University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
4:30 � 6:00 p.m.
701 Clark Hall
DRAFT MINUTES

I. Call To Order

Motion was made by E. Loew to call the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.

E. Loew stated that we do not have a quorum. Question on what needs to be voted on, and what does not. May circulate resolution items by email to vote upon.

II. Roll Call

A sign up sheet was circulated for all to sign in their attendance. Those present were asked to update their information on a separate sheet. Present: Kate Duch, Adam Gay, Opan Hammer, Jules Marwell, Katie Whalen, Jim Glenn, Henry Granison, Leon Lawrence, Rodney Orme, Robert Kay, Ellis Loew, Randy Wayne

Absent: Ethan Russell, Arnaub Chatterjee, Yu Yu, Tammy Bishop, Pamela Dusseau

Also present: Charlie Walcott, Kwame Thomison, Amy O�Donnell

III. Approval of Minutes

The minutes from meeting on September 27, 2006 were approved by raising of hands, with one minor change: O. Hammer did not attend this meeting.

IV. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

There were no late additions to the agenda.

V. Announcements and Reports

Chairs

E. Loew said the Chairs have met, and as a result, we have discussed ramifications of the Krause Report. This agenda item will be discussed as part of a general ongoing discussion later under �New Business.�

Everyone has a discussion document on proposed UA Charter changes, which is also under New Business. This is what your chairs have been involved with since the last meeting.

CJC

E. Loew said he convened a meeting yesterday of the CJC. The first order of business was the election of Kathleen Rourke as the continuing Chair of the CJC. There were two topics of discussion. The main topic was the impact of the Krause Report on the CJC, and the second was a general discussion on whether the CJC should endeavor to do anything since they may cease to exist if the Krause Report is implemented.

Finally, there are two attachments in the form of resolutions concerning this, which we will get to under Business of the Day.

Committee Liaisons

GPSA
J. Glenn reported that the GPSA had a meeting yesterday and they went over two resolutions. The first one concerning their disapproval all the changes Transportation Services has made to graduate student parking, and the other concerning the controversy at Hasbrouck over freshmen living there. This will eventually be a part of a larger report regarding Graduate Student Housing in general.

SA
Adam Gay reported that President Skorton came to their last meeting and discussed many issues including Charter changes, the Hasbrouck living situation, collegetown, and the upcoming capital campaign.

Another topic that is coming up for discussion in the coming weeks is that the SA would like to formally request by a resolution that the Campus Store begin publishing ISPN numbers along with the title and author of all textbooks so that students would be sure to order the correct book if they decided to purchase it elsewhere or online.

EA
L. Lawrence reported that the EA is working on a report from a series of forums that were open to staff called �Chili Chats� that took place during the spring of this year. A report is being put together to present to Mary George Opperman and other members of the CU Administration regarding staff taking vacation, or feeling unable to.

VI. Business of the Day

R. 1

E. Loew reports we still do not have a quorum, but we really need to let people know about their appointments to the Hearing and Review Board. One of the things we are responsible for is assuring that the H & RB is staffed at an adequate level. The CJC put forth 4 names to re-appoint people, 1 is an alternate. Ellis suggests that we re-appoint these people, and worry about email voting later, but won�t go ahead if there are any objections. Ellis will write a letter to the President about this.

L. Lawrence would like �non-faculty staff� changed to �staff� in this resolution. Ellis said that it may have come directly out of the charter with this wording, but agreed to make this change.

R. 2

This is part of the overall discussion of Academic Integrity. This is also a part of the Krause Report discussion. The JA met with the CJC this week, and several things came out of this discussion. The first was whether President Skorton is aware of the Krause Report. Indications are that he knows about it, but has not read it. It may be delayed even more so since the launch of the campaign is coming up. We do not know his feelings about it or about it�s implementation. Is it necessary for it to be �all or nothing� or can we use pieces of it? It is also possible that it be moved to the Dean of Students office. The tone could move to a more parental one, as opposed to a judicial one. The code reads like the penal system, instead of an educational document. CJC has decided to continue as if there are no changes in place, business as usual. What was not clear was whether to continue their discussions on having an Honor Code. There are other models besides the Krause report.

