UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Minutes
Codes and Judicial Committee, University Assembly
Friday, April 19, 2013
B12 Day Hall

G. Mezey called the meeting to order at 3:36 p.m.

The minutes from the April 12, 2013 meeting were approved unanimously without changes.

A. Epstein reported that the Hearing and Review Board appointments had been submitted and that the members needed to read these by the next meeting. The appointments would be discussed in an executive session at the next meeting.

Moving on to a discussion of the use of university property and related protections of the right to free speech, G. Mezey asked for suggestions for a method of discussion. K. Zoner suggested moving through the proposals sequentially.

R. Weil suggested that proposals A and B be discussed together, identifying them both as proposals meant specifically to not write permit requirements into the code. She said that proposal A removes references to time, place, and manner due to the ambiguity surrounding these terms. Instead, the proposal defines specific safety issues and property rights. She added that proposal B goes further, stating outright that permits are not required.

C. Ferguson noted the similarities between proposals A and B and asked R. Weil if she would consider withdrawing proposal A. R. Weil said she would consider this possibility, but she was interested to see if anyone saw a reason for A over B.

K. Zoner expressed concern for the active language in the proposals. She suggested leaving time, place, and manner in the code. Additionally, she noted the ambiguity of some of the proposed wording, including “reasonable.”

A. Epstein reminded the committee that interpretations of such language would be made by a hearing board and not by university administration.

R. Weil responded that any language chosen would be considered after the fact by a hearing board, but it is important that a board be provided a reasonable standard off of which to base their decisions. She added that the lack of permit or the evidence of some levels of interruption is not what should be punishable. Instead, preventing others from speaking is the major offense.

Visitors from the CUPD felt that the code changes were likely unnecessary. After observing the code at work and participating in its enforcement for many years, it appeared that the current apparent problem was spurred by a single event. Normally, leaders of demonstrating groups work cooperatively with police and other authorities to ensure everyone present maintains an ability to speak. This did not occur in the case of the Ho Plaza incident.

K. Zoner reminded committee members that removing time, place, and manner from the code does not remove the terms from case law and other locations. She added that these terms mirror those governing any demonstrating group and, therefore, should remain in the code for educational purposes. K. Zoner and the CUPD representatives added that permits allow the department to prepare for events in order to offer the best protection and safest environment possible.

The committee then considered R. Wayne’s proposal.

In response to R. Wayne’s proposal, A. Moore said that he liked the fact that it points to a specific place in the code for information on the various violations. G. Mezey suggested that the identified violations be expanded to include a regulation of the construction of structures as well as recruiting rules. R. Wayne agreed to these additions.

A. Epstein suggested that the next proposal be discussed, noting similarities with R. Wayne’s proposal. He added that he researched the permitting processes used by other institutions and found that many of them have a system very similar to the one employed by Cornell. He also reported looking at the City of Ithaca ordinance on such matters and found important language about denying permits for reasons including the prior reservation of a space. He also stated the importance of protecting people who have a reasonable expectation of not being interrupted. Finally, he added that the permit process allows university officials to inform event holders of the rules pertinent to their event.

R. Weil stated that A. Epstein’s proposal was clear enough for public comment. She expressed concern over the ambiguity of the term “disrupt.” She also mentioned that she remained unsure of the purpose of R. Wayne’s proposal. R. Wayne stated that A. Epstein’s proposal was better written than his own. R. Wayne added that he would be willing to withdraw his proposal, though he wanted a small change made to A. Epstein’s alternative.

G. Mezey reported that, after reviewing the committee’s procedures with the University Assembly, he found that several of the members of the assembly preferred that the committee settle on more narrowed options before asking for public comment. C. Ferguson noted that if R. Weil agrees to the merging of proposals A and B and R. Wayne withdraws his proposal, the committee would be left with two alternatives aside from not changing the code.

A. Epstein stated that two proposals in one document for public comment would be manageable. He also suggested that the words ‘content neutral’ appear immediately before every mention of time, place, and manner. The committee supported this suggestion. A. Epstein agreed to look for this wording throughout the code.

R. Weil stated that she would consult R. Lieberwitz regarding the merging of proposals A and B before the next committee meeting.

G. Mezey adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Noah Wegener
Assemblies Clerk