apps.weber.edu … · Web viewA subcommittee consisting of Brent Horn (chair), David Read, Ted...

Annual Report 2015-2016Academic Standards & Student Affairs Committee

Becky Marchant, Committee ChairMay 11, 2016

ASSA Committee Annual Report 2015-2016

Table of Contents

Committee Information……………………………………………………………………….3

Committee Accomplishments………………………………………………………………62015-2016 Charges from Executive Committee…………………………6

Recommendations for Future Committee Work………………………………….10

AppendicesAppendix A: Student Code Changes: An Overview & Summary….11Appendix B: Student Code Changes Approved by Faculty

Senate, Apr. 14, 2016……………………………………………………13Appendix C: Recommendations for Increasing Graduation

and Retention Rates……………………………………………………..31

2


Committee Information

Membership

Diego Batista – Arts & HumanitiesJeremy Bryson (Spring 2016) – Social & Behavioral ScienceCasey Bullock – Ex OfficioBrian Chung – ScienceGeri Conlin – EducationTed Cowan – COAST Mark Denniston – Social & Behavioral ScienceTherese Grijalva - Business & EconomicsBrent Horn – Social & Behavioral ScienceRuby Licona – LibraryBrandon Little (Fall 2015) – Social & ScienceBecky Marchant– Arts & Humanities, ChairStephanie Mitts – StudentShai-anne Nalder – Student Carol Naylor – Health ProfessionsCasey Neville – Health ProfessionsKathy Newton – Executive Committee LiaisonHasan Nezam – Student David Read – Business & EconomicsJeffrey Steagall – AdministrationScott Teichert – Ex Officio

3


Meeting ScheduleFall Semester: September 18, October 12, November 11Spring Semester: January 12, February 8, February 25, March 14, April 6Total Meetings: 8

Meeting Attendance

Member 09/19/2015

10/12/2015

11/11/2015

01/12/2016

02/08/2016

02/25/2016

03/14/2016

04/06/2016

Total

Diego Batista Excused Present Present Excused Present Excused Present Present 5Jeremy Bryson

Present Present Excused Excused Absent 2 (S16)

Casey Bullock Present Present Present Present* Present Present Present Present 8Brian Chung Present Present Present Absent Absent Absent Excused Present 4Geri Conlin Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present 8Ted Cowan Present Present Present Excused Present Present Present Present 7Mark Denniston

Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present 8

Therese Grijalva

Excused Present Present Present Present Present Present Excused 6

Brent Horn Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Excused 7Ruby Licona Present Excused Present Present Present Excused Excused Present 5Branden Little

Present Present Excused 2(F15)

Becky Marchant

Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present 8

Stephanie Mitts

Present* Present Present Present* Present Absent Present Present* 7

Shai-anne Nalder

Present Present Present Present Present Excused Present Excused 6

Carol Naylor Excused Present Excused Present Present Absent Excused Present 4Casey Neville Excused Present Present Excused Excused Present Present Absent 4Kathy Newton Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present 8Hasan Nezam Excused Present Present Present Excused Present Excused Absent 4David Read Present Present Excused Excused Present Absent Present Present 5Jeffrey Steagall

Present Excused Excused Present Present Not recorded

Present Excused 4

Scott Teichert Excused Present Excused Present Excused Excused Excused Absent 2°Substitute attended

4


ASSA Charges

ASSA was tasked with the following charges in 2015-16:

Charge 1 -- Study PPM 6-22, Student Code, and make recommendations concerning students getting permission from faculty and other students regarding taking photographs, recording lectures, and dissemination of such media.

Charge 2 -- Review and consider ways to restructure PPM 6-22 with regards to separating procedures from the Student Handbook (Code).

Charge 3 -- Receive, evaluate, and give input to committee recommendations considering the satisfactory-progress requirement for developmental programs.

Charge 4 -- Review a proposed addendum to the PPM regarding military students and faculty responsibilities for excused military absences.

Charge 5 -- Provide recommendations to increase retention and graduation rates of first time, full time students.

Subcommittees

A subcommittee consisting of Brent Horn (chair), David Read, Ted Cowan, Shai-anne Nalder, Stephanie Mitts, Hasan Nezam, and Casey Bullock met to work out a solution for Charge 1 (Study PPM 6-22, Student Code, and make recommendations concerning students getting permission from faculty and other students regarding taking photographs, recording lectures, and dissemination of such media). This subcommittee proposed a policy change that was later approved by ASSA.

Additionally, the Student Code Procedural Committee—initially formed in 2014-15 by ASSA—continued their work in 2015-16. This temporary committee was tasked with helping to address Charge 2 (Review and consider ways to restructure PPM 6-22 with regards to separating procedures from the Student Code), a charge that had carried over into 2015-16. Consisting of Bruce Bowen, Stephanie Hollist, Patrick Thomas (added in 2015-16), Jeff Hurst, Eric Amsel, and Sandi Weber (student senator, participated only in 2014-15), this group worked extensively on the Student Code revisions and then presented their proposed revisions to ASSA. ASSA then offered input and suggested additional revisions before approving and taking the changes to Faculty Senate.

5


Exemplary Service/Special Assignments

All members of the ASSA Committee cooperated and collaborated effectively in making decisions, investigating questions, and drafting policy. They were flexible in discussing issues online or face-to-face and were motivated to fulfill our charges. Five members–Casey Bullock, Geri Conlin, Mark Denniston, Becky Marchant, and Kathy Newton–attended every meeting or arranged for a substitute.

In addition, several members conducted substantial work outside of meetings. Casey Bullock identified classroom recording policies at other universities for ASSA to study when addressing Charge 1 and supplied data from the Registrar’s Office pertaining to other ASSA charges.

Brent Horn, David Read, Ted Cowan, Shai-anne Nalder, Stephanie Mitts, Hasan Nezam, and Casey Bullock served on the subcommittee to address Charge 1. Brent Horn drafted the document that accompanied the subcommittee’s proposed solution.

In cooperation with Veteran Affairs Director Charlie Chandler, Mark Denniston drafted language that ASSA used in creating new policy about military absences (Charge 4).

Committee Accomplishments

2015-2016 Charges from Executive Committee—Progress and ResultsCharge 1: Study PPM 6-22, Student Code, and make recommendations concerning students getting permission from faculty and other students regarding taking photographs, recording lectures, and dissemination of such media.

Progress: During 2014-15, the ASSA approved language for PPM 6-22.IV.D.3 to address this charge. The intent of ASSA’s language was to (1) affirm that students must gain permission from the instructor before recording instructional materials or interactions and (2) clarify when written permission is required or when oral permission suffices. When the proposed language went to the Student Senate for approval, Student Senate amended the language and reversed the initial proposal’s intention. Student Senate proposed, instead, that students be granted permission by default to make audio recordings in class unless instructors opt-out in their syllabi. Because no agreement was reached in 2014-15, the charge carried over to 2015-16.

During Fall 2015, a subcommittee consisting of Brent Horn (chair), David Read, Ted Cowan, Shai-anne Nalder, Stephanie Mitts, Hasan Nezam, and Casey Bullock met to work out a compromise on this charge. Their compromise solution involved removing the current policy language from “Students’ Responsibilities” (“Obtain the instructor's permission before recording lectures”) and adding the following statement to the “Students’ Rights” section of PPM 6-22:

6


“Expect instructors to inform students of the classroom policies regarding the audio and/or visual recording of course lectures and activities.”

On February 8, 2016, ASSA voted to recommend this change to Faculty Senate along with an additional recommendation that President Wight establish a task force to investigate the nuances of the classroom recording issue and provide guidelines to faculty and students. This task force recommendation was stated as follows:

Recommend that the WSU University President empanel and finance a Speech, Media and Publication Awareness task force to study the growing body of nationally recognized issues in higher education caused by technology proliferation and open source publication affecting WSU students, faculty and staff. The goals of the task force are as follows:

Collect and analyze information on relevant best practices in higher education, current WSU policies and procedures, and state and federal legal standards regarding speech on campus, and the creation and publication of related media, such as notification of students who are recorded in class, or the ability to limit rights afforded by fair use under copyright law.

Develop and publish an educational awareness campaign regarding speech and publication with respect to best practices, WSU policies, and legal requirements.

Create and publish a clearinghouse of information related to issues related to speech and media on campus.

Assist Faculty Senate in identifying deficiencies in current WSU policy and practice. For example, the extension of recording and distribution policies to online courses, the extent to which free speech can be limited in the classroom, authorization for the recording of campus activities by various parties, student and faculty privacy in the academic setting, and the protection of academic freedom, tenure and promotion from unauthorized publication and/or unfair criticism.

Faculty Senate heard both the policy change and the task force recommendation on February 18, 2016. Initially there was a motion to accept the policy change, but the motion was later withdrawn. The task force recommendation passed unanimously.

Charge 2: Review and consider ways to restructure PPM 6-22 with regards to separating policy from the Student Handbook (Code).

Progress: On Oct. 13, 2014, the ASSA committee voted to create a Student Code Procedural Committee to determine what aspects of the current Student Code are policy–and should thus remain in PPM 6-22–and which aspects are procedure that could be removed from PPM 6-22 to make it less cumbersome. We determined that the members of the Student Code Procedural (SCP) Committee would be a representative from the provost’s office, a

7


representative of University legal counsel, the dean of students, the due process officer, a representative of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, and a student representative. When the committee was assembled, it consisted of Bruce Bowen, Stephanie Hollist, Patrick Thomas (added in 2015-16), Jeff Hurst, Eric Amsel, and Sandi Weber (student senator, participated only in 2014-15).

On February 25 and March 14, 2016, the Student Code Procedural Committee met with ASSA to discuss their proposed changes to the Student Code. After reviewing the proposal and providing additional revisions, the ASSA voted on March 14, 2016 to approve the changes to PPM 6-22. Student Senate approved the changes, and subsequent open hearings were held on March 22 and 23. Faculty Senate then heard the proposal on April 14, 2016. With the understanding that current procedures—although removed from PPM 6-22— will remain in force until new procedures could be developed and approved by Faculty Senate, the FS voted to accept the PPM 6-22 revisions. See Appendix A for a summary of the revisions and Appendix B for PPM 6-22’s revised language.

Charge 3: Receive, evaluate, and give input to committee recommendations considering the satisfactory-progress requirement for developmental programs.

Progress: Faculty Senate voted to remove the developmental education "three strikes" policy from the PPM a couple of years ago with the understanding that, when a new policy was drafted, the ASSA would review it. On March 14, 2016, Becky Marchant contacted Bruce Bowen to learn whether he and/or other administrators are drafting or planning to draft new developmental-course satisfactory-progress requirements to replace the three-strikes policy. He indicated that he is not aware that any related policy has been or is currently being created. Thus, this charge cannot be addressed at this time.

Charge 4: Review a proposed addendum to the PPM regarding military students and faculty responsibilities for excused military absences.

Progress: Veteran Affairs Director Charles Chandler met with ASSA on February 8 and again on April 6, 2016 to discuss the issue of military absences. ASSA considered policy language from Charlie Chandler and Mark Denniston. After discussion and revisions, ASSA voted to approve the following changes to PPM 6-22, which will go to Student Senate for approval in Fall 2016:

III.B.7.p. Expect instructors to allow students absent from class while engaged in official University activities, or students absent due to mandatory military orders that do not exceed 15% of total participation for the course, a reasonable opportunity to make up missed quizzes, exams, and/or assignments or complete some comparable activity;

IV.D.6 Notify their instructors as far in advance as possible of any planned absence due to mandatory military orders, or for official University activities, and discuss with instructors the terms, options, and possible outcomes of these absences;

8


Charge 5: Provide recommendations to increase retention and graduation rates of first time, full time students.

Progress: The ASSA Committee approached this charge in three ways to learn what can be done about graduation and retention rates: (1) consult Academic Support Centers and Programs (ASCP), (2) consult the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE), and (3) confer with colleagues across campus. On November 11, 2015, Prasanna Reddy—Director of ASCP—met with ASSA and provided information about tutoring and supplemental instruction (SI) services at WSU.

She indicated that students who attend SI classes are retained in and pass the corresponding classes at a much higher rate than students who do not attend SI.Unlike SI, tutoring subjects vary from semester to semester based on the needs of the students requesting tutoring. Some of the limitations faced when arranging tutors are budget and tutor availability. Often students who need tutoring do not request it until late in the semester, at which time funds are depleted and/or the proficient students who would make good appointment tutors are very busy and no longer able to make time in their schedules to help.

