MINUTES
University Assembly Meeting
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
4:30–7:15 p.m.
316 Day Hall

I. Call to Order

M. Lukasiewicz called the meeting to order at 4:29 p.m.

Members Present: K. Albert, R. Ataya, J. Blair, E. Cortens, P. Goldstein, H. Howland, K. Javaji, R. Kay, N. La Celle, M. Lukasiewicz, S. Murphy, N. Raps, B. Schaffner, R. Wayne Members Absent: B. Cristelli, W. Fry, T. Grove Also Present: A. Bores, M. Campbell, K. Clermont, A. O’Donnell, N. Doolittle, A. Epstein, M. Grant, J. Hittelman, J. Mingle, A. Mittman, N. Roth, P. Scelfo

II. Approval of the minutes from March 13, 2012.

M. Lukasiewicz asked if there were any changes to the minutes from March 13. Seeing none, J. Blair moved to approve the minutes. Seeing no opposition, the minutes were approved.

III. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

None.

IV. Quick Updates

a. CIC

S. Murphy said at the last meeting, Daniel Roth from sustainability office and other representatives from the transportation office had been present. They discussed ideas for parking related issues; the CIC will talk about it detail at the next meeting.

b. CWC

R. Ataya said at the last meeting, the committee had discussed a proposal to make course evaluations more accessible to students. They also talked about recognizing and nominating high school teachers. Furthermore, the CWC also discussed child-care and stress factors involved with graduate students.

c. CJC

P. Goldstein said that at last meeting, the committee discussed gorge safety, student safety and code of conduct issues.

V. New Business

a. Consider President Skorton’s nominee to serve as Judicial Codes Counselor for AY 2013

R. Kay explained the nomination and interview process involved in choosing the nominee. He informed the UA Andrew Watz had been chosen as the nominee.

K. Albert asked why only 2nd year law students are considered for this position. R. Kay said because it was a 2-year position on the JCC and hence there is an emphasis on second year. J. Hittelman stated it benefitted to have a background in law to deal with the issues the post entailed. M. Grant said she had made a recommendation last year about having a permanent employee with a legal background who would be available during summer months and other times when the Judicial Counselor needed help with certain issues. The previous Judicial Counselor liked the “near-peer” aspect of this proposal and felt that they could relate to law students much better.

Seeing no further discussion, E. Cortens moved to approve A. Watz as the Judicial Codes Counselor. The motion passed 13–0.

b. Consider UA Resolution R.8 (CIC recommended changes to the Campus Towing Policy)

S. Murphy explained the resolution related to changes in existing towing policies. According to him, this was a “win-win situation” and would make processes considerably smoother.

A. Bores asked if the resolution covered cases of wrong parking in disability areas. S. Murphy said this counted as towing. K. Albert asked about some clauses in the wording of the resolution. S. Murphy explained the benefit of these clauses and how it would reduce costs for the transported committee, making it a cost-effective strategy.

R. Ataya asked if the resolution could specifically indicate the distinctions of parking in disability areas being classified as towing, and exceptions to this. S. Murphy said this pertained to legal permits and was specified in line 8 of the resolution. R. Ataya proposed a change in wording. J. Blair disagreed with this and explained how being too specific would create a problem.

A. Bores called the question. The motion passed 13–0.

c. Presentation on Policy 6.4 by A. Mittman

A. Mittman presented Policy 6.4 and the changes that had been implemented to it. He informed the UA he was aware of the clauses covered by it both in sexual assault and sexual harassment realms. He explained procedures for how sexual harassment and sexual assault cases would be dealt with and the scope of procedures as listed under Policy 6.4. He also spoke of sanctions that had to be imposed upon specific cases. He explained current concerns with the Policy, especially concerns about the investigative process. He further explained rights of accused and the complainant. He said that the process is confidential and retaliation is strictly prohibited. Concerned parties could consult third party investigators or an arbitrator but they could not answer questions for their clients/advisees.

Furthermore, A. Mittman also explained the proposed modifications to Policy 6.4, specifically in cases of sexual violence (assault, harassment or other forms violence). He spoke of the enhanced role of the JA in these cases and the rationale behind it. He also explained the burden of proof and preponderance of evidence standard for involved parties with respect to these cases.

