Student Assembly Meeting

Thursday, February 19, 2026

• Term:
  2025-2026
• Assembly/Committee: Student Assembly
• Date & Time:
  Thu, Feb 19, 2026 - 4:45pm
  to
  6:30pm
• Location:
  Willard Straight Hall Memorial Room (WSH407)/Zoom
• Agenda:

  1. Call to Order
  
  2. Reading of the Land Acknowledgment
  
  3. Consent Calendar
  
  4. Reports of Officers, Committees, and Liaisons
  
  5. Announcements
  
  6. Presentations
  
  7. Public Comment Microphone
  
  8. Second Readings
       1. Resolution 36: Establishing a Student Assembly Year-Round Grant and Review Committee
            1. R36 Appendix A
       2. Resolution 41: Restructuring the Executive Board
       3. Resolution 48: Public Comment Duration
            1. R48 Appendix A (Bylaws)
       4. Resolution 49: Attendance Callouts
       5. Resolution 50: Tri-Semesterly Committee Chair and Liaison Reports
       6. Resolution 51: Updating the Bylaws With a Contingency Plan for Vacancies in the Independent Offices
            1. R51 Appendix A - Bylaws
  
  9. Third Readings
       1. Resolution 33: Making General Election Day A Campus Holiday
       2. Resolution 34: Standardizing Resolution Authors and Endorser Rules
            1. R34 Appendix A
       3. Resolution 37: Implementing a Maximum Printing Cap Per Course
       4. Resolution 38: Increasing Outreach Requirements
            1. R38 Appendix A (Charter)
       5. Resolution 39: Rebranding the Cornell Student Assembly to the Cornell Student Government
            1. R39 Appendix A (Charter)
            2. R39 Appendix B (Standing Rules)
            3. R39 Appendix C (Bylaws)
       6. Resolution 40: Sponsorship Requirements for Assembly Resolutions
       7. Resolution 42: A Resolution Enacting the Enforcement of Resolution 9
       8. Resolution 43: Creating Restrictions & Evaluation Criteria around the Special Projects Fund
            1. R43 Appendix A
       9. Resolution 45: Creating a Membership Spotlights & Accountability Mechanism
            1. R45 Appendix A (Bylaws)10. Resolution 47: Committee Chair Information Transfer
  
  10. Appointments and Vacancies Calendar
  
  11. Adjournment

  Student Assembly Agenda 2-19-2026_0.pdf (129.59 KB)
• Meeting Packet:
• Audio Recording:
• Minutes:

  I. Call to Order
       a. Z. deRham called the meeting to order at 4:46 PM.
       b. Members Present: D. Addoquaye, A. Aftab, S. Agarwal, J. Anand, L. Blum, D. Carson, M. Causey, A. Cekic, C. Cook, Z. deRham, M. Ehrlich, A. Fard, C. Flournoy, E. Galperin, I. Gayle, L. Han, V. Kakra, C. Kim, K. Krishtopa, Y. Masoud, E. Porter, J. Purcell, H. Spector, J. Swavy, C. Tarala, T. Waguespack, A. Walters, H. Watkins, Z. Yabut, K. Young
       c. Members Absent: G. Dorward, J. Mui, E. Yao
       d. Also Present: E. Chaudhuri, I. Gilenson
  
  II. Reading of the Land Acknowledgment
       a. Z. deRham stated the land acknowledgement.
  
  III. Consent Calendar
       a. None.
  
  IV. Reports of Officers, Committees, and Liaisons
       a. E. Galperin reports that the Dining Committee will have its meeting on March 9th.
       b. C. Flournoy reports a meeting this weekend regarding the Executive Cabinet and that the NME will start around March 1st.
       c. T. Waguespack reports that the Comms meeting will be this Sunday from 4 to 5PM. They will be creating the first edition of This Week in the Assembly, which will be a 2 minute breakdown video of what happened that week in the Assembly.
       d. I. Gilenson reports that elections will start registration around mid to late March and will carry on through April. He adds that the committee will need to meet to make rules and calendar, which will be done in the next week or two to discuss slating rules, possibility of presidents and VPs cross-endorsing each other, election finance, and objections and appeals.
       e. C. Tarala reports that the International Committee still has many vacancies and invites people to join.
       f. L. Blum reports that the Environmental Committee will be tabling tomorrow from 5 to 6PM at Olin Library, where there will be keychains. She adds that Sunday will have its usual meeting from 5 to 6PM in Olin Library 404, where they will be discussing with Plastic 3 Cornell about a possible resolution.
       g. S. Agarwal reports that SHAC will be starting in the Spring semester with weekly meetings on Wednesday from 4 to 5PM and monthly meetings with Cornell Health. She adds that in yesterday’s first meeting, the committee gave feedback to their new therapy program and well-being coaches, explored bringing more options and mental health resources to North Campus, and are looking to expand vending machines on West Campus and C-Town.
       h. E. Chaudhuri reports that the University Assembly will be meeting President Kotlikoff next Tuesday, but there is a lack of questions and notifies that Student Assembly members could message him or other members who are on University Assembly for any questions they want answered.
       i. M. Ehrlich reports that the Academic Policy Committee will be meeting on Saturday at 1PM at Zeus. He adds that the committee is working on a credit limit resolution and will start on a project to have a reporting mechanism for professors who violate minor academic policies. He motions to move the Third Reading Calendar to above the Second Reading Calendar, no dissent.
       j. A. Cekic shares that the Student Advocate has been inactive for over a year and will contact those who worked on it before. He shares that the Office of the Student Advocate had undergraduate students help confused or lost students with any issue they may have, such as financial aid, conduct, grade disputes, enrollment, residency, discrimination, and harassment.
  