Some solutions the ASSA discussed in terms of helping improve retention by expanding SI and tutoring include

1. Enabling students who need volunteer hours (for CEL or for graduate school/medical school applications) to be able to get volunteer credit for tutoring other students (This would need to be coordinated with CCEL.)

2. Increasing funding for SI and appointment tutoring3. Encouraging students to contact tutoring services early in the semester to

help ensure a tutor will be available for them

In addition to the information gleaned from ASCP, ASSA also received feedback regarding graduation and retention from OIE and our colleagues. Heather Chapman from OIE summarized preliminary data by stating that (1) The factor that most impacts a student's odds of graduation seems to be whether or not the student received grants, scholarships, or waiver money. Loans also have an impact, but money that a student does not pay back has the most positive impact on graduation. (2) The number of times a student changes their major has a positive impact on graduation. The more times a student changes majors, the more likely the student is to graduate. However, this may be because students are required to choose a major as they start at WSU, and as they learn more they may find their initial choice is no longer what they want. It also may simply indicate the fact that those who change their major more are likely to have been at WSU longer. (3) Credit hours taken have a positive impact on graduation. Students who enroll in more credit hours on average each semester (e.g. full-time status) are more likely to graduate. (4) Students with concurrent course credit are more likely to graduate.

ASSA members also solicited input from colleagues within their colleges. Based on the OIE’s information and our colleagues’ input, Becky Marchant created a report of ASSA’s

9


additional findings and recommendations to address graduation and student retention. See Appendix C for the report.

Recommendations for Future Committee Work

Charges Still Needing Action

Changes to PPM 6-22 resulting from Charge 4 (military absences), above, still need to be discussed and approved by Student Senate, revised if needed, and then presented to Faculty Senate. As a result, this charge should carry over into 2016-17.

Charge 3 (satisfactory-progress requirement for developmental programs) could not be addressed this year because no requirement policy is currently under development. This charge may need to be carried over, or Executive Committee may wish to wait until a new requirement is being drafted to renew this charge.

Other Recommended Work

The information gathered for Charge 5 (graduation and retention) may be useful to share with other campus entities that are considering the problem of retaining students and helping them succeed. Executive Committee may want to have it presented to Faculty Senate and/or others.

10


Appendices

Appendix A

STUDENT CODE CHANGES: AN OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY

In Fall 2014, ASSA was charged to “review and consider ways to restructure PPM 6-22.” The goal was to retain in the Student Code the policy elements which codify students’ rights and responsibilities including their due process rights. But to remove and revise the procedural elements by which the institution was to offer due process to students.

• The procedures in Code need revision as they have proven to be inefficient. Students with a complaint may experience petition run-around, having their complaint adjudicated by multiple committees. For example, depending on the situation, a student grade complaint may have to be heard by a College Hearing Committee, the Registrar’s Office, and the Bursar’s Office.

• The code is also unfair, as students with the same fact pattern may be treated differently. For example, a student charged with academic dishonesty may be adjudicated differently in the Hearing Committees in different Colleges. Such inconsistency is a violation of substantive due process and leaves the institution open to potential litigation.

• Finally, the current policy is unresponsive to changes in state statute, case law, and the need for procedural flexibility in rendering due process. Presently, any change in procedure must be vetted in open hearings and then approved by ASSA, Student Senate, Faculty Senate Executive Committee, Faculty Senate, President’s Council, and Trustees. Such a process takes several months, exposing the institution to legal risk.

To realize these changes a sub-committee (below) was empanelled by ASSA to extricate the procedures but retain the policy in the student code.

Eric Amsel, Due Process Officer and member of Faculty Executive Committee Jeff Hurst, Dean of Students Bruce Bowen, Associate Provost for Enrollment Services Stephanie Hollist, University General Counsel Sandi Weber, Student Patrick Thomas, Associate General Counsel (added summer 2015)

The student code was revised in the following ways and has been unanimously approved by ASSA, Student Senate, and Faculty Senate Executive Committee:

Retains the sections dealing with student rights, student responsibilities, and sanctions. Clarifies the sections dealing with how student code issues are resolved and what

remedies are available to students. Removes the sections dealing with specific step-by-step petition processes. Creates the Student Code Procedural Committee (SCPC) whose responsibility is to create

procedures ensuring that due process is more efficient, fairer, and responsive (see VIII A)

11


The Student Code Procedural Committee will have faculty senate executive committee representation but replaces all entities, including Faculty Senate for designing and implementing due process procedures. The current policy and procedures of PPM 6-22 will remain in place until the new procedures are fully vetted and able to be implemented.

12


Appendix B

STUDENT CODE CHANGES APPROVED BY FACULTY SENTATE, Apr. 14, 2016

Student Code

No. 6-22 Rev. 05-06-14 [4.4.16] 4-20-77

I. PURPOSE

A. Weber State University recognizes students as adults pursuing their education and cannot assume the responsibility of parents for the conduct of students. The underlying goals of the Weber State University Student Code (Student Code or Code) are to: 1) contribute to the development of appropriate individual and group behavior and 2) encourage responsible citizenship within the University community. The administration of student policies should be conducted in a manner that will foster the ethical development and personal integrity of students and promote an environment that is in accord with the overall educational mission of the University.

B. The Weber State University Student Code is a document incorporated in the University Policies and Procedures Manual (PPM) and is available online at www.weber.edu /ppm .

II. PREFACE

A. Weber State University derives its legal authority from the State of Utah to provide programs and services to students. This authorization, established by the State Legislature, is administered by the Governor and delegated to the State Board of Regents, the Weber State University Board of Trustees, and the Weber State University President. The Weber State University President has the option of delegating specific elements of University authority to various entities including University administrators, faculty, staff, and student governance systems. The administration of the Student Code has been delegated to the Vice President of Student Affairs.

B. As members of the Weber State University academic community, students have significant opportunities and special privileges, but they also assume the obligations thereof. Students are responsible for becoming familiar with the Student Code.

III. STUDENT RIGHTS

A. Weber State University students retain and enjoy all rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Utah. Examples of such rights include but are not limited to the following:

1. The right of reasonable access to University facilities and programs and the right to learn free from unlawful discrimination or other arbitrary and capricious treatment;

2. The right of free inquiry, expression, and assembly subject to constitutional limitations;

3. The right to be secure in their persons, living quarters, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Privacy rights are not absolute and are governed by this and other University policies, which outline further privacy expectations.

B. In addition to the foregoing, Weber State University will make reasonable efforts to promote an environment which provides:

13


1. The right to form and operate an organized student government within the guidelines prescribed by the University;

2. Student representation through the Weber State University Student Association (WSUSA) on University committees, councils, commissions, and other formally constituted bodies that make general policy decisions affecting students or that govern student activities and conduct;

3. Due process, as described further in section VIII.B. including a fair hearing in appropriate cases by a body which includes a reasonable proportion of students;

4. Procedural safeguards and privacy with respect to testing for drugs and infectious diseases;

5. The right to be reasonably informed about the full cost of tuition, activity fees, lab fees, etc., and about available financial aid programs, their attendant obligations, procedures, loan repayment schedules, consequences of non-payment, etc.;

6. The right of reasonable access to and use of University services and programs such as financial aid, orientation, counseling, academic advisement, career planning, library services, etc.;

7. The right to competent academic instruction and advisement such that students may:

a. Expect to complete the course work required for specific programs within a reasonable period of time and with reasonable scheduling options to meet program and institutional requirements as outlined in the University catalog;

b. Inquire and be informed of course, program, major, and institutional requirements, and expect that such requirements will not be changed for students already enrolled in a program without reasonable alternatives being provided;

c. Expect that courses offered will be comparable with their catalog descriptions, and that reasonable attempts will be made to offer periodically all courses listed in the catalog;

d. Expect that program changes will be well-planned, widely communicated, and will incorporate an orderly transition from the old to the new;

e. Receive academic credit and/or academic degrees when all specified requirements have been satisfied;

f. Receive appropriate credit or notations for work included in faculty publications or other endeavors;

g. Expect instructorfaculty members to conduct themselves ethically and professionally, in accordance with University policies and directives and accepted professional standards;

h. Expect instructorfaculty members, when reasonably possible, to provide a syllabus which outlines course requirements and instructorfaculty member availability to be distributed the first week of class;

i. Experience academic evaluation through orderly procedures and criteria, which are announced within fourteen (14) calendar days of the first day of class and which are designed to prevent prejudice and arbitrary judgment;

j. Inquire and be informed by instructorfaculty members of sanctions they may impose in the different courses they teach for the basic types of inappropriate behavior and academic dishonesty;

k. Have access to faculty members in formal classes, during scheduled office hours, and/or by scheduling appointments;

14


l. Have the right of intellectual inquiry, including specifically the right to engage in reasonable academic discussion and dissent within the framework of course material, class size, reasonable instructorfaculty member availability, and other exigencies defined by the University;

m. Have the opportunity, through course evaluation and/or access to the department chair, to assess the personal value of a course and make suggestions about its direction, including the opportunity to complete anonymous evaluations of both the instructorfaculty member and the instruction they have received;

n. Expect the observation of Academic Study (Dead) Week and other official University programs;

on. Expect that the University or any of its departments will not require unreasonable absences from classes in order to maintain extracurricular or academic scholarships and/or positions;

po. Expect instructorfaculty members to allow students absent from class while engaged in official University activities a reasonable opportunity to make up missed quizzes, exams, and/or assignments or complete some comparable activity.

qp. Request a resolution of conflict between course content and the student's core-beliefs. See PPM 6-22 IV.D.9.

IV. STUDENT RESPONSIBILITIES

A. Students at Weber State University assume the personal obligation to conduct themselves in a manner which is compatible with the University's role as a public institution of higher education. By enrolling at Weber State University, students agree to maintain certain standards of conduct, which if violated, may result in the imposition of sanctions or other forms of University discipline.

B. General categories of misconduct for which students may be subjected to University discipline are listed below.

1. Conduct which violates federal, state, or local law;

2. Conduct which violates Weber State University rules or regulations;

3. Conduct which unreasonably disrupts, adversely affects, or otherwise interferes with the lawful functions of the University, or the rights of any individual to pursue an education at Weber State University;

4. Conduct which results in injury or damage to persons affiliated with the University or property owned or controlled by the University.

C. As members of the Weber State University community, students shall avoid conduct which violates the provisions of paragraph IV.B. above. Examples of such prohibited conduct include but are not limited to the following:

1. Failing to respect the right of every person to be secure and protected from fear, intimidation, harassment, hazing, and/or physical harm caused by the activities of groups or individuals;

2. Harassment or discrimination based on "protected classifications" as defined in PPM 3-32. One particular type of harassment is sexual harassment, which is unwelcome conduct based on a person's sex, sexual orientation, or their gender identity/expression. Sexual harassment includes non-consensual verbal or physical sexual activity, including the support or assistance carry out such harassing activities. Sexual harassment can range from less serious forms of conduct that include unwelcome compliments or invitations, to more serious forms of conduct such as sexual assault, stalking, dating violence, or domestic violence, as those terms are defined in PPM 5-36a. Other forms of discrimination and harassment based on "protected classifications" also are prohibitedSexual assault, sexual

15


harassment, or any other non-consensual verbal or physical sexual activity, including the support or assistance of such activities;

3. Disorderly, lewd, indecent, defamatory, or obscene conduct or expression on University-owned or controlled property or at University-sponsored or supervised functions or events. Disorderly conduct includes but is not limited to:

4. Any unauthorized use of electronic or other devices to make an audio or video record of any person while on University premises without his/her prior knowledge, or without his/her effective consent when such a recording is likely to cause injury or distress. This includes, but is not limited to, surreptitiously taking pictures of another person in a gym, locker room, or restroom;

45. Participating in demonstrations, rallies, assemblies, performances, showings, exhibits, pickets, etc. in violation of any law or University policy;

56. Distributing, publishing or posting materials, soliciting funds, selling items, engaging in commercial activity, erecting structures, exhibiting items, displaying films and videos, using official University insignia or materials, or participating in performances and activities without proper authorization or not in accordance with University policy;

67. Obstructing or disrupting teaching, research, administration, disciplinary procedures, computing services, other University-sponsored activities, services, or events, including public service functions;

78. Deliberate interference with academic freedom and freedom of speech, including not only instructional activities, but also interference with performances, exhibits, displays, dissemination of information, demonstrations, or the freedom of any speaker invited by any segment of the University community to express views;

89. Initiating or causing to be initiated any intentionally false report warning;

910. Leaving children unattended on University premises or allowing them to create a disruption on University premises or at University-sponsored functions;

1011. Failing to meet contractual obligations with the University;

1112. Knowingly violating terms of any disciplinary sanction;

1213. Intentionally furnishing false information, including false identification;

1314. Forging, altering, misusing, or mutilating University documents, records, identification, educational materials, or other University property;

1415. Influencing or attempting to influence the academic process or any University administrative process through explicit or implied bribery, threats, sexual behavior, etc;

1516. Theft or misappropriation of property, equipment, materials, services, or data;

1617. Theft or other abuse of computer facilities and resources, including but not limited to:

a. Unauthorized entry into a file, to use, read, or change the contents, or for any other purpose;

b. Unauthorized transfer of a file;

16


c. Use of another individual’s identification and/or password;

d. Use of computing facilities and resources to interfere with the work of another student, faculty member, or University official;

e. Use of computing facilities and resources to send obscene or abusive messages;

f. Use of computing facilities and resources in violation of state or federal law or University policies, or for any illegal purpose;

g. Use of computing facilities and resources to interfere with normal operation of the University computing system;

h. Use of computing facilities and resources in violation of copyright laws;

i. Any violation of the University Acceptable Use Policy.

