Judicial Report and Case Summary, 2003-2004

---

July, 2004

To:          The University Community

From:      Student Judicial Board

Re:          2003-2004 Judicial Report and Case Summary

This report provides summary information pertaining to judicial activity and cases adjudicated by the Student Judicial Board (SJB) during the 2003-2004 academic year.  A listing of the summaries of all the cases adjudicated by the SJB may be found at the end of this report.

Judicial Violation Data

During this reporting period, there were 253 cases/incidents adjudicated involving 407 people and 622 alleged violations of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  These data represent a 21% increase in the number of cases, and a 33% increase in the number of violations reported.  These increases may be attributed to increased enforcement by Public Safety and the Residential Life staff who continue to play a larger role in addressing behavioral issues in University housing.  During the current reporting period, 15% of our student population was processed through the judicial system as a result of alleged policy violations.  41% of the individuals involved in violations of policy during the reporting period are "repeat offenders" -- having at least one prior reported violation, or at least two separate violations of policy during the reporting period.  The percentage of repeat offenders has increased substantially over the past two years (it was 11% in 2002-2003 and 30% last year).  While the percentage of “repeat offenders” has varied over the years, these data suggest that sanctioning patterns may need to be reviewed with an eye toward changing behavior.  The following table provides comparative judicial data for the past five years:

 

Student Judicial Board Cases

Comparative Data 1999-2004

 

 

Of the violations that occurred during this reporting period, 40% were for alcohol/drug policy violations, 22% were for privacy and tranquility (noise) violations, and 14% were for violations of departmental regulations.  The most common violations during the 2003-2004 reporting period are outlined below:

 

Most Common Violations (Summary)

2003-2004

 

 

These data indicate that the number of alcohol/drug violations has increased by 24% compared to last year.  This increase follows a 25% increase in the previous reporting period, and may be attributed to increased enforcement and documentation of violations.  Public Safety referred more cases of alleged alcohol violations during this reporting period than in the previous period, and the Residential Life staff has also been more proactive in educating students about AOD policies and in policy enforcement this year.  During this reporting period, there were 232 alcohol policy violations (59% of these were underage possession/consumption violations), and 18 drug violations.  Alcohol was a factor in 62% of the reported cases.

 

There was significant speculation that the number of privacy & tranquillity violations would be higher during this reporting period given the complaints by AWARE members at the beginning of the year.  Residential Life and the Wesleyan Student Assembly collaborated with AWARE members during the 2002-2003 academic year to develop a new referral policy for this year – students were referred for judicial action after two verified noise complaints rather than after three.  As expected, the number of violations in this category more than doubled during the current reporting period as a result of this change. 

 

Comparative Violation Data

2002-2003, 2003-2004

 

 

 

Adjudication Procedures

 

During this reporting period, a new simplified procedure for adjudicating cases was implemented.  This new procedure, called judicial conference, was developed to more fully involve the Residential life professional staff in resolving minor cases or cases where mediation is feasible.  The procedure seems to have worked well, and will be refined for the upcoming year.  There are several other mechanisms for adjudicating cases.  These include administrative disposition, simplified hearing, full hearing, and expedited full hearing.  As there has been considerable interest in reducing adjudication time (the period of time between when an alleged violation occurs and when the case is closed or resolved), it may be helpful to compare median adjudication times for each mechanism:

 

 

Relative Adjudication Times

2003-2004

 

*cases that remained unresolved over the summer months or while

students were abroad were not included in this analysis

 

This analysis suggests that cases are resolved via administrative disposition and judicial conference more quickly than via judicial board hearings of any type.  Administrative staff, the Student Judicial Board, and Board advisors should reflect on this information and seek to streamline all judicial processes in order to shorten the median adjudication time.

 

 

 

Judicial Sanction Data

 

In response to these violations, students have received a combination of punitive and educational sanctions.  As the primary goal of the judicial system is the help community members better understand their rights and responsibilities within the context of this community, sanctioning tends to be progressive in nature.  That is, a minor violation by a first-time offender will typically result in a disciplinary warning; a second violation results in disciplinary probation; and so on.  The distribution of sanctions given during this reporting period is as follows:

 

Sanctions Issued

2003-2004

 

 

 

This distribution of sanctions is consistent with previous reporting periods.  There were more suspensions and expulsions issued during this period than in the recent past.  These sanctions came as a result of several serious violations this year, including physical altercations and serious drug policy violations.

