Judicial Report and Case Summary, 2007-2008

---

June 2, 2008

To:      Michael J. Whaley, Vice President for Student Affairs

From:  Scott R. Backer, Assistant Dean of Students

Re:      2007-2008 Judicial Report 

This report summarizes information pertaining to cases adjudicated by the Student Judicial Board (SJB) and The Residential Life Area Coordinator Staff during the 2007-2008 academic year.

 Judicial Cases and Violation Data

 During this reporting period, there were 513 cases or incidents referred to the SJB.  These cases involved 1050 students and 1667 alleged violations of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct (CNAC).  When compared with the same period last year, the data indicates a 45.3% increase in the number of reported violations and a 33.9% increase in the number of students involved.  The increase in the number of reported cases may be attributed to the Residential Life Student Staff taking a more active role in confronting unwarranted behavior, by being more visible in residence areas, and responding to incidents to gain more perspective on the situation.  There has also been significant collaboration between the Residential Life Student Staff and the Office of Public Safety.  Resident Advisors and House Managers are communicating their versions of student behavior through Communication Reports rather than relying solely on the Public Safety Officers to document incidents.  There were 9 cases that resulted from Public Safety incident reports which were supplemented by a Communication Report from a Student Staff member.  In all but one case, the alleged violators were convicted of the charges that were pending.  The SJB found the additional reports to be very helpful in these cases as they were able to corroborate one version of events.  During the current reporting period, 33% of the student population was processed through the judicial system as a result of alleged policy violations.  Of those students that were processed during the current reporting period, 419 were “repeat offenders”, defined as having at least one prior violation or two separate violations of policy during the current reporting period.  During the reporting period, 29% of the violations reported fell under the category of “privacy and tranquility”, 25% were alcohol or drug violations, and 17% were violations of “departmental regulations”.  Less than 10% of the cases involved “property” violations and 11% for “failure to comply” violations.  There are approximately 25 incident reports that warranted the initiation of judicial follow-up that were not adjudicated before the end of the academic year.  All of these cases involve students that are likely to return to Wesleyan in the Fall semester and will receive notification regarding the pending judicial action at that time.

 Student Judicial Board Cases

2007-2008 Academic Year

 

 The SJB experienced a substantial increase, 20% over the previous reporting period, in the number of cases that were adjudicated during the current reporting period.  The number of alleged violations increased over 45% from the previous reporting period.  These two factors provide sufficient explanation as to the 34% increase in the number of students that were processed through the judicial system.  The significant rise in repeat offenders, over 58%, needs to be addressed by the Board during the next reporting period.  This issue can be addressed through sanctioning as well as more efficient communication between the SJB and the Residential Life Professional Staff that will prevent students with prior violations from having the option of an alternative judicial process.  The SJB will also have to re-examine their approach to dealing with students appearing before them with prior violations that are not reflected in the current case and the time-frame in which prior violations are considered. 

The number of students that were found not responsible for alleged violations may be attributed to students who live together, both in program housing and junior or senior apartments, not being present during alleged violations; specifically privacy and tranquility violations and party registration violations under regulation 15.  The SJB has already begun examining this issue to develop effective ways for students that live together to understand their responsibility as residents.  It is not always clear whether those students that claim to be present were the only residents responsible or simply the residents most likely to receive the most lenient sanction.  This will be an issue that the SJB as well as the Area Coordinators explore at the start of the next reporting period.

 The SJB has also asked Public Safety Officers to attend hearings where it is clear that the student accused of violating the CNAC will present a different version of events than what is presented in the report submitted by the officers.  The scheduling of such cases may extend adjudication times, but will help to reduce false information from being considered during a hearing.  The SJB has also asked the Director of Public Safety to attend weekly scheduling meetings to present additional information about cases that may help to present a clearer picture of the event(s) in question.

 

Most Common Violation

2007-2008 Academic Year

 The number of “privacy and tranquility” violations increased by 33% during the current reporting period.  In large part these cases were referred to the Area Coordinators for adjudication through a Judicial Conference.  In examining where recidivism rates were highest, privacy and tranquility violations were among the most common.  This may be due to complaints filed against residences with multiple occupants, regardless of their actual involvement in the incident leading to the complaint.

 Alcohol and drug violations also remained high in comparison to the previous reporting periods.  There was a 29% increase from the previous reporting period and each subsection showed an increase over the prior reporting period.  There were 367 documented cases of alcohol policy violations of which there were 305 individual underage possession or use violations (82%) and 53 distribution cases (15%).  Alcohol or drug use was a factor in 27% of the alleged violations documented during the current reporting period.  The number of students that required medical attention for intoxication rose to 56 during the current reporting period.  This number indicates an increasing willingness of students, especially residential staff to seek help for those students that demonstrate that need.  It is clear that there is a need to address the underlying issues of alcohol use and abuse and the SJB may also want to consider how it handles cases where students are transported directly from social events.  There is a tenuous balance between pursuing judicial charges against hosts and maintaining the stated policy that there will be no judicial follow-up for incidents of intoxication resulting in the need for medical assistance.

 There was a significant increase in the number of departmental regulation violations.  Most of the violations were the result of social gatherings exceeding the limits established in the party registration policy. Residence units that fall under the “senior wood frame” designation are not able to register social gatherings due to their fire code capacity limits, therefore all complaints that were the result of noise from those areas resulted in an additional violation due to the number of students present.  The SJB will examine how it handles such incident reports in the next reporting period.  A change in the language to regulation 13c makes it more clear to residents hosting registered or unregistered social events that they are responsible for the presence of alcohol at those events and can be found in violation if it is not clear that appropriate measures had been taken to prevent underage students from consuming alcohol at the event.

 The Area Coordinator Staff continued to play a significant role in the adjudication of minor CNAC violations.  The SJB has been clear as to the type of cases that should be adjudicated through a Judicial Conference with an Area Coordinator.  First offense party registration policy violations, noise complaints, and simple alcohol violations have all been passed from the SJB to the Area Coordinator Staff for adjudication.  In an effort to reduce the average adjudication time for Judicial Conferences, Area Coordinators were asked to provide only a 2 business day window for students to reply to an initial contact.  If a student failed to reply in that timeframe, the case was resubmitted to the SJB with an additional charge of “failure to comply”.  Over the course of the current reporting period, those steps helped to reduce the average adjudication time of cases resolved via Judicial Conferences.

 

Adjudication Methods

2007-2008 Academic Year 

  The average adjudication time for cases originating in the current reporting period was significantly reduced in comparison to previous reporting periods.  The reduction can be attributed to a concerted effort on the part of the SJB to hear cases more frequently during the periods of the semester that resulted in a higher volume of violations.  Another contributing factor was the efforts of the Area Coordinator Staff to communicate with their residents in a timely manner and return case files to the Clerk upon completion.  The average time, in days, for cases adjudicated by each of the five members of the Area Coordinator Staff was 43, 42, 6, 15, and 12 days respectively.  The median for all cases adjudicated through Judicial Conferences was 13 days.  Cases resolved through simplified hearings were adjudicated in 35 days on average.  That average reflects many cases that were adjudicated at the start of the year that had been held over from the Fall of the previous reporting period.  The median adjudication time for those cases was 17 days.  Cases resolved through full hearings were adjudicated in 54 days on average.  The median adjudication time for those cases was 38 days.  This is an area that will be examined in the next reporting period.  A potential cause for the delay in hearing these cases may be the struggle that the SJB members had in finding common times to seat five members in order to hear the case.  For all hearings, the average adjudication time was 20 days with a median of 17 days.  When all cases are considered the average is 18 days and the median is 15 days. 

Judicial Sanction Data

 In response to the violations outlined above, the SJB has continued to employ a range of sanctions.  During the current reporting period the SJB has moved away from educational sanctions, preferring to allow the Area Coordinator Staff to adjudicate the cases that would likely result in an educational sanction such as a research paper or informational display.  Though not fully in place during the current reporting period, the SJB discussed, and utilized in a limited way, the option of targeting service hours on campus to make restitution to the University for violations to the CNAC.  The SJB began to assign students to perform service in the Usdan University Center and will establish a connection with the Building and Grounds Department to create an additional way for students to contribute service to the Wesleyan community.

 Judicial Sanction Data

2007-2008 Academic Year 

 

The number of students that were referred to the Health Center increased by 41% during the current reporting period; the increase seems to be a factor of increased presence of Residential Life Staff reporting violations and the number of students that were transported for medical attention.  Alcohol or drugs were a factor in 186 (45%) of the cases adjudicated during the current reporting period and also contributed to the number of referrals to the Health Center. 

 Of the 1021 individuals charged with alleged violations, 39% (400) had been processed through the judicial system at least once before.  This represents a small increase from the previous reporting period. 

