3/8/12

V.P.s case le subject of error | Stanford Daily

ADVERTISE

SUPPORT THE DAILY

CONTACT

ABOUT

FOR STAFF

JOIN US

SUBSCRIBE

JOB BOARD

CLASSIFIEDS

V.P.s&case&file&subject&of&error
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

By Elizabeth Titus Gobaud learned of violation through clerical mishap In an incident called profoundly regrettable by the vice provost for student affairs, student body president David Gobaud learned that his running m president Jay de la Torre, faced possible suspension for a suspected Honor Code violation only after he was mistakenly handed de la Torres case fil the Judicial Affairs office, where he was serving as a panelist on another case. The claim, confirmed by top University officials and de la Torre 10, has raised questions about how the Office of Judicial Affairs protects students communication between de la Torre and Gobaud 08, M.S. 10 before and after their election, and Gobauds efforts as president to encourage reform judicial processefforts that he says were appropriate even after he learned that his vice president was in the Judicial Affairs process. Gobaud offered the explanation last Friday in response to questions about when he learned that his vice president was alleged to have plagiarized co science class last fallan Honor Code violation whose standard penalty is a quarter-long suspension and 40 hours of community service. De la Torr responsible of the violation by a Judicial Affairs panel, received the standard penalty, appealed it and was denied at a final hearing earlier this quarte Nov. 11 meeting with student leaders and President Hennessy, and explained his suspension in a public statement the next day. I was shocked, Gobaud said about the day in late summer when, he said, a Judicial Affairs staff member mistakenly handed him the wrong case fi opened it and saw de la Torres name on the paperwork, my jaw dropped. The person who handed it to me, it was obviously like, Wait a minute. I think I should have this. She took it back. Several top University officials have responded to the mistake that apparently tipped Gobaud off to his vice presidents case, which, like all Judicial promised in the Universitys 1997 student judicial charter to be kept confidential by the office. It is clear that multiple parties made mistakes, said University President John Hennessy in an e-mail to The Daily, although he stopped short of nam Provost John Etchemendy called it a less serious mistake than if [the office] lost the file, handed it to somebody who wasnt on a panel, but said th a serious mistake. I am aware that an extremely unfortunate error occurred when David, as a judicial affairs panelist, was given the wrong file in preparation for a hea summer, said Vice Provost for Student Affairs Greg Boardman in an e-mail to The Daily. As you know, confidentiality in the judicial process is, an of utmost importance, and this mistake, while clearly unintentional, is profoundly regrettable. Gobaud has gone to lengths to explain the constraints he faced after learning about the case, noting that when he became a judicial affairs panelist la standard confidentiality agreement saying that information regarding any students disciplinary status is not to be discussed with anyone outside without the written authorization of the student. Gobaud said that agreement meant he could only seek advice about the incident from Judicial Affairs staff members and the associate vice provost w Judicial Affairs, Christine Griffith. Griffith told The Daily that panelists are expected to take their concerns to office staff. Gobaud said he believed h issue to any other administrators. The day he saw the case file, Gobaud said, Jay and I talked, and he told me about his case. David sat down with me because he was suspicious something was up, and I told him about my situation, de la Torre said in an e-mail to The Dail then started planning a transition for after de la Torres resignation, which took place some two months later. [Gobaud] was a good friend and respected my privacy, so he didnt discuss the situation with anyone I wasnt comfortable sharing it with, de la To maintains he would have faced a Fundamental Standard violation charge if he told anyone else about the case. Confidentiality, Reexamined Griffith sat down with The Daily and acknowledged that the mistake has prompted a review of confidentiality protocol in the Office of Judicial Affai I think given the weight of that responsibility that we feel in terms of confidentialitythats the highest charge we have in the office, no question, how seriously we take that responsibility, sure, its huge when theres a human error. She described the review process prompted by this summers incident, the likes of which have never, to her knowledge, happened before. We review what our protocols are, we try to determine, are there ways we can implement better protocols? And then we just reiterate the need [to st be as committed to that part of our work as we always have been, Griffith said. She said there have been no major protocol changes, but two practices have been reemphasized. One is requiring panelists to sign a confidentiality a Gobaud did. The fact that they agree when they volunteer to serve in this capacity to keep all information confidential is a big part of what we do, Griffith said. The second practice is the electronic document system the office switched to earlier this summer, which allows panelists to access case files on a sec said the system serves us well. Panelists can still request hard copies of case files, as Gobaud did for the case file he was supposed to pick up that d Jamie Pontius-Hogan, a judicial adviser who works in the office, explained the protocol for picking up file in person. We provided a kind of sealed envelope and they [the panelist] would walk into the front desk, she said. The person sitting at the front desk would need to see your ID, and theyd sign the little sign-out form and sign out the form and take the packet. Despite the fact that someone apparently gave Gobaud the wrong case file that day, Griffith said she is confident about efforts to protect students pr

