General Assembly
Minutes from March 22nd, 2006
Download Word File: Minutes 03/22/06
Download Honor Board Summary: Honor Board Final Summary
General Assembly Meeting
March 22nd, 2006
Young Dining Room
Notes by Kenna Cottrill
Matt Kuzio welcomed everyone to the official student forum. The General Assembly is a place for students to bring up issues and policy change. The General Assembly recognizes that the student body is one of many forums that form the community. This is a forum for students to work with other students and administrators.
Honor Board
This meeting is focused on giving students information about the Honor Board and to get more ideas about the Honor Board from the students present. The Honor Board Advisory Committee (HBAC) members were all present to give information and seek feedback.
Caroline Kim described the proposed the system (refer to the PowerPoint presentation on the GA website). There are 2 key changes: 1) academic judicial hearing—which currently exists and hears cases for academic infractions. Currently, the Administration just asks random students to be on committee. For the future, HBAC suggests that these students be 2 jurors who are elected by the student body. The second difference is that they propose eliminating the Judicial Council, which hears cases concerning policy violations. The proposed changes is that the Honor Board would replace the Judicial Council. Any appeals to Honor Board decisions would go to the Dean of Students or his/her designee. Any ASOC infractions would also be brought to the Honor Board. The Honor Board would also hear cases of violations of the Student Bill of Rights. In these cases, the Honor Board decision would be final.
Matt Kuzio noted that the judicial hearing and Judicial Council system is currently in place. The Honor Board cannot change the process, but is suggesting that student representatives be involved. Currently, the Judicial Council is comprised of 10 randomly selected students.
Jen Kyle asked if the proposed Judicial Council would then be 11 people.
Kara Abelson clarified that there would be 9 total jurors serving on the Judicial Council 2 at a time, rotating on the academic and discipline councils.
Matt noted that the major change is that HBAC is recommending eliminating the Judicial Council altogether so it would be students only determining outcomes if students request a student panel. The Academic Judicial Hearing is only about academic cases. The Judicial Council hears cases regarding violations of the Student Code of Conduct.
Ken noted that the recommended system is set up so that the administration makes a judicial decision, and then students appeal to students. He wondered “Who are we to circumvent college policy?”
Matt noted that the students are involved, but now the box (on the diagram) of Honor Board used to be Judicial Council which is students.
Ken wondered what type of cases would go to the Honor Board.
Caroline Kim noted that everything goes back to Dean of Students at the end of the day. For example, there is a violation of college policy, which is referred to administrative hearing, if the student wants to appeal, that will be given to Honor Board. The Honor Board’s decision is a recommendation to Dean of Students. Dean still have final authority in judicial cases.
Kara noted the difference between the academic and judicial councils again. She also noted that sexual assault does not go through the Honor Board. Issues with alcohol are still being explored because of legal issues.
Matt said that the Honor Board could hear offenses like sexual assault, if there was no judicial council. The level of responsibility the Honor Board has then becomes more sensitive.
Caroline noted that those who hear sexual assault cases must have training through LACAAW. Should it go through the administrators who have the training? This is still in discussion.
Matt reminded the group that this forum is for feedback, suggestions and improvements.
Caroline then moved on to outlining some of the key documents:
Student Bill of Rights
Student Handbook
Honor Board By-laws
ASOC Constitution
Student Bill of Rights is to preserve mission statement on a student to student level. The College Mission Statement central, which is the preamble. **GET THE DOCUMENT!!**
5 sections of rights:
1 Academic
2 Judicial
3. Communications
4 Financial
5 Student Government
Next year part of the contract for ASOC elected officials will be to protect the Student Bill of Rights. This document will help determine how Honor Board decides cases. It is different than Code of Conduct because it does not govern how students should behave on campus. This is supposed to empower students.
Matt noted that it is not a long document. The Honor Board would use it, for instance, in academic hearings to find out if students had a fair representation in the events.
Ken wondered what it meant in the Financial section about fair dealings and equitable distribution.
Kara noted that for ASOC this is budgetary in nature. This right ensures that Senate is held accountable for fairly distributing money to clubs. Rory Harrington noted that it is also about club leaders being held accountable if they are asking for more money than they need. Kara agreed noting that this would ensure funding requests would be accurate.
Matt noted that the Senate had been talking about an auditing process, but it needs something that says that students will be held accountable in the first place.
Rozell Hodges if there is an auditing system, can that be an Honor Board responsibility. Kara suggested that how it is handled be outlined in the Senate by-laws.
Ken suggested that the Student Bill of Rights include rights that are guaranteed by policy and state and federal government. For instance, the presumption of innocence, and that the burden of proof lies on this committee.
Ali Raymond wondered what would happen if a student was discriminated against in the classroom, and that the teacher is discriminating.
