Minutes of the MIT Dormitory Council meeting of November 13, 2008 In attendance: Aziz Albahar, Baker president James Torres, DormCon president, Burton-Conner Kip Landergren, DormCon JudComm chair, Burton-Conner president James Ostrowski, DormCon dining chair, East Campus Joe Pokora, DormCon dining chair, MacGregor Chris Palmer, DormCon housing chair, MacGregor Cynthia Bouldrick, proxy for New House Yi Huang, Next House president Geoffrey Thomas, DormCon secretary, Next House Lyla Fischer, proxy for Random Hall Keri Garel, Senior House president Karl Wolff, Phoenix president Absent: McCormick Simmons Guests: Dave Kennedy, Director, Office of Student Mediation and Community Standards Donna Denoncourt, Associate Dean of Residential Life Bad Ideas budget James O.: During IAP, we have Bad Ideas, which is a mini version of EC rush where anyone can come and do EC-rush-like things. We're asking for $2500. Last year we asked for $2000, and it was a big success, so we're asking for a little more. Aziz: Do you advertise well? [yes] Kip: Do you get lots of people from across campus? [yes] Yi: How much does EC give? James O.: $500. [also LEF and Weekends give a budget] James T.: Does this go in our fall or spring budget? Fall, because it happens before spring starts. [approved unanimously] HSG Chris: They cancelled the last HSG meeting, but I have the last i3 coordinator info from last year. I'll send it to the presidents. Forward it to your dorm residents, and ask them to apply to be i3 coordinator. Chris: Robin Smedick and I talked about the housing website, which was supposed to be the topic for today's meeting. We'll talk about it in December, and she'll talk to Dennis [Collins?] and get back to me. Chris: We're having trouble convincing them that we'll get them to allow a student to run the website. Apparently they don't want to go trough a student to update things. I'm trying to tell them that anything is better than their current system, where they yell across a cubicle and someone eventually does it, but... Chris: About the desk program, they said we'd have input in it. The software itself was only $70K. The multimillion figure is for the increase in programmers to customize it, or something... Geoffrey: Who's paying multimillion to who? Chris: We've paid $70K for the software, and MIT is paying programmers to customize it which may run into the millions? I don't know. Chris: Preliminary timeline is it will roll out in the fall. House managers will be trained in the summer. Aziz: Wait, what about the system at Baker that our students wrote? P&E Committee James T.: Directly after our last meeting, Vinayak and I went to our Programming and Education Committee meeting. We're trying to come up with a better name... someone's trying to fit the name 'SHIELD'. Anyway, what we did that's useful is we approved both the charter and the mission statement. What this committee is in charge of is coming up with a good-samaritan policy for hard drugs, etc. We're looking into just adding to the current good Samaritan policy on alcohol and so forth, but it needs to get approved by a very long list of people. If not we'll write another policy. Keri: What's the good Samaritan policy? James T.: You cannot get in trouble for calling to ask for help for someone else. Donna: Danny Trujillo was at this meeting. He said if we do this, we'll be the first in the country to have such a policy. James T.: The other thing we'll try to do is come up with a survey, and figure out how to keep it anonymous but still have incentives like TechCash for taking it. Dave Kennedy Speaks Dave: Last year, I met with Chris Palmer and Sarah Hopp and last year's DormCon. I was told that every dorm wants a judicial committee. Then I went to the first meeting and was told that every dorm doesn't want a judicial committee... There are two ways of thinking about discipline at MIT. Formal: CoD, writeups, etc. Then there's informal, you need to clean up the kitchen or you can't have a party for two weeks. I'm going to talk about formal. Right now there's just one path, the CoD, and student boards (Dormcon, IFC, etc.) can have groups through that. We looked at some of the issues around that. Individual dorms may not want a JudComm, or may not want something that looks like a JudComm. Random and some other dorms have somehthing that looks like a JudComm, but without a DormCon JudComm, you technically don't. Not to say that, informally, you're not doing great work, but we need to make a DormCon JudComm to allow the pathways you're already using to work. If there's no appeals pathway, you have no formal legitimacy. We came up with this document, the DormCon JudComm Code. Kip and I met just after REX with some other JudComm representatives about this. I'll go over some of the highlights. Kip came to me about a month ago and said that he heard, 'Our dorm doesn't want a JudComm'. So I'm here to talk about the issues you have. Right now there is a pathway to handle discipline complaints at a low level, like noise, smoking, cats, etc. That way is me, and one student member of the CoD. It's called administrative review. We call you in and shut the door, we hear your case, make a decision. Possibly put something in your file. DormCon JudComm is about taking the closed-door nature of administrative action away. It doesn't matter to me how they're resolved, but it matters they are resolved. Informal pathways are 90% of the cases that happen, and informal routes are still in the Code. DormCon JudComm Hears complaints against floors and dorms. Say EC does Bad Ideas, and you guys don't clean