Minutes
University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, March 26, 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 by sign-in sheet.

Present: C, Basil, D. Brown, M. Fontana, J. Glenn, M. Hatch, A. James, B. Liddick, E. Loew, R. Orme, T. Pardo, D. Rosen, E. Sanders, A. Stroock, R. Wayne
Not Present: D. Kurczewski, P. Mahoney, J. Marwell, S. Matthews, R. Rodriguez
Also in attendance: Kathleen Rourke, Chair of the Codes and Judicial Committee; Alan Mittman, Office of Workforce Diversity, Equality and Life Quality

III. Call for Late Additions to Agenda:

M. Hatch called for late additions to the agenda. A. Epstein asked to add a Cornell Store report.

IV. Approval of the Minutes:

- January 30, 2008

E. Loew made a motion to approve the minutes. T. Pardo seconded the motion. The January 20, 2008 minutes were voted on and unanimously approved.

- February 13, 2008

B. Liddick made a motion to approve the minutes. E. Loew seconded the motion. The February 13, 2008 minutes were voted on and approved.

V. Old Business:

- Committee Report from the Childcare Committee

A. Stroock gave an update on the activities of the Childcare committee and the new campus childcare center. The center is on track to open in the fall and will serve up to 48 infants, 50 toddlers and 60 pre-school aged children. It will be housed in a Cornell building on North Campus and operated by a company called Bright Horizons. The committee chose to have a completely unbiased enrollment policy and Cornell will subsidize the fee with its childcare grant. There will be full and part-time care. Bright Horizons decided to use the minimum child-to-teacher ratio standard set by the National Association of Childhood Education, which has caused some controversy. Finally, the College of Human Ecology has an agreement to continue student-teaching activities with this new center. It would be useful for the UA to inform its constituents about the upcoming childcare center information sessions. Enrollment will occur from April 30 to May 8.

A. Richter said they would distribute a comprehensive list of FAQ’s once they’ve finalized some issues such as the childcare subsidies and the effect of the childcare grants.

In response to E. Sanders’ question asking if they would over-subscribe and then admit the children to the various categories by lottery, A. Richter said all the candidates for this initial enrollment will be put in one lottery. After spots have been filled, they would add the remaining families to a waiting list, which will be used thereafter to enroll children. A. Stroock said the waitlist would be handled in an unbiased manner as well.

In response to E. Sanders’ question asking if the subsidies were need based, A. Richter said yes; it is based on income and the number of children per family.

In response to D. Brown’s question asking if the committee had started planning for another on-site childcare center, A. Stroock said M. Opperman has indicated she is interested in pursuing an off-site center before opening another on-site center. HR has hired staff to address future childcare centers, with which the committee will also assist.

In response to M. Hatch’s statement that, even though the UA is a diverse body, it doesn’t represent many areas on campus, so it might be better to have a campus wide circulation of the email instead of relying on the UA members to relay the information to their constituents. A. Richter said the information was going out through HR bulletins, student bulletins and fliers; they’re utilizing all available resources to distribute the information.

B. Liddick said the Family Services Committee has met twice since being formed. They’re mainly working on generating ideas. The next meeting is April 7. Lynette Chappell-Williams is still the acting chair but she is looking for someone to fill her role.

VI. New Business:

- Codes and Judicial Committee

M. Hatch asked the assembly members to review the letter he had sent about approving the first seven changes the CJC has made to the Revised Code of Conduct thus far.

In response to M. Hatch’s question asking if they had to draft a formal resolution to approve them or if they could just use the letter to take action on the changes so far, A. Epstein said for something as important as this, he would recommend a formal resolution. Also he thinks the CJC would like for them to wait until all the changes had been made to pass a resolution.

There was clarification that M. Hatch only wanted to discuss the seven changes so they didn’t have to discuss them at the next meeting; he did not have a formal resolution for them.

There was a brief discussion about whether or not they should discuss the first seven changes, given that there were three significant issues still unresolved.

In response to E. Sanders’ question asking what the remaining three issues were, M. Hatch said the remaining three issues were regarding “the right of president to change penalties for certain offences”, “the right to have council in certain offences” and “the standard of proof.”

