UA Codes and Judicial Committee

Present: M. Allende, A. Anderson, K. Clermont, M. B. Grant, M. Hatch, R. Kay, K. Rourke, D. Streeter, K. Zoner

Also Present: D. Pearlstein, C. Walcott

• The faculty has expressed interest in being involved in revising the Code
  • Dean of Students Office feels responsibility for getting materials to the public
  • Queried whether anyone but the UA has a responsibility to distribute it, and anticipated that CJC will be delegated this task by the UA
• Revision v. replacement — discussed whether UA indicated merely desire to revise code or to replace it
• Discussed whether CJC is willing to take on the task of evaluating and comparing the Krauss Report to the current code
  • Questioned who has jurisdiction to approve changes, and whether this differed if the current code was replaced entirely
    • Determined clearly UA if revision or replacement
  • Compared working through the system (UA) or working from outside (steering committee)
    • Determined that CJC is the standing committee of the UA on such issues, and thus CJC is to take the lead unless the UA takes that delegation away
• CJC is willing to accept that responsibility
  • Discussed the role of a steering committee vis-�-vis the CJC
• President suggested convening a small committee to help the process along
• Queried what the role of such a steering committee would be — participating in CJC discussions v. joining together with CJC as one group?
• Determined that the CJC is willing to function as the “steering committee” should the UA authorize it to do so
• Discussed where the CJC should start in assessing revisions/replacement — evaluate current code, Krause Report, or combination thereof
  • Determined that CJC should discuss the proposed changes and the merits thereof
    • Consider what we want out of the Code as a fundamental measure
  • Begin by assessing the “fundamental concerns” of the Krause Report and whether they are legitimate (see p. 10 of Krause Report)
• In its evaluation of the present code of conduct in the context of the revisions proposed by the Krauss Report, the CJC will be concerned with the following matters:
  1. That the code presents clear parameters for behavior to ensure the institution’s purpose;
  2. That the code states the parameters for behavior in simple and clear language, without abridging rights;
  3. That appropriate time tables for process be respected;
  4. That an equitable, fair, and independent judicial process be maintained;
  5. That the independence and support of the JA’s office and its communication with the community is sufficient.