University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
4:30 � 6:00 p.m.
701 Clark Hall

I. Call To Order

M. Hatch called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.

II. Roll Call

The roll was taken by sign in sheet.

Present: C. Basil, M. Fontana, A. James, D. Kurczewski, J. Marwell, S. Matthews, J. Glenn, T. Parado, R. Rodriguez, B. Liddick, R. Orme, D. Brown, M. Hatch, D. Rosen, E. Sanders, R. Wayne.

Not Present: P. Mahoney, E. Loew, A. Stroock.

Also Present: K. Duch, David Kay, from the Codes and Judicial Committee, Andrew Cowan, Jamie Rogers, Rachel Dorfman-Tandlich, Mary Beth Grant, the Judicial Administrator, Kevin Clermont, Dan Malloy from the Cornell Chronicle, Emily Cohn from the Cornell Daily Sun, A. Epstein, A. O’Donnell, P. Beach, D. Arnold.

III. Approval of the Minutes

� September 26, 2007 Minutes

D. Rosen pointed out a typographical error on page 4. The change was noted. R. Orme made a motion to approve the minutes with the change. B. Liddick seconded the motion. The September 26, 2007 minutes were approved by a raise of hands.

� October 24, 2007 Minutes

B. Liddick made a motion to approve the minutes. S. Matthews seconded the motion. The October 24, 2007 minutes were approved by a raise of hands.

IV. Call for Late Additions to the Agenda

M. Hatch called for late additions to the agenda.

D. Rosen made the announcement that Provost Martin is scheduled to attend the January 30th UA meeting.

IV. Committee Reports

� Codes and Judicial Committee: presentation to UA of revised Campus Code of Conduct - Representatives of CJC: Kevin Clermont, faculty; Andy Cowan, grad; Bob Kay, faculty; Rachael Dorfman-Tandlich, undergrad (15 minutes)

M. Hatch said the level of participation from so many constituencies was astounding, as was the amount of time that was spent reviewing, considering and responding to the community feedback in the discussion and development of the document. He commended the CJC on their work. He said he hoped they could craft a resolution tonight that reflected their response to the document.

R. Dorfman-Tandlich, the Student Assembly appointee to the CJC, said the process for revamping the code was very democratic. One of her concerns was addressing off-campus jurisdiction. She said she is happy with the code’s compromise to provide jurisdiction over off-campus actions deemed serious. She said they also discussed whether to include federal rules of evidence in the Code, at length. They wanted to achieve the goal of making the process of reporting the crime easier on the victim while still allowing the accused the right to confront the accuser. She said she is pleased with the work that has been done.

A. Cowan, a second year law student and the GPSA appointee to the CJC, said it was a great process. He says the code represents balance and compromise. He said the revised Code is not a final document; this is an ongoing process. He said they were primarily trying to make this a structural revision so that the code would be more digestible and easier to understand; it still includes some legal jargon and they hope the administration will help educate the community to help them more easily understand it. He further addressed how they had decided to handle balancing the interests of the accused and accuser and the off-campus jurisdiction issues that R. Dorfman-Tandlich had addressed.

D. Kay said that they’ve come a long way in a year. He said a lot of ground has been covered with a lot of community involvement.

J. Rogers said that an important thing to acknowledge is that the people whose lives are affected by this code came to a compromise on it. They all agreed on it.

In response to R. Wayne’s question about the balance and compromise that was involved in determining a statute of limitations on sexual assault crimes, M. Hatch said that the working basis for the development of the revised Code was the Campus Code that was in effect for the past 15 years. He said some things, such as the statute of limitations, could be amended. K. Clermont said the statute of limitations is one year, but the Judicial Administrator could extend the period. A. Cowan said they did not come to a definitive stance on this, and they can certainly address it again in the future.

E. Sanders said she knew of some students who had been in a situation where it took over a year to recover from the assault and realize the damage caused to them. In cases like this she would see why it would take longer than a year for a person to file a report. She said it seemed that the code gave a large amount of discretion to the president and JA in determining what would be considered “serious”. She then commended the law students on their involvement. She then asked for clarification of how they determined which issues were “serious”.

In response, K. Clermont said the president could go after grave misconduct outside of the judicial system. He said that a set definition of “serious” would likely have failed, so they felt a system where the JA or the president could pick the cases they address would be more effective. He said they acknowledged it was risky to have one person responsible for all decisions, so they decided the JA should have to get the approval of the president. If both the JA and the president seem to be abusing their power, the complainant/defendant can ask the hearing board to decide.

