The Cornell Student Assembly has adopted over 40 resolutions this academic year focused on issues ranging from climate change to disability ramps. A review of publicly available records, though, shows a recurring pattern — delays between when resolutions are sent to the University president and when formal responses are issued.
Under the Student Assembly charter, once a resolution is conveyed to the Office of the President, the president is required to respond within 30 days. Responses include acknowledgment, approval, rejection or other formal action.
Approved resolutions are implemented, while rejected resolutions are returned to the Assembly to be reworked per any feedback the president may choose to give. When resolutions are acknowledged, the president confirms he has received it but does not immediately take any action.
None of the resolutions passed by the Assembly this academic year have been approved by President Michael Kotlikoff. 13 resolutions have been conveyed to the President, all of which were eventually acknowledged –– one of these resolutions was rejected following acknowledgement. The remaining resolutions have either not yet been conveyed to the president, were internal policies or have been referred to committees.
Only 46% of resolutions acknowledged by the president were responded to within the required 30 day period — 38% were acknowledged between 31 and 60 days, and 15% were acknowledged after more than 61 days.
A Notable Delay: Career Services and ICE
Resolution 9: “Ending Career Services Collaboration with ICE,” called for Cornell Career Services to stop promoting Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol career opportunities. It was adopted by the Assembly on Sept. 25 and conveyed on Oct. 8. The President’s acknowledgment came on Dec. 10, more than 60 days after conveyance.
Ehrlich characterized the issue as procedural rather than political, noting that the charter requires formal presidential action within 30 days.
Vice President of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Kennedy Young ’28 framed the obligation in contractual terms. “[Kotlikoff] is contracted to do these things,” Young said during debate over enforcement.
The resolution recommended the cancellation of virtual career events with Career Services and ICE and CBP, and the removal of postings from Cornell’s online recruitment platform, Handshake.
During a subsequent Assembly meeting on Feb. 21, members argued that the delay constituted a violation of the charter’s response requirement.
“Resolution 9 should have been enforced. They did not respond timely, so it should now be enacted,” said Max Ehrlich ’26, ILR representative, during the meeting.
Resolution 42: “Enacting the Enforcement of Resolution 9”, was introduced in response to the delayed acknowledgement. The resolution argued that because the administration did not respond in the required window, the administration should implement Resolution 9.
Shared Governance and Code of Conduct Concerns
Resolution 10: “Condemning the Administration’s Undemocratic Review of the Student Code of Conduct and Affirming Cornell’s System of Shared Governance,” condemned the administration’s review of the Student Code of Conduct by a non-elected committee, and reiterated the importance of shared governance between the various assemblies and the president. The resolution, adopted on Oct. 9 and conveyed on Oct. 21, did not receive presidential acknowledgment until Feb. 2, over three months later.
The resolution invoked Article 3, Section 1 of the charter, which states that the Assembly shall have legislative authority over the Office of Student and Campus Life as well as the Office of the Dean of Students, the offices in charge of the code, to argue that the Assembly should have a formal role in any revisions to the Student Code of Conduct. Assembly members raised concerns that the administration’s review process bypassed established shared governance structures and limited student input in decisions affecting campus disciplinary policy.
Some Assembly members expressed frustration that delayed responses weaken the body’s authority within Cornell’s shared governance framework.
“We need to make it clear that we won’t abide by Kotlikoff stepping all over us,” Ehrlich said during a debate over enforcement measures.
End-of-Semester Backlog
Resolutions adopted in December, including Resolution 17: “Reinstating the A&S Peer Mentoring Program”, Resolution 19: “University-Wide [Fossil Fuel] Disassociation” and Resolution 20: “Protecting Cornell's Values from the Trump Administration,” were conveyed Dec. 18 and acknowledged on Feb. 6. These responses occurred roughly 50 days after conveyance, with a significant portion of the time occurring over Cornell’s winter break.
Notably, Resolution 21: “Approving the Recommendation for the 2026-2028 Student Activity Fee,” suggested an increase to the Student Activity Fee. The resolution, conveyed on Dec. 18.was formally rejected by President Kotlikoff on Feb. 6, more than 30 days later., who He expressed concerns about the potential impact that the proposed increase would have on the University’s budget, which covers some or all of the activity fee for students receiving financial aid.
“This increase in the activity fee cannot be absorbed by [Cornell’s] colleges and schools,” Kotlikoff wrote to the Assembly, additionally asking them to “revise the proposed 2026-2028 fee to match the 2025-2026 fee of $424 in recognition of these challenges.”
Early Term: Procedural Measures and Timely Acknowledgments
Several procedural resolutions were adopted by the Assembly on Aug. 28, including Resolution 1: “Adoption of the Standing Rules of the 2025-2026 Term of the Student Assembly”, Resolution 2: “Approving the 2025-2026 Student Assembly Operating Budget” and Resolution 3: “Establishing the Ad-Hoc Committee on Vacancies”. These were conveyed on Oct. 8 and acknowledged by Kotlikoff on Oct. 22.
Similarly, Resolution 5: “Establishing the Technology Committee” and Resolution 7: “Establishing the Student Employment Policy Committee” were acknowledged after exactly two weeks.
Among the resolutions that exceeded the deadline were Resolution 9: “Calling for the End of Career Services’ Promotion of ICE and CBP Opportunities,” Resolution 10: “Condemning the Administration’s Undemocratic Review of the Student Code of Conduct and Affirming Cornell’s System of Shared Governance,” and Resolution 21: “Approving the Recommendation for the 2026-2028 Student Activity Fee,” along with four additional measures adopted during the fall semester. Several of these resolutions addressed issues that had already prompted significant discussion within the Assembly and across campus.
The growing backlog has prompted some Assembly members to question whether the charter’s 30 day requirement carries meaningful enforcement weight.
“There is a requirement to request reconsideration within 30 days… This is, to an extent, a legal matter,” Ehrlich said, referring to the Assembly charter.
Administration Responds
When asked directly about response delays at the University Assembly meeting on Feb. 24 President Michael Kotlikoff emphasized that the administration does not treat Student Assembly resolutions lightly.
“We seriously consider resolutions from the Assembly,” Kotlikoff said. “This usually involves some research on the underlying issues and discussions among senior leadership, which means finding time across multiple very full schedules.”
Kotlikoff pointed to the volume and timing of resolutions as a key structural challenge.
“In the fall semester, we received 23 resolutions and a referendum… 14 of these were from the S.A.,” he said, adding that clusters of submissions, particularly near academic breaks, made it “extremely challenging to respond to all within 30 days.”
Last spring, he noted, 26 resolutions were submitted, with 10 arriving on the same day.
Kotlikoff also suggested that improving timeliness would require coordination from both sides.
“I think we need to work together… that means less redundant, perhaps fewer resolutions… in a way that allows us to respond in an effective manner,” he said.
While the Assembly charter requires a response within 30 days, it does not specify enforcement mechanisms when that timeline is exceeded. Kotlikoff said that when delays occur, his office informs Assembly leadership. These communications can be viewed on the Assembly website, listed under the respective resolutions.
The data does not provide explanations for these delays, nor does it indicate whether extenuating circumstances were formally communicated. However, the pattern itself underscores an important tension within shared governance structures: while student assemblies may act quickly in passing resolutions, administrative timelines can differ — particularly when resolutions intersect with broader institutional strategy, public controversy or financial commitments.
