After nearly six months of rigorous structuring and planning, the Student Judiciary is on its final leg of becoming a secondary judicial body that will serve as a check to the Student Senate and the academic appeals process.
“It’s been a very long process to get this going, so we’re relieved to finally get it rolling,” said Student Body President Justin Puckett. “It’ll be good for the students for the organization to have more transparency and a better system of checks and balances on the Student Senate.”
Puckett said the final plans for the Student Judiciary are still being refined, but said the independent judiciary body would alleviate some of the duties delegated to the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Facilitator, who is the only person who currently handles grievances filed by students or faculty members. In addition to grievances, Puckett said the Student Judiciary would also act as an added option to the academic appeals process already in place.
David Wright, the Rules and Bylaws Team chairman, said the committee has assisted in creating the Student Judiciary by writing and refining its bylaws to correctly spell out its function. Wright said the Student Judiciary would be comprised of the five Student Senate representatives from several colleges across campus and the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Facilitator, who would listen to arguments, evaluate the circumstances of the case and deliver their judgment.
“Right now, the way a current grievance appeal is filed, this council can arbitrarily deny what the grievance board has decided, and the student may have no other recourse or may feel like they don’t,” Wright said. “What this will do is bring a separate body out of the Student Senate.”
If approval is granted, Wright said the Student Judiciary will be fully functioning by the fall semester of this year.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Senate debates polling bylaw change
The Student Senate discussed a bylaw change on Wednesday that would provide the Election Commissioner with the discretion to open new polling locations for the upcoming elections.
“The main reason why I brought this up was to definitely increase voter turnout,” Election Commissioner Michael Goldstein said. “Personally, I just think the numbers that we had last year was just sad. We have about 13,000 students at this university, and we really only have about one-tenth of the student population voting.”
According to figures released by the Election Commission, about 744 students voted in last year’s Student Senate election compared to nearly 2,542 students in 2008 — representing a 341-percent decrease in voter turnout from the previous year.
Chris Hansen, the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity facilitator, said there were several factors that may have contributed to the low voter turnout, including a small pool of candidates running for positions and a sense of apathy from the student population that resulted from the ineffectual operation of the Student Representative Council in 2008.
“There’s no way to prove that one thing was the cause, because it was certainly a multitude of factors that played a role (in the low voter turnout),” Hansen said.
Some of the Senate members voiced their concerns about the bylaw revision by saying it might cause problems in the future if the exact parameters are not precisely written in the bylaws.
“I have a really big problem with this because I don’t believe the election commissioner should be deciding where a polling place should be,” said Maggie Wright, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences representative. “I think it should be spelled out in the bylaws, so we don’t have this grey area.”
Director of Finance Michael Johnston suggested the responsibility be placed on the shoulders of the person appointed to the position.
“The best way to go about it is to put it up to the personal judgment of one person and have that person’s integrity and personal responsibility to govern what is right and have a grievance if he or she did something wrong,” Johnston said.
-- originally published in The Mirror on February 26, 2010
“The main reason why I brought this up was to definitely increase voter turnout,” Election Commissioner Michael Goldstein said. “Personally, I just think the numbers that we had last year was just sad. We have about 13,000 students at this university, and we really only have about one-tenth of the student population voting.”
According to figures released by the Election Commission, about 744 students voted in last year’s Student Senate election compared to nearly 2,542 students in 2008 — representing a 341-percent decrease in voter turnout from the previous year.
Chris Hansen, the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity facilitator, said there were several factors that may have contributed to the low voter turnout, including a small pool of candidates running for positions and a sense of apathy from the student population that resulted from the ineffectual operation of the Student Representative Council in 2008.
“There’s no way to prove that one thing was the cause, because it was certainly a multitude of factors that played a role (in the low voter turnout),” Hansen said.
Some of the Senate members voiced their concerns about the bylaw revision by saying it might cause problems in the future if the exact parameters are not precisely written in the bylaws.
“I have a really big problem with this because I don’t believe the election commissioner should be deciding where a polling place should be,” said Maggie Wright, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences representative. “I think it should be spelled out in the bylaws, so we don’t have this grey area.”
Director of Finance Michael Johnston suggested the responsibility be placed on the shoulders of the person appointed to the position.
“The best way to go about it is to put it up to the personal judgment of one person and have that person’s integrity and personal responsibility to govern what is right and have a grievance if he or she did something wrong,” Johnston said.
-- originally published in The Mirror on February 26, 2010
New revisions discussed for Boomerang shuttle
The Student Senate discussed several preliminary revisions to UNC’s Boomerang Shuttle service during Wednesday’s meeting. The modifications could add additional stops to the current route and begin an evening service from the university campus to several locations throughout Greeley.
“We’re really trying to work with the student body, so we can match the services with their needs,” Student Body President Justin Puckett said. “We really have to find out what students want and what is cost effective, because I do not feel comfortable paying $100 an hour for one student to ride the bus.”
Puckett said the results of an 800-person evaluation were taken into account when he and the Greeley-Evans Transit members drafted the preliminary proposal, which asked for suggestions of possible revisions to the current service. Under the current proposal, two routes — aptly named Blue and Gold — would be created to increase the amount of service routes to both on-campus and off-campus sites.
The proposed Blue route would have stops located at Gunter Hall, Cranford Place between 12th and 13th avenues, Candelaria Hall and the University of Northern Colorado Transfer Center that would be built near the University Center’s loading dock.
