MINUTES
University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
4:30 — 6:00 p.m.
701 Clark Hall

I. Call to Order

M. Hatch called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Roll was taken via sign-in sheet.

Present: C. Basil, D. Brown, M. Fontana, J. Glenn, M. Hatch, A. James, D. Kurczewski, J. Marwell, R. Orme, T. Pardo, R. Rodriguez, D. Rosen, E. Sanders, R. Wayne
Not Present: B. Liddick, E. Loew, P. Mahoney, S. Matthews, A. Stroock
Also in attendance: P. Beach, S. Dittman, A. Epstein, A. O’Donnell, M. Opperman, J. Siliciano, J. Vertesi

III. Business of the Day

NCAA Recertification Process Presentation by Mary Opperman and John Siliciano

J. Siliciano said that he and M. Opperman are co-chairing the NCAA’s re-accreditation process, which Cornell is required to undergo every 10 years in order to continue to participate in intercollegiate sports. Their goal is to make sure college athletes are handled in a way that is consistent with NCAA standards and that the university avoids any athletics-related scandals. They’re reporting results of the self-study to a variety of groups in order to solicit feedback. The self-study began in 2007 and the revised draft report is due to the NCAA in May. The NCAA will then visit in November to examine Cornell and issue an accreditation decision.

M. Opperman said that three subcommittees have been meeting to examine each of the three areas of focus. There were two issues under the area of ‘governance and commitment to rules and compliance.’ Regarding the first issue ‘institutional control’, Cornell is in substantial compliance with all NCAA requirements. The subcommittee was concerned about updating the Athletics Department’s Compliance Manual and the timeliness of required compliance reviews; both issues have since been addressed. Regarding the issue of ‘rules compliance’, Cornell is in substantial requirement with all NCAA rules. There was some concern that booster club bylaws lacked specific reference to compliance requirements; this has since been corrected.

J. Siliciano said that the area called ‘academic integrity’ was concerned with ensuring student athletes are treated as students who are also athletes rather than as athletes who are also, nominally, students. The first issue is to ensure that education is an integral part of the student athlete experience — Cornell is in compliance with and in fact goes beyond all NCAA requirements. Recruited student athletes are held to the same admission and academic standing standards as students who aren’t athletes, and graduation rates among athletes and non-athletes are not significantly different. The academic support available to help student athletes is way above the standards.

M. Opperman said the issues they had to examine under ‘equity and student athlete well-being’ were gender issues, minority issues and student athlete well being. Cornell is in substantial compliance with all NCAA requirements. There was some concern about the adequacy of locker rooms and some practice and meeting spaces. Compensation for women’s and men’s sports coaches was based on market rates and was considered equitable. The proportion of women athletes has grown and the subcommittee said Cornell needs to plan for growth in women’s athletic opportunities to keep pace with the anticipated increase in the proportion of women students overall. Regarding minority issues, Cornell is in substantial compliance with NCAA requirements, but the subcommittee was concerned that diversity among athletes lags behind the student population in general. They recommend continued partnership with admissions in minority athlete recruitment. Diversity among the athletics staff was found to reflect university and nationwide trends and diversity recruitment practices in athletics were found to be fully sufficient. In the area of student athlete wellbeing, Cornell was found to be in substantial compliance with all NCAA requirements. Student academic support services are well integrated with university programs and all student athletes have access to and are made aware of these services. Athletic training and sports medicine services are equitably provided to all student athletes and meet all NCAA standards. They plan to have an open forum after presenting the report to the Board of Trustees in March before sending the report to the NCAA.

There was a brief discussion session that addressed the importance of making professors aware of what student athletes face and being flexible, concerns that the percentage of athletic staff identifying themselves as minorities seemed lower than in the general population, the UA’s involvement in the process and the plans to address the issue of negativity towards different sexual orientations among athletes.

IV. Call for Late Additions to Agenda

M. Hatch called for late additions to the agenda. J. Vertesi said she wanted to discuss something in open forum. M. Hatch said B. Liddick couldn’t attend tonight’s meeting so they would not have a report on the Childcare Services committee.

V. Business of the Day (Cont’d)

Report from Tamara Pardo on Academic Integrity

T. Pardo said that a summary of the issues they discussed at the meeting and the reasons for holding the meeting are summarized in the report distributed to the UA. The GPSA recently passed a resolution stating the GPSA’s position on upholding academic integrity within the assembly and promoting this to its constituents. Dean Walcott scheduled a follow up meeting for the Academic Integrity committee on March 10.