C. Walcott states that it would make sense at this time for the UA to review and make a pre-emptive strike, and make a counter proposal to the Krause Report. It would be unreasonable to leave out the CJC as having something to do with it. Also Charlie recommends that we separate the Code of Conduct from the Academic Integrity. They are related, but should not be muddled together.

E. Loew says that we need to gather information from all constituencies on this, and presenting our recommendations. The Code is ours, and any changes that are to be made would be better coming from us in a proactive way as opposed to reactively. There may be a new office that would deal with Academic Integrity.

K. Whalen voiced her concerns that the Code has been written primarily by Faculty, and there has been serious lack of communication or input taken from undergrad or grad students or from staff. It may be useful to convene a committee to delve into this more deeply over the course of the next year in order to facilitate better communication between all constituents. Any changes to the Code should not be a surprise to the Cornell community. She agrees with Dr. Walcott that the Code of Conduct and Academic Integrity are separate issues.

L. Lawrence said that he agrees with everyone�s comments, but it is a problem that we do not know what if anything and when the President will act on this issue. He feels we should do something before the academic year is over.

C. Walcott added that if the UA tells the President that this is something that we want to discuss, that the President will respect this.

E. Loew said that the UA has been discussing this since before President Lehman came. There are two parts to the Code RMPO, and those are theft, alcohol abuse, etc. that the Campus Police use, and RMEE � this is what we are talking about, as this is where Academic Integrity falls. The nuts and bolts are not all included in the Krause Report. Also, said that he agrees that a committee is a good idea, and we should move forward and not wait to hear from the President�s office. There are many issues on how to separate the two.

C. Walcott said that faculty adjudicate over these problems, the list is long, but cheating and plagerism are BIG. He would add the abuse of medical excuses to that list.

E. Loew says that within RMEE there are a number of statutes. You are technically breaking the Code as a student, if you move a slide after you get what you want and do not allow others to see. We have also discussed developing a contract for students to sign, stating you have read the rules and sign to verify that you have not cheated.

K. Whalen suggests coming up with more creative ways besides signing your name on a paper. Maybe during the Freshmen writing seminar have everyone write a paper on the code.

J. Marwell said that it comes up in peer advising, going over the Code.

R. Wayne said that he agrees with most of the Krause report, but has some issues with separation. Would suggest adding a few sentences on Academic Integrity. Having authority, but no responsibility is a problem. We can�t lump rape and not leaving a building together, while leaving civil disobedience in a separate category.

E. Loew said there are differences, and some students would fall under RMEE and some under RMPO. Also, should faculty be covered under the Code? Should it deal with academic issues that rightfully belong to the faculty?

H. Granison stated that we may want to wait to see what President Skorton wants to do. Do we want an Honor Code here? Why go ahead with something that may not be what is needed or wanted? It may benefit us in the long run to wait a little bit.

E. Loew said that those of you who know him, know he is a trouble maker, and the Code is ours. He will not let any president take this away from us, and will fight that to the end. He is not willing to give it up and be dictated to. The president will not ignore us. If the Trustees want to take it away from us, then fine, but we will take care of it and not allow anyone to go around us until then.

R. Kay asked how many people know about this? Can we disseminate it?

E. Loew said he was told by the JA that it is not secret, but doesn�t think this is our place to spread it around to all of Cornell.

C. Walcott said that it is probably not a good idea to publish it in the Daily Sun tomorrow, but that now is a good time and certainly under the UA�s perview to share it with Assembly members and talk about it openly.

E. Loew said that maybe we should list it in the Chronicle that we are working on this issue to generate some input and communication and to raise awareness. When the Executive committee meets next week we will talk about forming a committee, and discuss getting information into the Chronicle.

H. Granison reminded everyone that the UA stopped looking at the Honor Code when President Lehman engaged Barbara Krause to do a report.

