UA Codes and Judicial Committee

MINUTES
Codes and Judicial Committee Meeting
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011
4:00–5:00 p.m.
316 Day Hall

I. Call to Order

P. Goldstein called the first meeting of the Codes and Judicial Committee to order at 4:06pm.

Present: M. Campbell, W. Candell, C. Ferguson, P. Goldstein, R. Lieberwitz, P. Scelfo

Absent: J. Blair, K. Clermont, Y. Izrayelit, J. Kelly, K. Zoner

Also Present: A. Epstein, G. Dobkov, M. Grant, J. Hittelman

II. Introductions

The meeting began with the members of the committee introducing themselves and informing the committee from which assembly they are from.

III. Purpose of the UA

P. Goldstein started by saying that it is important for the committee to understand its responsibilities. He read the purpose of the Code and Judicial Committee according to the new University Assembly Charter. He explained that the main issues that the committee is involved with include the recruiting of members for the University Hearings and Appeals Board and the creation of resolutions for any amendments to the Campus Code of Conduct. The recruitment of members for the University hearing and Appeals Board is an annual process so the committee will not have to look into this topic until the spring semester. However, A. Epstein suggested that it may be a worthwhile topic to discuss what the committee can do to get the word out across the campus.

IV. Old Business

a. ”Dear Colleagues” Letter/ Title IX- Mary Beth Grant

M. Grant began by handing out a fact sheet regarding the current process for approaching a judicial issue and explained that since there are new people to the committee she would be giving a brief overview of how the system works. She stated that the progress has a lot of checks and balances, which ensures that there is a community input and allows the accused person to have another set of eyes at every step of the way. Cornell University’s process is different than many other schools in several ways:

• 1. The Office of the Judicial Administrator is independent. This helps to limit the potential influence of an accused person or complainant’s connections to the University on the disciplinary process.
• 2. A complainant does not have to be a member of the Cornell Community.
• 3. Cornell has jurisdiction anywhere, such as the off-campus Greek houses and in college town and other locations if the act is “serious”, such as an act of violence.

M. Grant stated that most of the judiciary issues are settled and do not go to trial; however, the complainant and the accused both have the right to ask for a trial. In that case the issue goes in front of the Hearing Board where a decision is made, which can also be appealed to the review board. M. Grant then asked J. Hittelman to explain the role of the Office of the Judicial Codes Counselor. J. Hittelmen stated that this office provides counsel to the students, or anyone who may be interested counsel. Currently there are four law students in the office who are available to help the accused and act as legal guidance, similar to the guidance an attorney would provide. M. Grant then continued on to explain Title IX and the Dear Colleagues Letter. Title IX is part of the federal Civil Rights Act, which requires that all educational institutions not discriminate on the basis of gender. In April 2011, the US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which is responsible for enforcement of this law, made an announcement regarding this law. The letter clarifies what the agency believes the law requires institutions to do in addressing cases of sexual harassment. These requirements were not previously evident in Title IX or other regulations related to it. M. Grant stated that this was not expected and put the University into a bit of a frenzy to come up with a solution to be in compliance with the expectations of the Dear Colleague Letter. The end result was that there were two temporary provisions added to Cornell’s Code of Conduct:

• 1. Standard of evidence: The previous system for the standard of evidence was that it had to be clear and convincing but the Dear Colleague Letter indicated that the burden of proof should be a preponderance of evidence.
• 2. Rights of appeal: The previous rules had less rights available to the complainant than the accused person. The new changes involved expanding the rights of the complainant so they have the same rights as the accused.

M. Grant stated that these solutions were done very quickly and due to the hastiness of their implementation it was understood that they were temporary and more in depth action would have to be taken to amend the Code of Conduct permanently. There was a very lengthy discuss regarding what the next step should be and which group is currently in charge of taking this project over. M. Grant stated that a Title IX Coordination group might be working on this issue so the committee should approach them to see what progress has been made. P. Goldstein will be talking with both the Title IX Coordination group and the UA to see who will be taking the responsibility of the compliance to the Dear Colleague Letter over. He will also be sending out a couple of different documents regarding Title IX and the Dear Colleague Letter to the members of the committee so that they members can be prepared to discuss the issue further in future meetings. The issue was then tabled until the next meeting.

V. New Business

Due to time constraints there was no new business discussed at the meeting.

VI. Priority ranking

This issue was tabled until the next meeting.

VII. Internal Organization/ logistics

Elections were tabled until the next meeting due to the number of absent committee members and time constraints.

VIII. Adjourn

P. Goldstein informed the members that the next committee meeting would occur on November 16, 2011 at 4:00–5:00pm in 316 Day Hall. The meeting of the Codes and Judicial Committee was then adjourned at 5:07pm.