CHAPTER TWO: 2400
STUDENT AFFAIRS POLICIES
2016 Version (pdf) of FSH
2400 - prior to this recently adopted version October 2017 below.
UNIVERSITY DISCIPLINARY PROCESS FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT
PREAMBLE: This section outlines UI's student
disciplinary system to inform students of the University process for resolving
alleged violations of the Student Code of Conduct. In July 1993, membership and quorum was changed
on the disciplinary review committee and in July 2008
the committee composition was moved into FSH 1640 Committee
Directory. This section dates from the 1979 Handbook
with relatively minor revisions as noted until 2014. In 2014 the Dean of Students Office, General Counsel, and a
sub-committee of University Judicial Council and Faculty Senate, conducted a
thorough review of all policies related to the Student Code of Conduct.
All disciplinary language from FSH 2200 Statement of Student Rights and FSH 2300
Student Code of Conduct was consolidated into this policy and updated removing
redundancies in policy. In July 2016, the taskforce was reconvened to
review the new process and address some cumbersome processes that arose which
were affecting the ability to resolve cases quickly. It was also noted that a
complete review was necessary and the task force reconvened. In 2017, the task
force provided this complete rewrite that found middle ground between the early
1970ís court trial format and the strong investigative model which had
unintentionally created many delays to this less confrontational investigative
model. The objective of this policy is to provide a
process that allows for fact-finding and decision-making that balances the
rights of the individual with the legitimate interests of the University. For further information,
contact the Dean of Students (208-885-6757). [rev. 7-08, 7-14,
Note: While the disciplinary process contained in
FSH 2400 is uniquely crafted to meet the University of Idahoís individual needs,
portions of the process and Code are adapted from the NCHERM Group Model
Developmental Code of Student Conduct and is used here with permission. Other
portions are adapted from Edward N. Stoner II and John Wesley Lowery, Navigating
Past the ďSpirit of InsubordinationĒ: A Twenty-First Century Model Student
Conduct Code With a Model Hearing Script, 31 Journal of College and University
Law 1 (2004).
D. Hearing Process
F. Student Conduct Board
G. Use of Hearing Officer
H. Interim Action
A. INTRODUCTION. The purpose of
the Student Code of Conduct (Code) is to help protect the safety of the
University community and educate students about appropriate and responsible
behavior and their civic and social responsibilities as members of the
University community, while complying with applicable state and federal laws and
institutional policy. The primary focus of the disciplinary process is on
educational and corrective outcomes; however, sanctions including suspension or
expulsion from the University may be necessary to uphold community standards and
to protect the campus community. University discipline is not in the nature of
punishment for a crime, and the Universityís discipline process is not
equivalent to state or federal criminal prosecutions. University disciplinary
proceedings for any and all matters encompassed within the Code [FSH 2300] and
the Statement of Student Rights [FSH 2200] are addressed under the following
rules and regulations.
B-1. Advisor: the person of the studentís
choosing who has agreed to advise the student during the University disciplinary
process and attend scheduled meetings with the student. The Advisorís role is
simply to advise the student, and the Advisor is not permitted to speak during
hearings, conferences, or interviews unless allowed by the University official
conducting the interview.
B-2. Chief Student Affairs Officer (CSA Officer): the Dean of
Students, unless the President appoints a different official to serve as the CSA
B-3. Code: the Student Code of Conduct, which is currently
found in FSH 2300 and FSH 2400.
B-4. Complainant: the person(s) reportedly harmed by the
Respondentís alleged violation of the Code.
B-5. Days: days that the university is open for business, not
including Saturdays, Sundays, Fall Recess, Winter Recess, Spring Recess, or
B-6. Investigator: the person assigned by the University to
conduct an investigation into a report of a violation of the Code. In all Title
IX cases, the Title IX Coordinator shall assign the investigator. In all other
cases, the investigator may be any qualified person assigned by DOS.
B-7. Student Conduct Administrator (Administrator): the
official at the University of Idaho who has been designated by the CSA Officer
to serve in this role. It shall also include the Administratorís designee.