 

A summary of each of the cases adjudicated by the Board during the 2003-2004 academic year follows this portion of the report.  These summaries are presented in an effort to share information about the types of cases, violations, findings, and sanctions issued by the SJB during the reporting period.  If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the Office of the Dean of Student Services in North College.

 

2003-2004 SJB Case Summaries (listed by Regulation)

 

Regulation 1 - Privacy and Tranquility The intentional infringement upon the right to privacy of any member of the community is prohibited.  The persistent interruption of a reasonable level of peace and quiet is also a violation.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had played instruments loudly on his balcony. Based on what was presented at the hearing, the Board found that the student was not in violation.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A, B, C, D and E had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that students had made excessive noise in their residences. The Board found that students A, B, and C were not in violation because they were not at home when Public Safety came to address the noise situation. The Board found that students D and E were in violation of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct because it was proved during the hearing that there was admittedly excessive noise coming from their residence.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 1, 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that student A had threatened another student. The verbal exchange that ensued caused the RA of the area to intervene. Student A threw a beer can at his RA. Student A also had alcohol on his breath and a beer in his hands which he threw out upon request. Based on the evidence presented, the Board determined that Student A had violated Regulations 1 and 13b. Student A was not found in violation of Regulation 14. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D and E received a loud noise complaint from their residential unit. The Board found that the students were in violation. As a sanction, the Board suggested that Students A, C and D receive a disciplinary warnings. Students B and E received disciplinary warnings and six (6) hours of community service to be completed by May 31, 2004.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that there was excessive noise coming out of Student A’s residence. The Board found that Student A was in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A receive a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had loud music coming out of their residence. The Board found that the students who were present and hosting the event were in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended the students in violation receive disciplinary warnings.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulations 1, 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that two students were caught streaking and yelling on High Street. Furthermore, it is alleged that Student A had the smell of alcohol on his breath. Student B was seen later with a pitcher of beer. Public Safety reports that Student B ran away from the officer when the officer tried to get his attention. Student A was found in violation of Regulation 1. Student B was found in violation of Regulations 1, 13b and 14. As a sanction, the Board recommended eight hours (8) of community service to Student A to be completed by May 23, 2004. For student B, the Board recommended disciplinary probation until January 1, 2005 and twenty hours (20) of community service to be completed by September 1, 2004.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that several students had violated Regulations 1 and 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that several students returned to their first-year residence hall, made excessive noise and vandalized the walls with a magic marker. The students reported that they had returned to their hall from their first year. Some had admitted to chanting and creating noise while others denied involvement. All denied any knowledge of vandalism. The Board found that students B, C, D, E were indeed in violation of Regulation 1 and Students A-E were not in violation of Regulation 4.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Interim Administrative Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulations 1 and Regulation 15. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A hosted an unregistered party within 100-150 people. There was a noise complaint about the event. Student A admitted responsibility for the violations. The Board recommended a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the residents of a house were creating noise as a result of loud talking on one occasion and loud music on another. Student A was believed to be present at the second noise violation. The Board found that Student was indeed in violation of Regulation 1 and recommended a warning. Student A had received a prior warning for noise from Residential Life. Student B was found not in violation.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and Student B had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that both students were involved in a loud noise violation on Home Avenue. Student A admitted to the violation. The Board indeed found Student B to be in violation as well. As the violation was relatively minor, the Board recommended that each student receive a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a group of students hosted an unregistered event that generated a noise complaint. Based on what was presented at the hearing, the Board determined the students not to be in violation.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students had loud music in their house on multiple occasions. The Board found that the students were indeed in violation since one of those noise complaints appeared egregious. The Board recommended that Students A and B be given disciplinary warnings and Students C and D be given disciplinary warnings and 5 hours of community service.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 1 and 2 of the Code on Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had created a disturbance and had put duct tape on another student. The Board found the student indeed in violated of Regulation 1 but not in violated of Regulation 2. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students had violated the noise policy three times on different nights. The Board found the students not in violation.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that loud noise was detected coming from their residential unit on two occasions. The Board found Students A, B, C and D not in violation. Student E was indeed found in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student E complete 10 hours of community service before graduation.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students had hosted gatherings at their residence that had exceeded a reasonable noise level. The Board found the students indeed to be in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that there was loud noise emanating from the organization’s location on several occasions. The Board found that the organization indeed had committed the violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended 25 hours of community service to be completed by 10 or more members of the organization by September 1, 2004.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of four students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students had exceeded a reasonable level of noise on two occasions. The Board found that the students were not in violation.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students persistently created disturbances in their residences. The Board found the student not in violation. 

