University Assembly Minutes
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
701 Clark Hall
4:30–6:00pm
MINUTES

I. Call to Order

J. Glenn called to order at 4:46pm.

II. Roll Call

Attendance was taken by sign in sheet.

III. Call for Late Additions to Agenda

There were no late additions to the existing agenda.

IV. Approval of Minutes from November 29, 2006

D. Rosen said he was present, asked that we change his remarks to “not surprised” late in minutes on page five.

On page nine, the person quotes is not K. Whalen, it is K. Duch.

D. Rosen moved to accept the minutes. R. Kay seconded. Minutes were accepted with amendments.

V. New Business

a. Election of a chair and vice-chair

b. R.3: Resolution Establishing Liaisons to Committees

J. Glenn skipped section (a) first.

J. Marwell introduced this resolution for the purpose that when we give out committee assignments, they know what to do. We’ll give them a deadline when to meet and when to report back. The point is just to clarify liaison roles.

J. Glenn asked if there were questions, but there were none, so he moved to debate.

A. Epstein had a question wondering how many people were aware that committees are required to make a report at the end of the year.

J. Marwell said that if there were any changes or questions about responsibilities, they should email her so she can change that.

E. Sanders asked how do you publicize meetings.

A. Epstein said our office helps publicize on the website. The UA has a significant budget left, and they can put that in The Daily Sun or they can coordinate in the Chronicle or the Pawprint for employees. Are there any suggestions about the best way to reach faculty?

E. Sanders suggested sending out emails.

K. Duch said in the resolution, there are some things that should be going on with the chairs of the committee, not the liaisons. Liaisons are just members who reports back to the bigger body. From this, it sounds like they are developing the meeting, carrying the meeting, making minutes, etc.

J. Marwell said only two committees are meeting on their own, and they need a liaison from the UA to get everything going.

M. Hatch said just a point of information, the code of judicial keeps minutes, so we don’t need a liaison to be doing that.

K. Duch was confused because it says liaison chairs the meetings on line three. It just doesn’t seem to that is a liaison’s responsibility. Why is it there?

A. Epstein said a lot of committees haven’t met perhaps even in several years. We need to give direction to the liaison to start where none might exist.

D. Rosen asked for the committees in place, are we just looking for a liaison?

A. Epstein said it depends on the committee. Some have been partially staffed, but there is no leadership to get things moving in most committees. CJC is the notable exception.

Since there were no more questions, J. Glenn moved the discussion to debate.

A. Stroock said there are so many committees, he had a question about whether some of them should exist? If we sign on to this, we will be taking on a lot of responsibilities. Shouldn’t we just trim down to the essentials?

J. Marwell said they already have the committees, but we are just trying to get them back in motion. In theory, this should already be happening.

A. Epstein said the intention of point six is that it deliniates the responsibilities of the liaisons. Perhaps some committees need to be changed significantly, and the liaison would be in the best position to recommend what changes are necessary.

J. Glenn said that is a very valid point, but it might involve another resolution to hack up the charter.

Since there was no more debate, J. Glenn moved to voting on resolution three for establishing liaisons to committees.

The vote was 5–5−0.

E. Sanders asked why people were opposed since the vote was so split.

J. Marwell said CJC is pretty much the only functioning committee other than TAC.

A. Epstein said TAC actually hasn’t met this year because for every meeting, they need to go through the Office of Assemblies.

A male representative pointed out that Dan Brown was just elected to TAC.

A. Epstein asked if he was directed to do something specifically. What was he asked to do?

R. Orme said to convene TAC.

J. Marwell said he was appointed to chair also.

A. Gay said we might need a charter change to trim down committees. Is it worth it to have that discussion? If we jumpstart these committees, they might not survive anyway. Maybe we should just discuss the point of having these committees. He doesn’t see the reality in trying to jumpstart all the committees at once.

R. Kay asked about the Campus Planning Committee. It is a large, well-functioning committee right?

A. Epstein said it has not reported yet.

R. Kay asked if it was operating nonetheless.

T. Bishop said it’s not reporting, but in past, it falls under its own department. The UA sent a liaison just as a listener to find out what’s going on, to email the listserv, and to report back, but the liaison doesn’t vote on anything.

