MINUTES
University Assembly Meeting
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
4:30–7:00 p.m.
163 Day Hall

I. Call to Order

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

Voting Members Present: K. Albert, R. Ataya, J. Blair, B. Cristelli, P. Goldstein, H. Howland, K. Javaji, R. Kay, N. La Celle, M. Lukasiewicz, S. Murphy, B. Schaffner, R. Wayne Voting Members Absent: E. Cortens, W. Fry, T. Grove, N. Raps Other Members Present: President David Skorton, Vice-President Tommy Bruce, Charlie Walcott (from the Ombudsman’s Office), Mary Beth Grant (Judicial Administrator), Amy O’ Donnell, Ari Epstein (Office of the Assemblies)

II. Approval of the minutes from January 31, 2012

M. Lukasiewicz asked if there were any changes to the minutes from January 31, 2012. J. Blair had many changes so he made a motion to table the minutes so he could discuss them with the assemblies office offline. R. Ataya seconded. Seeing no opposition, the minutes were tabled.

III. Call for any Late Additions to the Agenda

1. Discussion on Resolution 2 (S. Murphy) 2. Introduction of Resolution 7 (P. Goldstein)

IV. Updates (CIC, CWC and CJC Chairs updates)

� Campus Infrastructure Committee S. Murphy said the committee at its last meeting, had discussed Resolution 2, which will be discussed later in the meeting. The CIC had discussed some changes to retiree parking, which he would explain in detail with the discussion of Resolution 2.

� Campus Welfare Committee R. Ataya said L. Chappell Williams from the HR had come to the last meeting to discuss new initiatives. The committee also discussed faculty and staff surveys and brainstormed ways in which students could access the surveys.

� Codes and Judicial Committee: P. Goldstein said at its February 10 meeting, the committee passed Resolution 6. Additionally, last week, it passed Resolution 7. Both resolutions will be discussed later in the meeting.

V. New Business

c.. Discuss the University’s engagement with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) with Mike Powers, Director of Operations for Cornell University Communications

M. Powers began by saying he felt there were several misrepresentations of the Fair Labor Association in Resolution 4. He explained a bit about the FLA and the work previously done by it. R. Wayne asked M. Powers to comment on the conflicts in the FLA’s governace. M. Powers said the FLA is a legitimate organization that works with many brands and it does do good work. He then identified 3 areas of conflict-Voting Protocol, Work Force Interviewing, Severance Issues. He explained these problems in detail..

J. Blair asked if the UA should wait till more facts were presented before changing its recommendation in Resolution 4. M. Powers said the administration has been having discussions back and forth with the FLA, even with its CEO in Washington. He wanted to come out of this saying Cornell had recommended this affiliation. He thus felt resolution 4 should be changed because as presently worded it only supports disaffiliation and makes a number of factually incorrect statements.

J. Blair said this would be put on the agenda for the next meeting. He would appreciate M. Powers’ feedback. H. Howland said the corrections sounded good. J. Blair said if it was just word substitution, they could look at the wording of the resolution at this meeting. President Skorton then said M. Powers has been consistent in working with the FLA. He then said they would present these proposed changes to the FLA, and if FLA refused abide by then, the university would then consider ending its affiliation.

H. Howland moved to table Resolution 4 and proceed to a discussion with President Skorton. 11 in favor, 0 against. Resolution 4 was tabled.

a. Discuss current issues facing the University with President Skorton

M. Lukasiewicz told President Skorton the UA wanted to hear his views on the following: the FLA and Cornell’s relationship with it, the title IX issue, plus an update on the NYC Tech campus.

President Skorton said regarding the tech campus, the Press Office released a final list of architectural designs, one of which has to be approved by March 13. He said there has been no master plan for the campus yet; more of a general blue print. Subsequently, he felt it would not follow a hard and fast road map like the Ithaca campus. As building projects come up, ideas for the campus will progress accordingly. However, since it is in a contract with the City of New York, a master plan will eventually be required. President Skorton said talks with various deans, the Vice Provost’s Office, chief operating officers with the NYC tech campus and academic faculty have been happening simultaneously about the campus’s planning and execution.

