Student Assembly Meeting

Thursday, February 12, 2026

• Term:
  2025-2026
• Assembly/Committee: Student Assembly
• Date & Time:
  Thu, Feb 12, 2026 - 4:45pm
  to
  6:30pm
• Location:
  Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room (WSH407)/Zoom
• Agenda:
• Meeting Packet:
• Audio Recording:
• Minutes:

  I. Call to Order
       a. Z. deRham called the meeting to order at 4:46PM.
       b. Members Present: D. Addoquaye, A. Aftab, J. Anand, L. Blum, D. Carson, A. Cekic, C. Cook, Z. deRham, M. Ehrlich, A. Fard, C. Flournoy, E. Galperin, L. Han, V. Kakra, C. Kim, K. Krishtopa, Y. Masoud, E. Porter, J. Purcell, H. Spector, C. Tarala, T. Waguespack, A. Walters, H. Watkins, Z. Yabut, E. Yao, K. Young
       c. Members Absent: S. Agarwal, M. Causey, G. Dorward, I. Gayle, J. Mui, J. Swavy
       d. Also Present: E. Chaudhuri
  
  II. Reading of the Land Acknowledgment
       a. Z. deRham stated the land acknowledgement.
  
  III. Approval of the February 5th, 2025 Meeting Minutes
       a. The motion to approve the minutes passes through unanimous consent.
  
  IV. Consent Calendar
       a. Z. deRham shares that communications to the Student Assembly regarding Resolution 17, Resolution 19, Resolution 20, and Resolution 21 have been updated. She also announces to the whole assembly that the student activity fee has been rejected and they will continue with a cap of $424.
       b. Resolution 35: Transferring Funds to the Administrative Account
       c. Resolution 45: You Get a Cookie!
            i. The motion to approve the consent calendar has been approved through unanimous consent.
  
  V. Reports of Officers, Committees, and Liaisons
       a. H. Watkins reports that the Finance Committee plans to have a meeting on Sunday, March 1 concerning the rejection of Resolution 21 to reassess the student activity fee.
       b. C. Flournoy reports working on a new member education process for the assembly.
       c. C. Tarala reports as the newly appointed chair of the international student committee that there are no members and if anyone is interested or knows someone who is, let them know and let him know. He adds that Erik wanted to share that there are assembly cups for members, which can be found at the end of the food table.
       d. H. Watkins motions to move the Third Reading Calendar to before the Second Reading Calendar, passes by unanimous consent.
       e. L. Han reports that the Financial Review Committee plans to have its first meeting after break.
       f. T. Waguespack reports that there will be no Communications Committee Meeting on Sunday and it will likely be moved to Wednesday.
       g. K. Young reports meeting with the Campus Codes Review Committee the day before and that President Kotlikoff responded to a GPSA’s amendment similar to Student Assembly’s Resolution 10, stating that under federal and state law, the university bears responsibility for adopting and administering policies necessary to provide a safe and appropriate educational environment. However, the New York federal state law stated that universities don't have the sole responsibility of campus codes and policies.
       h. D. Addoquaye reports that as the new IT liaison, the first meeting will be on March 4th and that he just finished talking to Cornell IT.
  
  VI. Announcements
       a. None.
  
  VII. Presentations
       a. None.
  
  VIII. Public Comment Microphone
       a. A speaker made some suggestions towards some resolutions on the agenda.
  
  IX. Third Readings
       a. Resolution 25: Approving Special Projects Request for Ethiopian Eritrean Student Association
            i. R25 Appendix A: Ethiopian Eritrean Student Association Special Project Funding Request
            ii. A representative outlines that the conference’s goal was to create a national gathering to bring together Ethiopian students across the Ivies and that 20Cornell students are confirmed to go so far. There will be career oriented panels, skill building workshops, and networking opportunities and students return to Cornell with stronger leadership, broader professional networks,
  and engagement within Cornell’s community. Total projected costs have also been reduced to $2,500 including $1,300 for the shared Airbnb lodging, $935 for the conference registration, $242 for one rental car, $250 for gas, and the use of 3 personal vehicles. They plan to combine this request with SAFC allocation and internal fundraising money so that participation is not dependent on financial availability.
