CC hopes to set precedent for future charter reviews
Meg Itoh
Viewpoints Editor
Campus Council (CC) is undergoing changes for reviewing the charters of student organizations, specifically the identification of what criteria would necessitate bringing a group forward for review.
Jack Johanning ’17, chair of CC, stated that CC does not know what the previous charter review process looked like. “CC was unable to find precedent on charter reviews within a CC context, however, CC has always had the power to review, grant and revoke charters,” he said.
“CC has always had purview over the charters of student organizations. That means it has always had the authority to review [their] charters,” said Scott Brown, vice president for student affairs and dean of students, confirming Johanning’s statement.
“What CC is doing now […] is to identify by what criteria […] by what standards and what specific process will be used consistently, and what might come from a review,” said Brown.
The changes will not necessarily occur in the CC policy, but rather in clarifying procedures associated with charter review, said Johanning. “Substantive policy shifts will be seen when components of the Scot’s Key are brought to vote near the end of this session of CC,” he said.
Brown believes the process will improve fairness, transparency and accountability, leading to general improvement of organizations. “This will be much better for all student organizations. It makes it more understandable and consistent [as to] when, why and what happens when a charter is reviewed,” he said.
Brown explained that the conversation regarding the criteria changes for CC charter review is not only about Greek Letter organizations, but applies to all organizations equally.
“Greek groups will not see any changes unique to their organization. This review process will not treat selective organizations differently from inclusive groups,” said Johanning, echoing Brown’s statement. “However, it may bring charters of student organizations to CC for review because of particular sequences of conduct that CC may have otherwise been unaware of,” he said.
A public meeting was held on Feb. 2 by CC, in which participants discussed the process through which CC would review the charters, and the language in which the process was described. The original intent of the meaning was to discuss evidence against the charter of Phi Omega Sigma. The purpose shifted when members of CC, Omega and other attendees expressed concerns about the process CC had proposed to review charters.
Heather Smith ’17, Gender/Sexual Diversity representative of CC, expressed frustration that the process was being delayed. “Last week [Johanning] sent out an email that anybody on the CC Listserv can come and help create this procedure. There was already a meeting and everything on it […] I’m just kind of frustrated on the fact that you could have given input on this already,” she said.
Nathan Fein, Director of Residence Life, explained that he was unable to contribute input in the previous meeting because he had been unable to attend. He stated that the email inviting members on the CC Listserv was sent out at 4:10 p.m. The meeting was to be held the following day at 6:00 p.m. “I have children to take care of,” said Fein. “I need a little bit more time in order to make sure I have other things to take care of.”
Having Fein at the discussion was crucial because Fein would be a member of staff affected by the CC charter review policy changes. “One of the problems we had with the alcohol policy last year was that the people who would be there and around [the policy] the most were not there for the [discussion],” said Robb, explaining why the participation of Jess Ettell, Director of Student Rights and Responsibilities, and Fein are necessary within the discussion for charter review.
A topic of discussion at the meeting was how students could call for a student organization’s charter to be reviewed. “One of the ways that a charter can be reviewed is if a member of the organization helps CC. If they do not feel an organization is living to its charter, then they can have their organization reviewed,” said Jon Breitenbucher, staff representative of CC.
In response, Johanning expressed concern regarding the process of a student requesting charter review. “If somebody says that an organization isn’t living up to its charter, that can kind of be a loophole for a student to come in and say you need to engage in a review process, and that can be an arbitrary decision,” he said.
Breitenbucher then clarified that CC would not be required to review organizations in question. “We can look at what [the person is] claiming, then we can look and see if there’s anything happen in terms of judicial action for anything,” he said. “But we don’t have to do the review.”
Bryan Robb ’18, Selective Organization Representative for CC, voiced concern regarding the review process being instigated by the request of a single student, who might have prejudices and biases against the organization. “You might have to say a ‘collection of students’ over the course of the semester,” he said. “It might have to be a collection of students, maybe two or three within the semester.”
Hannah Huston ’17 asked how long the charter review process might take. “If these things were being looked at in this academic year, it would come up at the end of this academic year and action would happen in the fall of next year,” said Breitenbucher. “That should be the most.”
Numerous members of organizations present at the CC meeting expressed concern about the actions of a single individual reflecting upon the entire organization. “We have to deal with group sponsored activities and violations that come out of group activities,” said Breitenbucher.
Breitenbucher emphasized that CC plans not to focus on the individual, but instead on the groups involved. “There’s zero way for CC to do anything because [a student] has gotten called in for judicial hearings five times this semester for walking around with an open container[… ]there’s no way that CC can associate that with the group,” he said. Brown is certain that discussions surrounding the charter review process will ultimately benefit the campus community. “Student leaders in CC have been [working] hard to create much more clear and consistent processes that will enhance and strengthen student organization and efforts, in ways that represent the many voices of our community,” he said.
“Almost every subcommittee of CC is looking at its core processes and procedures, evaluating them to see if it serves students as well as it can. It is very impressive for students to have this much oversight and influence on such central issues at the College, and it is a privilege to work with them for the good for the community,” said Brown.