up, aand when you do, you dump all your crap in front of Senior House. DormCon JudComm is a place to handle these complaints. REX violations, some dorm is playing dirty. Or lets say 3rd and 4th floor are fighting. I don't know if this happens, but these are the concerns I heard. The DormCon JudComm was approved by DormCon, but the authority runs through my office by way of the CoD. Disciplinary files. If you have done something deemed wrong, I probably have something on file on you in my office. We have both formal and informal disciplinary pathways, but anything reported to my office becomes formal. How do you resolve things through an office without making them subject to administrative action? If you have a sitdown hearing, and somebody doesn't like the results, what do you do? You need an appeals body. A good example is this Good Samaritan policy; one option for repeat offenders is referral to DormCon JudComm. Aziz: Are we (Baker JudComm) not legitimate? Dave: "Legitimate" is a word i'm going to play with. Your JudComm is probably quite effective. But in order for you to do anything with MIT authority behind it, it not only needs to go through our office, but it needs to have an appeals office. Geoffrey: You don't need a JudComm, you can just refer stuff straight to DormCon JudComm, right? Dave: Yes. Keri: Also, you don't need a representative on DormCon JudComm? Dave: Not necessarily, but it would cause problems if you don't have one. Keri: Like you would just ignore our decision if it got appealed? Dave: Who teaches you to phrase questions!? "Yes, we'll ignore it outright." No, it's just that we wouldn't know how to interpret your decision, or why you decided it. Dave: There are many open issues. The biggest one is reporting. How do we have this with the stamp of authority without telling the authorities? That's a tricky issue. This is meant to be a living document with changes as we go along. There might be things that say 'need to be decided'... no, we took them out. But there are issues that are intentionally open. Lyla: How many dorms have JudComms? Kip: Random, BC, Baker, and SH. SH doesn't want a rep on DormCon JudComm. Aziz: Our DormCon has authority to fine you through the house manager. They have big stop signs on the doors. They can tell people to have sex less loudly. If there's a long weekend and someone's alarm is on, they have the authority to get a key from desk, ignore everything else in the room, shut off the alarm, and leave. Dave: They don't have to be structured like JudComms. They can be RAs, which is what other colleges call what you have, or anything... As long as they decide responses, they count as JudComm. Dave: You guys are self-governing, both as DormCon and as the individual dorms. Part of that is holding each other responsible. You're not self-governing if the only way you can resolve disputes is going to the adults in your building. From what I've read, as long as it's working it's fine, but when it doesn't work it REALLY doesn't work. When there's an overly aggressive GRT, or an underly aggressive one, or someone on the floor who doesn't give a crap what the GRT or housemaster thinks... They might be few and far between, but having _nothing_ isn't the right response. Dave: While this allows dorms to have a formal system, you don't have to. You can just use DormCon JudComm if something comes up. But if you do want to, it doesn't have to look anything like a JudComm. You could set up an arbitration panel. My biggest issue is that if we have a student body with a record of success, I can broaden the scope of things that can be heard. Perhaps things on the lines of minor drug possession. Lyla: Hacking? Dave: Do you mean unauthorized access? Pranks? The word 'hacking'... there's a lot of confusion around it at MIT. Once that's clarified, it will be an easier sell. Dave: I am not going to address the issue of hacking, because if you ask five people, students even, what hacking is, you'll get five different answers. What I'll address is unauthorized access. The rule is simple: you cannot go where you are not authorized to go. You will be held accountable. The likely responsible is that the incident will be documented, and I'll call you in. If it's some reasonable areas -- unreasonable areas are like bio labs or faculty offices, but I won't define "reasonable", if I could commit I would give it to you but I can't -- and there's no history and you're cooperative, there's a letter in your disciplinary file. If you do it again this letter will be used in figuring out what to do. Hopefully that's the last time people get called. It is a formal letter, and it is discoverable if you sign your rights to grad schools or jobs. But if they ask you why there's this mark, you'll say "hacking" and it'll be fine. Most people have not been arrested. How does that jive with the Institute showing pictures of hacking in the Infinite and Stata? That's a much larger issue I'd like to engage in in the future. Hacking, as I understand has a component of unauthorized access. Now unauthorized access is not allowed; if you are caught we will address it consistently. We'll thank you for being cooperative with the police, assuming that you were, and you were hacking respectfully. I've told you the pathway it goes through. I don't want to say the letter's not a big deal, but it probably isn't. So, if you break in to my office, you can get people's personal records, discipline records, some mental health records. So breaking into my office is a big frickin deal. If you broke into my old office when I was a graduate