B-8. DOS: the Office of the Dean of Students at the University
B-9. Hearing Officer: a person appointed by the Administrator
to serve as the person presiding over a hearing in accordance with Section G.
B-10. Parties: the Respondent and, in Title IX cases only, the
B-11. Respondent: the student who is alleged to have violated
B-12. Student: includes, but is not limited to, all persons
admitted to the University, either full-time or part-time, to pursue
undergraduate, graduate, or professional studies, and includes non-degree
seeking students. The following persons are also considered ďstudentsĒ:
a. Persons who withdraw after allegedly violating the Code;
b. Persons who are eligible to enroll for classes without submitting an
application for re-admission;
c. Individuals participating in the American Language and Culture Program,
Independent Study of Idaho sponsored by the University of Idaho, the University
of Idaho International Student Success Program (UI-ISSP), or any other similar
educational program of the University.
B-13. Student Conduct Board (SCB): the body
which reviews student disciplinary matters, as set forth in sections D., E., and
F., and FSH 1640.83.
B-14. Title IX case: any disciplinary case, investigation,
charge, or allegation involving alleged dating violence, domestic violence,
sexual assault, sexual harassment, or stalking. The Title IX Coordinator may
also designate any other case as a Title IX case.
B-15. University: the University of Idaho, in all of its campus
locations, education, outreach and research programs, including extension
programs and distance education programs, and at all locations where any of
these programs are offered or administered.
C-1. Reporting Alleged Violations. Any
member of the University community having knowledge of a potential violation of
the Code may report the violation to either DOS or, in Title IX cases, to the
Title IX Coordinator. A report should be in writing, but may be reported orally
to the appropriate University official. A report should be submitted as soon as
possible after the event takes place.
C-2. Initial Investigation. The University may conduct an
investigation into any report of a violation of the Code. The purpose of the
investigation is to determine whether a violation may have occurred and to
gather relevant information concerning each allegation of a Code violation.
C-3. Notice of Alleged Violation. The investigator may conduct
a preliminary review to determine whether there is sufficient information to
engage in a formal investigation. The preliminary review may include
interviewing the Complainant, Respondent, and other witnesses. If, after the
conclusion of the preliminary review, the investigator decides to engage in a
formal investigation, the investigator must notify the Respondent of the
a. the notice must be in writing and may be delivered either
in person to the Respondent, or by email to the studentís official University
email account. If the notice cannot be delivered either in person or to the
studentís official University email account, the notice shall be delivered by
any means reasonably likely to reach the student.
b. the notice shall inform the Respondent of the specific provision(s) of the
Code the Respondent is alleged to have violated and include a short description
of the basis of the alleged violation.
c. The notice will include a copy of the University Disciplinary Process for
Alleged Violations of the Student Code of Conduct.
C-4. Meeting with Investigator. The
investigator must give the Respondent an opportunity to meet with the
investigator in person within a reasonable time after the notice of allegation
is delivered to the Respondent in order to give the Respondent an opportunity to
respond to the notice, present information in his or her defense, present any
information the Respondent would like the investigator to consider, and provide
the names of any witnesses the Respondent would like the investigator to
C-5. Investigation. At any time during the investigation,
either the Complainant or the Respondent may, but is not required to, provide
information to the investigator for the investigator to consider. Such
information may include documentary information, the names of witnesses, witness
statements, suggested questions to ask the other Party or other witnesses, etc.
Only information that is presented to the investigator may be used in a hearing
under section D.
C-6. Preliminary Report of Investigation.
a. At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator
shall draft a Preliminary Report of Investigation (Preliminary Report) setting
forth the steps taken during the investigation; a list of witnesses contacted; a
detailed summary of any witness interviews; a detailed summary of any interviews
of the Respondent and/or Complainant; a detailed summary of any other
information considered as part of the investigation; and complete copies of any
relevant documentary evidence gathered during the investigation, including
copies of documentary information provided by the Respondent and/or the
b. The Preliminary Report shall not include any conclusions, findings, or
c. The parties shall be provided an opportunity to review the Preliminary Report
and may provide a written response to the Preliminary Report within five days of
the review of the report. A party shall be deemed to have waived the right to
review the report if the party does not make arrangements with the investigator
to review the report within five days of being notified that the report is
available to be reviewed. The written response may include requests for
additional investigation, additional witnesses to interview, or additional
questions to ask any witness.