            iii. E. Chaudhuri suggests having a system where representatives come with specific numbers going forward. He shares that this conference is a great example of what the Special Projects funding should be used for.
            iv. H. Watkins motions to amend lines 4, 16, and 29 to change $4,800 to $2,517.50, no dissent.
            v. E. Chaudhuri moves to close debate, no dissent.
            vi. The resolution passes by a vote of 25-0-0.
       b. Resolution 26: Approving Special Projects Request for the Young Democratic Socialists of America
            i. R26 Appendix A: Young Democratic Socialists of America Special Project Funding Request
            ii. A representative shares that the event was held on November 21st, consisting of a drag show of four performers. Each performer’s budget was $250, performing four sets of queer history. There was an estimated attendance of 70 people, with $1690.41 allocated to catered food and utensils. The speaker notes settling for $1690.41 of Special Projects funding
            iii. E. Chaudhuri moves to approve the amendment, no dissent.
            iv. E. Chaudhuri moves to close debate, no dissent.
            v. The resolution passes by a vote of 23-2-0.
       c. Resolution 28: Approving Special Projects Request for the Med-In Black Association
            i. R28 Appendix A: Med-In Black Association Special Project Funding Request
            ii. A representative shares that this is the club’s second time having this trip. Last time, the club toured medical schools and talked to medical professionals in Boston. This time, 44 students will visit 3 medical schools in Washington D.C. and attend professional development workshops focused on medical school readiness and navigating imposter syndrome, financial
  planning for medical education, and long-term and career goal setting. $5,775 will go towards rooming and breakfast, brunch will be paid separately, and this year there will be one less excursion to amount to $3,150, totaling to $525 per person.
            iii. C. Tarala confirms that this was funded last year.
            iv. E. Chaudhuri motions to end debate, no dissent.
            v. The resolution passes by a vote of 24-0-1.
       d. Resolution 29: Approving Special Projects Request for the Cornell Capital Club
            i. R29 Appendix A: Cornell Capital Club Special Project Funding Request
            ii. A representative shares that this is a business club that focuses all across capital stack, including equity and debt. The club chose West Palm because the Goldman Sachs office there has a private equity asset management arm, there is a JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley there, and because West Palm Beach is the financial capital in the South.
            iii. E. Chaudhuri requests for a breakdown of the trip, including hours spent meeting officials and an itinerary.
                 1. The representative shares that since the trip was in the past, they didn’t get funding beforehand and had to cut down to 3 members. The analysts showed them around the office and the type of work they’re on, including vintage funds, infrastructure deals, and land rights deals.
            iv. A. Cekic argues that with only 3 people attending the trip, it doesn’t make sense to give $5,000 to begin with and for the budget for meals and incidentals to be $86 per person per day. He requests for a revised update on how much was actually spent.
                 1. The representative shares that $150 was spent on round trip flights, $50 was spent a day per person, and around $100 was spent on hotels per night.
            v. M. Ehrlich notes that the numbers don’t add up.
                 1.The representative explains that the club applied for Special Projects funding in October, and that was the projected amount. The costs total to around $1,050.
            vi. A. Cekic motions to amend the resolution in all instances of where it says $5,000 to $1,050, no dissent.
            vii. E. Chaudhuri motions to end debate, passes by a majority vote.
            viii. The resolution passes by a vote of 17-4-4.
       e. Resolution 30: Approving Special Projects Request for Air and Sea Hospitality
            i. R30 Appendix A: Air and Sea Hospitality Special Project Funding Request
            ii. A representative explains that the trip goes to Delta Airlines in Atlanta to look at an operations tour on Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson on the first day and visit the corporate headquarters at Delta Airlines on Monday.
            iii. A. Cekic asks how many members were employed as a result of this trip.
                 1. The representative shares that the club has gone to United Airlines in Chicago in the past, where the past president was working at United Operations, and the past membership chair is currently working at Delta Co-op.
            iv. A. Cekic asks if the students will get an interview from the trek.
                 1. The representative explains that there will be a higher chance as they’ll have a closer connection with the personal recruiter, but it won’t be guaranteed.
            v. K. Young asks if this is the first time the club is traveling to Atlanta.
                 1. The representative shares there was a trip to Atlanta a long time ago.
            vi. H. Spector asks about airline ticket pricing.
