DRAFT Minutes
University Assembly Meeting
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
4:30 � 7:00 p.m.
701 Clark Hall

I. Call to Order

M. Hatch called the meeting to order at 4:38pm.

II. Roll Call

Present: C. Basil, D. Brown, M. Fontana, J. Glenn, M. Hatch, A. James, D. Kurczewski, L. Lawrence, B. Liddick, J. Marwell, S. Matthews, R. Orme, R. Rodriguez, D. Rosen, E. Sanders, A. Stroock, R. Wayne
Not Present: E. Loew, P. Mahoney, T. Pardo
Also In Attendance: Kathleen Rourke, Chair of the Codes and Judicial Committee (CJC), Andrew Cowan, Law School student and CJC Member, James Mingle, University Counsel, Thomas Bruce, VP of University Communications, Dean Charles Walcott

III. Call for Late Additions to Agenda

M. Hatch called for any late additions to the agenda. D. Kurczewski said he wanted to propose a resolution regarding the university assembly’s relationship with Health Services. M. Hatch said they would address this at a later meeting.

IV. Approval of Minutes

� February 27, 2008

D. Kurczewski made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. R. Orme seconded the motion. The February 27, 2008 minutes were approved.

� March 26, 2008

R. Wayne made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. D. Kurczewski seconded the motion. The March 26, 2008 minutes were approved.

V. Old Business

� CJC Actions Regarding Reconsideration of Some Proposed Changes to Campus Code

M. Hatch gave a brief update on what the CJC has been working on and how they addressed some of the issues brought up by the UA in the last meeting. They would first discuss the issue of attorneys in the process, then the President’s right to appeal sanctions.

D. Brown said he disagreed with the CJC’s decision to prevent the counsel of the accused from participating at hearings and would move to permit counsel in all hearings. People need to be able to choose a lawyer; not everyone can effectively represent themselves. Furthermore, someone with at least some legal training will represent the administration; they need to level the playing field. Additionally, information from these hearings can be released to civil authorities; individuals may not know what rights they’re giving up to civil authorities if they don’t have someone who’s familiar with the law. The fact that the president might reject the code if they allow counsel to participate is not a good reason to eliminate this right.

In response to M. Hatch’s statement that the accused’s counsel is allowed to participate in hearings for sanctions of suspensions or dismissals, D. Brown said the accused’s counsel should be allowed to participate in hearings for all types of sanctions. In response to M. Hatch’s statement that JCCs will be allowed to represent individuals for all sanctions below suspensions or dismissals, D. Brown said people should be able to choose who represents them.

A. Cowan said D. Brown’s concerns are valid. However, very few cases less than suspension go to a hearing so this is a minor change. One side wanted lawyers in all instances, another side wanted no lawyers in any instances; this was a compromise. The fact that everyone can be represented by the JCC alleviates the concern of individuals who don’t feel comfortable representing themselves. Individuals can still consult lawyers regarding exposure to civil matters. Lawyers can even attend the hearings; they just can’t speak. This is the way the president wanted it and they need his approval for the entire Code. This is a small enough concession.

In response to R. Wayne’s request for clarification regarding ‘capacity of council’, J. Mingle said attorneys could advise the accused but couldn’t speak at hearings. They discussed clarifying this.

In response to E. Sanders’ question asking why the administration doesn’t want lawyers to participate, K. Rourke said some students couldn’t afford as high quality a lawyer as other students; they’re leveling the playing field. E. Sanders’ said that this measure disadvantaged all students; K. Rourke said counsel was allowed to participate for the major disruptive penalties. E. Sanders said this doesn’t address equality between students and the prosecutor. In response, K. Rourke said the J.A. is separate from the administration. They briefly discussed the possibility of the administration manipulating the J.A. and the measures taken to address this.

L. Lawrence said that, in the future, if things were not going the way the UA would like, they could revisit the code and change it. They should give this revision a chance to work. K. Rourke echoed this sentiment, stating that the Code was an evolving document.

D. Brown said the status quo has been allowing right to counsel. There hasn’t been any problem with this system. He recounted an instance in which, after a faculty member won in litigation against the administration, there was talk of taking the case to the JA; the only reason they probably didn’t is because he would have been able to use the same counsel he used in litigation and this discouraged the administration. They need to strengthen what both the plaintiff and defendant can do and without counsel this will be difficult.

R. Wayne said he agreed with D. Brown, initially. However, after thinking about it, it seems like an okay compromise to allow lawyers in cases that should “be made a federal case of”, and to simplify the system by not allowing them in cases that shouldn’t “be made a federal case of”.

M. Hatch said that he doesn’t recall right to counsel being an issue in D. Brown’s story.

In response to D. Kurczewski’s request to hear the administration’s reason for limiting the right to counsel, J. Mingle said the administration has strong reservations about attorneys representing students for minor infractions because it’s completely out of sync with policies both at Cornell and other universities. If the infraction is minor, they would like to prevent legalizing the system. The system should be fair, but they also have to consider the broad interests of the institution. They want to have confidence in a system that isn’t highly complex, adversarial, dominated by attorneys and affordable to only a few. The CJC worked very hard to make this fair for everyone.

