Yesterday marked the last meeting of the 2005-06 Associated Students Legislative Council before turnover next week, when newly elected members will be sworn in.

At their meeting, the Leggies passed two resolutions, one about university judicial policies and another concerning campus lighting. The council also discussed the possibility of student-funded tuition for the position of advocate general in the Office of the Student Advocate.

With its first resolution, council members backed an OSA policy paper that recommends the creation of a formal UC policy on the use of interactive social networking websites, such as Facebook.com, in University judicial affairs. Currently, the University lacks such a policy, allowing officials in campus or residence hall judicial affairs to use photographs or other information on students’ profiles as evidence in review hearings.

OSA worked with the UC Berkeley Office of the Student Advocate on the paper.

The OSA memorandum listed five points on how the University should use these websites. Included was the creation of programs warning students about the risk of posting photographs or other information on the sites. It also recommended that the University distinguish between surveillance and investigation.

In addition, the policy paper stated that university employees should only use office accounts to collect evidence against students, but in so doing, they must make the existence of these accounts public knowledge. The University should also, according to the OSA, clarify evidence types that can be gathered through the sites.

However, as one of the five points, OSA requested that the University discontinue using the websites as an investigative tool until a formal policy is passed, “unless there exists a threat of harassment or imminent danger to students.”

OSA caseworker Ashley Dodson, a second-year law & society and classics major, encouraged the council to support OSA’s resolution.

“With the rise in popularity of Facebook, we feel that students are being faced with challenges,” Dodson said. “We feel that the [current] lack of policy is a failure to protect students.”

Following her presentation, the Leggies debated supporting the resolution and made a few grammatical corrections.

University-Owned Housing Representative Felix Hu urged the board to pass the resolution because he said it checks the power of the university.

“[OSA is] out there to make sure the University policy doesn’t over-infringe on student rights,” Hu said. “I urge support for this resolution and urge the administration to have a formal policy and not [use the websites] in an arbitrary manner.”

Before passing the resolution, the council also debated ambiguous terms such as what the University classifies as a ‘serious’ crime, and the distinction between surveillance and investigation. It passed with 14 in favor, one opposed and one abstaining.

In addition to the OSA policy, the board also passed a resolution urging Chancellor Henry T. Yang to fund the replacement of some 2,000 out-of-date light posts and fixtures on campus.

“The intent is to get them to answer to it and to do what we urge them to do,” Off-Campus Rep. Ryann Gastwirth said. “It’s a huge phase-out process that will take a long time.”

After the meeting, Gastwirth said Leg Council will now wait for a response from the chancellor. Since the beginning of this year, she said, the campus has replaced 200 light posts and fixtures.

The council unanimously passed the resolution.

During the discussion period of the meeting, the members of the council expressed concerns about the possible funding of tuition for the OSA advocate general. The position of advocate general recently became an elected position, as students voted this spring to support the constitutional amendment allowing for this change.

Off-Campus Rep Amelia Holstrom said A.S. is not fiscally capable of paying the amount of money required for the advocate general’s tuition. Currently, the four executive officer positions in A.S. are paid for through student fees.

“We don’t have the money to pay another $6,000 for someone’s tuition,” she said.

In an interview after the meeting, current Advocate General Neil Dipaola said it is premature to disapprove of tuition for the position, as it will not be held by an elected member until next spring’s election.

He said he supported the idea of having tuition provided for the advocate general, which might be funded through a lock-in fee.

“There’s no reason the advocate general shouldn’t have tuition paid for,” Dipaola said. “They are an executive position and they put in every bit as much work as other executive officers who get tuition paid for.”