d. After the time for submitting a written response to the Preliminary Report
has passed, the investigator shall review any responses received and determine
whether additional investigation is needed. If additional investigation is
deemed appropriate, the investigator shall draft a revised Preliminary Report
and shall give the parties an opportunity to review the report, as set forth in
section C-6. c., above.
e. After reviewing any written responses received within the time-period allowed
for submitting written responses, the investigator shall either continue the
investigation or draft a Final Report of Investigation. The investigator has
sole discretion of determining whether sufficient information has been obtained
in order to end the investigation process.
C-7. Final Report of Investigation. The
Final Report of Investigation (Final Report) shall contain everything included
in the Preliminary Report plus complete copies of any written responses received
within the time period allowed for submitting written responses, a credibility
analysis, recommended findings, and recommended conclusion (see below) as to
whether the Respondent violated the Code. If the Final Report includes a
recommended finding that the Respondent violated the Code, the Final Report
shall not include recommended sanctions. The Final Report shall be provided to
the Administrator. The Administrator shall provide the Final Report
simultaneously to the parties.
a. Credibility Analysis. The Final Report should include an
analysis of the statements provided by each party and interviewee, as necessary,
to determine whether the statements provided by that person are credible. The
analysis may include a description of the personís demeanor during the
interview(s), a comparison of statements made to known facts or statements from
other witnesses, the personís ability to observe the event described, the
personís bias, whether the person was under the influence of a controlled
substance or alcohol, and any other information that a reasonable person would
use in his or her everyday affairs to determine a personís credibility. Not
every case will require a detailed credibility analysis of each interviewee, and
the credibility analysis may be part of the particular finding. However, in
cases where the credibility of the interviewee is material to the conclusion,
there should generally be a separate credibility analysis.
b. Recommended Findings. The investigatorís recommended findings regarding
factual issues shall include a description of the basis for each finding. Each
finding shall be based on a more likely than not standard and should include
information from the interviews, documentary information obtained during the
investigation, and, if relevant to that finding, information regarding the
credibility of the Respondent, Complainant and/or witnesses.
c. Recommended Conclusion. In making a recommended conclusion, the investigator
must apply the Code to the findings to reach a determination of whether the
findings as found by a more likely than not standard constitute a violation of
D. HEARING PROCESS.
D-1. Student Conduct Administratorís Review:
a. After the Final Report is submitted to the Administrator,
the parties may each submit a written response to the Final Report. This
response must be provided to the Administrator no later than five days after the
Final Report is provided to the parties. The Administrator may meet with the
parties, separately, to discuss the Final Report.
b. A party may request that the matter be referred to the SCB for a hearing. The
request must be in writing and must be submitted to the Administrator no later
than five days after the Final Report is provided to the parties. If a party
timely submits a request for the matter to be referred to the SCB:
(i) In non-Title IX cases, the Administrator
shall refer matters to the SCB for a hearing if:
(1) The Administrator determines that there is
sufficient information in the Final Report such that a finding could be made
that the Respondent violated the Code; and
(2) The Administrator determines that the appropriate sanction could
include suspension, expulsion, or the withholding or revoking of a degree.
(ii) In Title IX cases, the Administrator shall refer
matters to the SCB for a hearing in matters in which the Administrator
determines that there is sufficient information in the Final Report such that a
finding could be made that the Respondent violated the Code.
(iii) In all other cases, the Administrator shall decide
whether the Respondent violated the Code.
c. If a matter is not referred to the SCB for a hearing:
(i) The Administrator shall decide whether the Respondent
violated the Code. The Administrator shall make the decision based on the
information contained in the Final Report, the written responses to the report,
if any, submitted to the Administrator by the parties, and, if the Administrator
chooses to meet with the parties, the information provided at the meeting to the
Administrator by the parties.
