Also available in pdf

University Assembly Meeting Minutes
Biotech G01
4:30 � 6:00 p.m.
August 31, 2005

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:45 p.m.

II. Attendance

For attendance see: Attach: 20050831minutes.pdf

III. Information/Meet and Greet

O. Hammer introduced herself as a junior from the Arts and Sciences school. She will be the undergraduate chair this year. She welcomed everyone and instructed them to go around the room and introduce themselves. After the introductions, Hammer explained that, at this meeting, they would go over the UA�s history, give information about the other assemblies, and share their initiatives for this year. She said that they have a structure they think will work very well this year, but I may require meeting more than once a month or having committee meetings, which is something they have to talk about.

II. History/Structures and Procedures

E. Loew said that there have been two substantive changes in the UA in the past two years, both of which affect how the UA will work. The first has to do with the chair. Originally the UA was supposed to have one chair. However, last year they experimented with chair by committee, which they will be continuing this year. They executive board has decided that this year they will look at changing the charter to reflect this. The second change has been the committees, which are structured very differently now. First, the committee on committee mentioned in the handbook no longer exists. The Codes and Judicial Committee, which is associated with the Judicial Administrator and the Red Book, is a very active committee. They work on changing the codes, rules, and the way the office itself functions. In terms of their standing committees and boards, they have fiscal responsibility over four entities on campus: University Health Services (UHS), Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), the Campus Store, and Cornell Religious Works advisory board (CRW). Loew explained that what that used to mean was that these groups would present a report to the UA at the end of the year. They would inform the UA of what they were doing. Then, regardless of whether the UA had said yes or no, they would do whatever they had planned to do. For instance, if TAC wanted to raise parking rates and the UA objected, they would raise the parking rates anyway. Last year, the UA more clearly defined their role in relation to these committees. The University Health Service board was dissolved; they decided it would operate on a more ad hoc bases. TAC is very active and happy to have UA input. The Campus Store apparently has meetings all the time and the UA could, and probably should, send a representative. CRW basically told the UA to stay out of their business. They felt that the committee was not meeting their needs. They wanted a committee centered on religious sects rather than a committee that represented different constituencies. The UA will have to work out what their involvement with CRW will be. The executive board plans to bring the charter more realistically up to date in regards to what the UA can actually accomplish with these committees.

L. Lawrence asked if the proposed charter changes would only need a majority vote to pass.

P. Dusseau said that, since it is a charter change, it would require a 2/3 vote. It would then have to have presidential approval. Then it would go to the board of trustees for approval.

P. Dusseau proceeded to explain the structure and procedures of the UA. The UA is the umbrella assembly for the EA, GPSA, and SA. The different constituent assemblies are supposed to report to the UA. Part of the reason that there are liaisons fro the other assemblies to the UA is that they are supposed to attend the meetings and then report anything noteworthy to the UA. The reason that there needs to be four different assemblies is this: if an issue is based in just one constituency, the assembly for that constituency would handle it. However, if the issue spreads into other constituencies, then it is funneled through the UA so they can deal with it on a larger scale. In the past, the communication between the assemblies has broken down and the UA has not used its authority to make those assemblies report on what they are doing. This year, they hope to establish more effective communication. One way to accomplish this is through executive breakfast meetings with Tommy Bruce once a month. Bruce has made these meeting more effective and more initiative-driven, which benefits the UA. Bruce invites one member of the senior administration to the breakfasts. This person would talk about what they do and then the executive members from the assemblies would talk about their initiatives that are relevant to the area that the administrator works in. Then it is the responsibilities of the assembly executives to keep in touch with those administrators. Pam said that Tommy is very supportive of what the UA does. The UA executives plan to use those breakfasts to communicate effectively what the UA initiatives are and to get feedback from administrators. In terms of operation, the UA operates according to Roberts Rules. However, they loosely define that. They want to look at the meetings as more of an open dialogue. They would like to have some order, but anyone can bring up an initiative. There are a few ways to go about doing that, such as adding it to the agenda by sending it to Martin Lang, the UA coordinator.