1718. Knowingly possessing stolen property, equipment, materials, services, or data;

1819. Intentionally or recklessly destroying, defacing, vandalizing, damaging, or misusing the property, equipment, materials, services, or data of the University or other University community members, or aiding, abetting, or contributing to such actions;

1920. Unauthorized entry upon or use of University facilities, equipment, materials, data, premises, or services;

2021. Unauthorized possession or use of a key to any University facility;

2122. Illegal or unauthorized possession of firearms, explosives, other weapons, or dangerous chemicals on University premises or use of any such items, even if legally possessed, in a manner that harms, threatens, or causes reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm;

2223. Unlawful use, possession, distribution, sale, manufacture, or possession for purposes of distribution or sale of any controlled substance or illegal drug;

2324. Sale, possession, manufacture, distribution, or consumption of alcoholic beverages on University premises;

2425. Unauthorized sale, possession, manufacture, distribution, or consumption of alcoholic beverages at any official off-campus University-sponsored function or event;

2526. Smoking in unauthorized locations on University premises in violation of state law, University, or public health regulations;

2627. Aiding, abetting, or inciting others to commit any act prohibited by law or University policy;

2728. Violating University parking regulations or other misuse of a vehicle which violates the law or University policy;

2829. Refusing to respond to reasonable requests and directions from University or local government officials while in the performance of their duties, including but not limited to course directions provided orally or in writing by a faculty member;

2930. Abuse of the Student Code system, including but not limited to:

17


a. Failure to obey the notice from a University official to appear for a meeting or hearing as part of the Student Code system;

b. Falsification, distortion, or misrepresentation of information before a hearing committee;

c. Disruption or interference with the orderly conduct of a hearing committee proceeding;

d. Initiation of a Student Code proceeding in bad faith;

e. Attempting to discourage an individual’s proper participation in, or use of, the Student Code system;

f. Attempting to influence the impartiality of a member of a hearing committee prior to and/or during the course of the proceeding;

g. Harassment (verbal or physical) and/or intimidation of a member of a hearing committee prior to, during, and/or after a Student Code proceeding;

h. Failure to comply with the sanction(s) imposed under the Student Code;

i. Influencing or attempting to influence another person to commit an abuse of the Student Code system.

3031. Any other violation of clearly stated proscriptions of any legal authority or any published rule or regulation promulgated by any official, University administrator, committee, commission, or council acting within the scope of their authority.

D. In addition to the foregoing, as members of the Weber State University academic community, students shall:

1. Maintain academic standards including institutional, school, departmental, program, and individual course standards;

2. Maintain academic ethics and honesty. To this end, the following activities are specifically prohibited:

a. Cheating, which includes but is not limited to the following examples:

i) Copying from another student's test;

ii) Using materials during a test not authorized by the person giving the test;

iii) Collaborating with any other person during a test without authorization;

iv) Knowingly obtaining, using, buying, selling, transporting, or soliciting in whole or in part the contents of any test without authorization of the appropriate University official;

v) Bribing any other person to obtain any test;

vi) Soliciting or receiving unauthorized information about any test;

vii) Substituting for another student or permitting any other person to substitute for oneself to take a test;

viii) Knowingly obtaining academic credit for work that is not one's own regardless of the source of the work;

ix) Knowingly involved in arranging fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts.

18


b. Plagiarism, which is the unacknowledged (uncited) use of any other person’s or group’s ideas or work. This includes purchased or borrowed papers;

c. Collusion, which is the unauthorized collaboration with another person in preparing work offered for credit;

d. Falsification, which is the intentional and unauthorized altering or inventing of any information or citation in an academic exercise, activity, or record-keeping process;

e. Giving, selling, or receiving unauthorized course or test information;

f. Using any unauthorized resource or aid in the preparation or completion of any course work, exercise, or activity;

g. Infringing on the copyright law of the United States which prohibits the making of reproductions of copyrighted material except under certain specified conditions.

3. Obtain the instructor's faculty member's permission before recording lectures;

4. Obtain the instructor's faculty member's permission at least 24 hoursone (1) business day before bringing any children (including infants) into a classroom, workshop, or laboratory setting. In the case of an emergency, prior approval may be sought up to the beginning of the class or activity. If the child becomes disruptive in any way during an approved visit, the responsible person must remove the child immediately;

5. In the absence of the instructorfaculty member, remain in the classroom at least fifteen (15) minutes from the class starting time, unless otherwise notified;

6. Notify their instructors faculty members as far in advance as possible of any planned absence for participation in University-approved or requested group activities, and discuss the terms, options, and possible outcomes of these absences with instructorsfaculty members;

7. Avoid unethical, wasteful, and/or inappropriate use of any computer system, library, or other campus resource, or interference with the productivity of other users;

8. Avoid misrepresentation of a research project or paper for other than its original intended usage.

9. Determine, before the last day to drop courses without penalty, when course requirements conflict with a student's core beliefs. If there is such a conflict, the student should consider dropping the class. A student who finds this solution impracticable may request a resolution from the instructorfaculty member. This policy does not oblige the instructor faculty member to grant the request, except in those cases when a denial would be arbitrary and capricious or illegal. This request must be made to the instructor faculty member in writing and the student must deliver a copy of the request to the office of the department head. The student's request must articulate the burden the requirement would place on the student's beliefs.

E. Any student found in violation of the aforementioned examples of dishonesty may, in addition to the appropriate academic sanctions imposed by the professorfaculty member, have his/her name forwarded to the Dean of Students and/or other designated individuals/entities for appropriate institutional sanctions identified below. All members of the University community have the obligation to report instances of academic dishonesty to the responsible faculty member.

F. Weber State University reserves the right to take appropriate action against any individual or group which is found upon hearing to pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the health, safety, or welfare of the University community, subject to applicable due process rights outlined herein.

19


V. STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS AND ACTIVITIES

A. Weber State University believes in student participation in the government of the institution. As constituents of the University community, students are encouraged individually and collectively to express their views concerning policy to the administration. The WSUSA constitution establishes the governing bodies for students of the University by a delegation of authority through the President of the University.

B. Student organizations may be established within the University for any lawful purpose. All organizations must register with the WSUSA. By virtue of registering as a student organization, such organizations do not become official agencies of Weber State University.

VI. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

A. Academic freedom, the free flow of ideas, the right to speak, and the right to hear must be protected not only from censorship, but also from those committed to interfere with free expression through acts of disruption. It is the responsibility of all members of the University community to refrain from conduct which interferes with free speech. The University shall apply appropriate sanctions under proper procedural safeguards to those who violate this obligation.

B. Members of the University community shall have the right to freedom of speech and assembly without prior restraint or censorship, subject only to constitutional guidelines and clearly stated, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rules and regulations.

C. By virtue of regulating the exercise of free speech on the University premises, unless expressly stated otherwise, the University does not sponsor or sanction the messages being stated or the methods of speech being used. Nothing in these regulations shall be construed as authorizing or condoning unlawful, defamatory, or obscene exercises of speech rights defined under these regulations and national, state, or local laws.

VII. STUDENT RECORDS

A. The privacy and confidentiality of all student records shall be preserved in accordance with the law and University policy. Official student records shall be maintained only by members of the University staff employed for that purpose. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), with which Weber State University intends to comply, was designed to protect the privacy of education records, to establishes the right of students to inspect and review their education records, and to provides guidelines for the correction of inaccurate or misleading data.

B. Students also have the right to file complaints with the Registrar concerning alleged failures by Weber State University to comply with FERPA. Questions regarding this Act and the related University policies may be referred to the Registrar.

C. The complete listing of official student records, information regarding their confidentiality, their access, and the access and/or accuracy of the challenge/hearing process, may be obtained from the Registrar.

VIII. JURISDICTIONRESOLUTION OF STUDENT CODE ISSUES

A. Overview.

Procedures and hearings of all Weber State University bodies which have the potential of sanctioning students or providing relief to students will follow guidelines specified in the Student Code. Jurisdiction of bodies hearing types of grievances is as outlined in this Section VIII.C. Actions which seek imposition of sanctions on staff/faculty members of Weber State University and/or its administrative entities will follow guidelines and procedures outlined in the Weber State University PPM. All other hearing bodies shall

20


create rules outlining procedures, time frames, and due process requirements which must be consistent with the due process objectives described below and approved by the Student Code Procedural Committee. This committee shall be comprised of the Due Process Officer, the Dean of Students, a member of Faculty Executive Committee, an administrator designated by the Provost’s office, and a student appointed by Student Senate, and shall be advised by University Legal Counsel. This committee shall be guided by principles of consistency, efficiency, fairness, and will be consistent with applicable law. All rules governing procedures or hearings which implicate discrimination or harassment based on protected classifications or Title IX considerations will follow rules outlined in PPMs 5-36a, 3-32, or other applicable policies. All rules created under this section 6-22, VIII.A. shall be made publicly available on a website made easily accessible to all students and the University community. Students shall also be provided a hard copy of such rules, upon request to the Dean of Students.

B. Due Process Objectives.

1. In General. Due process in an academic setting is a system of procedures designed to produce fair and reasonable judgments in those situations in higher education which may yield a serious adverse action against students and other members of the University community. In general, due process seeks a clear, orderly, and fair way of rendering decisions by providing procedural and substantive safeguards. Due process furnishes the structure for a reasonable and fair administration of justice in institutions of higher learning. Complaints or charges requiring due process may be originated by an individual or group (complainant) from outside or from within the University community, yet the process itself involves the University community. It may be initiated in the interest of the University community or the public to ensure accountability under these policies.

2. Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process refers to the receipt of adequate notice, timeliness, and deliberative actions in accordance with established policies and procedures. In general, procedural due process will be deemed to have been afforded when the greater weight of evidence shows individuals took reasonable care in following established procedures. Reasonable care in the performance of the various roles of committee members and administrators (allowing for exigencies and unanticipated problems) is sufficient to meet the requirements for procedural due process. Therefore, only in cases where prejudicial failure to meet procedural guidelines is shown will there be sufficient reason for reconsideration.

The level of procedural due process required depends on the circumstances and possible sanctions that may be imposed on a student. Generally due process includes:

a. adequate notice of the charges or basis of action,

b. an impartial decision maker,

c. an opportunity to be heard,

d. an opportunity to present evidence to the decision maker,

e. a decision based on the record with a statement of the basis for the decision.

Different levels of procedural due process may be required, depending on the type of grievance or sanction that may be imposed or as otherwise required by law.

3. Substantive Due Process

21


Substantive due process refers to rational and professional decision making in the resolution of disputes and/or imposition of sanctions. Examples of substantive due process violations include decisions that are unsupported by any substantial evidence or are arbitrary or capricious.

4. Appeal. Some form of appeal will be provided for purposes of reviewing due process concerns, consistent with the standards outlined herein. The Student Code Procedural Committee shall create rules regarding appeal processes and make them available as described in this Section VIII.A.

A. Procedures which foster dialogue and promote resolution between the immediate parties involved in a dispute are encouraged. Every effort should be made to resolve disputes at the lowest possible level (i.e., individual, supervisor, department chairperson, program director, and/or dean). If resolution by these means is unsatisfactory, formal departmental or school procedures, if available, should be instituted and/or the office designated by the Vice President for Student Affairs should be notified. Students are also encouraged to contact their elected WSUSA representatives, if desired.

