By Kyle Swanson, Managing Editor
Published March 13, 2011
University officials have proposed changes to a highly criticized policy that has prohibited an estimated 2,000 people from stepping foot on the Ann Arbor campus in the last decade.
More like this
At a press briefing Friday, Suellyn Scarnecchia, the vice president and general counsel at the University, described six changes she is proposing to the University’s current trespass warning policy. The rule, which was developed 10 years ago, allows University Police to ban individuals from campus.
Among the proposed changes are a narrowing of what trespass warnings may be issued for, additional administrative review of issued trespass warnings, a faster appeals review process and the implementation of timelines under which trespass orders would expire.
Scarnecchia also proposed variations that would strengthen the power of trespass warnings. She said bans should be enforced on all three of the University’s campuses, not just the campus where the incident occurs.
The review of the Department of Public Safety’s current policy, according to Scarnecchia, was prompted after a University faculty member, who had been issued a trespass warning, raised concerns and after the Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union decried the trespass policy issued against former Michigan Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell. Shirvell created the blog “Chris Armstrong Watch,” which accused Michigan Student Assembly President Chris Armstrong of putting forth a “radical homosexual agenda” in the student government, in addition to calling him a racist and elitist.
Currently, four criteria exist for when University Police may read a trespass warning: when an individual has committed or is suspected of committing a crime on campus, when an individual disrupts the operations of the University, when an individual poses a risk of physical harm to others or when an individual refuses to adhere to University rules.
Scarnecchia is recommending the last reason be amended to limit the scope of when a trespass warning may be issued to situations in which an individual refuses to adhere to University rules that “protect the health, safety and welfare of the University’s community members and property.”
“(We want) to link it to protection of the community’s safety and not to just any University rule, which could be read too broadly,” Scarnecchia said.
Scarnecchia is also recommending a more streamlined review process be put in place once a trespass warning has been issued. She’s proposing that all DPS officers must submit notice to their shift supervisor whenever they issue a trespass warning so that the supervisor may review it and recommend modification or rescission of it to the DPS executive director if the supervisor believes it is warranted.
“There’s nothing in the policy that required that, and we think that a second pair of eyes on the issuance of the trespass warning within a very short period of time … will help ensure consistency across the department,” Scarnecchia said.
Additionally, Scarnecchia is asking that all hearings of appeals be scheduled within 30 days of an appeal being filed and that the outcome of the meetings be decided within 10 days thereafter.
Currently, no time limit exists for appeals of trespass warnings. Some have suggested a procedure in which an automatic appeal be filed each time a trespass warning is issued, though Scarnecchia said she doesn’t know whether such a process would be in anyone’s best interest.
“I’m going to be open to that conversation and whether or not that ought to happen, but … sometimes people understand why they’re being trespassed and they are not inclined to appeal,” Scarnecchia said, mentioning other circumstances like criminal charges might also be a reason why individuals may not want to appeal their trespass warning.
People have also raised concerns over the appeal process because only the executive director of DPS or his or her designee can hear appeals.
