MINUTES
University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
4:30 � 6:00 p.m.
701 Clark Hall

I. Call To Order

M. Hatch called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Roll was taken via sign-in sheet.

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

Not Present: P. Mahoney, D. Brown, E. Loew, A. Stroock, J. Glenn, R. Rodriguez

Also in attendance: Kathy Zoner, Kathleen Rourke, Mary Beth Grant, Robert Kay, Kevin Clermont, Ginger McCall, Jonathan Sclarsic, Andy Cowan, Sade Cao, A. Epstein, A. O’Donnell, P. Beach

III. New Business (90 minutes)

Letter from President Skorton regarding Revised Campus Code of Conduct

The attending members of the Codes and Judicial Committee introduced themselves.

M. Hatch said he expected to have members of the senior staff who were mentioned in President Skorton’s letter at the meeting but since none of them were in attendance, they would have to infer the intent of the administration’s committee. He wanted to discuss the appropriateness of the President’s suggested procedure for considering revisions to the Code and whether they, as the body with authority over the Code, accepted the procedure as valid. He said he had drafted a resolution regarding this, but wanted to hear input first.

R. Wayne said he was very disappointed by the President’s letter because he thinks what the CJC did was one of the best educational experiences he had seen at Cornell, outside of the classroom. The views were well argued and the compromises were respectful. He thought the letter showed that the President does not understand the UA’s charter, although it was difficult to know since none of his representatives were there to clarify. He also said Council did not to participate in the public forums dedicated to revising the Code. He then said he has drafted a resolution in response to the administration’s response to the Revised Code. He read R 2 to the assembly.

M. Hatch introduced his resolution (R 10 Concerning President David Skorton’s Request for Reconsideration of UA Resolution #8: Campus Code of Conduct) to the assembly. He said once they had discussed both resolutions they could then determine which one to pursue. He was surprised when they first received the President’s letter because it didn’t follow the traditional process. Upon contacting the President about this he found out the Council Office was in discussions with the CJC and was concerned that perhaps there were separate channels of communication. Calling the Council’s office to determine the nature of the communication, he was told the CJC wanted to put together a committee of the UA, the Council’s Office and CJC, to work out the changes. After getting input from other UA members, he determined this committee would be feasible as long as the UA maintained authority over the Code. He wrote his resolution with this in mind.

D. Rosen said he had introduced amendments that would omit acknowledging the working group, because he felt this diluted the UA’s authority. It states they would carefully consider and solicit feedback from all sources including the administration. This would give the president the chance to give feedback and allow him to have his working group without giving up any power.

In response to K. Clermont’s question asking why the President couldn’t have his own working group, rather than a joint group, M. Hatch responded that with the amendments, there wouldn’t be a joint group at all.

A. Cowan said the two resolutions were not mutually exclusive. He felt there was validity to both and that they could say they wanted to continue the legislative process of revising the code.

M. Hatch clarified that R. Wayne’s resolution said that, if they’re not doing anything, they should disband. He asked if other UA members felt the same way; if they were going to give up authority over one of the few things they controlled, did they have any reason to continue.

B. Liddick said they don’t really know why the President responded the way he did, so he’s uncomfortable considering resignations until they are sure. He asked the CJC for input, since they had spoken with the Council’s Office.

K. Rourke said it is true that the UA has authority over the code. There are a lot of times the UA has done to the CJC what the president did to them. She thinks it’s important to go back to the President and make the point to him that the CJC is capable and knowledgeable, so he should respect and adhere to the normal revision process.

In response to E. Sanders’ question asking whether the council was involved in the six-month development of the revised code, M. Hatch said Council did not attend meetings.

E. Sanders told newer UA members that there had been conflict between the UA and the administration in the past. The Council’s disagreements with the Code were so vaguely stated in the President’s letter, they were inclined to believe this was an exertion of executive power.

T. Pardo agreed with K. Rourke’s comments. If the President gets defensive or argumentative, in a way that suggests this is an exertion of power, then they can go to R. Wayne’s resolution.

K. Clermont said that he thinks they could resolve most of the issues the administration has within an hour, except for the issues regarding the right to council and the changes to the standard of proof. He then said the President could take the Revised Code with his own changes to the Board of Trustees and have it enacted if he so chose.

J. Marwell said she understood people were aggravated, but felt it was too early to say, “If you reject this Code, we’ll step down.” She thinks it’s important to try to ask the president to accept the process that’s working, before taking any drastic steps.

M. Fontana said that R. Wayne’s resolution is not subtle enough to ensure they all still have a say in the Revised Code. If they all step down, they’ll have no input moving forward, so he feels they should try to make their case to the president first.

M. Hatch said it seemed the consensus was to accept some version of the resolution he had proposed. He said he would accept D. Rosen’s amendments as friendly. But they still had to consider if they wanted to ask to do away with the committee. He thinks it’s still feasible for them to follow the timetable. They could also enter a clause in the resolution urging the Council to take advantage of their standing ex-officio seat on the CJC.

K. Rourke said she thinks they should say that Jim Mingle (University Council) is welcome to join the committee and that those who participated in the working group in developing the code are also welcome to attend. The next CJC meeting is Monday, February 18.

In response to D. Rosen’s suggestion that they propose and table R Wayne’s resolution so it could be used if necessary, R. Wayne made a motion to move R 2. D. Rosen seconded the motion. D. Rosen made a motion to table the resolution. E. Sanders seconded the motion. There was dissent. The members voted by a hand count, the resolution was tabled.

M. Hatch made a motion to move R 10. M. Fontana seconded.

In response to E. Sanders’ question asking how M. Hatch had determined which members of the administration should be involved with the committee, as was outlined in the resolution, M. Hatch said this was language coming straight from the President’s letter.

There was a discussion about whether a resolution was necessary, or if a plan of action outlined in a letter would be sufficient.

A. Cowan said, going back to the discussion of who should be in the working group, he thinks it’s okay to have an ad-hoc committee, though he feels the CJC would fulfill this purpose more effectively. The CJC exists because the UA says so; if the UA decides that an ad-hoc committee is the best group to go through these final steps, they will still have full authority, whether or not they have a joint committee or acknowledge the existence of the President’s working group. He said that it’s crucial to ensure that they have a process that ensures that their thoughts are heard.

M. Hatch said they needed to decide what vehicle they needed to take action. There was a discussion about whether the UA should send a resolution or a letter to the President, regarding this issue.

K. Rourke said the CJC was meeting on Monday and that they could discuss these issues then. They could still do the resolution but, with or without it, they are going to have further discussion on Monday.

J. Marwell made a motion to convert R 10 to a letter. R. Orme seconded. The hand count vote was 7–7.

E. Sanders said if some people were really uncomfortable with a resolution, she would be okay with a letter that clearly outlined their actions and included signatures from everyone.

In response to A. Epstein’s question asking if the language about forming an ad-hoc committee would still be included in the letter, since that action would require a resolution, M. Hatch said they would address this later.

The UA members then jointly drafted a response letter to the President. T. Pardo read the finished letter to the members.

By a unanimous hand count vote the letter was approved.

IV. Adjournment

M. Hatch adjourned the meeting at 6:09 p.m.