March 31, 1972



            RATIONALE: At first glance it may appear logical and meritor-
            ious to broaden the applicability of the specified rights of the
            accused so as to include the Residence Halls Judicial System and
            the counseling process, as well as the University Judicial System
            for which section 3. 31 is written. However, a careful, detailed
            reading of the subsections of 3.31 (i.e., 3.311 through 3.319)
            reveals that most or all of those subsections are specifically
            designed for the University Judicial System and that to attempt
            to apply them literally to residence halls and to the counseling
            process can result in great confusion and difficulty.

            For example, section 3. 319 provides for "the right to either an
            open or closed hearing". This would allow for the interpretation
            (unintended by the Committee, I am sure) that a student may insist
            on an "open hearing" when involved in the counseling process with
            the Dean of Students. Section 3.319 also refers to the Hearing
            Officer; but the Hearing Officer has meaning only in relation to
            the University Judicial System, because the Residence Halls J-Boards
            (18 in number) do not have hearing officers.

            With reference to the section's applicability to the Residence Halls
            Judicial System: that system operates on a more informal basis
            than does the University Judicial Systern; and I believe the proposed
            revision of 3.31 would have the effect of formalizing the residence
            halls process unduly. To be more specific, it is clear that sub-
            sections 3.318 and 3.319 should not be made to apply literally to the
            Residence Halls Judicial System.

            Another example: several of the subsections of section 3. 31 use
            the term "judicial agency". The Dean of Students Office is not
            currently considered a "judicial agency", but adoption of the
            proposed revision of section 3. 31 could result in the contrary
            interpretation and thus result in undesirable limitations on the
            effectiveness of the Dean of Students Office. To be more specific,
            if the Dean of Students Office were considered to be a judicial agency
            for. the purposes of interpreting section 3. 31, think of the mischief
            that could be created through a literal application of subsections
            3.313, 3.314, 3.315, 3.317, 3.318 (!), and 3. 319.


B. Proposed revisions which should be amended.

    The Committee's proposed revisions outlined below should be amended by the Board,
    for the reasons given:



Ppe 4