University Assembly
Wednesday, September 1, 2004
4:30 p.m.
609 Clark Hall

I. Welcome & Introductions

D. Mitarotonda welcomed everyone back.

Everyone in the room introduced themselves.

H. Mandeville announced that Trina took a job at Wells College over the summer. Martin Lang is her replacement.

H. Mandeville also announced the plans for Mock Election 2004, which will include various debates and work to register voters. It will be held October 18–21. More information is available online at mockelection.cornell.edu.

D. Mitarotonda opened the floor for announcements.

P. Dusseau said that Stephanie McConnell is absent because she is on short-term disability.

Attendance:

Present: Anne Marie Aponte, Sarah Cassar, Joshua Jacobs, Kristen Rich, Janelle Weinstock, Christina Yoon, Tim McConnochie, Doug Mitarotonda, Joshua Nelson, Denis Achacoso, Pamela Dusseau, Henry Granison, Leon Lawrence, KennethHover, Robert Kay, Timothy Setter, Randy Wayne

Excused: Stephanie McConnell, Douglas Kysar, Ellis Loew

Unexcused:

Others present: Lisa Gilbertson, Martin Lang, Hope Mandeville

II. Report of the Executive Board

D. Mitarotonda said the Executive Board met to plan this year. They discussed how the leadership could be most effective. They decided they would like to rotate the chair. Mitarotonda gave three explanations for this decision. First, the chair has no real power, so rotating it would not be shifting power. Second, they thought this would be good for the organization of the meetings. Finally, the rotation would only be between three members of the Executive Board because D. Achacoso will not be participating.

P. Dusseau expressed concern with this idea because the duties of the chair run outside of the meeting. She also wanted to discuss how it would affect the assembly to have 4 people representing them to the administration.

J. Jacobs said they addressed these concerns at their meeting. The E-board will meet and create the agenda together, which will make it a combination of efforts from all four members. This means that there would be no problem with meeting with the administration.

P. Dusseau asked if they would have one person to correspond with the administration.

D. Mitarotonda responded no, they would do it together. They plan on meeting bi-weekly.

H. Mandeville said one difficulty of the UA is that all the responsibility always falls on one person who ends up feeling alienated and they need to work on strengthening that aspect.

L. Lawrence felt it is a great idea to at least try; then if it doesn’t work out, they can fix it later.

D. Mitarotonda asked what they would need to do to make the change official.

H. Mandeville said they would need to suspend the article in the charter that governs how the chair is decided now.

M. Lang said that was Section 3.

H. Mandeville said they would also need to change the wording throughout the charter that deals with the chair and vice-chair.

T. McConnochie said there is no need to change anything formally now, if nobody objects and they can write up a resolution or something later.

L. Lawrence said maybe they should just try it out for the first semester.

P. Dusseau asked what the purpose of the charter is if they aren’t going to follow it, instead they should make a motion for flexibility of the charter. Dusseau made a motion to replace the words “chair and vice chair” with the words “executive board” wherever they occur in the charter until the spring.

K. Hover asked if it was allowed in the procedure to change the charter on the fly. He brought up the issue from last spring about the UA’s oversight of other assemblies and asked the members how they would react if another assembly were to do the same thing. He said he wouldn’t like to see a change like that in another assembly.

D. Mitarotonda said that the UA is different from the other assemblies in that it is four groups combined into one. He asked Hover if his question was just about the procedure for the change.

M. Lang said they discussed amending the charter at the E-board meeting, but decided instead of making a formal amendment, which would set a precedent, they would just try out this new leadership.

J. Nelson said he was torn on the issue. He said that if the wording were changed as had been proposed, parts of the charter won’t make sense because they will be silly and redundant, using section 3.6.1.2 as an example. On the other hand, he said, these changes might be healthy and he encouraged them to examine all of the options and investigate them before making a final vote.