  V. Announcements
       a. Z. deRham announces that there will be a question form for President Kotlitkoff and Vice President Lombari’s visit on Thursday, March 12th. She adds that the Qualtrics will be sent out this week and bumped later in the month.
  
  VI. Presentations
       a. None.
  
  VII. Public Comment Microphone
       a. A speaker shares that the Student Assembly’s name should not change due to its long history and work it would take to rebrand everything. They add that they’d like to hear about the Finance Committee’s meeting on Saturday.
       b. A speaker shares that Resolution 33 would improve student access to polls and that many universities have been doing this in recent years. They add their own personal experience of seeing muti-hour line of students after classes on Election Day along with students who walked away after seeing the line. They also note that with the increasing restrictions on mail-in ballots from the federal and state governments, the resolution would allow students to travel to vote in their home state.
  
  VIII. Third Readings
       a. Resolution 33: Making General Election Day A Campus Holiday
            i. M. Erhlich shares that Election Day should be a campus holiday to make it easier for students to vote.
            ii. E. Galperin asks why not include presidential and statewide primaries.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri shares that to make the resolution possible, there are a certain number of days that students have to be in school. He argues that Election Day is more important and there are different primary days based on states.
                 2. C. Tarala shares concerns regarding the part that says assignments cannot be due on that day, as it could be another reason why the resolution may not get approved.
                      a. M. Ehrlich argues that with 5 school days in a week, the assignments can be due on a different day.
                      b. D. Carson argues that with assignments due on specific days of the week, changing it could add another barrier to getting the resolution approved.
                      c. M. Ehrlich counters that professors can give extensions.
                      d. E. Galperin shares that students are procrastinators and elections are too important. He motions to end debate, no dissent.
            iii. The resolution passes by a vote of 24-2-0.
       b. Resolution 34: Standardizing Resolution Authors and Endorser Rules
            i. R34 Appendix A
            ii. E. Chaudhuri expresses his desire to have a standardized resolution format.
            iii. M. Ehrlich mentions how the process is somewhat weird. He mentions to change on line 15, where it says line 227, to line 218, no dissent.
            iv. D. Carson inquires for the rationale behind having a maximum of 3 authors listed on a resolution.
                 1. M. Erhlich shares that there’s typically not that many people who mainly contribute to the resolution, but is open to raising the cap.
                 2. C. Flournoy shares that in the bylaws, there is a cap of 3 people outside of the assembly. He motions to strike lines 24 and 25.
                      a. E. Chaudhuri explains that the motivation behind the resolution was to prevent people from hopping onto
  resolutions that they did not write, defeating the point of being an author. He adds that he hasn’t seen resolutions where more than three people have genuinely contributed to a resolution.
                      b. C. Flournoy shares that using the endorser's author and reviewed by will help maintain the cap.
                      c. M. Erhlich explains that the problem with that is that there’ll be the same problem as now where people just add their names. He motions to amend the amendment to only strike the number 3 and change it to 5.
                           i. E. Galperin shares that there was no distinction between authors and sponsors and if there’s authors and sponsors, then authors won’t allow just anyone to put their name as an author.
                           ii. M. Ehrlich motions to close debate, no dissent.
                           iii. The motion to amend the amendment passes by a vote of 21-2-1.
                      d. K. Young explains that the problem in the past isn’t a problem now, which could be from the lack of resolutions.
  She adds that it should be up to the main author, the person who brought up the idea, to allow people to join the resolution, especially considering that the assembly is currently trying to encourage collaboration.
                      e. C. Flournoy shares that it could just be a conversation of placing a cap on authors and/or endorsers.
                      f.  E. Chaudhuri motions to end debate, no dissent.
                      g. The amendment passes by a vote of 22-0-6.
            v. K. Young motions to amend the resolution to strike lines 24 and 25.
                 1. K. Young motions to end debate, no dissent.
                 2. The amendment passes by a vote of 23-1-2.
            vi. D. Carson motions to close debate, no dissent.
            vii. The resolution passes by a vote of 22-0-0.
       c. Resolution 37: Implementing a Maximum Printing Cap Per Course
            i. E. Porter shares the resolution was changed to include campus course packets.
            ii. A. Cekic motions to end line 20 to say, “be it further resolved, professors should provide printed materials and technology-free courses through CAMP as printed course booklets or other printed materials,” no dissent.