Regarding the Title IX issue, President Skorton said he is appreciative of the work being put into the process. He will consult M. Grant, Title IX coordinators, and other advisors regarding the recommendation of the UA once one is adopted. He is looking forward to gathering advice on the matter and is grateful to the UA and the CJC for their work on the project.

M. Lukasiewicz then opened the floor to questions.

R. Ataya asked about the “sandwich” generation, i.e. faculty and staff taking care of their children and elder relatives at the same time. He asked President Skorton if knew of a way to publicize services better. President Skorton said there is currently a committee chaired by C. Walcott, who could be charged with this. C. Walcott said a website is being worked on at present. President Skorton said he would get back to the UA on this. He then said he and C. Walcott would work at better advertising this, through the Chronicle or other ways.

R. Wayne asked what President Skorton’s feelings about a change in the standard of proof in the Title IX issue and its consequent advantages/disadvantages were. President Skorton said when he first came to Cornell, he was impressed by its process-rich nature. He felt Cornell is one institution which deals best with issues regarding the balance of rights between accused and accuser so that problems are not buried underground and are addressed adequately. He wanted the best possible balance between rights of accused and accuser, so everyone felt that there were in a safe environment. Achieving this balance is very difficult so it’s appropriate that discussion proceed slowly and thoughtfully.. P. Goldstein said the CJC is currently working on this issue with M. Grant, the Women’s Resource, the Council’s Office, Nelson Roth, and asked if President Skorton could suggest any relevant stakeholders they could consult further down in the process. President Skorton said the UA and CJC are doing a very good job working with the many stakeholders. President Skorton asked when the resolution was going to be discussed and voted on. P. Goldstein said the UA hopes to vote on it at the March 13 meeting. J. Blair said he was not sure if the resolution was going to be voted on at the March 13 meeting. He said the UA and CJC would need to talk to all stakeholders involved first..

R. Ataya asked about health insurance plans for faculty and staff. President Skorton asked R. Ataya to send him an email in this regard. He would consult the people involved in these interactive programs currently and get back to him on that.

R. Ataya asked if there were any current programs or initiatives to make Cornell more community centered with the local community and Ithaca College. President Skorton again asked R. Ataya to email him in this regard. He would consult the people involved in these interactive programs currently and get back to him on that.

M. Lukasiewicz thanked President Skorton and Vice-President Tommy Bruce for attending.

b. Consider UA Resolution R.6 submitted by the CJC recommending improvements to the Campus Code of Conduct

P. Goldstein introduced Resolution 6, which was passed at the last CJC meeting. He spoke about the changes to be implemented to the Campus Code of Conduct with regards to the Title IX issue. J. Blair further said that these changes would avoid inappropriate intimidation of witnesses while being questioned.

There was a general discussion on who would the witnesses be with respect to the 4th clause of the resolution. A. Epstein said it could either be the accused or a friend of the accused. R. Wayne asked about provisions if the witnesses or accused wanted a non-student hearing board. M. Grant said if either participant requests, a non-student hearing board will be assembled. The objection of the other party would not cause students to be included in the hearing board for such a hearing. J. Blair said these 4 recommendations have been before the CJC for quite awhile and all people involve support these changes. They do not address preponderance of evidence and other contentious issues. Resolution 6 was adopted without any object by M. Grant and her Office, the Council’s Office, or faculty and student members of the committee from the Law School. P. Goldstein said that these recommendations originally came from the Women’s Resource Center.

R. Ataya asked for a change of wording of the word “victim” in certain parts. M. Grant said these were terms consistent with the code as the term “victim” is consistently used throughout the code and is a term of art. J. Blair agreed. M. Grant said another term could be “complainant”. She reiterated they were two separate terms though. She explained why this should be added with the rationale “complainant” and “victim” are 2 different terms. M. Grant then suggested an amendment to add the term “complainant” to the second clause. A motion was made and seconded. Seeing no further discussion on the amendment, the UA moved to voting on the amendment. 11 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstained. The amendment passed.

R. Ataya asked if the amendments in the resolution were related to burden of proof. J. Blair said they were not, and these changes merely improved the code. Mary Grant said these changes had originally come from the Women’s Resource Center last March.

