University Judicial Procedures

Authority and Responsibilities of Judicial Officers

The Chancellor will appoint a judicial officer experienced in student disciplinary proceedings who will supervise and implement a judicial review process for student disciplinary matters. The judicial officer will consult with extended site directors prior to delegating student disciplinary responsibilities to staff located on extended campuses. Judicial officers or designees have authority over disciplinary proceedings and are responsible for:

1. Serving as, or designating, a review officer to conduct administrative reviews or judicial board hearings;
2. Presenting, or designating a person to present, the University’s case before a judicial board;
3. Assembling the members of judicial boards; and
4. Modifying timelines associated with judicial proceedings in order to accommodate the academic calendar and for other reasons deemed appropriate by the officer.

Rights Afforded Students in Judicial Proceedings

1. The University will afford each student subject to judicial proceedings due process appropriate to the alleged violation and the magnitude of the potential sanction(s).
2. If an accused student chooses to remain silent or does not participate in a judicial proceeding, decisions will be based on available information.
3. A student may be accompanied by an advisor, who may be an attorney, during judicial proceedings. The advisor’s role will be determined by the rules governing the proceedings.
4. Students may have copies of the records of their judicial proceedings at their own expense.
5. Students may appeal decisions to impose minor sanctions and/or the severity of the sanction to the senior student services officer or designee. Students will be afforded an opportunity to provide comments to the senior student services officer on recommendations to impose major sanctions.

Rights Afforded Injured Parties During the Judicial Process

1. The University will consider the needs and circumstances of injured parties, especially victims of personal injury and/or sexual assault. The University will take such measures as it deems reasonable to prevent the unnecessary exposure of victims of personal injury and/or sexual assault.
2. An alleged victim of personal injury or sexual assault will be provided such information regarding the judicial process and the University’s responses as is required by law.

Overview of University Judicial Review Procedure

1. Definitions
   1. Judicial Procedure: A judicial procedure is a review undertaken by the University to establish whether there is substantial information to determine whether it is more likely than not that a student violated the Code.
   2. Major Sanction: Major sanctions include suspension, expulsion, revocation of a degree, and other sanctions specified by UAS rules and procedures as being major sanctions.
   3. Minor Sanction: Minor sanctions are those other than ones specified as major sanctions.
2. After an allegation of misconduct is made, judicial review procedures will commence with a preliminary investigation, at the conclusion of which the judicial officer or designee will determine:
   1. whether to dismiss the charges; or
   2. whether the allegations, if true, would likely result in imposition of a minor sanction, in which case the matter continues with an administrative review; or
   3. whether the allegations, if true, would likely result in imposition of a major sanction, in which case the student is provided the opportunity to choose between a judicial board hearing or an administrative review
3. A judicial board hearing is only available to students deemed subject to imposition of a major sanction. In a judicial board hearing the matter is reviewed by a panel of students and faculty, and students are afforded the opportunity to be represented by legal counsel.
4. An administrative review is conducted by the judicial officer or designee and is intended to be an expedited process for examination of information and decision making. An administrative review is the only review process for matters involving imposition of a minor sanction. A student charged with infractions of the Code which would be subject to a major sanction may choose to have the matter investigated by an administrative review, but in so doing will be required to waive certain processes otherwise available under the judicial board hearing.
5. An imposition of a minor sanction following a judicial board hearing or administrative review may be appealed to the senior student services officer, whose decision on the matter constitutes the final decision for the University.
6. Findings, conclusions, and recommendations from either the judicial board or administrative review process to impose a major sanction proceed to the Chancellor after review by the senior student services officer. Opportunity will be provided to the student to comment on the administrative review or judicial board hearing. The decision of the Chancellor is the final decision for the University.

Initiation of a Judicial Review

1. Any University student, faculty or staff member may initiate a disciplinary action against a student for violation of the Code. Allegations of Code violations must be in writing, signed by the complaining party, and submitted to the judicial officer or designee in accordance with UAS rules and procedures.
2. The judicial officer or designee will review the allegations and conduct an appropriate preliminary investigation to determine:
   1. whether to dismiss the matter because insufficient information exists to support the accusation; or
   2. whether sufficient information exists to warrant further judicial proceeding, and, if so,
   3. whether the charges, if substantiated, will subject the student to a major or a minor sanction.
3. The judicial officer or designee will send the student written notification:
   1. of the allegations of misconduct and the provisions of the Code which allegedly have been violated;
   2. of the judicial officer’s or designee’s name, telephone number, and office location; and the time period in which to schedule a meeting to review the charges;
   3. of whether a major or minor sanction is likely to be imposed should the charges be substantiated, and
      1. if a minor sanction is likely, that the matter will be pursued with an administrative review; or
      2. if a major sanction is likely, that the student has a choice between an administrative review or a judicial board hearing; and
   4. that, should the student fail to schedule a meeting, the meeting will be scheduled by the judicial officer or designee
4. Should a student fail to schedule a meeting within the time period specified in the notification of charges, the judicial officer or designee will schedule the meeting and notify the student in writing at least three class days in advance of the scheduled meeting that, should the student fail to respond or appear, the judicial officer or designee will schedule an administrative review and that the student will have waived the opportunity for review by a judicial board hearing.
5. A student under review for matters which could result in the imposition of a major sanction will be provided a written explanation of the differences between an administrative review and a judicial board hearing. The student’s choice of procedure must be stated in writing.
   1. If the student chooses an administrative review, the student must also waive, in writing, rights to procedures in the judicial board hearing which are not included in an administrative review.
   2. If the student chooses a judicial board hearing, the student will be notified in writing that:
      1. the names of witnesses, copies of any witnesses’ written statements, or other documents on which the University will rely will be made available to the student for review at least three class days prior to the hearing;
      2. the student must submit to the judicial officer or designee at least three class days prior to the hearing the names of witnesses, copies of any witnesses’ written statements, or other documents on which the student will rely; and
      3. the student is to have no contact with any judicial board members or alleged victims involved in the matter, and, where appropriate, limited contact with other individuals involved with the hearing.

