MSA considers reworking student conduct process
Supreme Court Justice Eric Woods said the Student Court has become 'irrelevant.'
Published March 16, 2010
Different leadership officials within the Missouri Students Association have been discussing possible changes to the Student Court.
The revisions would be two-fold, in part clarifying the student conduct process and in part codifying student representation in student conduct committee hearings.
The Student Court, a branch of MSA, was stripped of its student conduct responsibilities several years ago after incidents of cronyism within the branch. MSA Senate Speaker Evan Wood said those events indirectly prompted the creation of the Judicial Peer Advisory Council.
The removal of student conduct matters from the association's powers has left the student court with little responsibility and few duties. That irrelevance is what has prompted MSA Student Court Chief Justice Eric Woods, as well as Wood and MSA President Tim Noce to explore new ventures for the Court.
"Honestly, unfortunately, we've become irrelevant as we don't have an active role in MSA anymore," Woods said. "We have a lot of good people on the court, and I'd like to see them put to use as far as bylaws and student conduct goes. So, irrelevant, yes, but I'm hoping we can fix that."
The possibility of the court justices serving as student representatives on the student conduct committee was discussed in a meeting of the operations committee sub-committee charged with looking into the revision of Student Court. Woods said this is a start in the direction of making Student Court more relevant.
"I think it's a start," Woods said. "It might not make a difference in the functioning of MSA or the student government aspect, but it would definitely give the justices work to do and make us more involved with the student body. As a whole, it's not a huge thing, but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion."
As they are written, the MSA bylaws charge the president with making the appointments to the chancellors committees on Student Conduct. Woods and Noce hope to amend the bylaws in a way that would strongly advise the president to listen to the recommendations of the Supreme Court Justice for these appointments, but the president would still make all appointments.
"You shouldn't change the way you appoint people because we have a system right now, and if we want to change our system that presents a whole other set of issues," Noce said. "If we change the way I appoint people, technically that would have to go through the chancellor. I think right now the way we appoint people is pretty sound. It would be a whole different scenario if we changed that."
In addition to involving the Student Court, Wood has plans to make sure all students are aware of the way the student conduct process works.
"We really want to see the student conduct and discipline process explained clearly and easily and made available and presented to every student on campus," Wood said. "That's something I see as a right for students. They need to be able to see how student discipline works on this campus."
Other revisions concerning the student conduct committee processes were also discussed but are still in the preliminary stages of discussion. Revisions to the actual composition of the Student Hearing Panels would require change at the system level.