10/09/2006 Major discrepancy discovered in judicial documents
New Paltz is an organism. The wiki is the brain.
A major discrepancy has been discovered in the documentation of the judicial case involving Student Association officials. The flaw was noticed when the Student Association received documents as part of a lawsuit filed by President Justin Holmes and Vice President R.J. Partington III.
The discrepancy is between a document sent to Dean of Students Linda Eaton by Paul Zuckerman, who chaired the judicial committee in the case, and a corresponding document sent by Eaton to the students. It is the most clear evidence yet that the SUNY Administration's division of Student Affairs took direct action to get rid of the student leaders.
[edit] The Documents
The students received a letter from Eaton on June 30th, 2006 stating that "the (Student Affairs Judicial) committee, acting by majority vote, believed that you did engage in a course of conduct which alarmed and threatened the health and safety of another person and which served no legitimate purpose."
However, a document obtained as part of the lawsuit shows that the committee made no such claim, and in fact the verdcit in the case rested on a finding that Residence Life Director Corinna Caracci was "seriously annoyed." The decision was written and filed by Paul Zuckerman and Jonathan Raskin, faculty members who sit on the judicial committee.
Zuckerman and Raskin did say that "the majority finds this to be a harassing and threatening situation," but stopped short of using the "health and safety" language which would later appear in Eaton's letter.
The additional language appears in the provision in the Student Handbook which the students were accused of violating, prompting further suspicion:
.01 No person shall engage in a course of conduct or commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and serve no legitimate purpose. Such acts include, but are not limited to, obscene language or gesturing, stalking; creating a condition that endangers, intimidates or threatens the health and safety of a member of the College community.
- 9.00 Harassment
Distinguished Service Professor Peter Brown testified that David Rooney, Vice President of Student Affairs, told a May 18th Labor Management meeting that he was "looking for an opportunity to get rid of the two or three worst student troublemakers," whom he identified as Holmes and Partington. The hearing took place two weeks later.
[edit] Implications
The students could still have been banned from the campus for "seriously annoying" Caracci. However, if the newly released documents had been provided at that time, they would have had an oppurtunity to appeal the sanction on the basis that the severity of the sanction was not consistent with only a finding of "seriously annoying" conduct. No case is known in which a student has been banned from the campus for "seriously annoying" an administrator. Eric Coppolino won a significant settlement after being banned from campus for similar reasons.
The appeal filed by the students raised this concern:
(From the appeal, viewable here):
Substantive Appeal #4: There are no facts set forth in support of the finding that appellants "threatened the health and safety of another person."
The decision includes a finding that appellants “threatened the health and safety of another person." However, no facts are set forth in the decision to support this finding. Appellants submit that complainant’s health or safety were never threatened. The inclusion of Ms. Caracci's statements that she felt "trapped," "terrified," and "unable to leave" in the finding reflect the use of a subjective test of the incident in question and whether it amount to harassment.
As such, appellants request that the committee provide information relevant to this finding, particularly facts which the committee finds compelling in support of it. In addition, appellants request that the committee provide an additional finding to include an objective test of the incident.
The decision in which this appeal was rejected, filed by Mary Beth Collier of the Provost's Office, gave no answer to this concern despite it being the fourth and final factual appeal filed by the students.
"We are evaluating our options given this latest evidence of misconduct in Student Affairs," said Holmes, adding that Michael Sussman, a Goshen attorney representing the students, had been advised of the documents and was in the process of drafting a letter to Judge Lawrence Kahn, who is hearing the federal suit. "One thing is clear," Holmes went on. "These documents warrant a response this week."
On Tuesday, October 10, Holmes sent an email to Eaton and Collier inquiring about the discrepancy and asking that the appeal process be re-opened if no innocuous reason could be given. Neither Eaton nor Collier have responded.
[edit] See Also
[edit] The Documents in Question
[edit] Other Relevant Documents
- Appeal filed by the Students
- Appeal rejection notice, which makes no mention of the inserted language
