UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Minutes
Codes and Judicial Committee, University Assembly
Friday, March 7, 2014
316 Day Hall

Attendance of voting members:
Present: C. Ferguson, F. Langrais, G. Mezey, D. Sinykin, R. Wayne, K. Zoner

Absent: M. Lukasiewicz, B. Thompson

G. Mezey called the meeting to order at 3:36 p.m. All present introduced themselves.

The minutes of the February 21, 2014 meeting were approved unanimously.

The first order of business was to consider Resolution CJC-2, Updated Resolution to Transfer Title IX Cases to Cornell University Policy 6.4. M. B. Grant commented that the resolution codifies procedures already in place.

The committee approved the resolution by unanimous consent of those present.

The committee then moved on to consider Resolution CJC-1, Updated Resolution to Modify Campus Code to Clarify the Rights of Complainants to Appeal Summary Decision Agreements. G. Mezey reminded members that this resolution had been passed by the UA and sent to the president. President Skorton returned it because of concerns regarding institutional complainants’ rights to appeal summary decision agreements.

M. B. Grant confirmed that the main contention surrounded the difference in treatment of institutional versus individual complainants. The balance of the resolution outlines the timing of the process and is acceptable without changes. M. B. Grant offered financial aid fraud as an example of a case where the institution may need to appeal an agreement. In this case, it makes sense for the university to have this right. However, her concern in allowing institutional complainants appeal rights in serious cases was that they would exercise the same right under much less serious circumstances as well. This would greatly increase the workload of the Judicial Administrator. Even if the institutional complainants did not increase their rate of appeal, simply sending the proper notifications for each case would add a significant amount of administrative work for the office.

As a result, the resolution gives appeal rights to institutional complainants for cases it defines as serious. R. Wayne asked about the $100 limit above which thefts were considered serious under the resolution. He noted that this amount seemed lower than ‘serious’ seemed to otherwise imply. K. Zoner responded that the reason for low limits like this one in general is that people who intend to take advantage of the rules will attempt to steal an amount just under the threshold for a serious case. So, by lowering the threshold, the institution stands to reduce the size of thefts.

C. Ferguson asked if inflation might cause problems with this arbitrary limit in the future. M. B. Grant noted that although the limit’s value would certainly change over time, the JA office does maintain contact with institutional partners to ensure such rules continue to be effective.

F. Langrais asked if the definition of serious cases provided in the resolution was exclusive. M. B. Grant said that it was. F. Langrais suggested that this be clearly stated in the resolution so that there is no ambiguity in any future case. M. B. Grant agreed. She also noted that she was open to identifying these special cases as something other than serious. G. Mezey offered the name ‘specific cases’ to be used. Language of the resolution was then shifted about to increase clarity. A motion to make the changes pursuant to this reorganization was unanimously approved.

The committee then unanimously approved the resolution as amended.

G. Mezey stated that this concluded the formal agenda for the meeting and asked for further questions or topics.

M. B. Grant asked about the state of the search for a Judicial Codes Councilor and new members for the University Hearing and Review Boards. G. Giambattista said there is a call for a member of the UA to observe part of the JCC candidate selection process. R. Wayne did this last year and agreed to do the same this year.

The process for the UHRB member selection last year involved the review of candidate questionnaire responses in a CJC meeting. The responses are submitted online. The CJC assigns a primary and secondary reader for each response and places applications into one of three bins depending on overall satisfaction with the candidate’s response. It was noted that an effort should be made to increase diversity of the applicant pool.

G. Mezey adjourned the meeting at 4:21 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Noah Wegener
Assemblies Clerk