E. Cortens had some clarifications about some clauses of the resolution with respect to Policy 6.3. A. Mittman clarified these points. He said this is not in conflict with existing procedures. E. Cortens felt the different burdens of proof created problems for the JA’s office especially for very complicated cases. He wanted to know if these problems would still be present since the JA’s office handled these cases. A. Mittman thought it wouldn’t create problems and the current version of the Policy 6.4 would instead solve these concerns. M. Grant said there might be a chance in overlapping of sexual violence and other criminal cases. In these situations, there are often a dominant and then less dominant charge(s), where dealing with the dominant charge first would solve the situation. E. Cortens said there were concerns raised about the absence of an adversarial hearing in processes. To this, A. Mittman said there are different situations across institutions; there is not one right system. The system they engage in accomplishes the fact-finding process that needs to be engaged in. He stated there is great flexibility in the process, he didn’t feel the need for an external attorney. A neutral independent party is enough.

E. Cortens asked about the role of the UA in engagement in this process, did the fact they have authority in the code of conduct imply they also have “veto power” and the ability to engage in more than just the changes presented. A. Mittman said the UA already has an opportunity for engagement at present; they could have as much of a say as any stakeholder. However, he said they couldn’t have veto power.

J. Blair asked if there is a process for review by someone in the office to double check legal sufficiency for a particular case. A. Mittman said there isn’t a specific process but there are sufficient mechanisms to check on the process involved. J. Blair asked what the role of the dean is. A. Mittman said the deans are not bound by the recommendation, they have ultimate authority in a situation.

R. Wayne asked what the down-side of the current system is. A. Mittman said it is too early to decide on the down-side as they didn’t have the entire situation fleshed out. However, he said it looks promising and has the required flexibility that is needed. Subsequently, it is subject to changes along the way to strengthen it further. A. Mittman also explained the processes involved in a case against a faculty member harassing a student.

A. Bores asked how cases when people opted for criminal procedure would be handled, as procedures listed in Policy 6.4 differ from the Dear Colleague’s letter. A. Mittman explained, a student, like anyone else, has the right to go to any criminal court to present its case. He stated how problems would be addressed by the internal Cornell process, regardless of the external criminal process. A criminal case could be brought forth apart from the university case, but the university still has obligations to move forward with the case; despite the limits presents, it does not absolve the responsibilities of the university with respect to cases. A. Bores further asked for cases off campus and how they related to Policy 6.4. A, Mittman said in cases like these, the university would remediate the student situation through council and local authorities. They would still address the problem, though a different approach could be taken.

K. Clermont was interested in the coverage realm of cases covered under Policy 6.4. M. Grant said as the previous code had a different standard of proof from the Dear Colleagues letter and this created problems. The enhanced Policy 6.4 would not create the same problems. K. Clermont felt that the current proposal provides for a certain degree of protection for faculty and staff. He felt students on the other hand, are not so well covered. A. Mittman said students are also adequately covered; staff members have the grievance process and students have the appeal process. Even though provisions for staff and faculty are a level up, A. Mittman said this is something that would be considered.

M. Campbell asked about the role of the dean. A. Mittman said the dean always looked at presented facts carefully and didn’t throw facts aside. He then explained the appeal process, also pertaining to student employees. According to him, the proposed process would be a step up and help solve cases better.

J. Hittelman asked how cases of alcohol would be dealt with by A. Mittman’s office and how they would be covered under Policy 6.4. M. Grant said they are working out processes to make clear the consequences of alcohol related cases. She further explained what factors went into consideration while deciding the outcome of these cases.

P. Goldstein felt rights of the accused are not adequately addressed in 6.4. He wanted to know if in the revision process, there would be a proper balance in outlining these rights. J. Mingle said the modified 6.4 would involve all stakeholders in the drafting process. There would be adequate discussion to ensure a balance. He stated Policy 6.4 is a complex yet carefully drafted policy that delineates this balance. As the preponderance standard works well in ensuring the rights of all parties involved, A. Mittman said they are sensitive to the rights of both parties in working on cases.

d. Consider UA Resolution R.7 ( Resolution Regarding Campus Code of Conduct Compliance with Title IX)

M. Lukasiewicz introduced the resolution and stated the stakeholders the UA had heard from at the last meeting. She then opened the floor to discuss amendments proposed on the resolution. E. Cortens presented his 3 amendments and explained them. There was discussion on the 3 amendments.