                 1. The representative explains that these are basic economy prices, with the Syracuse to Atlanta round trip costing $4.97 per person.
                 2. H. Watkins mentions that during the Executive Board meeting, the flight tickets did cost this much.
            vii. E. Ehrlich asks if the trip already happened and if they bought the tickets yet.
                 1. The representative shares that the trip will be on May 4 and they haven’t bought plane tickets yet.
            viii. C. Flournoy asks if the club will adjust the numbers and come back if there’s a change of members attending the trip.
                 1. The representative replies with affirmation.
            ix. A. Aftab asks if the opportunity is exclusive to club members.
                 1. The representative replies that the club has a tier system that prioritizes those with the most engagement and anyone can come to the events and join the club.
            x. D. Carson confirms whether the club is open and has no recruitment process.
                 1. The representative answers that this is not a professional business club and that anyone can come to events and join for anything.
            xi. C. Tarala moves to end debate, no dissent.
            xii. The resolution passes by a vote of 23-0-2.
       f. Resolution 32: Approving Special Projects Request for the Speech and Debate Society at Cornell
            i. R32 Appendix A: Speech and Debate Society at Cornell Special Project Funding Request
            ii. A representative shares that the program has been around since the university’s inception and is the most successful team in history. The program’s funding got a dramatic cut by the administration's cut of ILR school, which meant that they could not go to the national tournament that they already qualified for. So far, they have been qualified for 63 events. The representative and other teammates have put hours into speeches that advocate important topics, such as medical deportation that could perform policy solutions, worker and LGBTQ+ rights, etc. They mention that plane tickets cost over $9,000 because there are 21 students going, and lodging is also over $7,000, but this is not all the money that is being requested.
            iii. E. Chaudhuri moves to end debate, no dissent.
            iv. The resolution passes by a vote of 24-0-1.
  
  X. Second Readings
       a. Resolution 33: Making General Election Day A Campus Holiday
            i. M. Ehrlich shares that elections are important, students should be encouraged to vote, and this resolution will allow students to vote, which has been difficult.
            ii. L. Blum motions to end debate, no dissent.
            iii. The resolution is approved by unanimous consent.
       b. Resolution 34: Standardizing Resolution Authors and Endorser Rules
            i. E. Chaudhuri shares that the word ‘sponsor’ has been misleading with people utilizing it for different things, while this year, some have been using ‘endorsed’, while others have been using ‘sponsor’. The resolution creates a
  simple template, which is important for elections and being transparent.
            ii. A. Cekic suggests using the term ‘signatory’ instead of ‘endorser’ in the case that someone may want to see something on the floor for debate but doesn’t necessarily support it, then they would be a signatory.
                 1. M. Ehrlich believes that you shouldn’t put your name on something you don’t support.
                 2. E. Chaudhuri shares that they’ll give it some thought until it’s on next week’s agenda.
                 3. C. Flournoy shares that he doesn’t think there should be a fourth, but in the case that it does get on, it should be made as an addition instead of replacing ‘endorser’, as they mean different things. He adds that he doesn’t think ‘signatory’ is necessary, as putting your name on something shows you’re supporting it.
                 4. K. Young believes that the concept of there being a signatory isn't needed because you can’t control what goes to the floor or not. Instead, members can encourage others to submit resolutions because saying you’re not a signatory will not prevent it from going to the floor.
                 5. A. Cekic rescinds the amendment.
            iii. A. Aftab moves to end debate, approved by a majority vote.
            iv. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       c. Resolution 36: Establishing a Student Assembly Year-Round Grant and Review
  Committee
            i. E. Chaudhuri points out that financial restraints prevent students from accessing opportunities on campus. He explains that students need money for certain things such as transportation and the Student Assembly has that money. He adds that the financial aid committee has a lot of trouble consistently managing such a large sum of money. He emphasizes that the idea is simple, but the necessary infrastructure must be placed first.
            ii. D. Carson adds that there’s the summer experience grant, but it’s limited to the summer, while this grant would apply for any break or opportunity.
            iii. Z. deRham shares an idea of a Professional Development Fund sponsored by the Student Assembly falling under SAF, considering the $500,000 is being administered at a fast rate. She notes that the constant stream of income for this initiative should be sustainable and has a meeting tomorrow to discuss the infrastructure around the Summer Experience Grant because the governing document does not mention how much authority the assembly has over it. She adds that since the money is student activity fee money, it cannot be administered to individual students in a grant form. She moves to table the resolution for a week, no dissent.
