UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Codes and Judicial Committee Meeting
Friday, March 30th, 2012
Day Hall B12, Plan & Budget Conference Room
4:00 p.m. −5:30 p.m.

I. Call to Order

P. Goldstein called the meeting to order at 4:10 pm.

Present: J. Blair, M. Campbell, K. Clermont, E. Cortens, P. Goldstein, P. Scelfo, R. Weil, K. Zoner

Absent: W. Candell, C. Ferguson, J. Kelly

Also Present: A. Epstein, M. Lukasiewicz

II. Approval of last meetings Minutes

P. Goldstein asked if there were any suggested changes to the minutes from the February 24th meeting. A. Epstein suggested a minor change. M. Campbell then moved to approve the minutes. The motion passed. 6–0. The minutes were from February 24th were approved.

III. Update on UA Title IX issue- A. Epstein, J. Blair, P. Goldstein

J. Blair introduced Resolution 7 and the changes it had gone through. He has consulted all stakeholders that were suggested to him, and wants to hear of any others he should reach out to. The resolution will be the main topic of discussion at the UA meeting on April 10th. Suggested amendments should be prepared and submitted in advance to facilitate members’ preparation and discussion. He needs to receive such submissions by April 2, the date on which the agenda will be finalized.

K. Clermont said the current scheme is such that Policy 6.4 includes only sexual harassment; consequently a faculty member involved in cases of sexual violence is not covered under Policy 6.4 but instead under the code. He further stated that a lot of people are not ware of this distinction.

J. Blair said he was under the impression that Policy 6.4 covered cases of both sexual harassment and sexual assault. He suggested that the committee should clarify this with A. Mittman.

E. Cortens felt that Policy 6.3 does not lay out concrete procedures for cases of sexual assault; K. Claremont agreed with this.

A. Epstein said at the Title IX training, there had been no distinction made between cases of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Sexual assault and sexual violence are considered forms of sexual harassment. Questions about the details of these policies and how they are applied should be addressed to the experts who work with them day-to-day.

P. Goldstein said these issues are ultimately in the UA’s hands, so it would have to be brought up before them.

J. Blair said he would bring this up at the next UA meeting.

M. Campbell said that stakeholders are not necessarily university stakeholders but outside stakeholders as well. Therefore, if the CJC wanted to form this policy with compliance to the Dear’s Colleagues letter, a representative from the Department of Education should be invited.

J. Blair said that if N. Roth and A. Mittman would feel the need to consult any outside stakeholders, they would.

IV. Hearing and Review Board recruitment schedule-A. Epstein

A. Epstein said that one of the functions of the CJC is to prepare a slate of recommended candidates to serve on the hearing review board. Consequently, CJC members have to interview hearing board members. This process happens in April. For the last several years, instead of appointing people on the board directly, the committee prepared a ranked list of candidates. It put advertisements on mailing lists and consulted the GPSA and SA about it. When he should start scheduling interviews?

J. Blair asked how long the application process was.

A. Epstein said that it took about 2–3 weeks from the date of announcement, to finalize the slate. Thus, April 16th would be the deadline for submission of applications. He said that the CJC could make the process more efficient by scheduling people into slots right up until the interviews started.

J. Blair asked for an estimate of the number candidates they would have to interview.

A. Epstein said about 30. He said M. Grant would verify and report if any candidates had a disciplinary issue and described the application process.

J. Blair asked how to kept the interview process consistent. A. Epstein said there was a set of questions passed out; additionally, interviews for each candidate were to be scheduled for 20-minute blocks with an expected duration of 15 minutes.

J. Blair asked what decisions they needed to take at that day’s meeting.

A. Epstein said that he wanted members to suggest possible blocs of time and an interview date.

P. Goldstein suggested they start right away in terms of interviews, as things got pretty hectic at the end of the semester.

J. Blair felt that they would need a certain number of candidates before they started with the interviews.

A. Epstein said that might be a little complicated to achieve. He felt the need to nail some blocs of time for the week of April 16th.

P. Scelfo asked if CJC members were allowed to interview candidates.

A. Epstein said that they were.

K. Zoner stated her available timings to interview candidates.

P. Goldstein asked if sending a doodle for working hours would be good.

A. Epstein agreed with this idea for working out times that coordinated. He would send out a whenisgood.net poll to all CJC members asking for their available time slots.