At the conclusion of the reporting period there were 23 cases that were not adjudicated.  The cases that remain will either be scheduled for simplified hearings or distributed to the Area Coordinators for Judicial Conferences.

 Below is a more detailed report that outlines all communication reports that were submitted to the Residential Life Staff through the Student Staff members.

 The Student Life Committee and President Roth approved three changes to the CNAC that will be implemented in the Fall semester.  Regulation 2 (harassment and abuse) was changed to reflect the need for educational sanctioning for students that are complicit in unintentional forms of harassment or abuse and more punitive sanctioning for those students that have intentionally targeted a person or group in their behavior or actions.  Regulations 5 (false information) and 14 (failure to comply) were altered to make explicit the fact that students who withhold information or identification can be charged with failure to comply and those that subvert the investigatory or judicial process are subject to charges under regulation 5.  This is an issue that the SJB discussed throughout the year; the change should help students more clearly understand the rationale for the charges and may result in a dramatic increase in the number of students charged with failure to comply.  Regulation 13c (distribution of alcohol) was re-worded to clarify the responsibilities of social event hosts to maintain and enforce the alcohol consumption policies that are applicable to the event.  This change shifts the burden to the party host to actively engage with those students at the event that may not be abiding by established protocols.  

 CASE SUMMARIES

 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. Students should be aware that repeated violation of this regulation could result in administrative reassignment to another residential unit or area.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B hosted a loud party at which there were too many people.  The Board found that Student A and B had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of residents of a house had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were playing loud music and had too many people at their house.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 1, but not Regulation 15, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the residents each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of residents of a house had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were playing loud music and had too many people at their house.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 1, but not Regulation 15, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the residents each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was making loud noise and threw a snowball at a Public Safety car  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 4, but not Regulation 1, of the Code because of the Public Safety report and the student’s admission to violating Regulation 4.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, E, and F were making loud noise, drinking underage, and failed to comply.  The Board found that the students were not in violation of the Code because of the evidence presented. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was making loud noise at the Usdan Student Center.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because of the evidence presented. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, and D were in their house making loud noise and had not complied with Public Safety’s request to lower their volume.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 1, but not Regulation 14, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each student be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B intentionally tipped over several trashcans on Church St. and tipped over planters of a Middletown resident.  The students, in a previous simplified hearing, blamed the events on two other students who were found not in violation.  The case had then come back to the two students originally in question, with new evidence that supported the possibility that they were the people who performed the events described.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had not violated the Code because of the insufficient evidence. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a campus society had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the society had hosted a loud party, provided alcohol to minors, and violated the University’s party regulations.  The Board found that the society had indeed violated Regulations 13c and 15, but not Regulation 1, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the society members complete 15 hours of community service because there were relevant prior violations. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 2, 5, 13b, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was involved in a lengthy and aggressive argument with Public Safety, and also harassed them.  The student also disturbed the peace and tranquility of the environment with hir shouts, consumed alcohol underage, repeatedly furnished false information, failed to comply with Public Safety’s requests, and hosted an unregistered guest.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated all charged regulations of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on probation until the end of Spring 2009, complete 25 hours of community service before the enrollment of Fall 2008, and write a one page response to a presentation tailored to athletes that will include negative effects of alcohol.   

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A’s TV was on at a high volume and the student failed to respond to their AC’s request for a Judicial Conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students held a loud party and distributed alcohol.  The Board found that one student, Student A, had indeed violated the Code because the other students were not present at the time of the party.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E were making loud noise.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student took full responsibility for the noise.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 3 hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that students at Student A’s house were loud and disorderly.  The Board found that Student A was not in violation of the Code because it was unclear whether the students on the street were affiliated with Student A’s house. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A received a loud noise complaint to which Public Safety responded and found the student in possession of a bong.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code given the evidence that was collected at the scene.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A complete 12 hours of community service.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  After reading the Public Safety report, the Board found that there was not sufficient evidence to charge the student with a loud noise complaint, but the Board found the student in violation of Regulation 14.  As a sanction, the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning for failure to comply.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  The Board found the student not in violation because the student attempted to stop the person making the noise.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been involved in hosting a loud party in hir residence space and had failed to comply with the Area Coordination’s request to meet for a judicial conference.  The Board found the student in violation of both charges and, as a sanction, recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had hosted a party at which students were observed on the roof of a University Residence house and that the party had generated excessive noise and disrupted the peace of the community.  It was also alleged that the students had failed to comply with the Area Coordination’s request to meet for a judicial conference.  The Board found the student in violation of all charges.  Based on precedent, the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning as a sanction.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had hosted a loud and unregistered party for 55 guests.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had not violated the Code due to the nature of the report and the students’ testimony.  They had an invitation list of approximately 25 people and when Public Safety came, on an unrelated matter, a few people they did not know were milling around and making noise.  In addition, there was no music or alcohol reported. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, E, and F had hosted a loud party in their house on a quiet street.  The Board found that Students A, B, C, D, E, and F had not violated the Code because their music was soft enough so that one of their housemates was sleeping, and that the music was string instruments with no amplifiers.  In addition, Public Safety officers had agreed that the music was at an acceptable level. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Another student was also alleged to have violated Regulation 13b.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had a loud party at their residence and that one of them provided alcohol.  It was determined that while the whole house had been charged, only three students were hosting the party.  There was also no evidence of alcohol present.  The Board found that the three students had indeed violated Regulation 1 of the Code, but that no one had violated Regulations 13 b and c.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each of the three students be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that there was a loud noise violation on a quiet street, which received another complaint later that night.  The Board found that Student A was not in violation of any regulations of the Code. 

 *In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that there was a loud noise violation on a quiet street, which received another complaint later that night.  The Board found that Student A was not in violation of any regulations of the Code. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13b, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had engaged in underage drinking while creating excessive noise by having a party in a residential bathroom.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 1 and 13b of the Code because Student A contributed to the excessive noise level and because there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the student had been in possession of alcohol.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 15 of the Code because there were not enough people involved to constitute a violation of the social event policy.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13b, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were loud and threw a party at which they drank.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated Regulation 1 of the Code because they contributed to the excessive noise level.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had not violated Regulations 13b and 15 of the Code because the Board believed the students’ testimony and because none of the students were responsible for the party.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C be issued disciplinary warnings. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A played loud music and did not reply to the R.A.’s email, which asked for a response.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code, but not Regulation 1.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued disciplinary warnings. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A played loud music and ignored the R.A.’s request to meet.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 1 of the Code because the noise complaint was made at 7 pm, but found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code for failure to comply with the R.A.’s request.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued disciplinary warnings and complete 5 hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and that one student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group of students had created an excessive amount of noise, illegally distributed alcohol, and had hosted an unregistered party.  It was also alleged that one student was consuming alcohol while underage.  The Board found that the group of students had indeed violated Regulations 1, 13c, and 15 of the Code and that the student had violated Regulation 13b of the Code because of the clarity of the Public Safety report and because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning and that the group of students be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester and that each complete 5 hours of community service.  