M. Lang said that, in the future, they want to try to get agendas and supporting materials in advance of the meetings and it is the responsibility of every member to read them prior to the meeting.

P. Dusseau said another way to bring up an initiative is by writing a resolution. She said that the UA members shouldn�t feel confined by the rules, the charter, or Roberts Rules. There are ways to get involved and she encouraged everyone to do so.

IV. Initiatives

O. Hammer said that the UA has been given one initiative and the executive board has come up with two others. They have been assigned to the Redbud Woods/Transportation issue. They have been assigned the task of putting on six forums regarding environmental initiatives, transportation, and related issues. They plan to, in their structuring of committees, have one committee be in charge of this task. They also would like to create themed taskforces to tackle their other two initiatives: one will be on campus safety; the other will be on academic integrity.

L. Lawrence asked who had assigned them the transportation issue.

P. Dusseau said that President Rawlings had assigned this task. They hope that one senior administration would come to each forum and be a panelist to answer questions.

L. Lawrence asked if they would be open to all sides of the issues.

P. Dusseau said yes, they would.

E. Loew said that the topic of each forum will determine the administrator who participates.

P. Dusseau said that the issue of academic integrity was posed to the UA last year by Dean of Faculty, Charlie Walcott.

R. Wayne said that the issue was raised, in part, because professors of large classes wanted to know how best to deal with excuses for exams. Gannett was taking care of some of them, others weren�t so clear. The discussion boiled down into the deeper issue of academic integrity and how we can create an environment for academic integrity. Last year they discussed things like honor codes. They would like to teach themselves as well as the university�s students academic integrity.

P. Dusseau said former president Lehman charge the UA, at one of their meetings, to have a dialogue and make recommendations to the administration about academic integrity. He has asked for some sort of report or document. He is not here now, but Dean Walcott still thinks that this is an important issue and a need of the community regardless of which administration is here.

M. Lang said when Lehman had come he was very pleased and impressed with the group. He had been planning on making an administrative group to deal with the issue, but then changed his mind and said that the UA was really the right forum to accomplish that task. This is one way that the UA can really increase its visibility and legitimacy as a body. Though the issue is long-term, the UA can have minor goals and get things accomplished along the way.

O. Hammer said that the UA had gotten started on campus safety last year. She recently met with Bob Harrison and Doug Mitarotonda and found that the trustees have created their own committee called campus life. Their number one issue or initiative this year is going to be campus safety. The executive board would also like the UA to go forward with campus safety. They thought the task force could be comprised mostly of assembly members with some members of the administration sitting on it.

P. Dusseau pointed out that the trustee�s committee was also going to look at other issues like dining and housing.

V. Structure

J. Vertesi said that the executive board feels that they need to create some longer standing committees that will be engaged with the community. They also have opportunities to do things just this year, more short-term things. They feel that the structure of the UA and its committees should reflect that. They came up with an idea of how to operate for this year. First, they will have sets of liaisons (four): one to CRW, one to TAC, one to the Cornell Story, and one to Gannett. Instead of committees for those four groups, they think liaisons will be more effective for communicating and getting things accomplished. Second, they want to create some long-term taskforces that will have some sort of continuity. These task forces would be academic integrity and campus safety. With this structure, the UA can sit committee members and do more work outside of the UA meetings. Third, they plan to keep the CJC active and on the agenda. Fourth, they would like to create some special committees, which would have a theme for the year based on tings that they need to accomplish for that year. This year, that theme has been given to them � the six forums. They feel that this structure will make them a much more proactive body and they can feel that they�ve actually accomplished something. Finally, the executive board plans to work on their own project, which is changing the charter to reflect the four chair operation. They want the charter to enable the UA, not restrict it. Many of the things that the UA will be doing are coming out of what was done last year and comments made by those assembly members

L. Lawrence asked where the money for things like these forums would come from. Did the administration offer funding or are these mandates without funding? He felt that the president�s office should have some responsibility in providing some funding for these activities.

