UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Codes and Judicial Committee
5 March, 2013 4:30 pm - 6:00 pm
B12 Day Hall

Attendance

Present: J. Blair, M.B. Grant, G. Mezey, R. Lieberwitz, A. Moore, P. Scelfo, R. Wayne, R. Weil, K. Zoner

Also Present: E. Cheyfitz, N. Cummings, A. Epstein, M. B. Grant, J. Hittelman, R. Lieberwitz

G. Mezey called the meeting to order at 4:30pm.

Approval of Minutes

Minutes of February 19 were approved.

Summary Decision Agreements and Complainant Appeal Rights

M.B. Grant said the complainant has a right to appeal summary decision agreements (SDA) and decisions not to take action on a complaint. This is meant as a check on the Office of the Judicial Administrator’s (OJA) discretion to refuse to take action or to take action the complainant views as less than sufficient. Earlier in the current academic year, a complainant was unable to exercise this right because of an oversight on the part of the OJA. We want to clarify the procedure so that OJA cannot strip the complainant of this right promised in the Code, whether by accident or willfully (in the case of the “Skippy JA”).

J. Hittelman said she believes allowing the complainant a little more time to petition for review is acceptable, but it is important that the SDA process provide absolute closure. The accused person must be able to know confidently when an agreement negotiated with the OJA in good faith is final. Policy should not be designed on the assumption that the JA willfully would deny a procedural right provided in the Code.

P. Scelfo said some greater flexibility should be provided to protect the complainant’s appeal right, but not too much. Finality for the accused is crucial.

R. Wayne said he would like to see three changes to the present proposal: allow the accused student five rather than two days to withdraw from the SDA, do not make it the accused student’s job to assure complainant’s appeal rights are secured, assure finality for all parties within a reasonable timeframe.

K. Zoner asked if other procedural changes could address the unusual situation where OJA makes a procedural mistake?

Discussion continued.

K. Zoner, clarifying a suggestion by A. Epstein, what if simultaneous notice to both the complainant and accused immediately after the SDA is signed were required? This would make it much easier for OJA to assure timely opportunity for the complainant to appeal without conditioning it on a separate step to be taken “two business days” later.

G. Mezey said he would work on alternative language proposals that could be offered as amendments in the future that might address the concerns raised in the meeting.

Conflict Between Campus Code Language and Use of University Property Process

E. Cheyfitz described events relating to demonstrations that occurred on Ho Plaza on November 19. The demonstrations were organized by organizations concerned about an armed conflict then in progress between Israel and Palestinian organizations in Gaza. He asserts the account of events occurring that day related in President Skorton’s report is incorrect on a number of facts and offered a different account based on his observations at the time.

G. Mezey stated the committee’s role is limited to determining the best way to reconcile the apparent conflict between provisions in the Code and Use of University Property process (UUP process). The committee is not investigating the circumstances of that day, only the policy conflict that has been brought to its attention in the aftermath of that event.

R. Lieberwitz said that the committee should suspend such discussion until the Faculty Senate completes its own report.

R. Wayne said that the committee was independent from the Faculty Senate and should be able to investigate and act on issues pertinent to its charge as soon as it determines they should be addressed. Why should it defer on an issue related to the Campus Code of Conduct, when that policy falls within its purview? How would that harm the investigation by the Faculty Senate?

R. Lieberwitz said she agrees the committee and the University Assembly are independent and empowered to address the conflict between the Code and the UUP process but requests that it wait for the completion of the faculty process.

R. Wayne said the committee will be interested to receive facts from any source. The President’s report is just one submission of facts. He hopes that the committee’s own investigation will give it a representative variety of perspectives, and he has already heard from many regarding how the University Assembly should respond.

K. Zoner said the issue will crop up again so it is important that the UA reconcile the two policies. Every event organizer on campus needs to know when a permit is required and what is needed to get it.

G. Mezey said the next committee meeting was scheduled to occur over Spring Break. That will be canceled an alternative date will be set. Any proposal regarding the Code will be subject to debate in a publicized and open meeting of the committee, although the committee may need to work out in executive session the time, location, and format of such meetings.

Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:30pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Ari Epstein