A term in the judicial code was clarified by the University Council at its September meeting that has baffled faculty and students alike for years.

The debate, that ran at UC meetings for a year, was provoked by a statement in the Committees book of the UC under University Judicial Advisory Board that states, “The board shall recommend changes to the president through the University Council.”

“Almost every year somebody would ask why we were debating a judicial change. We have no real jurisdiction over these matters,” said J. Carroll Moody, executive secretary of the university council.

Moody said the discussion began because the terminology of the word “through” was unclear.

“It got to the point where a faculty member motioned for an amendment to be made that the UC could change judicial policy,” he said.

The amendment was dismissed at the March 29 meeting when a motion was brought forth not to change the university constitution regarding the relationship between the UC and the student judicial code.

However, the approved motion also included recommendations that the UC clarify the “through” term as it appears in the committee’s book.

Moody said “through” was taken to mean all changes to the judicial code must go through the UC while others believed the council can discuss them but the president has the final authority.

He said the president always has had the final authority over judicial conflicts.

The UC has control over any changes in the composition of the Judicial Advisory Board and the Judicial Hearing Board, he said.

Moody said “composition” means the make-up of the board members and any changes to that make-up.

The motion was discussed by the Rules and Governance Committee and the group interpreted “through” to mean that all recommended changes be sent to the executive secretary of the UC.

The committee then recommended that Moody make three considerations:

‘If the recommendations concern academic misconduct, they must go to the University Council for advice.

‘If the recommendations concern a Committees book change, they must be approved by the University Council.

‘Other recommendations considered substantial, not merely editorial, should be reviewed by the University Council in an advisory capacity, if the executive secretary feels that a review is warranted.

Moody said the third consideration might need fine-tuning because the word “editorial” could mean grammatical changes in language or changes in intent or substance.

Larry Bolles, director of the University Judicial Office, wouldn’t comment on the change but said he was told it would make the process smoother.

Students and faculty members concur that the new system is bound to work well, Moody said.