In response to D. Rosen’s question about why they changed the term from “grave” to “serious”, K. Clermont said “serious” and “grave” are two different issues; both still exist but the president retains the power to override “grave” issues. M. Grant added that, if the president and JA decide an issue is not “serious”, the Code allows the complainant to appeal this decision.

In response to D. Kurczewski’s request for an example of an off-campus infraction that would not have previously been subject to the code, but now was, due to the revision, M. Grant said a fight with a weapon and injury. Some hazing cases that would not be considered “grave” may fit under this now. An assault with no injury might also be considered “serious” but not “grave”.

A. Cowan said it’s important to realize that off-campus jurisdiction does not involve Cornell police patrolling Collegetown. The Code addresses code jurisdiction not police jurisdiction.

In response to T. Parado’s question about whether the example of the student being kept awake the night before his MCATS would be considered an issue that poses a threat to the university’s educational mission, M. Grant said yes; it could also falls under health aspect of the community member. She added there are many ways to define a threat to an educational mission; if part of the educational mission is to promote ethical behavior, many things would fall under this categorization.

In response to M. Hatch’s question asking whether the rule of no dual-prosecution carries over to off-campus crimes, M. Grant said that there are often cases of violations being considered in both systems (civil court and the university judicial system), because the goals are different. She said it depended on several issues, such as the seriousness of the matter.

There was a discussion about the extent of the off-campus jurisdiction. C. Basil asked if students in their homes during school breaks were subject to the Code. M. Grant said jurisdiction could include someone at home over break. They won’t be scanning news reports, but if something comes to their attention they’ll look into it. There will be some jurisdiction issues with other law enforcement systems. R. Dorfman-Tandlich says the issues over which they have jurisdiction have to be serious. A. Cowan said the jurisdiction is meant to allow Cornell to address actions that have a negative ripple effect on the university.

In response to D. Brown’s question about jurisdiction over administration, M. Hatch said they are subject to code jurisdiction as well, since they are considered staff or employees.

In response to D. Brown’s confusion over why the provision had been made for the President to override the JA, K. Clermont said state statute required this provision and that the President’s actions in overriding the JA have to be approved by the Board of Trustees.

There was further discussion about the issue of dual-prosecution. D. Brown expressed concern that Cornell’s process could interfere with the investigation and adjudication of local authorities. M. Grant said the local justice system and campus justice system are two different systems with separate interests. M. Hatch said that the code addresses this.

In response to T. Parado’s request for confirmation that, in the event that a case is taken up in the city and a decision is rendered, the student has 60 days to bring the issue back to the university judicial system, M. Grant said yes, this is the case.

In response to D. Rosen’s request for clarification on the breadth of “protecting Cornell’s reputational interests” and the extent to which actions could fall under this category, M. Grant said she did not know.

In response to A. James question regarding whether there was a provision to prevent a wrongful suspension from being placed on a student’s record, M. Grant said a temporary suspension is not put on record.

E. Sanders recounted a murder case from the ‘80’s and the victims’ parents’ accusations that Cornell’s concern about safeguarding its reputation hindered the investigation. She asked how Cornell balances maintaining their reputation while maintaining the integrity of investigations.

M. Hatch said that question speaks to how are prosecutions are developed in the police department or other places. He doesn’t think that any changes to the code could address this. He says he doesn’t think they’ve come up with any substantial changes to the code that would require the code to be amended and, as such, they should be able to move to discussion on a resolution in support of the code.

R. Wayne said that last year there was a certain level of distrust between the administration and the UA. K. Clermont said the CJC was given the ability to develop the code with limited interference from the administration. The administration did participate, but for the most part, the committee was given autonomy to complete the revision.

� Resolution in support of revised code and letter of communication to President David J. Skorton (30 minutes)

The UA representatives crafted a resolution in support of the revised Campus Code. M. Grant recommended the revised code be put into effect July 2008 so their office could get the systems in place to implement the revised code.

M. Hatch read the final version of the resolution to the membership, and then made a motion to pass it. T. Parado seconded. By a hand-count vote, the resolution was unanimously approved.

V. Adjournment

S. Matthews made a motion to adjourn. J. Marwell seconded the motion. M. Hatch adjourned the meeting at 6:04 p.m.