University Assembly Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2006
4:30 � 6:00 p.m.
Clark Hall Room 701

I. Call To Order � O. Hammer

The meeting was called to order at 4:37 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Tammy Bishop, Sean Boutin, Richard Depue, Pamela Dusseau, Jon Feldman, Henry Granison, Opal Hammer, Kenneth Hover, Robert Kay, Leon Lawrence, Jack Liou, Ellis Loew, Jim McCrindle, Rodney Orme, Janet Vertesi, Laura Wang, Zuoming Wang, Randy Wayne

Absent: Douglas Kysar, Julie Singer, Christine Tschiderer

Others present: Peggy Beach, Ari Epstein, Dean Koyanagi, David Lieb, Alan Mittman.

III. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda � E. Loew

There were no items.

IV. Approval of Minutes � E. Loew

The minutes from the last meeting on November 30, 2005 were not available. There were no other minutes to approve.

V. Executive Board Report

P. Dusseau said the executive board had approved the members of the University Hearing Board because it had to meet between the last UA meeting and this one.

VI. New Business

Welcome Ari Epstein, new assistant director of Assemblies

O. Hammer welcomed Ari Epstein, new assistant director of assemblies.

Executive Assemblies Retreat

O. Hammer said UA will be organizing an executive retreat where assemblies leaders will try out different models of working together. We will let you know as that proceeds. A proposal will be worked out next Wednesday at the Assemblies monthly Leadership Breakfast.

VII. Business of the Day

O. Hammer introduced first order of business. Alan Mittman, ROLE, has been invited to discuss proposed changes to university policy 6.4.

A. Mittman said that this discussion was part of the stakeholder process in which various stakeholders are consulted on implementation of new policy. Proposed amendment essentially extends original policy, which was limited to sexual harassment, to cover all forms of discrimination. There are numerous and conflicting policies on campus dealing with various forms of discrimination and harassment. His office is the one charged by the Board of Trustees to investigate and recommend action in response to all claims of sexual harassment except those against students, which are referred to the judicial administrator.

A. Mittman continued we have tried to collapse into one policy a mechanism for handling all complaints of bias and harassment. His office has already been performing this function in the absence of a single policy solution, and it has had good results. The policy also removes some arcane language of �cause� and �no cause�. Instead they propose a standard of finding whether a complaint �has merit�. The language enables the office to investigate a wider variety of complaints while also striking a less adversarial tone. Noted that the office only recommends action. It does not enforce action.

A. Mittman asked for questions. P. Dusseau asked what kind of feedback he expected.

A. Mittman said main issues were whether or not what they were doing makes sense for each unit given existing policy and procedures.

O. Hammer�s mobile phone ringtone reveals she�s a Fiona Apple fan.

P. Dusseau suggested that A. Mittman present the changes to the Employee Assembly, as this is particularly relevant to staff.

L. Lawrence asked what are the numbers on sexual harassment and racial bias incidents on campus?

A. Mittman answered we have two types of numbers. One relates to numbers under the bias response program. Involves mostly students in dormitories reporting on incidents happening in the dorms. Mostly helping to support the victim in those incidents without determining the specific perpetrator. There are other cases around the whole campus that involve identification of specific perpetrator. Many situations involve discrimination not meeting the criteria on which our office operates. 2–4 a month are inquiries where no formal recommendation is made.

L. Lawrence made copies of a report from the American Association of University Women on sexual harassment at universities across the country.

A. Mittman accepted the report. He also responded to a question saying that the policy covers all legally recognized forms of discrimination as well as additional forms recognized by the university.

O. Hammer asked for further clarification of cause and no cause language.

A. Mittman responded explaining that the new language is less adversarial and at the same time allows the university to follow a higher standard than legally required in some situations of discrimination. O. Hammer closed the discussion and thanked A. Mittman for his presentation.

VIII. Presidential Search Committee Q&A

Next is Doug Mitarotonda, invited to discuss appointment of next university president David J. Skorton.