RLA, and see pictures of my old friends, is that as big a deal? Probably not... it's hard to say this is okay or not okay. But if we just say you can't go where you're not authorized to go, that's clear, and then we can deal with consequences on a case-by-case basis. Joe: Roof fines? Dave: At some point it was $500. I'll tell you my problem. When I was at Tulane and wasn't paying for school by myself, it wasn't a big deal. when I was at UConn, it was. It's inherently disproportionate. I personally have a problem giving you letters forever, so after two violations, probably administrative review, or CoD. CoD gives a whole range from here's another letter to getting suspended or expelled. I don't know, it's on a case by case basis, but what's consistent is the pathway. It's muddy, I know that, but situations are different. Geoffrey: What about locks? Some of my friends claim there's a difference if the door isn't locked. Dave: Well, if you leave your room unlocked, can anyone make themselves as home? No. You should use judgment about what's okay to enter and what isn't. Dave: What DormCon JudComms and JudComms can hear is cases where the potential consequences are informal probation or less. If the potential consequence is formal probation or more, it needs to go through my office or CoD. Not saying that _will_ be the consequence, just that if the potential consequences are that high, JudComms can't hear it. Formal means there's not only an active file but also a mark on your transcript "disciplinary probation". It doesn't say why, but it just says this. Once the time period's done it's off your transcript. When I came in the policy was "We keep all documents we keep". So I have things from '84 and '54 and missing things from the '90s. The policy I want to keep is a year after the incident or you graduate, it's destroyed. When that happens I'll let the Tech know. James O.: There was this thing where the IFC said dorms violate rush rules. Kip: At the last meeting, I mentioned that would be heard by a tribunal between DormCon JudComm, IFC, and a third party like Panhel. Dave: Right, we can't have a board that's just DormCon or IFC. So we have the appellate thing. (someone): How does Bexley fit into this picture? Dave: Bexley students are individual students. If DormCon JudComm refuses to hear it, they'd go to administrative review. Dave: And this is my plug for the police. If they follow the letter of the law, every single person caught where they're not supposed to be would be arrest. That is what non-discretion of the police would mean. If police talk about not having discretion, that's what that would mean, I.M.H.O. [sic] Dave: I would say 80% of the cases other than personal misconduct that come before the CoD have a history. This person started being a jerk, then we talked with the GRT, then they got drunk, and we talked to the housemaster... This gives you an opportunity to nip these in the bud. Let's say you, a dorm, have a hearing against some guy in your dorm. And he's been seen by my office a couple of times. And he's known by S^3 because he's been dealing with personal issues. You don't know any of this crap. What you think is a roommate conflict may be much heavier. This gives a way for that info to come into play. A lot of these things can be heard by students, instead of by me, writing letters behind closed doors. Aziz: When's training? Dave: Well, 'cause it's November, we might wait until IAP or beginning of spring. Dave: While I am not Chancellor Clay or Kirk Kolenbrander or the president herself, I am an administrator who deals with policy issues and talks to the chair of CoD, etc., so one benefit is that your JudComm reps would have a way to talk to the people responsible about policy things. My e-mail is ledave@mit.edu. For those who don't speak French, that's "The Dave." I'd love to come to your meetings in the future. Also, mediation is run through my office. Joe: What needs to be done to get certifiable? Dave: As long as there is a JudComm, it's fine. What we need are reps for DormCon JudComm; I suggest two. I'll do training and I'll feed you. Joe: Time committment for reps? Dave: So far we've met three times. If we become awash in cases, we'd meet two times a month, one for discussion and one for cases. But if we have five cases in a semester, I'd be amazed. One or two meetings a month, one to three hours a meeting. New Business Geoffrey: So I wanted to float this idea. The Hockfield town hall was well attended, and I really like these DormCon meetings where administrators come and talk to us, and such... A couple of friends and I came up with this idea, "Community Conversations". We'll get administrators or some faculty member in a policy committee, and invite them to come to dorms or other good places at different times of week or day so that as many people can come, and talk with them. This would be biweekly. We're working on a UA bill, but we wanted to get DormCon, maybe other groups involved. Dave: I'd come! Kip(?): I feel biweekly might be a bit much. Would you run out of interesting people? Aziz(?): I don't know who'd come. We have a dinner with Hockfield in March, we've booked this far ahead... last time, it was popular. But if you do it too often people might not come. Kip: I support the idea. Geoffrey: Would DormCon be willing to support through funding, through working with UA and other student government groups on organizing this? [mostly yes] James T.: Next meeting? Keri: Fine, we'll host it. [Senior House] James T.: Two weeks from today-- oops, that's Thanksgiving. Three weeks, then.