E. Cortens made an amendment to Amendment 1. Seeing no objections, the amendment passed.

Regarding Amendment 2, S. Murphy suggested changing the wording of “veto power”. E. Cortens explained the rationale behind this and said it was a way of ensuring a certain level of authority for the UA. P. Goldstein agreed with this wording, he said it would ensure all stakeholders had a say in the revisionary process. In lieu of a discussion, E. Cortens offered an amendment to Amendment 2. N. Roth suggested a change to the amendment. E. Cortens withdrew his previous amendment and drafted a new amendment to Amendment 2. The amendment passed 11–0.

J. Blair, P. Scelfo and R. Ataya expressed their support for Amendment 3. R. Ataya wanted to know what educational efforts related to sexual harassment and assault cases are being made. M. Lukasiewicz said these initiatives are being implemented to make the Cornell community aware of what constituted for these cases. M. Campbell said while the amendment is admirable, it didn’t solve practical purposes. M. Grant said it is practical as it explained at a time of shrinking resources, these initiatives are important and need adequate resources, time and orientation involved. M. Campbell suggested that the language include a requirement that the UA return to this issue in the future. E. Cortens agreed with his suggestion but said the even with that language, it wouldn’t guarantee the UA would return to the issue. S. Murphy and M. Grant proposed a change of wording in the amendment. Seeing no objections, the amendment on Amendment 3 passed.

The UA then moved to voting on the 3 amendments.

• Amendment 1:
  • The amendment failed with a vote of 2–9.
• Amendment 2:
  • The amendment passed with a vote of 11–0.
• Amendment 3:
  • The amendment passed with a vote of 13–0.
• External Amendment (submitted by Professor Bowman)

M. Lukasiewicz asked if there were any sponsors for the amendment. R. Wayne said he would sponsor the amendment.

E. Cortens spoke against the amendment as he disagreed with its implications. He emphasized Cornell is a private university and the amendment went against its doctrines. He felt Policy 6.4 already provided for due processes and rights were listed in the amendment. He therefore voted against it.

A. Epstein asked what difference the amendment would make in terms of affecting Policy 6.4. N. Roth explained these implications. J. Hittelman felt there should still be the need for a neutral arbitrator in cases of sexual assault. K. Clermont felt due process varied with context and Policy 6.4 thus involved different requirements. He said there is little doubt a public university would have to give an adversarial hearing to every party. He felt a right to hearing, counsel and protection against self-incrimination would have to be a part of due process. E. Cortens felt that while the OCR letter implied the existence of a hearing but it didn’t explicitly require it. K. Clermont clarified it all had to bow to due process. E. Cortens thought that some of what was underlying this discussion was the implication that there would be many false reports. He clarified that the data suggest these are very rare, and that Policy 6.4 provided clear sanctions against falsely reported cases.

H. Howland called the question. The motion failed 6–4.

A. Bores wanted J. Mingle to comment on this amendment. J. Mingle elaborated on how Cornell is a fully private university, and the negative implications of the amendment. J. Blair explained the existing processes by which Cornell dealt with its cases. He said UA members understood the issues involved in Policy 6.4 and E. Cortens’s amendment already ensured the UA is adequately involved in the decision making process. He therefore spoke against the amendment. A. Bores agreed with J. Blair’s comments. He suggested an amendment to the amendment. R. Ataya sponsored A. Bores’ amendment. The amendment passed 8–0.

S. Murphy suggested another amendment to the amendment. E. Cortens disagreed with this proposed change and explained the rationale behind it. The amendment was put to vote. The amendment passed 8–3.

A. Epstein said the adversarial clause is incompatible with Policy 6.4. E. Cortens agreed with this. M. Grant clarified saying the JA’s Office already executes an independent, neutral hearing process.

P. Goldstein moved to close debate on the amendment. The motion to close debate passed 10–1.

Seeing no further discussion on the amendment, it was put to vote. The amendment failed 4–6.

J. Blair called the question on Resolution 7. The motion passed 12–0.

The UA then voted on Resolution 7. The resolution passed 11–0.

IV. Adjourn

J. Blair moved to adjourn. Seeing no opposition, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.