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A played loud music and ignored the R.A.’s request to meet.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 1 of the Code because the noise complaint was made at 7 pm, but found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code for failure to comply with the R.A.’s request.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued disciplinary warnings and complete 5 hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section 2, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A played loud music in addition to failing to respond to correspondence from the area coordinator. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code due to failure to respond, but not Regulation 1 due to the time of the complaint.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a house of students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had been disturbing the peace of their community by having more than 50 students in their residential space.  The Board found that the students were not in violation due to the information presented by all of the house members in the hearing and particular points included referencing the sequence of events and goings on in the Public Safety report.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been identified at an excessively loud party and consuming alcohol while underage.  The Board found the student not in violation of Regulation 1 since the party had not occurred at the student’s residence.  The Board found the student in violation of Regulation 13b because the student had in fact been in possession of alcohol while underage.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning and complete the Choices program by March 9, 2007.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated section II, Regulations 1, 13b, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that alcohol was present in the student’s room, that there was loud noise coming from the room, that the student had failed to comply and that the student’s room was over capacity.  It was alleged that Student B had violated Section II, Regulation 14, failure to comply.  The Board found that Student A had violated the code because loud noise was emanating from the room, the student had failed to fully comply with Public Safety, and it was more likely than not that alcohol was present in the room based on reports.  Student B had failed to comply by hiding in the closet knowing that Public Safety was asking if there were people in the room.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that both students be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of Fall 2007.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been involved in an “extremely loud” band practice in a residential space and had disturbed the peace of the community.  The Board found the student in violation of the charge.  As a sanction, the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were making excessive noise.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C be each issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that eight students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H were responsible for disturbing the peace and tranquility and for the underage consumption and possession of alcohol.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  The Board found that Students B, C, D, E, F, G, and H had not violated the Code because of a lack of evidence.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A’s group was disturbing the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the noise was above an acceptable level.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was excessively loud.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to the violation.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, E, and F, who live in a house on Fountain, had a party at which there was loud music and underage drinking.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because: due to the nature of Fountain, there were numerous parties occurring simultaneously and the students in question could not have contributed to a disruption of peace more so than others, there was no evidence of underage drinking in the report, and there were a reasonable amount of people inside the residence. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, E, and F hosted a loud party.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because the Public Safety report did not make a clear link to the noise and the house. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were making loud noise and were uncooperative with Public Safety officers.  The Board found that Students A and B had not violated Regulation 1 of the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was disorderly at a soccer game.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because of a lack of evidence. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were making loud noises.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each student be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was playing loud music at a party.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 1 of the Code, but not Regulation 14, because of the student’s admission.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E were making excessive noise.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report and the students’ testimony.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each student be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two student had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 4, and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B made excessive noise, destroyed campus property, and consumed alcohol underage.  The Board found that Student A and B had not violated the Code because of a lack of evidence. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student house had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the house had loud singing coming from it and that members of the house refused Public Safety’s request.  The Board found that the house had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that members of the house each be issued a disciplinary warning and meet with Dean Backer. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E made excessive noise.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  The Board found Student D and E not in violation of the Code because they were not present at the time of the incident.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C each be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A played loud music and that Student A failed to schedule a judicial conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because the student did not schedule a meeting.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 1 of the Code because Public Safety did not establish whether the student was responsible for the noise comlaint.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A hosted a loud party for more than 50 people.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated both Regulations of the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 3 hours of community service.  

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B hosted a loud party at which there were too many people.  The Board found that Student A and B had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of residents of a house had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were playing loud music and had too many people at their house.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 1, but not Regulation 15, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the residents each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of residents of a house had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were playing loud music and had too many people at their house.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 1, but not Regulation 15, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the residents each be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was making loud noise and threw a snowball at a Public Safety car  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 4, but not Regulation 1, of the Code because of the Public Safety report and the student’s admission to violating Regulation 4.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, E, and F were making loud noise, drinking underage, and failed to comply.  The Board found that the students were not in violation of the Code because of the evidence presented. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was making loud noise at the Usdan Student Center.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because of the evidence presented. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, and D were in their house making loud noise and had not complied with Public Safety’s request to lower their volume.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 1, but not Regulation 14, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each student be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B intentionally tipped over several trashcans on Church St. and tipped over planters of a Middletown resident.  The students, in a previous simplified hearing, blamed the events on two other students who were found not in violation.  The case had then come back to the two students originally in question, with new evidence that supported the possibility that they were the people who performed the events described.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had not violated the Code because of the insufficient evidence. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a campus society had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the society had hosted a loud party, provided alcohol to minors, and violated the University’s party regulations.  The Board found that the society had indeed violated Regulations 13c and 15, but not Regulation 1, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the society members complete 15 hours of community service because there were relevant prior violations. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 2, 5, 13b, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was involved in a lengthy and aggressive argument with Public Safety, and also harassed them.  The student also disturbed the peace and tranquility of the environment with hir shouts, consumed alcohol underage, repeatedly furnished false information, failed to comply with Public Safety’s requests, and hosted an unregistered guest.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated all charged regulations of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on probation until the end of Spring 2009, complete 25 hours of community service before the enrollment of Fall 2008, and write a one page response to a presentation tailored to athletes that will include negative effects of alcohol.   

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were playing loud music, had friends over their apartment, and had failed to attend their judicial conference.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because they had not responded to the email about attending the judicial conference.  The Board found that the students had not violated Regulation 1 of the Code because it was a Friday night, and from the proceedings, it was the Board’s impression that it was a reasonable level of noise.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning and strongly recommended that the students speak with their neighbors to ensure that there is adequate communication about the level of music. 

  In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was playing loud music, had people in their room, and failed to attend a Judicial Conference with the AC.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 1 of the Code because of the evidence presented.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 14 of the Code because the student was never informed of the Judicial Conference.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a house had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students of the house had held a party for more than 50 people, were loud, and served alcohol to minors.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students complete 15 hours of community service by 5/16/08. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 4, 10, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group was loud and throwing glass bottles into the street.  The Board found that the group had indeed violated Regulations 4 and 10 of the Code, but not Regulations 1 and 15, because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each student complete 10 hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 4, and 10 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were found on top of a roof of an abandoned building.  They were accused of having thrown bottles and roof shingles into the road.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 4 of the Code because of their presence on the building, but not in violation of Regulations 1 and 10 because of insufficient evidence linking them to the glass and shingles in the road.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that students each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 4, 10, 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group was loud, intoxicated, and throwing glass into the road.  The Board found that the group was not in violation of the Code because it was individuals, committing the violations, not the group. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13c, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group was loud, drinking underage, and having a large party.  The Board found that the group was not in violation of Regulations 1 and 13c of the Code, but in violation of Regulation 15 because the Board believed that the residents were responsible for controlling their house.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the group be issued a disciplinary warning

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had a loud party and failed to attend a Judicial Conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because the student missed the Judicial Conference.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 1 of the Code because the student had not been loud.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had smoked marijuana in their dorm room.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to the violation.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B, who had relevant priors, each complete five hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student C be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had disrupted the peace and tranquility of their neighborhood with an unregistered party, and failed to meet with their Area Coordinator to discuss the incident.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code because their party was so loud that a Middletown resident complained, and they did not meet with their Area Coordinator.  The Board found that the students had not violated Regulation 15 of the Code because they only had 25 people at their party, below the 49 limit.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 4 hours of community service to be divvied up between the two by May 16, 2008. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the five students had held an unregistered party in their house, disturbed the peace and tranquility of their neighborhood, and failed to meet with their Area Coordinator to discuss the incident.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because they did not meet with their Area Coordinator.  The Board found that the students had not violated Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code because the loud noise complaint was not for the house per se, but for the people standing in the street who had come from a party next door that was broken up earlier, and even the Public Safety report recognized that the number of people in the house was below the limit for unregistered events.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group had been excessively loud.  The Board found that the group had not violated the Code because there were multiple parties responsible for the noise.  

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 2, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C disturbed the tranquility of their dorms, harassed an R.A., consumed or possessed alcohol while underage, and failed to comply with the R.A.’s and Public Safety’s requests.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code because they were making too much noise and they did not allow the R.A. to enter the room despite hir obligation to do so.  They were not found in violation of Regulations 2 and 13b of the Code because there was too little evidence of alcohol consumption or possession, or extreme physical threat or violence to the R.A. to rule in favor of more likely than not for both charges.  Student C was found not in violation of the Code because the student was not present at the event.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B be issued each a disciplinary warning and each complete seven hours of community service by May 16, 2008. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had played loud music and did not attend the judicial conference with hir Area Coordinator.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student had disturbed the peace and tranquility of hir surroundings and did not attend the judicial conference.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning, with a very stern warning that this is hir last warning for noise violations because of prior violations. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the four students had transgressed the peace and tranquility of their neighborhood, failed to comply with Public Safety officers, and had more than 49 people in their house.  The Board found that one student was in violation of Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code, but not Regulation 14, because the student was not the one who refused Public Safety’s repeated requests.  The other three students were found not in violation of the Code because it could not be proved that they were present at the event.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student in violation of the Code be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 20 hours of community service by the end of reading week, so that the student can graduate.  The hours may be divvied up among the house members in any ratio they see fit.  

