Student Assembly Meeting

Thursday, February 26, 2026

• Term:
  2025-2026
• Assembly/Committee: Student Assembly
• Date & Time:
  Thu, Feb 26, 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. Approval of the February 12th and February 19th, 2026 Meeting Minutes
  
  4. Consent Calendar
  
  5. Reports of Officers, Committees, and Liaisons
  
  6. Announcements
  
  7. Presentations
  
  8. Public Comment Microphone
  
  9. Second Readings
        1. Resolution 36: Establishing a Student Assembly Year-Round Grant and Review Committee
        2. R36 Appendix A: Updated Bylaws
        3. Resolution 41: Restructuring the Executive Board
        4. Resolution 48: Public Comment Duration
              1. R48 Appendix A: Updated Bylaws
        5. Resolution 49: Attendance Callouts
        6. Resolution 50: Tri-Semesterly Committee Chair and Liaison Reports
        7. Resolution 51: Updating the Bylaws With a Contingency Plan for Vacancies in the Independent Offices
              1. R51 Appendix A: Updated Bylaws
        8. Resolution 52: Expanding College Credit Limits
        9. Resolution 53: Approving Special Projects Request for the International Affairs Society at Cornell
              1. R53 Appendix A: International Affairs Society at Cornell Special Projects Funding Request Form
       10. Resolution 54: Approving Special Projects Request for the Cornell Persian Students Organization
              1. R54 Appendix A: Cornell Persian Students Organization (PSO)Special Projects Funding Request Form
        11. Resolution 55: Condemning the University Administration’s Use of Programming to Platform Individuals Implicated in War Crimes
        12. Resolution 56: Improving Accessibility Information and Support for Disabled Students in Residential Housing
        13. Resolution 57: Ensuring Equitable Evaluation of Special ProjectsFunding Request
        14. Resolution 58: Winter Sidewalk Maintenance
        15. Resolution 59: Readily Available Hot, Allergy Safe Meals
        16. Resolution 60: Free Laundry
  
  10. Third Readings
  
  11. Appointments and Vacancies Calendar12. Adjournment

   

  Student Assembly Agenda 2-26-2026.pdf (137.59 KB)
• Meeting Packet:
• Audio Recording:
• Minutes:

  I. Call to Order
       a. Z. deRham called the meeting to order at 4:45 PM.
       b. Members Present: D. Addoquaye, A. Aftab, S. Agarwal, J. Anand, L. Blum, D. Carson, M. Causey, A. Cekic, Z. deRham, G. Dorward, M. Ehrlich, 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, E. Yao, K. Young
       c. Members Absent: C. Cook, A. Fard, J. Mui
       d. Also Present: E. Chaudhuri, K. Abebe
  
  II. Reading of the Land Acknowledgment
       a. Z. deRham stated the land acknowledgement.
  
  III. Approval of the February 12th and February 19th, 2026 Meeting Minutes
       a. The motion to approve the February 12th, 2026 minutes passes through unanimous consent.
       b. The motion to approve the February 19th, 2026 minutes passes through unanimous consent.
  
  IV. Consent Calendar
       a. None.
  
  V. Reports of Officers, Committees, and Liaisons
       a. E. Galperin reports that the Dining Committee will be meeting on 3/9.
       b. H. Watkins reports that the Finance Committee will be meeting this Sunday, on 3/1, to reassess the student activity fee. He adds that a resolution will be added on Thursday and that there are a lot of Special Projects requests.
       c. L. Blum reports that the Environmental Committee will be tabling again tomorrow around 2-4 at Mann library lobby. She adds that there will be another meeting over Zoom on Sunday 5-6 to touch up the plastic resolution and is working on a beyond waste event, which will be on the Third reading Calendar by the 12th.
       d. C. Flournoy reports that meetings have been scheduled for the rest of the semester and requests for NME responses and he will look for a second date.
       e. S. Agarwal reports that the Student Health Advisory meeting will be next Wednesday, on 3/4 without Cornell Health to talk about work as a committee.
       f. C. Tarala reports that he is looking for members to join the International Students Committee.
  
