GF tangled in charter dispute

Although the first General Faculty meeting of the year is supposed to be a celebration and gathering of new and old professors, Tuesday's assembly centered on a serious policy discussion of faculty governance. The General Faculty debated a proposed restructuring of the student organization chartering process that would sever any General Faculty involvement.

The proposed changes from Student Senate and the Student Life Committee would restructure the student organization chartering process, most notably cutting out direct General Faculty involvement. The proposal, authored by two former student senators, senior Sarah Fineberg and senior Sarah Stein Greenberg, looks to streamline the lengthy process by which budding student organizations receive charter approval. The recommended changes will also shift the approval process away from the General Faculty and place the burden directly on appointed student representatives.

Recommendations from long range planning reports dating back to 1997 spurred the intended changes. The proposal was originally slated for review by the General Faculty at its May 18 meeting, but was pushed aside by a heated debate over changes to Oberlin's sexual offense policy and rescheduled for the first General Faculty meeting of this academic year.

The proposal states that Student Senate's organizational coordinator must approve a new organization's initial charter within three weeks of first submission. The organizational coordinator will offer assistance to the new group in drafting its charter.

After that, a senate subcommittee, the Eligibility and Review Board will review the charter for approval. Six members of senate will make up the EARB, and will be advised by the dean of students. The EARB will have the final say in approving the charter, and must offer a decision on approval within three weeks of the first endorsement by Senate's organizational coordinator.

This new proposal not only places a time cap of six weeks on the charter approval process, but also allows for a new grievance procedure. Any member of the College community may submit a formal complaint against an organization if the organization violates its charter. The EARB will evaluate grievances. If the EARB finds the group in violation, it can publicly censure the organization or sanction the group and suspend its privileges.

Finally, the proposal calls for an annual renewal of each organization's charter. If significant changes have been made to the group's charter, the EARB must approve the changes. Otherwise, the Student Union Office will renew an organization that submits a charter without any significant changes.

The proposed changes cut out the involvement of both the Student Life Committee and the General Faculty. The current procedure calls for both bodies to ratify a charter in order for full approval. With the new procedure, the only faculty involvement would come from the EARB advisor, the dean of students.

College President Nancy Dye made a pitch for the proposal before opening the discussion up to the General Faculty. "We have an unusual chartering process. It's a very cumbersome process and takes a long time," said Dye. Dye praised the proposal for consolidating the decision making process, as well as giving students more autonomy and accountability for their own organizations.

In addition to Dye's support, the General Faculty Council voted unanimously to approve the proposal before passing it along to the General Faculty. Representing last year's GFC, Associate Professor of History Len Smith listed a handful of reasons why he and the GFC support the changes.

Smith pointed towards the current, lengthy procedure of charter approval, the fact that the General Faculty can still step in and revoke the charter of any organization if necessary, and that Oberlin is unique in its faculty involvement in charter approval. "We were told no one does anything like what Oberlin does," said Smith. Smith and the GFC also felt that students should be primarily responsible for approving and monitoring their own organizations.

Further support came from Associate Professor of Theater Jane Armitage. "I really do believe this is something that should be in the students' hands," said Armitage. Armitage spent many years on the SLC, and claimed that two-thirds of the SLC's time is spent examining charters.

Fresh from his sabbatical in Seattle, Professor of History Ronald Kahn led a series of veteran professors in criticizing the proposal. Kahn said, "The thrust of this whole thing goes against everything Oberlin believes in."

Kahn explained that Oberlin governance relies on a set of checks and balances, where any group must always answer to a higher authority. "We simply always have another level," said Kahn. He believes that there is no process of accountability within the proposal. Despite his strong stance against the proposal, Kahn offered support for streamlining the current process.

The issue of community participation arose after Kahn's analysis. Fineberg noted that a website would be created to facilitate community input into pending charters.

In response to the loss of faculty power in the chartering process, Visiting Assistant Professor of Biology Albert Borroni said, "Given that we have had trouble getting people on to the Student Life Committee, I am not sure how much the community is interested."

Associate Professor of Physics John Scofield stated that the recent trend in higher education has called for more involvement by the administration with student issues. "Oberlin College has very little involvement in student life around here. This is a step in the wrong direction," said Scofield.

Professor of Economics Robert Piron then dished out his sharply cynical view of the proposed charter process. Perched atop the very last row of King 306, Piron said, "I think the cutting edge on this will be a highly controversial charter. Most of us know which one that is." Piron was referring to past debates over the SMBD club.

Piron continued with his strong denouncement of the proposal. "In a highly controversial charter - involving moral, legal dimensions - who is ultimately liable?" Piron asked.

"Oberlin College," answered Dye.

"If that is true, why isn't the faculty interested in taking a more active role?" said Piron.

Piron's question opened up a wave of debate over the advisory position of the dean of students to the EARB. Kahn explained that the dean of students would not have any leverage or voting power with the EARB decision. Piron then concluded his indictment of the proposal and his concern over the College's liability. "The dean of students has zero power, I take it? Len, when it hits the fan it's too late, and we'll be dealing with it in shovels," said Piron as he directed his comments toward Smith.

Scofield continued the knee-jerk from the General Faculty, questioning the ability of senate to handle the chartering responsibilities. Scofield noted that he has yet to see a charter turned down by the General Faculty before, and that though the process is lengthy, charters do get processed.

"Involvement of the general faculty has slowed down the process," said Professor of History James Helm. Helm had the final word on the matter, as he endorsed a revision of the current procedure.

Dye closed the proposal discussion due to time constraints, and held the matter over for vote at the next General Faculty meeting on Oct. 26.