(ii) The Administrator should adopt the findings and credibility analysis
contained in the Final Report, unless the Administrator finds that the findings
or credibility analysis are not more likely than not to be true. Any additional
or different findings issued by the Administrator must be based on a more likely
than not standard.
(iii) The Administrator is not required to defer to the recommendation contained
in the Final Report as to whether the Respondent violated the Code, but is
entitled to freely apply the Code to the findings in order to determine whether
the Respondent violated the Code.
(iv) If the Administrator determines that the Respondent violated the Code, the
Administrator shall determine the appropriate sanction.
(v) The Administratorís decision shall be in writing and include the basis for
the decision. The written decision shall be simultaneously provided to the
(vi) The Administratorís decision may be appealed in accordance with section E.
d. At any time before the matter is submitted to the SCB, DOS
may refer a charge of a violation of the Code to mediation or other forms of
appropriate conflict resolution. All parties must agree to participate with DOS
in the conflict resolution process. Complaints of physical sexual misconduct or
violence shall not be referred for alternative resolution under this paragraph,
except in unique circumstances approved by the Title IX Coordinator after
consultation with the Office of General Counsel and the CSA Officer.
D-2. Student Conduct Board Hearing:
a. In matters referred to the SCB, the Administrator (or
designee) must send written notice to the SCB and the parties.
(i) The notice shall be in writing and may be delivered
either in person to the parties, or by email to the studentís official
University email account. If the notice cannot be delivered either in person or
to the studentís official University account, the notice may be delivered by any
means reasonably likely to reach the student.
(ii) The notice must inform the Respondent of the specific provision(s) of the
Code the Respondent is accused of violating, and include a short description of
the basis of the alleged violation, the date and time for the hearing, and the
deadline for submitting written materials to the Administrator.
(iii) The written notice shall also include the Final Report and any responses
to the Final Report which were timely submitted to the Administrator.
b. Except in cases referred to a Hearing Officer under
Section G, the chair of the SCB shall appoint three to five members of the SCB
to serve as a Hearing Panel to review each matter.
(i) The chair of the SCB shall appoint one of the Hearing
Panel members to serve as chair of the panel. A student may not serve as chair
of a Hearing Panel.
(ii) The Administrator (or designee) shall serve as a non-voting, ex-officio
member of every Hearing Panel and may be present and available as a resource
during all deliberations. The Administrator is responsible for informing the
panel of any previous conduct violations or other relevant disciplinary actions
involving the Respondent.
c. In every case submitted to a Hearing Panel, the parties
may submit written materials for the panel to review as part of its decision. To
be considered by the Hearing Panel, all written materials must be submitted to
the Administrator prior to the deadline set forth in the notice. The
Administrator shall ensure that any materials timely submitted are distributed
to the parties and the Hearing Panel prior to the hearing. The written materials
may only consist of the following:
(i) Suggested questions for the panel to ask the Respondent
or the Complainant;
(ii) Written discussion or argument addressing the information contained in the
(iii) Information (as opposed to a discussion of the information contained in
the report) that was not considered by the investigators in the Final Report
only if the information was not available prior to the completion of the Final
Report or if the information was provided to the investigator prior to the
completion of the investigation but the information was not included in the
D-3. Hearing Procedures:
a. The hearing shall be held at the time and place listed in
the notice. The hearing shall be held no less than five days after the notice is
provided to the parties.
b. All hearings are closed to the public. The only people allowed to be present
during the hearing are the parties, each individual partyís Advisor, the
investigator(s), the Administrator, the Title IX Coordinator (or designee) in
Title IX cases, one or more attorneys from the Office of General Counsel, and
the members of the Hearing Panel. The panel chair may give permission for others
to attend the hearing in the panel chairís discretion, after consultation with
c. The only witnesses at the hearing shall be the investigator(s), the
Complainant, and the Respondent. In non-Title IX cases, the Complainant may only
be present during the portion of the hearing where the Hearing Panel questions
the Complainant, unless the chair determines in appropriate cases that the
Complainant may remain for the entire hearing. In extraordinary circumstances,
if the investigator is unable to be present at the hearing, the DOS may
designate a representative to be there in the place of the investigator. Neither
the Complainant nor the Respondent is required to say anything at the hearing.