  VI. Announcements
       a. Z. deRham announces that there will be a question form for President Kotlikoff and VP Lombardi and that members can talk to Eeshan and Christian to ask about how the UA meeting went.
  
  VII. Presentations
       a. None.
  
  VIII. Public Comment Microphone
       a. A speaker shares that Resolution 55 moves the assembly away from its mission and does not create enforceable policy.
       b. A speaker shares concerns that the Special Projects fund is being loosely handed out and that the assembly should focus on projects that build foundations, such as long-term infrastructure on campus. They express concern about Resolution 36, as
  it will give a committee $100,000 from the reserves to give students experiences.
       c. A speaker expresses concern with Resolution 36 and confusion over Resolution 57.
       d. A speaker expresses support for Resolution 56 and shares a personal experience with the lack of transparency and support with dorms’ accessibility.
       e. A speaker expresses agreement with the previous speaker and adds that they shouldn’t debate on basic fundamental human rights, specifically, Cornell shouldn't fund war criminals.
       f. M. Ehrlich gives notice that next week, he will move to rescind Resolution 43. He moves to rescind Resolution 43 right now. He explains a big part of the Special Projects Fund is to give to groups that support historically marginalized groups and he doesn’t want to preclude the assembly from giving money to these groups.
            i. A. Cekic expresses disagreement, as the resolution was voted on, spoken in favor of during public comment, and that the assembly should not ‘reopen the can of worms’. He adds that doing so would result in more reinterpretations and that there will be more applications.
            ii. M. Ehrlich explains that though this resolution was discussed about last week, it was rushed, the assembly didn’t fully explore the potential consequences and that they should do it in a way that’s more equitable and less rushed. He notes that the resolution will exclude people that’s important to support.
            iii. E. Galperin shares his belief that it’s better to patch holes than rescind the entire resolution, as the process must start somewhere and many members proposed resolutions that could fill those holes.
            iv. M. Ehrlich notes that Kotlikoff can accept the first resolution and reject the future ones.
                 1. Z. deRham shares that standing rules do not get approved by Kotlikoff because it is an internal process.
            v. Y. Masoud shares that it is inefficient to submit 16 resolutions to solve the problem and that the assembly can create a resolution with clear outlines. She adds that Resolution 57 is amazing, but it’s patching a hole that doesn’t need to be there.
            vi. H. Watkins notes that standing rules are rewritten every year, so this amendment will remain for the rest of the year. He adds that it’d be valuable to see if the issues do arise, and then fix it later on.
            vii. M. Ehrlich shares that there’s a couple of months left to the school year and if it takes an extra week to get it right, it would be worth it. He notes that Resolution 57 can be used as a vehicle to fix the process, but it can only be done if they rescind what makes the process that’s going to be inequitable.
            viii. E. Chaudhuri shares that instead of making changes now, it would’ve been more efficient if it was brought up as it was going through the process from Second to Third Reading Calendar. He adds that many agree with certain parts, such as standardizing how they charge things, and that’s more important than other part 
            ix. M. Ehrlich asks to send the standardizing portion and shares that they should still rescind it because they need a fair process. He motions to close debate, no dissent.
            x. The motion to rescind Resolution 43 fails by a vote of 15-11-1.
       g. Y. Masoud motions to appeal the decision of the chair and add Resolution 61 onto the agenda of the Second Reading Calendar.
            i. Z. deRham explains that the decision was made because Cornell Tech is a graduate student arm of Cornell University, that there was no indication that graduate students were consulted or that the GPSA gave input or considered a similar resolution, and that she did not believe it was under their purview as an undergraduate student representing organization.
            ii. E. Galperin shares that it’s better to put it on the Second Reading Calendar next week and they shouldn’t speak over the graduate students.
            iii. Y. Masoud shares that no one read it because the point of the Second Reading Calendar is for them to read together. She adds that she doesn’t think it means it shouldn’t get the conversation started and involve them later on in the process. She notes that the partnerships will affect undergraduate students because they go to Cornell Tech to do research and many go there after graduating here.
            iv. K. Young shares that everything should have the chance to be presented.
            v. C. Flournoy shares that if there’s any involvement with undergraduates, then it’s the assembly’s job and right to discuss that.
            vi. M. Ehrlich shares that when someone submits a resolution, the entire assembly has the right to see it. He explains that the members were taken away the right to view the resolution on the Second Reading Calendar and encourages the assembly to defend these rights.
            vii. A. Aftab shares her belief that as long as the chair sees if the resolution is procedurally correct, it should come up. She adds that the assembly has told Handshake and different bodies on campus what to do, which is beyond their jurisdiction, so things like that shouldn’t be looked at when bringing a resolution forward, but rather through debate.
            viii. A. Cekic shares that there’s resolutions not within purview all the time because the assembly makes a statement by voting on it. He adds that even the administrative policy about the printing cap was allowed and passed because it signaled to the Faculty Senate that there’s an issue.
            ix. H. Watkins motions to close debate, no dissent.
            x. The motion to appeal the chair’s decision passes by a majority vote.
  
