Senate avoids judicial charter

The Faculty Senate may not officially respond to the latest draft of the Student Judicial Charter, Faculty Senate Chairperson William Kissick said last night. The official deadline for comment on the document is October 6. But the next Senate Executive Committee meeting is scheduled for October 18. And senate Past Chairperson David Hildebrand, a statistics professor, said the SEC will not call a meeting before the comment deadline to discuss the judicial charter, since it "feels like a problem, not a crisis." Although Provost Stanley Chodorow said he would consider any comments made by the Senate before sending the revised document to the schools for approval, SEC members were uncertain if the issue required a collective response. And the senate may not even put the issue on the October 18 agenda, according to Kissick, who is also the George Seckel Pepper professor of public health and preventative medicine. Students and faculty members have complained that the most recent revision of the judicial charter places too much power in the hands of the provost. Some have complained of a lack of student and faculty input in the drafting of the new document. Associate Radiology Professor David Hackney, senate secretary-elect, said he thought it would be a good idea for the Faculty Senate to at least discuss the judicial charter and the controversial issues that surround it. Hackney added that while a senate vote might not be necessary, discussion with Chodorow could bring out a "substance of ideas." Kissick said if the current comment period produces a document that satisfies faculty concerns, there would be no need for more discussion. But he did not rule out the possibility of adding the judicial charter to the agenda of SEC's next meeting. Kissick said he thought many individual faculty members with opinions on the charter would comment directly to the Chodorow. But when considering issues as complex as those in the judicial charter, Hildebrand added, people should be "knowledgeable, thoughtful and say something that adds to the conversation as opposed to just the noise level." Although the judicial charter may never make the senate's agenda, individual SEC members have raised several controversial questions about the current draft. And some of those questions -- such as who would be responsible for appointing the Disciplinary Hearing Officer -- are directly related to the Faculty Senate. Hackney has been a strong proponent of allowing the Faculty Senate to appoint the Disciplinary Hearing Officer. The current draft proposes that the provost make this selection. But Hildebrand voiced objections to giving the senate that full responsibility. "I clearly would not want the senate to be solely responsible for that," Hildebrand said. "We don't have, perhaps, as many resources as the provost does to find the right people." Hildebrand suggested developing a consultation process between Chodorow and the senate as a solution to this disagreement.