R. Kay said liaisons don’t vote on anything. The descriptor is it must widen the difference.

D. Rosen asked why doesn’t the chair of the committee prepare the report rather than a separate liaison.

A. Epstein said the background is better. The appointment of the chair is not very clear in the charter, and it might vary. The UA appointment or committee has a vote within itself. All functions that the chair is expected to do are not happening because the committees haven’t met, so there is no chair. That is what this resolution is getting at. Also with feedback from the Office of Assemblies, out of all the committees that are supposed to be helping the UA develop recommendations about campus function, almost none or them are meeting. The Campus Planning Committee is meeting but not reporting, and the Budget Committee hasn’t been meeting.

T. Bishop added that had been the case for at least 6 years.

A. Epstein said the Board on University Health Services hasn’t met in 6 years either.

T. Bishop said it turned into the one that EA does with the Faculty Senate. It ended up morphing into something else.

A. Epstein had a question from the Office. How do you plan to get committees restarted or do you think it would be better to come to a consensus if the committees should continue to exist and modify charges?

R. Kay asked if United Religious Works still meets.

T. Bishop said they didn’t want anything to do with the UA, the same for the Campus Store.

R. Kay said we had oversight with Campus Store and United Religious Works, but now they are sailing off in their own direction. It wasn’t clear if they wanted our input. The committees are not at all in same boat; some autonomously run in their own direction.

J. Glenn suggested two different categories: ones that are meeting and not responding and ones that aren’t meeting at all.

R. Kay said the ones that are meeting but not responding don’t think we have anything useful to say. We agreed and it was mutual. They might want to know what we think, but they’re not going to change their policy. They have evolved into something else, and it may be dangerous because we lost our power. But re-creating it now, that would be strange.

H. Granison said standing committees are the ones we have policy over. He asked about the committees that haven’t met in last six years, are there people on those committees?

A. Epstein said some are staffed and people are applying for them, but we can’t tell them what to do because there is no chair and no agenda. His question for the UA was if you don’t think some committees need to exist, they should be taken off books. If they need to exist, i.e. diversity is very hot button issue, and we’ve gotten feedback from SA members, does there need to be more effort in that area? Does it need a different name? Right now, on the books, it is difficult to accommodate something that only exists on paper.

E. Sanders said she is influenced by having a graduate class on bureaucracy and overseeing bureaucracy. In Congress, there is a contrasting model of police patrol and fire alarm. Police patrol is if they want a liaison on everything. It’s very time consuming and a wasted effort. Fire alarm is when a group does something really bad and you hear about it, then you take it on. If we are not prohibited from looking into something that arises, then our points about our reluctance to have liaisons are well taken. Religious Advisory Board, the Cornell Store, or the Diversity Board will be revived in ground level arenas. If something goes really wrong with how they handle it, then we can get involved. Religious Works, etc. can be handled at lower level. We would do a better job at active oversight of major structural committees. For example, if we become suddenly aware that the Planning Committee is approving big projects that just sail through putting concrete everywhere, we need to look at that. Is financial aid well managed at lower level? If there is a lot of conflict, then we can help. We need to pare it down and target our work, with more energy and activity, and deal with what is essential.

L. Lawrence agreed with A. Epstein. We should decide which organizations are important or not and what their goals and purposes are. If they are not actively engaged, a resolution on paper is not the way to go.

E. Sanders asked if it was appropriate to suggest removing some committees before voting.

J. Glenn said it depends on what you are going to say. Charter changes are inappropriate now.

E. Sanders asked how complicated it is to change the UA’s charter.

A. Gay asked if we could table the resolution now and vote later. What can we do now?

J. Glenn said it’s just a resolution and we can do what we want with it.

A. Epstein said a pattern of discussion of charter changes is in the abstract. If you read through the charter, you need to write up a formal proposition of what to remove and make a formal presentation to remove it. How will we get to this point? The liaisons proposal was if you appoint someone to look into for example the Cornell United Religious Works, and they say we don’t need that committee, then we could work on the resolution. If you are uncomfortable with writing a resolution, the Assemblies office can help you turn your ideas into all the “whereases” and “therefore be resolveds.” The process of getting to a consensus to approve or a formal record of that has not materialized. The approach doesn’t make sense, so we need an alternative.

J. Glenn addressed A. Gay, saying we can table this until a specified date in the future or a defined time when we will come back to it on the agenda. We can form an ad hoc committee to sit down and look at the charter.

A. Gay said the SA needs two meetings before charter changes at least. Are there any regulations like that or can we vote by the next meeting?

J. Glenn said since we don’t meet as often as the SA, we can vote by the next meeting.

E. Sanders asked if it is plausible to have temporary liaisons to sit in and get a sense of what’s going on and the issues rising or issues that could be addressed by the UA. Can we just take that paragraph that establishes committees and just mark stuff off; it’s so simple, why can’t we just do that?