  IX. Second Readings
       a. Resolution 36: Establishing a Student Assembly Year-Round Grant and Review Committee
            i. R36 Appendix A: Updated Bylaws
            ii. D. Carson shares that making the committee would require more rules and details, but this would be a great step because it’s currently hard for students to do things in shorter breaks.
            iii. E. Chaudhuri notes the lack of conversation for logistics.
            iv. G. Dorward notes the need for specificity, especially putting more information on a review process and what the committee will be doing. She suggests modeling it after existing fund applications. She suggests lowering the cap, as $5,000 may not be able to reach a lot of students and that if they’re maintaining the summer experience grant, a part can mention everything excluding the summer.
            v. M. Ehrlich motions to table the resolution for a week.
            vi. The motion to table the resolution for a week passes by a vote of 17-3-1.
            vii. H. Watkins motions to move Resolution 53 and Resolution 54 up in the Second Reading Calendar.
       b. Resolution 53: Approving Special Projects Request for the International Affairs Society at Cornell
            i. R53 Appendix A: International Affairs Society at Cornell Special Projects Funding Request Form
            ii. A representative shares that they are requesting $5,000 for their most recent competition at Toronto.
            iii. M. Causey asks about their application process.
                 1. The representative shares that there is no application process for the club, but to determine who travels, they try to make sure anyone who applied to go to a conference can go to at least one conference per year.
            iv. A. Cekic shares his experience as a member for this club.
            v. E. Galperin motions to end debate, no dissent.
            vi. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       c. Resolution 54: Approving Special Projects Request for the Cornell Persian Students Organization
            i. R54 Appendix A: Cornell Persian Students Organization (PSO) Special Projects Funding Request Form
            ii. A representative shares that this is not just an event for Persian students, but is a celebration across Central Asia, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and beyond of renewal, spring, and shared humanity. They add that it creates space for students from many cultural backgrounds to learn, come together, and connect. There will be Persian food catered from Syracuse and traditional Persian music being played to get people into the spirit of the spring solstice.
            iii. E. Galperin motions to send the resolution to the Third Reading Calendar, no dissent.
            iv. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       d. Resolution 41: Restructuring the Executive Board
            i. L. Blum shares that it served as a good reminder for the Executive Board, as she has seen more updates and better action.
            ii. E. Chaudhuri underscores that they are doing a lot better and that this is also a wake-up call for the entire assembly. He adds that this is how it should’ve looked back in October and that an NME could’ve helped with structuring and writing resolutions.
            iii. C. Flournoy takes responsibility for the lack of Executive Cabinet meetings and adds that they had their first meeting for the year and are scheduled to have more for the rest of the semester. He adds that he is making sure that the NME will be happening this semester.
            iv. H. Watkins shares that there is more on being executive besides working on the committee they’re on, such as serving as an advisory role for the other committees and having executive meetings beyond just the cabinet one.
                 1. E. Chaudhuri points out that the resolution was brought up because the other 3 VPs have been slacking and that there was an executive who didn’t do the things he just mentioned.
            v. D. Carson suggests having something similar to the attendance policy for following certain portions of the bylaws.
            vi. M. Ehrlich motions to table the resolution indefinitely, no dissent.
            vii. The resolution has been tabled indefinitely.
       e. Resolution 48: Public Comment Duration
            i. R48 Appendix A: Updated Bylaws
            ii. C. Tarala shares that this resolution would allow assembly members to do what they need to while giving the public the chance to speak. He emphasizes that this is for the rare cases where members are locked from voting due to long public comment times.
            iii. E. Chaudhuri emphasizes the need to have carve-outs to allow members to vote on things.
            iv. K. Young shares that the resolution is a bit undemocratic and notes that the Executive VP also has the right to respond to public comment. If they believe that everyone will fix the problem that the public is talking about, then they will just say so.
