University Assembly
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
609 Clark Hall, 4:30 p.m.

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 4:55 p.m.

II. Roll Call

Present: Sarah Cassar, Joshua Jacobs, Kristen Rich, Janelle Weinstock, Christina Yoon, Tim McConnochie, Joshua Nelson, Denis Achacoso, Henry Granison, Leon Lawrence, Robert Kay, Timothy Setter, Randy Wayne

Excused: Anne Marie Aponte, Doug Mitarotonda, Stephanie McConnell, Douglas Kysar, Ellis Loew

Unexcused: Pamela Dusseau, Kenneth Hover

Others present: Martin Lang, Lisa Gilbertson, Mary Beth Grant, Rich Helms

III. Approval of September 1st Minutes

The minutes were approved unanimously.

IV. Presentation re: Campus Code of Conduct Revisions

M. Grant said she wanted to talk about the judicial system to give the assembly a context for their role in changing the code that governs it. She handed out a flowchart that describes the process that occurs when a complaint comes to the Judicial Administrator. The cases are usually Title 3 cases, which outline the regulations for maintaining the educational environment. The only other cases that come to the JA are classified at Title 2, maintaining the public order, which are usually referred incorrectly because they have to be referred by the president, not the police. The JA is a very busy office, hearing around 800 cases per year, which is a number that keeps increasing.

R. Wayne asked why the number of cases has increased.

M. Grant answered that recently the code of conduct has been enforced better, leading to the increase in cases. She continued to describe the process after a complaint is received. First, they decide if it is in their jurisdiction, for example, Collegetown cases are not. If it is, they begin investigation which could be a meeting with the accused or questioning of witnesses. Then, they can’t impose a sanction; they can only offer a solution which the accused can choose to accept or not. Then the case can go the University Hearing Board if they can’t make an agreement for suspension, if the accused or complainant doesn’t agree with the proposed sanctions, or if the JA can’t propose a sanction due to lack of evidence, but the complainant still wants to pursue the case. The UHB decisions can be appealed to the Review Board. One reason these checks and balances exist is that the JA is independent and the checks hold them accountable to the public. She explained her role as an ex-officio member of the Codes and Judicial Committee which is how the UA interacts most with the JA. The committee is in charge of changing the codes; all of the changes must be approved first by the UA and then by the president’s office.

R. Helms explained that the purpose of the Codes & Judicial Committee is to make recommendations to the UA about the Code of Conduct. The committee would like to simplify this code because it is very long and dense. A few years ago, they started to change things by making small recommendations for changes to the UA. This, however, did not give them enough flexibility so they put the project on hold. Recently, the External Review Committee commented that the code is inconsistent and “impenetrable,” which has renewed their interest in the project. The CJC wants to seek support from the UA on the topic of working to simplify the code. They also want the UA to let the president know of their support and urge him for his support on the project. They hope to have increased communication between the CJC, UA and president’s office to work together to improve the code. The attached memo outlines their proposal.

L. Lawrence asked if it would be of value for him to read the code before giving his support so he would fully understand what he would be supporting.

J. Nelson asked for Helms to clarify what they are asking the UA to do.

R. Helms said they are not asking to make specific changes yet, just for support and communication on the project.

L. Lawrence asked if they were looking for resources from the president.

R. Helms answered no.

K. Rich asked if this was an effort to circumvent the UA’s approval of the code and go directly to the president’s office.

R. Helms replied that no, they would still be going through the UA. The whole purpose is just to increase communication and cooperation between the CJC, the UA, and the president.

R. Wayne said the president might take special interest in the project, given his background.

R. Helms said that would be ideal. They are hoping, by the end of the year, to have largely, though not totally, rewritten the code.

T. Setter said there are two different parts to their proposed changes: substantive changes and structural changes. He asked if they could separate the process into these two parts and work on each of them.

R. Helms said they have considered the idea.

M. Grant said that the code differs from most other schools because it is so legalistic. This is a challenge in changing the code. For instance, when they originally tried to simplify the code, they looked at combining title 2 and 3 charges, but were unable to because of the different groups who have control over the different titles.

