GF set to vote on chartering

Last month's General Faculty meeting generated a host of concerns about faculty and student governance. The contended issue centered on a proposal to restructure the current process by which student organization charters are granted. The proposal will be revisited at the upcoming Oct. 26 General Faculty meeting, where its proponents hope to pass the restructuring through the General Faculty.

After last month's General Faculty meeting, the proposal's authors, senior Sarah Fineberg and senior Sarah Stein Greenberg, spent a month gathering input from a host of faculty and administrative figures, in addition to addressing the concerns raised at the September meeting. The "two Sarahs," as some faculty referred to them, then refined the proposal based upon their research and the guidance provided by key faculty members and administrators.

The original proposal stated that student senate's organizational coordinator must approve no earlier than three weeks after its submission. The organizational coordinator will offer assistance to the new group in drafting their 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 the senate's organizational coordinator.

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.

Peter Goldsmith, dean of students, said, "I don't know whether [the advisory role] will act as a sufficient backstop to assure the faculty on this issue. But I do feel that it is an appropriate role for a dean. It would be more awkward in my view for the dean alone to have the authority to stop a charter or approve a charter, and I would much rather be in an advisory role, and have the ability to encourage the committee to consider a range of issues without there feeling as though my word on this subject is gospel."

The most significant change made to the proposal introduces a new appeals process for organizations that receive a charter, as well as those that are turned down. Under the revised proposal, if the EARB grants an organization a charter, the student body may initiate a review of that decision. For a review, 100 signatures must be submitted to Senate, and the Student Union Board will conduct a review of the recently granted charter. Stein Greenberg said, "I think that body, being the appeals board, gives a lot of credence to our sincere desire to have community input and to have different constituencies in the decision making process." The appeal must be made within two months of the EARB's decision.

If the EARB denies a student organization a charter, it must first fashion a written explanation for their decision. The organization may appeal, also to the Student Union Board. The Board's decision will be final in the appeals process.

Associate Professor of Politics Chris Howell said, "Above all I would say that what I really like about the revised proposal is the inclusion of those appeals, but it does so while retaining the position that this is an area of student governance." Fineberg and Stein Greenberg utilized Howell's input for the revised policy.

In addition to the appeals process, Fineberg and Stein Greenberg strengthened some of the language by which charters will be judged. They included criteria about damage to the College's reputation and the level of accordance of the charter with the educational mission of the College. "We feel that [community standards] are not being addressed in the current model. The decision making is so dissipated that no one knows how the decision is supposed to be made and who is supposed to make it," said Fineberg.

Goldsmith said, "On the whole I think that students will be enormously responsible in making these decisions. I think they care about the same things that the faculty care about. Students will have no difficulty understanding the importance of being thoughtful about issues of safety and legality/liability."

Placing total responsibility in the student's hands garnered some concern from the GF at their September meeting. Despite the proposed changes, the GF reserves the right to intercede in any decision made by the EARB. Fineberg said, "We expect that the Student Union Board's decision will be final. Unless something disastrous happens, in which case the levying process would be invoked."

Most parties consulted on this believe that any faculty intervention would be unnecessary. Goldsmith said, "I don't think they will have any difficulty understanding the nature of their responsibility to the institution and its reputation. However this sorts itself out though, I think the question should not hinge on technical ones of liability. But, rather the question should be about the relationship between the proposed activity and the fundamental purposes and principles of the institution."

Stein Greenberg added, "It seems to be there are a lot of examples where this bylaw is not applied the way people are now trying to apply it to this situation." She listed the Student Finance Committee, the ExCo committee and the Judicial Review Boards as examples of student governance.

Associate Professor of History Len Smith echoed that sentiment. "Why can all of the other schools have streamlined students based procedures and somehow survive and we cannot? That says to me their students are more to be trusted than ours," said Smith.

Smith also addressed some concerns raised by Professor of Politics Ronald Kahn. Kahn made the point that all areas of Oberlin governance utilize "another set of eyes" to oversee their policy structuring. Smith said, "The fact is that the faculty makes all sorts of decisions about the faculty with very little accountability. It's self-oversight, and I think it works reasonably well. I don't see why a parallel structure couldn't be created that could handle this."

The proposal's authors also hope to strengthen Senate through the new chartering process. Stein Greenberg said, "Another main thrust to this is thinking of ways in which to strengthen student governance at Oberlin very little authority for senate to make important decisions. We think this is a step in the right direction in terms of making senate a stronger organization."

The revised proposal, as well as the original, provide for a grievance procedure for existing student organizations. "As the organizations play out, we want the student body to take the responsibility and be held accountable for the ways they behave," said Fineberg. Written complaints can be filed with the EARB, and then will be reviewed and judged accordingly.

Judging from the laundry list of consulted individuals named in the proposal, it seems that everyone on campus has put their two cents into the proposed changes. The list includes everyone from College President Nancy Dye to Director of Libraries Ray English. Both Fineberg and Stein Greenberg invested countless hours interviewing faculty and administrators for their input.

"We have been really gratified by the positive response that we've gotten before and since the faculty meeting," said Stein Greenberg.