                 1. C. Tarala acknowledges that it is a valid tool but brings up an athletic resolution where members had their minds made up but had to wait until 8:30-9PM for public comment to end. He adds that the resolution would encourage people to collaborate and speak together. He emphasizes that with a life cycle of at least 2 meetings, there could be at least 40 speakers, which is more than enough most of the time.
                 2. E. Chaudhuri notes that the assembly doesn’t do things that it’s been outlined that they can do and even are supposed to do.
                 3. C. Tarala explains that the assembly can’t set a time limit without making it sound like they’re stifling free speech, but setting this expansive limit will allow people to speak and for the members to do what needs to be done.
            v. C. Flournoy notes that the chair has been able to allow for specific time limits for speakers and believes it should allow the body or the Chair to be able to adjust that.
                 1. C. Tarala explains that the chair will still be able to do so and this is a more balanced approach for both constituents and the body.
                 2. E. Chaudhuri notes that in previous public comments, the Assembly was at its meeting spot until 7:30 and there was more public comment even after moving to another room. He shares that assembly fatigue would result in passing things that weren’t that great because people just wanted to go.
            vi. C. Tarala motions to end debate, passes by a vote of 19-4-3.
            vii. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       f. Resolution 49: Attendance Callouts
            i. C. Tarala shares that this resolution would verbally announce when representatives depart early or are absent. He adds that the clerk would announce who’s been absent and record in the minutes when people leave at least 15 minutes before the scheduled adjournment time of 6PM.
            ii. L. Blum shares that this would bring accountability to the assembly.
            iii. H. Watkins motions to close debate, passes by a vote of 17-12-1.
            iv. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       g. Resolution 50: Tri-Semesterly Committee Chair and Liaison Reports
            i. C. Tarala shares that the resolution would have the assembly select 3 spread out dates across each semester to have designated time for each committee chair or liaison to discuss their progress or obstacles to inform people of what’s going on and keep people motivated. This would ultimately help people out and address things that are being blocked.
            ii. L. Blum shares that this resolution would follow along the same lines as the chair-to-chair information transfer and writing a paragraph of what members did each semester.
            iii. L. Han asks why there needs to be specific dates when it can be said during officer reports and notes that having specific dates could be more hindering than helpful.
                 1. C. Tarala explains that the resolution is more for the chairs that they haven’t heard from and that the process is that they’ll go down the line. He shares that this is a good way to get a read on what’s happening, as there’s a lot of committees flying under the radar.
            iv. M. Ehrlich motions to close debate, passes by a vote of 22-2-2.
            v. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       h. Resolution 51: Updating the Bylaws With a Contingency Plan for Vacancies in the Independent Offices
            i. R51 Appendix A: Updated Bylaws
            ii. Z. deRham proposes a bylaw amendment with a plan for vacancies in the independent offices, which has procedures that mirror each other. She notes that the internal nominee shall be subject to a confirmation vote by the Assembly at the organizational meeting, but the internal nomination wasn’t done and there was no timeline for when the confirmation vote needed to happen. She adds that the amendment allows at any point in the academic  year for a vote of no confidence to be called by any voting member of the Student Assembly, allowing the removal of someone not doing their job. She adds that the second major amendment is that “in the event of the nominee for director failing a confirmation vote, the president of the Student Assembly shall, in coordination with the Office of the Assemblies and Vice President for Communications, distribute a call for candidates to the Cornell undergraduate community. Any interested and eligible Cornell undergraduate student shall be welcome to apply. The Student Assembly shall fill the vacant director seat within 6 weeks of the call, or by the third-to-last regularly scheduled meeting of the academic year, whichever date is earliest.”
            iii. M. Ehrlich motions to close debate.
            iv. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