D. Brown said they’re trying to solve a problem that isn’t a problem. He hasn’t seen how the status quo has presented problems. He doesn’t agree with the perception that this JCC is equivalent to a public defender. He also doesn’t consider some of the so-called minor sanctions to be minor. He motioned to change the clause stating that the advisor shall not participate in a hearing, to instead state that the advisor may participate in a hearing and to remove the additions to the following paragraph that contradicted this change. E. Sanders seconded the motion.

In response to D. Kurczewski’s question asking J. Mingle if they had any examples of the use of lawyers gumming up the process, J. Mingle repeated that their reasoning for not wanting attorneys was based on protecting the broad interests of the university and this result was a compromise. The CJC has done a lot of work and it’s disrespectful to not take their work seriously. He said there have been instances where victims were reluctant to participate in a sexual assault hearing because they knew the accused would have an attorney representing them.

D. Brown said he doesn’t think disagreeing with some of the CJC’s revisions is disrespectful. He said J. Mingle has not offered any evidence that the status quo has been a problem. He doesn’t want this assembly’s last act to be stripping individuals’ right to an attorney.

In response to A. Stroock’s question asking what the next most serious sanction below suspension would be, M. Hatch said there is community service and restitution. The UA reviewed the sanctions on pages 33 and 34 and there was a brief discussion about sanctions.

M. Hatch said he feels this revised code is a step forward. Cornell’s code shouldn’t be like every other university’s code. It makes use of Cornell’s great law school and engages students in legal proceedings at a lower level. It’s unique and is more community based. Having lawyers would be turning Cornell into everywhere else. They can make this adjustment, monitor it, and maybe even be proud of it later on. Using the Law School is a great way to provide greater resources to the JA’s office. The CJC ratified the changes and they need to take the CJC’s work seriously.

Dean Walcott said he’s watched the CJC wrestle with this issue and the level of discussion was really thoughtful. He feels this is a very reasonable compromise and they should go forward with it. They can continue to monitor the situation and make changes if there are problems.

D. Brown said nothing in his amendment would limit use of the JCC’s and the law school; it just gives them back up. It doesn’t compromise the CJC’s work. The reason the code does not go straight to the president, is because they have the right to make changes; this is a minor change.

J. Glenn said he agrees with D. Brown. Individuals keep referring to situations as minor but wouldn’t think so if they were facing them. If he were falsely accused, he’d want to be able to exhaust every avenue available to clear his name, including the use of attorneys in the hearing.

The assembly moved to a vote on D. Brown’s amendment. There was a brief discussion about the voting process and whether the Chair could vote; it was determined he could to either make or break a tie. The amendment failed with a roll call vote of 8–8−0, due to the Chair’s vote.

M. Hatch said they would move on to discussing the President the right to alter a penalty.

In response to R. Wayne’s question asking to whom the President would give his opinion, K. Rourke said it would not be presented to a specific person. It would be a matter of public record.

There was a brief discussion about what could be construed as a threat of violence and A. Cowan said it’s important to note that the President can only alter penalties. He can’t revise decisions; for example, he can’t revise whether a statement was a threat of violence or not.

There was a motion to approve the CJC’s changes regarding this section. The motion was seconded. By straw vote, the motion was approved.

There was a brief discussion about the meaning of the clause pertaining to confidentiality of proceedings and records and brief clarification regarding sanctions.

R. Orme made a motion to accept the document as it presently stands. B. Liddick seconded the motion. By a roll-call vote of 13–2−0, the Revised Campus Code of Conduct was approved.

M. Hatch said he wanted to propose renaming the Campus Code of Conduct as the Claremont Code. He said they would discuss this more at another meeting.

T. Bruce congratulated the UA on approving the code; he thinks this is a step forward for the university and shared governance. D. Brown thanked the administration for honoring their shared governance and working with the UA and the CJC to bring this forward.

M. Hatch said they’d relay the UA’s acceptance of the Revised Code and their recommendation to provide more resources to the JA’s office, to the President, in a letter of conveyance.

VI. New Business

� Future Meetings This Semester

M. Hatch said they had a meeting scheduled for April 30, but he doesn’t think this meeting is necessary. They discussed how they would appoint the Hearing Board members without having the April 30 meeting, since this needed to be done before the end of the year. M. Hatch motioned to empower the Chairs to appoint the Hearing Board members. D. Brown seconded the motion. [Subsequent findings have made it necessary to hold a brief meeting of the UA on 30 April, beginning at 4:30 pm, in 163 Day Hall for action on Hearing & Review Board nominees.]

VII. Adjournment

There was a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded. M. Hatch adjourned the meeting at 6:21pm.