The Student Assembly unanimously passed Resolution 18, adopting a new Code of Ethics for the Office of Ethics at a Thursday meeting. The new code formally outlines the responsibilities of the office, particularly with its complaint hearing process.
The Code of Ethics is the governing document for the Office of Ethics — which is the assembly’s impartial and external executive office created to handle ethical concerns. The new resolution replaces the office’s original Code of Ethics, which was written in May 2022 when the office was founded.
In the wake of the presidential succession crisis and internal misconduct allegations that caused uncertainty about the office’s responsibilities, Resolution 18 was first introduced by members of the Office of Ethics on Jan. 23 to strengthen accountability and clarify its functions.
Prior to final passage, the assembly voted on three amendments to the new code to modify its components which include an ethical conduct modification, a 180-day submission timeline and a five-day notification requirement.
Student Assembly President Zora deRham ’27 proposed an amendment to modify the ethical conduct section. deRham’s motion suggested adding a section under the ethical conduct of the director of the Office of Ethics stating, “In accordance with the rules set forth for the Office of Ethics as defined in this document, exercise impartiality and refrain from speaking on the merits of a resolution outside the scope of the office.”
During Resolution 18’s second reading on March 6, deRham noted that a section of the proposed code was removed which stated that the office should remain impartial in assembly activities. The omitted code explained that members of the Office of Ethics would not be able show their approval or disapproval of assembly resolutions.
No dissents were made and the amendment was approved.
deRham proposed another amendment addressing the code’s creation of a statute of limitations for when ethical violations may be filed. At the resolution’s second reading, the proposed code stated that ethical concerns or controversial violations may be filed by a Cornell community member “within a year following the term the alleged ethical violation occurred in.”
Another amendment was introduced by deRham to modify the second amendment, clarifying the language to reflect the Director of the Office of Ethics Sophia Arnold’s ’26 intention “that it would be within the term.” The amendment motioned to clarify the language stating that “submissions may be filed within the Student Assembly term in which the alleged ethical violation occurred,” according to deRham.
Some assembly members raised concerns that incidents occurring during election season would not be addressed.
The Office of Assemblies considers a term as beginning at the first meeting which occurs in August and noted that the assembly assumes their roles at the end of May, according to Arnold.
“Changing the time limits for complaints to one term would mean that concerns that arise, from elections to August, would not be valid or able to be heard,” Arnold said.
Director emeritus of the Office of Ethics and current voting member Alhassan Bangura ’25 said “we would not be able to consider one specific member before June 3 or after that. So anything that happens in that May, which is typically when the first organizational meeting is held, we wouldn’t be able to do anything.”
Brooks School of Public Policy Representative Eeshaan Chaudhuri ’27 suggested a compromise to make the period 90 days instead of a term.
“It’s a happy medium. If a violation happens, ethics is able to step in and take a look at it with their due diligence, but also at the same time, it gives them enough time, just in case something major happens that they have like a substantial amount of time to go back to book and file whatever they need,” Chaudhuri said.
Arnold proposed a solution wherein “submissions may be filed within 180 business days following the date on which the alleged ethical violation occurred” and was passed with unanimous consent.
A third amendment, proposed by assembly Academic Policy Committee Chair Saad Razzak ’26, passed requiring a notification to students’ Cornell email at least five days before the date of a hearing.
After passing all three amendments, the assembly unanimously passed Resolution 18. The new Code of Ethics officially took effect on Thursday.
Avery Wang ’27 contributed reporting.