www.stanforddaily.com/2009/12/03/v-p-s-case-le-subject-of-error-2/

1/3

3/8/12

V.P.s case le subject of error | Stanford Daily

the judicial charter. No, I dont have concerns about students privacy being at risk, Griffith said. I have all the confidence that were doing everything we possibly c dont have a repeat. Vetting de la Torre Gobaud and de la Torre have both offered descriptions of their communication before and after their election, and de la Torre has explained why, de possible suspension because of the plagiarism claim against him, he still ran. At the end of the day, I just wanted to help people, de la Torre wrote in an e-mail to The Daily. I always saw Stanford as this safe, perfect space. T about students with mental health challenges feeling alone and stories [of] girls getting raped really got to me, and I wanted to do something about it Ive sat down and thought about whether or not running and staying despite everything I was going through was the right decision, he added, an with that. He told The Daily three weeks ago, I thought if I made my caseexpressed my remorsewell enough to the judicial affairs panel, I could mitigate was very optimistic. Gobaud said that when he was evaluating de la Torre as a running mate last year, he did not ask him if he had any outstanding judicial affairs. Gob however, talk extensively with de la Torre about the time commitment necessary for student body executives, and nothing ever came up that caused doubt that he would be able to fulfill his duty. At Tuesdays ASSU Undergraduate Senate meeting, Gobaud also pointed to the Judicial Affairs language that indicated to him it was possible for de suspension. According to the Judicial Affairs Penalty Code, responding students are responsible for providing convincing evidence that a suspension would hav impactfor instance, intense and unavoidable public attentionfor the Panels consideration. In rare instances, a quarter of suspension may be post or at the most, two quarters. Senator Alex Katz 12 asked, Is this the reason, the sole reason, the announcement didnt happen earlier? This is one of the reasons, Gobaud said. He might have received an alternate sanction. Did you really not advise him against that, telling him that was probably not a reasonable expectation? Katz asked. I actually did tell him I didnt think it was possible, Gobaud said. After an appeal this fall, de la Torres suspension remained set for winter quarter. Of the 367 cases brought to Judicial Affairs between 2004 and 2007most of which were heard, though some were droppedone has ended with a after an appeal, according to statistics on the offices Web site. Gobauds Judicial Reform Meanwhile, students at Tuesdays Senate meeting pressed Gobaud on his efforts as president to encourage reform to parts of the judicial process, eff were appropriate even after he learned that his vice president faced suspension. Gobaud said he wasnt ready to specify what those efforts were, but later outlined them to The Daily. He said he had begun talking to administrators who work in or oversee the Office of Judicial Affairs since the springand continued after learning a caseregarding ideas to modify the judicial process. One, he said, is to change the current practice of assigning the same judicial adviser to the complaining partysay, a professor or T.A.and the r which, he said, risks confidentiality breaches. The other idea, he said, is creating a resource outside of the office to help students through the inherently stressful judicial process. Gobaud said he sent an e-mail to President Hennessy, Provost Etchemendy and Vice Provost Boardman shortly after de la Torres public announcem the situation and discussing his ideas. Seeing Jay go through the process helped shed light on the Judicial Affairs process for him, he told The Daily. He also called a meeting in early fall between some Senate and Graduate Student Council (GSC) members at his Munger apartment to discuss the Bo Affairs nominee issue that spurred weeks of disagreement in student government. There, too, he said he discussed his ideas for judicial changes. At Tuesdays meeting, Senator Zachary Warma 11, who is also The Dailys columns editor, asked Gobaud, You did not see how involving legislat against the Office of Judicial Affairs just as your number two is being reviewed under Judicial Affairs, how that comes off as circumspect? Gobaud said the meeting was to discuss the board matter, not the office. The Senate unanimously approved Andy Parker 11 as Gobauds nominee to replace de la Torre as vice president. The group also voted 8-5 to appro 10 as co-chief of the executive staff, formerly Parkers position. Appointments, however, require a two-thirds vote, so Abuzeid remains unconfirme Undergraduate Senate. She was approved by the GSC two weeks ago. Devin Banerjee contributed to this report.
Like

Add New Comment

www.stanforddaily.com/2009/12/03/v-p-s-case-le-subject-of-error-2/

2/3

3/8/12

V.P.s case le subject of error | Stanford Daily

Showing 0 comments
M Subscribe by email S RSS

www.stanforddaily.com/2009/12/03/v-p-s-case-le-subject-of-error-2/

3/3