UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Minutes
Codes and Judicial Committee, University Assembly
Friday, February 21, 2014
316 Day Hall

Attendance of voting members:
Present: F. Langrais, M. Lukasiewicz, G. Mezey, D. Sinykin, B. Thompson, R. Wayne

Absent: C. Ferguson

G. Mezey began by announcing a new member of the CJC, D. Sinykin. All present briefly introduced themselves for familiarity.

G. Mezey noted that U. Smith would attend the second half of the meeting to discuss the Student Assembly’s actions regarding the Judicial Commission. G. Giambattista briefly introduced the CJC members to the Judicial Commission and the purpose of meeting with U. Smith. The SA wants to ensure that they do not take any action in violation of the code as they proceed with creating the commission.

Next, G. Mezey returned the meeting to the outstanding resolution (Resolution to Modify Campus Code to Clarify the Rights of Complainants to Appeal Summary Decision Agreements) passed last year but rejected in part by President Skorton.

M. B. Grant offered an update on the work being done to improve the resolution. She noted that the portion of the resolution that allows more time to give notice to complainants is uncontested. However, there is greater difficulty with defining the differences between the rights of individual complainants and those of institutional complainants. Because the JA office is waiting for the auditor to determine whether some new language acceptably addresses certain ambiguities they previously identified, M. B. Grant recommended that the CJC not consider this matter any further until the next meeting.

R. Wayne reintroduced the resolution and discussions regarding free expression protections in the campus code. He added that the current draft of the resolution is in the public comment period until March 8, 2014. He proceeded to read a portion of the resolution as it stands.

D. Sinykin expressed concern regarding the statement that suggests the voluntary acquisition of a permit or notification of authorities, the line that has been the cause of most of this resolution’s troubles lately. He believes that the line, part of an effort to eliminate ambiguities, introduces uncertainty in the interpretation of the proposed code. Separately, he asked about the ubiquity of policies for various spaces on campus.

M. B. Grant and G. Giambattista together responded that several classes of spaces do have such policies. They also noted that Ho Plaza is the only outdoor space with significant use policies. G. Mezey asked if it is acceptable to limit or restrict behavior on Ho Plaza so that the space is useable for anybody.

R. Wayne addressed the concerns regarding ambiguity. He supposed that there must be some ambiguity here because both free speech and numerous other competing principles are equally important and convergent in their relevance. This, he reasoned, means that any decision on the issue will not ever be unanimous. R. Wayne also noted that he met at length with Max Ajl of SJP. Max feels that the code as it currently reads sufficiently services concerns about public safety in the event of protests and other demonstrations and that the controversial statement in the resolution should be struck. Finally, R. Wayne requested that Ajl be added to the CJC and UA info email lists.

G. Mezey indicated that the committee should move on to the discussion with U. Smith regarding the Judicial Commission.

U. Smith announced that he was in attendance to introduce and discuss the SA’s Judicial Commission initiative. He said that one of the main purposes of the commission is to enforce internal policies and processes and to avoid conflicts of interest. The commission also would address issues between organizations not pertaining to the code. The purpose of bringing the initiative before the CJC is to ensure that there are no concerns related to the code pertaining to the commission’s inception or operation.

G. Mezey asked about the fact that the parliamentarian would head the commission and if that could ever represent a conflict. U. Smith said the majority of parliamentary procedure questions are readily solvable. Additionally, the parliamentarian is a natural choice to head the commission because the position is independent of the SA. U. Smith expressed his preference for requiring that the parliamentarian not be an SA member, as opposed to the current policy, which simply allows them not to be a member.

G. Mezey offered that the JA office might better address this.

R. Wayne made a motion to support the spirit of the Judicial Commission documents and to refer more detailed investigation into compatibility with the code to the JA. This was approved unanimously.

G. Mezey adjourned the meeting at 4:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Noah Wegener
Assemblies Clerk