J. Glenn wanted to keep things separate. We should discuss the resolution or make charter changes. He is uncomfortable to do both now.

E. Sanders commented on how complicated the system is.

J. Glenn said it doesn’t happen often because people are busy.

L. Lawrence wanted to make clear that it’s the UA who determines what is and what is not important, not the Cornell Store, Gannett, or Religious Works. We need to decide among ourselves, not give that authority up.

E. Sanders asked if they could change the resolution where some committees have liaisons and others don’t?

K. Duch suggested taking out committees that aren’t active or not sure about, but we could say these committees should still have responsibilities and liaisons. It’s not a charter change, but just those committees aren’t required to do something by the end of the semester.

E. Sanders asked if these were committees under UA. Religious Works does exist and it needs to exist. Each just has life and authority of its own.

A. Epstein clarified that these committees are all defined as standing committees of the UA.

R. Kay motioned to table this resolution until the April meeting.

A. Epstein asked what you plan on doing in the intervening time to figure that out. First step is preliminary and it is to find out if we can even get the committee together.

K. Duch seconded the motion.

J. Glenn said we can discuss the motion on the table, then asked of there were questions or comments on the motion?

A. Gay said before we table, does anyone have something to say about what we’re going to do until the next meeting? Some people should go to the committees by next meeting so we can have an amendment by next meeting.

J. Glenn suggested tabling the resolution, then creating an ad hoc committee and then having it report back to the body at the next meeting.

E. Sanders volunteered to go to meetings or be a temporary liaison if needed.

J. Glenn said someone could lead the ad hoc committee and bring this resolution off the table by defined March 28th date. He said it seems like people want to move in that direction.

K. Duch had a better idea. If not enough interest to lead committees, depending on which committee each member is appointed to, we should research it in the next month and find out if it’s something we want to continue. I am not opposed to an ad hoc committee, but we should all share our advice.

J. Marwell said that there isn’t just one person assigned to each committee.

J. Glenn said it’s good to have more than one person dedicated to each committee to bring it back next month.

A. Epstein said you still need objectives in mind when you send a liaison. You want to be able to tell them this is what you’re expected to do. It is possible to change the existing proposal to reflect that.

O. Hammer said she thought we decided who was going to be the point person for each committee because she remembers an email was sent out last semester.

C. Selth said A. Epstein knows great deal about the operating status. The UA could appoint a person between now and then, use them as a reference point, and then bring a recommendation to make a charter change. If the committee is of no value, it can be removed from UA charter at the next meeting.

R. Kay said we should still table this until April 25th. He made a motion to table, and it was seconded by R. Wayne. All were in support of this motion, and the resolution was tabled until the April 25th meeting.

c. R.4: Resolution Regarding Free HIV Testing at Cornell University — A Sense of the Body Resolution

Calvin Selth introduced this resolution. He brought it before the SA and it passed unanimously, and he was wondering if the UA was be interested in supporting it also. A graduate student emailed him that last fall because he was charged $25 for a previously free ELISA HIV test. It is a new state fund that is now deflected to students. He wants to restore this free service at Cornell. It is not a policy decision, rather to see if the UA and supports reinstating this service. It is very important because HIV is a world health issue, even though not all other Ivy Leagues provide this service. This test is not like the other STD tests because there is significant stigma that surrounds this issue. With every added obstacle to getting the test done makes people much less likely to take it. It is still possible at some resources downtown, but transportation can be an issue, some clinics won’t help you if you have health insurance, and there are other obstacles. Cornell provided the test before, and it would be great to return to that. I am presenting to the Faculty Senate, the EA, the GPSA, and if all think it should be restored, we’ll collect representatives and present it to the administration. Gannett said it would cost $18,000 per year to fund free HIV testing, but that comes out to be less than $1 per University student, and it can be added to the Gannett charges for every student.

J. Glenn opened the floor for questions.

R. Wayne asked if he had talked to people at Gannett to see if they would waive the fee themselves if people were in financial difficulty.

C. Selth said he did not, and he also did not know.

R. Wayne said they may. They were asked to waive fees for people raped or assaulted, and they did. You don’t have to worry if something like that happens. At least for financial difficulties, Gannett could absorb costs if they total less than $18,000. He also had another comment about the “whereas” clause about letting other people do it: it seems a little irrelevant.

C. Selth said Cornell’s not like every other school, and in comparing with other institutions, it shouldn’t be like other schools. He included that clause to provide information about some other universities. It’s very valuable for students to know.