            iv. The motion has been tabled to the next meeting.
       d. Resolution 37: Maximum Printing Cap
            i. E. Porter shares that a primary complaint shared among freshmen is that classes require printing materials that you can access digitally and the amount could exceed the printing allocation. She adds that it’s unlikely they’d increased the printing allocation, as that will be factored into tuition. She’s interested in capping the amount courses can require a student to print for that course because some students already pay into CAMP which should cover all the books
            ii. E. Chaudhuri shares that a lot of professors came up with a no AI policy, resulting in many things being on paper. He shares an experience where one class had a 700 page printing requirement per class per week. He adds that this idea should be going to the faculty members to make them consider ways to make courses more accessible for students.
            iii. A. Cekic shares that since this is an academic policy, the resolution will be rejected and would have to be enacted through the faculty senate. He suggests having professors make course packers, and if professors ask for it to be printed, the CAMP should offer them as a course booklet.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri agrees with the CAMP idea, but the reason he brought this up is that historically, one of the biggest things the Student Assembly has done in the past couple of years was the thing about median grades on transcripts, which was an academic policy that started from a Student Assembly resolution. He admits that it would go through the Faculty Senate, but he emphasizes the importance of it coming from the Student Assembly members discussing it. The point of this resolution is to bring awareness to the issue and it’s better to start the conversation than try to work internally.
            iv. H. Spector brings up the fact that in engineering courses, a lot of the printing is your own work and some work can’t be turned in on Canvas.
            v. M. Ehrlich believes that the first clause starting a rise in anti-technology courses is overdramatic and doesn't really agree with it.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri emphasizes the importance of students interacting with technology.
                 2. E. Porter emphasizes that this is more of a cost issue for her, as it’s understandable that some teachers do not want you to use computers, but requiring students to print things that can be accessed online is excessive.
            vi. A. Aftab motions to move to third reading, no dissent.
            vii. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       e. Resolution 38: Increasing Outreach Requirements
            i. E. Porter shares that something the Student Assembly has been criticized for is its lack of transparency and outreach. She suggests that the easiest way to do that is to increase outreach requirements because the current status is that the assembly is only required to do one public forum per semester. She believes that in order to really engage with the student body and understand what they need, assembly members should meet with them at least once a month in-person or over Zoom. She adds that last semester, only the Arts and Sciences representatives and the Freshman representatives hosted outreach events, which is against what is outlined in the bylaws.
            ii. C. Kim adds that when tabling, she realized it’s much easier to gather opinions on problems and it’s easier for them to focus on it.
            iii. T. Waguespack isn’t sure if this needs to be a resolution and that this is something the assembly can just do.
                 1. E. Porter agrees that it doesn’t need to be a resolution, but it would hold the members accountable considering the fact that they’re already not obeying the bylaws.
            iv. C. Flournoy compares the language of the resolution and the bylaws and asks if it’s easier to just amend it to add this.
                 1. E. Porter believes it’s fine as long as there’s some per month requirement and suggests having something to hold members accountable to in the bylaws.
                 2. C. Kim adds that it’s nice that they wrote about how members would regularly report to the Assembly the opinions that they gathered from the undergrads.
            v. H. Spector notes that in the abstract, it says virtual or in-person, but in the body, it says it is mandatory for it to be in-person. She also adds that it may be hard to define respective constituents because she can’t just go up to people and ask if they’re disabled.
                 1. E. Porter shares her willingness to amend it, as it should not limit people from expressing their concerns.
            vi. A. Aftab understands the intention behind it, but everyone has friends that are constituents in a way so there are interactions. She adds that for people that have the seats, they ran on a charter which had representatives do a forum once, but this resolution would make them do something they didn’t sign up for. She adds that since it would be a charter change, there should be a word-to-word red line so members know what they’re voting on. She motions to table this for a week, rejected by a majority vote.
            vii. D. Carson understands that the representatives didn’t sign up for this, but it’s their duties as representatives to represent their constituents. He adds that it’s bad taste to say it like that at their job is to improve the assembly.
