On Thursday, May 1, the Undergraduate Student Government (USG) gathered to debate multiple pieces of legislation and converse with Interim President Richard L. McCormick about his experience as president and addressed concerns of the federal government’s impact on Stony Brook. 

McCormick opened the meeting by addressing a series of pre-submitted questions from the USG Senate, covering a range of topics related to his presidency and national policies affecting the University.

One of the questions focused on the personal lessons and insights he gained from leading Stony Brook University. McCormick responded by recognizing the supportive community Stony Brook fosters in comparison to other universities. 

“The culture of Stony Brook is so supportive,” McCormick said. “This is a very supportive campus and you should be proud of that culture [and] you should be proud to contribute to it, not every university campus is like that.”

Another question was about how McCormick intended to ensure a smooth transition between him and incoming University President Andrea Goldsmith. He responded by describing Goldsmith as a respectful and kind person before briefly discussing the transition. 

“The transition is going great and not just because of me, a lot of members of the administration have spent time with [Goldsmith],” he said. “I’ll miss Stony Brook and as I depart on  Aug. 1, she [steps in] as president,” he said. 

Afterward, McCormick read aloud another question from the University Senate, asking which unique aspect of Stony Brook’s campus stood out compared to other universities. He noted the fact that Stony Brook lacks a college town and shared that a project is underway to provide more housing along with business enterprises to fill this gap. McCormick further added that this project should take an estimated two years to complete.

“We’ve got Port Jefferson, [N.Y.,] but it’s three and a half miles away, so we need stuff closer by,” McCormick said. “We have significant planning for both housing and commercial establishments on campus.”

At-large Senator Minal Iftikhar then asked if McCormick had any advice for Goldsmith to best navigate transparency around the Trump administration’s policies and executive orders that could affect the Stony Brook community.

“There is a fine line, you have to speak out against students losing visas, you have to speak out against scientists losing research [funding],” he replied. 

At-large Senator Ennio Tuna then asked about the Trump administration’s impact on the New York Climate Exchange due to the administration being unsupportive toward climate change efforts. 

McCormick explained that the New York Climate Exchange itself isn’t directly impacted, but it may face obstacles in raising funds to build its hub on Governors Island, N.Y.

“The current federal administration is not supportive of efforts to address climate change which is seemingly unfortunate,” McCormick said. “It does not affect the New York Climate Exchange directly because it doesn’t have any federal funding at this point, but of course its member institutions including Stony Brook do.” 

McCormick was then asked whether any efforts had been made to address the list of demands submitted to both his office and the Office of the Provost during two separate protests. He conveyed his appreciation for how the Stony Brook community has protested within the University’s guidelines.

“I’m very grateful to the Stony Brook community for handling expression of political ideas as well as [they] have,” he said. “I’m happy to say that the protests this year have been within the bounds of our rules.”

He then discussed some of the demands and the potential to address them. 

“Some of the demands are unrealistic; I have no power over the war in Gaza. I deplore what’s happening, but there is absolutely nothing I can do about it anymore than you can,” McCormick explained. “Another demand is that we get rid of all our investments in Israeli companies. Well guess what? We don’t have any, there’s nothing to divest [from] … We don’t invest directly in any companies and definitely not companies in Israel.”

Once McCormick finished answering questions, at-large Senator Emelio Harris proposed a resolution to amend article V.4.2.a of the USG Constitution, granting the USG president chief justice of the Judicial Board the power to appoint an associate justice if a spot becomes vacant. 

This article currently reads that upon a position of associate justice becoming vacant, the Legislative and Vetting Review Committee (LegVet Committee) will appoint a person to fill this position. At-large Senator Lauren Fanter explained that this legislation offers a more efficient and smoother transition in filling the vacancy. 

“This speeds up the process,” she said. “Whoever is in presidency probably has a better grasp on what is good rather than LegVet [Committee] who just recruits people. This is just more aligned with how it usually [functions].”

In response to Fanter’s explanation, at-large Senator and incoming Vice President of Clubs and Organizations Taher Motiwala asked if this means that the LegVet Committee no longer has a say in the appointing of a new associate justice.

