Student Government is receiving unusual attention from University administration after a failed constitutional referendum prompted an immediate halt of the split between the judicial branch and the rest of the governmental body.

The demand by administration to stop the separation may only be temporary, however, as Student Government leaders and their advisers are now charged with creating a recommendation pertaining to the future of the disciplinary body.

The referendum, which had a turnout of 1.4 percent of the student population, would have officially removed language pertaining to the judicial branch from the Student Body Constitution, effectively transferring the body to a division of the Office of Student Conduct.

Although the measure failed by 53 percent in late November, the Student Senate planned to continue the changeover, retaining the constitutional wording and defining the branch as a “dormant” body, according to a memo from Student Senate President Forrest Hinton.

But Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Tom Stafford put the Senate’s actions on hold in a Nov. 8 memo, pointing out that UNC System code gives the chancellor “ultimate authority” in the roles and functions of Student Government.

“…given the failure of the constitutional referendum, I will not support the separation of the Judicial Branch from Student Government until a more thorough review of the implications and consequences can take place,” Stafford wrote.

The memo also charged Evelyn Reiman, associate vice chancellor for student affairs and adviser to Student Body President Whil Piavis, to submit a recommendation on the fate of the judicial branch to the chancellor by Feb. 9.

“The executive, legislative and judicial branches and their advisers need to all sit down together and any concerns they have need to be put on the table and discussed to agree on some resolution,” Stafford said.

Although he said the failure of the referendum was the main cause of the administration’s direct intervention into the process, he said the issue is part of a bigger problem. According to Stafford, this intervention rarely occurs.

“I’ve been concerned about the relationship between the branches,” Stafford said. “This is just one piece of that.”

Stafford said he does not agree with Director of the Office of Student Conduct Paul Cousins, who originally initiated the process of the split.

Cousins, however, said his reasoning was clear.

“The problem has to do with working with the Senate,” Cousins said.

He claimed the organization continues to “struggle with a role definition” and said it acts with no checks and balances and up until now, no consequences to its actions.

“There is a consequence,” Cousins said. “I don’t want to be engaged anymore.”

He said the changeover of the judicial branch from Student Government to the Office of Student Conduct was meant to reflect the way the organization has operated over recent years.

“It’s always been a relationship of convenience,” Cousins said. “It isn’t grounded in some philosophical understanding.”

But according to Hinton, the problems aren’t as much with the Senate as they are with Cousins.

“He promotes an atmosphere of hostility between the Senate and the Judicial Board — one that wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t nurtured,” Hinton said. “As long as Paul Cousins is here, there will not be a good relationship with the Judicial Board.”

The future of the judicial branch now lies in the hands of the executive board and their respective advisers, including Reiman, who will now work toward consensus on a recommendation to the chancellor.

“We have to make a recommendation about what we feel is in the best interests for the student body and the best interests of the University,” Reiman said. “Hopefully those interests will converge.”

Reiman said the failure of the constitutional referendum will be an important part of the discussion.

“The failure means we don’t know what students know or believe about the judicial branch,” Reiman said. “We don’t know the will of the student body.”

Hinton said although he will be coming in to the discussion “with the spirit of compromise,” he said he does have his doubts about whether student leaders and administrators will come to an agreement.

“We’ve come to the conclusion that we both want the same goal — we both want a Judicial Board that’s part of Student Government and truly represents students but can also perform the duties of the Office of Student Conduct,” Hinton said. “At the same time, both the Soviet Union and America wanted peace.”