UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Minutes
Codes and Judicial Committee, University Assembly
Friday, April 26, 2013
CUPD Conference Room

G. Mezey called the meeting to order at 3:41 p.m.

The minutes from the April 19, 2013 and April 23, 2013 meetings were approved unanimously without changes.

The committee discussed the resolution to clarify free expression in the campus code.

R. Wayne noted that the committee members had more common ground between them than differences. R. Weil offered her view of the issues at hand. She noted specifically her concern for the rights of counterdemonstrators to respond to events without notice. She feared that proposal B always puts the counterdemonstrators at a disadvantage.

R. Wayne clarified these sentiments, stating that proposal B does not limit such rights in intent, though perhaps in trust. He added that any wording to clarify ambiguous aspects of the resolution would be appreciated.

A. Moore stated that proposal A appeared to contradict the code in a few places and, consequently, suggested that the committee move forward using proposal B.

A. Epstein responded he considered the process described in proposal A as a sort of lease and that holders of such a lease ought to have some expectation that they will not be interrupted. R. Weil disagreed and made a distinction between counterdemonstrators who make a group uncomfortable versus groups that actually act to limit free expression.

K. Zoner added that nothing in either proposal appeared to prevent any group from holding a protest. Further, she stated that the department’s role has historically been to separate groups in an effort to maintain civility but never to silence them so long as speech is not threatening.

R. Wayne stated that no person has the right to not be annoyed outside of one’s own home. By holding an event in public, one waives one’s right to total privacy.

M. Ajl of the SJP recounted the organizations past experiences where he felt their freedom of expression had been unfairly limited. He spoke of people distributing pamphlets being removed by an event manager and suggested that there had been several instances of attempts at suppression using uncertainties in the code.

R. Lieberwitz considered the issues of future readers of the code knowing what is meant by the text and that they are free to express themselves. She also noted that authorities can restrict such freedoms narrowly in public spaces. Thus, she voiced support for proposal A due to its clear language disallowing a permitting process that gives any advantage to one group over another. She additionally noted that part C of proposal A effectively defines time, place, and manner to specifically reference a threat to people or property. Finally, she suggested that proposal B was unsalvageable as written.

R. Weil addressed some concerns voiced by A. Moore. To this end, she said that the resolution could certainly be reconciled with the rest of the code as it exists. C. Ferguson also supported proposal A, stating that proposal B goes against what the code is meant to be because it is too specific and does not leave interpretation to the community. He added that he was unsure if any code change was needed but agreed that proposal A left in tact agreeable ideas.

A. Epstein noted that he was unaware of any institution that does not require permits. He added that proposal B might not be compatible with the UUP process. He stated that the committee could take a different path, but he would want to see an example of another institution successfully making such a change.

R. Lieberwitz stated that groups have to deal with loudness. She also stated that it is important that the first group to arrive in a space not have any special privileges as a result of this fact. Finally, she noted that she is not concerned with the fact that no other institutions have disallowed permits.

M. Ajl asked that demonstrators be trusted to be responsible individuals.

R. Wayne noted that, where free speech exists, there would be some variation across the environment centered on either disorder or civility. He also proposed changes to proposal B including the addition of text from A. Moore’s comment.

R. Weil suggested that these changes soften the proposal and do not sit properly in their current position. Discussion of R. Wayne’s amendments closed and the committee voted to make the amendments.

A motion was made to use only proposal B. R. Wayne seconded this motion. After K. Zoner clarified the role of the police and the university in controlling groups in disagreement, a motion was made to adjourn the meeting. A motion to extend the meeting until 6:15 p.m. was successful. The committee returned to the motion to use proposal B exclusively. This motion carried.

R. Weil offered an amendment to the proposal that would strike a section referring to time, place, and manner. This was approved.

C. Ferguson suggested striking the statement suggesting the use of the UUP form, noting that the included phrase is a useful suggestion but does not belong in the code.

K. Zoner noted that the mention of the UUP form defines what is meant by the term ‘permit’ throughout the resolution and the code. Otherwise, there is ambiguity in the term ‘permit’ because of the many types of permits that exist. For example, the city of Ithaca issues several types of permits that have no relation to the university.

R. Lieberwitz then suggested that the section be struck with the stipulation that a ‘permit’ be clarified as a university permit.

A motion to close discussion on this amendment was successful. The motion to strike the section failed. In response, K. Zoner made a motion to insert the word ‘university’ as suggested previously. This motion carried.

R. Wayne made a motion to vote on the current proposal.

R. Lieberwitz stated that she felt the current proposal was a losing proposition and that the section considered before should have been struck. She added that the section leaves in the problems surrounding giving advantages to groups and events covered by a UUP form. She suggested that the code be left alone or that a single simple change be made to clarify that there is no need for a permit.

R. Weil asked if the proposal would cause a change in the UUP form. G. Mezey responded that the committee could ask the people involved in the UUP process to bring the form into compliance with the code.

M. Ajl stated that if the current proposal were passed, the committee would be institutionalizing the model that led to the confusions surrounding the Ho Plaza incident. He also questioned the lack of consideration for the public comments during the meeting.

G. Mezey called the question. The committee then voted on proposal B. The proposal passed by a vote of 4–2−0 and will be recommended to the UA.

G. Mezey adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Noah Wegener
Assemblies Clerk