The Student Assembly heard a second reading of Resolution 18, which proposes a new Code of Ethics for the Office of Ethics during a Thursday meeting. If passed, the code will replace the office’s first governing document, which was written in May 2022.
Resolution 18, which was sponsored by members of the Office of Ethics and first introduced on Jan. 23, formally outlines the office’s responsibilities and procedures, including its complaint hearing process.
In 2022, the Assembly founded the Office of Ethics to serve as an impartial and external executive office to handle ethical concerns. Since then, the Office of Ethics has navigated a presidential succession crisis in Spring 2023 and internal misconduct allegations during Spring 2024, leaving some members unclear about the scope of its abilities, functions and complaint procedures.
Sophia Arnold ’26, director of the Office of Ethics, said that the new code aims to strengthen accountability measures and increase the office’s transparency within the Assembly. The code, she said, was drawn “entirely” from the Assembly’s charter, bylaws and previously approved ethics resolutions.
Arnold stated the office has relied on recalling past precedents each year, depending on institutional memory rather than a formal framework. She said that was not the Assembly’s intent when it created the office.
“When ethics concerns arise with no means of resolution, it weakens the Assembly's ability to work for the student body,” Arnold said. “This code ensures that there are institutional breaks on unethical behavior and potential abuses of power, ensuring that the Assembly can always fulfill the purpose of representing our community.”
Arnold, along with six other voting members of the office, including ethics director emeritus and current voting member Alhassan Bangura ’25, sponsored the resolution.
“The purpose of this resolution is not to change the Office of Ethics,” Arnold said. “Under this new code, very little will change about how [the Office of Ethics] currently operates.”
The proposed code states that any member of the Cornell community seeking to report an ethical concern or controversy regarding an Assembly member may file a complaint within a year following the term that the alleged ethical violation occurred. The current code does not include a timeline for when complaints must be filed.
The office received an influx of reports in Spring 2024 after releasing its 38-page report on alleged misconduct in the Assembly, sparking debate over the timeline of viable investigations, according to Bangura.
“[The report] opened up a floodgate of related events that occurred well before what the initial [complaint] was about, which grew the length of the report,” Bangura said. “Within our [office], we were presented with … the decision of, ‘Can we take all these extra concerns?’”
Arnold said that the year-long statute of limitations was intended to work within one Assembly term, and that any period shorter than a year would be “arbitrary.”
“Last year, a reason why people didn't report things as they were happening was simply because they did not know how or felt too scared,” Bangura said. “This [year-long] time commitment allows for people to build up the courage to be able to come up to us.”
Student Assembly President Zora deRham ’27 noted that a section of the code stating the office shall remain impartial on the activities of the Assembly had been omitted from the proposed code. The section also specified that members were not allowed to argue in favor or disapproval of Assembly resolutions, meaning they were not allowed to speak during meetings. It had previously been included in the draft introduced to the Assembly on Jan. 23.
Bangura explained that the section functioned as a “gag order” on the director of the Office of Ethics, limiting their ability to provide input on current issues during meetings.
“What it meant was, regardless of the resolution on the floor, the director of the Office of Ethics was not allowed to speak on anything that happened on the floor,” Bangura said, adding that the expectation is still for the office to “remain as neutral as possible.”
Other proposed changes include a provision that the Student Assembly has the power to remove the director of the Office of Ethics with a two-thirds majority. According to the proposed code, ethics members will also be required to sign non-disclosure agreements, similar to the appropriations committee, to maintain confidentiality.
School of Hotel Administration Representative Christian Tarala ’27 expressed concern about the appeal process outlined in the new code, which would require a two-thirds Assembly vote or a petition containing signatures from 10 percent of the student body for reconsideration of a case.
“It just seems like a lot of power being shifted to the Office of Ethics,” Tarala said. “I understand [the proposed code] from the ethics perspective, but it does seem like there aren't … strong checks and balances, right?”
Arnold reaffirmed her intention that the proposed Code of Ethics codify its current procedures.
“The code is predominantly, I would say, 98 percent just really, really going into detail, elaborating how we already operate and what we already do,” Arnold said.
Resolution 18 has been placed on the third reading calendar. If passed at next Thursday’s meeting, the proposed Code of Ethics will become a governing document and take effect March 13.
