The Honor Committee overwhelmingly passed a bylaw allowing them to hold special elections without the consent of Student Council last night in response to previous problems involving an attempt to remove the consideration of seriousness from cases of academic cheating.
The proposal was initially put to vote in light of the recent problems with a referendum that would have called for students to vote on eliminating the seriousness clause in cases of academic cheating.
A week before student elections, the Committee put the seriousness proposal to referendum. But the Committee's bylaws mandate that any referendum must be officially proposed at least two weeks before elections.
Acording to current bylaws, the referendum would not appear on any ballot until next spring without Council's consent. But after passing the bylaw proposal, the Committee now can hold its own special elections.
Despite the seeming elimination of Council from the process, the new bylaw "is not a change or departure from our current procedures - it's just a clarification," according to Vice Chairman for Investigations Carter Williams. Williams authored the proposal.
Many Committee members said they were glad to see the proposal pass because they felt the previous bylaws put too many constraints on possible Committee actions.
But a few Committee members said they felt the bylaw proposal was unconstitutional and urged the Committee to look into other options.
Some members of Council said they believe the Committee needs to be more flexible.
"I think it's irresponsible because they failed to see a lot of the considerations that go into elections," said Brock Jolly, Council vice president for administration. "They will never get the 10 percent voter turnout needed to pass the referendum."
Council will vote Tuesday on whether to support the special honor election.
Read More
Administrators and faculty paint conflicting pictures of May 4 encampment clearing
By Cecilia Mould and Finn Trainer | 2 days agoThe details contested between the town halls included the clarity of the University’s tent policy and the presence of suspicious individuals at the encampment.
Faculty Senate calls for an external review of May 4 clearing of encampment
By Priya Kommu | 2 days agoSenators had questions about the lack of direct communication between University administrators and the students and faculty present at the encampment.
University's last minute update to EHS tent regulations document creates confusion, frustration
By Arshiya Pant | 3 days agoRyan said that he did not believe there was confusion among protesters about the permissibility of tents due to warnings from University officials on several occasions to remove tents.