V. MB Grant Proposals preview-M. Grant, P. Goldstein

P. Goldstein said that in his meeting with M. Grant, she had suggested proposals to three issues:

1) Issues of Fake id’s

P. Goldstein said the distinctions between different types of fake identification (ID) and the different outcomes associated with them under the Campus Code and NY state law. M. Grant said that if a person was using an ID with an intent of buying alcohol, it would be problematic. Her proposal entailed the intent of different types of fake ID and the outcomes associated with them.

2) Emotional Support for Accused

In a sexual assault case, the accuser had the right to a counsel and some sort of emotional support. On the other hand, M. Grant had said that the accused had no right to some sort of emotional support, and this was problematic. She suggested adding the right to emotional support for the accused in the proposal.

3) Matters of Kidnapping

P. Goldstein said that most cases of kidnapping pertained to sexual assault and sexual harassment cases. M. Grant had brought up the nature of kidnapping in terms of closed doors

K. Zoner further explained the predicaments associated with these cases. Closed doors implied issues of blocking someone’s right to leave and also of someone’s freedom being impinged.

M. Campbell further said that the process of closed doors also involved psychological impingement of a person.

P. Goldstein felt that a majority of issues had to do with weapons; therefore this could also more general issue other than just a matter of sexual assault and harassment.

J. Blair asked if something had to be added to the code to make provisions for these issues.

P. Goldstein felt the need for proper provisions for these cases to be added in the Campus Code, which were not there presently.

E. Cortens said that there is no proper language used for these issues in the code. He said it would be better to give students clarity about what constitutes for violations.

J. Blair said that there is a need for these clauses to be consolidated soon for it is to be discussed and passed in the UA before generating awareness in public regarding these proposals.

P. Goldstein asked if this could be done at the next meeting.

J. Blair said there would be controversial topics of discussion pertaining to the language and content of the proposals and he didn’t want to rush through it. Therefore, he felt that it needed more time for discussion before being passed.

VI. Clermont Proposal-K. Clermont

K. Clermont described his proposal. The current process for reviewing temporary suspensions is inconsistent with the legal system and therefore not fair.

Some of the suggestions he made comprised of:

Specifying a concrete standard for the JA and the Hearing Board

Providing a description of why when the JA provided a temporary suspension, a preliminary injunction was required. This made the process not seem merely “a rubber stamp” as before. He also spoke about the costs, the benefits and harms associated with a preliminary injunction.

K. Clermont said that the review board was to make evident that the JA had shown sufficient cause for temporary suspensions as it is currently called “arbitrary and capricious”. This would make clear that M. Grant, in her decision had acted out of “good cause”. He felt that this would clarify certain ambiguities in the current code better.

M. Campbell gave a counter view of the term “arbitrary and suspicious” than from the one K. Clermont suggested. He suggested clarifying a specific standard M. Grant has to meet before suspending someone.

K. Zoner felt this process would imply controlling the Hearing Board.

E. Cortens, on the question of harm, asked what risks would be associated with passing K. Clermont’s proposal.

J. Blair asked if they wanted the review process were to be given legitimacy, how would this proposal give them these tools.

K. Clermont said that the current review process was a good procedure, but the outlining of specific standards would further strengthen it.

R. Weil felt that a change of wording in the current code would create more problems instead.

K. Clermont said that it would on the contrary solve problems, as it would not levy the entire burden on the Judicial Administrator as it currently did.

K. Zoner felt that acts of violence had gone up tremendously on campus and more people should have been suspended for certain cases. She felt the need for more empirical evidence for instances of temporary suspension being wrongfully imposed as the proposal suggests.

K. Clermont said that a change of wording would in fact strengthen the legitimacy of the review board. He suggested a change of wording in some causes of the proposal to make these points evident. He also stated that his proposal resulted from feedback from attorneys in town who have represented accused persons under the Code.

R. Weil wanted a clarification of how processes were to take place after this proposal is passed.

K. Clermont said it would be a petition of review.

K. Zoner further stated that it would give oversight to the JA not acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, as she had been stating of doing so earlier.

P. Goldstein clarified stating that this proposal is not a reflection of the work M. Grant did; it just arranged for a clarification of existing procedures as M. Grant would be shown to act out of “good cause”.

M. Campbell outlined what would happen if the hearing board differed from M. Grant; it would outline the underlying assumption that in her decision, the JA had acted out of good cause and not arbitrarily.

P. Scelfo moved to postpone discussion so that the committee could have M. Grant’s views on this at the next meeting. The motion passed 5–0.

VII. Adjourn

E. Cortens motioned to adjourn. Seeing no opposition, the meeting was adjourned at 5:24 pm.