Minutes
University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
4: 30 � 6:00 p.m.
316 Day Hall

I. Call to Order

R. Orme called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.

Roll was taken via sign-in sheet.
Voting Members Present: I. Akinpelu, A. Brokman, J. Cetta, A. Nicoletti, E. Strong, L. Lawrence, R. Orme, W. Ghiorse, M. Hatch, E. Loew, E. Sanders, C. Walcott, R. Wayne
Voting Members Absent: K. Laden, J. Spiegel, B. Webb-Binder, S. Zhang, K. Speiser
Non-voting Members Absent: B. McKinney, A. Craig, M. Walsh
Also In Attendance: D. Harris, A. Epstein, A. O’Donnell, Y. Zhang

II. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

R. Orme said there was a JAMIC resolution to be added to the agenda.

III. Approval of Minutes from Sept 30 Meeting

R. Orme moved the approval of the minutes to the end of the meeting. (At the end of the meeting, I. Akinpelu moved to approve the minutes and W. Ghiorse seconded. The minutes were approved by a vote of 8–0−1.)

IV. United Way Presentation by David Harris

Deputy Provost David Harris, chair of the United Way campaign at Cornell, explained the United Way’s mission. Because of the Cornerstone partners program, all of the donations will go directly to the fund. Demand for funds is currently high and will likely increase during the next year, given the economic status and the lay-offs within the community. It is very easy to give through Cornell via payroll deduction and it allows the community to see Cornell’s commitment to the community. D. Harris would also appreciate feedback on reasons why people do not give through Cornell.

E. Strong noted that grad students do not have the payroll deduction option, and suggested giving them this option could encourage them to give or could increase their gift.

V. Reimagining Cornell Presentation by David Harris

D. Harris explained the “Reimagining Cornell” project plans to cut down administrative costs in order to achieve two goals: balance the current budget and position Cornell to be as strong as possible going into the future. Cornell hired Bain for consulting, which focuses on the administrative side of the Ithaca campus. He explained the biggest savings will come from a change in procurement methods and policies.

There will be 3 phases to the process. The first phase is diagnostic — identifying opportunities to cut costs. This phase is ending now. The second phase is planning how to do it and will involved detailed designs from the President and the Provost. The third phase is the execution / implementation of the recommendations. This is a change from the past, where the Provost gave units the information and the units figured out how to achieve the goal. This time, the opportunities will be identified for the units and if the procurement estimates were off, the budget cuts for the department will be adjusted accordingly. He explained that $90 millions of savings have already been identified.

The non-personnel side of the cuts will involve procurement, utilities, and reserves. Some units charge other units for services to build up their reserves. They could reduce their price and not have to lay anyone off. The utilities side includes cutting costs by conserving energy. D. Harris then highlighted that out of the $450 millions spent a year, only 20% is negotiated contracts and those are only used 25% of the time, so essentially we are only taking advantage of contract savings 5% of the time. Procurement can help save $40–50 millions by controlling the vendors and getting volume discounts.

On the personnel side, there are too many layers of supervisors, and each supervisor has too little span (55% of supervisors have 3 or fewer people under them). The immediate goal is to reduce layers and increase span.

R. Wayne suggested CU utilize a P card company that offers a “cash back” option.

C. Walcott mentioned other universities allow faculty and staff to make personal purchases through the university. The faculty and staff save money, while increasing the bulk spending of the university so it is a win-win situation.

E. Sanders said she was concerned about cuts to departments like Government in Arts and Sciences, which could take a long time to recover from. D. Harris said some of the cost savings plans will help Arts and Sciences and other units too. It may be slightly inconvenient to not buy what we want from wherever we want, but it will save huge amounts of money so it will be worth it.

J. Cetta asked if cuts on the personnel side will make the administration less efficient. D. Harris said we will make it more efficient by making it comparable to the private sector.

W. Ghiorse wanted more communications with the staff and faculty so they are better informed about what Bain has been doing. D. Harris said Bain has been testing their plans with actual units at Cornell and Bain was picked because they tailor their approach specifically.

M. Hatch asked why the construction budget was taken out of Bain’s agenda. D. Harris replied that Bain was looking at the operating budget only. Construction was in the capital budget. But some things have changed, and we are now looking at how much of the construction budget can actually run through the procurement office. But there are challenges because it’s hard to determine which parts will help saving money but not hinder the construction process.

E. Sanders noted that many faculty members feel that construction decisions made over the past decade are harming us now. D. Harris said we cannot undo what has been done. Some budget decisions were made with the hope of raising a lot of funds, which may not have materialized. Moving forward, financial commitments will be transparent. Big building decisions will go through Joanne DeStefano.

R. Wayne wanted to know if that will be enough to prevent bad budget decisions. D. Harris said that good steps are being taken and checks and balances will help tremendously.

VI. Charter Discussion by Charlie Walcott

C. Walcott said he had read the charter and the UA needs to decide which organizations of the UA to keep a close eye on and which ones should be discharged. L. Lawrence suggested inviting those groups to come in and talk with the UA. C. Walcott said some of the committees are a waste of everyone’s time and we should decide if we want to keep them as part of the UA.

M. Hatch went over the committees that are currently under the UA and pointed out some of the less active committees. He also said the UA should be more assertive over campus governance and exercise the legislative authority by making some possibly controversial legislation to address some issues on campus. E. Loew said we need to define what “legislative authority” means.

J. Cetta said we should look at what the UA can do beyond committees. Instead of just letting the inactive committees go, we can engage them to report regularly in order to make them active.

E. Loew said there are only four entities that belong to the UA legislatively: CURW, Transportation, Campus Store and University Health Services.

C. Walcott mentioned K. Laden’s resolution to form an ad-hoc committee to review the charter. M. Hatch said the charter can be amended with 2/3 majority of the sitting members.

L. Lawrence pointed out the resolution doesn’t have any deadline. M. Hatch suggested adding to the resolution “The committee will issue a preliminary report to the UA no later than the first meeting in February.”

C. Walcott moved to call the question. E. Loew seconded. The resolution was passed unanimously by a vote of 12–0−0.

VII. JAMIC resolution by Adam Nicoletti

L. Lawrence pointed out a staff position mentioned in the resolution doesn’t exist anymore. After a discussion of who could be the replacement, A. Nicoletti struck that clause from the resolution. All agreed that ex-officio members can be added later.

A. Nicoletti moved the resolution, M. Hatch seconded.

There was more discussion on who could be added as ex-officio members (preferably Susan Murphy or David Harris).

By a vote of 11–0−0, the resolution passed.

R. Orme asked for a 15-minute extension for the meeting, which all were in favor of.

VIII. CJC Resolution by John Cetta

J. Cetta reported the CJC didn’t reach a consensus regarding the President’s change and suggested we withdraw the recommendation so the rest of the changes can be approved by the President and go into effect.

E. Sanders asked for a review of the footnote involved. A. Brokman explained and said he thought the resolution needed to include a suggestion for what the code should read regarding discrimination.

M. Hatch explained this is one small change, and we could remove this so all the rest of the changes could be put in place now. This one sticking point can be addressed later in more detail.

M. Hatch moved the resolution. L. Lawrence seconded. M. Hatch called the question. The call was passed with a vote of 9–0−1. The resolution was passed by a vote of 8–1−1.

M. Hatch said the CJC can be invited to the next meeting for more discussion.

IX. Adjournment

I. Akinpelu moved to adjourn the meeting. L. Lawrence seconded. R. Orme adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.