            v. Z. deRham motions to extend the meeting time to 6:45PM, no dissent.
            vi. A. Cekic raises a point of order concerning speaker recognition. He states that no speaking precedent exists and that, under Robert’s rules, the Chair must select speakers in a completely impartial view based on how many times they have spoken. He requests a ruling that the Executive Board have no speaking precedent privileges and that all members under debate have equal privilege to ensure an impartial, unbiased speaking order. The request is approved by a vote of 12-6.
       i. Resolution 52: Expanding College Credit Limits
            i. M. Ehrlich shares that majors have credit limits.
            ii. C. Tarala notes that there is no published limit on the credits that Nolan students can take, but they are only allowed to take 18 credits and can petition to the registrar for 21 based on academic standing.
            iii. M. Ehrlich motions to close debate, no dissent.
            iv. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       j. Resolution 55: Condemning the University Administration’s Use of Programming to Platform Individuals Implicated in War Crimes
            i. Y. Masoud shares that the resolution is not trying to limit free speech or diversity of academic thought and is not about certain viewpoints or kinds of people not being allowed on campus. She explains that this resolution is about people who have been invited by the administration on campus to give talks or lectures who have been directly implicated in war crimes by a human rights organization or by an internal criminal court or have some kind of warrant out for their arrest by a national body or by a human rights court and have been persecuted for war crimes. She also adds that this is about admin bringing these kinds of people on campus and is not about student orgs bringing people on campus. She specifies the administration because it represents their reputation and sets a strong precedent. 
            ii. E. Chaudhuri shares that he doesn’t think a precedent should be set of having student groups on campus sponsor legislation because it implies a certain political rhetoric or tone behind the resolution. He recommends doing more research because the list is likely more expansive and to show the admin that bringing these speakers onto campus when they will cause distress isn’t good for the student body.
            iii. E. Galperin asks if it’d be better off to say what types of speakers they favor than say not to do a certain type. He adds that he is uncertain whether they’ll be able to have conversations regarding solving or ending global conflicts.
                 1. Y. Masoud shares that putting what kinds of speakers they want instead can open doors for people to put their own political views into it. She adds that there are people they can bring in that haven’t been convicted of war crimes, such as legal scholars to talk about global conflict instead of the politician who sent the mission to kill a bunch of babies.
            iv. M. Ehrlich shares that he doesn’t think the administration should spend student tuition dollars on bringing war criminals to campus. He agrees that it’s free speech for student groups to bring whoever they want, but not for the administration to be spending student money on doing that.
            v. M. Ehrlich motions to extend the meeting time to 7:30PM, passes by a vote of 18-3.
            vi. H. Spector points out that they mention human rights groups, but there aren’t any specific ones listed. She suggests changing it to one specific international rights group to set a standard.
                 1. Y. Masoud points out that there are many international courts and human rights groups. She adds that there are guidelines of what a war crime is so anything the court is putting out is still referencing what the ICC or the UN outlined as what a war crime is.
            vii. D. Carson agrees that there is no point in adding limitations, as they are all credible governing bodies. He notes that the clause says to adopt transparent, enforceable standards for speaker selection, but it doesn’t mention specifically that those listed as a war criminal by one of these organizations shouldn’t attend.
            viii. K. Young notes that the point brought up earlier that speakers that have something to do with global conflict are likely to be a warrant criminal is untrue. She explains that to be a war criminal is a very serious crime with a high legal precedence, requires a high burden of proof, and that the rate of conviction for war criminals is less than 30%. She shares that it is possible to have conversations about global conflict without having war criminals.
            ix. A. Walters asks if the war criminals are people who have had formal charges brought against them by an international criminal court.