K. Rourke said the CJC was able to quickly decide on the first seven issues. The remaining three items are still unresolved and probably should not be discussed until they are resolved.

D. Rosen said he appreciated the change to the “Right to Remain Silent/ Duty to Cooperate” section that did not obligate individuals to cooperate with the JA, but felt it should read “the hearing can proceed even if he or she chooses to remain silent” instead of “if he or she chooses to remain silent” to avoid ambiguity. M. Hatch and K. Rourke noted the change.

D. Rosen said, in reference to the “Confidentiality of Hearings and Records” section, he didn’t understand changing the paragraph to say, “The University may disclose otherwise confidential information when authorized by law” as opposed to “when required by law”.  He said the new wording made it seem as though Cornell did not have an interest in protecting confidentiality. 

There was further discussion about the intent of the paragraph. M. Hatch said he would bring this issue back to the attention of the CJC to clarify the intent and the phrasing.

D. Brown said, in regard to the “Interim Suspension for Serious Disruptions of the Educational Environment” section, it was redundant to state they would suspend individuals for a serious disruption of the educational environment, when they already stated they would do so to ensure public order. He said this seemed as though the administration was trying to widen their power; this would give them leeway to break up, for example, legitimate demonstrations, if they didn’t like the message, even though this is not a disruption of public order.

R. Wayne said he felt this was necessary because incidents, such as unleashing a campus-wide computer virus, wouldn’t necessarily disrupt public order but would disrupt the educational environment; furthermore, the public was a broader group than the educational environment.

There was clarification that the five-day period for justifying the suspension referred to five business days and that the JA had the burden of proof in justifying the suspension.

In response to E. Sanders’ request for more examples, other than releasing a computer virus, of situations that represented a disruption of “the educational environment” but not “public order”, K. Rourke said some examples were sit-ins at Day Hall and unauthorized marches that blocked traffic. However, M. Hatch said these were not appropriate examples. He was considering, for example, an individual making it difficult or impossible for a class to carry on.

There was further discussion about whether including “disruption of the education environment” was necessary, or whether it gave the administration too much discretionary power, given that some examples of disrupting the educational environment were already included in the Code.

M. Hatch said he would bring the issue back to the CJC and asked for clarification on what disruptions to the educational environment were. By a hand count vote, they decided to send the two issues that the UA members disagreed about back to the CJC for discussion.

In response to D. Brown’s statement that, in regard to the “Proceeding While Criminal Charges are Pending” section, the university couldn’t operate in conflict with the civil courts and it was contradictory to say that the “offenses are adjudicated in the public courts” then say “the university cannot concede or defer to external proceedings when its own principles are at stake”, E. Loew said that it wasn’t contradictory. In public courts, for example, the criminal courts could find someone innocent yet the civil courts could find them guilty. Similarly, Cornell could find someone guilty even if they had been acquitted in a public court.

M. Hatch said he would mention the addressed issues to the CJC for consideration.

- Annual Winter Holiday Display Guidelines Discussion

A. Mittman said the view that religion should be left out of the workplace is changing. The university has made a commitment to diversity and inclusion, and as such he suggested the UA revisit the winter holiday display guidelines to consider allowing more exhibitions, instead of restricting them, as a way to promote inclusiveness with respect to religious issues in the workplace. He said the university recently adopted a policy which allows formal ways to address scheduling requests, clothing choices, meeting times etc, with a religious basis. More and more of these requests and accommodations are being made. He’s not advocating any specific change to the guidelines; he would just like to form a small group to reevaluate all of the guidelines, as a whole, based on these new sentiments and trends.

M. Hatch said this issue might be relevant to the Family Services Committee or their currently inactive Cornell United Religious Works Advisory Board. R. Wayne volunteered to work with A. Mittman.

After a brief discussion, the members agreed to convene on April 30 in addition to April 23 so they would have more time to discuss issues and tie up loose ends before the end of the year.

VII. Adjournment:

There was a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded. M. Hatch adjourned the meeting at 6:08 p.m.