S. Kong said if there is a plan for financial difficulty, it is good, but it’s also more dangerous for people in the community when they are not tested. It becomes an economic incentive to go to Gannett since it is free..

C. Selth said just for HIV testing, they offer different ranges like blood tests, etc. and send that out to a lab. It’s a statewide program.

A male representative asked how much it costs for other tests.

C. Selth wasn’t sure of the exact costs, but he knew it would cost much more.

L. Lawrence asked if Gannett reports how many tests they actually do each academic year.

C. Selth said the average total testing equals around $18,000, but he doesn’t have actual numbers of those who pursued with that testing.

E. Sanders suggested comparing those numbers. It would be a good point in the future to show how testing has changed before and after.

There was no more debate. J. Glenn took a vote and all approved. The resolution passed.

a. Update from CJC

M. Hatch updated on the draft report copy. There is a CJC meeting every week and they are working to digest the information that came from the community from many different sources. The web is an excellent source and he commended A. Epstein for doing a terrific job. They collected information on comments from individuals in many forms, such as emails and personal comments. They also received feedback in the form of position papers. Most recently Cornell Law students created a fabulous 8–9 page document that they put up on web as a source.

M. Hatch continued that most of the comments were strongly in favor of the current practice, and there was interest in looking at certain specific areas. They settled upon three areas. The first area is responsibility for the code. With the UA and through the CJC, we are interested in continuing to be the body for the oversight of the code, generating new material and rewriting the old. Community opinion is for that to continue. The second area is if the Office of the Judicial Administrator (JA) should remain independent. The notion of independence must be qualified by the fact that we need to have oversight of the office and funding chains so the office doesn’t become overwhelmed if faced with a workload beyond their means. The source for increased funding, etc. should be independent of the process, but not from funds and support. The JA can and does perform a helpful role to provide information to assist in making the campus a place that conforms more to the values stated in the preamble: an educational environment with freedom of responsibility. We should continue to develop a strong conduit of communication between the Office of JA and the Office of the Dean of Students. Independence means separate citing of the Office of the JA as an adjudicating office. There is absolutely strong opinion that the JA should remain independent in that regard. We are still cogitating the parameters of the code. The third area is to whom the code should apply. The Krause report doesn’t advocate any one of the constituencies to be removed from the coverage of the code. We should consider adjudicating to be a part of applicability, and Krause supports the separation of the adjudication of faculty and staff from the JA. The code doesn’t apply equally to all members of Cornell. There was a strong trend of community response that the Office should continue to serve as the adjudicating office for all campus including the faculty and staff. There is no clear answer yet whether the code should apply both on-campus and off. There are arguments for only on-campus and expand to cover some off-campus, if judged by various parameters, what, who, and where, need to be clearly defined. The JA needs to be able to consider off-campus behavior to evaluate on-campus behavior. General statements say we should sit down and consider what violations are appropriate, what actions can be taken, and who would be “JA-able” under those conditions. The community opinion is not strong enough in one direction in question of whether the code should extend off-campus or not. How do you define heinous enough of a crime to apply if it was committed off-campus? Who would be the policing agency? We will refine this and be more firm before this gets presented next week, this is one of those questions that needs to go to next year for more thorough deliberation. We need more input from more sectors such as Cornell Police, etc. before the conclusion. All issues raised have been marvelously discussed, and it started strong movement to take a set of questions involved in the code, the applicability, what it covers, and how it is administered. All comments that come forth will be helpful in future deliberations, and we will have something in the books for the future, but it doesn’t mean everything we need in is the books. We need more input, more time to argue, and we need more time to consider and discuss it between now and the April deadline.

M. Hatch continued that the conclusion is not completely worked through. Everyone agrees large sections should be condensed and rewritten. The right to have counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to timely process, etc. are all things discussed in comments to us. Possibly penalties and structural changes under title 2 and 3 are combined in one section. Title 2 which describes what is under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees, and Title 3 describe what is under your jurisdiction. We need to figure out how to bring the two together. It’s useful to do so because people generally agree that there is lots of confusion, and the least amount of contradiction possible is for the best. Title 5 is a separate title that can be possibly merged. The current can be revised because there is definitely no tolerance for violence in the Cornell community.

M. Hatch said the last paragraph asks the UA to extend and expand charge to the CJC so they can consider these and other specific issues, as structured in the code and the Krause report. There are two prongs and we want to know how to approach it during the last meeting before giving the report, such as what you want us to do with it. Remember what E. Loew said when he accepted what the CJC wanted to do: what is the only thing left that you’ve decided you’re going to hold on to? If you let it go, there’s no reason for being, in a sense. What are you going to do with it on March 7th, and what will you do after that?