Seeing no further discussion of the resolution, it was put to vote. 11 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstained. The resolution passed.

c. Discuss the University’s engagement with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) with Mike Powers, Director of Operations for Cornell University Communications (Continued)

The assembly returned to discussion of Resolution 4. M. Powers said Cornell has been negotiating with the FLA for over a year. The next step to take would be communication with FLA, sending in the three problem areas. If they do not fix these issues, steps will then be taken to sever affiliation. J. Blair asked if a letter from Cornell would be sent to the FLA, what would be a reasonable time for them to respond. Cornell would have to take a chance and this may lead to domino effect of other universities also disaffiliating. He further said with its previous actions, Cornell has established some clout in the area. R. Wayne asked what possibility was it for it to become a yardstick for the country or even the state. M. Powers said it ultimately came down to consumer education, treating workers better would be a better example set for the whole country. J. Blair said the next UA meeting is March 13 and asked if M. Powers could send some specific language to be used in the resolution by then, so they could vote on it. M. Powers said he could. This would also give the FLA a reasonable time period to respond. He said he would get back to J. Blair and M. Lukasiewicz on this matter in the following week.

d. Learn about the latest campus disciplinary trends from Mary Beth Grant, the Judicial Codes Administrator:

M. Grant explained her role as Judicial Administrator and the work the JA’s office did. She said that in the past, the JA would regularly meet with the UA and update them on issues and she was glad that it was being done again. She then presented reports on campus disciplinary trends and actions taken in the past. These reports are also available in the JA’s office. M. Grant explained that they had stopped putting them online on technical grounds. She would welcome suggestions on how to publicize these reports better. M. Grant then explained the two main trends being sexual assault case and an approach to alcohol and other drugs. She said that though figures have been increasing with 2001, they are not necessarily in terms of severity. She also said that since then, the increase in figures has been due to less serious issues like copyright violations. The JA’s Office therefore focuses on more serious issues, where immediate action is to be taken, or measures like suspension or expulsion.

J. Blair asked if the figures on the reports pertained primarily to the Cornell Community or outside it. M. Grant said these cases mostly dealt with the Cornell campus, they mainly dealt with students accusing other students. R. Ataya asked what was the main cause in the rise of cases from 2008 to 2010 would be. M. Grant said that part of the reason could be due to new changes made in the Campus Code, which was substantially revised in 2008. Additionally, she said that in terms of statistics for sexual assault cases, in the past on an average, most had been let go. There had thus been no accountability for cases of sexual assault or harassment. It was only a few years back these cases started to go through a Hearing Board. M. Grant said that it was a challenging issue as all these cases were complicated and policies were amorphous.

R. Ataya asked if there was a trend for alcohol cases in the past 3 years as if there was a common pattern underlying these reported cases, a pro-active approach could be taken. M. Grant said that there has been more accountability in the past few years. In terms of getting the word out to the Cornell community, she said that the JA’s Office is currently organizing an educational campaign to improve general understanding of what standards of sexual assault are.

P. Goldstein asked that since standards of evidence are going to be lowered with respect to Title IX, if crime rates would rise or fall. M. Grant said that she didn’t see crime rates rising, but the Policy 6.4 process would be less intimidating to go through. P. Goldsetin asked with different standards of evidence, would the actions of the JA’s office change. M. Grant said they would not change, the JA’s Office would still have to study actions and evidence in cases of sexual assault. Its investigation standards would still be very high. The preponderance of evidence standard still requires strong evidence to convict a person. The JA’s Office’s investigative process will remain practically unchanged.

