UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Call to Order

K. Rourke called the meeting to order at 3:35pm.

Attendance

Present

Louis Alley, Kevin Clermont, Mary Beth Grant, Torrey Jacobs (by telephone), Kathleen Rourke, Gary Stewart, Deborah Streeter

Absent

Manuel Allende, Arthur Andersen, Jeff Purcell, Melissa Ysaguirre, Kathy Zoner

Also Present

Janey Bosch (by telephone), Ari Epstein, Martin Hatch

Review procedures and questions for hearing and review board candidates

K. Rourke introduced J. Bosch, the office manager for the Office of the Judicial Administrator.

J. Bosch explained the process for securing UHRB panels. First, the pool of members is provided by the UA in random order and she assigns them numbers. Next the Administrative Chair, a member of the UHRB elected by all UHRB members, pulls the numbers from a hat and Janey notes the sequences. The JAO then contacts members in the random order they were selected. If a member is not available, or the JAO does not hear from someone within 24 hours, they contact the next person on the list. Although the JAO was provided with 17 students this year (more than the 15 which had been approved), there were at least two occasions when they had to go through the entire list of 17 before they were able to secure the three students needed for each panel. Panels most often consist of three students, one faculty and one staff, so the need for students is much higher.

A. Epstein said that the committee and the assembly had approved a change to the code which increased the size of the UHRB to 15 students, but that it had appointed a number of students such that 17 were staffed on the UHRB. Since the decisions that led to overstaffing the body were made by the same group that is responsible for changing the code and there was at least one occasion on which more than 15 members were needed, the Office of the Assemblies did not think it would be helpful to address the discrepancy until now.

K. Rourke asked how many alternates were appointed.

A. Epstein estimated seven were appointed (after meeting found to be nine). The committee identified alternates as qualified to serve in UHRB, but in excess of the number called for in the Code. The Code does not address the topic of alternate appointments at all, and this appeared to be an ad-hoc decision in response to concerns about students resigning in the middle of the year.

M. Hatch said these candidates were screened in the same way as those who were appointed to UHRB.

K. Rourke asked if low response rate was an issue for staffing employees or faculty to the hearing or review panels, or if the issue was limited just to staffing students.

J. Bosch said there had not been difficulty staffing employees or faculty. Only one employee and one faculty member are required for each panel, while three students are required. Consequently, there is much greater demand on the student pool than there is on the employee or faculty pool.

K. Rourke proposed eliminating the alternate pool and instead increasing the size of the student pool to 20.

M. B. Grant said her only concern was that this would affect the proportional clout of students in voting on administrative procedures of the UHRB, but perhaps this was a desirable change since the vast majority of cases reviewed are brought against students.

The chair included T. Jacobs by telephone so she could participate in this portion of the meeting.

The committee voted 5–0 to increase the pool size to 20 students.

T. Jacobs said that she could not continue participating because of work commitments.

A. Epstein said he was planning to separately email non-senior student members of UHRB to ask if they would like their terms renewed and alternates to see if they would like to be considered again for inclusion in UHRB. He wanted to know if the committee approved of this action, and whether the committee would like to rescreen the applicants with applications or interviews.

D. Streeter said she thought the previous screening process was rigorous enough, and that alternates and reappointments could be accepted without interview.

M. B. Grant asked whether the Faculty Senate was being consulted about re-appointment of members whose terms expire this semester.

A. Epstein said he was in touch with Sandie Sutfin about this, and that the staffing list provided would be updated with re-appointments from the Faculty Senate.

M. Hatch asked if the Office of the Assemblies could check with the Office of the President to find out what are the terms of the president-appointed chairs.

A. Epstein said he would do this.

K. Rourke proposed that the letter that used to be sent to candidates for UHRB before their interviews be instead posted on the UHRB website, and that a link be provided from the online application form to encourage applicants to read more about the UHRB before joining. Additionally, candidates for interviews this semester should be directed to read the text of the letter in preparation for interviews.

A. Epstein said the office could do this.

There was discussion about how to circulate applications submitted online to members of the committee for review before conducting interviews.

A. Epstein asked if there was consensus support for the following: The Office of the Assemblies will compile the applications into a single document and email that document to all members of the committee on the afternoon of Friday, April 20. The committee will review those applications in advance of a meeting on Monday, April 23 to select candidates for interviews. The office will prepare three booklets containing submissions of all applicants in alphabetical order.

M. B. Grant said she also wanted to share an issue that arose this semester. One member of UHRB may not have accurately characterized his or her past interactions with the JAO. The online application asks about contact with the JAO. She asked whether it would be appropriate to add an explicit question to the online application asking a student whether he or she is on probation. Also, she suggested “background checks,” that is, the JAO would inform the committee of the contacts an applicant has had with the JAO, including probationary status of applicants. Committee members would then be able to ask questions about circumstances surrounding an applicant’s contact with the JAO, including probation status, during the interview.

Discussion continued. The committee expressed consensus in support of adopting this procedure.

M. Hatch said he had to leave to meet another engagement.

K. Rourke said, for scheduling purposes, at least two members of the committee should participate in each interview with UHRB candidates.

There was consensus that the application and interview process should start sooner and be spread over a greater period of time in subsequent years.

A. Epstein said he would also have to leave to coordinate another meeting, and asked that someone else take over minutes. Louis continued with the minutes.

Talking about Skorton letter. Is the President’s recommendation necessary to review the code? A subcommittee should work on a revised draft of the code. The undergraduates are leaving, and Kathleen thinks that losing their experience would be detrimental, so a draft should get underway soon.

Should the code be restructured by being rewritten or simply re-organized?

Kevin will be the sub-committee of one to rewrite the code over the summer, and people will review the substantive issues in the fall. Any previous work on the Code should be found and sent to Kevin.

Technology aspects of the code? Did not discuss extensively. Might ask for draft from IT woman. Did not discuss Mr. Shaw’s letter.