I.    Recommendations that are primarily editorial.
II.   Recommendations on academic integrity supported unanimously by the Academic Standards and Calendar Committee
III.  Substantive recommendations on student conduct system.
IV. Substantive Changes to Policy #86-1” Administrative Room Entry and Search Procedure

9.21.15 Administrative Hearings shall be conducted …… (3) if a student requests an administrative hearing; and (4) if in the judgment of the Office of Student Life, scheduling difficulties, time pressures, the seriousness of the case, and/or similar circumstances make an administrative hearing necessary and/or appropriate. it is necessary to ensure that a hearing occurs in a timely fashion, to insure the health and safety of any of the participants or to insure an unbiased hearing.
Rationale: Refines description of circumstances for administrative hearings.

5.74.20 Hearing Panels….. Panel members shall be appointed from the Conduct Board members by the Office of Student Life. Faculty or staff who have been Conduct Board members in the past and who are conversant with the current system may be asked to serve on individual hearing panels when a sufficient number of current Board members is not available.
Rationale: insures that hearing participants’ knowledge is up to date.  

9.21.21 Presence of Accused, Oaths, Burden of Proof, and Standards of Evidence Proof. …… The charging official and the chair of the panel will work to eliminate prejudicial and irrelevant information.  If the charged student feels that this has not been done, he/she can add a written complaint or correction to the materials that are given to the hearing panel or officer.   The panel shall rule on the admissibility of evidence.  Unduly repetitious or irrelevant evidence may be excluded.  
Rationale:  Less legalistic; clearer responsibility for hearing content.

9.21.27 Continuance of Disciplinary Proceedings. ……If a student completing degree requirements is accused of an offense for which suspension or dismissal are appropriate penalties, his/her diploma may be withheld pending resolution of the conduct proceedings or during a period of suspension.
Rationale:  Clarifies that diplomas may be withheld not only during conduct proceedings, but also during suspension.

9.21.31 Deferral of Proceedings.  The staff of the Office of Student Life may defer conduct action at any stage of the process for a period not to exceed ninety calendar days when school is in session. ….
Rationale:  Clarifies timing of deferral.

9.21.34 Conduct Records. All conduct records, such as complaint letters, correspondence, charge letters, decision letters, and hearing summaries, shall be considered confidential, and be maintained by the Office of Student Life for five six years after the date of the conduct action.  Records of unresolved incidents shall be reviewed annually starting with the 5-year 6-year anniversary.  ……
Rationale:  Federal guidelines have changed from 5 to 6 years.

9.22.11 No Further Action. When the student is found responsible for the violation(s), and the discussion with the haring officer or the hearing before the appropriate panel has been sufficient in and of itself, further action may not be deemed necessary.  However, the verdict is still noted in the student’s record in the Office of Student Life. In cases where the discussion with the administrative officer or the hearing before the appropriate student conduct board has been sufficient, the student will be notified that there is no further action necessary.
Rationale:  Reflects current practice. Responsibility for a violation always carries a sanction, even if it is only a warning.

(New) 8.27.20 Students accused of academic dishonesty within the drop period may be denied the opportunity to drop the course.  This requires permission from the instructor’s dean.  If the accusation is not upheld in an appeal, the student will be given the same options available before the end of the drop period without penalty.
Rationale:  Prevents students from dropping course to evade grade sanction for academic dishonesty.

8.27.20  8.27.21….The Dean of Students shall notify the student's dean of subsequent infractions and may initiate conduct action against the student.
Rationale:  Encourages uniform handling of repeat offenses across colleges.

9.23.10 Emergency Suspension. …. for reasons of imminent danger to the safety or well-being of the University community. The decision to separate a student from the campus under these conditions shall be made only with the approval of the Vice President for Student Affairs or the President. ….
Rationale:  Streamlines approval process as the Vice President for Student Affairs typically handles emergencies. Also protects President from possible political pressure applied in student’s behalf.

9.21.29 Appeals Procedure. …. When a hearing panel or hearing officer recommends a judicial sanction, the accused student shall have the right to appeal the decision to the University Appeals Board (5.20.10-12). Such appeal requests, which must be presented in writing, shall be based only on evidence of fraud, denial of rights, procedural error, or on the claim of new evidence which was not available at the hearing, and which would have materially affected the decision of the hearing panel or officer. Following a hearing, a complainant has the right to submit an appeal request to the University Appeals Board based on new evidence (as described above).  Appeal requests must be filed with the Dean of Students within one week of receipt of the letter informing the accused student that a judicial sanction has been recommended. ….
Rationale:  This provision better balances the rights of the accusing individual and the accused individual if new evidence were found by either party within a week.

9.24.10 Jurisdiction of the Student Discipline System over Off-Campus Conduct. Off-campus conduct shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Student Discipline System if one of the following conditions is met:  1) an infraction of a community standard of behavior as listed in the STUDENT HANDBOOK occurs at:  a) an official University event, such as a field trip; b) a University sanctioned event as defined in Section 8.51.12 of the UNIVERSITY MANUAL; or c) an event sponsored by a recognized student organization, fraternity or sorority; or 2) an off-campus action performed by a person while he or she is a student is of a nature such that it would be subject to the Student Discipline System if it had occurred on campus, and the nature and circumstances of the infraction provide reasonable grounds for believing that the alleged offender posed or poses a threat to life, health, or safety of the University community, or to University property the safety of self or others or if the alleged offender is repeatedly arrested or cited for violating local, state or federal laws.  The decision to apply jurisdiction to off-campus conduct shall be made by the Dean of Students.
Rationale: Broadens University’s ability to act to protect safety of students and others. 17 out of 17 state colleges and universities regarded as peer institutions have jurisdiction policies that are broader than that recommended above. The proposed policy gives the University discretion to decide whether or not to apply jurisdiction in the following types of circumstances:  actions causing injury to self or others, harassment, felony arrests, hosting events with underage or excessive alcohol consumption, riotous behavior and/or inciting violence toward people or property.  Further, the Manual provides a process with which to appeal the application of jurisdiction.

9.21.17…..When the charged student denies responsibility; the burden of proof shall rest upon the person(s) bringing the charges. The standard for this proof shall be clear and convincing evidence more likely than not.
Rationale: This describes the degree of confidence the hearing panel or judicial officer must have regarding the occurrence of the violation. Stoner’s model code states that the standard of “substantial evidence” (33% sure) or “more likely than not”(51% sure) is the standard used at most colleges and universities. University Counsel Saccoccio recommends and the Committee voted to replace “clear and convincing”(66% sure) with “more likely than not”) for the following reason.  We must balance the rights of the accused with the rights of community members who expect a safe and peaceful environment in which to pursue their education. If the information presented at a hearing results in a reasonable conclusion that, at minimum, it is more likely than not that a policy violation occurred, sanctioning for the violation is in the interest of community wholeness.

Language.  Change all references in sections 9.20.10 through 9.25.10 from “judicial” to “conduct.”
Rationale:  Reduces legalistic terminology.