                 1. Y. Masoud confirms that they are charges.
            x. G. Dorward notes that the standards that it takes to be a war criminal is not something that was standardized by the UN, but existed before the UN was even formed. She shares that it started with the Geneva Convention, had discussions in the 1800s initially, and was constituted after World War II. She adds that it’s something almost every nation has signed onto in one of the treaties so it’s not really a biased opinion, but an international law.
            xi. M. Causey shares that she believes the point of the governing body inviting people on campus is meant to unite students together. She adds that it doesn’t matter how one feels about them coming on campus if their arrival doesn’t unite students, but rather causes chaos.
            xii. L. Blum motions to close debate, passes by a vote of 20-2.
            xiii. The resolution has been passed to the Third Reading Calendar.
       k. Resolution 56: Improving Accessibility Information and Support for Disabled Students in Residential Housing
            i. J. Swavy shares that students deserve clear and accessible information when making housing decisions, especially for disabled students when that information is critical to their health and safety. She adds that those decisions can’t be made without information or marketing for those resources. She further states that housing and residential life should work with SDS to close that accessibility gap.
            ii. E. Galperin suggests doing more to inform incoming or returning students on how to get in contact with SDS, how to request an accommodation, and the type of documentation that someone might have to provide. He shares that people don’t know there are resources to get accessible housing.
            iii. C. Flournoy motions to close debate, no dissent.
            iv. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       l. Resolution 57: Ensuring Equitable Evaluation of Special Projects Funding Request
            i. C. Flournoy shares that they wanted to make sure that organizations, specifically ones that are of minority and marginalized communities, can receive funding through the Special Projects Fund. He shares that it’s been increasingly difficult over the past two years for minority and marginalized organizations to get Special Projects Funds, whether through discussions on the Assembly or in general.
            ii. K. Young shares that since 2014, 65% of all funding organizations have been open, and of that 35% with closed membership, 63% of that 35% goes towards organizations that serve historically marginalized minority groups. This means that 13% of Special Projects Funding decisions are two organizations that both maintain close membership and do not serve marginalized groups or minority populations. This resolution ensures that the minority group, that is the majority benefactor of the funding, is spoken about equitably and has equitable protections.
            iii. M. Ehrlich shares that if this gets passed, the assembly will be reinterpreting a clause.
            iv. D. Addoquaye shares that this resolution opens a conversation to what should be an ongoing conversation of how the assembly should properly use the funds. He adds that the resolution frames the problem as an equity issue.
            v. L. Han asks how this resolution would impact the previous one.
                 1. M. Ehrlich shares that this resolution states the Assembly’s interpretation of the bylaws.
            vi. E. Porter asks how selective these clubs are and voices a concern that they may be limiting the amount of people who can get into these clubs.
                 1. K. Young shares that marginalized pre-professional organizations are not as exclusive as the other pre-professional organizations and are not based on merit, but by who needs the resource the most.
                 2. C. Flournoy notes that though they’re highlighting marginalized and minority-based organizations, it is about being equitable, which involves all organizations in a way.
            vii. H. Watkins asks why they believe selective groups should be organizing those trips rather than those groups partnering with another group that serves a similar demographic to make the trip more open.
                 1. C. Flournoy shares that they’re not taking away an opportunity for another organization or for someone not within the club, but ensuring that the clubs that have been made for these marginalized groups are ensured an equitable process.
                 2. K. Young explains that if a collaboration is done with another organization, it would limit the amount of money they can receive in Special Projects Funding. She adds that the itinerary is open.
            viii. Y. Masoud shares that these organizations being more selective is an inherent nature of what they represent.
