David Truetzel selected as new Committee Chair, discusses plans for future
Cameron Feller, Cavalier Daily Associate Editor
Published: Monday, March 23 2009
The Honor Committee held its annual retreat this weekend, during which the newly elected Committee worked to plan its year-long term and name its new chair and vice chairs.
Third-year Commerce School student David Truetzel was named the Committee’s new chair, replacing current Honor Chair Jess Huang.
“Trusting me to serve as their representative to the wider University community is obviously a huge honor,” Truetzel said.
Truetzel, who has been involved with honor since his first year, said “everyone was really excited” at the retreat for the new administration. The retiring Honor Committee takes time at the retreat to discuss the past year’s activities, as well as to prepare the new Committee for the upcoming year, Huang said.
Truetzel said one of his main goals as chair is to “work with a lot of different, relevant groups at a wide level,” like faculty, students, administrators and the Charlottesville area as a whole.
“What came up a lot amongst all of the candidates is this idea of the aspiration side of honor at the University,” and of having that side pervade the whole University community, he said.
Third-year College student Rob Atkinson, who will replace Ryann Burke as the new Vice Chair for Education, also said he hopes to extend the Committee’s outreach efforts.
“A direction I’d like to take is to get a lot of different perspectives outside of honor,” Atkinson said, adding that he would like to try to reach groups that typically are not connected with the Committee. He said he hopes to do this by meeting with organizations before the end of the school year so that the Committee can “start on the right foot in the fall when we get back.”
During the coming year, the new Committee hopes to “incorporate [these organizations’] views and their opinions in formulating the education initiative,” Atkinson said.
He said he also intends to build on the projects and goals Burke worked toward during the past year, including distinguishing between “the perceptions and the realties” of the honor education system.
Atkinson said the Committee’s education pool is “not always seen in the best light,” but noted that he hopes to improve upon Burke’s efforts and make the whole University community aware of these “realities.”
Third-year College student Alex Carroll, who will replace Sophie Staples as the new Vice Chair for Trials, also said education has become an increasingly pertinent issue for the Committee.
“It is something we all want to focus on in one way or another,” Carroll said.
Carroll said in addition to these “big picture ideas that every committee comes in with,” like educational efforts, she also wants to work on more institutionally-based, albeit smaller and more specific, initiatives.
Some of these initiatives include improving jury panel diversity and composition as well as increasing trial processing efficiency.
Overall, current and future Committee members said they were pleased with the retreat and the new Committee’s elections.
“We were all pleasantly surprised at how well we interacted,” Carroll said. “[We are] already generating ideas, already connecting with each other, and our ideas were overlapping.”
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Honor Explanation
Sophie Staples
Sent: Tuesday, March 17 2009
Monday’s lead editorial (“10 days to leave (admitting guilt),” 3/16/2009) reflected several misunderstandings about the by-law proposal discussed by the Honor Committee. First, this proposal does not consolidate power in the hands of one individual. Instead, the language in the amendment explicitly allows both the Vice Chair for Trials and Committee chair — the two Committee members with the most knowledge about the trial schedule — to have input in this decision. This is no significant difference from the current system, which places this responsibility in the hands of two Committee members and a pre-trial coordinator assigned at the discretion of the Vice Chair for Trials.
This will not only expedite the process, but will also provide consistency that is lacking under the current arrangement. Moreover, The Cavalier Daily is mistaken to suggest that this proposal will increase the Committee’s reliance on e-mail correspondence. Official correspondence is sent via e-mail as well as certified mail, in order to notify students as quickly and conveniently for them as possible. Each accused student is also assigned an advisor, who often meets with the student in person to help the student write his or her trial request letter and answer any questions he or she might have. This proposal in no way limits the Committee’s communication with accused students to e-mail. In fact, by streamlining the process, it will likely decrease the opportunity for miscommunication, not increase it. Finally, under the current system, a student is considered to have left admitting guilt if he or she does not request a trial within the ten day period. This proposal does not change that, but simply requires that a student select an available date or propose a viable and reasonable alternative within the already existing ten day deadline. This amendment would not remove the honor system’s existing safeguards, and would in fact benefit accused students: it provides them an opportunity to request a different date if they are not available on the dates provided to them, and will prevent confusion by explicitly outlining the procedure for handling such situations in the by-laws.
