bylawsch4

CHAPTER IV

Boards

Section 1.  Grievance Board. The purpose of the Grievance Board is to determine when there is sufficient cause to call a special meeting of the New England Law Review.
(a) The Grievance Board shall be convened for either of two reasons:
(i) to consider a petition to sanction; or
(ii) to consider the propriety of summary actions.
(b) To convene a Grievance Board, the interested party should petition the Editor-in-Chief pursuant to Chapter V, Section 3;
(c) The Grievance Board shall consist of the following seven (7) members:
(i) the three (3) members of the Executive Committee;
(ii) two (2) members selected by lottery from the editors; and
(iii) two (2) members selected by lottery from the Associate Members.
(d) If any representative is unable to attend a Grievance Board meeting, an alternate shall be selected by lottery from the same pool as the non-attending representative.  If an Executive Committee member cannot attend the meeting, an alternate shall also be selected by lottery from the editors.

 

Section 2.  Articles Board. This Board shall be responsible for the solicitation and editing of articles.
(a) The Articles Board shall consist of the following:
(i) Editor-in-Chief
(ii) Executive Articles Editors
(b) any other New England Law Review members selected by the Executive Committee in conjunction with the Executive Articles Editors.
(c) The Board is charged with, but not limited to, the following duties:
(i) to evaluate solicited and unsolicited articles, verify the qualifications of authors, and offer publication to authors as outlines in Chapter VII.
(ii) to correspond with the lead articles authors as appropriate and keep a written log of any conversation, letters or actions taken with regard to an article;
(iii) to ascertain the substantive accuracy of articles under consideration;
(d) To establish, maintain, and solicit articles for publication as an “Alumni Chair.”
Section 3. Symposium Board. The Symposium Board is primarily responsible the New England Law Review’s annual symposium.
(a) The Symposium Board shall consist of the following:
(i) Business Managing Editor, as chairperson;
(ii) the Symposium Editors; and
(iii) any other New England Law Review member selected by the Executive Committee in conjunction with the Symposium Editors.
(b) The Symposium Board is responsible for the solicitation and editing of all articles submitted by the Symposium.  In addition, the Board is charged with, but is not limited to, the following specific duties:
(i) selecting an appropriate and timely Symposium topic no later than two months following the last day of the spring semester exams, subject to the approval of the Executive Committee by majority vote;
(ii) corresponding with the lead symposium authors as appropriate and to keep a written record of any conversation, letters or actions taken with regard to a lead symposium article;
(iii) evaluating symposium articles and, by majority vote, giving final approval for publication;
(iv) ensuring the substantive accuracy of all articles under consideration.
(c) The Symposium Board, as a “quasi-articles” and “quasi-student articles” board, shall adhere to the production schedule established for student articles and to the procedures, as applicable and appropriate, for accepting an Associate Member’s article for publication/publishable quality status.

 