B. Procedures and hearings of all Weber State University bodies which have the potential of sanctioning students or providing relief to students will follow guidelines specified in the Student Code. Actions which seek redress from or imposition of sanctions on staff/faculty members of Weber State University and/or its administrative entities will follow guidelines and procedures outlined in the Weber State University PPM.

C. Issues relating to admission, residence halls, academic requirements, eligibility, residency, or parking violations are deferred to University venues especially designated to handle such issues, and appeals from those bodies will be considered only as outlined in section IX.

DC. Jurisdiction

1. Scope:

1. In the absence of specific guidelines and procedures indicated elsewhere in the PPM, the due process provisions contained in the Student Code shall be followed.

2. Financial and business obligations such as payment of tuition, parking fees, residence hall charges, financial aid, etc., are considered business transactions and are covered by legal agreements in addition to the Student Code.

3. Generally, University jurisdiction and discipline shall be limited to conduct which occurs on University premises or which adversely affects the University community and/or the pursuit of its objectives. Off-campus behavior by students or student groups acting as official representatives of the University or utilizing the name of the University in any capacity or by students or student groups charged with any violent crime may be referred by any interested party to the Dean of Students for review. If the behavior is in violation of the provisions of the Student Code and may endanger the safety or welfare of the University community, University action may be taken and sanctions may be imposed.

E2. Specific Issues

Procedures which foster dialogue and promote resolution between the immediate parties involved in a dispute are encouraged. Every effort should be made to resolve disputes at the lowest possible level (i.e., individual, supervisor, department chairperson, program director, and/or dean). In all cases, students must meet designated time frames for initiating a complaint. Time frames may be extended to accommodate extraordinary circumstances. In cases not involving allegations of harassment or discrimination, the University may require students to exhaust levels of

22


administrative review prior to proceeding to the next, unless there are unusual or extenuating circumstances that would warrant otherwise. This determination is made by the Due Process Officer.

In order to promote the resolution of disputes in an efficient and effective manner, the power to resolve particular issues shall be exercised as follows:

a. Academic Issues

Academic issues generally include, but are not limited to, concerns regarding academic dishonesty, grade disputes, course sanctions, standing in restricted enrollment programs, and program completion. Academic complaints are generally reviewed within the academic program in which they arose. Whenever possible, such complaints should be resolved at the lowest level (i.e. faculty member, staff member, director, etc.). Further procedures for handling and resolving academic complaints shall be created and made available as described in this Section VIII. A.

a. Academic Dishonesty

i) All members of the University community have the obligation to report instances of academic dishonesty to the responsible faculty member.

ii) Grievances pertaining to academic dishonesty shall be referred to the college in which they arise for resolution according to the procedures for student petitions listed below in VIII.E.1.d.

b. Academic Grade/Course Sanctions

Grievances regarding grading or the imposition of course sanctions not involving academic dishonesty shall be referred to the college in which they arise for resolution according to the procedures for student petitions listed below in VIII.E.1.d.

c. Admission/Standing in Restricted Enrollment Programs

Grievances regarding admission to or standing in a restricted enrollment program at the University shall be referred to the college in which they arise for resolution according to the procedures for student petitions listed below in VIII.E.1.d.

d. Procedures for Student Petitions for Academic Grievances

Whenever possible, complaints or grievances should be resolved at the lowest level (i.e. faculty member, staff member, director, etc.). Students with unresolved academic issues can invoke the following levels in petitioning their cases. Individuals must submit their petition within four (4) months after the event or issue being contested. Time frames may be extended to accommodate extraordinary circumstances. A student's petition must contain a statement of the relief sought (desired outcome) and a short account of the facts, reasons, and rationale to support the desired outcome.

The petition levels are sequential and students must exhaust their options at one level before proceeding to the next unless there are unusual or extenuating circumstances that warrant a petition going directly to the College Hearing Committee. The College Dean will make this determination.

Petition Level 1: Petition the College Department Chair (or Department Committee if applicable). The Chair or Department Committee will determine how to proceed and shall attempt to resolve the issue(s) within a reasonable time period. Once a decision has been reached, the department chair (or Committee Chair) will make a good faith

23


effort to respond in writing to the student within 10 business days with a copy of the letter sent to the college dean. If a satisfactory resolution cannot be found the student may petition the college dean.

Petition Level 2: Petition the College Dean. The Dean shall attempt to resolve the issue(s) within a reasonable time period. Once a decision has been reached, the college dean will make a good faith effort to respond in writing to the student within 10 business days with a copy of the letter sent to the department chair. If a satisfactory resolution cannot be found, the student may petition the College Hearing Committee.

Petition Level 3: Petition the College Hearing Committee. The petitioning student has the opportunity to meet in-person and present his or her case to the College Hearing Committee, which is not bound by the formal hearing process outline in Section XI. University Legal Counsel shall act as the Committee's legal advisor on all aspects of the process. The student may be accompanied by an advisor at his or her expense (this person is advisory only). The Committee shall review all relevant evidence presented and meet to render a decision within a reasonable time period. Hearings shall be closed to the public except as permitted by applicable law and in consultation with University Legal Counsel. A written summary of the significant assertions and findings of the hearing shall be kept. Decisions of the Committee must be in writing and should give the basis for the decision. The Committee will make a good faith effort to respond in writing to the student within 10 business days with a copy of the letter sent to the college dean. There are no appeals beyond the College Hearing Committee other than due process violations. (NOTE: Every college must have a five-member Hearing Committee appointed by the Dean consisting of at least one student and four other members of the University community from the respective college with one person acting as chair - see PPM 6-22.XI.A.1).

Petition Level 4: Meet with the University Due Process Officer on claims of substantive or procedural due process violation(s). The Due Process Officer can rule only on due process issues and shall render a decision and communicate it in writing to the student with copies to the College Dean and College Hearing Committee. The Due Process Officer may take the following actions:

a. Affirm the decision of the College Hearing Committee;

b. Direct the College Hearing Committee to reopen the hearing for a particular purpose in order to safeguard due process;

c. Remand the case to the College Hearing Committee for a new hearing after consultation with University Legal Counsel in order to safeguard due process.

2b.. Administrative Issues

Administrative issues generally include concerns regarding residency, tuition, course waivers, credit adjustment, graduation, participation in specific activities, financial aid, parking and traffic, and residence halls. Administrative issues are generally reviewed by the administrative unit governing the issue. Further procedures for handling and resolving administrative complaints shall be created and made available as described in this Section VIII. A. Financial and business obligations such as payment of tuition, parking fees, residence hall charges, financial aid, etc., are considered business transactions and are covered by legal agreements in addition to the Student Code.

Decisions on all issues of an administrative nature, such as admission to the University, residency, tuition, course waivers, credit adjustment, graduation, program eligibility, participation in specific activities, financial aid, parking and traffic, and residence halls, will be resolved based on the procedures outlined in section IX.

3c.. Behavioral Issues

Unless otherwise specified herein, behavioral issues involving the alleged violation of the Student Code shall be referred to theare generally reviewed by the Dean of Students for resolution according to the provisions hereof. Further procedures for handling and resolving behavioral issues shall be created and made available as described in this Section VIII. A.

24


d4. Student Grievances Against Faculty

Grievances against an individual faculty member on grounds other than grading, course sanctions, academic dishonesty, or admission/standing in restricted enrollment programs shall be referred to the appropriate department chair, dean, vice president, or other responsible administrator for resolution according to the provisions of Section 9 of the PPM. Specific guidance with respect to this procedure should be obtained from the Due Process Officer. Individuals should submit their petitions as soon as possible but no later than six (6) months after the event or issue being contested. Where the interests of justice require, however, this time limit may be extended with the approval of the Due Process Officer. The student's petition must contain a statement of the relief sought (desired outcome) and a short account of the facts, reasons, and rationale to support the desired outcome.

5e. Student Grievances Against Staff/Administration

Whenever possible, complaints or grievances should be resolved at the lowest level possible (ie: staff member, supervisor, director, etc.). If unresolved, grievances against an individual member of the University staff or administration should be referred to the vice president having supervisory jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint for resolution according to the provisions of the Student Code or other relevant portions of the PPM. (see PPMs 3-2, 3-14, 3-15 3-31aand 3-32). Specific guidance with respect to this procedure should be obtained from the Due Process Officer.

6f. Discrimination/Harassment

Complaints of discrimination and harassment based on “protected classifications,” including sexual harassment, as more fully identified in that policy and herein, are handled in accordance with PPM 3-32, Discrimination and Harassment.

Off-Campus Behavior

Off-campus behavior by students or student groups acting as official representatives of the University or utilizing the name of the University in any capacity or by students or student groups charged with any violent crime may be referred by any interested party to the Dean of Students for review. If the behavior is in violation of the provisions of the Student Code and may endanger the safety or welfare of the University community, University action may be taken and sanctions may be imposed.

7g. Criminal Activity/Civil Court Actions

Ai). The jurisdiction of federal, state, and local courts and law enforcement officials is recognized by the University with regard to criminal offenses and civil matters.

ai) Courts have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of civil and criminal law.

iib) Weber State University has jurisdiction over violations of University rules and regulations.

bii. When an act allegedly violates both civil or criminal law and University rules, there is concurrent jurisdiction.

ciii. University Police have the responsibility to investigate criminal acts and enforce court orders as mandated by the requirements of their duly constituted offices.

iv. When a charge has been filed against a respondent and criminal or civil charges on the same or closely related acts are pending in a court of law, hearing proceedings under University policy may be postponed at the discretion of the appropriate hearing committee, in accordance with applicable law, after considering the arguments of the parties, and with the concurrence of the University Legal Counsel.

25


8h. Referral Power

If jurisdiction is not clear or the Iissues that exceed the jurisdictional scope of a particular hearing committee, the matter shall be referred to the Due Process Officer for reassignment to thean appropriate committee. An appropriate committee may be fashioned for specific purposes, so long as appropriate due process procedures are followed.

IX. PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

This section deals with issues of an administrative nature such as admission to the University, residency, tuition, course waivers, credit adjustment, graduation, program eligibility, participation in specific activities, financial aid, parking and traffic, residence halls, etc.

A. Administrative Petition

Administrative areas will provide a procedure for making decisions concerning disputes regarding the application of University policy or procedure. Procedures for reviewing requests and decision-making will be created under the direction of the supervising vice president, in consultation with legal counsel. Copies of these procedures will be made available to students who dispute University policy or procedure or who request an exception from the application of University policy or procedure. Students must submit a petition within one calendar year after the event or issue being contested, except in parking and traffic cases where a petition must be submitted within 10 days of the citation. This time frame may be waived to accommodate extraordinary circumstances. Students will be given a written decision of the result of their petition and in residency cases, an explanation of the rationale of the decision-maker. Students not satisfied with the decision have the opportunity to request an Administrative Hearing of their petition.

B. Administrative HearingAdministrative Hearings are conducted by an Administrative Hearing Officer. At the discretion of the supervising vice president, the Administrative Hearing may be heard by an Administrative Hearing Committee, with the chair of the committee acting as the Administrative Hearing Officer. Administrative Hearings shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide prompt and fair resolution to the student’s petition. The Administrative Hearing Officer /Committee may be comprised of individuals both internal and external to the department. None of these individuals may be the same individuals who reviewed the Administrative Petition. Students have the right, at the Administrative Hearing level, to appear in person to present their case. The Administrative Hearing will follow the procedures set forth below.

1. Students must submit a request for an Administrative Hearing within 30 calendar days of the date posted on the official letter received as a result of the petition process, with the exception of a parking and traffic case where request must be made within 10 days of the date posted on the letter. This time frame may be waived by the Administrative Hearing Officer/Committee to accommodate extraordinary circumstances.

2. The Administrative Hearing Officer/Committee shall meet in a timely manner and make an independent determination of the pertinent issues based upon such oral and written proofs as may be presented, and shall make a final determination of the status of the petitioner consistent with the law and University policies.

3. The student challenging the decision from the Administrative Petition process shall have the responsibility of providing evidence supporting his/her claim.

4. Students shall be given copies of the University policies, if any, pertaining to determination of the administrative issue.