The panel chair, in consultation with the Administrator, may call additional
witnesses if the panel chair determines that the additional witnesses are
necessary for the Hearing Panel to properly resolve the case. This discretion
should be used sparingly. The intention of the Code is that the Final Report, in
the vast majority of cases, should provide a sufficient basis for the Hearing
Panelís decision, recognizing that the parties may speak in person to the
Hearing Panel and to respond to the Final Report.
d. It is each partyís responsibility to inform the panel chair and the
Administrator of scheduling conflicts no less than three days prior to the
scheduled hearing. The Administrator shall have the sole discretion as to
whether to reschedule the hearing. Except in cases of grave or unforeseen
circumstances, if either party fails to appear, the hearing will proceed as
e. If a report of a violation of the Code involves more than one Respondent, the
Hearing Panel shall conduct a joint hearing with all Respondents. However, the
panel chair may permit the hearing pertinent to each Respondent to be conducted
separately. In joint hearings, separate determinations of responsibility shall
be made for each Respondent.
f. Only the chair of the Hearing Panel may ask questions during the hearing, and
doing so is at the sole discretion of the chair. However, the chair may seek
input from panel members on areas for questioning. The parties may submit
suggested questions in writing as long as the questions are received prior to
the deadline for submitting written materials contained in the notice. Questions
based on information that arises during the hearing may be submitted in writing
during the hearing at the discretion of the panel chair.
g. For complaints involving sexual misconduct, discrimination, or other
complaints of a sensitive nature, the panel chair, in consultation with the
Title IX Coordinator and the Administrator, may allow the Complainant to attend
the hearing, answer questions, and make a statement from behind a partition or
from another room or location through audio/video technology.
h. The panel chair has discretion as to how to conduct the hearing. Generally,
however, the hearing should be conducted as follows:
(i) Opening statement by the Respondent addressing the
Final Report and the allegations that the Respondent violated the Code;
(ii) In Title IX cases, opening statement by the Complainant addressing the
Final Report and the allegations that the Respondent violated the Code;
(iii) Questions, if any, by the panel chair of the investigator(s), Respondent,
(iv) Final statements by the Respondent and, in Title IX cases, the Complainant.
i. In making its decision, the Hearing Panel shall consider
all relevant information from the following sources:
(i) the Final Report, including the findings and
conclusions contained in the report;
(ii) any written information provided by the parties as provided above; and
(iii) the information received at the hearing.
j. In Title IX cases involving allegations of sexual
misconduct, the past sexual history or sexual character of either party shall
not be considered by the Hearing Panel except in extremely unusual cases where
the panel chair determines that the information is critical to a proper
understanding of the specific facts of the case at hand. Demonstration of
pattern, repeated, and/or predatory behavior, in the form of previous findings
in any legal or campus proceeding, or in the form of good faith allegations, may
be considered in making the findings and, if a violation of the Code is found,
k. There shall be a single record, such as an audio recording, for all hearings.
Deliberations shall not be recorded. Failure to record the hearing for any
reason is not to be considered a procedural error that substantially impacts the
decision and will not be grounds for appeal or reversal of the Hearing Panelís
D-4. Hearing Panel Decision.
a. The Hearing Panel shall issue a written decision, which
should be issued within ten days after completing deliberations. The panel chair
shall provide the written decision to the Administrator, who shall then
simultaneously provide the decision to the parties
b. The Hearing Panel should adopt the findings and credibility analysis
contained in the Final Report, unless the Hearing Panel finds that the
information presented at the hearing warrants a different finding or the Hearing
Panel finds that the findings or credibility analysis are not more likely than
not to be true. Any findings issued by the Hearing Panel must be based on a more
likely than not standard.
c. The Hearing Panel is not required to defer to the recommendation contained in
the Final Report as to whether the Respondent violated the Code, but is entitled
to freely apply the Code to the findings in order to determine whether the
Respondent violated the Code.
d. Unless the panel chair is a Hearing Officer appointed to serve as chair
without a vote, the panel chair shall participate in all votes, and all Hearing
Panel decisions shall be made by a majority vote.