 

Section IV, Regulation 2 - Harassment and Abuse Harassment and abuse, directed toward individuals or groups, may include at least the following terms: the use or threat of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, and verbal harassment and abuse.  Harassment and abuse may be discriminatory or may be nondiscriminatory.  Although all forms of harassment and abuse-both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory-are equally prohibited.  Wesleyan University’s commitment to nondiscrimination means that discriminatory may be punished more severely than nondiscriminatory forms of harassment.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 2, 4, 5 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a student had driven his vehicle across Andrus Field and at a later date, when receiving a ticket, verbally harassed a Public Safety Officer. Based on what was presented at the hearing, the student was found in violation of Regulations 2, 4 and 15. The student was not found in violation of Regulation 5. As a sanction, the Board issued a disciplinary warning and thirty (30) hours of community service to be completed by May 31, 2004.

 

In an interim administrative hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A physically assaulted Student B. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because although the incident began as a somewhat playful exchange, it became inappropriately aggressive. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until graduation. During the hearing the students came to an agreement about medical follow up.

 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A approached another student and harassed him verbally, including comments about the student’s ethnic background in his verbal attack.  The Board considered the evidence presented at the hearing and found Student A not in violation, based on what was not available at the hearing.

 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically it was alleged that Student A physically assaulted Student B. It was also alleged that Student A pulled out a baseball bat to threaten Student C during a different incident. The Board found that Student A was indeed in violation of the code for the assault and threat. As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on suspension for the Fall semester and placed on disciplinary probation throughout his tenure at Wesleyan. Additionally, the Board recommended that Student A seek counseling during the period of suspension.

 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulations 2, 4 and 10 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that while a guest of Student B, Student A threw beer bottles from a balcony that landed on someone’s property and threatened the safety of a child. In addition, it was alleged that both students were involved in a verbal altercation with a Middletown resident. The Board found the two students in violation of Regulation 10 and not in violation of Regulations 2 and 4. As a sanction, the Board recommended probation until December 2004.

 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 2 and that one of those students had also violated Regulation 10. Specifically, it was alleged that Student B held a third student so that Student A could physically assault him. The Board found Student A not in violation of Regulation 2. Student B was indeed found in violation of Regulation 10 for not taking constructive action to break up the altercation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A complete 60 hours of community service by August 31, 2004 and probation until graduation and Student B complete 50 hours of community service before receiving his diploma.

 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A, on seeing Student B at a social gathering inquired about Student B’s nationality and made derogatory remarks about Student B. Student A pleaded not in violation and denied the allegations. The board found the Student indeed in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be suspended for a semester and that the Student keep the Dean’s office updated about therapy sessions to combat anger management.

 

Section IV, Regulation 3 - Sexual Abuse Sexual abuse, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, coercion, and threats or use of force, is prohibited (see “University Policies-- Sexual Harassment” on page 119 of handbook).

 