                 1. E. Porter agrees with the fact that this is a representative position and that since they’re elected annually, they bring fresh ideas and what they’re hearing on campus to the assembly. She believes that inherently, they should be meeting with people who aren’t just your friends and people outside of your immediate network so that you have a general consensus on what the student body needs.
                 2. C. Kim shares that members can focus on sharing issues they’ve been hearing at the end of the month and focus on gathering opinions rather than having a requirements section.
                 3. A. Walters recommends adding a clause that tabling or another activity should be somewhere relevant to constituents, such as at Duffield for the engineering representative.
                 4. J. Anand mentions that while tabling last semester, he realized a lot of freshmen don’t even know that the Student Assembly exists. He believes that this won’t change unless members actually reach out to the constituents. He notes that no one really knows what they want and notes many had a lot of housing residential life issues.
                 5. K. Young asks whether reaching out to representatives or e-boards of cultural organizations of minorities would be considered as a form of outreach. She asks to define a form of outreach and put it inside the framework so that there are strict guidelines of what that looks like.
                      a. E. Porter agrees that it’s outreach, but she considers it to be more broad in scope so that the representative is talking to as many people as possible instead of just an organization.
                 6. M. Ehrlich agrees that there needs to be more clarity and that tabling should be as relevant places. He also adds that he can’t use his friends who he represents as an argument against this resolution because he also represents those who are not his friends. He notes that it’s not unusual for the charter and bylaws to change and part of what the members signed up for is for them to change. He motions to close debate, passes by majority vote.
                 7. Resolution 38 passes to the Third Reading Calendar with a note that there must be a redline version of the charter for it to pass the Third Reading Calendar.
       f. Resolution 39: Rebranding the Student Assembly to the Cornell Student Senate
            i. E. Chaudhuri notes that whenever the Student Assembly is mentioned, most of the time it’s abbreviated to SA and there’s been posts about whether sexual assault or the student assembly was worse. He adds that SA is a triggering term and should be changed to Student Government Association or Student Senate. He also adds that he wants this to be a turning point for the assembly, pointing out how a freshman representative and a representative who almost got silenced from her voter powers last meeting came together to write resolutions. He notes that the assembly has a lot of power to do a lot of good things on the campus as a public service organization and a rebrand would be great for the assembly.
            ii. Z. deRham shares that last year, at the beginning of the term, they went through the governing documents and replaced the abbreviation of SA within their governing documents to just Assembly because it’s not a good abbreviation. She adds that she does not support switching to ‘Student Senate’ because Senate on the campus tends to mean direct power, which the current assembly does not have, so she does not want to take away the gravity of the term Senate.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri supports student government and emphasizes the importance of a rebrand.
            iii. A. Cekic notes the reason it’s called Student Assembly is because it respects the history of the Willard Straight Hall Takeover, which gave the constituent assemblies at Cornell.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri understands that the history of words is important, but notes that it’s also important to understand the context of today.
            iv. H. Watkins motions to close debate, no dissent.
            v. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       g. Resolution 40: Sponsorship Requirements for Assembly Resolutions
            i. E. Chaudhuri points out the issue of people adding themselves as sponsors and taking credit for resolutions. He notes that those on committees do a lot of great work, which explains the provision in the resolution that discusses how your name gets recognized if you actually worked on the resolution. He expresses how it should mock an actual government, like how a lot of advocacy organizations work to get bills passed, but it’s the political representatives whose names are the ones championing and carrying the bills.
            ii. C. Tarala expands on how there’s instances where random individuals and clubs endorsed things despite not knowing what’s happening here. He believes that the point of having representatives is to represent the people and the resolution would bring back what the assembly is meant to be.
            iii. C. Flournoy shares that he doesn’t think it’s too much of an issue with people adding their names and asks if this resolution becomes ineffective if the previous one passes.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri shares that the order of the resolution was done intentionally and it makes more sense to have standardization.
            iv M. Ehrlich says he doesn’t think it’s a good idea because there have been instances where community members wrote significant portions of resolutions. He notes that this is not the real life government and the assembly does not need to operate where only representatives can be listed as those who sponsor resolutions. He shares that it should be based on merits and it’s fair for those to be recognized for their work and advocacy.
