UA Codes and Judicial Committee

CJC Meeting, Thursday November 6, 2008

Present Kathleen Rourke, Nighthawk Evensen, Mary Beth Grant, Kade Laden, Gary Stewart, Kevin Clermont, Rachel Dorfman-Tandlich, Kathy Zoner (by phone)

1.Quick summary of last year

• Rourke: we had lots of discussion leading to a new code with many of the revisions written by Kevin Clermont, productive discussions with both President Skorton and several Vice-Presidents.

2.Election of new officers

• Kathleen Rourke for Chair (Nominated by Clermont, Seconded by Stewart)
• Nighthawk Evensen for Vice-Chair (Nominated by Stewart, seconded by Dorfman-Tandlich)
• Rachel Dorfman-Tandlich as one of the co-secretaries (Nominated by Laden, Seconded by Rourke)

3.Judicial interview selections (from Ari)

• Rourke (from Ari): Need a staffing drive for both students and employees on the Judicial Board.
• Grant: we need to fill the current pool, not increase it. It is hard to do this because there is no prediction of how much the time commitment will be. Hearings are mostly at night in October-November, and then March-April.
• Rourke: Applicants must apply, andthen 2 CJC members will interview them. We need to start this process soon.
• Clermont: Is it wise to pick people randomly? If we get rid of the randomization we can stabilize the time commitment
• Clarification: members can withdraw from duty for good cause
• Dorfman-Tandlich: Could we do a rotation?
• Grant: The JA tries to stay out of it.
• Rourke: Ari needs availability now, we want to do this by December 6th
• Evensen: Last time we had a lot of applicants; can we go back to some of them who were turned down?

4.Suggestion from Kathy Zoner, Cornell Police “It should also be a violation of this title: To bathe in, swim in, or for the purposes of swimming and/or bathing enter any waters that are on, adjacent to, or traverse the Cornell Campus except in those waters officially designated as swimming or bathing waters.” Zoner spoke with UA, wants to try to get this done before the good weather.

• Rourke: Let’s prioritize- do this before the spring
• Stewart: This is high priority, especially to the city.
• Evensen: The language states “adjacent”, what does that mean?
• Zoner: similar to how Cornell Police has authority on roadways adjacent to the university.
• Dorfman-Tandlich: we need to specify exactly which bodies of water this refers to. Some of them are safe.
• Laden: this refers to Fall Creek Gorge, Cascadilla Gorge, and Beebe lake.
• Zoner: yes, we will need help with this. As a committee, we could use more points of view.

5.Suggestion from Stephan Spilkowitz, student Wants to add “defamation, slander, and libel” as code violations.

• Grant: this topic comes up about once a year. Usually we try to see if the situation qualifies as harassment.
• Clermont: we can fit this under the code, but it has serious 1st Amendment implications
• Rourke: let’s have the student present to the committee.

6.Suggestion from Jonathan Ochshorn, Associate Professor, Architecture Concerned about the concept of “reputational interests of the university itself” as one of the several “interests and purposes” that the University must protect and promote. Wants it to be reconsidered.

• Clermont: This is a new concept in the Code;it came from the Krauss report. It does favor the university, but only appears on page 1 and has no practical impact. There is no reference to this in the substance of the code.
• Dorfman-Tandlich: wasn’t this in reference to off-campus conduct?
• Grant: This gentleman was concerned that protestors would be punished under the code for hurting the reputation of the university.
• Rourke: Lets have him in to present as well.

7.Suggestions from Mary Beth Grant, Judicial Administrator Grant:

• i.Hazing is mentioned in Title 3 and 4- does not need to be in both places.
• ii.Theft is in Title 3, �1i against an individual, but theft against the university isn’t mentioned. This should be added to �2j.
• iii.Drugs are mentioned in 3d, but the code does not specifically refer to marijuana. Some students claim that this should be clearer.
  • 1.Rourke: they should know that it would be included under controlled substances.
• iv.Code states that students receive an oral warning, when in reality they are written. We should strike “oral” from the code.
  • 1.Rourke: This would make a big difference in disciplinary procedure.
  • 2.Clermont: it says oral warning or written reprimand.
  • 3.Grant: we look at it as an oral warning that is just documented.
• v.We should look at the role of council in meetings as opposed to hearings. We would prefer that the student “run the show” unless suspension is involved.
• vi.Sexual assault in 1a — “sexual misconduct” is listed in Sexual Assault Policy 6.3, but is not listed in the code; should be added.
• vii.Suspension — this is now up to a year, or can be time limited, where the student must make an argument to come back, or there is expulsion. Some feel there should be more flexibility in this — ex: can come back when the complainant graduates.
• viii.Addition of a “no retaliation” rule to the code. Violation of the code to retaliate against a witness, complainant.
• ix.Violation of disciplinary probation should be violation of the code.

• Laden: Does the JA’s power now extend to College Town?
• Rourke: Yes this is off-campus jurisdiction.
• Grant: This is only for serious conduct.
• Clermont: “serious” is defined in the code. Must have approval of Dean of students (for students) or Dean of Faculty (if employee).
• Rourke asked Grant to provide a written list of her suggested revisions to the code.

8.Next meeting time, location Next meeting: Thursday, November 20th, 4 PM, in B12 Day Hall .