The Student Association has proposed more than 10 changes to the NIU judicial code in an effort to update the system.

One change would be to divide the current code’s general harassment charge into three categories, including ethnic and sexual harassment violations and a revised general harassment charge, according to the proposal.

A second change limits the jurisdiction of the judicial system from both on and off-campus activities to those which are on-campus. The jurisdiction already has been limited because of the shift in the minimum adult age from 21 to 18 years of age, but the current code does not reflect this change, the proposal states.

The current Student Judicial Code states an accused student must meet with an NIU staff member, who eventually might act as prosecutor, to tell his side of the story. After all arguments have gone before the Judicial Hearing Board, the staff member may give additional information to the board during its deliberation.

If the proposal is passed, the staff member might act as hearing officer only if the case goes before the hearing board, but not if it is to be decided by the hearing officer. Also, the hearing officer can enter the deliberations only at the board’s request to answer procedural questions, and the accused student also should be present.

The SA’s proposal would eliminate the Guidepost, the residence hall handbook, because of its lack of student input and require all student disciplinary regulations to appear in the judicial code book. Presently, students may be charged in the NIU judicial system if they violate either the Student Judicial Code or the Guidepost.

Another addition to the current code book would give the alleged offender the right to a second appeal to the vice president for Student Affairs if there is a dispute in the judicial procedure or the actions of a staff member. The current system allows a second appeal only in the case of suspension or expulsion.

Amendments to the judicial code are made by the Judicial Advisory Board, which is comprised of two faculty members, an administrator, three students and the university judicial officer. According to the SA’s proposal, the judicial officer should be a non-voting member because he is an administrator of the system and, thus, should not be a policy maker as well.

Other “house cleaning” changes are included in the proposal. For example, upon written request by an accused offender who has been found not guilty, records pertaining to the case will be destroyed immediately rather than upon the student’s graduation.