26


5. Oral and written evidence may be presented. However, it is not required that formal rules of evidence be followed.

6. On Administrative Hearings pertaining to Utah residency, both the student and the University are entitled to representation by counsel. In all other instances, students may be accompanied by an advisor, at his or her own expense. This advisor may be an attorney; however, the proceeding is not to be bound by formal trial procedures. The role of such persons is advisory only.

7. It is not required that a formal, written, verbatim record of the proceedings be kept, but a written summary of the significant assertions and findings of the appeal shall be prepared.

8. Decisions of the Administrative Hearing Officer/Committee must be in writing and must give reasons for the decision.

9. With regard to hearings pertaining to the establishment of Utah residency, a ruling favorable to the applicant shall be retroactive to the beginning of the academic period for which application for resident status was made, and shall require a refund of the nonresident portion of any tuition charges paid for that and subsequent academic periods.

10. Appeals from the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer/Committee will be considered only on due process grounds as outlined below. Students must submit a notice of appeal within 30 calendar days of the date posted on the decision letter from the Administrative Hearing Officer. This time frame may be waived by the Due Process Officer to accommodate extraordinary circumstances.

C. Due Process Appeals of Administrative Hearing

Individuals who believe they have not received due process may appeal to the University Due Process Officer. This appeal is to review whether or not the student received adequate due process in prior reviews. Students may submit information/documentation regarding his/her unique circumstances, and shall have an opportunity to appear in-person to present his/her case in a timely manner. The Due Process Officer does not review the merits of the case. A decision letter, including the pertinent findings, will be sent to the student and the person(s) conducting the Administrative Hearing.

1. Students pursuing due process appeals must provide evidence which supports one or more of the following criteria:

a. Lack of proper procedural due process, such as timely notice of the Administrative Petition or from the Administrative Hearing Officer/Committee of the results of the petition;

b. Lack of substantive due process, including the possibility that the decision was arbitrary and capricious or grossly inconsistent with previous decisions made in similar cases; or

c. The decision resulted from discriminatory or prejudicial treatment.

2. Remedies Available to the Due Process Officer

a. Uphold the Administrative Hearing decision; or

b. Remand the case for a new Administrative Hearing on the basis that due process was not provided.

3. There shall be no appeal from the due process review.

X. PROCEDURES FOR STUDENT CONDUCT HEARINGS

27


A. Resolution

1. Whenever possible, grievances should be resolved at the lowest level (i.e., individual, supervisor, faculty member, department chairperson, program director, and/or dean). The complainant's first recourse is to speak informally with the respondent. This informal meeting may include consultation with the appropriate supervisor(s). There is no University requirement to maintain records of the informal resolution proceedings.

2. If satisfactory resolution is not achieved through these means, any party in the dispute may pursue an informal hearing with the Dean of Students.

3. The respondent may elect to pursue a formal hearing (pursuant to PPM 6- 22 XI) instead of an informal hearing. This process is initiated by contacting the Due Process Officer.

B. Procedures for Informal HearingsThe student being held responsible for student code violations (respondent) may agree to waive a formal hearing and elect to have an informal hearing by the Dean of Students in the capacity of an individual hearing officer.

In an informal hearing, the respondent is informed of the charges and allowed to present pertinent information, testimony, and witnesses supporting the respondent's position in the matter. The Dean of Students may contact individuals who have knowledge or information about the incident. The respondent does not participate in these interactions. The respondent will be informed in writing of the decision and accompanying sanctions, if any. At any point in the informal hearing process the respondent may elect to pursue a formal hearing process or go back to an informal resolution process.

XI. PROCEDURES FOR FORMAL HEARINGS NOT INVOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

The goal of the hearing process is to provide for the prompt and fair resolution of all grievances as they occur, so that constructive, educational, and developmental relationships can be maintained at Weber State University. Informal resolution of any dispute should be attempted. If satisfactory resolution is not achieved through informal means, any party involved in the dispute may request access to the hearing process. Formal resolution may be sought from a college or departmental system or from the office designated by the Vice President for Student Affairs. Appeals from those bodies will be considered only on due process grounds.

A. Hearing Committee Membership

The appointment of hearing committees for the jurisdictional issues identified in the preceding section will be as follows:

1. Academic Issues - a hearing committee for each academic college will be appointed by the appropriate dean. The five-member hearing committee shall consist of at least one student and other members of the University community from the respective college.

2. Behavioral, Off-Campus Behavior, and Criminal Activity/Civil Court Action Issues - a hearing committee will be appointed by the appropriate vice president. The five-member hearing committee shall consist of at least one student and other members of the University community.

3. Student Grievances Against Faculty - grievances against faculty, other than those involving academic issues, will be resolved in accordance with PPM Section 9: Academic Freedom, Rights, Responsibilities, and Due Process.

4. Student Grievances Against Staff/Administration - a hearing committee will be appointed by the appropriate vice president. The five-member hearing committee shall consist of two students, as well as other members of the University staff and/or administration.

28


5. Administrative issues shall be governed by section IX and not under this section XI.

B. Resolution

1. Whenever possible, grievances should be resolved at the lowest level (i.e., individual, supervisor, faculty member, department chairperson, program director, and/or dean).

2. The complainant's first recourse is to speak informally with the respondent. This informal meeting may include consultation with the appropriate supervisor(s). If satisfactory resolution is not achieved through informal means, any party in the dispute may contact the Due Process Officer and initiate the hearing process.

3. There is no University requirement to maintain records of the informal resolution proceedings.

4. Exceptions to the time-delineated deadlines contained herein may be made by the chair of the hearing committee for good reasons. In addition, at any stage of these proceedings, the respondent and the complainant may go back to an informal resolution process.

C. Pre-Hearing Procedures

1. Any person may file a charge after an attempt at informal resolution has been made or the matter has been transferred to the formal hearing level. A charge shall be prepared in writing and directed to the Due Process Officer. Any charge should be submitted as soon as possible after the event takes place, preferably within 10 working days of the event(s) giving rise to the charge.

Within ten working days following receipt of a charge, a hearing committee may make a nonbinding recommendation that an informal attempt at resolution be initiated, if this meeting was not held previously. Furthermore, the hearing committee may at its discretion decide not to hold a hearing on the charge if it is determined to be frivolous, without merit, based on purely personal grounds or on issues that are beyond the jurisdictional boundaries established by University policy, or if it is determined to be an abuse of the intent of due process. The decision to dismiss the charge, together with reasons therefore, shall be submitted in writing to both the complainant and the respondent. If a decision is made to dismiss the charge, any appeal must be submitted to the Due Process Officer within ten working days following receipt of the decision.

Within ten working days following receipt of a charge, the chair shall inform the respondent in writing thereof. No adverse action or sanction may be taken against a respondent until notification of the charge has been given.

a. Written notice of the charge from the chair shall be delivered personally, or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's last known address. Such notice shall contain the following:

i. A concise statement of the charge summarizing the facts, conduct, or circumstances alleged to constitute failure to comply with University policy. A copy of the applicable sections of the PPM shall be included with this notice;

ii. A list of possible sanctions which may be imposed if the allegations of noncompliance are sustained by the hearing committee;

iii. The time and place of the hearing and of the pre-hearing conference;

iv. The rights and responsibilities of the respondent and the complainant in the hearing. This provision shall be deemed satisfied if a copy of the Student Code is provided to the respondent and complainant along with a copy of the charge;

29


v. The current membership of the hearing committee, together with notification that both the complainant and the respondent have the right to challenge the composition of the hearing committee for good reasons.

b. A respondent who wishes to contest the charge may, within ten working days of receiving the charge, file a written answer to the charge with the chair. Emergencies may be grounds for a reasonable extension of the time within which an answer may be filed, but such emergencies must be of a serious and compelling nature.

c. When a charge has been filed against a respondent and criminal or civil charges on the same or closely related acts are pending in a court of law, the hearing proceedings under University policy may be postponed at the discretion of the committee, after considering the arguments of the parties and with the concurrence of the University Legal Counsel.

d. The chair shall schedule the hearing for a time no later than thirty working days from the time the charge was initially received. An extension of time for hearing preparation may be granted by the chair if requested by the respondent or complainant for good reasons.

2. The purpose of the pre-hearing conference is to facilitate and expedite the hearing process. A pre-hearing conference will be held at least ten working days prior to the date set for the hearing. The following individuals should be in attendance at the pre-hearing conference:

a. The chair of the hearing committee;

b. The respondent(s);

c. The complainant(s);

d. Advisors of the respondent and the complainant, if any;

e. If deemed appropriate by the chair, the Due Process Officer and/or the University Legal Counsel may also attend.

At the pre-hearing conference, the complainant and the respondent may agree to waive a formal hearing and elect to pursue an informal hearing.

The individuals in attendance at the pre-hearing conference shall decide the parameters of and delineate the issues to be examined at the hearing. At this pre-hearing conference, the respondent and complainant shall make available to each other and to the chair upon request, a list of proposed witnesses to be called documents expected to be introduced at the hearing. Nothing in this paragraph shall, however, limit the parties involved from bringing additional information or requesting additional witnesses during the hearing, subject to the approval of the hearing committee.

At the pre-hearing conference each party may challenge the composition of the hearing committee for good reasons. In the event that member(s) of the hearing committee (other than the chair) are challenged, the chair shall rule on the challenges. In the event that the challenge is against the chair, the appropriate dean or vice president shall rule on the challenge. Appointment for the replacement member(s) shall be determined by the appropriate dean or vice president.

3. The pre-hearing conference may be continued or for good reasons shown by any of the participating parties.

D. Hearing Procedures

1. The function of the hearing is to allow the hearing committee to make an informed judgment according to the information presented and the standards of conduct contained in the Student Code.

30


2. Attendance at the hearing should, in addition to the hearing committee, include those persons in attendance at the pre-hearing conference as specified above. A substitute or representative for any of the specified individuals may attend upon approval of the chair. A quorum shall be constituted if at least three members of the committee are present, including at least one student. The committee may postpone the hearing in the event it determines that the absence of one or more individuals would jeopardize the fairness of the proceedings.

3. Hearings shall be open to the public unless the respondent or complainant requests that it be declared a closed hearing and the chair, in consultation with Legal Counsel, determines that a closed hearing would be appropriate under the circumstances.

4. In the event of disorder or disruption during a hearing, the chair may take reasonable steps to ensure order, including removal of any offending person(s).

5. Records pertaining to the case under review may be requested by either the chair or the parties. Compliance with such a request is an obligation of employment of any employee or officer of the University, provided that disclosure of confidential communications or records, as recognized either by law or published University regulations, is exempt. If an exemption is claimed, the chair of the hearing committee shall decide the issue in accordance with the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA).

6. The hearing shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible in order to produce a fair and reasonable judgment. The number and duration of meetings required to reach a decision shall be at the discretion of the committee.

7. Hearings shall be guided by the following considerations. Mere failure to follow any of the guidelines, however, without a showing of prejudice, shall not be construed as sufficient grounds for a charge of procedural error.

a. The meeting shall be called to order by the chair. The chair shall:

i. Introduce all persons in attendance;

ii. State whether it is an open or closed hearing;

iii. Remind all participants in a closed hearing of the confidential nature of the proceedings;

iv. State the charge being considered;

v. Describe how the meeting will be conducted;

vi. Inform the parties of the right of the committee to meet in closed session for deliberative purposes as needed;

vii. Inform those in attendance that a record of the meeting is being kept in an electronically recorded form. Written minutes shall be taken and transcribed by an individual qualified to do so. (It is not necessary, however, for this person to be a certified court reporter, nor is it necessary for a verbatim record to be transcribed. A verbatim record is deemed to have been kept by the electronic recording.)

b. The hearing will normally begin with a statement by the complainant which specifies the grounds and general information upon which the charge is based. Witnesses and other information supporting the charge shall be presented at this time. The committee shall have the right to question the complainant and the witnesses at the completion of their testimony. The respondent shall also have this right, subject to reasonable limitation by the chair. The chair may at any time limit the scope, nature, and duration of such testimony or cross-examination when it is deemed inappropriate, repetitious, disruptive, or otherwise of little use in the proceedings.

c. Having heard the information supporting the charge, the chair shall allow the respondent to make an opening statement and to present pertinent information, testimony, and witnesses supporting the respondent's position in the

31


matter. The committee shall have the right to question the respondent and the witnesses at the completion of their testimony. The complainant shall also have this right, subject to reasonable limitation by the chair. The chair may at any time limit the nature, scope, and duration of such testimony or cross-examination when it is deemed inappropriate, repetitious, disruptive, or otherwise of little use in the proceedings.

d. In the foregoing procedures, it is understood that each party may have an advisor present at his/her own expense. The advisor may be an attorney. This proceeding, however, is not to be bound by formal trial procedures or by rules of information established for the civil and criminal courts. The role of such individuals shall be advisory only and not that of trial lawyers. Their actions shall be subject to approval and limitation by the chair. The intent of this provision is to ensure that the respondent and the complainant are afforded their right to representation while at the same time facilitating the academic nature of the proceedings.

e. Either the respondent or the complainant may request the calling of witnesses as provided for in the pre-hearing conference. The committee may, however, in its sole discretion, limit the number of witnesses called if it is determined that little useful or new information will be provided by additional witnesses.

f. The committee may hear testimony in whatever form of presentation it deems appropriate (e.g., verbal, written, response to examination and cross-examination, etc.). The respondent and the complainant shall, however, have the right to present a brief summary or closing statement.

g. After hearing the testimony presented and determining that it has sufficient information upon which to base a fair and reasonable decision, the committee shall meet in closed session for the purpose of deliberation and formulation of its decision. No written or other verbatim transcript of this closed deliberative session shall be kept. The deliberations are to be considered closed, confidential, and private.

h. Throughout the hearing it is the responsibility of the chair to ensure that written minutes of the meeting are produced in a timely and accurate manner. A copy of the minutes and the electronic record shall be made available to the complainant, respondent, the Due Process Officer, and/or members of the hearing committee upon request; the least costly copy shall be provided without fee. The disposition of the records of the hearing shall comply with the provisions of the Utah Government Records, Access, and Management Act, or other applicable law.