R. Helms encouraged the assembly to try and read the code, but warned that they probably would not get far. They would be able to see the necessity for simplifying the code.

D. Achacoso asked what the review board found inconsistent.

R. Kay agreed that the codes need work; it sounds like they were written by a lawyer.

M. Grant cited an example of inconsistency.

R. Wayne asked if any “blue laws” still existed in the code.

M. Grant said they got rid of most of those earlier.

T. McConnochie asked if the CJC has enough people and power to successful accomplish rewriting the code.

R. Helms answered that, structurally speaking, yes, they do have enough people and experience with the code to change it. As far as substantive changes go, they would like to give it a try, but be willing to seek outside help if they seemed to be getting in over their heads.

H. Granison asked what parties needed to be at the table before they could proceed.

R. Helms said they need to work with the UA and the president’s office; eventually, they will also need to work with the Board of Trustees.

J. Jacobs asked if the administration will agree that the CJC is the group that should be rewriting the code as opposed to a group of lawyers.

M. Grant said she had sent a letter to the president on this topic. She doesn’t want volunteers to get started on the revisions if the president is not supporting the project. She also said they are willing to have input from lawyers and other groups.

R. Helms said they eventually want the president on board.

L. Leon asked if the assembly could receive a copy of the letter that was sent to the president.

M. Grant said she would look at it and, if needed, revise it and then get the assembly a copy.

T. McConnochie asked for clarification on what they want from the UA; do they want the UA to endorse it and try to get the president to endorse it as well?

R. Helms answered yes.

J. Nelson moved a resolution to endorse the revision of the Campus Code of Conduct as outlined in the last paragraph of the CJC’s letter, including increased input and communication between the CJC, UA and president’s office.

The motion was 2nded. The vote was taken via hands. The motion passed with one abstention. L. Lawrence asked if M. Grant could let them know when the president replies.

J. Jacobs said the E-board would inform the president of their decision to support the CJC.

L. Lawrence asked if it is appropriate to give the president a date they want him to respond by.

M. Lang said if he hasn’t responded in 30 days, it is assumed that he has approved the decision.

J. Jacobs said they would also try to solicit feedback from the president.

M. Grant said that maybe now that the assembly has called his attention to the subject, he will respond.

V. New Business

Review Proposed Faculty Appointments to the University Hearing Board
J. Jacobs said that unless anyone had any reasons to object to the appointments, they appeared to be fine.

R. Wayne commented that Professor Shavit is a very fair and honest person in his experience.

J. Jacobs asked if they needed to have a vote to approve the appointments.

M. Lang said that they will be approved without the UA if they don’t vote.

J. Jacobs said he doesn’t really know the credentials of the people to know whether he should approve them or not.

K. Rich agreed. She said she didn’t even know if this group was representative of the Cornell community since two of the appointees were from the Ag School.

J. Jacobs asked who is in charge of making the appointments.

H. Granison answered that it is the Dean of Faculty, Charles Walcott.

J. Jacobs said the appointees are probably the people who had expressed interest in the position. He suggested having a resolution that, in the future, the UA be more involved with the process.

T. McConnochie made a motion to approve the appointments. He suggested looking into the UA’s future involvement later.

J. Jacobs suggested making a motion to temporarily approve the appointments on the condition that they allow the UA to be more involved in the process in the future.

J. Weinstock asked if that is the role of the UA.

M. Lang said the UA has legislative authority according to the charter.

L. Lawrence said they should approve the appointments now. He felt like the assembly is just there to “rubber-stamp” decisions that have already been made; that should be changed.

J. Jacobs asked if they should include a clause in their approval about wanting more involvement.

J. Nelson suggested having two separate resolutions, one to approve and one about participating in the process in the future.

T, McConnochie said they should write up a real resolution.

J. Jacobs reminded the assembly that they have legislative power, but they are not being involved in it.

J. Nelson asked how much time the assembly would really be willing to invest in interviewing and reviewing candidates for the UHB.

K. Rich said she would like at least more than a two-sentence description of each person.

J. Weinstock asked if there were even any other candidates.

T. Setter said it might have been a challenge to even find people willing to serve on the UHB, so these are just the people they could find.