P. Dusseau said they have the opportunity to create their own budget and propose it to Tommy Bruce. All the other assemblies have their own operating budgets. There has never really been an effort to pool money for the UA before. One option might be to try and get money from the constituent assemblies. Another option is to go straight to Tommy Bruce. Martin Lang had said that they should put together a budget; either the executive board can do it or the UA as a whole can do it. The plan is to make it sustainable, not just based on funds for one year

E. Loew said that in the past they would just use money from the Office of Assemblies budget. However, it is clear that if they want to undertake things like holding forums, they need their own budget. It would not be appropriate for the to ask the Office of Assemblies for that much money. He expressed the opinion that the UA should have its own standing budget; it would put them on the map and give them legitimacy.

P. Duseau mentioned that, in the past, they usually have had an �advance� in October � a joint meeting of the assemblies and members of the senior administration. It is a nice way to kick things off and meet people from the other assemblies. They could base the meeting on anything or make it theme based. It just serves as a starting point for dialogue.

L. Lawrence asked if they had defined anything in regards to what the UA is going to do with the other assemblies and how they will interact this year. He suggested that might be a good topic to address.

O. Hammer said that, in terms of the taskforces, they want to reach out to other assemblies for membership, but have four UA members as the core.

P. Dusseau said they could do something as simple as having everyone talk about what they�re doing this year and look for overlaps.

There was a motion to have an advance. It was seconded. The motion to have an advance was approved by a vote of 14–0−1.

J. McCrindle asked if there would be any type of follow ups with the other assemblies after the advance. In his opinion, there should be.

O. Hammer said they could do something like have a mid-semester follow up and then some sort of closing report.

J. Vertesi said that this would really start the UA off as being the umbrella organization for the assemblies.

L. Lawrence asked how they planned to staff the proposed committees.

J. Vertesi presented the following structure: Executive Board (4) Liaisons (4)

	-CRW (1)	-TAC (1)
	-Store (1)	-Gannett (1)

Taskforces (8)

	-Academic Integrity (4)		-Campus Safety (4)

CJC (1) Special Committee (Redbud) (4)

M. Lang said that he would suggest not changing the number of people on CJC without making an actual charter amendment. It seems to be functioning well as it is.

J. Vertesi asked the assembly their opinions on the structure.

C. Tschiderer said that she thought they should have more people on the task forces.

J. Vertesi said that they should have one UA representative from each of the constituencies (undergraduate, graduate, faculty, staff).

J. McCrindle suggested sending more than one representative to TAC since they had mentioned how active it is.

J. Vertesi said that perhaps that person could also be a member of the special committee.

O. Hammer said that the reason for having only four is that part of their job will be to determine how many people they will need on the committee and where they want them from.

L. Lawrence said he�d like to volunteer to be the liaison for Gannett and on the Academic Integrity taskforce.

O. Hammer thanked Lawrence for his enthusiasm and said that sounded great. She said they�d like to give the members a week to think about it. At the end of the week, they should send an email with their first, second, and third choice positions. Based on those priorities, they will assign people to positions.

J. McCrindle asked if they knew how often any of the groups would be meeting.

J. Vertesi said that it is up to the taskforce how often to meet and the members should give a report to the UA at each meeting.

P. Dusseau said they realize that this is a volunteer organization and everyone has other priorities that come first. All they ask is that everyone do their best and there should be some flexibility in the meeting times and requirements.

J. Vertesi said that the goals and initiatives of each committee will allow the members to see how often they need to meet. Some groups may be able to get things accomplished mostly by email with very few meetings.

L. Wang asked if the only positions that don�t have flexibility in scheduling would be the liaisons.

O. Hammer answered yes, because the liaisons have to go to those groups� scheduled meetings.

L. Lawrence asked if everyone could find out when the committees meet before they commit to anything.

M. Lang said yes, he would find out and let the members know about meeting times in an email in the next week or so.

P. Dusseau asked the assembly if they could think of any huge issues on campus that are missing from the structure as they set it up.