E. Findings and Report of the Hearing

1. A majority vote of those in attendance shall control the action of the hearing committee. The chair shall be entitled to vote. All such voting and deliberation leading to a vote shall be conducted in closed session. When the committee has concluded its deliberations, it shall prepare a written statement containing:

a. The decision,

b. The reasons for the decision, and

c. The sanction(s), if any.

Copies shall be given to the respondent, the complainant, and the Due Process Officer within ten working days of the hearing. A copy shall be retained in the minutes of the hearing.

2. In the case of a tie vote, the recommendation shall be to dismiss the charge.

3. The respondent or complainant may appeal to the Due Process Officer on due process grounds as described below.

F. Rights During a Formal Hearing

32


1. Respondent's Rights

Each respondent charged with violating this Code shall have and be informed of the right to a fair hearing, including but not limited to the following:

a. The right to written notice of the time and place of the hearing and of the charge against him/her, together with a written statement of the individual's basic procedural rights, which shall be personally delivered or sent by certified mail to the respondent's last known address at least ten working days prior to the date set for the hearing;

b. The right to written notice of possible sanctions which may be imposed in the event the allegations of noncompliance are sustained by the hearing committee;

c. The right to waive hearing before the full committee and elect to have the matter heard by the chair acting in the capacity of an individual hearing officer with the consent of the chair;

d. The right to a fair and objective hearing committee to decide the case. Personal involvement in the incident or any form of demonstrated bias or prejudice may be sufficient reason to challenge the composition of the hearing committee;

e. The right to request, for good reasons, a change in the time of the hearing;

f. The right to request that the hearing be declared a closed hearing;

g. The right to review pertinent documents or other materials reasonably required to prepare the defense, unless exempt from disclosure as provided above;

h. The right to be assisted at the hearing by an advisor or any other individual of the respondent's choice and at his/her own expense;

i. The right to be informed of the identity of the person initiating the charge, the right to be present during any testimony against him/her, and subject to reasonable limitation by the chair, the right to cross-examine such witnesses either personally or through the committee;

j. The right to produce witnesses, documentary information, and other materials in his/her own defense;

k. The right to testify in the respondent's own behalf, or to refuse to testify without such refusal being construed against the respondent;

l. The right to avoid being subjected to sanctions more than once on the same charge arising from the same incident;

m. The right in cases involving sexual conduct or misconduct to request the exclusion of information pertaining to the respondent's prior sexual history;

n. The right to a written statement of the committee's decision including findings of fact and a statement of the sanctions imposed, if any, within ten working days of the hearing;

o. The right to appeal on due process grounds as set forth below.

2. Additional Procedural Guidelines

The respondent has the right to expect that:

33


a. The complainant shall bear the responsibility of showing, through the greater weight of the evidence, sufficient reason exists to find against the respondent. The greater weight of the evidence shall be determined from the record as a whole;

b. Adequate time, including adjournment during hearings, shall be granted to enable either party to investigate information to which a valid claim of surprise is made;

c. The decision will be based upon the information presented during the hearing;

d. An electronic record of each hearing session shall be kept and a copy provided to the respondent upon request;

e. Reasonable efforts will be made to obtain the most trustworthy and reliable information available; however, the hearing committee shall not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence, but may admit any pertinent information which is deemed useful in appropriately addressing the complaint or charge;

f. Publicity by anyone involved in closed proceedings will be avoided.

3. Complainant's Rights

Each complainant filing a charge shall enjoy the following rights in connection with a hearing:

a. The right to written notice of the time and place of the hearing, together with a written statement of the individual's basic procedural rights, which shall be personally delivered or sent by certified mail to the complainant's last known address at least ten working days prior to the date set for the hearing;

b. The right to written notice of possible sanctions which may be imposed by the hearing committee;

c. The right to waive hearing before the full committee and elect to have the matter heard by the chair acting in the capacity of an individual hearing officer with the consent of the chair;

d. The right to a fair and objective hearing committee to decide the case. Personal involvement in the incident or any form of demonstrated bias or prejudice may be sufficient reason to challenge the composition of the hearing committee;

e. The right to request, for good reasons, a change in the time of the hearing;

f. The right to request that the hearing be declared a closed hearing;

g. The right to review pertinent documents or other materials reasonably required to prepare the case, unless exempt from disclosure as provided above;

h. The right to be assisted at the hearing by an advisor or any other individual of the complainant's choice and at his/her own expense;

i. The right to be present during any testimony, and subject to reasonable limitation by the chair, the right to cross-examine such witnesses either personally or through the committee;

j. The right to produce witnesses, documentary information, and other materials in support of his/her case;

k. The right to testify in the complainant's own behalf;

34


l. The right in cases involving sexual conduct or misconduct to request the exclusion of information pertaining to the complainant's prior sexual history;

m. The right to a written statement of the committee's decision including findings of fact and a statement of the sanctions imposed, if any, within ten working days of the hearing;

n. The right to appeal on due process grounds as set forth below.

4. Additional Procedural Guidelines

The complainant has the right to expect that:

a. Any complaint brought will be reviewed in accordance with the policies outlined herein;

b. Adequate time, including adjournment during hearings, shall be granted to enable either party to investigate information to which a valid claim of surprise is made;

c. Reasonable efforts will be made to provide adequate protection from improper retaliation or other infringements on the complainant's civil or professional rights by the respondent;

d. The decision will be based upon the information presented during the hearing;

e. An electronic record of each hearing session shall be kept and a copy provided to the parties upon request;

f. Reasonable efforts will be made to obtain the most trustworthy and reliable information available; however, the hearing committee shall not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence, but may admit any pertinent information which is deemed useful in appropriately addressing the complaint or charge;

g. Publicity by anyone involved in closed proceedings will be avoided.

G. Appeals

1. A decision reached or a sanction imposed by a hearing committee may be appealed by respondents or complainants to the Vice President of Student Affairs (for behavioral issues) or to the Due Process Officer (for academic issues) within ten working days following receipt of the decision. Appeals on Administrative issues are covered by section IX. Notice of appeal shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the appropriate officer.

2. Except as may be required to clarify the issues and/or to explain the significance of new information, an appeal shall be limited to review of the verbatim record of the original hearing and supporting documents for one or more of the following purposes:

a. To determine whether the original hearing was conducted fairly in light of the charge and information presented, and in conformity with prescribed procedures, giving the complainant a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present information that University rules or regulations were violated, and giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to prepare and to present a rebuttal of those charges;

b. To determine whether the decision reached was based on substantial information; that is, whether the facts in the case were sufficient to establish that a violation of the Student Code occurred;

c. To determine whether the sanction(s) imposed were appropriate for the violation of the Student Code which the respondent was found to have committed;

35


d. To consider new information sufficient to alter a decision or other pertinent facts not brought out in the original hearing because such information and/or facts were not known to the person appealing at the time of the original hearing.

3. If an appeal is taken under this section, the appellant has the responsibility to show that the decision from which the appeal was taken violated due process in a prejudicial manner.

4. Following consideration of the appeal, the appropriate officer may take the following actions:

a. Affirm the decision of the committee;

b. Direct the hearing committee to reopen the hearing for a particular purpose in order to safeguard due process;

c. Remand the case for a new hearing after consultation with the University Legal Counsel in order to safeguard due process.

5. The decision shall be in writing and delivered to the parties and the chair of the hearing committee as provided herein.

6. There shall be no appeal from the due process review.

H. Records

1. Any member of the University community shall have the right to examine any University records which are retrievable in the member's name, with the exception of documents which have been classified to restrict or prevent disclosure to such persons in accordance with state and federal law.

2. All records pertaining to the hearing will be classified appropriately and filed with the Due Process Officer. They may be made available for review by authorized individuals only through and on the decision of the Due Process Officer in consultation with Legal Counsel.

3. The records of hearings shall be retained in the office of the Vice President of Student Affairs for five years from the date of final decision or until such time that the Due Process Officer determines that no useful purpose would be served by their retention, after which they will be disposed of according to law.

IXII. SANCTIONS AND REMEDIES

[A.] A. General Considerations

When a sanction is imposed, the individual/group will be informed by certified mailin writing of the specific sanction action, and the appeals processes available, and reasonably prompt time frames established to avail the individual/group of an appeal process, where available. within 10 working days of the decision.

B. Sanctions Against Students: General Considerations

1. Sanctions shall be imposed pursuant to administrative procedures outlined in the Weber State University PPM.

2. No hearing committee may impose sanctions which exceed its specific jurisdiction. If the committee concludes that additional sanctions are warranted, it may refer the case to the Due Process Officer for further action.

3. Reasonable efforts should be made to see that:

36


a. The severity of sanctions imposed is reasonable in light of the violation committed;

b. A similar range of sanctions is imposed under similar circumstances.

4. Mitigating Relevant factors may be considered, including but not limited to:

a. Present attitude;

b. Past disciplinary records of the individual/group charged with violations;

c. Nature of the offense;

d. Severity of any damage, injury, or harm resulting from the offense.

e. 5. Repeated violations or an aggravated violation of any University policy or procedure may result in the imposition of a more severe sanction.

65. Attempts to commit acts prohibited by University policy may be subject to sanctions to the same extent as completed violations.

C. Possible Sanctions Against Students

The A hearing committee is authorized to impose the following punitive disciplinary actions under this Code:

1. Academic Sanctions

a. Grade AdjustmentReceipt of a lower grade as determined and administered by the faculty member. A hearing committee may recommend this action to faculty members;

b. Loss of CreditA hearing committee may mandate loss of credit for a particular academic course.

2. Institutional Sanctions

a. WarningVerbal or written notice to a student that his/her conduct may be in violation of University rules and regulations and that the continuation of such conduct or actions may result in further disciplinary action;

b. ReprimandA verbal or written censure by the faculty member or University official involved;

c. ProbationA specified period of observation and review of conduct during which the student must demonstrate compliance with University rules and regulations. Counseling or participation in specific courses or workshops may be required. Terms of probation and the probationary period will be determined at the time the sanction is imposed. Appropriate University officials shall be notified of the imposition of the sanction;

d. Denial of or Suspension from Participation in a Restricted Enrollment ProgramThe opportunity to participate in a restricted enrollment program may be denied or suspended;

37


e. Suspension of Specific PrivilegesThe opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities, attend University activities, or utilize facilities, resources, or services on the University premises may be suspended;

f. Suspension of Use of Specific University ServicesThe right to access and receive transcripts, register, etc. may be suspended for a specific period of time or until specific conditions are met;

g. Deferred Suspension

Deferred suspension is used for offenses found serious enough to warrant suspension, but where the specific circumstances of the case mitigate the offense or for repeated offenses of a less serious nature. Deferred suspension is a designated period of time during which a student is given the opportunity to demonstrate the ability to abide by the community’s expectations of behavior articulated in the Code of Student Conduct. A deferred suspension may be accompanied by a transcript remark. If, during the period of the deferred suspension, the student is again found responsible for violating any University rule or regulation or an order of the Dean of Students or hearing committee, the student may be immediately suspended from the University;

gh. SuspensionSeparation of the student from the University for a specified or indefinite period of time. Temporary and/or permanent notification may appear on the student's transcript. Participation in any University-sponsored activity or the student’s physical presence on the University premises may be restricted;

ih. ExpulsionPermanent separation of the student from the University. A permanent indication of expulsion will be made on the student's transcript. The student can also be barred from the University premises or activities. This sanction must be approved by the Weber State University President before being implemented.