There was a brief discussion about the feasibility of including an admissions essay about Cornell’s academic integrity as part of the admissions process, as was mentioned in the report.

R. Wayne recounted an experience he had with a student violating the academic integrity code and asked that a word be put in for mercy for code violators.

In response to J. Marwell’s inquiry about the likelihood of the application essay being implemented soon, T. Pardo said Dean Walcott seems very dedicated to addressing academic integrity this semester. Their second meeting will focus on brainstorming more ideas. They hope to have a plan ready to be implemented by the end of the semester.

Report from Mark Fontana on Cornell Store Advisory Board

M. Fontana said the Cornell Store Advisory Board had a meeting for the first time in a long time, in which they discussed a lot of issues brought up a few months ago, particularly high textbook prices. The Cornell Store’s ability to get used textbooks is a function of getting the orders to wholesalers early. They said they need to work together to figure out how to educate faculty about the importance of submitting textbook orders early so the Store would be able to get a greater number of used books.

R. Orme said the underlying problem is that many faculty members don’t know what they’ll be teaching a semester in advance so they wouldn’t be able to give their textbook orders.

E. Sanders said that creating a course, even if one has taught it before, requires a lot of time and work because professors want the course to be up to date and that requires extensive research.

There was a brief discussion about ways in which the Cornell Store could work with faculty to make that process easier.

Report from Martin Hatch on Campus Code Discussions by CJC

M. Hatch said the process for considering President Skorton’s requests is now in the hands of the CJC. There have been two meetings of the CJC with participation from members of the administration, in which all but three of the issues the president wanted to reconsider were settled to the satisfaction of the CJC and the president’s representatives. The CJC will meet on Monday from 4:30–6:30 p.m., and again the following Monday. After these two meetings, they expect to have a final document which will be sent to the UA by March 15. They can then discuss the document together.

There was a question and answer session including questions for clarification regarding which members of the CJC could vote, some of the solutions they had been discussing for the unresolved issues, definitively defining a “serious disruption of the educational environment”, whether the president would be able to appeal or override decisions, the president’s views on keeping the campus judicial process in accordance with civil proceedings and the administration’s authority to preempt their legislative activities.

There was a very brief discussion about the president’s intent regarding his earlier recommendations for the report.

Discussion of Dave Kurczewski’s request to “re-create a link between the University Health Services and the UA”

D. Kurczewski said part of the UA’s responsibility was Health Services but they hadn’t been making use of this link lately and he wanted to reestablish their link with Health Services and decide what that relationship is going to look like.

S. Dittman, from Gannett Health Center said the UA’s and Gannett’s past relationship did not function well and that she’d like members from each group to meet and figure out what the most effective kind of relationship would be. M. Hatch said at the beginning of the semester, there was discussion about either staffing the committee or doing away with it. He suggested that D. Kurczewski might be willing to represent the UA in determining the nature of their relationship with Health Services.

There was further discussion about the UA’s relationship with Health Services and how to encourage involvement in the many Health Services issues. M. Hatch suggested that D. Kurczewski take the role of UA liaison to the Health Services Committee and added they could discuss the issue again at a future meeting.

IV. Open Forum

J. Vertesi said she plays with the Cornell Jazz program and they have had difficulty scheduling their rehearsals and performances around evening prelims. She thinks the scheduling of prelims is getting out of hand and that it is time to address this issue because it is disrespectful to students on several levels. She’s never encountered this problem at her other schools and, while agreeing that students do need to be evaluated in their classes, she feels they should only be evaluated during dedicated class times, not in the evening.

Susan Murphy said the general policy, as defined by faculty legislation, is that Tuesday and Thursday are prelim nights and Monday and Wednesday are class nights. The 4:30–7:30 p.m. period is reserved for co-curricular opportunities and, with few exceptions, there should be no class activities at this time.

M. Hatch said the music program is allowed to meet 4:30–7:30 p.m. and if they can find evidence that professors are scheduling prelims during this time, they could then act on this.

There was further discussion about this issue including reasons for the current system, which included a bit of history, the issue of room space and housing large lectures at exam time. J. Marwell volunteered to work with J. Vertesi on this.

VI. Adjournment

D. Rosen motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded. M. Hatch adjourned at 6:03 p.m.