G. Curtis asked for more clarification about the CJC.

E. Loew explained that it is an already established committee. The UA member is just an ex officio member of the body. What usually happens is that Tammy Bishop from the Office of Assemblies will ask someone from the UA to convene the first meeting of the CJC. The convener establishes the chair of the CJC. Then the convener just becomes an ex officio member of the CJC. The CJC will then set their schedule. Since they supposedly haven�t met yet this year, they might not have a schedule yet.

M. Lang said that they have elected a new chair.

P. Dusseau said that the liaison to CJC should go whenever they can. That way they can provide the UA with more information about things like proposed changes. Also, the UA member can advise them on how the UA might react to certain policy changes. The UA member is ex officio so they can act in an advisory type of role.

M. Lang said that, for instance, at the last UA meeting of last year, CJC proposed a change to the alcohol policy, which was voted down by the UA. Part of the problem was that the members found out about the proposed change on the day of the meeting. If there was a UA liaison who could have reported on something like that, it may have gone much more smoothly.

E. Loew said that the UA technically has responsibility over the four previously mentioned programs, but, in practice, that doesn�t really happen. The CJC is the one case where that is different. There will absolutely not be a change to the judicial code unless there is a positive vote from the UA. The JA can�t make a change; the president can�t make a change. That is the one big difference functionally between the CJC liaisons and the four other liaisons.

L. Lawrence said he thinks the most important thing is campus safety. He asked if it would be appropriate for the UA to have a role in the presidential search.

O. Hammer said that the only thing the UA can really do is to throw in names that the company that has been hired will search through. Making it an initiative is probably not worth the UA�s time unless someone is very adamant about one particular candidate.

L. Lawrence asked if it would be appropriate or plausible for them to make a list of characteristics they would like to see in the next candidate.

M. Lang said that the UA has been gaining political capital, but they are probably not yet in a position where they want to be supporting one person. It could easily put them in front of a political steam roller when there are better, more effective ways to put themselves on the map and spend their political capital.

J. Vertesi said she felt that any involvement of the UA would be seen as an intervention because the process for choosing a new president has already been set. The UA should stay aware of what is going on, but she doesn�t think they should actively do anything.

O. Hammer said that it is fine for them to discuss, but if the UA really is growing in power and wants to gain a voice, they need to be supportive of the process, but not get their hands dirty in it.

P. Dusseau said that she thinks the administration is already doing a good job to reach out to the community. They can encourage people to have a voice and mobilize their constituencies, but the don�t necessarily need to be making any statements about where they stand.

O. Hammer asked if there was a general consensus that the proposed structure is good. Is there anyone opposed to it?

L. Lawrence said it seems good and they can just go ahead and tweak it as they go along if need be.

E. Loew said that this is really just a proposed map.

L. Wang asked if any of the changes required a charter change.

O. Hammer said no, all the created committees are ad hoc and according to charter guidelines. If they agree later on that this structure really is effective, they can work on charter changes then.

M. Lang reminded them that this is the third year of experimentation and operation outside of the charter. That is part of the reason the executive board is actually trying to address some of those issues; for instance, amending the charter to reflect the four chair system.

E. Loew said that it is the members of the assembly who agree to the rules of the charter, so if they all agree that something is for the better, they might as well do it. The only people who would point fingers would be themselves.

VI. Meeting

O. Hammer said that their next meeting will be September 28. She said that ideally within a week they will meet to outline the committees. The UA members should try to meet with their respective committees before the UA meeting on the 28th.

P. Dusseau said that if anyone wants a member of the executive board to attend these first committee meetings, just ask them and they�d be glad to.

E. Loew said that if there�s one priority, it is the Redbud Woods issue and forums because they have been given that charge.

P. Dusseau said that they will also work on getting the advance together.

VII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Lisa Gilbertson University Assembly Clerk