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group was being loud in their Fauver apartment.  The Board found that the group was not in violation of the Code because there were only three students sitting gin the kitchen listening to music, and they weren’t having a party.  In addition, the complainant was from a different floor. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was playing loud music, had people in hir room, and failed to attend a Judicial Conference with the AC.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 1 of the Code because of the evidence presented.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 14 of the Code because the student was never informed of the Judicial Conference.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a house had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students of the house had held a party for more than 50 people, were loud, and served alcohol to minors.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students complete 15 hours of community service by 5/16/08.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 4, 10, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group was loud and throwing glass bottles into the street.  The Board found that the group had indeed violated Regulations 4 and 10 of the Code, but not Regulations 1 and 15, because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each student complete 10 hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 4, and 10 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were found on top of a roof of an abandoned building.  They were accused of having thrown bottles and roof shingles into the road.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 4 of the Code because of their presence on the building, but not in violation of Regulations 1 and 10 because of insufficient evidence linking them to the glass and shingles in the road.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that students each be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 4, 10, 13c, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group was loud, intoxicated, and throwing glass into the road.  The Board found that the group was not in violation of the Code because it was individuals, committing the violations, not the group. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13c, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group was loud, drinking underage, and having a large party.  The Board found that the group was not in violation of Regulations 1 and 13c of the Code, but in violation of Regulation 15 because the Board believed that the residents were responsible for controlling their house.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the group be issued a disciplinary warning

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had a loud party and failed to attend a Judicial Conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because the student missed the Judicial Conference.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 1 of the Code because the student had not been loud.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had smoked marijuana in their dorm room.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to the violation.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B, who had relevant priors, each complete five hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student C be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had disrupted the peace and tranquility of their neighborhood with an unregistered party, and failed to meet with their Area Coordinator to discuss the incident.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code because their party was so loud that a Middletown resident complained, and they did not meet with their Area Coordinator.  The Board found that the students had not violated Regulation 15 of the Code because they only had 25 people at their party, below the 49 limit.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 4 hours of community service to be divvied up between the two by May 16, 2008. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the five students had held an unregistered party in their house, disturbed the peace and tranquility of their neighborhood, and failed to meet with their Area Coordinator to discuss the incident.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because they did not meet with their Area Coordinator.  The Board found that the students had not violated Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code because the loud noise complaint was not for the house per se, but for the people standing in the street who had come from a party next door that was broken up earlier, and even the Public Safety report recognized that the number of people in the house was below the limit for unregistered events.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group had been excessively loud.  The Board found that the group had not violated the Code because there were multiple parties responsible for the noise.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 2, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C disturbed the tranquility of their dorms, harassed an R.A., consumed or possessed alcohol while underage, and failed to comply with the R.A.’s and Public Safety’s requests.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code because they were making too much noise and they did not allow the R.A. to enter the room despite hir obligation to do so.  They were not found in violation of Regulations 2 and 13b of the Code because there was too little evidence of alcohol consumption or possession, or extreme physical threat or violence to the R.A. to rule in favor of more likely than not for both charges.  Student C was found not in violation of the Code because the student was not present at the event.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B be issued each a disciplinary warning and each complete seven hours of community service by May 16, 2008. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had played loud music and did not attend the judicial conference with hir Area Coordinator.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student had disturbed the peace and tranquility of hir surroundings and did not attend the judicial conference.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning, with a very stern warning that this is hir last warning for noise violations because of prior violations.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the four students had transgressed the peace and tranquility of their neighborhood, failed to comply with Public Safety officers, and had more than 49 people in their house.  The Board found that one student was in violation of Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code, but not Regulation 14, because the student was not the one who refused Public Safety’s repeated requests.  The other three students were found not in violation of the Code because it could not be proved that they were present at the event.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student in violation of the Code be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 20 hours of community service by the end of reading week, so that the student can graduate.  The hours may be divvied up among the house members in any ratio they see fit.  

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group was being loud in their Fauver apartment.  The Board found that the group was not in violation of the Code because there were only three students sitting gin the kitchen listening to music, and they weren’t having a party.  In addition, the complainant was from a different floor. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that several students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were being loud and failed to respond to a judicial conference.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 14, but not Regulation 1, of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were being loud and failed to respond to a judicial conference.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 1, but not Regulation 14, of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had disturbed the peace and tranquility of their neighborhood.  The Board found that four students had indeed violated the Code because they did create the noise that was heard from afar.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students each be issued a disciplinary warning.  The Board found that the fifth student had not violated the Code because the student was not present during the event. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was being loud and failed to respond to a judicial conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14, but not Regulation 1, of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was being loud and failed to respond to a judicial conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14, but not Regulation 1, of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were being loud and failed to respond to a judicial conference.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated both Regulations of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that several students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were being loud and failed to respond to a judicial conference.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated both Regulations of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students each be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 9d, 13a, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had intentionally disturbed the peace and tranquility, possessed or used incendiary devices like fireworks, possessed or used illegal drugs or substances, and failed to comply with Public Safety’s requests.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulations 1, 9d, and 13a of the Code because the student’s account of the story fit into Public Safety’s report, but shined a different light on what occurred during the incident.  The Board thought it was more likely than not that the student was not part of the group that had set off the fireworks, disturbed the peace of the community and used drugs.  However, the Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because the student refused to stay, even when Public Safety asked hir to do so repeatedly.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E had hosted a loud party.  The Board found that Students A, B, C, and D had indeed violated the Code.  Student E was not found in violation of the Code because the student was not present at the event.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A, B, C, and D each be issued a disciplinary warning, and because of a number of relevant priors, complete 10 hours of community service by 5/16/2008. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and two counts of Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were hosting a string band on their porch on Home Avenue, which is a Quiet street, at close to 3 am.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because it was not a party, and due to other circumstances surrounding the incident, it was unlikely that the students were being very loud. 

  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. Wesleyan University’s commitment to nondiscrimination means that discriminatory harassment may be punished more severely than nondiscriminatory forms of harassment.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 2, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had consumed alcohol while underage, verbally harassed the Public Safety officers and ambulance personnel who were trying to get the student to go to the hospital, and failed to comply with said personnel’s requests.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete the Choices program. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had fought with a guest of a Wesleyan student on Fountain Avenue.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because there was sufficient evidence that the student did not provoke the fight and was acting in self-defense.  While the Board does not condone the actions of the student, and feels that the student should not have talked back, their actions did not rise to the level of harassment and abuse. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A struck another student with an object.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student did throw an object at another student.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service.  Student A was also asked to not be in future contact with the other student. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 2 and 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was urinating on a Public Safety car and was verbally abusive.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 4, but not Regulation 2, of the Code because the student was not verbally abusive.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 2, 13a, and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A threatened their professors and fellow students, and consumed drugs and alcohol while underage—all during a study abroad program.  The Board found that the student did not violate Regulation 13b of the Code because the legal drinking age in the study abroad country is 18.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 2 and 13a of the Code because of the statements made against him.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be suspended for the Spring 2008 semester and that the student’s return be subject to external psychological evaluations (drug and alcohol, psychological, and behavioral health assessments), and OBHS reviews of the evaluations.

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of the Non-Academic Conduct. 

Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was involved in a physical altercation with another student in addition to throwing ice at vehicles that were parked in the immediate vicinity.  These events took place as Student A’s friends were trying to control the student and bring the student back inside the housing unit.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 2 and 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had destroyed University property in a residential area and had also abused and harassed the residents of that area, Public Safety, Middletown Police, and a MPD canine.  The Board found the student in violation of both Regulations.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until graduation and complete 20 hours of community service by March 31, 2007. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 2, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had consumed alcohol while underage, verbally harassed the Public Safety officers and ambulance personnel who were trying to get the student to go to the hospital, and failed to comply with said personnel’s requests.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete the Choices program. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had fought with a guest of a Wesleyan student on Fountain Avenue.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because there was sufficient evidence that the student did not provoke the fight and was acting in self-defense.  While the Board does not condone the actions of the student, and feels that the student should not have talked back, hir actions did not rise to the level of harassment and abuse. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A physically harassed a Public Safety officer by throwing a water balloon straight at him  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because the identification was not conclusive enough, and can be categorized under hearsay since it was reported to Public Safety by another student (i.e. the ID was not done by Public Safety). 

 Regulation 3 - Sexual Misconduct Sexual misconduct, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual assault, coercion, and threats or use of force, is prohibited.

 Regulation 4 - Property The unauthorized use, or the abuse, destruction, or theft of University property or any of its members, guests, or neighbors is prohibited.  This regulation prohibits the unauthorized appropriation or “borrowing” of common property for personal use. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A made inappropriate sexual comments to another student.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s admission and a witness’s testimony.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A meet with Lisa Curie, be placed on disciplinary probation through the end of the Fall semester, participate in the Choices Program, and complete 10 hours of community service by 11/19/07. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was misusing university property and failed to comply with Public Safety.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 4, but not Regulation 14, of the Code because the student complied with Public Safety’s request to come down from the pillar.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had stolen a table from the Usdan Student Center and later failed to provide the name of the third participant when questioned by Public Safety.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to stealing the table and knew who the third student involved was.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B be each issued a disciplinary warning and complete 8 hours of community service at the Usdan Student Center. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4, 10, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been reckless with hir car.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated all three Regulations of the Code because of the student’s admission and recognition of the possible implications of hir actions for the safety of hir friends and other students on campus.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning because the student had no previous violations. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  One student was also accused of violating Regulation 5.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B stole a projector from the Usdan Center and furnished false information to the Public Safety officers who responded to a tripped alarm.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because of the evidence presented.  The Board found that Student B had violated Regulations 4, 5, and 14 of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 8 hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student B be placed on disciplinary probation and complete 25 hours of community service—10 of them at Usdan Center. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had stolen food from the Usdan Marketplace.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student took full responsibility for hir action.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had entered the tunnels, an unauthorized entry site, and had set off motion sensor alarms.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had not violated the Code because it was unclear to the students that the area was restricted since the door was open. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student smashed mirrors in Butterfield C and failed to respond to an SJB email.  The student pleaded not in violation to both charges.  Based on the RA’s report, the student was found not in violation of both offenses due to insufficient evidence.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had stolen an item from Weshop.  The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code because the student had put the object in their bag with the intention of stealing it.  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 group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group of students had climbed on the roof of Art Studio South.  The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code because of the nature of the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each student be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  The student did not attend the hearing.  Based on the Public Safety report, the student was found in violation.  As a sanction, the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had trespassed into the out-of-bounds construction site of the new University Center.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A had trespassed to take photos without permission.  The student would have had an escort if requested permission from a dean.  As a sanction, the Board recommended Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B had run over a cross-walk sign and dragged it down Church Street until they stopped on College Street and removed it.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had not violated the Code. 

