Codes and Judicial Committee
Minutes of 10/16/07
- Present
- Kathleen Rourke (staff), Andy Cowan (student), Jamie Rogers (JCC), Ari Epstein (Assemblies office), Marty Hatch (faculty, UA liaison), Kevin Clermont (faculty), Jack Cao (student), Gary Stewart (staff), Kathy Zoner (CU police), Mary Beth Grant (JA), Conrad Dailey (CSLA), Christine Kim (CSLA), Jonathan S (law student, JCC)
I. Minutes of 10/01/07 Meeting Approved
II. Update from UA: Hatch
- Meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 14 on 7th floor of Clark Hall; in Bethe seminar room
- CJC report is on agenda
- Send CJC members or delegates
- Would be nice to have representative from each group (undergrad, law student, professor, etc.) to show diversity
III. Vacant position on CJC
- Law professor was going to fill spot, but decided that doing so would make committee unbalanced
- Still searching for a professor to fill vacancy
IV. Comments from Online Forum
- B. Eden’s comment regarding definition of a “professor”
- Clermont: flowery language; not limiting; simply stating academic freedom
- Rourke: more applicable: who can be hearing board chairs
- Clermont: not meaning of B. Eden
- Mary Beth: tenured professors
- Rourke: table discussion? Yes; will wait until Spring
V. Gannet’s Letter to CJC
- Epstein: not on webpage yet
- Hatch: need to get permission before posting on website
- Kim: CSLA can be posted
- Rourke: Gannett supports proposed code
- Cowan: 3 violations could be minor
- Clermont: suspicion not mandatory
- Jonathan: problem with “ordinarily”; is default
- Clermont: intent is that it should be treated seriously, not necessarily suspicion
- Grant: change language to probation and/or suspension
- Jonathan: more comfortable with this
- Cao: medical amnesty?
- And/or suspension: passed
- Hatch: off-campus count?
- Grant: need context, must ask if there is there a past history?
VI. Latest revision of the code, redlined, dated 10/3/07 by K. Clermont
- Regarding “federal rules of evidence”
- Jonathan: federal rules of evidence: students won’t know; makes it more legalistic
- Clermont: cites specific passage
- Grant: give hearing boards guidance on when to allow statements
- Jonathan: enumerate when and when it can’t come in
- Clermont: if person can’t come in for compelling reasons, allow statement to come in
- Rogers: no problem with clause as it is now; can advise someone on federal rules of evidence
- Jonathan: need 4 or 5 guiding principles
- Rourke: get feeling of voting members
- Hatch/Clermont: statement vs. account
- Mary Beth: practically, if complainant doesn’t come forward, case can’t go forward
- Clermont: clause is saying accuser must be present in order for conviction to happen
- Take it out, leave in federal rules of evidence, or somehow summarize federal rules of evidence; will table to next meeting
- Regarding Photography/video-taping, privacy and copyright rights
- Hatch: emphasize invading privacy and violating property rights instead of how picture/video was taken; videotaping is picture is very common; clause is chilling: implies that each time you videotape, you’re invading property rights
- Zoner: depends on context; concert performer whose contract states you cannot take pictures vs. classroom where videotaping is not norm
- Hatch: separate violating privacy from violating property rights; table to Spring; not enough time to deal with it now; complications of when violations rights to level of “malicious intent”
- Grant: language as it is now is new; request to make language more clear
- Ari: process lays high standard
- Rourke: table to next meeting
- Regarding Off-campus jurisdiction
- Cowan: give hearing board the explicit power to decide validity of code’s jurisdiction, in addition to president in JA; will email proposal out
- Cowan: Jurisdictional waiver: give hearing board power to allow waiver ‘in interest of justice”; will email proposal out
- Grant: increase in jurisdiction will present staffing problems; need support; need support to enforce code that will be implemented
- Jonathan: there will be JCC staffing problems as well
VII. General Consensus that CJC is on right track with new code
Next meeting: Monday, Oct. 29 at 4:15 PM; room TBD