannett and doctors might not want to make academic decisions.

D. Schmale III stated that in the report form health services, given early in the year, it could be looked at for the new UA next year.

P. Dusseau commented that there should be some clarification, an education process, of informing students, faculty, and staff on the process on what to do in these cases.

S. McConnell asked what would be the UA role.

D. Schmale III added that this could go to the board on University Health Committee on which the UA works with and the US receives an annual report in the beginning of next year. There can also be a resolution to pass a body of individuals to handle this issue.

D. Schmale III brought up another issue that was discussed at the leadership meeting. Each assembly has their own committee system and an idea that emerged was to conduct an internal review of committees that exist on the assembly; which are beneficial, others that needed to be changed to ad hoc or complete disbandment. Good to do in the beginning of next year.

IV. CJC Proposal

There are three recommended code changes: One thing was a code change, a clarification of existing codes and having community service replaces with a fine. If a person can not perform community service, hours would be multiplied by minimum wage. Propose changes make clearer the practice.

S. McConnell asked if there is a mentioning of individuals because on page two it only speaks about groups.

M. B. Grant responded that for individuals, it is mentioned in a different section. The CJC added that groups would be able to work off their fines.

S. Adams asked why is there an option for monetary fines. M. B. Grant responded that the preference is to give back to the community. There are situations such as sexual harassment or theft and individuals are not wanted to work in community service. Also issues of mental health come into play or lower level offensives such as bike dismount.

K. Hover commented that the third sentence he had trouble following and would rework.

S. McConnell also had a suggestion on the wording.

M. B. Grant responded that she will bake note of all the various comments.

K. Hover asked for some background information: how may actions per year result in fines or community service and what are the hours students get.

M. B. Grant responded that they receive 700–800 cases usually, this year will be about 600 and about 75% do community service. The maximum students receive is eighty. Lower level offensives would not get community service but educational information like alcohol classes which they pay for.

T. Setter commented that infractions that are monetary are increasing but would this clarification not change that?

M. B. Grant responded that it wouldn’t.

R. Helms went on to discuss the other proposals, the second one would take some of the options of individual to organizations now and the third proposal would specify time frames for hearings. Deadlines currently fall under break. This would allow flexibility for parties/

K. Hover commented that he appreciated the need for clarity but he is not sure if these new proposal do that.

D. Schmale III asked if there was any possibility for the CJC to review the proposed suggestions.

M. B. Grant responded that it might be something brought up to the committee but she was not sure of how much time should be sent on it and there are a lot of logistic things to look at entirely.

R. Helms commented on starting everything over from scratch.

Meeting will be extended into next Wednesday, 5/5 from 4:30–5:30pm.