The saga of GW Law’s response to the ABA guidance issued earlier this year continues to get worse. The members of the Journal Advisory Committee (JAC) — which has only met a single time this year — were left out of decisions made by its Chair, Associate Professor Joan Schaffner, that affected each journal and contradicted earlier direction. These circumstances raise the question: what is the point of having an advisory committee if decisions will be made without its members’ input?

Historically, the JAC has been positioned as a resource to support the individual needs of the journals and provide recommendations on faculty decisions regarding journals. Each publication operates with unique structures, timelines, and requirements that reflect their particular editorial focuses and member needs. Earlier this year, journal leaders were told they had the autonomy to establish their own time-tracking systems, designed to fit their individualized needs. This approach allowed for flexibility and responsiveness to the demands of each journal’s work cycle.

Then, on Monday, Nov. 11, Professor Schaffner directed student editors-in-chief of journals to send a new, universal time-tracking form to each member. Each member was to log their time into pre-set categories within a two-week period. The form was not editable and required the member to provide detailed explanations for activities conducted under each category. This was in addition to the spreadsheet each member would have to upload detailing the dates, times, and descriptions of activities completed throughout the semester.

Journal leadership immediately voiced concerns. First, many journals did not develop their time-tracking system in a way that made this process easy to implement. For example, some journals established a system where timesheets were to be maintained by editors rather than members. Second, some students expressed concerns that the two-week deadline needlessly added to a stressful time of year, since the data would not be reviewed until January anyway. Third, despite a contentious JAC meeting earlier in the year, the categories remained confusing, complicated, and unrepresentative of actual activities assigned among journals.

It is clear that student frustrations with this faculty directive could have been avoided with one simple step: calling a meeting of the JAC and asking the student representatives what would have worked for them. Instead, the JAC Chair acted unilaterally and contradictorily without student input — without the input of its members. That action has resulted in confusion, complications, requests for extensions, and may result in more issues going forward.

There is value in tracking time, but this directive lacked a reasonable timeline and failed to respect the individual structures of each publication. Students and journal leaders are reportedly seeking clarification and advocating for a review of the JAC’s approach to journal management.

One thing is clear: for the JAC to function appropriately, its members need to be provided timely notice, clear and consistent communication, and an opportunity to give input on policies.