Minutes
University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
4:30 � 6:00 p.m.
316 Day Hall

I. Call to Order

C. Walcott called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

Roll was taken via sign-in sheet.
Voting Members Present: R. Ataya, A. Brokman, W. Candell, J. Feldman, G. Yorgakaros, E. Cortens, N. LaCelle, L. Lawrence, W. Ghiorse, C. Walcott, R. Wayne
Voting Members Absent: C. Cunha, E. Strong, M. Walsh, J. Blair, K. Baier, M. Hatch, H. Howland, E. Loew
Non-voting Members Absent: B. McKinney, A. Craig, N. Evensen
Also In Attendance: A. Epstein, A. O’Donnell, Y. Zhang

II. Approval of the Minutes from November 17, 2010

Approval of the minutes was postponed until quorum was reached.

E. Cortens moved the minutes. J. Feldman seconded. The minutes were unanimously approved.

III. Middle States Presentation

Alan Mathios gave an overview of the process and explained that Middle States has shifted the focus to the assessment of student learning, not just grades and placements. He went over the members of the working group and their roles in the process and the timetable. He explained that the primary audience is the Cornell community. He noted the strategic plan has become a basis for recommendations that have been included in the self-study. All relevant information can be found online at cornell.edu/MiddleStates. The self-study document is 227 pages long and covers Cornell’s development in the last decade, including the medical school and Qatar.

Assessment of student learning is to provide clearly articulated statements of expected student learning outcomes at all levels. A. Mathios said a number of universities are represented on the evaluation team, which will visit Cornell in March of 2011.

All comments and feedback can be sent by e-mail to middlestates@cornell.edu

A. Brokman asked about how the median grade policy impacted student learning. A. Mathios said the document does not address this subject.

L. Lawrence asked about the facilities. A. Mathios said some projects were discussed in the document, but specific interactions between facilities and the student experience were not mentioned.

IV. By-Laws Discussion; Committee Structure

C. Walcott said the draft had been sent to Cornell’s counsel office, who had some wording issues with the draft document, so some wording changes will need to be made at some point. In terms of committee structure, we need to improve communication by either having all the committee chairs present at UA meetings or switching over to the fewer, broader committee model and have more UA members on each committee.

E. Cortens said he is in favor of the fewer, broader committees because they have larger and clearer jurisdiction. They will not disenfranchise people interested in particular issues because the committees can easily have their own standing committees on specific issues.

R. Wayne asked how are students chosen to serve on the Campus Planning Committee? Would these students have to join the UA under the new structure? We need to make it as easy for students to get on committees as possible. A. Epstein explained the process by which committees seek out members and how they are staffed. Currently, the UA doesn’t have control over the members of the committees except for the one UA liaison. The constituent assembles staff people from online applications.

E. Cortens said it is important to have fully staffed, functional committees and it would take fewer people to staff fewer, broader committees. L. Lawrence supported the committees with both UA and non-UA members. We don’t have enough UA members to staff all the committees by ourselves. C. Walcott agreed.

C. Walcott wanted to have a straw vote on the issue. E. Cortens suggested a real vote in order to move forward.

There was a vote to support the fewer, broader committees that can have non-UA members. By a vote of 9–0−1, the UA decided on this model for committee structure.

V. Resolution: L. H. Bailey Conservatory — R. Wayne

R. Wayne read his resolution. Jan Nyrop, the Senior Associate Dean of CALS, said the demolition has been planned for about 3 years. The conservatory was built in the 30’s and has not been well-maintained. Originally, it was estimated to cost the same to renovate it as to replace it. However, the estimate of $1.8 million fell short of the lowest contractor bid, which was $2.3 million. At the time, it was decided that was too much to spend on just one greenhouse when other greenhouses needed work also. The old building structure also restricts the energy efficiency of any renovations, so it is more beneficial to replace than renovate. The college is committed to having a conservatory, so they are looking at the existing blueprint and an add-on. He said the new building would be roomier and more energy-efficient and still be in close proximity to Plant Sciences.

L. Lawrence asked about funding. J. Nyrop said it would all be funded by the state. The conservatory is currently closed due to safety concerns. Critical specimens have been moved to other locations. Some specimens cannot be moved because they are planted in the ground.

W. Ghiorse asked who was in charge of the plans for the new conservatory. J. Nyrop said it has not been decided, but the project itself will move forward soon regardless.

C. Walcott asked what should happen to the resolution now that it has been clarified the college is doing exactly what the resolution is asking for. R. Wayne changed the resolution to say the UA commends the college for its actions.

There was a call to question. By a vote of 10–0−0 the resolution passed.

VI. Late Addition — Cornell Council for the Arts Resolution — E. Cortens

E. Cortens passed around a resolution regarding the changes made to the CCA. He gave an overview of the relevant history of the grants. The proposed changes mean there will be one large art event a year that will eliminate the individual grants to students and faculty that amount to $70,000. People will need to apply through their department chairs for funding, and those seeking funding who are not in one of the 12 art-related departments would have no way to apply for funding for art related projects. E. Cortens asked the UA to read the resolution and read the Provost’s letter.

W. Ghiorse suggested adding “staff” to the resolution. E. Cortens agreed and said he will add “staff” to the group of people the Provost should hold a meeting with as stated in the resolution.

E. Cortens said the objection is to how this was handled. C. Walcott suggested inviting concerned people to an open UA meeting next semester to hear the different viewpoints, similar to the childcare issue.

J. Feldman asked if the individual grants have been cut before and what are the pros for the new system? E. Cortens said as far as he knows, the individual grants had not been cut before. The pros include a net budget increase and a large event to unite the campus and put Cornell’s name out there. It is still important to retain the individual grants though, as they are important to support and represent individual artists.

VII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:02 p.m.