D. Mitarotonda said he wrote a column in the Daily Sun yesterday explaining why he thought students would appreciate having President Skorton at the university. He wants to know whether anyone has some questions that he might be able to answer from the 6 to 8 hours he spent with the Skorton as a member of the Presidential Search Committee.

L. Lawrence asked were women and people of color considered for the position?

D. Mitarotonda responded yes. D. Mitarotonda responded to another question saying there is no absolute certainty that Skorton will be around longer than former president Lehman, but at this time he seemed like the best candidate for the position and think he�s a perfect fit to the best we can tell.

D. Mitarotonda responded to another question saying Skorton was very straightforward and upfront.

P. Beach added that video of Skorton�s acceptance address is available online.

D. Mitarotonda said in response to another question that from his personal conversation with Skorton that he is very enthusiastic to work with student government.

P. Dusseau added that he did meet with assemblies leadership shortly before his appointment was publicly announced.

P. Beach said that Skorton has indicated that he will be meeting more with assemblies leadership as he assumes his position.

D. Mitarotonda says Skorton is open to new ideas and coming in with a clean slate. People should present new ideas about how to interact with him and pass them on.

IX. Transportation Roundtable Discussion

O. Hammer introduced the next order of business. There were several guests to discuss transportation issues. At our last meeting, we discussed issues of environment and sustainability since we were charged last year to hold six public for about sustainability and transportation. It�s come out of the forums that one of the issues is that there�s a whole bunch of groups that are working on the same kind of issues and each is responsible for different parts of the issues and there is confusion as to what each group�s role is. We decided to invite members from each of these different groups to talk about what they are doing, how they can work together, and how to avoid duplication. She asked each visitor present to identify himself or herself and explain his or her role.

Stakeholders introduced themselves. They included Dean Koyanagi, sustainability coordinator for the university, and David Lieb, director of transportation and mail services. No members of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Environment and Sustainbility were present.

O. Hammer asked each person to make a quick presentation about the group they represent and what they do.

D. Koyanagi said his group is charged with finding ways to reduce the number of cars on campus without inconveniencing those who drive at Cornell.

Discussion continued.

D. Lieb said he is coordinating with on a report to help shape the Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement. He is consulting with various stakeholders, including the ad-hoc committee, the redbud woods student working group, and university administration to gather recommendations.

O. Hammer asked what kind of recommendations.

D. Lieb said the types of recommendations and extent to which they would implement new policy or infrastructure depends on what input is received from various stakeholders.

P. Dusseau asked what changes are in the works with respect to transportation and will existing instruments through which the University Assembly has representation, such Transportation Advisory Committee, be part of the stakeholder or decision-making process?

D. Lieb first responded about the differences between the Transportation Advisory Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee. The ad hoc committee has a larger university-wide look at transportation policy. The transportion advisory committee is advising just TMS, not the whole university. If there any questions about what TAC should be doing, the direction should come from the University Assembly and that sometimes has not happened.

Discussion continued.

P. Dusseau said Transportation Advisory Committee, because it has become disconnected from key parts, was not considered when president charged the Ad Hoc committee with overseeing the fora.

J. Feldman said he was appointed to TAC this year and had no idea what to do. He walked in thinking that administration would direct meeting and they walked in thinking he would direct it. This assembly should direct the meeting. We provide them with recommendations as to how they should function. Also agrees that TAC should not be charged with overall university oversite, only transportation-related inquiries.

O. Hammer introduced someone who walked in.

Discussion continued.

O. Hammer wants to hear about what TAC and the Ad Committee are doing and how they could use a standing committee on transportation?

Ad Hoc Committee has a presidential mandate to identify transportation goals and what would be useful, measurable outcomes. Wide scope: landscaping, physical structures, business practices. Just beginning to break into subgroups in those areas. Groups will perform investigations in specialized areas and then get together to synthesize findings and recommendations.

