UpnorthGo4
Science Denial Denier
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,193
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
SJU meant to say: Let's condone all violations of the Student Code of Conduct just in case they somehow impact our football team because none of the accused players can possibly be treated fairly under a disciplinary process that provides for a hearing with attorneys and witnesses presenting their cases before a 5-member voting panel of members of the Campus Committee on Student Behavior.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPUS COMMITTEE ON STUDENT BEHAVIOR HEARING PROCEDURES
A. INTRODUCTION
The Campus Committee on Student Behavior (CCSB) assists in implementing the Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code at the University of Minnesota on the Twin Cities Campus. The CCSB provides a fair hearing to determine if a student’s behavior has violated the Student Conduct Code and to determine what, if any, sanction should be imposed.
Complaints of Student Conduct Code violations are referred to the CCSB for a hearing by the Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI). The CCSB Secretary receives the complaints and assists the CCSB Chair in managing the hearing process.
B. PARTIES TO THE COMPLAINT
In CCSB cases, the University is the formal complainant and the accused student is the individual alleged by the University to be in violation of the Student Conduct Code. For the purpose of these procedures, the parties are identified as the University presenter and theaccused student.
The University appoints a presenter to bring the University’s case before the Committee. If an accused student is represented by an attorney, the University’s Office of the General Counsel will assign an attorney to serve as the University presenter. Students may obtain the services of an advocate through the Student Conflict Resolution Center, who can help them prepare and present their case before the CCSB.
The accused student must submit the name of any advocate or attorney to the CCSB Secretary before the prehearing conference, and must give immediate notice to the CCSB Secretary if there is any change in an advocate or attorney.
C. COMMITTEE AND PANELS
The Senate Committee on Committees appoints faculty, staff, and student members to theCCSB. Panels are drawn from the CCSB to hear individual cases. A CCSB Panel consists of the Panel Chair and a panel of five (5) or more voting members. Each Panel will include at least one faculty and one student, not including periods when the University is not in session. The Panel Chair and the CCSB Secretary have no vote. The CCSB Chair normally serves as the Panel Chair, but may delegate that role to another CCSB member.
In addition to Panel members, the Dean of the accused student’s college appoints a faculty, staff, or student to sit on the Panel. In cases involving cross-collegiate situations, a representative from each college is appointed to the Panel. Collegiate-appointed panel members have a vote and are counted in the quorum of five. Collegiate representation is not applicable when the accused is a student organization.
Panel members are not advocates for either side. The Panel shall fairly consider the information presented at the hearing and may ask questions of the witnesses. The Panel shall decide whether the accused student violated the Student Conduct Code and, if so, what
sanctions are appropriate. The Panel may not talk privately (outside of the hearing room) about the complaint with the parties or their advocates.
D. CASES OF HARM TO PERSON OR SEXUAL ASSAULT
For hearings involving violations of sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence, the panel membership will be limited to five (5) members, one of which shall be a collegiate representative. These hearings will be held as soon as possible.
E. THE COMPLAINT AND SCHEDULING
When a complaint is not resolved informally, OSCAI forwards it to the CCSB Secretary for a hearing. The CCSB Secretary will notify the CCSB Chair, the University presenter, and the accused student of the statement of the complaint, the Student Conduct Code, and these
procedures. Where more than one student is alleged to have violated the Student Conduct Code in a related incident, CCSB proceedings generally will be held together. The Chair has discretion to hold separate hearings upon a student’s request prior to the prehearing conference.
The CCSB will strive to complete a hearing within one month of the student’s request for a hearing, not including periods when the University is not in session. The CCSB Secretary will be responsible for scheduling a prehearing conference and the hearing, taking into account the parties’ academic schedules as appropriate. The CCSB Secretary generally will provide at least 5 days notice before the prehearing conference.
F. STUDENT STATUS DURING THE PROCESS
An accused student ordinarily is allowed to continue the status of a student-in-good-standing pending the outcome of the CCSB hearing. However, in certain cases, the President or delegate may suspend a student temporarily, pending the CCSB’s hearing and decision, as
provided in the Student Conduct Code. In such situations, the CCSB should hold a hearing as soon as possible. In complaints of alleged scholastic dishonesty, any grade affected will be redacted from the transcript pending a disposition from the Panel.
http://usenate.umn.edu/ccsb/ccsbprocedures.pdf
Appeal
A student found to have violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code is entitled to a campus-wide appeal of disciplinary decisions made in the hearing process. The reporting party in a sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence case also has the right to a campus-wide appeal.
Grounds for Appeal
The following are the grounds for appealing a disciplinary decision.
- There was significant procedural error sufficient to affect the outcome (e.g., lack of notice, opportunity to be heard, or opportunity to challenge information). A procedural error is not a basis for sustaining an appeal unless it was significant enough to affect the outcome.
- The rule found to have been violated was misapplied, misinterpreted, or contrary to law.
- New evidence exists that was not previously available to the appealing party and that is sufficient to affect the outcome.
- The sanction was grossly disproportionate to the offense.
- The disciplinary decision was not based on substantial information. Substantial information means relevant information that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
In making this determination, the appellate officer must respect the credibility determinations of the hearing body and must not substitute his or her judgment for the hearing body. Rather, the appellate officer must determine whether the hearing body’s disciplinary decision was unreasonable (i.e., arbitrary) in light of the information presented.
Nature of Appellate Review
A student found to have violated Board of Regents Policy: Student Conduct Code or the reporting party in a sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence case has the right to appeal the disciplinary decision. Appellate review generally is a review of the record to determine whether a serious error occurred in the original proceeding that resulted in unfairness. Appellate review respects the credibility judgments of the hearing body, and respects the hearing body’s determinations as long as there is any evidence to reasonably support them.
Appellate Officer
The appellate officer makes the final University decision regarding student discipline. The Provost serves as the appellate officer, unless the Provost authorizes another administrator who holds a position of campus-wide scope to serve as the appellate officer in the Provost's place.
http://policy.umn.edu/education/studentconductcode-proc01#appeal