J. Jacobs agreed that they should wait to make any official changes. He reminded the assembly that they are working on changing the gears of the UA and trying to find out what the identity of the assembly is.

J. Nelson asked if they could just designate a chair to simplify things.

D. Mitarotonda said that they could.

P. Dusseau recommended that everyone read the charter and see what its purpose is and the guidelines it sets up. For example, the chair is supposed to give a presentation to the board of trustees.

H. Mandeville said the UA chair does not do that.

P. Dusseau said that occurs in all the other assemblies. She then mentioned that a similar issue came up in the EA. She said the chair won’t be alienated if the E-board meetings still occur. She expressed concern about the erosion of the charter.

H. Mandeville said they never meant for this to be a charter change issue, especially not immediately. She was just encouraged that this was a way to change the problems from the past. The real intent of the idea was to combine the four groups and bring them together.

D. Mitarotonda said the UA has had trouble with finding its identity. He asked the members how the group can have a mission or a role. The proposed change in leadership provides a way to do this so each member of the E-board can use their personal strength and interest.

P. Dusseau said her experiences give her a different perception of how to revive an assembly and a different perspective on leadership responsibilities.

L. Lawrence said they should be looking outside the box for anything progressive for the assembly. He asked why not at least give the idea a chance.

M. Lang said that from an outside perspective, it’s clear that the E-board wants to do this and they are just coming to the assembly to ok it. However, unless the assembly is against the idea altogether, if they wanted to elect a chair and vice chair in name only, they could do that and try out the system.

T. McConnochie said that would be counterproductive and we’re thinking too hard about it. There are other issues to get to and they should just agree to try it and move on.

J. Jacobs agreed and said they should finalize the decision. He said the E-board feels that there’s less of a need for formal leadership because the UA is a different environment. Instead of risking alienation of one person, they want to bring the four groups together.

H. Granison reminded everyone that they are already operating outside of the charter because they had no May elections for chair and vice-chair, so they might as well just try it and get on to other issues.

J. Nelson asked if, in the future, the E-board would let them know in advance of issues like this. P. Dusseau withdrew her previous motion and made a new motion to temporarily replace the words “chair and vice chair” with “executive board” until next fall.

H. Mandeville said she was not sure if they could formally change the charter at this point.

T. McConnochie said it was possible.

K. Hover said it would be better not to meddle with the charter, especially if we aren’t sure about the proper procedure for changing it or if it’s even allowed.

R. Wayne agreed with Hover.

T. McConnochie asked if they needed to consult Rob’s Rules or just suspend the charter.

R. Wayne suggested putting off a vote until later.

D. Mitarotonda asked, even if there was no formal amendment, that they just agree on the change temporarily. He reminded everyone that they are already operating outside of the charter.

H. Mandeville said the E-board should work with the assemblies’ office on a proposal. She said this meeting is purely organizational, not a voting meeting.

P. Dusseau said that this issue is about who we are as an assembly and if the charter can’t answer that question, that is something to look at very seriously. She said that before the assembly can have a task and a vision, they have to work on safety, trust, and identity first.

III. Member Brainstorming & Discussion

D. Mitarotonda said that they are working to give a vision to the assembly. Part of that vision is to be proactive as opposed to reactive. He used the issue of sustainability with the campus store as an example. The assembly can ask the store, “How can we help you,” instead of just addressing problems as the come up. Another area to look at is Cornell Religious Works. Mitarotonda said that could be the assembly’s vision: to try and find issues instead of just letting them come to you. Some issues that can be addressed include academic integrity with medical excuses and the JA process for cheaters. Martin has the subcommittee list and Mitarotonda encouraged everyone, by the meeting after next, to have gone out and talked to their constituencies and report back with specific issues. Then the assembly will pick issues and set goals.

J. Jacobs said that in addition to being proactive, the assembly needs to figure out their jurisdiction, what they can do, and where their power lies. The committees of the UA are quasi-independent; they tell the assembly what they do and the assembly agrees or disagrees, the UA doesn’t tell them what to do.

