Last Wednesday, the Governance Commission hosted an open forum to discuss issues surrounding the student judicial system at RPI and hear recommendations for changes from the campus community on ways to change or improve the current structure. It was attended primarily by members of the Judicial Board, including Chair Matt Ezovski ’06 and Vice-Chair Suba Ganesan ’06, but members of the Student Senate and Dean of Students Mark Smith were also in attendance.
“The purpose of this meeting was to get input from more than just people on the Governance Commission,” said Grand Marshal and Chair of the Commission Mike Dillon ’05. “This is pretty much an idea session on the judicial system.”
The meeting covered diverse topics throughout its two hours, starting with the role that the Dean of Students Office played in the system. Senator Bob Fishel ’07 took the floor first, saying that he wants “to see more student autonomy in the judicial system,” starting with limiting the role of DOSO’s senior judicial administrator, who is DOSO’s primary contact with the board. “I feel there is more administration involvement in the student judicial system than is ideal,” he said, citing a hypothetical case in which a new SJA who is unfamiliar with the system could try to subvert the board’s independence.
Ganesan and Smith objected to his suggestions, however, with Ganesan arguing that the J-Board uses Associate Dean Travis Apgar (the current SJA) as a resource and that the role he plays is very limited.
“Students are given far and away the latitude,” Smith continued. “[The SJA] is really a technical advisor that ensures continuity from case to case and aids students.” He said that it would be impossible for an SJA to subvert the J-Board because he thought neither the board nor the Student Senate would allow it to happen.
The meeting also touched on the role the student judicial advisors play in helping students through the judicial process. At present, these advisors are tasked merely with helping the students along in the process, instead of acting on a student’s behalf as a lawyer would. The meeting attendees discussed increasing their role to that of a lawyer, but Ganesan pointed out that in hearings the board’s direct interactions with the student play a crucial role, and all agreed that putting a lawyer’s pressure onto a student would be unfair.
The primary focus of the meeting then shifted to the Faculty Academic Board, which is currently tasked with dealing with grade conflicts between a student and a professor. The FAB is comprised of five professors appointed by the Faculty Senate, but those appointments have not been made recently and the members of the Commission regard the FAB as defunct. A per-school ombudsman for grading was proposed by Senator Mike Goldenberg ’07, while Julie Arrighi ’07 suggested keeping the current board but appointing one professor from each school as well as alternates in the event of a bias. The discussion then turned to whether any of these suggestions were appropriate to be incorporated into the Union Constitution, which was the focus of the meeting, rather than the bylaws of the FAB.
The last large topic of the meeting was the appointment of students to the Review Board, which is the body tasked with hearing appeals from the Judicial Board, Greek Judicial Board, and Faculty Academic Board. As previously reported, the appointments to this year’s board did spark a debate and currently the two student alternate positions are unfilled; the selection process in particular was discussed at the forum. While the appointees for the Judicial Board are vetted by an established committee and process, the Review Board has no such process in place, with each Grand Marshal deciding how to pick their appointments, though the Board’s bylaws state that these shall be made “upon recommendation of the Review Board Chair (if already appointed) and Senior Judicial Administrator.”
Those at the forum discussed developing such a system for the Review Board, as well as what some saw as the potential problem of DOSO stalling the appointments of students who did not vote in certain ways if that department is involved in the process. Smith said that this would not be a problem, because DOSO offers only suggestions, and that the Review Board is “far too valuable to allow it to be compromised” in such a way. The group then discussed how to cast a “wider net” to draw more people into the Review Board, including sending e-mails to club officers or contacting E-Board Club ICA representatives.
The Governance Commission was organized by the Student Senate last fall to examine the Union Constitution and propose any changes to it that could improve student government at RPI. It is chaired by Grand Marshal Mike Dillon and its members include students from every branch of student government and greek life.