Meanwhile, the proposed Gold route would have stops at the UNC Transfer Center, Arlington Park Student Apartments, Gunter Hall, Ninth Avenue and 16th Street, Kepner Hall, and Tobey-Kendal Hall, and West Campus residence complex. In addition to the Blue and Gold routes, the proposal also outlined the creation of two evening routes labeled as the North/Downtown Loop and the South/University Square Loop.
Because contract negotiations are still ongoing, Puckett said costs for the new service routes have not been determined. He also said he would meet with Greeley-Evans Transit members some time next week to discuss issues and concerns raised by Senate members, who provided constructive criticism during Wednesday’s presentation.
“I want the routes to reflect the interests of the students instead of what the city may want, because at the end of the day, we’re going to be the ones writing the check for it,” Student Trustee Matt VanDriel said.
Maggie Wright, the College of Educational and Behavioral Sciences representative, said the route should not be altered significantly from the beginning.
“My biggest concern is that if we start changing the route too much or changing the times specifically, I’m afraid that it’s going to become too confusing,” Wright said.
However, Wright also said the proposal resolved several longstanding issues raised by students.
“I do agree that we should probably keep the service during peak times, so we can have a more consistent flow and that we’re keeping up with the supply and demand,” Wright said.
-- originally published in The Mirror on March 5, 2010
“We’re really trying to work with the student body, so we can match the services with their needs,” Student Body President Justin Puckett said. “We really have to find out what students want and what is cost effective, because I do not feel comfortable paying $100 an hour for one student to ride the bus.”
Puckett said the results of an 800-person evaluation were taken into account when he and the Greeley-Evans Transit members drafted the preliminary proposal, which asked for suggestions of possible revisions to the current service. Under the current proposal, two routes — aptly named Blue and Gold — would be created to increase the amount of service routes to both on-campus and off-campus sites.
The proposed Blue route would have stops located at Gunter Hall, Cranford Place between 12th and 13th avenues, Candelaria Hall and the University of Northern Colorado Transfer Center that would be built near the University Center’s loading dock.
Meanwhile, the proposed Gold route would have stops at the UNC Transfer Center, Arlington Park Student Apartments, Gunter Hall, Ninth Avenue and 16th Street, Kepner Hall, and Tobey-Kendal Hall, and West Campus residence complex. In addition to the Blue and Gold routes, the proposal also outlined the creation of two evening routes labeled as the North/Downtown Loop and the South/University Square Loop.
Because contract negotiations are still ongoing, Puckett said costs for the new service routes have not been determined. He also said he would meet with Greeley-Evans Transit members some time next week to discuss issues and concerns raised by Senate members, who provided constructive criticism during Wednesday’s presentation.
“I want the routes to reflect the interests of the students instead of what the city may want, because at the end of the day, we’re going to be the ones writing the check for it,” Student Trustee Matt VanDriel said.
Maggie Wright, the College of Educational and Behavioral Sciences representative, said the route should not be altered significantly from the beginning.
“My biggest concern is that if we start changing the route too much or changing the times specifically, I’m afraid that it’s going to become too confusing,” Wright said.
However, Wright also said the proposal resolved several longstanding issues raised by students.
“I do agree that we should probably keep the service during peak times, so we can have a more consistent flow and that we’re keeping up with the supply and demand,” Wright said.
-- originally published in The Mirror on March 5, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Senate approves poll verbiage on election ballot
The Student Senate unanimously approved the verbiage of an opinion poll on Wednesday that will appear on this year’s ballot for Student Senate positions.
According to University Relations director Ryan Shucard, the full details of the ballot issue, the Quality of Life Act, will not be released to the public until election commissioner Michael Goldstein releases the entire ballot on Mar. 22.
However, according to the approved verbiage of the opinion poll, the Quality of Life Act would be sponsored through several different campus organizations to enhance the services that they already provide and increase the scope of these services to offer students a broader range of options. Among these services, the Quality of Life Act is seeking to improve and revitalize the current transportation services provided to students, while promoting outdoor activities through the increased provision of rental equipment.
Student Senate president Justin Puckett said the Quality of Life Act arose from student input that was directed to several different campus organizations and committees that ultimately banded together to create certain provisions in the act. If the opinion poll produces favorable results by the student body in this year’s Student Senate elections, Puckett said the Quality of Life Act would be presented to the UNC Board of Trustees for its final approval. Puckett also said the Quality of Life Act could be in effect as early as the fall semester if the UNC Board of Trustees approves it.
According to University Relations director Ryan Shucard, the full details of the ballot issue, the Quality of Life Act, will not be released to the public until election commissioner Michael Goldstein releases the entire ballot on Mar. 22.
However, according to the approved verbiage of the opinion poll, the Quality of Life Act would be sponsored through several different campus organizations to enhance the services that they already provide and increase the scope of these services to offer students a broader range of options. Among these services, the Quality of Life Act is seeking to improve and revitalize the current transportation services provided to students, while promoting outdoor activities through the increased provision of rental equipment.
Student Senate president Justin Puckett said the Quality of Life Act arose from student input that was directed to several different campus organizations and committees that ultimately banded together to create certain provisions in the act. If the opinion poll produces favorable results by the student body in this year’s Student Senate elections, Puckett said the Quality of Life Act would be presented to the UNC Board of Trustees for its final approval. Puckett also said the Quality of Life Act could be in effect as early as the fall semester if the UNC Board of Trustees approves it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)