                 1. C. Tarala counters that it would dilute the importance of the assembly and representates, as it is their job. He agrees that others can contribute to it, but at the end of the day, this is assembly work. He believes that as it is their responsibility to represent the people, random people shouldn’t be coming up with things without at least consulting their representative.
                 2. E. Chaudhuri expresses that if someone really wants their name on a resolution, they can join the committees.
            v. A. Aftab doesn’t believe that assembly members should take credit for other people’s work just because they hold a seat. She shares two of the biggest resolutions last year, including the one about ICE, where all the effort was done by outside community members, and another about the student-athlete resolution, where the student-athlete board put a lot of effort into the resolution. She motions to table this resolution indefinitely, rejected by a majority vote.
            vi. A. Cekic notes that the resolution violates the bylaws in the Charter, as all Cornell community members are non-voting, non-debating members, giving them the direct privilege and right to submit and sponsor resolutions. He understands the idea behind not liking the word sponsorship and suggests making authors a closed thing and a tracking system.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri agrees that there’s probably a better solution and they’re not trying to make everything function like a one-to-one. He explains that in even your local city council, you can’t sponsor resolutions there but your councilperson would go do that. He believes that it’s the point of being a representative government.
            vii. C. Flournoy shares that it should follow the bylaws more.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri motion to end debate, passes by a vote of 14-6.
            viii. Resolution 40 has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       h. Resolution 42: Restructuring Executive Board
            i. E. Chaudhuri shares that the purpose of the resolution is to restructure the Executive Board so that the Chairs of every respective committee can go on to the Executive Board. He notes that there is supposed to be an Executive Cabinet with all the different chairs inside of different committees that talks to the Executive Board, but that is not the case and the governance system isn’t operating in a way he thinks it should. He explains that the resolution places all the Chairs on the Executive Board since there are no Executive Cabinet meetings and there isn’t anything inherently different between the role of the VPs and the Committee Chairs. He also brings up the fact that he doesn’t think the Executive Board is doing what it needs to be doing, especially the communications, as there has been hardly any communications meeting over the semester, ⅗ VPs have yet to sponsor a resolution that they’ve written themselves this semester or over the course of their entire term, little work is being done in the Policy and DEI Committees, etc.
            ii. L. Blum adds that the point of bringing up the resolution is not to say what they don’t do, but to serve as a reminder that there’s so much more potential than what’s currently being done–both the body and the executives.
            iii. The Chair would smile favorably upon a motion to extend the meeting time to 7PM.
            iv. E. Chaudhuri motions to amend lines 41 to 43 to “be it finally resolved that the Executive Board restructure consists of the members of the Executive Board, as well as the chairs of Policy, Finance, Communications, Diversity, DEI, Environmental Policy, Academic Policy, Technology, Student Employment Policy, Infrastructure Fund Commission, International Students Affairs, and Campus Pulse Committees.”, no dissent.
            v. Z. deRham shares discomfort with this moving forward without a redlining of bylaws and without a clear understanding of how the two bodies operate, otherwise the resolution is ill informed. She notes that she can’t gather that understanding based on the page or so of content. She adds that shifting responsibility away from irresponsible members enables them to be lazy, while constantly critiquing them and keeping tabs on whether they’re fulfilling their duties will hold them accountable. She believes that responsive and dedicated people can make the existing structure work.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri doesn’t agree with the solution and emphasizes having this conversation over passing the resolution. He agrees that it’s a well-functioning system, but it would only work if the meetings actually happen, but without the meeting happening, this resolution would propose a better system of having those who are willing and dedicated to share their input even further. He believes that having many resolutions should be the norm with people collaborating and actually representing the community.
           vi. C. Flournoy expresses that the last meeting was in October and shares that he is in charge of making sure the VPs are doing okay. He adds that the VPs function as leaders of their own subcommittees and reassures that they’re capable of doing their jobs.
              1. E. Chaudhuri says he thinks the issue is beyond a grievance; many current representatives haven’t had an NME, some don’t even know where to start writing resolutions, and multiple members are intimidated to write resolutions. He understands that the Referendum happened and other commitments, but a lot needs to be done to get the assembly back in shape. He expresses respect for the VPs, especially Hayden who has taken a lot of brunt, but demands the rest of the three VPs to step up. He expresses disappointment in the lack of resolutions when it’s the biggest portion of their job. He further expresses his disbelief that this is a perfect governance system with the lack of active members, especially on the Executive Board.