3. Monetary Sanctions

a. ForfeitureLoss of tuition, monies due to an individual or group, and other appropriate fees may be imposed jointly with expulsion, suspension, suspension of specific privileges, probation, or restitution;

b. RestitutionReimbursement for damage to or misappropriation of property, which may take the form of direct financial compensation, the individual obligation to perform up to twenty-five (25) hours of uncompensated work for the University, community service, or other forms of indirect compensation as outlined in the official decision;

c. FinesPayment of up to two hundred (200) dollars in punitive fines may be required. Fines may be imposed separately or in conjunction with any other individual sanction or combination of sanctions. A portion of the fine may be suspended pending successful completion of other sanctions. Those groups or individuals who fail to pay may be subject to further sanctions.

4. Personal Development Sanctions

Requirements or recommendations for counseling and/or enrollment in specific University courses or workshops may be made. If requirements are not met, probation and further sanctions may result.

38


5. Group Sanctions

Any single sanction or combination of sanctions listed in this Code, including the loss of Clubs and Organizations status, may be imposed against an entire group, individual group officers, or individual group members, arising from their conduct in or leadership of the group, pursuant to the provisions for personal conduct outlined in this Code. Notification of any sanction listed may be made to national affiliates and officials.

6. Temporary Interim/Emergency Sanctions

In special circumstances, any sanction listed above may be temporarily implemented prior to a hearing.

a. Such circumstances include situations in which there is reasonable cause to believe the continued presence of the student/student group on the University premises or at University events poses an unreasonable risk of harm to the health, safety, or welfare of the University community or its individuals, such as:

i) Inflicting bodily harm on oneself or others;

ii) Inflicting serious emotional or mental distress on oneself or others;

iii) Creating a substantial disruption of University functions including instruction;

iv) Presenting a threat to the stability and continuance of any University function;

v) Being formally criminally charged with a felony.

b. Any student may be immediately removed from a classroom for behavior outlined in this Section X.6.a. for up to one class period. If the faculty member requests removal for a longer period of time, the faculty member must notify the Dean of Students of the removal within twenty-four (24) hours of the removal with a written statement documenting the behavior necessitating the removal. The Dean of Students, or his or her designee, must review the action prior to the next time the class meets, to determine what further action(s) need(s) to be taken and will notify the faculty member and student of any disciplinary actions or recommendations. The student may not return to that class until given approval by the Dean of Students or designee, or due process has been granted as further outlined in this Section X.6.

c. Any student/student group receiving a sanction on an interim basis shall be given the opportunity for a review by the chair of the appropriate hearing committee within ten working days from the effective date of the action.

cd. If, after a review, it is determined that the student or registered student organization did not violate University policy or fall under the provisions of this emergency sanction, arrangements will be made so that any missed academic work may be made up.

de. As soon as practical, the chair of the appropriate hearing committee will schedule a hearing to determine if temporary sanctions should become permanent.

7. Pending Civil or Criminal Actions

Civil or criminal court actions may be grounds for sanctions imposed by the University.

a. University actions in addition to formal legal action may be considered at the request of University Police or other interested parties by referral of an issue to the Due Process Officer for further action.

39


b. Temporary sanctions may be imposed before courts have determined guilt or civil liability based on guidelines outlined in this Code.

c. Permanent sanctions may be imposed after a court decision is reached.

d. The due process procedures and guidelines outlined in this Code must be followed in any process in which permanent sanctions or additional University sanctions may be imposed.

D. Possible Actions Against Administrators, Staff, or FacultyRemedy of Students: General Considerations

Subject to the concerns of academic freedom applicable in grading cases (see E1 below), if the hearing committee finds that the imposition of a sanction or other adverse institutional action is not justified, based on the greater weight of the evidence, it shall have the power to set aside the sanction or decision and to fashion an appropriate remedy.

A hearing committee may recommend sanctions against administrators, staff, or faculty members as permitted in PPM Section 9-14, Disciplinary Actions.

E. Remedy of Students: Academic Freedom Considerations Academic Freedom Considerations

No hearing committee may interfere with a faculty member's academic freedom to manage the learning process and grading evaluations within a particular course. Hearing committees may take one or more of the following actions:

1. Encourage the faculty member to alter a course sanction and/or to submit a change of grade.;

2. Expunge relevant elements (courses etc.) of the student’s academic record.; and/or

3. Authorize a student to retake a particular course(s) or designated equivalent at no additional charge.

4. Authorize the refund of tuition and/or full/partial student fees for a particular course(s).

5. Waive relevant course(s) as requirements or prerequisites in the individual’s academic program.

In cases in which the hearing committee determines that the charge of academic dishonesty has not been proven, the faculty member shall rescind any reduced grade for academic dishonesty and shall evaluate and grade the student's performance in the course, examination, or academic assignment without consideration of the charge of academic dishonesty.

F. Other Remedies

Subject to the concerns of academic freedom applicable in grading cases, if the committee finds that the imposition of a sanction or other adverse institutional action is not justified by the information, it shall have the power to set aside the sanction or decision and to fashion an appropriate remedy.

XIII. AMENDMENTS

A. Amendments to this Code may be proposed by the Board of Trustees, the President of the University, the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Provost, the Due Process Officer, the Faculty Senate, the WSUSA Student Senate, or by written petition of not less than two hundred and fifty (250) members of the University community.

B. Proposed amendments shall be submitted to the Admissions, Standards, and Student Affairs (ASSA) Committee. The ASSA Committee shall, within sixty (60) working days of receiving amendment(s), publish notice of the same

40


and solicit comment from the members of the University community via open hearings. Following these activities, the ASSA Committee shall transmit the proposed amendment(s) to the WSUSA Student Senate.

C. The WSUSA Student Senate shall consider the proposed amendment(s) and return its findings to the ASSA Committee within 60 working days. The ASSA Committee, at this point, has the responsibility to attempt to reconcile different versions of the amendment(s).

D. The ASSA Committee shall submit its proposed amendment(s) to the Faculty Senate. In the event that the proposed amendments from the WSUSA Student Senate and the WSU Faculty Senate are irreconcilable, either body may choose to submit its proposed amendment(s) to the President, with the opportunity for students and faculty to be present during such a presentation.

E. The President shall, within sixty (60) working days of receiving the proposed amendment(s), recommend either proposal without change or a modified version thereof to the Board of Trustees.

F. The Board of Trustees shall, within sixty (60) working days of receiving the proposed amendment(s) from the President, act thereon. The Board of Trustees may approve or disapprove the amendment(s), or may approve the same with modifications as it deems necessary.

G. The due process provisions of this Code shall be reviewed every three (3) years under the direction of the Due Process Officer who shall make recommendations for revisions to the Vice President of Student Affairs and the Provost. Amendments to this Code shall follow procedures outlined above. Any question of interpretation regarding the due process provisions of this Code shall be referred to the Due Process Officer for final determination in consultation with the University Legal Counsel.

XIVXI. DEFINITIONS

The following definitions have been accepted by the University to apply to the various terms used in describing the procedures of academic due process as outlined in Sections III through XI above:

A. Academic Dishonesty - includes, but is not limited to, those actions identified in Section IV - Student Responsibilities.

B. Administrative Hearing – a forum provided by the University for students to be heard regarding administrative issues, as described in IX.B.

C. Administrative Hearing Officer/Committee – an individual or committee, internal or external to the applicable department, who is charged with hearing student administrative issues as set forth in section IX.

DB. Advisor - any individual selected by the respondent or complainant to attend the pre-hearing conference or hearing, including legal counsel, if desired.

C. Arbitrary and capricious – a decision based on prejudice or personal preference rather than reason or fact.

E. Charge - a concise, written statement of the complaint, summarizing the facts, conduct, or circumstances alleged to constitute failure to comply with the standards set forth in University policy. The charge is directed to the chair of the hearing committee, who in turn informs the respondent.

FD. Cheating - seeking to obtain an unfair advantage by fraud, deception, or the violation of University rules or agreements.

GE. Complaint - an informal accusation that a violation of University policy has allegedly occurred.

41


HF. Complainant - any member of the University community (individual or group) who registers a complaint or files a charge. The individual who registers the complaint need not also be the individual who files an associated charge.

I. Due Process – due process in an academic setting is a system of procedures designed to produce fair and reasonable judgments in those situations in higher education which may yield a serious adverse decision concerning or relating to a member of the University community. In general, due process seeks a clear, orderly, and fair way of rendering decisions by providing procedural and substantive safeguards. Due process furnishes the structure for a reasonable and fair administration of justice in institutions of higher learning. Complaints or charges requiring due process may be originated by an individual or group (complainant) from outside or from within the University community, yet the process itself involves the University community. It may be initiated in the interest of the University community or the public to ensure accountability under these policies. This process presupposes that the dispute has not been resolved informally by direct communication between the parties without recourse to these procedures.

JG. Due Process Officer - a member of the University administration, faculty, or staff, appointed by the President, to perform the following functions:

1. Facilitate implementation of the due process provisions of the Student Code;

2. Serve as a resource to members of the University community, including students, providing clarification of issues and assistance in utilizing appropriate processes related to grievances involving students;

3. Provide adequate orientation to the due process system, hearing formats, consultation, and assistance to those involved in the dispute resolution process involving students;

4. Interpret due process provisions of the Student Code in consultation with University Legal Counsel;

5. Maintain records of decisions and/or sanctions imposed by hearing committees;

6. Hear and decide all appeals filed under the provisions of this Student Code;

7. Report annually on the operation of this Student Code to the Vice President of Student Affairs and the Provost.

8. Review the due process provisions of this Code every three (3) years and make recommendations for revisions as needed to the Vice President of Student Affairs and the Provost.

K H. Faculty Member – a professionally trainedan individual holding academic rank or title as defined in PPM 8-6whose primary function is that of instruction.

L. Formal Hearing - a forum provided by the University in which a charge is presented, information taken, findings and conclusions entered, and sanctions possibly imposed by a hearing committee as described above.

M. Formal Hearing Committee - a committee appointed by a dean or a vice president which reviews charges brought against members of the University community under the jurisdiction identified above. The committee is composed of five members of the University community, two of whom must be students as described above. Two alternates will also be identified, including one student. Members shall serve for a term of one year and may be reappointed to consecutive or nonconsecutive terms. No hearing committee shall conduct hearings until appropriate orientation has been received from the Due Process Officer. When the context so requires, "hearing committee" shall refer to the chair acting alone in the capacity of an individual hearing officer.

N. Formal Hearing Committee Chair - an individual member of a hearing committee designated by a dean or vice president to be responsible for the proper functioning of the committee. Following orientation provided by the Due

42


Process Officer, this individual shall be responsible for conducting the hearing process, which includes receiving the charge, conducting the pre-hearing conference, conducting the hearing, keeping records and minutes, and notifying the respondent, the complainant, and the Due Process Officer of the hearing committee's decision. In appropriate cases when the parties waive their right to a hearing by the full committee, this individual may perform all of the functions of the hearing committee as if a full committee were present.

O. Informal Meeting - a conference between a respondent and complainant to attempt resolution of the complaint.

PI. Legal Counsel – University Counsel or the lawyer assigned to the University by the Attorney General's Office. The Legal Counsel will serve as a representative of the University to provide advice at any stage of the due process procedure to the Due Process Officer. It should be recognized by all parties, however, that in this assignment the University Legal Counsel serves to protect the interests of the University.

QJ. Organization - refers to any group of individuals who have complied with the formal requirements of registration for a University organization at Weber State University.

R. Pertinent Information – refers to information which pertains to the issue under consideration.

S. Pre-hearing Conference - a meeting held after a charge has been filed with the chair of the hearing committee. At this meeting, initiated and conducted by the chair, the composition of the hearing committee will be determined and the issues to be examined will be identified and clarified.

