The problem with the ASC is not its members as individuals. The problem is that they are not a third party. Anytime someone is tried by a jury, they have the right not only to having a relatively impartial third party as jury, but also to strike people off of the jury if they feel there will be bias.
In a community of the size of Hillcrest, it is extremely likely that any given person who goes before ASC will know half of the people on the Council. Therein lies the problem. No one likes to get advice on things they consider to be important from people they interact with on a daily basis; they have to look across the room at those people every week in Colloquium, and in many cases they find themselves drinking with those people.
Another issue is the GPA requirement for ASC. Anyone with a 3.5 is a full member of Hillcrest Community, and yet a 3.6 is required for ASC participation, so that no member of ASC ever has to go up before the ASC.
It would be best if we could have members of another community try those people. But there are no other communities like Hillcrest here, so the obvious solution would be this:
Select members of the Community for "jury duty." Anyone with a 3.5 or above is eligible for this jury duty. The defendant should have the right to strike people off of the jury, and no jury member may try two trials in a row except in very specific circumstances (ie, the next person to be tried strikes everyone else in line off of his or her jury).
The chairperson position (elected by the Community) would still exist, but would not vote; the chairperson's responsibility would be to moderate the "trial" and ensure that the trial procedure is followed.
Please: When commenting on this post, do not use any Community members' names or specific situations you know of.