MINUTES
University Assembly Meeting
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
4:30–6:00pm
316 Day Hall

I. Call to Order

M. Lukasiewicz called the meeting to order at 4:33 p.m.

Voting Members Present: Kyle Albert, Ramsey Ataya, Jim Blair, Evan Cortens, Philip Goldstein, Howard Howland, Ned La Celle, Melissa Lukasiewicz, Sean Murphy, Bridget Schaffner, Randy Wayne

Voting Members Absent: William Candell, Bridget Cristelli, William Fry, Robert Kay, Natalie Raps

Also In Attendance: Amy O’ Donnell, Ari. T. Epstein, Alex Bores, S. Patnaik

II. Approval of the minutes from October 25, 2011

M. Lukasiewicz asked if there were any corrections to the minutes from October 25. H. Holland, J. Blair and E. Cortens made minor amendments. E. Cortens suggested sending in the minutes to President Skorton to see if he had any corrections in mind. J. Blair seconded this suggestion. M. Lukasiewicz took a vote to run the minutes through President Skorton. All were in favor. It was therefore decided the UA would send the minutes to President Skorton first. E. Cortens offered to take lead on this matter.

III. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

� S Murphy had an update from the Campus Infrastructure Committee meeting. � E. Cortens wanted to tell the UA about the Provost’s reply about NYC Tech Campus. � P. Goldstein asked to discuss the Campus Planning Committee.

IV. Committee Updates

a. Codes and Judicial Committee

P. Goldstein said the CJC had met two weeks ago for their first meeting. They are meeting again tomorrow. The major issue has been discussing Title IX. They hoped to discuss it further and wrap up the issue at the next meeting. As soon as it is resolved, he will let the UA know. J. Blair asked if they were other key issues being discussed in CJC meetings. P. Goldstein said they had other issues but had not had the time to discuss them yet.

b. Campus Welfare Committee

R. Ataya informed the UA last week’s CWC meeting had gone well. They discussed issues of healthcare, the idea of a Graduate Class Council, means to outreach for students and childcare. He felt issues of childcare had improved since the last time they met. J. Blair asked when the polls for figures of improvement were conducted. R. Ataya said he would look into it and send it to the UA. E. Cortens asked what the age groups for the surveys were. R. Ataya said they were on 3 years olds.

R. Ataya said they had brought up the idea of a Graduate Class Council idea and was planning to talk to Evan later more about this. They were considering having a letter posted in the newspapers saying the UA rearranged its structure with 3 main committees and the chairs of the committees listed. A. Epstein said he had done some work on this issue and decided to release a Chronicle article to state what the UA was and the functions it served. He felt when there were specific issues brought up in committees, they could run an article in the Chronicle. M. Lukasiewicz asked if they could also run it in the Sun. To this, A. Epstein said the Daily Sun functioned independently and was not part of University Communications so it was at their discretion if they wanted to do a story on the UA. A. Epstein also suggested the UA have a Publicity Officer position, at least in an informal role.

R. Ataya suggested having Office Hours to discuss issues if people could not make it to UA or committee meetings. He felt this was important step in making the committees pro-active. E. Cortens agreed with him in making committees pro-active but he was against holding Office Hours as he said no one had shown up for them in the past. He said he thought every member in the assembly would be happy to answer questions in person or over email. P. Goldstein agreed with this and he felt Office Hours would be a waste of time. J. Blair said the UA and its committees should better advertise who to contact with questions and inquiries. E. Cortens suggested the membership page of the UA, beside the names of the members, the constituencies they represented should be listed. E. Cortens seconded A. Epstein’s suggestion of putting someone in charge of Public Relations. M. Lukasiewicz said she acted as the spokesperson for the UA and could handle PR. J. Blair said the Executive Committee would look into this and get back to the UA.

R. Ataya asked if committees could advertise and market independently. J. Blair said there was nothing stopping committees from advertising, in fact he encouraged it, so long as they did not make significant changes in the structure in the UA. A. Epstein said it would be better to have a public information list about issues discussed at meetings. He said there was only one graduate student representative on the CWC, at the moment. E. Cortens said he would talk to the representative about this issue and get back to the UA at the next meeting.

c. Campus Infrastructure Committee

Sean Murphy brought up the TCAT bus issue last Thursday, and clarified it was not a TCAT strike or “sick out” but many bus drivers were sick and did not report for work. He said the rest of the meeting comprised of resolutions they had worked on that would be brought up over the course of the UA meeting.

V. New Business (15 minutes)

a. Discuss UA support of SA Resolution “Availability of Accessible Gender-Neutral bathrooms and locker rooms on campus”

M. Lukasiewicz introduced the resolution discussed at the Campus Infrastructure meeting that day. E. Cortens saw 2 issues with the resolution. The first was the clause of single-stall restrooms, which he felt were already installed across campus, which took care of companion animals as well, both male or female. He also wanted to know how single-stall restrooms would be labeled, would they be called male or female restrooms? Melissa said they would discuss the resolution further at the next CIC committee and would get back to the UA about these issues. A. Epstein felt it was mainly a labeling issue that needed to be worked on. E. Cortens agreed and said it should be labeled as “Restroom” and be gender neutral. E. Cortens also suggested making an amendment to the clause of unisex restrooms. Seeing no opposition, an amendment was made.

