Actions taken by Student Assembly Vice President of Finance Stefanko, Vice President of Internal Operations (now Director of Elections) Henderson, and Parliamentarian Berger in the pursuit of passing Spring 2015 R.65 were knowingly in direct and explicit violation of the SA’s rules of order.

These actions undermine the very object of this assembly—to “effect more extensive involvement in campus governance in the undergraduate student body” (SA Charter II)—by delegitimizing the actions of the assembly through failure to comply with agreed upon rules and through coercion of assembly members and community members. Therefore, in order to maintain the integrity of the SA, these actions and their perpetrators must be held accountable publicly, possibly through official censure. Most importantly, in opening a complaint about transparency and deceit on the part of elected representatives, and the student public has a real interest in the resolution of this complaint, the members of this review board should choose, as is your right, to be open and transparent about the decision reached and the reasoning used to reach that decision.

The actions and primary violations in question are as follows:

Action Violation 1. Stefanko, Henderson, and Berger intentionally miscommunicated the status of R.65 in order to bring it to the floor of the assembly without a committee vote from either FARC or the SA Executive Board. Standing Rules II.5: “Prior to the introduction of a resolution as New Business, all resolutions shall be reviewed by an appropriate SA committee for no more than 30 days before its introduction in the general SA meeting and approved by the appropriate SA committee before the EVP sends the agenda to the general public” 2. Stefanko, through abusive language and public accusations, undermined debate. RROR VII.43: “In debate a member must confine himself to the question before the assembly, and avoid personalities. . . In referring to another member, he should, as much as possible, avoid using his name, rather referring to him as “the member who spoke last,” or in some other way describing him. . . It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member . . .” 3. The Chair and Berger unilaterally denied a request for a ballot vote, creating an environment where members would vote against their conscience. RROR VIII.46: “Vote by ballot: The main object of this form of voting is secrecy, and it is resorted to when the question is of such a nature that some members might hesitate to vote publicly their true sentiments. . . Where the by-laws do not require the vote to be by ballot, it can be so ordered by a majority vote, or by general consent. Such motions are undebatable.”

Stefanko, Henderson, and Berger intentionally miscommunicated the status of R.65 in order to bring it to the floor of the assembly without a committee vote from either FARC or the SA Executive Board. [CONFIDENTIAL] On Wednesday, April 22, VP of Finance Stefanko tells members of the Assembly that FARC approved R.65. This fact can only be proven confidentially. On Wednesday, April 22, at 11:10AM Executive Vice President Batista distributes an agenda for the next day’s meeting that includes R.65 as “new business.”

That same day, at 2:29PM, Gretchen Ryan, a staff member in the Office of Financial Aid and an ex-officio member of FARC who also attended the preceding FARC meeting, states that no vote had occurred in FARC.

Later that day, at 5:50PM, Stefanko intimates that he is “unsure a formal vote” happened at FARC, reversing his previous position, and then implicates Berger. Between Wednesday and Thursday, Director of Elections Aniket reveals that a vote has not occurred. VP of Finance Stefanko argues vociferously for an emergency vote by the Executive Board (reach out to Kushagra Aniket for verification). On Thursday, April 23, Henderson claimed that all three—in direct contradiction with Gretchen Ryan’s account, which clearly states two—voting members present at the preceding FARC meeting had voted in favor of the resolution. He further elaborates that FARC has lost most of its membership, so three voting members established a quorum. The next week, on May 30, when expressing support for R.65, FARC chair Yang stated for the record that eight votes had been cast (TASCAM_0009, 00:37:02, Franklin states for the record that FARC voted 6-1-1); if true, three votes would never establish quorum. VP of Internal Operations is tasked with the duty of monitoring committee membership explicitly (Bylaws II.3.3) and attends FARC meetings as an observer. There are no circumstances under which quorum could be established by 3 voting members in one week and then 8 voters could appear the next week, and there are no circumstances under which VP of Internal Operations Henderson would be unaware of changing membership. Also, his statement that “Franklin has removed people who haven’t attended any meetings” implies that VP of Internal Operations Henderson had been made aware of membership changes which, apparently, never occurred based on the next week’s vote. Bylaws III.3.3: “Chair Staffing Committee and monitor committee membership.” Bylaws VI.2.H: “The committee shall consist of one SA member serving as chair, one additional SA member, five undergraduate students, at least four of whom receive some form of institutionalized financial aid, two faculty members, and one counselor from the Office of Financial Aid, totaling to ten voting members.”