 In a joint student-administrative hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had struck two vehicles belonging to the Wesleyan community and/or its neighbors with the student’s own vehicle.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A complete 30 hours of community service by 9/01/07 and be placed on disciplinary probation until 5/30/08. 

 *In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B had run over a cross-walk sign and dragged it down Church Street until they stopped on College Street and removed it.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had not violated the Code. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in a restricted area of campus.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A was on a part of campus that was off limits.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had attended a party in the tunnels of the Butterfield dorms and failed to reply to an email instructing them to contact their A.C.’s.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code, but not Regulation 4.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C each be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were responsible for the destruction of the fence outside their house because they had guests over who destroyed it.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because the fence was in a high-traffic public location and multiple similar instances have occurred in which they’ve had to pay Physical Plant fines for something they did not do.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that nine students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the eight students had broken into Skull and Serpent and then stole property from Middletown residents and businesses.  After hearing their explanation, the Board found the nine students in violation of taking property without permission, but not in violation of entering the building without permission.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the nine students be issued disciplinary warnings.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A trespassed in the Chapel and was not compliant with Public Safety.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated both Regulations of the Code because of the evidence cited.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, E, and F were in a restricted area.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to being in a restricted area.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students be each issued a disciplinary warning, and that Student A also complete 5 hours of community service by 11/26/07. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A shoplifted goods from Weshop.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 10 hours of community service by 12/21/07. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was found in the chapel after hours.   The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4, 9e, 13a, and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A’s room contained a sword, knife, marijuana, alcohol, and a bottle of Sulpher Hexaflouride taken from a Chemistry lab.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of the fall semester, and meet with Dean Backer. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was on prohibited property and failed to comply with Public Safety.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14, but not 4, of the Code because of the Public Safety report and the student’s testimony.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A’s unregistered guest was responsible for graffiti.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report and the student’s testimony.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A complete 20 hours of community service by 12/10/07. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were tipping over flowerpots.  The Board found that Student A, but not Student B, had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service by 12/21/07. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B had defaced the walls of the Science Center with graffiti.  The Board found that Student A and B had indeed violated the Code because they admitted that the Public Safety report was accurate.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning and that Student A complete 2 hours of community service, and Student B complete 4 hours by 12/20/07. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had shoplifted from Weshop.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had shoplifted from Weshop.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had shoplifted from Weshop.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of information in the Public Safety report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A urinated on the front porch of a faculty member’s house.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code due to the information in the report, provided by the faculty member who was able to identify the vehicle the students were driving in.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A and the other student involved, including the owner of the vehicle, be placed on disciplinary probation and that they each complete 20 hours of community service to be completed by 9/4/07. 

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Two students were charged with two counts of violating Regulation 4.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C broke the door to the Skulls and Serpent building and trespassed.  The Board found that the student had not violated the Code because it was more likely than not that there was a party there and that they were asked to kick the door.  In the other count, the Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and that Student B had their probation extended to the end of the Fall 2007 semester. 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  One student was also accused of violating Regulation 5.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B stole a projector from the Usdan Center and furnished false information to the Public Safety officers who responded to a tripped alarm.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because of the evidence presented.  The Board found that Student B had violated Regulations 4, 5, and 14 of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 8 hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student B be placed on disciplinary probation and complete 25 hours of community service—10 of them at Usdan Center. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was misusing university property and failed to comply with Public Safety.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 4, but not Regulation 14, of the Code because the student complied with Public Safety’s request to come down from the pillar.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had stolen a table from the Usdan Student Center and later failed to provide the name of the third participant when questioned by Public Safety.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to stealing the table and knew who the third student involved was.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B be each issued a disciplinary warning and complete 8 hours of community service at the Usdan Student Center.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4, 10, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been reckless with hir car.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated all three Regulations of the Code because of the student’s admission and recognition of the possible implications of hir actions for the safety of hir friends and other students on campus.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning because the student had no previous violations. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B conspired to steal food from Weshop.  One student, a cashier, was alleged to have had a previous agreement with the other to not charge the whole of the student’s bill.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because of there was insufficient evidence (register video with no explanation) to establish the existence of the alleged plot.  The case did not pass the Board’s standard of proof—more likely than not—that the students had committed the violation in the manner it was alleged.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A shoplifted at Rite Aid in Middletown.  The Board found that Student A had indeed the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 20 hours of community service by the beginning of the Fall 2008 semester. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had shoplifted from WesShop.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s admission of guilt.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete three hours of community service in Usdan. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4, 10, and 13g of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A drove under the influence and broke into the Freeman Athletic Center.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 20 hours of community.  Since the student was cooperative with Public Safety and allowed them to drive hir back to hir place rather than driving hirself, the Board was more lenient with sanctioning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C broke into a house.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated the Code because of Public Safety report, witness testimony, and the fact that one of the students was seen running from the house.  Student C was found not in violation of the Code because the student was not present at the break-in.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning and complete ten hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had shoplifted food from WesShop.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student’s actions had been caught on camera.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete five hours of community service in Usdan. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group broke a window at a program house.  The Board found that the group was not in violation of the Code because there was not enough evidence to determine if they had broken it. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had shoplifted from WesShop.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s admission of guilt.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete three hours of community service in Usdan. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4, 10, and 13g of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A drove under the influence and broke into the Freeman Athletic Center.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 20 hours of community.  Since the student was cooperative with Public Safety and allowed them to drive hir back to hir place rather than driving hirself, the Board was more lenient with sanctioning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C broke into a house.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated the Code because of Public Safety report, witness testimony, and the fact that one of the students was seen running from the house.  Student C was found not in violation of the Code because the student was not present at the break-in.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning and complete ten hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had shoplifted food from WesShop.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student’s actions had been caught on camera.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete five hours of community service in Usdan. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group broke a window at a program house.  The Board found that the group was not in violation of the Code because there was not enough evidence to determine if they had broken it. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  One student was also charged with violating Regulation 5.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had destroyed the vending machine in a residential building, and that Student B had looted from it and provided false information when questioned by a Public Safety officer.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student tipped over the vending machine.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and pay restitution for the damage to the vending machine that was caused by it being tipped over.  The Board found that Student B had indeed violated the Code because the student not only pried open the fallen machine, but also stole the products in the machine.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student B be placed on probation until Spring 2009, pay restitution for the extent of damage that was caused by prying open the vending machine and the food products that were stolen, and complete 8 hours of university service to Physical Plant by August 29, 2008 (Fall 2008 enrollment.) 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was found outside parked on a field outside 1 Long Lane, yelling at the people inside the residence.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 4, but not Regulation 14, of the Code based on the fact that the student was parked on an unpaved area.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4, 10 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had thrown trash out of hir car onto streets and drove at a very high speed around campus to escape from Public Safety.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 4 of the Code because the student picked up the trash later, and the end result was not a destruction of property.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 10 and 14 of the Code because the student did drive fast down the wrong way of a one-way street to flee from Public Safety, endangering the safety of those involved.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 8 hours of community service by enrollment of Fall 2008.  The number of community service hours was pared down to 8 because the student did stop at a red light while driving (showing that the student was still aware of their surroundings while driving), and did cooperate fully with Public Safety.   

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a campus organization had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the organization had a small pool on the back balcony.  The water from its occupants was being tracked inside and created a potential hazard due to the large amount of electrical equipment around.  The Board found that the organization had not violated the Code because it was believed that the organization had not caused any damage to the house and the presence of the pool did not amount to misuse or abuse of the house.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had stolen a chair from Usdan to bring back to hir residence.  The Board found that the Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student;s admission that the Public Safety report was accurate.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 2 hours of university service in Usdan by May 16, 2008. 