Caroline noted that HB is not a policing system but rather an advocacy system. The question about how to hold faculty accountable is a big one. The Honor Board would be a place students could bring complaints, but HBAC still needs to determine what will happen next. This conversation needs to happen on other levels.
Kara noted that HBAC backed off of this issue for now, even though think it’s really important, but they’ve had a hard time dealing with administrators. The Honor Board can’t fire someone, and cannot discuss their contract. They are looking into ways to legally approach this other than newspaper saying that students don’t like a certain professor.
Caroline noted that for her, it’s a discussion that can be continued. Right now, HBAC is running up against a wall.
Ali also asked if there were various levels of severity in punishment. If someone says something they don’t mean versus direct statement. The academic right is really fluid, and there needs to be wiggle room, but she believes that half the school could be sent to the Honor Board for that violation.
Matt said that the committee had not been dealing with punishments, just with structure. The Honor Board’s judgment will decide this issue. It’s important for them to decide what paths take. Later on in the presentation, HAC will delineate between personal and professional roles and hopefully answer Ali’s questions.
Ken wondered if a safe learning environment exists. He doesn’t always feel safe in class.
Caroline said they would get to this issue. The structure should al personal attack and not difference in opinion from reaching the Honor Board.
Ken wondered if it was not important enough to include a statement about not having a hearing for being an ignorant student.
Matt wondered how do Ken defined a safe space? Matt believe we should be looking to provide a safe space. If a comment was made in class, you would go to Dean of Faculty or Dean of Students, not Honor Board. It would probably end with the Dean. Anything that goes to the Honor Board has to be related to professional realm of ASOC. If someone makes a comment in cooler, that’s a personal statement, and it should go to the Dean of Students. If said something as GA Co-Chair, or as a KOXY DJ on a radio show, then a student could take that complaint directly to the Honor Board.
Caroline took time to outline the Academic Judicial Hearing. Honor Board jurors would serve on this panel instead of randomly selected students. All Honor Board jurors would serve on this council in a rotating fashion, 2 at a time. This ensures elected, not just randomly selected students are on the committees.
Finn Keough asked if the appointed Honor Board jurors would not be part of rotation. Matt noted that it’s meant to get rid of the randomness of selection. But, the appointed jurors of Academic issues and Diversity and Social Justice would serve in the rotation.
Finn wondered, if these jurors have a specific role, why would they rotate if they serve a specific purpose. Rachel Johnson reconciles that by ensuring that the two appointed jurors don’t serve together.
Kenna wondered why the Academic juror wouldn’t serve on academic panel all the time?
Ken admitted that he did not necessarily trust student elections to elect representative students. Kara noted that there would be strict criteria be an Honor Board juror so that the students wouldn’t be vastly different from the students at large. The Honor Board jurors might have a higher GPA.
Caroline asked if Ken’s concern is that student body would be “incapable” of choosing jurors that would represent students. Ken wondered if the Honor Board would be representative of student body as a whole. Caroline said that with 7 elected students, she believes there is a greater likelihood of having a good representation. Also, she clarified that their decisions are recommendations to the Dean of Students.
Kara acknowledged that Ken had a valid point. She wondered if the current Senate was event representative of entire student body. She believes that we need to put faith in people to elect students.
Matt noted that the selection of Honor Board in elections, student would know that this role gives students serious responsibility, especially regarding student policy violations. So should they be elected? How else do you get students into these roles. These students will know that this will be a serious responsibility.
David also noted that with 2 year terms, it allows students to grow into their position. They can become better. Can students think of 7 people that are worthy right now? In some sense, it is random from the beginning, but they will get better. Kara noted that these students would receive extensive training before they get started. There will also be another position in Student Life helping with the Honor Board, the Director of Community Standards and Campus Climate.
Matt also noted that the Academic Council has 2 faculty and staff as well.
Caroline then explained that the Honor Board Hearing would require a meeting of 7 jurors and SB president. When an ASOC complaint is filed, it can only be about an ASOC officials professional behavior, and must be a written charge with a petition of 50 signature for support. The 50 signature requirement is meant to limit/lessen the likelihood that a student would bring complaint because just they didn’t like the other person. They didn’t want the Honor Board to be a place for students to complain. The complaint must be a serious violation of rights.
Finn was concerned that requiring 50 students doesn’t protect those who may be in the minority position. If you have a complaint about how you were treated for a certain reason, you’d have to find 50 other people. He agreed that there needs to be a buffer, but was concerned about the signatures. Matt wondered if 25-30 would be better?
Ali echoed Finn concern. If it is a personal complaint that can be filed under professional heading, then seems like it could be a witch hunt. There are issues of validity.