Section IV, Regulation 4 - Property The unauthorized use, or the abuse, destruction, or theft of property of the University or any of its members, guests, or neighbors is prohibited.  This regulation covers the unauthorized appropriation or “borrowing” of common property for personal use.  It also covers unauthorized use, abuse, destruction, or theft of property in Wesleyan’s care or custody, such as materials covered by copyright or by specific agreements between the owner and Wesleyan.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E had a wooden table marked “Campus Center” in their residence unit. Students B,C, D and E explained at the hearing that Student A was the only person responsible for the table. Student A had borrowed the table from another student who was at the hearing as a witness. Upon deliberating on the evidence, the Board found all students not in violation.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were unauthorized to reside in campus housing during winter break. Student A was found in violation due to the fact that the student was a member of Residential Life and misinformed Student B about Residential Life policy. Thus, Student B was found not in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended Student A receive a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student entered the residence hall during Winter Break when the buildings were locked. The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code because the student did not deny the claim. As a sanction, the Board issued a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a student entered a residence hall over break, setting off the motion alarms. The Board found the student in violation of Regulation 4. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 4, 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had removed two boots placed on his vehicle. When questioned, the student admitted to outstanding tickets and to having an unregistered vehicle. Student A admitted to the offenses. The Board found Student A in violation of all three regulations. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until May 31, 2004.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had entered their residence hall before the scheduled date of arrival. Student A was alleged to have entered the building through a window. The Board found Student A in violation and recommended a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had removed a parking boot from his vehicle that had been placed by the Office of Public Safety. The student admitted fault and was found to be responsible. As a sanction, the student was placed on disciplinary probation until December 31, 2004, based on the repeat of parking violations, as well as previous offenses.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student removed a Public Safety boot from his vehicle and held on to it for about a week. The Board found the student in violation as the student admitted to doing these actions. As a sanction, the Board recommended twenty (20) hours of community service, ideally with Public Safety, to be completed by the end of the academic year.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a student stole items from the school convenience store. The Board found the student was in violation. As a sanction, the student was issued probation until January 1, 2005 and thirty (30) hours of community service.

 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that students had damaged school property, unintentionally. The property damage was estimated at approximately $5000. Furthermore, it was alleged that the students made unauthorized use of campus facilities. The Board found that the students were in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the organization pay for the repairs to the property and be placed on disciplinary probation until Fall Break 2004.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation two students had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that students A and B were seen walking towards a library with Student A carrying a chair from a residence building towards the library. Student B was accompanying Student A. The Board, based on the evidence presented, found Student A in violation of Regulation 4. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning. Student B was not found in violation of the charge.

 

Section IV, Regulation 5 - False Information Knowingly furnishing false information to a University officer or member of any hearing board acting in performance of his/her duties is prohibited, as is the failure to provide University personnel with adequate identification upon request.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 5, 9e and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been in possession of an air gun, was holding a beer bottle and told Public Safety they were twenty-one (21) which was untrue. The Board found the student in violation of 9e since the student admitted to be in possession of the air gun. The student also admitted to violating Regulation 5, since the student did divulge false or misleading information. The Board found the student not in violation of Regulation 13b since it was indicated by a witness that the student was not drinking nor in possession. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation for the rest of the semester as well as receive five (5) hours of community service, a sanction recommended based on the presence of a weapon with potential to harm.

 

Section IV, Regulation 6 - Misuse of Documents Forgery, alteration, or the unauthorized possession or use of University documents, records or instruments of identification is prohibited.

 

Section IV, Regulation 7 - Tampering with Locks and Duplication of Keys Tampering with locks in University buildings, unauthorized possession or use of University keys, and alteration or unauthorized duplication of University keys are prohibited.

 

Section IV, Regulation 8 - Fire Protection Systems Tampering with fire extinguishers, fire alarm boxes, or smoke or heat detectors anywhere on University property is prohibited.

 

Section IV, Regulation 9 - Restricted Items/Fire Hazards The possession or use of  items designated as fire hazards is prohibited within any University-owned or operated facility.  See page 103 of Student Handbook.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of six students had violated Regulation 9d of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students had fireworks within their residence. The Board found the students indeed in violation and recommended a disciplinary warning for each student.

 

Section IV, Regulation 10 – Reckless Endangerment Creating condition(s) or an environment that endangers, or has the potential to endanger, other members of the community, their guests, or property is prohibited. Upon realizing that such a condition or environment exists, members of the community are expected to take reasonable constructive action toward remedy or resolution.

 

Section IV, Regulation 11 - Pets  Uncaged pets are not allowed in any University housing facility, including unfurnished rentals.  In addition, pets are not permitted in such University facilities as classrooms, libraries, offices, laboratories, studios, sports facilities, food service areas, administrative spaces, and public meeting areas. 

 

Section IV, Regulation 12 - Disruptions  The following “ground rules” for political freedom on campus are excerpted from the booklet "Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties of Students in College and University," published by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1970."Ground Rules. Picketing, demonstrations, sit-ins, or student strikes, provided they are conducted in an orderly and non-obstructive manner, are a legitimate mode of expression whether politically motivated or directed against the college administration, and should not be prohibited. Demonstrators, however, do not have the right to deprive others of the opportunity to speak or be heard; take hostages; physically obstruct the movement of others; or otherwise disrupt the educational or institutional processes in a way that interferes with the safety or freedom of others.”