 Regulation 5 - False Information Knowingly furnishing false information to a University officer or member of any constituted 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 had violated Section II, Regulations 5 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A used false identification and possessed alcohol while underage.  The Board found that Student A had not violated either Regulation of the Code because Student A’s fake ID was confiscated by the Middletown Police Department and because Student A was recycling the beer bottles. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 5 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A lied to Public Safety in order to get into another student’s room.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 5 the Code because Public Safety had recorded two calls that the student made, and because of the student’s testimony.  The Board found that the student had not violated Regulation 14 of the Code because the student did not fail to comply with requests made by Public Safety.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 5 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A used false identification and possessed alcohol while underage.  The Board found that Student A had not violated either Regulation of the Code because Student A’s fake ID was confiscated by the Middletown Police Department and because Student A was recycling the beer bottles. 

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

 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.

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

 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.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 9e of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of an air soft gun.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s admission.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 3 hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students A and B had violated Section II, Regulation 9a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that both students had started a fire at the base of Foss Hill.  The Board found that students had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence provided by Public Safety.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that student A receive a Disciplinary Warning and 10 hours of community service to be completed by May 18, 2007.  The Board recommended that Student B receive a Disciplinary Warning and 10 hours of community service to be completed by 12/31/07 because the student is currently abroad. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulation 9a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had started a fire on University grounds.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because evidence indicated their responsibility.  As a sanction the Board recommended that three of the students receive disciplinary warnings and that the fourth student that had priors be placed on disciplinary probation until May 27, 2007.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 9e of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of weapons (two knives, one cap gun) found in the student’s room during a routine fire inspection.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the items in question were found in the student’s living space.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until December 31, 2007, as well as following up with a dean to clarify the intentions of use and the severity of this violation.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 9e and 13b of the CNAC.  Specifically, it was alleged that a small BB gun and alcohol had been found in the room of the two underage students.  The Board found that Student A was not in violation of 9e because the student did not own the BB gun.  Student B was found in violation because it was determined that Student B was the owner of the gun.  Both students were found not in violation of Regulation 13b, as there were only empty bottles of alcohol on display.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student organization had violated Section II, Regulations 9b and 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student organization was in possession of prohibited items (candles and a bong).  The Board found that the student organization had indeed violated the Code because the prohibited items were discovered in the building.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student organization be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 9e of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of an air soft gun.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s admission.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 3 hours of community service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student organization had violated Section II, Regulations 9b and 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student organization was in possession of prohibited items (candles and a bong).  The Board found that the student organization had indeed violated the Code because the prohibited items were discovered in the building.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student organization be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 9e of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had a BB gun on campus.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the gun was found in their room.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 9e of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had a BB gun on campus.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the gun was found in hir room.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 Regulation 10 – Reckless Endangerment Creating condition(s) or an environment that endangers, or has the potential to endanger, other members of the community or property is prohibited. Failure to take reasonable constructive action to remedy such conditions may also constitute a violation.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 10, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been encountered by Public Safety while intoxicated.  The student was witnessed breaking glass in the street and failed to comply with Public Safety’s requests.  The Board found the student not in violation due to the excessive amounts of compelling evidence and witness testimony presented in the hearing.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 10 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  One student was also charged with violating Regulation 9 of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were lighting matches near a dumpster, a potential fire hazard.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 9 and 10 of the Code because of the student’s admission of guilt.  Students B and C were found not in violation of the Code because they were not lighting the match and were trying to get Student A to stop hir dangerous actions.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete twenty hours of community service. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 10 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  One student was also charged with violating Regulation 9 of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were lighting matches near a dumpster, a potential fire hazard.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 9 and 10 of the Code because of the student’s admission of guilt.  Students B and C were found not in violation of the Code because they were not lighting the match and were trying to get Student A to stop hir dangerous actions.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete twenty hours of community service. 

 Regulation 11 - Pets  Uncaged pets are not allowed in any University facility, including residential facilities, classrooms, libraries, laboratories, studios, sports facilities, food service areas, administrative offices, and public meeting areas.

 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.” 

Regulation 13 - Drugs and Alcohol The University prohibits underage and unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b and 13g of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was arrested by the Middletown Police Department for DUI, and the event was referred to the Dean’s office.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A affirmed their responsibility.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of Fall, 2008.  The Board would have also recommended the Choice Program, but the student will already be enrolled in a mandatory drugs and alcohol course by the state. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13c, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B hosted a party at which there was alcohol and a band from outside campus, who refused to stop playing.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 15, but not Regulations 13c and 14, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.  The Board found that Student B was not in violation of Regulation 14, but was indeed in violation of Regulation 15 of the Code.  The Board, comprised of two people, could not agree on a ruling for Student B’s 13c violation, and the case was tabled to a later date. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was found with an open beer can while underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation and attend the Choices program.  This sanction was deemed necessary because the student had received two of the same violation charges the previous semester.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B had smoked marijuana in the Usdan Student Center.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  The Board found that Student B was not in violation of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 6 hours of community service in Usdan by March 24, 2008. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were found consuming alcohol while underage.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B be each issued a disciplinary warning, watch a video about the effects of alcohol, and write a one page response paper. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that residents of a program house had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the house members had held an unregistered party and distributed alcohol to minors.  The Board found that the house members had indeed violated the Code because the members had held an unregistered party, however spontaneous it was, and had prepared for alcohol to be there.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each member of the house be issued a disciplinary warning and that, in total, the house members complete 30 hours of community service.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had a jar of marijuana in hir room.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because marijuana was present in their room, and the student admitted to the charges.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had provided a friend with a pot brownie, which subsequently caused the friend to be transported to the hospital.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning, due to the fact that the Student A was not actively selling the brownie, and simply gave it to a friend without fully understanding the full scope of their actions. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was outside a fraternity while visibly drunk.  Public Safety then transported the student to the hospital for the student’s second alcohol-related medical transport.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A attend the CHOICES clinic. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulations 13a, 13b, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, and D were smoking marijuana and drinking underage inside a dorm.  The Board found that Students A, B, C, and D had indeed violated Regulations 13a and 15 of the Code based on the evidence presented.  Students A and B were also found in violation of 13b because of the number of beverages found.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that all the students be issued a disciplinary warning and meet with WesWell.   

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 13e of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  It was also alleged that one of the students was in violation of Regulation 13f.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were in possession of alcohol on city property.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because all three students admitted to the offense.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students each be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was found intoxicated underage on university property.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A was underage and demonstrated a need for assistance due to alcohol-induced impairment.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A needed a medical emergency transport and failed to follow up requests to contact WesWell.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because Student A did not respond to the administration’s attempts at contact.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulation 13b of the Code because it was the student’s first medical emergency and being in the senior class, the student was 21 at the time.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13e of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A drinking alcohol on a city/public street.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the information provided in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A’s room emitted a strong smell of marijuana.  Student A claimed that friends had been smoking in the room earlier.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had engaged in underage consumption of alcohol and later failed to comply with follow-up with designated university personnel.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the information provided in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and attend follow-up with Dr. Smith and Lisa Currie.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A consumed alcohol underage and had to be transported to the emergency room.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to underage drinking.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until December, 2007 and complete the Choices program.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had confronted an RA with a handful of what the student claimed to be pot, and then left the scene to go to the bathroom and dispose of the substance.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student did not explain himself to the RA when the RA wanted to call Public Safety, and even when Public Safety was called, the student did not wait to explain himself to Public Safety, choosing to dispose of the substance instead.  If the student had wanted to dispose a handful of tobacco, it was not understood why the student had to carry it all the way down the floor.  All of these factors made it more likely than not that the substance was illegal, even though no hard evidence was recovered.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 10 hours of community service by the start of the Fall 2007 semester. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A consumed alcohol underage and failed to comply with a Public Safety officer.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 25 hours of community service by the first day of the fall semester.   

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student was in possession of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia.  After reading the Public Safety report, the Board concluded that the student was in violation.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student’s suspension be extended through the Fall semester of 2007, and that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until graduation.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct, and that one student had violated Regulation 13b.  Specifically, it was alleged that the six students, residents of a shared house, had a party with excessively loud noise.  Additionally, it was alleged that alcohol was distributed to a minor at the party.  The Board found that the student charged with 13b was in violation.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning.  The six students were found not in violation of Regulations 1 and 13c. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  After hearing the students’ accounts, the Board found the students not in violation. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been found overly intoxicated while underage.  The student was requested as part of the University Drug/Medical Assist policy to meet with the Offices of Behavioral Health and WesWell.  The student failed to complete this sanction.  The Board found the student in violation of both charges and, as a sanction, recommended a disciplinary warning and completion of the CHOICES program. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had allegedly violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had consumed alcohol while underage, had mixed the alcohol with prescription drugs and had been sanctioned as part of University Medical Assist policy to meet with the Office of WesWell.  The student allegedly failed to do this.  The Board found the student in violation of both Regulations.  As a sanction, the board recommended that the student be required to enroll in the CHOICES program and be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  The student did not attend the hearing.  Based on the Public Safety report, the student was found in violation of all three regulations.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until December 31, 2007. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student hosted a party at which the student drank alcohol while underage.  Also, it was alleged that the student had failed to comply with university personnel (Area Coordination) requests to meet for a judicial conference about the charge of 13b.  The Board found the student in violation of both charges and recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning as a sanction. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been found having overly consumed alcohol while on prescription medication and underage.  The student had failed to meet the University Drug/Medical Assist sanctions of meeting with the offices of Behavioral Health and WesWell.  The Board found the student not in violation. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of marijuana, given the strong scent of the substance in the student’s room.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because there was no physical evidence discovered upon inspection.  