Matt noted that one of the key aspects is also that all petitions have to be written with member of Honor Board. So if a student feels strongly enough, they take the time to sit with juror, who will excuse self from case, to help the student write petition. The big question is: When big things happen, how can we implement policy or structure to allow students to govern themselves so that ASOC is not suspended again? Honor Board will meet maybe three times a semester. They don’t envision it meeting every week for smaller offenses. They are concerned about how to make it fair for those being brought up on charges, which is where petitions came from.
Rozell suggested that with the signatures, there should be some signatures of administrators as well. It’s easy to find friends to sign a petition and they don’t even read it. Kara noted the concern that for people who don’t have access to administration or friends, there needs be another system. Rozell suggested a faculty or advisor could assist.
Patrice wondered what was meant about club members. Caroline noted that club leaders should be held accountable for their actions as club leaders.
Kara quickly interrupted the group because later in the meeting there would be a vote on who should serve on the CIENAP committee and Imad needs to leave the meeting now, so he would like to give his short speech.
Imad noted that he has been involved with the Preprofessional Advising and National Awards Office a lot because he is pre-med himself and he is applying for national awards. He thinks it’s disadvantageous to students that Oxy no longer has this office.
Back on the Honor Board discussion, Ken is concerned with protecting the privacy of those who come before Honor Board and he likes the idea of an administrator signature on the petition. He wants to pull it away from it getting into the community where a person may be considered guilty before their hearing which would have a negative impact on them.
Ali had a concern with the club leader issues. She gave an example: “Let’s say there’s a club like KKK Appreciation Club, if I’m radically against, what stops me from getting 50 signatures to cut down that club?” Caroline referred to Student Bill of Rights. The Student Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech that preserves mission statement. Thus, a club could not be struck down unless a student had their rights violated by that club. She also noted that HBAC would need to discuss petition situation.
Ali also wondered what would happen if Honor Board is not representative and there’s only one juror a student feels comfortable going to and then that juror has to take themselves out. If you have to go to juror first, could there be another valid, legitimate person instead of removing someone from the case who could advocate for you. Rory noted that the juror could advocate for the student during the case. Ali wondered what would happen if the vote came down to one person. Rory noted that the student needs to convince the Honor Board about the validity of their case.
Caroline noted that the HBAC hopes the training will run for an entire semester. Honor Board would receive training about how to handle cases objectively and create safe space.
Kara returned to the point about going to a juror or someone else. She noted that the point is to avoid broad and frivolous charges. So for her, a student going to a Juror or an administrator wouldn’t matter.
Someone suggested another position, such liaison to Honor Board.
David went back to Ken’s comment and offered an alternative regarding privacy. He suggested looking into FERPA. He also noted that the main sentence of the Honor Code is that no one will take unfair advantage of another member of the Oxy community. Peers hold them accountable. When someone knows they will be judged by everyone, not just 7, maybe makes sentence more legitimate.
Patrice returned to the club member issues, by changing the wording to club leader, it would avoid Ali’s first concern. Matt noted that with club leaders, HBAC was thinking almost entirely financial, so it’s totally possible to fine tune wording.
Rozell wondered if the Honor Board would have a person to put together the petitions, if that person would be part of Earic’s training? The group agreed it would.
Ken returned the 50 signature question. He reminded the group about Gary Condit, the politician that people thought killed someone. They didn’t find evidence to convict him, but he’s no longer engaged in politics. The 50 signatures would already be in place when someone was found innocent in a case. Caroline acknowledged that the 50 signatures idea needs to be refined. She wondered if anyone had any proposals. Ken suggested making it private, having to go through an administrator.
David wondered about the action after the case was over. What is the responsibility of Honor board to let people know about those who are found responsible? Matt noted that everything should be private, and the HBAC talked about having something like the Campus Safety report in the newspaper when names are left out. This would let students know what’s going on. David then clarified that this would limit students being judged by peers not in Honor Board.
Finn clarified that the hearings would be closed as well. He wondered how students would hold jurors accountable. Matt noted that there would be minutes taken of the hearings, but names of the students involved, not jurors, would be blacked out. Kara also noted that there should be a check with Senate and GA.
Ken asked if the decisions of the Honor Board are final? Caroline clarified that the only final decisions are regarding elected officials, club leaders, and Student Services Managers. Someone asked how it would work with Student Services Managers. Caroline noted that the Honor Board could have power to give probation.
Matt wondered what people thought about decisions regarding Senate and Senators actions being final. Ken did have a problem with it, but he wanted to address another issues.
He’s currently the VP of Greek organization, what if they haze recruits. Normally, that would go through Ryan, Becky, Jonathan, and all the way up to Dean Avery. Then, if there’s no safe space for that group, then the decision would go through Honor Board, and their decision would be final. Matt clarified that the main focus on clubs was funding issues, not anything like that. Matt noted that this might be separate from ASOC, and would be under the Dean’s control.
