UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Minutes
Codes and Judicial Committee, University Assembly
Friday, April 12, 2013
B12 Day Hall

G. Mezey called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.

G. Mezey postponed discussion of the resolution regarding the rights of complainants due to M. B. Grant’s absence.

The minutes of the April 2, 2013 meeting were approved unanimously.

G. Mezey stated that the committee should discuss the president’s report on the Ho Plaza incident.

R. Wayne summarized that there were two main topics of discussion. These were freedom of speech and time, place, and manner considerations regarding the protection of property.

R. Lieberwitz added that the faculty report would be important for full information.

J. Blair stated that the question facing the CJC is whether to change the code and, if so, in what manner. The president’s report does not greatly change the code related considerations of the committee and the committee should not react to it until the release of the faculty report.

K. Zoner agreed with J. Blair, suggesting that the November Ho Plaza event can be used as an example for the purpose of testing ideas, but more wide ranging, hypothetical situations should also be considered.

R. Weil said that the report does indicate possible contradictions in the code. These would need to be addressed by the committee. She then shared a suggestion that there should be a public comment period for proposed code changes. She identified a need for an orderly avenue for obtaining these comments. Finally, she stated that it might be desirable to post three or four proposals for comment concurrently.

G. Mezey conveyed that A. Epstein had said the proposals could be presented as substitute amendments to R. Wayne’s base proposal. K. Zoner expressed concern that this format would make contributors feel as though they were voting. Instead, multiple proposals should be sorted out within the committee.

R. Lieberwitz disagreed, stating that more comments are generally preferred. She added that the alternatives allow people to see relative positions on issues they would otherwise not be fully familiar with. K. Zoner stated that more comments are better, but not on several proposals. R. Weil clarified that with only one option available at a time, the committee will not get a sense for the general public opinion. J. Blair added that coordinating public comment is always challenging. Unknowns include the degree to which the public is informed about the issues at hand as well as emotional responses and other factors. The purpose of the comment period is mainly to allow the public to know what is being considered and offer a chance for interested parties to communicate with the committee. Then, it is up to the CJC to decide which comments are useful and how to go about interpreting them.

G. Mezey suggested that the current code be posted along with a couple suggested changes. R. Weil suggested that a short explanatory paragraph be added to each proposal. She also suggested the possibility of adding access to portions of the Mingle report and the code. G. Mezey added that all proposals should be scrubbed of any personal affiliation, despite being sponsored within the committee. J. Blair suggested that the committee work to identify the important stakeholders in the code. These are people who work directly with the code and understand how it works. Finally, he added that the Daily Sun should be notified so that the location of the proposals can be conveyed to community members.

P. Scelfo asked whether he should bring these proposals to the Student Assembly. J. Blair responded that the SA should continue receiving updates on the work of the CJC and that they can decide if they’d like to see the proposals.

G. Mezey agreed on getting the Daily Sun involved and stated that a neutral piece could help effectively drive traffic to the public comment forum.

K. Zoner reminded the CJC that the main conflict surrounding the permitting issue is the decision-making methodology invoked in cases of groups with permits conflicting with those without.

P. Scelfo asked if, in such a situation, both groups could be reasonably accommodated. He also added that amplified sound is an important issue and that the permitting process is directly associated with it. R. Wayne asked K. Zoner how ‘unreasonably loud or belligerent behavior’ was defined.

K. Zoner responded that many behavioral items like noise are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

R. Weil suggested that permitting is not the item that should be considered. The university has the right to intervene to protect property and rights. Permit requirements should not be in the code.

J. Blair stated that it is infeasible to cover every possible situation with the code. Instead, the code should define limits on what is acceptable. It should also defend groups responding to other demonstrations. When CUPD feel they need to intervene, faculty and staff should yield.

P. Scelfo offered a hypothetical situation to illustrate a potential conflict. He wondered what would occur if a concert wanted adjacent space otherwise occupied by a group protesting. K. Zoner responded that the current system is entirely first come, first served.

R. Lieberwitz noted that permits constitute prior restraint of speech and, therefore, agreed with several people that they should not be required.

R. Wayne noted that some discussion had arisen surrounding the acceptability of permitting for political events. He stated that there should not be different rules for these events, adding that in almost all cases one side of an argument is seen as political.

R. Wayne shared a concern he had in the form of another hypothetical situation. If the university held an event to acknowledge a donor that someone finds disagreeable, what right does that person or group have to protest the event?

Nearing the end of the meeting, G. Mezey directed the committee to finalize plans surrounding the public comment period so that the next meeting could move forward effectively.

J. Blair stated that the one-week comment period should begin when the ad in the Daily Sun is published.

R. Weil added that the proposals to be included in the public comment period should be the proposal initially written by A. Epstein, R. Wayne’s proposal, her own second proposal, and R. Lieberwitz second proposal.

G. Mezey concluded that all proposals should be sent to him and that the committee would vote at the next meeting to decide which would be posted for public comment. He added that R. Wayne’s currently posted proposal would be removed and put through the same process. There were no objections to this proposed process.

G. Mezey adjourned the meeting at 4:59 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Noah Wegener
Assemblies Clerk