            iii. C. Tarala is concerned that the price could be expensive if not purchased with CAMP.
                 1. E. Porter shares that she purchased a CAMPU course packet for $30, which isn’t too expensive.
                 2. E. Chaudhuri shares that even if this resolution passes, it can only start a conversation with the Faculty Senate so it doesn’t need to be fully fleshed out.
                 3. M. Ehrlich expresses disapproval for the clause that states that there’s a rise in anti-technology courses. He motions to strike the words “anti-technology” and the words “that can easily be accessed online”.
                      a. E. Chaudhuri argues that some courses are anti-technology and that the easily accessed online portion is a valid point for the resolution.
                      b. M. Ehrlich explains that the last bit has an implication that all professors should allow you to have technology in class. He motions to close debate, no dissent.
                      c. The amendment passes by a vote of 13-11-3.
            iv. E. Galperin shares that professors may not plan to have their students print something but then they do. He suggests adding a clause where if the professor requires a student to print something, that amount of money is added to their CU Print.
                 a. E. Chaudhuri shares that the resolution does not mention the bureaucratic structure behind CU Print, as it will start another conversation of where the additional money will come from.
            v. K. Young motions to close debate, no dissent.
            vi. The resolution passes by a vote of 26-1-0.
       d. Resolution 38: Increasing Outreach Requirements
            i. R38 Appendix A (Charter)
            ii. E. Porter shares that she adjusted the resolution to include language that says that a forum should be hosted in an area that is relevant to one's general constituency and that a Zoom would also be a viable option for a forum..
            iii. E. Chaudhuri mentions that there’s a portion in the bylaws that the assembly is required to do at least one outreach event every semester. He encourages someone to amend a clause to say “all assembly members shall work together to create one outreach event as an entire assembly.”
                 1. A. Cekic motions to change line 21 to be it further resolved and add to line 31 to “be it finally resolved, that all assembly members shall work together to create an at-large outreach event once per semester,” no dissent.
            iv. E. Galperin motions to close debate, no dissent.
            v. The resolution passes by a vote of 26-0-0.
       e. Resolution 39: Rebranding the Cornell Student Assembly to the Cornell Student Government
            i. R39 Appendix A (Charter)
            ii. R39 Appendix B (Standing Rules)
            iii. R39 Appendix C (Bylaws)
            iv. E. Chaudhuri explains that this is a simple fix and that just because something’s hard and annoying, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it.
            v. C. Flournoy shares that they should recognize the history behind the Student Assembly’s name and informs that it will require a lot of things to change, including the banner, the placards, and the website.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri shares that SA is just a bad abbreviation and mentions Zora’s idea of “Student Governance Assembly”.
            vi. Z. deRham supports removal from the acronym and is in favor of the Student Governance Assembly. She mentions that it’s common for most student government associations on other campuses and honors the Assemblies, the Office of the Assemblies, the Constituent Assembly heritage, and does not conflate the assembly with other organizations or creates a new category on campus. She motions to amend lines 2, 3, 17, 18, 19, etc. and the governing documents with “Student Governance
  Assembly”, no dissent.
            vii. C. Tarala shares that this would be good for the Instagram situation where multiple Student Assembly accounts are inactive and the resolution could help people find the true account and increase outreach.
            viii. S. Agarwal shares her experience working for anti sexual assault, and this issue was brought up by multiple people.
            ix. E. Galperin questions what history they’ll be honoring.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri replies that they should be grateful for those who have worked to get the members to where they are today. He motions to end debate, no dissent.
            x. The resolution passes by a vote of 26-0-0.
       f. Resolution 40: Sponsorship Requirements for Assembly Resolutions
            i. E. Chaudhuri moves to table this resolution permanently, no dissent.
            ii. The resolution has been tabled permanently.
       g. Resolution 42: A Resolution Enacting the Enforcement of Resolution 9
            i. M. Ehrlich shares that Resolution 9 should’ve been enforced, as they had to respond with a request for reconsideration within 30 days. He motions to amend the resolution by replacing lines 46-51.
                 1. Z. deRham motions to amend the amendment to change conferral to conveyance and strike “our hope that we will not have to take further action on this matter,” as it does not represent the assembly well in an email with subversive threatening language.