Stefanko, through abusive language and public accusations, undermined debate on R.65. “. . .[Director of Elections Aniket] you’ve been mostly surrounding yourself with other people who oppose [R.65] instead of confronting us . . .” (TASCAM_0009 01:13:30) VP of Finance Stefanko’s language became so accusatory as to require censure (to paraphrase, because of poor recordkeeping, “people are opposing this for fun and enjoying themselves”); Vice Chair of the UA Battaglia, serving ex-officio as liaison to the UA, called a point of order stating that VP of Finance Stefanko should cease and desist attaching intents to those opposed to R.65. (evidence of this is currently unavailable due to poor recordkeeping. Note that both motions and Roll Call votes must be included in minutes, but they were not. Chelsea, the clerk who took minutes, spoke in favor of R65. Matthew Battaglia can be reached via his university email) VP of Finance Stefanko did not deny this charge. The above statements are an extension of the personal abuse delivered by VP of Finance Stefanko to the complainant:

VP of Finance Stefanko, rather than address the arguments shown below, accuses me of “personal antics.” He then implies that he had not intended to bring forward the resolution on that day and that I should be aware of a yet-unknown decision to move R.65 back to April 30.

VP of Finance Stefanko references the below public post on Facebook as an “ad-hom” despite the lack of any personal attacks. If necessary, the complainant can confirm, through conversations with third parties, that the content has not been altered since the 23rd. It shows as “edited” because of a typographical error corrected within an hour of posting.

Matt Harkens, President of the Media Guild, was also guilted by VP of Finance Stefanko in relation to R65. (reach out to Matthew Harkens for validation)

Further, following a recent decision by President Skorton to return R.65 to the Student Assembly, VP of Finance Stefanko continued to attempt to coerce me. In the course of that conversation he half-heartedly apologizes for previous behavior while insinuating that the complainant ought to accept his offer to “support” him and, through the use of the phrase “at least,” that the complainant would have an obligation to work with any of his team members. According to the accused, in effect, the complainant, despite persistent abuse that the accused admits to and “apologizes” for, should support his efforts in order to deserve a voice in a pressing campus issue.

The Chair and Berger illegally denied a request for a ballot vote, creating an environment where members would vote against their conscience. On Thursday April 30, Representative LaPointe asked for a ballot vote. Rather than ask for general consensus or call for a vote, the Chair unilaterally denied the request. On Friday May 1, Parliamentarian Berger claimed that the rules did not allow for ballot votes:

“we are upholding the vote for R.65. A concern was raised regarding a decision not to recognize a request to use a ballot vote; my interpretation of the bylaws does not permit the use of a secret vote, as executive sessions are the only time we need confidential votes . . .” http://assembly.cornell.edu/uploads/SA/20150501Meeting.mp3 (00:01:06)

The only two possible pieces of language that Berger could be citing do not preclude the SA from using “a secret vote” that Robert’s Rules of Order Revised specifically allows: Bylaws VIII.2: “When a subject under discussion or examination requires the use of personal confidential information, all reasonable efforts shall be made to safeguard the confidentiality of this information. Confidential information is meant to include any and all information that, if publicly exposed, would endanger the privacy, safety, or security of any member of the Cornell community (students, faculty, and staff), or constitute a breach of any individual right guaranteed by the University, the State of New York, or the federal government.” Special Rules of Order: “The minutes of the SA meeting and its committee’s meetings will be available to all members of the Cornell community, except for those pertaining to portions conducted in executive session.”