MINUTES
University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
4:30 � 6:00 p.m.
701 Clark Hall

I. Call To Order

M. Hatch called the meeting to order at 4:37 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Roll was taken by sign-in sheet.

Present: T. Pardo, D. Rosen, D. Brown, E. Sanders, M. Hatch, R. Wayne, J. Glenn, R. Orme, S. Matthews, C. Basil, M. Fontana, D. Kurczewski, A. James, J. Marwell, E. Loew

Not Present: R. Rodriguez, B. Liddick, P. Mahoney, and A. Stroock

Also in attendance: Provost Carolyn (Biddy) Martin, K. Duch, A. Epstein, A. O’Donnell, P. Beach, Tommy Bruce-VP of University Communications, Carolyn Ainslie-VP of Planning and Budgeting, John Siliciano-Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Lead for Provost Office on the Master Plan

III. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

M. Hatch called for late additions to the agenda. There were none.

IV. Approval of Minutes (10 minutes)

November 28, 2007 Minutes

M. Hatch asked the assembly members to review the minutes from the last meeting. T. Pardo made a motion to approve the minutes. J. Marwell seconded the motion. By a raise of hands, the November 28, 2007 minutes were approved unanimously.

V. Old Business (10 minutes)

Letters From President Skorton

o Re: Revised University Assembly Resolution 6

M. Hatch said that the President had approved the revised version of resolution 6.

o Re: University Assembly Resolution 7

M. Hatch said that the President received resolution 7 favorably.

o Re: Campus Code of Conduct Review

M. Hatch said that the President stated he intends to review the Code and that his office will provide judgment on it in early Spring.

R. Wayne said he was surprised the President needed such a lengthy period of time to respond to the revised Campus Code because the work the committee did was so wonderful he felt it deserved a quick and decisive response. He also said he felt a response in a limited amount of time was required.

M. Hatch said they could raise questions about the slow response or the UA having sole jurisdiction over the Code. He said he would not write a letter to the President about this but if another UA member wanted to, he would support that. R. Wayne said he would write a letter.

M. Hatch then asked the assembly members if they wanted a letter to be sent to the President about this issue.

D. Rosen asked if they were concerned about the time frame or about the appropriateness that the President wanted to offer judgments on the Code rather than just accepting the recommendation of the UA.

E. Sanders said these things were related.

E. Loew asked if there was a section of the charter stating the President had to respond within 30 days or the action becomes final. M. Hatch said this was in the charter. He said that, based on the sentiment of members, he felt R. Wayne should write a letter and they would discuss it at the next meeting.

VI. New Business (70 minutes)

Faculty Members on the Hearing Review Board

M. Hatch said the administration wanted them to approve the appointment of Professor Sturman to the Hearing Review Board. M. Hatch made a motion to do so. E. Loew seconded. By a unanimous vote, Professor Sturman’s appointment was approved.

Visit From Provost Carolyn (Biddy) Martin

M. Hatch introduced Provost Martin. Attendees then went around the tables to introduce themselves.

Provost Martin gave a presentation about the Master Plan framework. She said the strategic framework of the Master Planning document would help inform future capital plan choices and sites and the framework does suggest they densify central campus and encourage future plans that will enhance greenways. She reviewed the key capital planning steps in developing the Master Plan.

M. Hatch said the UA calls to order and participates in a Campus Planning committee. He asked what role the committee played in the key capital planning steps. Provost Martin replied the UA advised the Campus Planning committee and the UA members’ concerns were represented by Mina Amundsen, the University Planner.

There was a discussion about the involvement of the Campus Planning Committee, faculty, students, the city and townships in the development of the key capital planning steps.

In response to C. Basil’s question asking if there were actual architectural plans for increasing green space and better campus transportation or if this was just an overall objective, Provost Martin said this was an objective; they didn’t have designs yet.

In response to R. Wayne’s question regarding how they chose the growth numbers used in planning, Provost Martin said they created a plan that will allow Cornell to grow a lot more than it likely will. They don’t have any intent of growing the student body any time in the future. She said, in her opinion, it wouldn’t be a good idea to increase the size of the student body without increasing the size of the faculty. Over the past few decades, the faculty size had remained constant and they didn’t foresee future growth. They do, however, foresee growth in academic staff so they have built additional numbers into their growth estimates to accommodate this. Even though they weren’t estimating significant population growth, there were other reasons for adding buildings. They felt that the current amount of available space wasn’t enough to accommodate faculty effectively. Secondly, they didn’t have the right types of spaces given some of the things being taught, particularly in the sciences and social sciences.

E. Sanders said these were important decisions and she still wasn’t sure how they were made. She said some people felt the university was focusing on specific research and not on other types of research, such as broad systems research. She asked if all the building decisions came from Day Hall. Provost Martin said they do not. Every important academic initiative that eventually gets funding comes directly from the faculty. She said graduate and undergraduate students also voice their opinions in these matters.

There was a discussion about how some of the key decisions regarding the Master Plan and academic initiatives were made.

K. Duch said she has attended many of these planning meetings, and added there are a lot of people in these meetings giving input and all stages are thought through. She then asked how the number of children the childcare center could accommodate was decided and why they hadn’t decided to accommodate the actual demand, which is more. Provost Martin said she didn’t have the full answer; she presumed the number was thought to be the optimum number of children in a single facility.

J. Siliciano said the childcare center was the first step in providing other services and they needed to ensure it could be completed quickly and effectively.

M. Hatch added the university didn’t want to create a center that was so big it threatened the other less expensive childcare centers in the area. He said the childcare committee could meet with them to discuss the childcare center more if need be.

R. Wayne articulated they needed to make it clear to architects they had to satisfy the needs and wants of the university in their designs.

There was a discussion about the architects’ influence and expertise and about maintaining certain environmental, historical, and aesthetic standards in buildings.

In response to A. James’s question about whether the Master Plan guidelines spoke to a specific aesthetic theme, Provost Martin said Cornell has such diverse architecture they didn’t really have a specific theme they were going for in the Master Plan. She said the closest aspect of the Master Plan that had a theme was a section of the campus that is meant to serve graduate students. This area is planned to have a more urban feel.

M. Hatch thanked Provost Martin for attending and asked if she would be willing to attend another meeting. Provost Martin said she would be happy to attend another meeting in the future if she were invited.

In response to M. Hatch’s question asking if the assembly members felt it would be a good idea for Provost Martin to return for another meeting in the next few months. C. Basil said it would be a good idea to invite her to attend again but only if they had issues other than the Master Plan to address.

There was a discussion about some of the issues they could discuss if Provost Martin were to attend another assembly meeting.

In response to R. Orme’s question regarding whether the UA was having the follow-up meeting on February 13, M. Hatch said he thought they could forego that meeting. An official announcement will be sent out by email to the membership.

VI. Adjournment

E. Loew made a motion to adjourn the meeting. A. James seconded the motion. M. Hatch adjourned the meeting at 6:04 p.m.