UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Minutes
Codes and Judicial Committee, University Assembly
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
B12 Day Hall

G. Mezey called the meeting to order at 4:38 p.m.

The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously without changes.

G. Mezey began by stating that the process for filling University Hearing and Review Board vacancies would move away from the current interview format in favor of an online application. The CJC would decide whom to appoint based on the submitted applications. He stated that the interviews have been inconsistent in the past, as a result of different interviewers following nonstandard sets of questions. G. Mezey asked if there were any objections to a transition to such an online application system.

R. Weil generally did not object but suggested that it might be worth having interviews with finalists. She was concerned that removing face-to-face contact entirely could cause the committee to miss important information about the candidates.

R. Wayne agreed with this assessment. He suggested a one-year trial period for the online system. After that, the process could be reviewed and changes could be made. He also suggested that more time would be needed between the receipt of applications and the date of the final decisions to allow for proper discussion and potential finalist interviews.

A. Epstein summarized code changes pursuant to judicial administration procedures. The accused and the complainant would be informed of decisions simultaneously under the changes. Additionally, he corrected procedural steps appearing out of order originally. He also added a section addressing complainant victims and made language more consistent throughout the document. One concern was that the changes, though acceptable, should be a procedure of the office of the Judicial Administrator and not a part of the code.

G. Mezey felt that the members had not had sufficient time to formulate fully informed opinions on the matters at hand and removed the resolutions from the table. The committee moved on to code changes spawned by the Ho Plaza incident.

R. Wayne supported the strong defense of free speech, stating that, as an American university, Cornell’s policies directly impact students’ experiences with their various freedoms. He added that protecting public safety is very important, but, real violence aside, it is favorable to err on the side of less restriction. Current rules preventing interruption of expression are sufficient. Finally, he stated that the Use of University Property (UUP) form was acceptable given the size of the groups to which it applies.

R. Weil commented that she disliked the current procedure of making proposals in meetings because this leaves little time to read the material. She also mentioned that the CJC has not considered whether the code should be changed at all. She added that the CJC should also decide what level of input it would seek from the community. Both of these considerations should be made before discussions on specific code changes begin.

Another concern about the order of discussions about topics related to free speech and the Ho Plaza incident was the unfinished faculty report. G. Mezey clarified that, although the CJC would incorporate the contents of a faculty report in future considerations, the CJC is not obligated to wait for the report before beginning discussions.

G. Mezey suggested that the meeting be extended by fifteen minutes.

R. Wayne suggested eliminating the section of the resolution that directly references the Ho Plaza event. G. Mezey agreed that a change of this nature might be appropriate given the fact that the CJC is not directly investigating the event.

R. Weil favored the discussion of multiple alternative proposals, stating that she was getting the sense that the eventual requirement of permits was the general direction of any changes to the code currently being considered. R. Wayne clarified that the purpose of his changes was not necessarily to require permitting, though certain types of groups continued to require permits.

Among alternatives, there was some support for considering eliminating permitting altogether as well. K. Zoner spoke about the purpose of permitting. She stated that the process is not intended as a restriction nor does it intend to infringe on personal rights.

G. Mezey added that the committee should consider the UUP process. He wondered what the actual benefit of the form is and if it has a place in free speech discussions.

R. Weil suggested that the focus be moved away from the permitting process, saying that problems lie not with whether groups are permitted but rather with their behavior. K. Zoner stated that an important permitting issue was the uncertainty surrounding the interaction of a permitted group with one lacking a permit. She also noted that some events have been organized without a permit and that, in some cases, these events significantly drained university resources. Lastly, she added that all members should remember that the permits regulate private property and not speech or expression.

G. Mezey stated that meetings needed to be added to the committee’s schedule in order to properly address the issues at hand. The committee decided to keep the current meetings and add a meeting on the Friday of each week not currently containing a committee meeting. This change yields four remaining meetings for the semester.

G. Mezey adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Noah Wegener
Assemblies Clerk