Discussion continued.

D. Lieb said Transportation Services and local government are coordinating TGEIS. It is currently in the very early stages of identifying scope and process. Once the scope is in place, the consultants will talk with numerous constituent groups throughout university and municipality. That�s where it gets tied together. TGEIS will generate generic scenarios to respond to changes that might occur in the next 10 to 20 years. That can inform the master planning process for the university. I wouldn�t say there is a disconnect.

Discussion continued.

D. Lieb said again Ad Hoc is looking at broader policy issues while TAC is looking only at transportation issues. TGEIS is looking at transportation growth and mitigation. Master planning is looking at how and where the university develops. Transportation serves all of those. We are developing tools that will enable us to be proactive rather than reactive.

E. Loew said fora coordinated by University Assembly have not produced any useful findings. My impression from what you have been saying is that those fora have not led to any real follow up.

D. Lieb said his impression was that University Assembly would determine 3 or 4 salient items for TAC to act on. We have not acted on the fora [because we have not received direction from the University Assembly].

Discussion continued.

P. Dusseau said University Assembly planned the fora, not TAC. TAC was invited but did not participate in planning for fora.

J. Vertesi observed there is some opportunity for collaboration [on future fora]. Now it�s just a matter of finding the best ways to coordinate what we are doing and what our committees are doing. We can find healthier ways to communicate.

Discussion continued.

E. Loew asked who has set the agenda in the past?

D. Lieb responded the chair typically assembles an agenda based on feedback from the University Assembly. Some times we would run issues that came up in our office by the committee because it has a diverse membership. In the past few years, the UA hasn�t even asked the committee to report back to it.

E. Loew asked why there was a need to form an ad hoc committee when TAC already exists?

D. Lieb said the focuses of the two committees are different. The Ad Hoc committee is looking at broader issues than just transportation policy.

E. Loew asked shouldn�t TAC be looking at broader policy issues? Why should TAC be used for internal decisionmaking?�

D. Lieb said examples of issues brought before TAC are parking policy, how we designate service stations on campus, how to we provide information about transportation issues.

D. Mitarotonda said one proposed idea was a special mailbox where transportation-related inquiries could go to TAC and this could help shape an agenda for the committee.

J. Vertesi suggested that Ad Hoc committee members should attend the next TAC meeting to discuss how they can coordinate and work out how TAC should set its agenda and what it should be focusing on. Maybe TAC is where sustainability coordinator and Ad Hoc committee should go for consultation on transportation issues.

P. Dusseau said it would be helpful if D. Mitarotonda could share what he did to facilitate communication between these groups. We�ll work towards resolving communication issues.

J. Vertesi confirmed that Ad Hoc committee will join the TAC meeting on January 30.

D. Lieb approved of this.

J. Vertesi asked is there a TAC mailing list? There is none.

J. Vertesi wanted to know whether a UA representative could sit on the faculty Ad Hoc Committee on Sustainability.

D. Lieb said UA should contact Katherine Gleason, chair of the Ad Hoc committee.

J. Vertesi commented that Professor Gleason could not be here today.

A. Epstein asked for clarification on the definition of ad hoc committees. It was explained that there is an Ad Hoc Faculty committee which is different from the Ad Hoc UA Committee on Fora, which organized the Redbud-related public fora fall semester.

J. Vertesi said she would like to appoint someone from the UA to attend an informational event on car-sharing for January 26.

Jim said he could attend.

J. Vertesi proposed starting a mailing list on transportation related issues to be administered by the transportation advisory committee.

D. Lieb said that there is a mailbox for transportation-related issues: transportation@cornell.edu. It receives about 100 or so emails a day. Many emails are parking appeals and not policy-related issues. Think about focusing the purpose of it and developing a mechanism for filtering the messages and making sure that TAC is receiving useful input.

Discussion continued.

X. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Ari Epstein Office of the Assemblies