Sent: Tuesday, March 17 2009
Monday’s lead editorial (“10 days to leave (admitting guilt),” 3/16/2009) reflected several misunderstandings about the by-law proposal discussed by the Honor Committee. First, this proposal does not consolidate power in the hands of one individual. Instead, the language in the amendment explicitly allows both the Vice Chair for Trials and Committee chair — the two Committee members with the most knowledge about the trial schedule — to have input in this decision. This is no significant difference from the current system, which places this responsibility in the hands of two Committee members and a pre-trial coordinator assigned at the discretion of the Vice Chair for Trials.
This will not only expedite the process, but will also provide consistency that is lacking under the current arrangement. Moreover, The Cavalier Daily is mistaken to suggest that this proposal will increase the Committee’s reliance on e-mail correspondence. Official correspondence is sent via e-mail as well as certified mail, in order to notify students as quickly and conveniently for them as possible. Each accused student is also assigned an advisor, who often meets with the student in person to help the student write his or her trial request letter and answer any questions he or she might have. This proposal in no way limits the Committee’s communication with accused students to e-mail. In fact, by streamlining the process, it will likely decrease the opportunity for miscommunication, not increase it. Finally, under the current system, a student is considered to have left admitting guilt if he or she does not request a trial within the ten day period. This proposal does not change that, but simply requires that a student select an available date or propose a viable and reasonable alternative within the already existing ten day deadline. This amendment would not remove the honor system’s existing safeguards, and would in fact benefit accused students: it provides them an opportunity to request a different date if they are not available on the dates provided to them, and will prevent confusion by explicitly outlining the procedure for handling such situations in the by-laws.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
10 days to leave (admitting guilt)
The Honor Committee’s proposal will increase efficiency but should also include protections
Published: Tuesday, March 17 2009
Next week, the Honor Committee will vote on a proposal to increase the expediency with which honor charges are handled. This proposal will increase the efficiency of the honor trial process but also lacks safeguards necessary to protect students. The Committee is right to continually work toward a faster trial process but should not overlook potential problems in its efforts to do so.
The notification of formal accusation of an honor offense includes five to six dates, selected by the Vice Chair for Trials, on which a trial can be held if the student should desire one. The student must select one of these dates or notify the Committee if he cannot make any of the given dates within 10 days. It seems unlikely that a student would not be able to make one of six dates for something as important as an honor trial, and Vice Chair for Trials Sophie Staples pointed out that this change is aimed at those students who request a trial but intentionally try to delay it. Currently a student can do this by submitting a request for a trial but not submitting a date for which he is available within the 10 day trial request period. In this case, the Vice Chair for Trials selects a date and if the student would like to change this date, a pre-trial panel must be formed, which Staples said takes at least a week. The proposed change will allow the Vice Chair for Trials to work with the student directly if he would like to request a different date, making the process much more efficient. Additionally, should a student prove unable to establish a trial date within 10 days of his initial notification, he would be assumed to leave admitting guilt.
This proposal puts a lot of power in the hands of the Vice Chair for Trials. Staples noted, “The Vice Chair for Trials has the ability to determine what is a good excuse,” as well as the best ability to find new dates on which a trial could be held. Staples also said if a student was unable to respond within 10 days for a legitimate reason, the Committee would be understanding of that. The proposed result of not specifying a viable trial date, however, makes it much more important that the Committee ensure such a guarantee exists. While a student can appeal the status of leaving admitting guilt, it is a weighty consequence that should not be taken lightly.
If a student was unavailable for trial on one of the suggested dates, the Vice Chair for Trials should instead attempt to meet with the student to work out a date. In person, it is easier to judge if a student has a legitimate conflict or if he is merely trying to delay a trial unnecessarily. Such weighty decisions cannot be made based solely on e-mail correspondence. If a person fails to respond to the e-mail and does not have a good reason for doing so, it is acceptable to declare he has decided to leave admitting guilt. Miscommunication, however, is always possible, and a face-to-face meeting will reduce this possibility greatly.
By looking for ways to make the trial process more efficient, the Committee is fulfilling its obligation to serve the student body. The Committee, however, should reevaluate this proposal to ensure appropriate safeguards, such as meeting with the student, so a student is not declared to have left admitting guilt without an intention to do so.
Published: Tuesday, March 17 2009
Next week, the Honor Committee will vote on a proposal to increase the expediency with which honor charges are handled. This proposal will increase the efficiency of the honor trial process but also lacks safeguards necessary to protect students. The Committee is right to continually work toward a faster trial process but should not overlook potential problems in its efforts to do so.