J. Glenn said when you give it to us on March 7th, we have a week then to pass it to President Skorton’s office, so we plan on calling a special meeting on the 14th.

M. Hatch asked what kind of interaction you have in mind with us?

J. Glenn said the UA will look at it as a body and then if we have questions, we’ll ask you.

R. Orme said the CJC should be there.

S. Kong asked whether the Krause report or the current code will be discussed.

M. Hatch said he is prepared for this, and he came to the conclusion that we are acting under the current system. It’s what needs to be changed if anything needs to happen. It’s not a matter of voting for the Krause report. It’s a matter of working with what we have and making changes with it. My question to you is the premises with which you are working on it.

R. Kay said that is the premises that we are working on. From what I picked up at the breakfast with President Skorton, that’s the basis that he is working on too. He’s not asking for validation of the Krause report, but he seemed to think that the present JA system lets people off too easy. Where did that come from? It’s supposed to be confidential.

R. Orme said as his personal opinion, he does not feel the JA is lenient in any way.

R. Kay said he found it odd that the President thought this.

M. Hatch said the JA reports to all of us or at least the CJC. There’s no sense in that report that there’s a feeling that they are letting people off the hook. You could say that it’s a little overkill that we have no tolerance for violence on campus. Where is there evidence that we are tolerant of violence now? We had a representative from the VP of Student and Academic Affairs who brought up that it took a long time to deal with the hazing issue. What he’s getting at is that they are thinking about violence and some people are getting away with things that aren’t Cornell-like. There’s a whole range of things that we’ve heard as we’ve done our work. Work tries to cut through them and present basic materials to affirm.

E. Sanders said she heard from students that a male student’s life was ruined by deep depression because boys accosted him and beat him up in front of Louie’s Lunch. It was supposedly a fraternity process, and it was hushed up and they were not disciplined for that. She heard another story from a student who was date raped and tried to get protection from the University and didn’t get it, and her life was ruined. There are so many more stories out there. From experience, she has worried that violence was not punished enough to deter it. CJC spent a lot of time on this report, but if the campus wants nothing of the Krause report, can’t we make a motion or just not send it off to the administration? It’s supposed to be our job, why don’t we just vote on this proposal because it’s perfectly reasonable? If we’re willing to work on some things, clarify them, and make them stronger, why waste any more time on the Krause report and just give this as our counter proposal?

O. Hammer thought this wasn’t the changes that should be made, but just criticism of the Krause report. This proposal doesn’t say anything about what changes should be made to the current code.

J. Glenn said he doesn’t think the assembly can do that.

M. Hatch also said he didn’t want to because this is only a draft report.

H. Granison wanted to know if the UA had talked to victims of violence because that would be good input for the Krause report.

M. Hatch said they have anonymous comments from people involved in the judicial system.

H. Granison meant victims, not perpetrators.

M. Hatch didn’t specifically ask for victims or ask them to self-identify, but asked for both: alleged perpetrators and victims.

H. Granison said Barbara Krause went around took notes, materials, and made a wish list. Does she still have it? She did talk to a lot of people about critiques of the code.

M. Hatch said they could contact her to get her notes. They have some records but not all of her notes.

H. Granison asked for written comments from people.

S. Kong asked if President Skorton assigned another person to do work, or if there were more versions of work to compare this with. It will be difficult to pass the Krause report because most people are opposed to it. Why not create another version to compare?

M. Hatch said we have a code in place. There is a lot in it and a lot of interesting points. The UA is interested in knowing what the judicial system is like. We should acquaint ourselves with the code rather than getting another critique of it. The CJC finds it workable and has suggestions on how to change it. He doesn’t think it’s necessary to reinvent it a third or fourth time.

H. Granison said we should look at academic integrity within the code at same time.

M. Hatch said the senate considers the academic integrity issue to be entirely a faculty matter, and they already talked about creating a liaison last week.

O. Hammer contacted Dean Walcott’s secretary, but he hasn’t gotten back to her yet.

M. Hatch said we should deal with the adjudication of nonacademic integrity before the academic issues.

R. Kay made a motion to call a special meeting on March 14th as well as to invite the CJC.

S. Wong asked if we should invite Barbara Krause.

R. Orme seconded the motion.

VI. Adjournment

J. Glenn adjourned the meeting at 6:05 pm.