The Interfraternity Council should vote at its meeting tonight on whether to take the power to sanction NIU fraternities by amending the IFC constitution.

The meeting will take place at 8 p.m. in the Holmes Student Center Heritage Room.

NIU imposes sanctions against fraternities and the IFC would like to take that responsibility away from the university, said IFC President Tom Zur in a previous interview.

Jeff Cufaude, adviser for University Programming and Activities, said that sanctions are imposed by either NIU’s Judicial Board or UP&A. He said his office has the authority to impose sanctions involving student organizations.

Once a self-governing policy has been formulated, which would put more cases under the IFC’s jurisdiction, it will be submitted to the NIU administration for approval, Cufaude said.

“It (the policy) is an opportunity for more self-governance,” he said.

Previously, Tom Kermagard, IFC Administrative Committee vice president, said the proposed constitutional changes would give the IFC Judicial Board supreme sanctioning power.

Cufaude said the judicial board would hold hearings and would decide any sanctions against fraternity members.

Kermagard said any sanctions the judicial board imposes would be approved by the IFC Executive Board. Cufaude said this will ensure the sanctions are consistent.

The proposed constitutional changes would alter the structure of the IFC’s judicial board, Kermagard said. The proposed judicial board would have eight members—six fraternity members and two faculty advisers, he said.

Student judicial members would be elected by fraternity members, he said.

Cufaude said the two faculty advisers would be elected by the fraternity advisory group. He said the advisory group consists of a chapter adviser and a chapter member appointed by the board members.

The judicial board’s chief justice will be a fraternity member appointed by the board members, Cufaude said.

Kermagard said eight members were chosen because a 4 to 3 vote, which would be possible with a seven-member structure, would be too close to make firm decisions.

If a 4 to 4 vote is reached at a hearing, then a committee—appointed by the board—will investigate the incident in question and report back to the judicial board, Kermagard said.