              2. L. Blum adds that she heard from some assembly members that they’ve been helping out the Executives more than they should, they feel like they’re doing their jobs, and they believe there’s an overall lack of initiatives from the Executives. 
          vii. D. Addoquaye shares that he does a lot outside of the Politics Committee, such as speaking with IT about a resolution for AI bots and working with Human Ecology about a possible fashion show. He expresses frustration over the fact that they did not speak to him directly despite questioning his position. However, going forward he will be more transparent with the policy initiatives he’s been working on. He adds that the Policy Committee is supposed to overview resolutions from the Second Reading Calendar to the Third and to present things, but no policies have needed those amendments. He asks how they would see the Policy Committee as a fit and be something of substance and not a pseudo-assembly.
            1. L. Blum says this would start the conversation and would like one-on-one conversations to discuss how to make it more active.
            2. E. Chaudhuri notes the irony of how the VP of Policy is asking about what the policy should be for the Policy Committee. He admits that there weren’t many resolutions that required policy initiatives from the Second to the Third Reading Calendar, but he argues that some resolutions needed spiffing up. He shares that when the VP sees issues with the Policy Committee, then he should’ve been first to point it out.
            viii. A. Cekic suggests copying the attendance rules to the meetings of their committees so that it’s procedural and won’t be personal to anyone.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri appreciates his insight and suggests having it in a separate resolution.
            ix. M. Ehrlich moves to table the resolution for a week, approved by a majority vote.
       i. Resolution 43: A Resolution Enacting the Enforcement of Resolution 9
            i. M. Ehrlich shares that Resolution 9, prohibiting student and campus life from collaborating with ICE and Customs and Borders Protection, passed last semester and that President Kotlikoff must request reconsideration of the legislation within 30 days if he wants it reconsidered. He notes that as this is a legislation and not a recommendation, there are different requirements under the Charter. He adds that since the resolution wasn’t requested reconsideration, and under the charter the assembly does have legislative authority, it must be enacted. He notes a conversation he heard there was a conversation with Dean Love stating they did respond to the resolution, signaling they aren’t aware of their obligation to respond with a request to reconsider. He adds that he is open to amending the last clause due to its messy language. He suggests communication with the Office of Student and Campus Life that Resolution 9 must be enforced beyond just a conveyance of it.
            ii. H. Watkins shares that it’s ridiculous how their authority is not being respected by the administration 
            iii. Z. deRham reads the charter under Section 3 around line 60, and shares that the response was responded to within 30 days. She suggests proposing a charter amendment requiring the President’s direct response in 30 days.
                 1. M. Ehrlich states that they violated the additional requirement that if they want the legislation to be reconsidered, it must be requested within 30 days. He emphasizes that they did respond, just not the one to request reconsideration, and if they don’t request it, then the legislation has been accepted.
                 2. E. Chaudhuri is in favor of amending this from The Second Reading Calendar to the Third Reading Calendar. He motions to end debate, no dissent.
            iv. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
            v. The Chair would smile favorably upon a motion to extend the meeting time to 7:30 PM, no dissent.
       j. Resolution 44: Creating Restrictions & Evaluation Criteria around the Special Projects Fund
            i. E. Chaudhuri shares that some organizations think the Student Assembly is being loose about the Special Projects Fund and that the resolution is to make it so that it is only open to open organizations. He shares his belief that money from students should not go to competitive, exclusive clubs. She notes that the assembly has already seen a manipulation of money with private organizations and would like to add general guidelines for what the assembly is looking for and standardize the process a bit more.
            ii. Z. deRham nominates A. Aftab to become the next chair, passes by a
  majority vote.
            iii. H. Watkins shares his desire for more conversations about the Special Projects. He notes that a lot of $500 SAFC tier organizations are at that level because they don’t fill out their paperwork and he expresses discomfort in allocating money to these organizations.
            iv. Z. deRham shares that the Special Projects Fund needs more clarity and would support a per-person maximum. She suggests a criteria that only on-campus events can be funded by the Fund if they’ve already been approved for SAFC supplementary funding.
