Present: M. Allende, A. Anderson, K. Clermont, M. B. Grant, M. Hatch, R. Kay, K. Rourke, D. Streeter, K. Zoner
Also Present: D. Pearlstein, C. Walcott
- The faculty has expressed interest in being involved in revising the Code
- Dean of Students Office feels responsibility for getting materials to the public
- Queried whether anyone but the UA has a responsibility to distribute it, and anticipated that CJC will be delegated this task by the UA
- Revision v. replacement — discussed whether UA indicated merely desire to revise code or to replace it
- Discussed whether CJC is willing to take on the task of evaluating and comparing the Krauss Report to the current code
- Questioned who has jurisdiction to approve changes, and whether this differed if the current code was replaced entirely
- Determined clearly UA if revision or replacement
- Compared working through the system (UA) or working from outside (steering committee)
- Determined that CJC is the standing committee of the UA on such issues, and thus CJC is to take the lead unless the UA takes that delegation away
- CJC is willing to accept that responsibility
- Discussed the role of a steering committee vis-�-vis the CJC
- President suggested convening a small committee to help the process along
- Queried what the role of such a steering committee would be — participating in CJC discussions v. joining together with CJC as one group?
- Determined that the CJC is willing to function as the “steering committee” should the UA authorize it to do so
- Discussed where the CJC should start in assessing revisions/replacement — evaluate current code, Krause Report, or combination thereof
- Determined that CJC should discuss the proposed changes and the merits thereof
- Consider what we want out of the Code as a fundamental measure
- Begin by assessing the “fundamental concerns” of the Krause Report and whether they are legitimate (see p. 10 of Krause Report)
- In its evaluation of the present code of conduct in the context of the revisions proposed by the Krauss Report, the CJC will be concerned with the following matters:
- That the code presents clear parameters for behavior to ensure the institution’s purpose;
- That the code states the parameters for behavior in simple and clear language, without abridging rights;
- That appropriate time tables for process be respected;
- That an equitable, fair, and independent judicial process be maintained;
- That the independence and support of the JA’s office and its communication with the community is sufficient.