President David Skorton has accepted the revised Campus Code of Conduct submitted to him by the University Assembly (UA) on April 25. The Cornell Board of Trustees will consider adoption of the new code at its meeting May 23.

The UA approved the revised code following action by its Codes and Judicial Committee (CJC) addressing those sections of the code that Skorton said needed amending further.

"I appreciate the many hours that members of the assembly and its Codes and Judicial Committee have volunteered to simplify the code and to make it more accountable to and in alignment with the educational interests at the heart of the university's mission," Skorton said in his acceptance letter to Rodney Orme, the employee chair of the UA.

In his final column of the academic year in Wednesday's Cornell Daily Sun, Skorton stated, "This day marks the end of a long and sometimes difficult process. It is a good day for shared governance on our campus."

The UA had voted 14-2 in favor of the revisions following a 90-minute discussion at its April 23 meeting in Clark Hall. The revised code was the result of 30 months of debate that eventually involved representatives of Cornell's central administration as well as feedback from the UA and other members of the campus community.

"The committee members as a whole feel that the changes show a united effort to achieve the best possible code for the community," the CJC stated in a memo to the assembly.

The CJC and the UA plan to monitor the effects of the changes, and will make further changes to the code as needed.

In February, Skorton asked members of his senior staff to work with the UA leadership on further code revision after he had responded to a revision the UA had approved and presented to him in November 2007.

Codes committee asks for increased financial support support for judicial offices

The Codes and Judicial Committee (CJC) of the University Assembly (UA) has requested that the Office of the Judicial Administrator (JA) and the Judicial Codes Counselor (JCC) receive additional funding to cover their increasing workloads.

"Both offices are understaffed and do not have sufficient office space to conduct their business," the CJC said in a memo accompanying the revised Campus Code of Conduct it submitted to the UA April 22. "The lack of permanent space is particularly crucial for the smooth operation of the office of the JCC."

The CJC also asked that the University Counsel's office participate in instructions given to hearing and review boards at the start of the academic year, and that additional law students and a designated law faculty adviser assist the JCC and JA.

"As a new code is implemented, all of these changes will assist in the overall judicial process on the campus and will help make the new code more effective," the CJC memo stated.

The assembly passed the requests on to President David Skorton, who noted in his letter to the UA accepting the revised code that he has asked his staff to study the request to allocate the additional resources to the JA and JCC offices.

Three areas of the revised code remained unresolved among assembly members after discussion at the March UA meeting, and the continuing work of revision was given to a subcommittee of CJC and administration members.

In his April 30 Sun column, Skorton continued, "It seems fitting to end this year on a positive note as the debate on the code has come to equilibrium. Although at times the process has revealed lack of trust and strong disagreement among the several groups with an interest in this very important document and process, I believe recent months have reflected a 'textbook example' of shared governance at Cornell."

"It's an extraordinary opportunity to come together on what I think is a very reasonable compromise," retiring Dean of the University Faculty Charles Walcott said during discussion before the vote at the April 23 UA meeting. Walcott had participated in discussions of the code with the CJC and the UA.

One section Skorton and the UA differed on concerned the appropriateness of penalties in serious cases and when the imposed penalties may be changed. The new revision now states that after a review board process is completed, an appeal may be made to the president to change a sanction for violations involving violence.

Regarding the role of an adviser or attorney in judicial proceedings, the proposed code ensures the right to counsel, but attorneys may only speak for their clients in hearings that may lead to suspension or dismissal from the university.

On the third issue, the "clear and convincing evidence" standard has been retained in the new code.

These latest revisions addressed both the UA's and Skorton's previous concerns. As an example of how the revised code now meets his concerns, Skorton noted in his Sun column that "more extensive involvement of third-year law students and the appointment of more judicial codes counselors were fruits of the continuing collaboration that resulted in the latest revision, as was an appeal mechanism regarding sanctions."

"As an advocate of shared governance, I would like to commend the University Assembly and the Codes and Judicial Committee for the work they have done over the past year," said Tommy Bruce, vice president for university communications. "It bodes well for the future."

UA member Dan Brown also commented on the review process: "I wanted to thank the administration for honoring shared governance -- not all administrations do."