Section 4.  Student Articles Board. (“SAB” or “Board”) There shall be at least three Student Articles Boards consisting of one Senior or Executive Editor, as chairperson, and at least two Comment & Note Editors.
(a) Timing.  The SAB shall convene to determine publishable quality (“PQ”) upon the request of a Comment & Note Editor, or following the final deadline established by the Executive Committee and (the) Executive Comment & Note Editor(s) for submission of student articles.  At least two revisions to an article must have occurred before the final deadline.
(b) Purpose. Each SAB shall review each article with regard to its:
(i) organization,
(ii) clarity,
(iii) grammar,
(iv) technical accuracy,
(v) breadth of sources,
(vi) legal analysis,
(vii) persuasiveness,
(viii) originality, and
(ix) and suitability for publication.
Each member of the Board shall vote on whether the article should be accepted for “PQ” or be returned to the Associate Member for further revision in order that “PQ” may be attained.  The majority vote of publishable quality may be conditioned, by the Student Articles Board, on minor changes only.  Written guidelines and standards for reviewing Associate Members’ articles shall be promulgated by the Executive Committee and be issued to all Editors and Associate Members.
(c) PQ determinations. If deemed “PQ,” the article shall be promptly forwarded to the Faculty Advisor for final approval.  If the article is denied publishable quality status, the article shall be promptly returned to the Primary Editor and Associate Member with suggested revisions and a deadline date by which said revisions are to be incorporated.
(d) Appeals. After the final decision of the SAB, appeal of its decision may be made to the Student Articles Appeals Board. Only PQ determinations may be appealed.
(e) Review of SAB’s Decision. After an affirmative vote of PQ by a SAB, the Executive Committee, only upon petition by any member of the accepting SAB, has authority to review the decision of the SAB.  Upon majority vote by the Executive Committee, the decision of the accepting SAB may be affirmed or reversed.
(i) If the Executive Committee votes to reverse the decision of the accepting SAB, the SAB’s and the Executive Committee’s recommendations shall be returned to the author to begin revisions for submission to the accepting SAB.  If, upon resubmission of the article, the SAB again accepts the article for PQ and the original petitioning member remains opposed to the acceptance, then the student article will be reviewed by the Student Articles Appeals Board, and not by the Executive Committee.  In such cases, the decision of the Student Articles Appeals Board shall be final and the article, at that time, will be only accepted or rejected for PQ.  If, however, the Executive Committee votes to reverse the decision of the accepting SAB, and the acceptance was upon the author’s final submission, then the author’s review shall be confined to an appeal to the Student Articles Appeals Board.
(f) After a Comment & Note Editor’s request for early PQ determination, pursuant to subsection (a) (“timing”) of this Section, and following the convening of the SAB, appeal may not be made to the Student Articles Appeals Board.  Rather, the Associate Member’s article shall be returned with suggested revisions made by the entire SAB.
(g) Publications Considerations Process: All members in good standing shall have the right to indicate, by vote, ten (10) student articles they think ought be published in the New England Law Review, administered through the following process:
(i) All student articles deemed PQ by an SAB shall be considered for publication by all members.
(ii) A student author can withdraw his or her article from the publications decisions process.
(iii) The authorship of Student Articles shall remain anonymous.
(iv) All members shall have access to:
1.      The complete, final version of the Students’ Articles;
2.      The SAB’s determination of “suitability” for publication; and
3.      A short abstract may be prepared by the student author.
(v) Voting upon Student Articles for publication shall be effectuated by means of:
1.      A roll call vote conducted at a meeting of the membership of the New England Law Review;
2.      A vote by written ballots distributed to every member of the New England Law Review; or
3.      An electronic vote utilizing a secure electronic polling application available through the medium of communication primarily used by the New England Law Review.
(vi) Timing. Voting shall be completed within three (3) weeks of PQ determinations.
(vii) Counting Votes. Each member shall cast up to ten (10) votes for up to ten (10) separate articles; members cannot cast more than one vote per article.
(viii) Weighting Votes. Editors’ votes shall be counted for twice the value of Associates’ votes.
(h) Publications Decisions: The Chairpersons of the SABs plus the Executive Committee shall make final publications decisions based upon the following factors:
(i) The number of articles to be published;
(ii) The votes cast by all members, as set forth in subsection (g), “Publications Considerations Process” of this Section;
(iii) The opinions of the Incoming Executive Committee may be considered; and
(iv) Any other considerations deemed relevant by the Executive Editors and Chairpersons of the SABs.

 

Section 5.  Student Articles Appeals Board. (“SAAB”) The SAAB shall consist of the Executive Committee and those SAB Chairpersons whose Associate Members are not submitting an appeal.
(a) The SAAB is empowered to review, and by a majority vote, override an SAB’s finding that an article is not PQ upon its final revision.
(i) A member of an accepting SAB had petitioned the Executive Committee.
(ii) The Executive Committee had reversed the SAB’s decision for acceptance.
(iii) The original petitioning member renews his or her petition of the acceptance a second time.
(b) The SAAB is also empowered, by majority vote, to render a final decision of acceptance or rejection for publication of a student article.
(c) Appeals to the SAAB may be made by a student, as a matter of right; however, only one such appeal is permitted and the decision of the SAAB is final.  If the SAAB upholds a SAB’s or Symposium Board’s denial of PQ status, then the student’s article shall promptly be returned to the “Primary” Editor and Associate Member with suggested revisions and a deadline date by which such revisions shall be incorporated.