“LegVet [Committee] does have to approve them in the process but LegVet is not the first step in [this] process anymore,” Executive Vice President Ray Chen responded.

Following Chen’s response, Fanter continued to provide clarification of the LegVet Committees role in appointing an associate justice. 

“What usually happened was LegVet [Committee] picked who to interview and then they interviewed and did the rest of the process,” she said. “This would just pick who to interview and then LegVet [Committee] would interview. Instead of LegVet [Committee] having to decide who to interview, they just need to interview [and approve the candidate].” 

The Senate then voted unanimously to amend this legislation.

Afterward, Chen proposed a legislation to codify that Senate meetings will take place on Thursday nights from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. effective immediately. For the last five years, the Senate has kept their meetings consistently on Thursdays and advised all incoming senators to arrange their schedule around this meeting. However, it was not written in the USG Constitution or any bylaws. 

President Nistha Boghra expressed concerns that this legislation may reflect badly on USG and used an example to reflect on the Senate’s responsibility to be available at that time. 

“I think it’s a bad look for us to do this at this particular time,” she said. “For example, [Resident Assistants (RAs)] are expected to be free on Tuesday evenings. That’s just a rule because they have to [be available], but every building has their staff meetings at different times on Tuesdays.”

Boghra further explained that the Senate is expected to be available on Thursday evenings, similar to how RAs are held to a standard on Tuesdays. At-large Senator Uzair Mahmud echoed Boghra’s sentiment and disagreed with the legislation. He expressed concerns that the incoming Senate already received communication from the Executive Council to forward their course schedules to the Council to potentially accommodate if necessary. Mahmud said by passing this legislation, it is no longer giving them the option to potentially change their meeting date and time if necessary. 

“I personally think doing something like this is not a good idea at all, the reason being [next year’s Senators] did the work petitioning, they did elections, they did all of that [work] and they got an email this cycle telling them to set their schedules to see when they’re available,” Mahmud explained. “Senate [meetings have] generally fallen on Thursdays, sometimes earlier and sometimes later, but it makes no sense for us to make it only Thursdays.”

At-large Senator and incoming Executive Vice President Russell Erfan then informed the Senate of an email received a few weeks ago from an incoming senator that claimed that nearly one third of the incoming Senate would prefer their weekly meeting be held on Wednesdays. 

“I don’t think it’s fair especially after that [email], when they make themselves clear that a lot of [the] Senate didn’t want to be on Thursday, that we suddenly codify [it],” Erfan argued. “I completely agree that Thursday is better. I will fight for Thursday, but I don’t think it’s right to shut people down.”

Following Mahmud’s comment about the new Senate members being emailed to confirm their availability, Erfan provided his reasoning for asking for their schedules.

“I asked for schedules, not because I wanted to make a statement as to my preference, but because it’s important that we at least take [the incoming Senate’s schedules] into consideration,” he said. 

Vice President of Communications Lamia Rathi then suggested passing the legislation but making it effective for the following spring semester. 

“You can amend this and make it effective for the following semester,” she advised. “I think for the incoming fall semester it doesn’t make sense for you guys to add it right now but I think that this is a great idea.”

Luca Rallis, assistant to the vice president of University Affairs, then argued that all the information sessions the senators were required to attend clarified that meetings were set for Thursdays. 

“If [the] Elections Board during all the info sessions told people it was going to be on Thursdays and course registration for next semester has happened, then what about the two thirds of senators who have registered for their classes?” 

Chen then had the Senate vote on making the legislation effective immediately on Jan. 1, 2026 or the beginning of the 2026 spring semester. Before counting the votes, Erfan asserted that this legislation would be shutting down conversation between the incoming Senate and the Executive Council. 

“This is antagonizing a third of next [year’s] Senate and I am so for Thursdays,” he said. “But this is making a statement.” 

After further discussion, the Senate decided to change the legislation to say, “Senate meetings shall take place on Thursday evenings — unless ⅔ of the Senate cannot make Thursday due to class conflict.” 

The Senate also altered the legislation to take effect on Thursday, Jan 1, 2026 instead of immediately. After the revisions were voted and agreed upon, the Senate proceeded to vote once again and passed the legislation.