The notification of formal accusation of an honor offense includes five to six dates, selected by the Vice Chair for Trials, on which a trial can be held if the student should desire one. The student must select one of these dates or notify the Committee if he cannot make any of the given dates within 10 days. It seems unlikely that a student would not be able to make one of six dates for something as important as an honor trial, and Vice Chair for Trials Sophie Staples pointed out that this change is aimed at those students who request a trial but intentionally try to delay it. Currently a student can do this by submitting a request for a trial but not submitting a date for which he is available within the 10 day trial request period. In this case, the Vice Chair for Trials selects a date and if the student would like to change this date, a pre-trial panel must be formed, which Staples said takes at least a week. The proposed change will allow the Vice Chair for Trials to work with the student directly if he would like to request a different date, making the process much more efficient. Additionally, should a student prove unable to establish a trial date within 10 days of his initial notification, he would be assumed to leave admitting guilt.
This proposal puts a lot of power in the hands of the Vice Chair for Trials. Staples noted, “The Vice Chair for Trials has the ability to determine what is a good excuse,” as well as the best ability to find new dates on which a trial could be held. Staples also said if a student was unable to respond within 10 days for a legitimate reason, the Committee would be understanding of that. The proposed result of not specifying a viable trial date, however, makes it much more important that the Committee ensure such a guarantee exists. While a student can appeal the status of leaving admitting guilt, it is a weighty consequence that should not be taken lightly.
If a student was unavailable for trial on one of the suggested dates, the Vice Chair for Trials should instead attempt to meet with the student to work out a date. In person, it is easier to judge if a student has a legitimate conflict or if he is merely trying to delay a trial unnecessarily. Such weighty decisions cannot be made based solely on e-mail correspondence. If a person fails to respond to the e-mail and does not have a good reason for doing so, it is acceptable to declare he has decided to leave admitting guilt. Miscommunication, however, is always possible, and a face-to-face meeting will reduce this possibility greatly.
By looking for ways to make the trial process more efficient, the Committee is fulfilling its obligation to serve the student body. The Committee, however, should reevaluate this proposal to ensure appropriate safeguards, such as meeting with the student, so a student is not declared to have left admitting guilt without an intention to do so.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Honor considers two legislative proposals
Committee discusses bylaw, constitutional change that would give students 10 days to select trial date, alter jury selection
Cameron Feller, Cavalier Daily Associate Editor
Published: Monday, March 16 2009
The Honor Committee last night discussed two legislative changes respectively intended to incentivize the expediency of accused students’ trial date requests and ease the selection of jury members for some high-profile trials.
The first proposal affects how a student chooses his or her trial date. Under the current bylaws, when a student is accused of an honor offense, a notice of accusation by the Investigative Panel is provided by e-mail and certified mail. In that notice, a student is provided with about six possible trial dates, Vice Chair for Trials Sophie Staples said.
A student is then expected to choose a trial date from these dates and alert the Vice Chair of Trials of his or her preferences for date, counsel and jury panel, and whether he or she wants a closed or open trial. If a student requests a trial but does not specify the details, then the Vice Chair for Trials decides the details, Staples said.
Under the new proposal, the Committee would continue to provide a list of at least five proposed trial dates. The proposal creates a 10-day period after the notice has been delivered, called the “trial request period.” If a student does not choose one of the dates provided by the Committee, or does not provide an excuse deemed legitimate by the Vice Chair of Trials or Committee Chair during the trial request period for a delay, then he or she would be expected to leave admitting guilt, or “LAG,” to the offense.
“It’s important to keep in mind that this is not trying to LAG students with legitimate excuses,” Staples said.
Instead, it is an attempt to prevent unnecessary trial delays by students and create an increased incentive to designate a trial date as soon as possible, Staples said.
“The point is that we’ve discussed throughout committee of this overriding problem to want to have your trial sooner rather than later,” Staples said, adding that this amendment should help address the issue.
Committee Chair Jess Huang said the bylaw change would also prevent unnecessary drains on Committee resources because it eliminates the need to prepare for trials that will not happen. In this way, the amendment should help “streamline the process,” Huang added.
Though Staples believes the change will help relieve trial delays, other problems still remain and must be addressed, she said.