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code, given the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13a, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in a room where marijuana smoking and drinking occurred.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because the student did not show up to the conference.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulations 13a and 13b of the Code because of the lack of evidence.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 **In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a program house/organization had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the organization’s members were engaged in underage possession of alcohol.  The Board found that the organization’s members had not violated the Code given the lack of evidence. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had consumed alcohol while underaged.  The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and also that a student organization had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the CNAC.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been discovered intoxicated and in possession of alcohol while underage.  Also, it was alleged that the student organization had distributed the alcohol to the student and violated University social event policy.  The Board found the student in violation and as a sanction, recommended a disciplinary warning.  The Board found the organization not in violation.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession/use of drugs (marijuana) while in her dorm room.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the code because of evidence provided by the RA and the student’s statement confirming events as recorded.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A receive a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that drug paraphernalia and a small amount of marijuana was found in the room of both students.  The Board found that the students were in fact in violation of the Code because both drug paraphernalia and drugs were in their possession.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that both students be placed on disciplinary probation until December 31^st, 2007.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the two students had been in possession of and consumed alcohol while underage and, when approached by Public Safety officers, refused to hand over the alcohol.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code and they took responsibility for their actions.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that one of the students be issued a disciplinary warning and the other have an existing disciplinary probation extended one year.  Both are recommended to undergo the Choices program.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and that Student B had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was engaged in underage possession of alcohol and Student B, of legal age, had distributed the alcohol in possession to Student A.  The Board found that both students had indeed violated the Code because, despite the fact that there was no malicious intent to violate the code, based on circumstances and precedent set the students were at fault.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that both students be issued disciplinary warnings.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and that Student B had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was engaged in underage possession of alcohol and Student B, of legal age, had purchased the alcohol in possession of Student A.  The Board found that both students had indeed violated the Code because, despite the fact that there was no malicious intent to violate the code, based on circumstances and precedent set the students were at fault.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that both students be issued disciplinary warnings.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student was found with a cup of beer in Summerfields while underage.  The Board found the student in violation and as a sanction, recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had received and failed to pay over thirteen parking tickets.  The student also failed to respond to phone messages from Public Safety.  The Board found the student in violation of both Regulations and recommended a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of marijuana which was found in the student’s residence during fire inspection.  The Board found that the student had indeed violated the code because the substance found in the room was tested and proven to be marijuana.  The student also agreed with the account.  As a sanction the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of 12 students had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had been observed in a residence unit in possession of alcohol while underage and smoking.  The Board found six of the twelve students in violation of Regulation 13b and two of those six in violation of Regulation 15 for smoking indoors.  The remaining six students were found not in violation.  As a sanction, the Board recommended the six students in violation be issues a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b, 10, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student was driving after having drunk alcoholic beverages while underage earlier that night and also failed to come to his hearing.  Based on the reports provided, the student was found in violation of all Regulations.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of the Fall 2007 semester and complete 10 hours of community service by May 19, 2007. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13a and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct, and that Student C had violated Section II, Regulation 5.  Specifically, it was alleged that the first two students were in possession of alcohol and marijuana and that Student C provided false information to the RA.  Based on the reports provided, the Board found the first two students in violation of Regulations 13a and 13b, and Student C in violation of Regulation 5.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student C be issued a disciplinary warning, and that the first two students be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of the Fall 2007 semester. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a, and that one of them had violated Regulation 13b.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had alcohol and marijuana paraphernalia in the student’s room.  The Board found that both students had violated the Code because they were in possession, but Student A was not found responsible for Regulation 13a.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of the Fall 2007 semester.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct, and that another had violated Regulation 13c of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student C gave Student A and B alcohol and that Student A and B were in possession of alcohol underage.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated the Code because of the Public Safety Report and their opening statements.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C be each issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13a and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of marijuana and alcohol, while underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 13a of the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  Student A was found not in violation of Regulation 13b because of a lack of evidence.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and recommended to WesWell to complete 5 hours of service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A consumed alcohol while underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 3 hours of community service by 11/21/07. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student group had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group hosted an unregistered party where alcohol was served to minors.  The Board found that the group had indeed violated the Code because an underage student was found at the party.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the group be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 10 hours of community service by 11/26/07. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had drugs in hir room.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A consumed alcohol while underage and did not show up to a mandatory meeting  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A passed out after a pledge event and was poorly taken care of by friends.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s admission.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and meet with Lisa Currie.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was drinking underage and failed to comply with Public Safety officers.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code, but not 13b, because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two student had violated Section II, Regulations 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Student A was also charged with violating Regulation 13b and Student B was charged with violating Regulation 13c.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A carried beer for Student B, and when approached by Public Safety, was reluctant to cooperate.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had not violated Regulation 14 of the Code.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 13b of the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A consumed alcohol while underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s testimony.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and meet with Lisa Currie. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was involved in underage drinking.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and participate in the Choices program. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited in the report and the student’s testimony.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation, complete 10 hours of community service, and meet with Lisa Currie.  The sanctions were based on multiple previous 13b violations. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13a and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of drugs and alcohol.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated both Regulations of the Code because of the evidence cited in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and meet twice with Lisa Currie. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A consumed and possessed alcohol while underage and lied to Public Safety about being 21.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 13b, but not Regulation 14, of the Code because the student took full responsibility for consuming and possessing the alcohol, but did not lie to the Public Safety officer about their age.  The officer had assumed their age and asked leading questions that led to his conclusion in the report.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b and 13g of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was arrested by the Middletown Police Department for DUI, and the event was referred to the Dean’s office.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A affirmed their responsibility.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of Fall, 2008.  The Board would have also recommended the Choice Program, but the student will already be enrolled in a mandatory drugs and alcohol course by the state. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13c, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B hosted a party at which there was alcohol and a band from outside campus, who refused to stop playing.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 15, but not Regulations 13c and 14, of the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.  The Board found that Student B was not in violation of Regulation 14, but was indeed in violation of Regulation 15 of the Code.  The Board, comprised of two people, could not agree on a ruling for Student B’s 13c violation, and the case was tabled to a later date. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was found with an open beer can while underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation and attend the Choices program.  This sanction was deemed necessary because the student had received two of the same violation charges the previous semester. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and B had smoked marijuana in the Usdan Student Center.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  The Board found that Student B was not in violation of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 6 hours of community service in Usdan by March 24, 2008. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were found consuming alcohol while underage.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B be each issued a disciplinary warning, watch a video about the effects of alcohol, and write a one page response paper. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that residents of a program house had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the house members had held an unregistered party and distributed alcohol to minors.  The Board found that the house members had indeed violated the Code because the members had held an unregistered party, however spontaneous it was, and had prepared for alcohol to be there.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each member of the house be issued a disciplinary warning and that, in total, the house members complete 30 hours of community service.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had a jar of marijuana in their room.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because marijuana was present in hir room, and the student admitted to the charges.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had provided a friend with a pot brownie, which subsequently caused the friend to be transported to the hospital.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning, due to the fact that the Student A was not actively selling the brownie, and simply gave it to a friend without fully understanding the full scope of their action. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was outside a fraternity while visibly drunk.  Public Safety then transported the student to the hospital for the student’s second alcohol-related medical transport.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A attend the CHOICES clinic. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13c, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was responsible for a gathering that resulted in under aged alcohol consumption with too many people present, and that the student failed to comply with requests to call their friends to help keep things under control.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code, but not Regulation 13c, because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and asked to complete host training by the end of the spring semester. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A, B, C, and D possessed marijuana in their LoRise apartment.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated the Code because of the students’ admission.  Student D was found not in violation of the Code because the student was not on campus at the time of the incident.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C each be issued a disciplinary warning.  No community service hours were recommended because it was deemed highly likely that the marijuana was brought to their residence by a guest during a party.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been intoxicated while underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s admission of guilt.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had distributed alcohol to minors.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because the student was simply passing an empty bottle to an under-aged student to throw away.  The Board was satisfied that the corroborating evidence was sufficient.   

