U. Council meeting focuses on judicial charter proposal

Tensions flaredTensions flaredover the issue Faculty and students questioned Provost Stanley Chodorow about the proposed judicial charter yesterday at a dramatic University Council meeting in McClelland Hall. Students and other observers overflowed into the lobby. On the sidewalk in front of the building, loudspeakers stood poised to broadcast the debate if onlookers spilled outside of the building. Undergraduate Assembly Chairperson Lance Rogers said in his report to Council that undergraduates were "misled" by Chodorow and University President Judith Rodin about the Charter's contents. "I need to express my extreme disappointment in this administration's handling of the judicial charter issue," Rogers said. "The UA, [Graduate and Professional Student Assembly] and faculty members alike continue to be treated superficially, or in most cases, downright ignored." After the meeting, Rodin approached Rogers, and, in the presence of her advisors, spoke with him for more than 15 minutes about the charter and the UA's response to it. "Get a life," Rodin told Rogers at one point during the conversation. "There are more important things going on at the University than the judicial charter." Before Rogers' comments, Chodorow addressed criticisms of the charter in his prepared remarks at the beginning of the meeting. He said the draft was the result of two years of consultations with different interested groups. Chodorow said the charter's provisions mandating closed judicial hearings and confidentiality were the University's response to the Buckley Amendment. He said the federal law prohibited the University from releasing any records that contain a student's name. He added that open hearings are possible if all participants agree to them, but that confidentiality "can't be overcome" because of the Buckley Amendment. According to Chodorow, the Office of the General Counsel is developing a waiver form to release the University from liability. Participants who agree to open hearings will sign the form. In response to questions about the provost's ability to set sanctions in the draft, he explained that only the provost has the authority to impose a sanction. But under the draft charter, he cannot set or alter the sanction. Following the meeting, Chodorow said he would change the language of the draft to clarify the provost's role in the system. He added that he would submit the revised proposal to the undergraduate schools for comment at the beginning of next week. Moderator and Political Science Professor Will Harris twice postponed discussion of agenda items, ceding 40 minutes to discussion of the charter. Taking another unorthodox step as moderator, Harris recognized College senior Wilton Levine, chairperson of the Student Judicial Committee, to speak -- although he is not a member of University Council. Levine agreed with Chodorow that the charter is an improvement over the current system. However, he said his committee is concerned about the confidentiality and closed hearings that remain in the draft. Several Council members took issue with the University's interpretation of the Buckley Amendment. "The Buckley Amendment is being used to put a cloak of secrecy on the hearings," said Communications Professor Larry Gross. As time ran out in the first 20 minutes of discussion, Rogers tried to submit a resolution stating that "the judicial charter is unacceptable to this Council." The motion also said Chodorow should seek approval from the Faculty Senate before submitting the charter to the schools. But Harris would not allow Council to vote on the proposal, explaining that only 42 members were present at the time, and that a quorum of 46 members is required in order to take a vote. "The rules are very clear," Harris said. "I wrote them." The tension in the room eased as the audience laughed at Harris' remark. Rogers was successful, though, in getting discussion of the charter on the agenda for the next Council meeting, scheduled for March 20. Despite Harris's appeals to the contrary, as discussion of the charter came to a close, most of the observers packing the hall left the meeting.