Judicary members see no conflict of interest

Despite questions surrounding the body's objectivity, the Tufts Community Union Judiciary (TCUJ) members with conflicts of interest in an issue will continue to be able to decide for themselves whether or not to abstain from voting.

Members of the Judiciary said new regulations are not needed, as the individual justices can determine whether they need to recuse themselves. In addition, members of the TCUJ may force other member to sit out votes.

The discussion emerged following the recognition application of the Tufts Rights to Arms Club, which was co-founded by Judiciary member Nicholas Boyd. He decided to recuse himself from the Judiciary's deliberations. "I don't want to create any more controversy than the club already has," he said at the time.

But before the Judiciary's deliberations began, Boyd said he "may change his mind" if the vote was close. The Judiciary's regulations do not mention conflicts of interest, except for student disciplinary hearings.

Boyd's participation turned out to be unnecessary, as the TRA was approved by a 4-0-1 vote, with one member abstaining. As a recognized student organization, the group is allowed to use the Tufts name and will be eligible for student activities funding.

TCUJ Chair Abby Moffat said judiciary members were expected to remove themselves from any discussions they believe they cannot be impartial in. The TCUJ Chair can also bar a justice from a vote if he or she believes the justice would be unable to perform his or her duty.

Moffat said that justices regularly abstain from voting, but recusal was rare. She said Boyd was the first member who had decided to recuse himself from the recognition process in two years.

"Abstention is if your vote is biased, recusal is if your opinion might bias others," Moffat said. She said someone might abstain if there is a possible relation, such a friend, which might affect how a justice would vote. A member would recuse themselves when they have vital role in the organization, such as Boyd's role as co-founder of the TRA.

The Judiciary's written regulations -- the TCU Constitution and its bylaws -- do not require judicial members to refrain from voting on the recognition of student organizations they belong to.

Judiciary member Jordana Starr is also a member of the TRA's executive board. Starr said she joined the club after the organization was approved. Her name was not on the list of members submitted to the Judiciary in its application to be recognized.

She said she joined because she was "friends with a lot of people in the club" and participating in The Primary Source's annual trip to a shooting range had increased her interest in second amendment issues.

Starr said she became the group's secretary after the original candidate decided not to join the organization.

Dean of Students Bruce Reitman said justices should recuse themselves from any vote they have a stake in. "If someone is not in a position to consider something objectively, in any type of vote, he or she should not participate. This is a judiciary, not a legislative body," he said.

The regulations governing disciplinary hearings are different. The TCU Constitution requires Judiciary members to recuse themselves from any case for which they have a "relationship or involvement, current, or past, with any persons who are litigants in a hearing."

Judiciary members said it was impractical for these bylaws to apply to recognition process, because of the size of Tufts' student body.

Starr said the rule could limit the ability of judiciary members to join organizations. "Let's say there's a club that would garner a lot of interest, and a huge proportion of the student body," Starr said. "Then we can't have a quorum and we can't have a vote."

She added that it would be impossible to prove someone is biased when recognizing a new group. "There's no way to prove by a standard whether someone has an interest in the club."

Reitman said that since the criteria for recognition are clearly defined -- an organization must fit within the TCU constitution and not duplicate another group's purpose -- there should rarely be a problem.

"There have been appeals of J recognition decisions, so there is room in the process for contention," he added.

Another check on the power of the judiciary is the Committee for Student Life (CSL). The TCU Senate and Judiciary meet at the behest of the CSL, and all student government decisions can be appealed to the CSL, which includes students, faculty and administrators.

CSL member and chemistry professor Chris Morse -- an expert on the rules and the structure of Tufts student government -- likened the CSL to "judicial review" of the entire student government process.

"If someone feels there is a problem with the process, the CSL is here to deal with it," he said. "The CSL is the primary appeal body for anything that comes from the Judiciary."

Morse admitted that the environment of the University may prevent the Judiciary members from avoiding all conflicts of interest. He said the school is too small an environment for students not to be familiar with a group of students pitching a new organization, he said.

"Half the students who came before the CSL last year were my students." Morse said. "Am I supposed to recuse myself every time I know the person?"

He added that the Pachyderm allows complainants to file appeals to the Judiciary and CSL within 24 hours of a hearing if they believe any justice will be biased.

A conflict of interest bylaw could also come from external sources. Students or faculty can propose any changes to the TCU Constitution, which must be approved by the student body in a vote.