CJC Meeting, Monday, Feb. 18, 2007
- Present
- Kathleen Rourke, Peggy Beach, Manuel Allende, Charlie Walcott, Gary Stewart, Kathy Zoner, Ari Epstein, Andy Cowan, Mary Beth Grant, Kevin Clermont, Bob Kay, Jonathan Sclarsic, Rodney Orme, Marty Hatch, Jamie Rogers, Randy Wayne, Mary Opperman, Jim Mingle, Jack Cao
I. Minutes of Previous Meeting
Approved with one correction: spelling of Andy Cowan’s name
II. President’s letter, UA letter:
- Mary Beth Grant: complainants don’t come forward because they think nothing will happen; can come up with more concrete statistics; perhaps looking into “sentencing guidelines”
- Cowan: would like to see numbers
- Grant: red herring to break down cases where defendants are represented differently
- Cowan: think creatively about not creating a zero-sum game
- Sclarsic: confused with goals of president
- Beach: there is no working-group
III. President’s Concerns:
- Rourke: concerned with heading “unnecessary complexity”
- Grant: different types of complexities — processes, document, language; need to be specific about what aspect is complex
- Clermont: president said it was acceptable
- Mingle: grouped according May 15 report
- Hatch: move on to what president thinks is unacceptable
Right to remain silent:
- Grant: duty to cooperate means acknowledging that you understand your rights, etc.
- Mingle: duty, cooperation extends to all individuals — witnesses, etc.
- Grant: president’s recommendation would impose more on witness
- Cowan: need to be clear about duty, explicity
- Clermont: language would be added on pg. 36
- Sclarisic: could JA witnesses who didn’t cooperate
- Mingle: this is president’s intent, but no subpoena authority, is sanctionable offense
- Grant: should be more clearly stated, tension between wanting justice and not wanting to rat out friends
- Clermont: include it as a responsibility; not a violation
- Hatch: agree with Clermont
Hearing can proceed;
not a violation — passed
Role of Advisor/Attorny:
delay discussion
Sufficiency of Evidence:
delay discussion
Authority to suspend or dismiss if student agrees:
- Mingle: individuals can decide to settle in this way; don’t need further process of oversight
- Sclarsic: Skippy JA can get student to sign suspension agreement know that he/she will lose hearing
- Hatch: reasonable to have this backup
- Grant: needs to be a check, doesn’t have to be a hearing board
- Cowan: agrees with Grant, check isn’t that strenuous for university
- Rogers: extend grace period
- Grant: not enough, for whatever reasons, cultural, mental health, etc. separation is huge deal
By consensus of voting members: leave as written in pg. 21 of code
Interim Suspension:
- Hatch: serious disruption of educational environment, example?
- Cowan: language must be understandable by undergrads
- Clermont: example: shouting down professor
- Zoner: different levels, different extents of violations
- Cowan: add new language, have a standard that people can understand
- Clermont: don’t need new language
- Grant: perhaps extraordinary circumstance is enough
- Clermont: that would unbridled discestion
- Mingle: need to think about professor, other students
- Grant: hearing board does provide check to that
- Allende: echoes what was said
- Sclarsic: makes it harder for student to defend himself; has serious effect for process itself
- Rourke: protect victim as well
- Cowan: likelihood of repeat offense proof required
- Clermont: accept president’s recommendation
2 people said no, 7 yes — accept president’s recommendation
Proceeding while criminal charges pending:
- Clermont: no difference between president and us
- Cowan: need to be careful about language; conflicts between two different proceedings
- Sclarsic: agree, thinks language is good
By consensus of voting members: leave as written in code
Appropriateness of Penalties:
Clermont: defer
Off-campus misconduct:
- Clermont: president just misinterpreted CJC; let’s not worry about definition of campus; we extended jurisdiction off campus; extension doesn’t increase definition of campus, if anything it decreases importance
- Mingle: president prefers defining designees; wants a clearer breakdown; only place where he wants it
- Clermont: what would happen to other places in code where designee is used
Accept president’s judgment:
Confidentiality of proceedings and records:
- Clermont: seems like good change, easy change
Accept Kevin’s change as written
- Clermont: on controversial issues, CJC has hands tied because community has already spoken
- Mingle: need to rethink, times are changing
- Grant: need more perspective, more experience to look at bigger picture of university; goal is to have more of a check and balance
- Cowan: extreme way to come at balance; president was not part of previous similar cases; president shouldn’t have discretion to increase punishment
- Mingle: president is ultimately responsible
- Zoner: president takes burden off hearing board
- Clermont: president already has grave misconduct power; this is strange way for president to exert his power
- Mingle: we’re concerned about Duke, VA Tech, Illinois
- Sclarsic: should be about prevention, mental health maintenance
- Mingle: there are instances where disciplinary issues are at hand
- Sclarsic: concerned about president’s use of this potential power
- Cowan: largely concur with Sclarsic, code isn’t a system competent do deal with this; president isn’t as a institutional is competent to deal with this
- Mingle: president will take advice into consideration; president must take a closer look at these cases
- Stewart: agree with Mingle, president takes heat, not hearing board
- Hatch: useful to have an example
- Grant: use of weapon resulting in injury
- Clermont: makes no sense for outsider to undermine hearing board’s decision; plus there’s grave misconduct clause; president must come in at beginning, not in middle/end
- Mingle: president shouldn’t have to jump in at beginning
- Sclarsic: create another level of appeal
- Mingle: doesn’t work that way; not a formal process
- Hatch: president could be pressured by public outcry
- Mingle: alternative is that president would say it’s out of his hands — not desirable
- Kay: public outcry speaks to Duke case; need to collect reliable evidence
- Grant: need to better qualify language, there is merit to broad institutional concerns; it’s possible for hearing board to make a mistake
- Grant: Title IX violation concerns
- Rourke: research this before next meeting
- Hatch: need examples for cases with different standards of proof — need to protect confidentiality
IV. Time Frame
- Rourke: Time Frame: meet once a week; 4–6 weeks 4:30 — 6:00
V. Next Meeting Time
Monday, February 25, 2008, 4:30 — 6:30 PM, Police Conference Room, Barton Hall