T. Procedural Due Process - refers to the receipt of adequate notice, timely meeting of deadlines, completion of committee assignments, and deliberative actions in accordance with established policies and procedures. In general, procedural due process will be deemed to have been afforded when the greater weight of evidence shows reasonable care in following established procedures. Reasonable care in the performance of the various committees and administrators (allowing for exigencies and unanticipated problems) is sufficient to meet the requirements for procedural due process. Therefore, only cases of prejudicial failure to meet procedural guidelines will be considered sufficient reason for rehearings.

UK. Reasonable Care - the level of performance recognized in the academic profession as reasonable in light of obligations one has assumed, competing demands upon energy and time, the nature and quality of the work, and all other circumstances which the University community, after being fully informed, would properly take into account in determining whether responsibilities have been discharged at an acceptable performance level.

VL. Reasonable Cause - cause that a person of ordinary prudence would consider sufficient to justify an action under all of the circumstances.

WM. Respondent - a student, faculty member, staff member, or administrator against whom a complaint has been made or a charge has been issued.

XN. Sanctions - includes measures or disciplinary actions which are imposed as a penalty for the violation of University policy. The sanctions authorized under this code are defined above.

YO. Student - includes all persons taking courses at the University, both full-time and part-time, pursuing undergraduate, graduate, or professional studies. Persons who withdraw after allegedly violating this code, as well as individuals who are not officially enrolled for a particular term but who have a continuing relationship with the University or who have been notified of their acceptance for admission are considered "students," as are persons who are living in the University residence halls, although not enrolled in this institution.

ZP. Student Code - title of those provisions in the Student Affairs section of the PPM which set forth the rights and responsibilities and jurisdictional and due process policies and procedures applicable to students attending Weber State University.

43


AA. Student Conduct Hearing – the procedure for resolution and informal hearing when an issue arises concerning student conduct, as set forth in Section X.

BB. Substantive Due Process - refers to protection from arbitrary and unreasonable action in the resolution of disputes and/or imposition of sanctions.

CCQ. University Community - includes any individual who is a student, faculty member, staff member, administrator, or any other person employed by the University.

DDR. University Premises - includes all land, buildings, facilities, and other property in the possession of or owned, used, or controlled by the University (including streets and sidewalks).

EES. University Policy - written regulations of the University as found in the Weber State University Policies and Procedures Manual (PPM).

FFT. Working Day - those days which fall during an official University semester with the exception of Saturday, Sunday, and legal or University holidays.

44


Appendix C

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING GRADUATION AND RETENTION RATES

Prepared for: Faculty Senate Executive Committee

Prepared by: Becky Marchant, ASSA Committee chair

April 18, 2016______________________________________________________________________________

In August 2015, the Admissions Standards and Student Affairs Committee (ASSA) was charged with providing recommendations to increase retention and graduation rates of first time, full time students. This document fulfills this charge by presenting information and suggestions gathered from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, ASSA Committee members, and members of their respective colleges who offered input. The suggestions are categorized as follows: advisement and tracking, curricular changes, financial incentives, and engagement. In addition, for further consideration some factors that might skew WSU’s graduation and retention numbers are indicated.

Advisement & Tracking

Mandatory advising is one of the most common recommendations ASSA heard from colleagues. In fact, some are calling for annual advising to ensure students are kept on track. The list below indicates some specific ideas relating to tracking and advisement:

● General advising. One colleague suggests general advising regardless of whether students are transferring in, returning, or attending for the first time. This advisement would include information about overall university requirements--including the order in which certain courses should be taken--and help for students to decide whether they will function best in face-to-face or online environments.

● Automated situation-specific advising. One ASSA member suggests that situation-specific advising would not always have to take the form of a face-to-face conversation in a professor’s or advisor’s office. For example, standardized emails triggered by a major declaration or change could be developed to provide students with forms and contact information. Specific advisory emails could be triggered by student enrollment in certain courses and by registration holds for students who are out of compliance with a CatTracks plan or who are struggling academically in key courses.

45


● Degree maps. The Goddard School has seen considerable success using degree maps to help students figure out which courses, both inside and outside the major, they should be taking each semester in order to stay on track. An ASSA member from this school believes that all departments and majors would benefit from using degree maps for advising.

● Improved tracking/advising interface. Some professors continue to request a

more user-friendly and intuitive CatTracks since the current version is confusing to many. In the College of Science, for example, colleagues request a different visual interface that is more intuitive for degree planning. The current list format in CatTracks makes navigation, including determining remaining requirements, a challenge for many faculty.

According to Jane Stout, College of Science adviser, the Student Success center uses a software program somewhat similar to CatTracks but more intuitively designed and apparently able to contact students automatically should a graduation or course-scheduling concern arise. She pointed out that even if the software is not currently configured to contact the student, it should not be difficult to configure it to do so.

● Advising when majors change. ASSA members and some other colleagues speculated that frequent major changes might be contributing to lower retention and graduation rates, so we asked Heather Chapman in the Office of Institutional Effectiveness to investigate this theory. According to preliminary data, Heather Chapman indicates, “The number of times a student changes their major actually has a positive impact on graduation. The more times a student changes their major, the more likely they are to graduate. This may be due to the fact that we force students to choose a major as they start at WSU, and as they learn more they may find their initial choice is no longer what they want. It also may be the simple fact that those who change their major more are likely to have been here longer regardless.”

One ASSA member suggested that persistence among those who change their majors may relate to advising because students declaring a new major must do so through their new major department and, thus, receive advisement or advisement-like interactions that those who maintain a consistent major may not receive. Another colleague suggested that this positive impact should be increased by requiring advising whenever students change majors, based on experiences in the Goddard School, where quite a few students discover they have not completed prerequisites in a timely manner, usually because they have not met with an adviser. Meeting for advising also helps to create a rapport between advisers and students that may also contribute to student retention.

46


● Encouraging students to take more credits per year. According to preliminary data from Heather Chapman, “Credit hours taken have a positive impact on graduation. Students who enroll in more credit hours on average each semester (e.g. full-time status) are more likely to graduate.” With this data in mind, one ASSA member stated, “I believe advising smarter rather than an across the board mandate would be a more efficient allocation of advising resources.” This colleague’s idea relates to the University's “30 hours in 3” campaign in which students are encouraged to earn a total of 30 credits over fall, spring, and summer semesters.

If this campaign could be coupled with University-generated reports to advisers, flagging students with fewer than 30 hours in the previous academic year, advisers could focus on meeting with these identified students. Additionally, the advisers could prepare specific information for these students (websites/links, pamphlets, and other resources provided by the University) to help with their situations (e.g. summer funding, summer class schedule, etc). Likewise, advising could be triggered for students who are within 30 hours of graduation or other targeted groups (e.g. students who have not filled out an education plan on CatTracks, who have failed a designated “bottleneck” course, or who are on academic probation). A more ambitious approach would be a system enabling faculty to easily file mid-semester reports for their classes (similar to those currently in use for ROTC students and athletes ) which would notify academic advisers that a student has been flagged as needing to meet with them.

Curricular Changes

Suggestions about curricular changes include both changes to scheduling and to the number of non-major/non-program credits students are required to take.

● Reducing general education credits. Colleagues indicate that the excess of required general education credits need to be addressed. As the Board of Regents considers changes statewide, they will likely influence WSU’s steps to address the gen ed issue. In addition, the new “WSU”-designated gen ed courses are an important step toward reducing required non-program credits.

● Eliminating bottlenecks. Several colleagues pointed out the need to eliminate “bottlenecks” as much as possible by scheduling enough sections of required courses both within majors/programs and for core-required classes. Relative to bottlenecking, a concern over developmental math and quantitative literacy credits has been voiced. However, one member of the College of Science expressed the following sentiment:“Should WSU wish to continue to produce competitive graduates in any field, the level of Mathematics that is required should not be reduced. The remedial math

47


courses that many students complain about [are] the same level of mathematics that third-world countries are excelling at and besting our graduates; the idea that we should ‘remove this hurdle’ because it is too hard or frustrating will only hinder our graduates in their future.”

● Improving the convenience of course offerings. Since many of our students work part- or full-time, we need pathways for them to complete their degrees quickly. Some options that may help are (a) more hybrid courses because they maximize the convenience of online learning while also providing valuable face-to-face interaction with peers and professors, (b) offering more core-required courses in Davis County, and (c) offering more courses at convenient (evening and weekend) times. One member of the Goddard school stated, “I would like to see a 3-year pathway open up for determined students, and eventually, I would like to see students able to complete their entire degree in Davis County.”

Financial Incentives

According to preliminary findings from the Office for Institutional Effectiveness, the factor that most impacts a student's odds of graduation is whether or not they received grants, scholarships, or waiver money. While loans also had an impact, receiving money that does not need to be paid back has the most positive impact on students’ graduation rates.

● Distributing scholarships broadly. One ASSA member suggests that departments need to award scholarships as broadly as possible, to improve students’ chances for graduation. For example, in one department in the College of Arts and Humanities, faculty individually encourage qualified students to apply for scholarships. When scholarships are distributed, every effort is made to award only one scholarship per qualified applicant so that the scholarship money may be spread among as many deserving students as possible.

● Major-advancement scholarships / tuition assistance. One colleague in the College of Education notes that students in her college who are in their final semester and are student teaching often feel negatively towards having to pay tuition while actively teaching off-campus the entire semester. While this situation does not apply to non-teaching majors, this colleague suggests a solution that could be applied University-wide:

As students progress through their chosen major they could earn the opportunity to have up to one entire semester (their final one) paid for. The parameters would include GPA and being on schedule to graduate (e.g. 120 hours in 4 years plus 3.75 GPA = entire final semester paid for; 120-140 hours plus 3.50 GPA = one half

48


semester paid for). This would be an incentive and performance-based opportunity that would encourage not only high GPAs but also progress toward timely graduation. This concept could be extended to include mini-rewards each semester (e.g. discounts/gift cards at Campus Stores to help purchase textbooks).

Engagement

The Office of Academic Support Centers and Programs (ASCP) confirms that students who are better engaged within the University community are more often retained. Engagement could include advising but it could also be interactions with tutors, supplemental instructors, faculty, and staff. What follows are suggestions relating to student engagement.

● Enhancing first-year experiences. This suggest relates not only to the FYE course but to all first-year experiences. Students need in-depth contact with campus resources and support services during their first year at WSU.

● Expanding concurrent enrollment. Preliminary data from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness indicate that students with high-school/university concurrent course credit are more likely to graduate.

● Promoting and publicizing students’ success alongside faculty recognition. At the college level, deans’ offices could publish electronic newsletters highlighting good news from both faculty and students. Distributing these among faculty and students could help to create a sense of belonging.

● Reaching out to students who discontinue school or face significant challenges. Faculty, including deans and chairs, could mentor students and could call or write to those who experience difficulties or challenges in life, offering consolation, encouragement, and/or counsel. One colleague stated, “One of our students was not there last semester, so I reached out to him. He has now returned to WSU and stated in his e-mail ‘Thank you so much for reaching out to me. I had always planned on returning to Weber, but your call made me realize that I still had something there worth seeing through.’”

● Surveying students who leave WSU. We may be able to address issues we are not currently aware of (bottlenecks, perceptions, etc.) if we survey students who leave (e.g. earn an associate's degree and then transfer to a different school or leave without completing a degree) about why they made that choice.

_______________________________________________

49


Factors That Might Skew Graduation/Retention Numbers

The following are not recommendations to change general procedures at WSU but are mentioned as extenuating factors to be considered when data are analyzed.

● Issues relating to non-traditional and returning students. Many colleagues in the college of Science voiced concerns over the issue of non-traditional students and returning students. Students in other courses of study may also fit into the categories mentioned and potentially skew data:

○ Some non-traditional or returning students already have degrees and are pursuing coursework to enter professional schools (medical, graduate etc.). In many cases they will not graduate with another degree because that is not financially favorable, nor does it benefit their applications.

○ Some of these students might not require a degree to enter their professional programs (e.g. dentistry does not actually require an undergraduate degree).

While the number of students associated with these categories is indeed small, this group of students is particularly motivated. Thus, their academic performance might skew grade-based statistical analysis, making proper data interpretation difficult.

50

apps.weber.edu … · Web viewA subcommittee consisting of Brent Horn (chair), David Read, Ted...

Documents

Transcript of apps.weber.edu … · Web viewA subcommittee consisting of Brent Horn (chair), David Read, Ted...