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had consumed or possessed alcohol while underage and refused to comply with Public Safety officers.  The Board found that Students A and B had not violated the Code because they were not present at the event or in their room at the time of the incident.  The Public Safety report also agreed that the alcohol possession and consumption of the unnamed students were outside their room, not inside. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had smoked marijuana in their dorm room.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to the violation.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B, who had relevant priors, each complete five hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student C be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had consumed or possessed alcohol while underage and did not attend the judicial conference with their Area Coordinator.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 13b, but not 14, of the Code because the student was in possession of alcohol, but the Area Coordinator had not contacted the student regarding the judicial conference.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had distributed alcohol to minors and allowed this distribution to happen during a registered event.  The Board found that the two students had indeed violated Regulation 15 of the Code because they did not fulfill their obligations as hosts of an event.  Student A was found in violation of 13c of the Code because the student was present at the event, while Student B was found not in violation of 13c because the student was not present at the event.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B be issued disciplinary warnings.  The Board recommended that Student A be revoked of their ability to host events until Fall Break 2008 as well, because the student should not have left the other student in the lurch by not showing up to an event.  The student also had prior violations of a similar nature.   

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E hosted a party where alcohol was being served to minors, one of who ended up in the hospital.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated Regulation 15 of the Code because they were present in the basement of their woodframe.  The Board found that all the students had not violated Regulation 13c of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A, B, C, and D possessed marijuana in their LoRise apartment.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated the Code because of the students’ admission.  Student D was found not in violation of the Code because the student was not on campus at the time of the incident.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C each be issued a disciplinary warning.  No community service hours were recommended because it was deemed highly likely that the marijuana was brought to their residence by a guest during a party. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been intoxicated while underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s admission of guilt.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had distributed alcohol to minors.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because the student was simply passing an empty bottle to an under-aged student to throw away.  The Board was satisfied that the corroborating evidence was sufficient.   

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had consumed or possessed alcohol while underage and refused to comply with Public Safety officers.  The Board found that Students A and B had not violated the Code because they were not present at the event or in their room at the time of the incident.  The Public Safety report also agreed that the alcohol possession and consumption of the unnamed students were outside their room, not inside.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had smoked marijuana in their dorm room.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to the violation.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B, who had relevant priors, each complete five hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student C be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had consumed or possessed alcohol while underage and did not attend the judicial conference with their Area Coordinator.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 13b, but not 14, of the Code because the student was in possession of alcohol, but the Area Coordinator had not contacted the student regarding the judicial conference.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had distributed alcohol to minors and allowed this distribution to happen during a registered event.  The Board found that the two students had indeed violated Regulation 15 of the Code because they did not fulfill their obligations as hosts of an event.  Student A was found in violation of 13c of the Code because the student was present at the event, while Student B was found not in violation of 13c because the student was not present at the event.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A and B be issued disciplinary warnings.  The Board recommended that Student A be revoked of their ability to host events until Fall Break 2008 as well, because the student should not have left the other student in the lurch by not showing up to an event.  The student also had prior violations of a similar nature.     

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E hosted a party where alcohol was being served to minors, one of who ended up in the hospital.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated Regulation 15 of the Code because they were present in the basement of their woodframe.  The Board found that all the students had not violated Regulation 13c of the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A, B, and C each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was found by Public Safety and the RA to be heavily intoxicated.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student admitted to the offense.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning, and because it was the student’s second medical transport, attend a CHOICES class. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was caught holding a beer by a Public Safety officer.  When asked, the individual allegedly treated the officer rudely.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service. 

 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. Public Safety Officers should be allowed to enter private residential spaces to address suspected policy violations. Officers may enter private residential spaces without residents' permission only with the approval of the dean of the college (or designee). 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had impersonated an Even Staff member to get into a party without paying and had let others in as well without them paying.  Student A was asked to leave by Public Safety and complied, but came back again.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 15 of the Code, but not Regulation 14.   Student A’s wearing of the Event Staff shirt strongly signified the intention of getting into the party without paying, especially since the student knew there was a party there that night.  However, the Board recognizes that Student A had to return to the party because the friends that the student was visiting were now in the house, and the student ad left their jacket and wallet in the house.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had items in their room which violated the fire code and that the student had been asked to remove the items on many occasions.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the photographic evidence.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A’s probation be extended until December, 2008 and that the student visit Lisa Currie.  In addition, the Board recommended that the student complete 15 hours of community service by the end of Fall break (October 17) 2007. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and that another student had violated Regulation 15 of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A failed to comply with multiple requests to meet with university staff regarding a medical emergency the student was involved in.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s recorded absences at the multiple meetings.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and enroll in the next round of Choice programs. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Section II, Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  The student pleaded in violation of Regulation 15, but not 14.  After reading the report, the Board found the student in violation of both Regulations.  The student was found in violation of 15 because students are expected to check all University sent email.  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 program house/organization had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the organization’s members were engaged in underage possession of alcohol.  The Board found that the organization’s members had not violated the Code given the lack of evidence. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the two students had been in possession of and consumed alcohol while underage and, when approached by Public Safety officers, refused to hand over the alcohol.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code and they took responsibility for their actions.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that one of the students be issued a disciplinary warning and the other have an existing disciplinary probation extended one year.  Both are recommended to undergo the Choices program. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student had received and failed to pay over thirteen parking tickets.  The student also failed to respond to phone messages from Public Safety.  The Board found the student in violation of both Regulations and recommended a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b, 10, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the student was driving after having drunk alcoholic beverages while underage earlier that night and also failed to come to his hearing.  Based on the reports provided, the student was found in violation of all Regulations.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of the Fall 2007 semester and complete 10 hours of community service by May 19, 2007.

 In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A pushed a Public Safety officer at a party and did not comply with the officer’s request.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because the student and witnesses reported that the contact was incidental and that no request was made.  The Public Safety report could not prove that the contact was of a confrontational nature. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct, and that a house had violated Regulation 15 of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A impeded a Public Safety officer, and that the house hosted a party in violation of the 50 student limit.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code, but that the house had.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the house be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was hosting a party and failed to comply to a request for a judicial conference  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student pled in violation to both charges.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had failed to comply with an officer from Dining Services and provoked a loud, unpleasant argument with said officer.  The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code because the report produced sufficient evidence that the student engaged in such behavior during the incident.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on probation until hir graduation (Spring 2008) and complete 5 hours of university service to Usdan by the end of Spring 2008.   

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had failed to comply with the temporary revocation of event-hosting privileges due to a previous case, and continued to plan and coordinate events.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the correspondence and documents submitted by SALD was ample evidence that the student was actively involved in the planning and hosting of an event, even though the student tried to exploit a loophole of having a friend’s name on the submission of forms instead of his own.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and extended the revocation of event-holding privileges until the end of the Fall 2008 semester. 

 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 all University programs and facilities. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a fraternity house had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the fraternity had too many people at a function.  The Board found that the fraternity had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the fraternity be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five residents of a house had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E had over 49 people in their house during a party.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because of the evidence presented.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students hosted a party of over 50 students.  The Board found that the group of students had indeed violated the Code because of the clear information provided by Public Safety.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of housemates had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students were responsible for sponsoring an unregistered event with upwards of 200 people in attendance.  The Board found that the group of students had indeed violated the Code, with the exception of one housemate who was not present at the time of the incident.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students each be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that students were found chalking on university property.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because of a language conflict that technically prohibited finding the students in violation.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of student had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that a group of students had a [arty over the limit that created too much noise.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence cited by Public Safety and the students.  One of the students was found not in violation of the Code because the student provided evidentiary testimony that the student was not present at the party.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students each be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students living in a house violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that they had a loud party of over 50 people while living on a quiet street.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because of the clarity of the report and some of the students’ statements.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each student be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, and D had entered a restricted area (basement) without authorization.  The Board found that Students A, B, C, and D had indeed violated the Code because evidence in the basement indicated that they had entered the space.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Students A, B, C, and D each be issued a disciplinary warning.   

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a fraternity house had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the fraternity had too many people at a function.  The Board found that the fraternity had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the fraternity be issued a disciplinary warning.

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five residents of a house had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E had over 49 people in their house during a party.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because of the evidence presented. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had an unregistered guest on campus  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because the guest showed up on campus as a surprise and documentation in the form of a letter was submitted to verify this account. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a campus organization had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the organization, which maintains a building on campus, was found with over 200 people inside.  The Board found that the organization had not violated the Code because of the evidence presented. 

 In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had over 60 people in their house.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students each be issued a disciplinary warning.