General Rules and Procedures for Administrative Reviews and Judicial Board Hearings

1. The University judicial system is not a court of law and is not held to standards applied in criminal proceedings. Formal rules of evidence will not apply. Testimony containing hearsay may be heard, taking into account the reliability of the information. Findings and conclusions will be based upon information presented during the review or hearing.
2. Reviews and hearings will ordinarily be scheduled between three and fifteen class days after written notice has been sent to the student, at times determined by the judicial officer or designee.
3. The judicial officer or designee will conduct an administrative review or chair a review by thejudicial board.
4. Should a student fail to appear for an administrative review or judicial board hearing, the judicial officer or designee may determine to proceed with the review or hearing without the student.
5. Reviews or hearings may be conducted by audioconference or at an off–campus location, if directed by the judicial officer or designee.
6. The judicial officer or designee will establish reasonable rules for the conduct of the review or hearing, and will make them available to all parties.
7. Students may select an advisor for assistance during the proceedings. Should the student choose an attorney for an advisor, the student is responsible for the attorney’s fees and legal costs regardless of the outcome of the review or hearing.
8. An administrative review or judicial board hearing will result in the preparation of written findings and conclusions. Conclusions will result in one of the following:
   1. Charges are dismissed.
   2. A minor sanction is imposed. If a minor sanction is imposed, the judicial officer or designee will send the student written notification of the decision and appeal rights within 10 class days of the conclusion of an administrative review or judicial board hearing.
   3. A major sanction is recommended. If a major sanction is recommended, the judicial officer or designee will, within ten class days of the conclusion of an administrative review or judicial board hearing:
      1. send the student written notification of the decision and of the right to provide comment to the senior student services officer; and
      2. forward the record of the administrative review or judicial board hearing to the senior student services officer.

Rules and Procedures Specific to an Administrative Review

1. At the scheduled meeting the review officer will review the allegations and available information regarding the matter. The student, if present, will be given the opportunity to present information, explanations, and/or mitigating factors for the alleged violation.
2. Administrative reviews will be closed proceedings unless otherwise authorized by the judicial officer or designee.
3. An advisor for the student may be present during the hearing, but may not represent the student in the proceedings, nor speak or ask questions on the student’s behalf unless authorized by the judicial officer or designee.
4. If, during an administrative review for a charge originally determined to be subject to imposition of a minor sanction, new information is presented that could make the student subject to a major sanction, the student must be offered, in writing, the opportunity for review by a hearing board or for continuing with the administrative review. The student’s choice must be indicated in writing. If the student chooses to continue with the administrative review, the student must also waive, in writing, rights to the processes in the judicial board hearing which are not included in an administrative review.

Rules and Procedures Specific for Conducting a Judicial Board Hearing

1. Judicial Board Composition: Two currently enrolled students in good academic and disciplinary standing and three University faculty and/or staff members will be appointed in accordance with UAS rules and procedures to serve on a judicial board. The members of the board must be unbiased and may be selected from another campus or site.
2. The accused student will be notified, in writing, at least five class days prior to the judicial board hearing of the names of potential judicial board members. The student may object to a member on the basis of bias, provided the student notifies the judicial officer or designee in writing at least three class days prior to the scheduled hearing and states reasons for believing the board member is biased. The judicial officer or designee will have discretion to either uphold the appointment or have the board member replaced.
3. The accused student may choose between an open or closed hearing to the extent that such choices are permitted by state and federal laws. A hearing will be closed unless the student makes a written request at least one day in advance of the hearing to the judicial officer or designee for an open hearing. In order to protect privacy or other rights of individuals involved in a proceeding, however, the judicial officer or designee may determine that all or portions of the hearing will be closed. Witnesses may attend the hearing only during their testimony.
4. An advisor for a student may be present and may represent the student during the hearing.
5. The accused student will have the opportunity to question and hear all witnesses for the University.
6. The accused student will have the opportunity to present a defense, including introduction of relevant exhibits, affidavits, or witnesses, in addition to any information, explanations, and/or mitigating factors presented during the preliminary investigation of charges. Admission of and restrictions on exhibits and other evidence will be at the discretion of the judicial officer or designee.
7. The judicial board will deliberate in closed session and make its determination within five class days of the conclusion of the hearing, unless an extension is provided by the judicial officer or designee.