Rachel noted that the scope of punishment in the Honor Board’s control might focus on required diversity training, or learning the effects of other training
Ken wanted more information regarding violations of funding. Caroline felt this was more cut and dry—if a club leader/member is embezzling, they need to be held accountable. In those cases, regarding mishandling and misdistribution of money, the decision would be final.
It was agreed that the HBAC needs to continue to have discussions about hazing, and other non-financial related questions.
Matt noted that the HBAC was really focusing on student officials and how to hold those students accountable. He also said that the HBAC would recommend that each Student Service pass by-laws, so they can be held accountable.
Ken wondered if this was creating a contract for Student Services and determining what they do. Rory clarified that this would all be within the Student Bill of Rights. Kara noted that these by-laws would be crafted for each Student Service with each Student Service head, keeping in mind what students want.
Ken thought that this might connect to the conversation on Monday during the Senate meeting. Caroline agreed that the connection could be there, but she also clarified Ken’s concern—is this creating puppet strings from Senate to Honor Board to control Student Services. The Student Bill of Rights would supersede all of this. This is not a document created as part of constitution. Students of Oxy have these rights.
Ken clarified that this would provide protection for Student Services so that Senate cannot say “Hey yearbook, throw a party.”
Kara noted that the Student Services would have to represent all students. For instance, the Bengal Bus can’t pick and choose who they are serving. This all falls under the Student Bill of Rights. She also noted that the original idea of this student government is to separate Senate from Student Services. The issue is how Student Services are told that the job is not being done without stepping on toes.
Ali said that she thought this would add legitimacy to Honor Board. She wondered what safeguards were in place for the Student Services. If, for instance, a student said, “I don’t like KOXY, they don’t play the music I want, you’re not representing me.” A bigger example is PB. Rory noted that it is possible to do your own radio show, but if they denied you a radio show, then that’s a Student Bill of Rights issue. Matt also that a case would go to Honor Board if, for instance, PB did not help a club when that club when through effective means of requesting help.
Kara reminded students that they have to put faith in jurors; that these issues are about jurors making tough decisions. Caroline noted that in the first offense, it would be unlikely that jurors would choose to get rid of a Manager. The sanctions should not just be punitive, but an effort to help Student Services get better. For instance, Honor Board could put Student Services on probation for 3 months.
Ken wondered what would happened after that probation. Rory said that after three months, it’s up to the Student Service Manager to show what they/the department has done. They should present to Honor Board. Kara noted that they need suggestions for what to do after that probation period.
Ken did not think there was much that could be done. He also wondered what would happen if he’s the president of club and while at a party, he calls someone a fascist conservative. HBAC members clarified that it would be a personal issue, so the club itself would not be in jeopardy.
Matt closed up this part of the meeting. He also encouraged people to continue to provide feedback.
Jen suggested that during elections, HBAC formalize a formal question and answer session, which would be more formal than tabling on the quad. This is especially important since the jurors have much more power.
Caroline said that information sessions for any candidate who is thinking of running would be held by HBAC. She also noted that it is imperative that everyone know the Honor Board is a very serious commitment. The responsibilities are bigger than they are for Senate. She agreed at that a public forum is important.
Jen also asked if administration or Senate could shut down honor board or pull its power. No firm answer was given. There seemed to be a consensus that this would not happen.
Ali wondered if the Honor Board would be worked out by end of the semester. HBAC answered with a resounding “Yes.” Matt noted that this process had been more work than they thought it would be.
CIENAP
Kara changed topics to the CIENAP (Committee for the Investigation of the Elimination of National Awards & Pre-Professional Advising) resolution, which states that the GA must elect three students and one senator. The students interested are Imad Khan and Jake Stevens. The Senator interested is Patrice Hall.
Matt noted that the committee will meet on Friday at 2:30 with Dean Frank, who is in charge of National Awards and Pre-professional Advising.
There was some concern over the ability to have a vote, due to quorum issues, but it was determined that the GA did in fact have a quorum during the meeting.
Kara reminded the group that Imad Khan gave his short speech earlier.
Jake Stevens noted that he has been working on this issue since the Office was eliminated. He has already met extensively with interested parties. He is interested to find out what really happened. He also noted that some administrators were upset that students have been asking questions and he’s concerned that things were happening under the radar.
Patrice Hall noted that she has worked with Joanne Wall and Professor Caldwell on national awards applications. She also noted that there is a separation of whether people are happy she’s gone or not. Patrice would like to find out what can be done for students right now. How does the institution help students prepare for these prestigious awards and prevent them from missing out on the chance?
Dane Muckler is also going to be part of the committee since he worked on resolution.
The Co-Chairs called for a vote to elect these 4 students to CIENAP. Vote passed: 16-1-0