Council backs plan to revise judicial code

University Council endorsed revisions of the judicial system yesterday, but advised the provost to appoint another committee to continue examining the judicial charter. The Council also endorsed the report of the Committee to Diversify Locust Walk in a two-hour meeting marked by sarcastic banter between members and student complaints that their voices are being stifled. Debate on the judicial charter centered around the issue of splitting the role of the Judicial Inquiry Officer into a "prosecutor" and "settler." The charter revisions presented yesterday to Council do not provide for the bifurcation of the JIO. Instead, it calls for the JIO to indicate clearly when the hearing stage of an investigation ends and when the settlement stage begins. The revisions also say the code must be reviewed at least every five years. Mechanical Engineering professor David Pope, who chaired the oversight committee, presented the report, emphasizing that the oversight committee had unanimously approved it. But student leaders on Council criticized the committee that drew up the revisions. They gave several reasons why they felt the JIO should be split -- the main one being to protect the objectivity of the officer. Council members debated the bifurcation issue at some length, with many members supporting installing a new administrator who would investigate complaints and to serve as a mediator. Under this plan, the JIO would enter at the prosecutorial stage of the case. Students emphasized that the University would not have to hire a new person to fill the role, saying that a current administrator could be the investigator. "If anyone wants to consult with me about who I don't think is doing enough work, I'd be happy to let you know," Graduate and Professional Student Assembly Chairperson Michael Goldstein said sarcastically. Eventually, the Council agreed that the revisions were better than the current code, but felt that another committee should be set up to deal with concerns raised since the report was released. Graduate student Elizabeth Hunt, who has been vocal of her criticism of the intact JIO position, said after the meeting that she is hopeful that the charter can be changed appropriately. Some of the most heated debate came over a proposal to add three faculty members to the Safety and Security Committee and two faculty to the Book Store Committee. Students spoke vehemently against the proposal, saying that the plan would dilute student voices on the committees. Several faculty members said that the additions are necessary because faculty-student ratios are different on each committee. The Safety and Security Committee proposal passed in a close 22 to 18 vote, while the Book Store Committee change was tabled until next month's meeting. The Locust Walk report was adopted overwhelmingly, but not before many students criticized various part of the study. United Minorities Council Chairperson You-Lee Kim compared the report to being promised a good meal and getting something mediocre. "I felt like someone who had gone to a nice restaurant, ordered a marble cake from the best chef and was served a vanilla cake with chocolate sprinkles," Kim said. Others, particularly graduate student representatives, agreed with Kim's characterization of the Locust Walk report as a broken promise and several voted against endorsing it. Pope, who was also the co-chair of the committee, told Kim he was sorry she was disappointed, but he did not feel a promise had been made to the University community. Goldstein got another jab in against President Sheldon Hackney by criticizing who was included on the committee and what it was charged with doing. "The committee did a very good job with a limited charge and a poorly thought-out membership," he said. Discussion of almost all the meeting's issues -- from Locust Walk to the JIO -- focused on students' complaints that they do not have representation or voice on campus. Council members also endorsed the revisions of the Code of Academic Integrity and the Guidelines on Open Expression with relatively little debate.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.