“I think that in order to have any real substantial effect on that we would need to address credit accrual,” Staples said, noting that a discussion needs to take place about whether students should lose academic credit for the semester during their accusation. “This committee did not show much interest” in the issue, Staples said, adding that she hopes pressure will be put on the future committee by the public to deal with these other issues.
The proposal will be voted on at the Committee’s next meeting, Huang said.
The second amendment the Committee discussed last night deals with jury panels and would alter the Committee’s constitution.
Under the current system, an honor trial jury panel must include “at least two panel members from the school of the accused.” The change would modify the honor jury panel to include the two members “whenever possible.”
Huang said in a situation in which a case is from a very small school and is very public, it is very difficult “to guarantee two students from that school” to be on the panel who have no knowledge of the case.
So far, no such instances have occurred, Huang said, but this new amendment would “protect us legally if there ever were such a case.”
The change would still require the Vice Chair of Trials “to do everything in his or her power” — such as calling the entire school — to find two members for the panel, Huang said.
Because this change is a constitutional one, it must be voted upon by the entire student body. The incoming Committee will undertake this task, Huang said.
“We’re going to have the language ready and set to go” for the new committee, she noted.
The current Committee will hold its last meeting April 5, and the new Committee will take charge the following day,
Cameron Feller, Cavalier Daily Associate Editor
Published: Monday, March 16 2009
The Honor Committee last night discussed two legislative changes respectively intended to incentivize the expediency of accused students’ trial date requests and ease the selection of jury members for some high-profile trials.
The first proposal affects how a student chooses his or her trial date. Under the current bylaws, when a student is accused of an honor offense, a notice of accusation by the Investigative Panel is provided by e-mail and certified mail. In that notice, a student is provided with about six possible trial dates, Vice Chair for Trials Sophie Staples said.
A student is then expected to choose a trial date from these dates and alert the Vice Chair of Trials of his or her preferences for date, counsel and jury panel, and whether he or she wants a closed or open trial. If a student requests a trial but does not specify the details, then the Vice Chair for Trials decides the details, Staples said.
Under the new proposal, the Committee would continue to provide a list of at least five proposed trial dates. The proposal creates a 10-day period after the notice has been delivered, called the “trial request period.” If a student does not choose one of the dates provided by the Committee, or does not provide an excuse deemed legitimate by the Vice Chair of Trials or Committee Chair during the trial request period for a delay, then he or she would be expected to leave admitting guilt, or “LAG,” to the offense.
“It’s important to keep in mind that this is not trying to LAG students with legitimate excuses,” Staples said.
Instead, it is an attempt to prevent unnecessary trial delays by students and create an increased incentive to designate a trial date as soon as possible, Staples said.
“The point is that we’ve discussed throughout committee of this overriding problem to want to have your trial sooner rather than later,” Staples said, adding that this amendment should help address the issue.
Committee Chair Jess Huang said the bylaw change would also prevent unnecessary drains on Committee resources because it eliminates the need to prepare for trials that will not happen. In this way, the amendment should help “streamline the process,” Huang added.
Though Staples believes the change will help relieve trial delays, other problems still remain and must be addressed, she said.
“I think that in order to have any real substantial effect on that we would need to address credit accrual,” Staples said, noting that a discussion needs to take place about whether students should lose academic credit for the semester during their accusation. “This committee did not show much interest” in the issue, Staples said, adding that she hopes pressure will be put on the future committee by the public to deal with these other issues.
The proposal will be voted on at the Committee’s next meeting, Huang said.
The second amendment the Committee discussed last night deals with jury panels and would alter the Committee’s constitution.
Under the current system, an honor trial jury panel must include “at least two panel members from the school of the accused.” The change would modify the honor jury panel to include the two members “whenever possible.”
Huang said in a situation in which a case is from a very small school and is very public, it is very difficult “to guarantee two students from that school” to be on the panel who have no knowledge of the case.
So far, no such instances have occurred, Huang said, but this new amendment would “protect us legally if there ever were such a case.”
The change would still require the Vice Chair of Trials “to do everything in his or her power” — such as calling the entire school — to find two members for the panel, Huang said.
Because this change is a constitutional one, it must be voted upon by the entire student body. The incoming Committee will undertake this task, Huang said.
“We’re going to have the language ready and set to go” for the new committee, she noted.
The current Committee will hold its last meeting April 5, and the new Committee will take charge the following day,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