            v. C. Flournoy expresses agreement with this structure and suggests putting any registered student organization that has open membership.
            vi. K. Young disagrees with penalizing organizations in the first tier of SAFC because many organizations stay within that tier due to a lack of e-board turnover and a lack of advisor involvement.
            vii. A. Cekic shares that if selective clubs want to host on-campus events open to everyone and are advertised, they should get funding for that.
            viii. K. Young shares that there’s a set of multicultural pre-professional organizations that are only exclusive due to a lack of resources, such as the Black Ivy Pre-Law Society, which allocated all of its SAFC budget towards the trip they go on. She suggests cutting off organizations that have a certain acceptance rate instead.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri shares that they should be funding organizations that take 100% of the students, not 70%, because the money originally comes from everyone’s pockets and not a few people’s pockets.
            ix. D. Addoquaye shares that selectivity keeps people from being able to do opportunities, but it’s out of need and they do not have the resources.
                1. E. Chaudhuri shares that organizations can be open but selective inside as to who can go on trips based on who puts in the time and effort. He explains that other clubs can have a similar model.
            x. Z. deRham moves to close debate, no dissent.
            xi. The Resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       k. Resolution 46: Creating a Membership Spotlights & Accountability Mechanism
            i. E. Chaudhuri shares that the resolution requests for the VP of Communications to have a project that at the end of every semester, they send out the newsletter and every member of the assembly must send a paragraph talking about what they did during the semester. He shares his belief that this is a simple and transparent way to highlight the work done and publicly call out members who haven’t done as much.
            ii. H. Watkins motions to close debate, no dissent.
            iii. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       l. Resolution 47: Three-Contributor Resolution Requirement
            i. E. Chaudhuri explains that there needs to be a condensation of ideas and this resolution would force collaboration and act as an internal check.
            ii. A. Cekic shares that he doesn’t think it’s good to make people have to bring people on for it to be presented and asks whether the people who are sponsoring this are committee members.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri shares that if someone has an idea that can’t get two others to think it’s a decent idea, then it probably shouldn’t be brought forward.
            iii. H. Watkins brings up how minor resolutions like Resolution 35 may not have value in having to seek two other people.
                 1. C. Tarala answers that he as the Deputy and the President will be on there.
            iv. M. Ehrlich shares that sometimes there’s just one person or two people who write. He motions to table this resolution indefinitely, passes by a majority vote.
       m. Resolution 48: Chair Information Transfer
            i. L. Blum shares that between Chairs, there should be some sort of master document to bridge the gap. She shares her experience with scrambling to find contacts, useful information, and projects that may have been worked on in the past. She adds that meeting minutes were unclear and not proofread.
            ii. M. Ehrlich motions to close debate, no dissent.
            iii. The resolution has been moved to The Third Reading Calendar.
       n. Resolution 49: Public Comment Duration
            i. C. Tarala highlights that there’s been meetings where public comment has gone overtime and the assembly has been moved to different rooms after 7:30 PM. He shares that the idea is to have an hour of public speaking time, resulting in 20 people talking about the resolution. He adds that if there’s an opinion that the chair thinks hasn’t been voiced, the chair can ask for an opposing opinion and accelerate their speaking time to allow both sides to speak. He notes that this doesn’t prevent people from submitting written comments and will allow members to do their jobs more properly. He includes the fact that if the assembly has to limit the public comment duration during that meeting, it sets a bad precedent and will make it look like they’re trying to stifle free speech.
            ii. E. Chaudhuri shares an example where Resolution 37 had hours of public comment, making the assembly lose quorum for a bit.
            iii. H. Watkins shares how while going through bylines last semester, some byline organizations who did a lot for the campus had to come back meeting after meeting because there was no time to cover their recommendations. He shares that it destroys the relationship these organizations have with the Student Assembly because the Student Assembly isn’t able to get anything done.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri mentions that the purpose of this is to support public
  opinion but create carve-outs for assembly members to do their job.
            iv. A. Cekic motions to move Appointments and Vacancies to now, no dissent.
  
  XI. Appointments and Vacancies Calendar
       a. Z. deRham appoints A. Cekic as student advocate, no dissent.

  Student Assembly Minutes 2-12-26.pdf (296.79 KB)