e. If the Hearing Panel determines that the Respondent violated the Code, the
Hearing Panel shall determine the appropriate sanction(s). The Administrator
shall serve as a resource to the Hearing Panel to help ensure that sanctions are
reasonably consistent among similar cases.
f. The Hearing Panel may return the matter for additional investigation if the
Hearing Panel determines that:
(i) The investigator failed to properly investigate the
allegation and the failure was both substantial and to the studentís detriment;
(ii) There is new information that could substantially affect the outcome and
the new information could not have been discovered before the issuance of the
D-5. Either party may appeal a Hearing
D-6. Sanctions imposed by the Hearing Panel shall generally not
go into effect until either the time period for an appeal has expired and no
appeal has been filed or until the decision is upheld on appeal. However, the
CSA Officer may impose any sanction imposed by the Hearing Panel as an interim
action pending the appeal.
E-1. Any party may appeal the
Administratorís or Hearing Panelís final decision. Appeals must be submitted in
writing to the Administrator and must set forth the grounds for the appeal. The
appeal must be filed no later than five days after the decision is delivered to
the parties. The Administrator shall ensure that the parties receive a copy of
E-2. Appeals are limited to the following grounds:
a. A procedural error occurred in the investigation process
that significantly impacted the outcome of the hearing;
b. New information, unavailable during the investigation or hearing, that could
substantially impact the original finding or sanction has been presented in the
c. The sanctions imposed are substantially disproportionate to the severity of
the violation (the imposition of an administrative fee is not a sanction, and
therefore cannot be appealed); or
d. The decision is not based on substantial information. A decision is based on
substantial information if there are facts in the case that, if believed by the
fact finder, are sufficient to establish that a violation of the Code occurred.
E-3. An appeal shall be limited to a review
of the decision, the Final Report, any written material considered in the
decision, the recording of the hearing held before the Hearing Panel, and any
written materials submitted with the appeal. Where an appeal is based on the
discovery of new information, the new information may be considered only to
determine whether the information was unavailable at the time of the decision
and whether the new information could substantially impact the original finding
E-4. Appeal Panel Procedures:
a. The chair of the SCB shall appoint three to five members
of the SCB to serve on the Appeal Panel, and shall designate one member to serve
as chair of the Appeal Panel. Any member who served on a Hearing Panel shall not
serve on the Appeal Panel on the same case. A student may not serve as chair of
an Appeal Panel.
b. In Title IX cases, the non-appealing party may file a response to the appeal
within five days of the filing of the appeal.
c. The Appeal Panel shall issue a written decision. The decision should be
issued within fifteen days of receiving the appeal. The chair of the Appeal
Panel shall provide the written decision to the Administrator, who will then
simultaneously provide the decision to the parties.
E-5. Results of the Appeal Panel. The Appeal
a. uphold the Administratorís or Hearing Panelís decision;
b. uphold the finding that the Respondent violated the code, but revise the
c. return the matter for reconsideration; or
d. return the matter for additional investigation.
E-6. Unless the case is returned for
reconsideration or to the investigator for additional investigation, the
decision of the Appeal Panel is the final institutional decision. If the
decision upholds the findings that the Respondent violated the Code, the
sanctions imposed shall go into effect immediately.
F-1. The description and make-up of the SCB
can be found in FSH 1640.83.
F-2. A member of the SCB shall not serve on any Hearing Panel
or Appeal Panel in any case where the member has a conflict of interest or bias
for or against either party.
F-3. If procedures call for the appointment of three or more
members to serve on a Hearing Panel or Appeal Panel, the chair of the SCB should
endeavor to appoint at least one student to the Hearing Panel or Appeal Panel. A
student may not serve as chair of the Hearing Panel or Appeal Panel. In
disciplinary cases involving allegations of academic misconduct, a majority of
the Hearing Panel or Appeal Panel should ordinarily be faculty members.
F-4. All members of the SCB must receive annual training as
determined by DOS, the Title IX Coordinator, and/or the Office of General
Counsel. A member cannot serve on either a Hearing Panel or Appeal Panel until
the member has completed this training.