L. Lawrence said that doesn’t justify violating the UA charter.

T. Setter asked if the assembly would be happier if the information was given to them in advance.

H. Granison said that there is also an issue with the timing of the UA’s first meetings and the time they need to get the UHB up and running. As a result, the responsibilities, such as this appointment, have been delegated. He asked if it would really be a benefit to have the assembly make the appointments.

L. Lawrence suggested bringing forth the candidates in the spring and appoint them before the year even starts.

R. Wayne asked T. Setter if this was something the faculty had voted on.

T. Setter wasn’t sure if they had or not.

T. McConnochie made a motion to approve the appointments and have the E-board look into their options for next year.

The motion was 2nded and a vote was taken via hands vote. The motion passed with three abstentions.

Discuss H. Granison’s Proposal to Invite Vice-President for Communications Tommy Bruce to the next UA meeting

H. Granison said they would like to invite Tommy Bruce to the UA’s next meeting to discuss various topics such as the new logo. Basically, it would be a good chance for everyone to meet him and for him to get acquainted with the assembly.

J. Jacobs said Bruce has been very interested in meeting and understanding the assemblies and how they work. He suggested having something specific to talk to Bruce about to let him know they do accomplish things at their meetings.

T. McConnochie and J. Nelson agreed it is a good idea to invite Bruce.

VI. Old Business

Announcement of Officers
J. Jacobs said that at the last executive committee meeting, they drew names out of a hat to determine chair and vice chair officially in order to agree with their charter. Dennis Achacoso will be chair and Ellis Lowe will be vice chair. They still would like to work on amending the charter to allow the rotating chair among the E-board.

T. McConnochie said they needed to approve the chair and vice chair and then there will be a formal resolution later to change the charter.

There were no objections to the officers and they were approved unanimously.

Review Executive Board’s Proposal re: Committees
J. Jacobs explained that the executive board has decided to postpone the convening of committees until they can be evaluated as to their efficiency. The details are outlined on the attached letter.

K. Rich asked if they could have access to this information beforehand in the future.

M. Lang said yes.

J. Jacobs said these committees don’t function the way they should because they don’t know they’re supposed to answer to the UA. Ideally, members of each committee will be able to come to a meeting throughout the year so they can work on the relationship between the committees and the UA and see if the committees are even necessary.

J. Nelson asked what was meant by “postponing.”

J. Jacobs said the committees would be postponed by not convening them while they decided if they should abolish them or not.

T. McConnochie asked if the committees would just meet anyway.

M. Lang answered that they can’t meet since they haven’t been convened yet. This evaluation is being done, in part, because the groups themselves weren’t happy with how the committee system was working.

T. Setter asked if the representatives from the committees would be invited to this meeting.

J. Jacobs answered yes; they want to have one meeting per committee over the year. If they abolish the committees, they will have contact directly with the group, not just with the committee, which would increase the dialogue and use the UA’s legislative authority.

T. McConnochie said this had been tried in the past and didn’t work.

J. Jacobs said that they also want each E-board member to meet with one groups specifically to keep up-to-date on what is happening with the group.

L. Lawrence asked if the groups could let them know before the meeting what they want to talk about.

J. Jacobs answered yes.

M. Lang said this notion is a way to solicit input. He reminded everyone that the E-board meets Monday and encouraged everyone to come.

There was a motion to support the postponement of the committees and it was 2nded. There was a vote via hands. The motion passed unanimously.

Discussion of Goals/Focus for the year ahead J. Jacobs said this will hopefully encourage more involvement with the groups. It is a proactive step in the UA being a more legislative body.

J. Nelson voiced concern with JMAC, which is hard to find and get in touch with. There needs to be more involvement with this group.

M. Lang said they are still looking for a volunteer to co-chair JMAC, if anyone would like to.

K. Rich volunteered.

M. Lang said T. Setter would co-chair JFARC, H. Granison would co-chair CPC, and K. Rich would co-chair JMAC. These positions were all approved.

VII. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Gilbertson
University Assembly Clerk, Office of the Assemblies