                      a. K. Young shares that they need stronger language because the charter, a contract binding agreement, isn’t being
  followed. She adds that the Campus Codes Committee and members of other assemblies, such as the University Assembly and the Graduate Professional Students Assembly, are seeking legal help with Kotlitkoff not following his binding agreement.
                      b. Z. deRham shares that she would not like to add into her email something that is not in her voice and would prefer an objective stance.
                      c. M. Ehrlich shares his understanding of the discomfort, and emphasizes that it’s the reason why the resolution
  incorporates a part that says the email will come from the assembly and not from a particular individual. He motions to divide the question into whether or not to change the word conferral to conveyance and whether or not to strike “our hope that we will not have to take further action on this matter,” no dissent.
                      d. M. Ehrlich motions to close debate on the first question, no dissent.
                      e. The amendment to change the word conferral to conveyance passes.
                      f. M. Ehrlich shares that the assembly should make it clear that this is a legal matter and saying this implies that the assembly could take further action. He motions to close debate.
                      g. The motion to close debate passes by a vote of 19-4-1.
                      h. The amendment to strike “our hope that we will not have to take further action on this matter” fails to pass by a vote of 6-12-5.
                 2. M. Ehrlich motions to close debate, no dissent.
                 3. The amendment passes by a vote of 29-0-1.
            ii. E. Galperin motions to close debate, no dissent.
            iii. The resolution passes by a vote of 28-1-0.
       h. Resolution 43: Creating Restrictions & Evaluation Criteria around the Special Projects Fund
            i. R43 Appendix A
            ii. E. Chaudhuri shares that this is a big issue that the assembly has and that the red line version is in the box. He adds that he thinks Hayden should go on the application and provide some fixed recommendations regarding what the assembly is looking for in terms of pricing for travel, food, and accommodations.
            iii. A. Cekic suggests having a restriction on the number of hotel rooms, as some trips are paying for one person per room. He motions to amend lines 22-24 to allow the funding to be used for open events on campus, no dissent.
            iv. Z. deRham requests for the language to be changed to say that the Special Projects Funding may only be requested by.
            v. D. Carson motions to amend line 23 to put registered between any and Cornell, no dissent.
            vi. D. Addoquaye shares that he believes that many on-campus organizations spread awareness or benefit the communities that they’re a part of despite not being open membership, and that the resolution would prevent them from being able to receive the funding to support those communities. He motions to amend line 23 to strike open membership.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri argues that the money comes from the entire student body, there are other funds on campus, and that if they really want the money, they can look into their internal recruitment processes.
                 2. D. Addoquaye argues that the resolution would force clubs that don’t have the funds to provide these events by itself to make their membership open, removing the safe spaces for the communities that the organizations wanted to protect, serve, and advocate for.
                 3. A. Cekic shares that clubs should pay the price for being selective and shouldn’t be able to take money from all the students when the organization doesn’t let all of them in. He suggests defining what open membership means, possibly clubs that conduct interviews.
                 4. K. Young notes that most of the Special Projects Funding comes from cultural organizations, with 3 of the 10 special projects that have been funded being exclusive clubs. She shares that this resolution is trying to solve a minimal problem and that having an interview process doesn’t make the organization inherently wrong, as it’s trying to gauge interest and need. She shares that a lot of these clubs are exclusive for resources but have a lot of public events.
                 5. M. Causey asks why a rule is being made that would only apply to the few exceptions such as Black Ivy, which is a productive club.
                 6. C. Tarala shares that Hayden texted him that he brought up a point that any of these clubs can co-host their events.
                 7. D. Addoquaye shares that it wouldn’t solve the problem where the club is exclusive because there’s a limited amount of money to go around for a certain number of people.
                 8. Y. Masoud shares that the funding seems to be used as trip funding and it’s an equitable way of allowing all club members to go on the trip.
                 9. H. Watkins shares that if Black Ivy were to go to law school, if it was run in conjunction with BSU, more students would be able to access the trip and it would be open to all students.
                 10. D. Addoquaye questions whether doing so will dilute the maximum Special Projects Funds that each organization would have access to.