            ix. E. Galperin asks how they would approach a case where an organization that is not oriented for a historically marginalized group happens to have membership consisting mostly of historically marginalized groups.
                 1. M. Ehrlich notes that the resolution says “Organizations that have a recruitment process strictly for the purposes of serving the mission of supporting marginalized or minority groups.”
            x. M. Ehrlich motions to close debate, no dissent.
            xi. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       m. Resolution 58: Winter Sidewalk Maintenance
            i. H. Spector shares how she’s been having trouble with snow not being removed from the pathways after a snowstorm, melted snow becomes slush, slippery, and dangerous, and melted snow that refreezes and becomes more slippery. She shares that this issue is common among disabled students where wheelchair users have difficulty going up a slippery ramp and blind students can’t see pathways with no winter maintenance signs. She brings attention to the black metal floor on the Thurston Avenue Bridge where she slipped and slammed into the green railing, and another student fell there and had to get an ambulance.
            ii. Z. deRham shares that road salt is hard on the environment and natural resources like grass and is a limited resource. She recommends adding a provision about sand, an alternative for lesser-used paths, or for supplementary maintenance other than salting paths. She adds that since many students live farther from campus in areas that are poorly maintained, it shouldn’t be a burden on the students to have an unmaintained campus.
            iii. H. Spector motions to amend to insert between lines 21 and 22 to say “Be it further resolved, the Student Assembly recommends that sand be considered as an eco-friendly way to control the ice on campus,” no dissent.
            iv. E. Galperin shares seeing a CU News that said Cornell spends more on no winter maintenance signs than on winter maintenance.
            v. M. Ehrlich motions to close debate, passes.
            vi. The resolution has been moved to the Third Reading Calendar.
       n. Resolution 59: Readily Available Hot, Allergy Safe Meals
            i. E. Porter shares that people with allergies may have to wait 10 to 15 minutes for allergy safe foods, making it hard to eat at any dining halls, especially with time constraints. She points out the lack of hot food readily available at gluten-free stations and that the resolution would install something like that.
            ii. M. Ehrlich motions to refer the resolution to the Dining Committee, no dissent.
            iii. The resolution has been referred to the Dining Services Committee.
       o. Resolution 60: Free Laundry
            i. M. Causey shares that students would consistently say that they’d rather pay for laundry up front because they know they’re paying for laundry than come to Cornell not knowing they’re paying for laundry and suddenly have such a bill. She shares her desire to have permission to go to housing committees and push to have laundry costs put on the initial housing cost.
            ii. J. Anand shares that people have different laundry needs and do it at different rates than other people. He adds that it doesn't make sense because they’ll be paying for it one way or another and would prefer for communication with students through pre-orientation with the Tatkon Center, have a system where you can pay for laundry using BRBs, or have an option where you can have an infinite laundry card paid for at the beginning of the semester.
                 1. M. Causey shares that it has to be paid for up front for the same reason as why freshmen have to come in with unlimited dining plans. She shares the issue that people from lower-income communities come in and suddenly have the cost sprung up on them.
            iii. C. Tarala shares that the money’s coming from somewhere, like how Dartmouth has free laundry because an alum donated 40 million.
                 1. M. Causey explains that she’s not pushing for free laundry, but having it be an upfront cost. She adds that since laundry is a necessity for all students to survive on campus, it should be reflected in the cost of attendance.
            iv. D. Addoquaye asks who is being reached out to and what the current plans are. He recommends that if she is reaching out to someone between the 2nd and the 3rd, to make sure that Kotlikoff knows what’s going on until it gets asked.
                 1. M. Causey explains that it has to pass through the Student Assembly first to show that this is something that students agree with and is something that students want. She adds that it would then be taken with Keten to go to the Board of Trustees and push for an affordable and enforceable long-term solution.
       v. D. Addoquaye motions to close debate, fails due to lack of quorum.

  StudentAssemblyMeetingMinutesFebruary262026.pdf (249.39 KB)