R. Ataya inquired about the diaper-changing situation. He raised a concern about some restrooms not having enough room for diaper changing stations. S. Murphy clarified that clause and said the restrooms would accommodate enough room for diaper changing stations. R. Wayne said the whole resolution sounded like an exercise in ‘social engineering’. E. Cortens said the heart of the issue was single-stall restrooms and there are good reasons why new constructions should include them. It was not so much about the reasons why they needed them but just acceptance and implementation of them. J. Blair asked R. Wayne if he wanted to dismiss the resolution or rewrite it. R. Wayne said they should dismiss it, as the intent was not important. H. Holland said they were voting on the resolution and felt it therefore should not be deleted.

P. Goldstein questioned the clause about gender-neutral locker rooms and shower rooms. He said considering that they were about to implement something relating to Title IX, they should not expose the university to more liability in terms of gender relations. E. Cortens asked what the liability issue of Title IX was with issue to gender-neutral stalls or locker rooms. He also inquired how this would make sexual harassment more likely and what did university liability have to do with this? E. Cortens said that sexual harassment issues could happen anywhere, in offices or even classrooms and having a gender-neutral locker room would not change things. J. Blair disagreed and said locker rooms were troublesome areas. However, he said this didn’t mean the university should be afraid to implement decisions. S. Murphy suggested implementing family locker rooms. A. Epstein suggested sending these questions to the Campus Infrastructure Committee and bringing a revised resolution to the next meeting. E. Cortens disagreed with this and said since the UA ultimately had to pass the resolution, they should give guidance to the CIC.

M. Lukasiewicz further said the purpose of this resolution was to have the privacy one needed in locker rooms and a statement was therefore needed. E. Cortens said in the interest of time, he would like to move to a vote on the amendment on the clause of gender-neutral locker rooms. J. Blair seconded. 1 In favor, 6 opposed, 2 abstained. The motion failed and the clause remained.

E. Cortens proposed postponing further discussion on the issue until the next UA meeting. J. Blair seconded this suggestion. Seeing no opposition, it was decided the resolution will be discussed at the next meeting.

b. Resolution 3

M. Lukasiewicz introduced the resolution. J. Blair asked what the view of the Committee on policy changes was. M. Lukasiewicz said as a committee, they agreed to support policy changes. J. Blair asked what the policy for retirees was, which E. Cortens clarified. E. Cortens said it would be helpful to discuss changes related to the resolution at the next meeting. S. Murphy agreed with this.

A. Bores brought up 2 issues that had been implemented by the administration. The first was no handicap permits will be given out through Cornell anymore. Secondly, there would now be fees for handicap permits in certain areas. J. Blair asked how handicap-parking signs would be changed according to this resolution. E. Cortens clarified this and said they would not change. S. Murphy suggested continuing the discussion on the resolution at the next CIC meeting. J. Blair seconded. Melissa motioned to continue discussion of Resolution 3 at the next UA Meeting. All were in favor and the motion passed.

c. E. Cortens’ update from the Provost about NYC Tech Campus Proposal

E. Cortens informed the UA about his communication with the Provost regarding the Tech Campus decisions being made public. The Provost’s Office said the Tech Campus proposal decisions were to remain private. However, the Provost would respond any queries from UA members; they could even go to his office and read certain sections of documents.

E. Cortens then motioned to move into Executive Session. J. Blair seconded. Seeing no opposition, the UA moved into Executive Session. After a brief discussion, E. Cortens motioned to move out of Executive Session. H. Holland seconded. Seeing no opposition, the University Assembly moved out of Executive Session.

d. Campus Planning Committee

R. Wayne spoke about the committee and the functions they served. He said lately, the functions of CPC and CSC overlapped since the CPC was handling a lot of sustainability issues. Therefore, the Campus Sustainability Committee was going to be dissolved. J. Blair asked if the Campus Sustainability Committee knew it was going to be dissolved. A. Epstein clarified the Campus Planning Committee was an associated committee of the assembly, meaning it is chartered by someone outside the UA but it shared a long standing relationship with the UA. H. Holland was under the impression the CPC was part of the Faculty Senate. A. Epstein and R. Wayne maintained the CPC as being closely related to the UA. E. Cortens clarified the role and the charter of the CPC, they had no members appointed by the Faculty. He said since it was not a UA committee, the University Assembly could not supervise its affairs, change its charge or disband the committee.

VI. Adjourn

Seeing no further business for the day, E. Cortens motioned to adjourn. R. Ataya seconded. Seeing no opposition, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Shriya Patnaik