T. McConnochie said the way he understands the power of the UA is that they have jurisdiction over certain areas, like the Cornell Store, transportation, or Gannett, but the administration has veto power.

J. Jacobs said that, in that case, they need to find their leverage.

D. Mitarotonda said the goal is not to push people around, but to ask how we can help and work with groups to pass resolutions.

L. Leon asked what happens if there is some sort of disagreement.

T. McConnochie gave an example from three years ago regarding the transportation department. They doubled the price of parking for graduates and undergraduates. The UA passed a resolution against this change and it worked. He said, in that situation, their leverage was in continuing the discussion to resolve the problem.

H. Mandeville said that Lehman doesn’t really understand the assemblies and their deadlines, which is something the UA will have to work with.

H. Granison said that a monthly meeting with the E-board and the administration will help with increased communication. He said the assembly would need to work together for information because if they don’t know what’s going on, they can’t be proactive.

H. Mandeville suggested a series of meetings between the executive boards of all the assemblies and then with the administration. She said they are meeting with Tommy Bruce to discuss the topic.

H. Granison asked about an event with President Lehman for the fall.

H. Mandeville said they don’t have anything planned yet, but they are looking into planning something for October. She asked for names for the event. It is challenging to set up an event with the president because his schedule is so full already.

L. Leon said that Lehman is a smart man and if his calendar is full, he will only do what he wants to do.

H. Mandeville said she had planned three events with him in the past that he cancelled. So the assembly has to make him want to be there.

D. Mitarotonda said that Lehman seems to be interested in doing things that matter so if they can find burning issues the president needs to take care of, he will come to the event.

T. McConnochie agreed that being proactive is a good idea. Even if the assembly doesn’t have power in certain areas, it has the channels of communications. He said that if they can identify a problem and be proactive, then they will have leverage. He asked how they can make the president listen. D. Mitarotonda said they need issues they affect all four assemblies. He said they have a choice of being a group of four constituencies or one group of their own constituency by dealing with issues that affect everyone.

J. Nelson said that one issue is the Joint Assemblies Multi-Cultural group, which interests the GPSA and the president.

D. Mitarotonda said that’s a good example of being proactive. He said everyone is passionate about something and they can take those issues and act on them. The assembly can also make ad-hoc committees if the standing committees have no work and there are other issues that members want to address.

J. Jacobs said that each member needs to pledge to be proactive and bring issues to the table.

IV. Committee Assignments Review

D. Mitarotonda said that last spring, everyone signed up for subcommittees, which Martin will email to everyone, and by the next meeting everyone should meet with those subcommittees and bring back suggestions.

L. Leon asked if Martin would send out a full list of committee assignments instead of just individual assignments.

V. UHB Chair Assignment Approval

H. Mandeville said they would not actually vote on this issue today because it was an organizational meeting.

H. Granison said they have to approve the professor who has been assigned to oversee the hearings of the University Hearing Board.

H. Mandeville explained that the professor is Professor Sherwin who is an attorney from Ithaca who is now at the hotel school. At the next meeting the assembly will vote to approve him.

K. Rich said he is a professor of law in the hotel school.

K. Hover asked, since the letter assumes the assembly’s response and has already been sent to the professor, if it would be possible to do it today.

H. Mandeville said this is a decision that is usually made in conjunction with the dean of the law school.

L. Leon asked why the assembly is even bothering with the approval since the letter has already been sent.

H. Granison answered that the charter requires it.

H. Mandeville said this case was difficult because the UA doesn’t have meetings in the summer and they needed to assign someone.

K. Hover asked if they would have quorum if they were to have an emergency meeting to approve the professor.

J. Nelson answered yes.

D. Mitarotonda asked if they could finish the current meeting first before discussing the issue.

VI. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Gilbertson
University Assembly Clerk
Office of the Assemblies