Office of the Assemblies

I support the UA’s proposed change.

I support the JA having discretion over whether to issue a suspension or other penalty; however, normal university operations require certain notifications associated with a suspension. We must know whether a student is currently enrolled if we are to promote public safety, adjust financial aid if warranted, etc.  I have added the revisions below (in red) to help clarify this important need:

I fully support the exclusion of non-matriculated minors from the definition of “student,” but do not agree that the CJC should be involved with policies that concern minors who are not part of the Cornell community but are just participating in ancillary (often summer) programs. In fact, the Code should not specify anything about non-matriculated minors. Rather, the units that directly supervise non-matriculated minors, in partnership with appropriate administration offices including Risk Management and University Counsel, must be able to develop appropriate policies that meet those unique needs.

 

Accordingly, I recommend the addition below to lines 211-216 (new language in red):

 

 

 

I support the UA’s proposed change. That said, I do not consider the footnote (lines 273-276) necessary; but, if included, it should reference the date of these revisions.

I generally support the proposed change, but request that the UA make clear the process by which a currently serving member may request reappointment. Under the current process, which does not expressly allow for reappointing existing Hearing and Review Board (HB) members, a reappointment to the HB would follow the same process as any initial appointment: for faculty members, nomination by the Dean of the Faculty, and for all other appointments, nomination by the CJC following written solicitation for applicants by the Office of the Assemblies. The proposed reappointment process removes the Dean of the Faculty and the Office of the Assemblies from exercising any oversight over HB members after their initial appointment to the HB. In order to ensure the appropriate levels of transparency and independence for reappointment of HB member, I recommend this provision be further amended to require input from the Dean of the Faculty. 

I cannot accept this proposed change. As you note in the resolution, the practice used in the JA reappointment process over many years has not aligned with what is in the Code, and what is in the Code lacks clarity. The resolution’s language, however, not only fails to address the clarity issues, but it also creates new, substantive problems, including a fairness issue of changing the reappointment process at the very moment at which reappointment is due. Given the urgent need for (re)appointment of the JA and the outstanding, substantive issues with the UA’s proposed changes to the reappointment process, I suggest that we reappoint the JA for a period of one year (i.e., through June 2019), to give us time to work together to develop mutually acceptable changes to the JA appointment process that can be fairly applied to the current JA.  

I support the UA’s proposed change, in part. In addition to the JA and JCC, victim advocates should have the opportunity to comment on a change making all no-contact orders mutually binding. Also, I question the wisdom of creating a new right of appeal to a process that is, by its nature, intended to be interim and would suggest that lines 479 - 489 be eliminated.