UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Present: Kevin Clermont, Glebe Drobkov, Anna Ferry, Mary Beth Grant, Risa Lieberwitz, Evan Magruder

Summer hearings

J. Cetta asked if the group wants to codify some system to assure more students are staffed in the summer.

M. B. Grant said having start dates for new appointees at the beginning of June instead of the current August could increase the likelihood that a sufficient number of students are available to serve in hearings.

R. Lieberwitz suggested having language that encourages consideration of availability for the summer.

Discussion continued about how the process should be changed.

The following changes were adopted to recommend to the University Assembly (UA) for incorporation into the Code of Conduct:

On page 15: Terms of office shall begin with the first day of classes in the next academic yearJune 1 of the year appointed. Any appointment to fill a vacancy or to address an emergency shall become effective immediately.

Article IV.C.1. The University Assembly Executive Committee may make emergency appointments on a temporary basis.

The changes were adopted unanimously.

Limitations period

The committee reviewed minutes of discussion from the February 19 meeting.

M. B. Grant asked if the extension of the limitations period would be more appropriate in the view of the committee if was only in cases of sexual assault [Title III, Article 2.A.1(a)]. That is the area where she has had specific complaints that she has been unable to act on because of the limitations period.

R. Lieberwitz said that might be too narrow, there are certain other violations for which an extension is arguably just as important.

E. Magruder said from the perspective of accused students, this is still problematic. It is difficult enough to defend against serious accusations of sexual assault even when the evidence is relatively fresh, but after more than a year it becomes extremely difficult to prove the innocence of the accused.

R. Lieberwitz suggested that the limitations period could actually be too long already for some cases.

J. Cetta said it sound like there is the option to leave limitations as they are or to approve extension of limitations, but only for targeted violations.

The committee voted 4–0 in favor of not extending the limitations period for any additional offenses.

Recordkeeping requirements for proceedings

M.B. Grant asked whether item 8 on page 28 or 29 could be modified to specify how to handle situations where the verbatim record, generally an audio recording, is incomplete or corrupted despite a good-faith error to furnish this record.

E. Magruder said that with the length of hearings running as much as seven hours, a verbatim record might be the only method to provide a sufficient record of the proceeding.

K. Clermont said the current rule could provide a basis to undermine the outcome of the hearing if the audio record was incomplete or corrupted.

Discussion continued and the committee was not able to reach agreement about any changes to the current language.

The committee voted down the proposal.