R. Wayne suggests we all review the VP for Financial Affairs website, as we would be an unnamed stakeholder and they will come to different decisions without our input.

C. Walcott assured the group that the Krause Report is nowhere near being ready to be released in it�s form until this and other groups are in agreement and it is reviewed by the legal folks.

J. Marwell asked that the group please read the Krause Report by next meeting, and we can email it out to those who do not already have it.

K. Whalen has many questions and requests clarification between RMEE and RMPO.

E. Loew said that RMEE reads like �thou shalt not�� with consequences and procedures, and it is very legal in tone. There should be an educational component to Academic Integrity that is not in the Code, which also includes the principles.

H. Granison added that an Honor Code can be uplifting and positive. Schools that have Honor Codes, the students take great pride in it.

L. Lawrence suggested that waiting until students are here to discuss the Code may be too late. Perhaps it should be added to the recruitment materials, the application process, and the admissions interviews.

K. Whalen agreed with this in part, but to use some of the mechanisms that are already in place. As a tour guide she hears the question all the time that because Cornell is so competitive, �how do people survive here?�

R. Wayne said in reading admissions essays some of the questions on when did you learn to do the right thing are very inspirational.

E. Loew said most answers involve euthanasia, taking their pet to the vet when it was sick. Original answers having nothing to do with a pet are quite rare.

H. Granison suggested that we bring a speaker to campus, McCabe to speak on campus again. Also, with regards to cheating, there are some schools that have testing centers, where everyone is there to take different tests, so there is no way for one to copy from another.

Proposed Charter Changes

E. Loew said he had hoped that folks had a chance to read this, make comments to the draft. The old Code said there will be a chair and a vice chair. Four years ago, we moved to the idea of having an Executive Committee, and this was entered under 3.6, and operated as though 3.1 and 3.2 do not exist. Do we want to continue to have a chair of each? If we draft a resolution to re-number and change all references to chair and vice chair?

R. Kay said that he would agree with that because the current system seems to be working well now, and all chairs seem to get along.

L. Lawrence agreed and had one change and one question. Under 3.6.2.4 should say following �vacation or any break� to make it more general. Also, 2.1 on the next page, why do undergrads have only 1-year terms?

E. Loew said that it allows Seniors to participate, and it allows for continuity of the group, and staggered terms helps with that also.

J. Marwell said that the Executive Committee is just trying to get the Charter to reflect what is actually occurring. Also, another item under discussion is the numbers of representatives for each constituency, as we are having difficulty reaching quorum. So, please be thinking of what you would like to see as far as changing the numbers, or keeping them the same.

E. Loew has researched how the numbers came about, and it is unclear. No evidence has been found. I am sure at the time it was founded, it was politically motivated. Ellis likes 4, 4, 4, and 4, but would also be willing to see the SA represented with a higher number. There is also no problem getting more undergraduates to serve, where there is consistently a problem with getting enough faculty to serve.

H. Granison asked if quorum was set by how many seats there are, or is it set on how many seats are filled at the present time?

J. Glenn stated that with Roberts Rules of Order, it depends on what you are trying to do.

E. Loew said that for Article #1, it gives us legal authority over the entities, when in fact we do not have that at all. The choices would be to dispense with this part of the code, or realize that we should not ignore it, but insist that we are part of the decision making process. The president would have to actively ignore us. For example, GPSA�s resolution to make changes to the parking on campus, this was not discussed with us. They did not have the right to do this. We need to re-affirm our power, and insist that we have to be made aware of these things in order to have input before the decision is made. Policy changes belong to us, and we need to try to gain some authority over it again.

K. Whalen said that the UA needs to reach out campus wide, and be proactive so that departments are aware of our authority.

E. Loew also said that parents are very influential.

L. Lawrence asked what �political consequences� are?

E. Loew said that sit-ins at the presidents office would be a political consequence.

J. Marwell said that she will email the committee lists out to all since they were not available to be distributed at this meeting.

VII. New Business

There was no new business reported.

VIII. Adjournment

E. Loew and J. Marwell adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m.