 

Section IV, Regulation 13 - Drugs and Alcohol The University prohibits the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol.  See the Student Handbook, p. 104 for details.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student has violated Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was drinking underage in a university facility and failed to comply with university officials. The Board found that Student A had violated the Code of Conduct because the student admitted to the charge. However, also based on the hearing, the Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 14. As a sanction, the Board recommended the student receive a disciplinary warning and five (5) hours of community service.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13b, 13c, 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that this student and the other members of a campus band hosted an unregistered party, supplied alcohol, consumed alcohol and when asked by a Public Safety officer, refused to stop playing.  Of all the charges, the student was found in violation of Regulation 14. As a sanction, the student was issued a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, it was alleged that twelve (12) students violated Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the two students were found smoking marijuana in a residence hall. The Public Safety officer found bongs and smelled marijuana in the area where the twelve (12) students has been seen. Based on the evidence presented, the Board concluded that the students were not in violation based on what was presented at the hearing.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that twelve (12) students had violated Regulation 13b. Two of the students were also alleged to have violated Regulation 1. Specifically, it was alleged that the twelve (12) students had gathered to drink in a dorm room. All students were alleged to have been drinking. In addition, two (2) students were allegedly responsible for the loud music being played at that time. The Board, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, found the host of the group in violation of Regulations 1 and 13b. The Board recommended a disciplinary warning and five (5) hours of community service to be completed by May 31, 2004. The Board also found one more student in violation of 13b, since it was confirmed that he was the only other person drinking. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two student had violated Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B, who are both underage, had been issued tickets for public underage drinking by the Middletown Police Department. The Middletown Police Department provided Public Safety with the names of the two students. Both students admitted to being in violation. The Board found the students indeed in violation. As sanctions, the Board recommended that student A be placed on disciplinary probation until December 31, 2004 and that Student B be given a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a keg had been identified in Student A’s name. Student A was later identified by Public Safety as underage. Student A admitted to being in violation. The Board found Student A indeed in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning and complete 10 hours of community service by August 31, 2004.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 13b and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had parked in front of the Nicholson dorms in an unregistered spot and had a case of beer in her car. The Board found her not in violation of either Regulation.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student was caught with a cup of beer underage. The Board found the student was indeed in violation and as a sanction recommended 5 hours of community service.

 

Section IV, Regulation 14 - Failure to Comply Members of the community are expected to comply with requests made by University personnel acting within the capacity of their responsibilities.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students violated the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students failed to cooperate with the requests of a dining manager. The Board found the students not in violation because there was no indication that the students were given an opportunity to comply.

 

 

Section IV, Regulation 15 - Department Regulations Members of the community are expected to abide by duly established and promulgated nonacademic regulations.  This is intended to cover the operating regulations of academic or nonacademic offices, laboratories, and departments.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that students A and B registered an event in which C joined with his band. At this time, alcohol was present. Based on the nature of the events, Students A and B were found in violation. As a sanction, the students were recommended to meet with the director of Student Activities and Leadership Development to go over social event procedures. The students were also placed on disciplinary probation until January 2005.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization violated Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the organization hosted a social event over the limit allowed if it is unregistered. Based on what was presented at the hearing, and the organization’s acceptance of the charges, the Board issued a disciplinary warning and twenty-five hours of community service to be completed by May 30, 2004.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was found chalking. Based on what was presented at the hearing, the Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code. As a sanction, the Board recommended that student A receive a disciplinary warning and ten (10) hours of community service to be completed by May 23, 2004.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was seen chalking social messages outside a University building. The Board found Student A in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B and C violated the chalking ban. The Board found that two of the students were indeed in violation as the two of them admitted to chalking on the steps in front of Olin.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two student had violated Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B smoked in a non-smoking dorm causing the smoke detector to go off. Both students claimed to have no idea about the cause of the smoke, but said that some friends had been in their room in their absence. The Board found Student A indeed in violation. Student B was not found in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning and 5 hours of community service to be completed by August 31, 2004.