                 11. Z. deRham motions to amend the amendment to continue to strike lines 22-24, but add “be it further resolved that the language of subsection 112 be amended to reflect ‘Special Projects Funding’ may be requested by Assembly committee chairs that seek funding for expenditures that exceed their committee's budgeted allocation or any registered Cornell undergraduate student organization that meets any of the following criteria: A, membership recruitment processes that are not application or interview-based, or B, seeking to host open public event on Cornell's Ithaca campus and have been approved for the maximum amount of SAFC special events funding.”
                 12. Z. deRham motions to end the meeting time to 7PM, no dissent.
                      a. K. Young asks what an objective recruitment process would look like without an application or interview process.
                           i. Z. deRham shares her belief that hosting G-bodies and expecting attendance, then having an internal
  restriction of attending an event due to lack of attendance at the G-bodies would be a different internal safeguard to ensure only involved members can go on the trip.
                      b. D. Addoquaye questions how safe spaces will be protected without a recruitment process.
                      c. M. Ehrlich shares that the assembly members have a tendency to not say in a resolution that they want to prefer certain organizations and is open to saying that they would accept organizations that are meant to be affinity spaces for historically marginalized communities. He adds that there is a lot being addressed and there should be a committee to discuss things and figure it out.
                      d. Z. deRham expresses favor towards creating an ad hoc that looks at Special Projects Funding.
                      e. E. Chaudhuri shares that he doesn’t think that this debate will sway anyone’s mindset. He adds that Hayden was a fan of the resolution during the last reading calendar and that the need to create an ad hoc committee should not stop the resolution. He adds that members had the opportunity when moving from the second to third meeting calendar to talk about the resolution more and that competitive organizations shouldn’t cut people. He motions to end debate.
                      f. The motion to close debate passes.
                      g. The amendment to the amendment passes.
                 13. E. Chaudhiri motions to end debate, dissent.
                 14. The motion to end debate passes.
                 15. The amendment passes.
            vii. M. Ehrlich argues that the assembly can’t just place restrictions. He motions to table the resolution for a week, dissent.
            viii. The motion to table the resolution for a week fails to pass.
            ix. E. Chaudhuri shares that he’d rather the assembly vote on the resolution now, as the issue must be addressed now. He motions to end debate.
            x. The motion to end debate passes.
            xi. K. Young motions for a roll call vote, no dissent.
            xii. Student Assembly Roll Call Vote
                 1. D. Addoquaye voted no.
                 2. A. Aftab abstained.
                 3. S. Agarwal voted no.
                 4. J. Anand voted yes.
                 5. L. Blum voted yes.
                 6. D. Carson voted no.
                 7. M. Causey voted no
                 8. A. Cekic voted yes.
                 9. Z. deRham voted yes.
                 10. M. Ehrlich voted no.
                 11. A. Fard voted yes.
                 12. E. Galperin voted yes.
                 13. I. Gayle voted no.
                 14. L. Han voted yes.
                 15. C. Kim voted no.
                 16. K. Krishtopa voted yes.
                 17. Y. Masoud voted no.
                 18. J. Purcell voted yes.
                 19. H. Spector voted yes.
                 20. J. Swavy voted no.
                 21. C. Tarala voted yes.
                 22. T. Waguespack (proxied by K. Young) voted no.
                 23. A. Walters voted yes.
                 24. H. Watkins (proxied by A. Walters) voted yes.
                 25. Z. Yabut (proxied by L. Han) voted yes.
                 26. K. Young voted no.
                 27. C. Flournoy voted no.
                 28. Roll call vote of 14-12-1.
            xiii. The resolution passes by a vote of 14-12-1.
            xiv. E. Chaudhuri motions to add L. Blum to a sponsor of resolution 45, no dissent.
       i. Resolution 45: Creating a Membership Spotlights & Accountability Mechanism
            i. R45 Appendix A (Bylaws)
            ii. L. Blum shares that the resolution creates membership spotlights by having members write sentences on goals and accomplishments throughout the semester. She motions to end debate, no dissent.
            iii. The resolution passes by a vote of 25-0-0.
       j. Resolution 47: Committee Chair Information Transfer
            i. L. Blum mentions how she updated the redline version in the bylaws and shares that the resolution has the chair of each committee create the documents, the deputies collect the documents and ensure they’re up to date, and the EVP works with the deputies.
            ii. E. Galperin motions to close debate, no dissent.
            iii. The resolution passes by a vote of 25-0-0.
  
  IX. Appointments and Vacancies Calendar
       a. None.
  
   

  Student Assembly Minutes 2-19-26.pdf (220.91 KB)