Students are questioning the motives of University Judicial Office Director Larry Bolles, who cancelled a judicial advisory board meeting last Wednesday to discuss revisions in NIU’s judicial code.

The meeting, which was planned to discuss a Student Association proposal for changes in the code, has been rescheduled for Wednesday at 2 p.m. after Bolles cancelled it, citing various reasons.

Jay Stein, student member of the board, said, “The cancellation of the meeting (last week) is suspect.”

According to Stein, Bolles said one reason for the cancellation was faculty board members could not make it to the meeting because of illness.

Jim Fabris, SA welfare adviser, said a majority of the seven voting board members were present, therefore the meeting should have been held.

Bolles, who is chairman of the judicial advisory board, said he, not other board members, was feeling ill that day and the chairman must be present for a meeting to be held.

Another reason Bolles cited for the cancellation was information from the Discrimination Task Force needed for the discussion of one of the changes had not arrived in time for the meeting. Approval of this particular proposal would add separate sexual and racial harassment violations to the current general harassment code.

Fabris said even though the task force information had not arrived, there were ten other proposals on the agenda. “Bolles was not dealing in good faith with us. The postponement is not constructive,” he said.

Bolles said he, along with other members of the board, did not have a chance to read the proposal. He said the postponement allowed time for the members to become more aquainted with the material before discussing it.

Fischer said he met with Bolles before the meeting was to be held and “he (Bolles) definitely knew the content.” However, he said Bolles might not have had a chance to read the proposal thoroughly.

“There’s a danger of manipulating the (advisory board) committee,” Stein said. He said Bolles is an administrator and should be held accountable. Fischer said, “I’m not at all happy with the way Larry Bolles handled the situation.”

Bolles said there is no real issue involved in postponing a meeting. He said he has cancelled at least five meetings in the past and probably will have to cancel more in the future. He said, “Only one member of the board, Stein, is upset about the cancellation.”

According to Fabris, a complaint about the cancellation was filed with Jon Dalton, Vice President for Student Affairs.

The proposal for the changes in the code was drawn up by an SA ad hoc committee “because the judicial system has inequities and the rights of the accused should be protected more,” Fabris said. He said the changes would give an alleged offender a fair chance in the system.

Fabris said the proposal was brought up late in the year because he was informed of the first advisory board meeting only two weeks ago. He said discussion and research for the proposal has been a year-long process, although it first was written after notification of the meeting was received.

The proposal is divided into 10 major sections each to be voted on separately, Fabris said. He said there is a good chance some of the sections will be approved because the student board members are “soundly for all the proposals.”

Only one of the other board members is needed to approve each section, he said. The voting members of the board include three students, two faculty members, one administrator and the judicial hearing officer.

Fabris said some of the proposals were brought up during the 1982-83 school year and failed. According to Fabris, this is the last time any of the proposals were brought up to the board.