R. Wayne asked if it would be useful to have a forum of the Title IX issue to inform people better. M. Grant said she had mixed feelings about this. She was in support of educating and informing people better through mediums like the Daily Sun. What she was apprehensive about was the false sense of impact created by this process. She felt there needed to be a balance to be struck. R. Wayne asked if the Department of Education had to play any role with respect to the Dear Colleague’s letter. M. Grant said they had drafted the letter and explained the rationale behind this change. She said what is more important was not that the University has to follow the Dear colleague letter, but that it should. She said one particular issue with preponderance of evidence is how to deal with differing perspectives of evidence, whether to place an equal balance between the accuser and the accused or put them on different levels. The preponderance of evidence clause in the letter equalizes the ways in which people viewed the credibility of evidence. J. Blair asked if the JA’s office, the Ombudsman’s Office and the Cornell Police had got together and discussed trends on a periodic basis. She said the JA’s Office had discussed trends with the Police, not with the Ombudsman Office. She said that they would look at a systematic approach in the future. A challenge in gathering statistics and analyzing trends is that some of the seeds they plant take time to germinate. Staff at Gannett are studying alcohol patterns across students and find how alcohol dependent students should get treatment. University personnel modified their approaches to deal with low-level alcohol situations. The overall impact of this has been very positive. Students who went through these processes found that their behaviors had impacted positively and they often felt empowered after having realized these problems and their ramifications.

e. Learn more about the latest trends affecting the Ombudsman Office from Dr. Charlie Walcott, University Ombudsman:

C. Walcott introduced himself and spoke about the Ombudsman’s Office, its members, their role and the work they did. He said that the Ombudsman’s Office is independent, informal and neutral and is responsible to the Cornell community. He said that it is also a confidential body and members cannot reveal details of the work they do, with two exceptions, when required by a court of law or when someone is in imminent danger to himself or others. It receives about 300 cases a year, majority were staff cases (82 staff, 58 faculty, 76 undergraduate, 22 alumni and parents, 30 graduate student cases). The Office mostly offers counseling and advice on issues. C. Walcott said the major issue they face is people didn’t know what the Ombudsman’s office was or what it does. It is seeking to do a better job of publicizing themselves. He further stated though the office does not intervene, it offered advice on how to deal with problems when they arise.

J. Blair asked if the Ombudsman’s Office worked on bringing hidden problems to light. C. Walcott said their office works for the benefit of the entire community and not for the benefit of one particular party. He said one problem of being the Ombudsman Office was that it often only hears one side of the story, and does not necessarily hear the other. He said each case is different and they work very hard to protect each person’s confidentiality.

R. Wayne asked if any changes were being made to confidentiality standards currently. C. Walcott said that one major change would be due to title IX.

A. Bores said for an office of 3 members, they handled quite a lot of cases. He asked if there was a limit to how many cases they could handle before more resources would need to be directed to their office. C. Walcott said if their work increases, they will rethink their full time and part time working staff.

Seeing there were more issues to be discussed even though it was time for the meeting to end, S. Murphy moved to extend the meeting by a few minutes. R. Ataya seconded. 7 in favor, 0 against. The motion passed.

VI. Late Additions to the Agenda.

a. Resolution 2: Availability of Accessible Unisex Restrooms and Locker Rooms on Campus

S. Murphy explained the resolution. A. Bores asked what the budget threshold for this project was. S. Murphy said it is currently 5 million dollars. A. Bores had a question on single occupant restrooms,. M. Lukasiewicz clarified the purpose of having at least one single occupant, unisex restroom per building. R. Ataya asked if there was a way of generalizing the threshold of restrooms. S. Murphy said it would be problematic setting exact numbers.

Seeing no further discussion, K. Albert moved to vote on the revised resolution. 7 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstained. The resolution passed.

b. Resolution 7: Regarding Campus Code of Conduct with Title IX

P. Goldstein introduced the resolution. J. Blair said the committee at its last meeting voted in favor of the resolution. He explained how the resolution would hopefully resolve the Title IX code issue. It would move cases of sexual assault into Cornell Policy 6.4. The resolution also states that, absent a legal mandate recognized by President Skorton, the resolution recommends no change to the Code. J. Blair said the code would likely still not be compliant with the recommendation; hence cases of sexual assault and harassment were proposed to be moved to Policy 6.4.

The CJC is currently working on getting the SA and GPSA inputs, as well as M. Grant and Nelson Roth. J. Blair said the resolution would be discussed and voted on at the next CJC meeting. J. Blair said the earliest the resolution could be adopted is March 13. N. La Celle suggested consulting the Ombudsman Office about some issues in the resolution. J. Blair said the CJC would look into it.

VII. Adjourn

M. Lukasiewicz adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m.