UA Codes and Judicial Committee

CJC Meeting Minutes
January 30, 2007
2pm — 4pm
CUPD Conference Room

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 2:00pm.

Attendance

Present: Manuel Allende, Mary Beth Grant, Martin Hatch, Torrey Jacobs, Jeff Purcell, Kathleen Rourke, Kathy Zoner

Not Present: Arthur Andersen, Ali Arvanaghi, Melissa Ysaguirre

Also Present: Daniel Aloi, Peggy Beach, Andy Cowan, Ari Epstein, Mary George Opperman

Approval of Minutes

K. Rourke called for corrections to the minutes of Thursday, 18 January 2007.

No corrections were proposed. The minutes were adopted without dissent.

Results of e-mail to community

A. Epstein said there were at least ten new responses since the CJC email had been sent to the community.

M. Hatch said the new responses were largely along the lines of what was said in December.

J. Purcell said that some of the other comments received offline should be posted on the website, such as those from A. Cowan’s group.

M. Hatch said he would summarize some of the comments he has received and share them with the committee offline out of respect for privacy concerns of those who brought them forward.

Mary Opperman to discuss potential impact of non-student members of community being removed from judicial process and extending code beyond campus boundaries

K. Rourke said that M. G Opperman, Vice-President of the Division of Human Relations, was invited to discuss how proposed changes in the Krause Report would affect staff.

M. G. Opperman said she sees two questions in particular that would affect staff. First, there are questions not so much concerning staff conduct as change in how staff might approach student misconduct with respect to the code. In the current system, all complaints, except work-related complaints against faculty and staff, go to the Judicial Administrator. In the proposed system, where will the complaints go? Second, there are questions about how the code would be extended off campus and how that would affect staff conduct.

M. Hatch said there is an implied concern — how would a complaint be registered in the proposed system? To whom would it be addressed?

M. G. Opperman said this was only a question at this point, not a concern.

K. Zoner said that to CUPD it seemed cumbersome to have a different system depending on whether accused is student, staff or faculty.

M. Hatch asked where separation of employment-related vs. non-employment related violations existed. One faculty and one staff member had made the case that certain issues currently considered work-related should be referred to the Judicial Administrator instead.

M. G. Opperman said there were constraints imposed by law concerning certain types of violation such as harassment. All harassment must be treated as work-related by law, and must be addressed by the accused person’s supervisor.

M. Hatch asked whether the case where a supervisor harasses an employee off campus at a bar would be considered work-related.

M. G. Opperman said it would be work-related if it has or could have an impact on employment.

K. Rourke said to clarify that it would probably not be work related if the employees were in separate departments.

M. G. Opperman said it was not work-related even if the employees were in the same department so long as the advance is accepted. To be work-related harassment, the advance must be unwelcome and the accuser must demonstrate either a hostile work environment or a quid pro quo. An example that addresses my second question is: Suppose an employee is affiliated with a political or religious group that has a loud and offensive gathering on the Commons and this annoys another member of the Cornell community. Let’s say a violation of the code then occurs on the Commons. Does the code cover the employee in a non-employment context?

J. Purcell said if employment is not covered off campus, shouldn’t student conduct also not be covered outside the educational environment?

Discussion continued.

M. G. Opperman said determining whether an offense is work-related is a one-by-one process that human resources continually deals with.

K. Rourke asked whether the Office of Human Resources might set up an office comparable to that for students to handle non-work-related misconduct if the Krause report proposal were adopted.

M. G. Opperman said she could not speculate about what process OHR might adopt. Given that everyone remains subject to the same standard, th question is what do we do with this new separation of process to assure everyone is held to the same standard?

M. Hatch said it can be daunting to go to the Dean of Faculty if you feel disrespected. Do you want someone to lose their job over the issue?

M. B. Grant asked whether the Office of the Judicial Administrator could retain its role with respect to staff if it reported to the Dean of Students.

M. G. Opperman said that to her the location of the office is not so significant.

K. Zoner said she continues to have questions about different colleges and departments and where paperwork would be sent to for each unit.

M. Hatch said if it continued to have jurisdiction over faculty and staff, doesn’t it seem inappropriate to place the office under the Dean of Students? Location in the DOS implies the entire mission of the university is in education. A significant portion of the work at the university by many faculty and staff does not involve students at all.

M. G. Opperman said the staff are important to consider when thinking about how proposed changes will work. Staff stay a long time, do not turn over quickly, and do not have a lot of protection.

M. Hatch asked whether M. G. Opperman would discuss pursuit of work-related misconduct through the Judicial Administrator.

M. G. Opperman said she could discuss it outside of the current meeting at a later date.

M. G. Opperman had to leave for another commitment.

Details on open forum procedures

K. Rourke said that the committee needed to discuss planning for the February 5, 2007 forum on the Campus Code. She asked whether room setup had been worked out.

M. Hatch said he suggested gathering the committee in an arc, facing the terrace. Visitors would be facing the fireplace.

J. Purcell said there was no publicity on the assemblies website.

A. Epstein said he could fix this.

P. Beach said that publicity had been extended in the other following ways:

• Cornell events calendar
• Denise Cassaro mailing lists to on-campus residents
• Assemblies listserves
• Quarter-page Daily Sun Ads running daily through February 5
• Slope radio publicity

M. Hatch said that Charlie Walcott, Dean of Faculty, would send an announcement promptly to the faculty.

J. Purcell said that facebook groups could also be utilized.

P. Beach said she had a paragraph announcement for assemblies lists which could also be sent to facebook groups.

J. Purcell said it would be good to have a summary if topics to provide context for discussion.

M. Hatch asked that the Office of the Assemblies prepare a handout containing summaries of current and proposed practices as identified on the website.

A. Epstein said this would be done.

M. Hatch said that undergrads should seriously weigh these issues. An opening sttaement should clarify why their comments are important to us.

T. Jacobs said there should be comment cards available for people to submit summaries of their comments.

A. Cowan said he wondered whether many useful written comments would be submitted at a forum where people have come to speak. Emphasis should be on collecting oral feedback.

P. Beach said the office could provide 5×7 cards, collect them, and sort them by the issue they address.

J. Purcell suggested setting up three computers for participants to submit their feedback directly to the website.

A. Epstein said this could be done.

J. Purcell said that it this point there were three ways participants could share their feedback with the committee: speaking, typing, and writing.

A. Epstein said it should be made clear that comments provided at this meeting could appear on the CJC website.

P. Beach asked what should go on written comment forms.

J. Purcell said the comment forms should include: name, affiliation (student, faculty, staff), and comments.

M. Hatch said absence of undergraduates is important here.

How to process community input and formulate a report to the UA

A. Epstein said the committee should also think of a closing date for public comment.

K. Rourke said that a report to the University Assembly (UA) must be sent by March 7.

M. Hatch said February 15 seemed like a reasonable cut-off date. He asked if that date would work for A. Cowan’s group.

A. Cowan said the group should be able to respond on procedural issues, on which its members feel especially well-positioned to comment as law students, in that timeframe.

Date and time of next meeting

K. Rourke said the committee should meet weekly in the month of February.

Discussion continued.

The committee agreed to meet 3:30pm to 5:00pm on Mondays, including:

• Monday, 12 February 2007
• Monday, 19 February 2007
• Monday, 26 February 2007

M. Hatch said the UA should start to think about what will be the next step.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:05pm.