Student Assembly

Dear President Skorton,

I would like to formally communicate Student Assembly Resolutions 10, 11, and 12. Each resolution involves the creation of a University Student Court (USC). The resolution was sponsored by Scott Siedenberger, the head of the Judicial Affairs Task Force on the SA Community Life Committee, and myself. I will describe each resolution and some of the key points of discussion that were addressed in the SA meetings. I apologize in advance for the length of the email, but I wanted to make sure I covered all of the items that were discussed.

Resolution 10 is a change to the SA Charter. The resolution adds a section that allows for individual students to contest an action or decision of the SA. The rationale for this is rooted in two different areas. The first is that sometimes an action of the SA has had consequences on student organizations or individual students that were not apparent to the membership of the SA. The current structure does not allow for the students, who elect us, to actually contest something that the SA does. Only another Assembly can object to our actions. While the election process is the method that is used to hold individual representatives accountable to their constituencies, the focus of this new provision is to give students a venue for protection from a particular harm that could be caused by the SA.

The other reason for this provision is to protect our internal processes. In the last few years, we have had a series of unfortunate circumstances when we have been forced to assume an adjudicatory role. In some cases, this has involved SA members being accused of violating attendance policies and even ethics rules. While we have a parliamentarian on our Executive Board who helps clarify rules, it has proven to be the case that members feel as if the parliamentarian or the Executive Board is biased in some way. With this independent judicial body established, members who have found themselves in such a situation can ask for a summary interpretation of the policy in question or even proceed to a mediation conference as outlined in the bylaws of the Court.

Resolution 11 is a change to the SA Bylaws. The first change to the bylaws seeks to clarify when an officer can be recalled by the voting membership of the SA. The previous version did not specify the impetus for being recalled, which left open the opportunity for arbitrary decisions. The other clause in this section allows for any dispute of that arising from a recall vote to be adjudicated by this independent judicial body of peers and not the SA. This is the model that is used by many of the other institutions that were researched for this project.The next change is to allow for the SA President to choose the Chief Justice of the USC. This was done in an effort to strike a balance between having some SA involvement and no SA involvement. Most of the other institutions that were referenced actually had all of their justices chosen by their student government president or by their student government as a whole. We opted to use this model, while also further stipulating in the bylaws of the Court that the individual would have to be chosen from a pool of applicants already chosen by a separate committee.

The final change is the addition of the charge of the USC to the SA bylaws. This formally delegates all judicial authority that the SA previously exercised in the specified areas to the USC. It establishes the USC as the independent judicial authority of peers for students in non-Code of Conduct disputes. An addition was added by the Judicial Administrator to allow for other units of the University to refer cases to the Court. This was added because the Judicial Administrator does not become involved with student organization disputes, unless a larger Code violation is alleged. Additionally, other authorities cannot take sides in a given dispute, making finding a remedy very difficult. The USC seeks to resolve such disputes and make harmed parties whole.

Resolution 12 is the acceptance of the proposed bylaws of the USC. While you did receive an initial printed draft of the bylaws, they have been significantly modified. Article IV (4.02) no longer includes a provision for the USC to levy fines. Assembly members felt this was over-reaching, and not really tied to the function of the Court itself. The sponsors agreed. (4.03) was also removed as part of subsequent discussions involving Article VIII. The Article was renumbered accordingly. (5.04) was amended to clarify the process that was intended for the selection of the justices. (7.06) The provision in this article allowing for the USC to levy fines was also removed, subsequent to amending Article IV. (8.03) was completely amended. SA members felt that the previous language used in the section gave the impression that the Court was again over-reaching in its authority. SA members felt that the language that should be used should describe a standard operating procedure, rather than what almost seemed like policing. The new language clarifies that organizations or individuals are not kept from operating normally. Only the act in question is to be stopped until a decision is reached. The section also describes what happens if it is an SA action that is in question. Article X was amended to reflect the removal of the ability to levy fines. While the items that were amended were the bulk of the debate, there were other points of discussion. Much attention was paid to the relationship between the SA and the USC. There was first a need to clarify that the USC is not part of the SA, and that the SA would be treated as a student organization in any case in which it was involved. There was also emphasis on the process that occurs for a case involving the SA (or any case for that matter) actually being granted standing. The USC would not entertain all cases and the process for selecting cases ensures that the claim that is filed actually alleges a particular harm and requests a specific remedy. Additionally, the USC would not hear cases involving funding decisions of the SA. The only exception would be in cases where there is an allegation that a process (as specified in the governing documents) was violated. The amount of the allocation would not be heard.

There was also some discussion on the language that was used to describe the process. The sponsors stressed that the language that is used is necessary to clearly define the limits of the USC. The sponsors agreed that the language was formal, but stressed that in practice the process would not be as scary as some might think. References were made to the language the SA itself uses in its own Charter, Bylaws, Standing Rules, and resolutions.

The sponsors also stressed the importance of the mediation conference. This is the first step in the dispute resolution process and will likely be where many disputes are resolved. The sponsors discussed that the language used in the steps involving the hearing and the appeals were purposefully lofty in an effort to limit cases getting to that point. That being said, a venue had to be made available in the event that the mediation conference did not yield a mutual agreement. Additionally, the grounds for appeals were discussed and the sponsors stressed that at all times (as discussed in the bylaws), the USC maintained the authority to refer any case to another unit of the University for appropriate resolution. This is in the same spirit that other judicial boards across campus can refer a case to another venue if the question exceeds the scope of that body.

The establishment of this body would fill a gap in the current judicial system that has been identified, and continue the spirit of a peer-to-peer judicial process. Both the sponsors and the SA members agreed that this was one of the main reasons that the USC be created. The sponsors of these resolutions consulted with the Judicial Administrator (who was very helpful in refining the process and clarifying language), as well as the Office of the Ombudsman and members of the Schienman Institute, who were all instrumental in establishing the process for the mediation conference. The Ombudsman does not take any stance on these resolutions; they were merely consulted for dispute resolution processes. The resolution was reviewed by the Committee on Residence & Community Life (2012–2013) and was presented to the previous SA for the purposes of gathering feedback. They were further reviewed by this year’s Community Life Committee and then submitted to the sitting SA.

To further clarify the USC and the cases that it would hear, a document including sample cases is attached. Additionally, there is an appendix that highlights the structures at a number of other institutions that were used as the models for the USC. The sponsors understand that this set of resolutions proposes a large-scale change and would welcome and encourage the opportunity to sit down and discuss the resolutions further.

All the best,

Ulysses