F-5. Proceedings before the SCB, whether before a Hearing Panel
or Appeal Panel, are confidential and protected by the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (FERPA). In specific disciplinary cases, members of the SCB must
protect the confidentiality of the information they receive in fulfilling their
duties as members of the SCB. Panel members must not discuss specific cases or
share any information regarding specific disciplinary cases or their
deliberations with anyone other than the SCB Chair, the Office of General
Counsel, the Administrator, or fellow panel members appointed to the same panel
in that specific case, and in all such instances, the discussion or sharing of
information must be reasonably necessary for the panelís consideration of the
G. USE OF A
G-1. In any case requiring a hearing before
a panel of the SCB, the University may use a Hearing Officer to conduct that
G-2. The decision as to whether to appoint a Hearing Officer
shall be made by the Administrator. The decision as to whether to appoint a
Hearing Officer may not be appealed and may not be challenged on appeal as a
G-3. The Hearing Officer may be appointed to serve as follows:
a. As a non-voting chair of the Hearing Panel whose duties
are to run the hearing and ensure all proper procedures are followed;
b. As a voting chair of the Hearing Panel whose duties are to run the hearing,
ensure that all proper procedures are followed, and to have a vote on the
c. As the chair and only member of the Hearing Panel whose duties are to run the
hearing, ensure that all proper procedures are followed, and to issue the
decision. When the Hearing Officer serves as the sole decision-maker, the
Hearing Officerís decision shall be treated for all purposes the same as the
decision of a Hearing Panel under the Code.
d. In cases involving allegations of academic dishonesty, a Hearing Officer may
only be appointed as a non-voting chair of the Hearing Panel, but may not be
appointed as a voting member of the Hearing Panel or as the chair and only
member of the Hearing Panel.
G-4. The Administrator shall appoint the
Hearing Officer from a list of Hearing Officers approved by the Office of
General Counsel. The Hearing Officer must not have a conflict of interest or
bias for or against either party.
G-5. The Office of General Counsel shall determine the
appropriate qualifications for a person to serve as a Hearing Officer and shall
make a list of approved Hearing Officers available to the Administrator.
H. INTERIM ACTION.
H-1. At any time before a final
institutional decision, the CSA Officer, or designee, may impose restrictions on
a student and/or separate the student from the University community pending the
final institutional decision. If circumstances allow, the CSA Officer (or
designee) should meet with the student prior to imposing the interim action.
H-2. Other than issuance of no contact orders, an interim
action issued prior to a hearing before the Hearing Panel may only be imposed
when the CSA Officer determines that the student represents a threat of serious
harm to any person; the student is facing allegations of serious criminal
activity; the action is necessary to preserve the integrity of the
investigation; the action is necessary to preserve University property; and/or
the action is necessary to prevent disruption of, or interference with, the
normal operations of the University. After the Hearing Panelís decision, pending
an appeal of the decision, the CSA Officer may impose a sanction issued by a
Hearing Panel as an interim action at the discretion of the CSA Officer.
H-3. In any Title IX case, the investigator, in consultation
with DOS, may issue a no contact order prohibiting the Respondent and/or the
Complainant from contacting the other. A no contact order should be routinely
issued in Title IX cases and there need not be a specific determination made as
H-4. Interim actions may include, but are not limited to, the
a. Suspension from the University pending a final
b. Issuance of a no contact order;
c. Exclusion from University property;
d. Removal from the residence halls;
f. Removal from extracurricular activities, including participation on athletics
g. Withholding the award of a degree pending the conclusion of the investigation
and hearing process; or
h. Any other action deemed necessary and appropriate by the CSA Officer to
maintain orderly and appropriate University operations.
H-5. Where a student is suspended from the
University, or directed to not attend certain classes, alternative coursework
options may be pursued, with the approval of the CSA Officer and the appropriate
college dean, to ensure as minimal an impact as possible on the responding
H-6. An interim action must be made in writing and is effective
when the CSA Officer delivers the Notice of Interim Action to the responding
student either in person or by email sent to the studentís official University
of Idaho email account.
H-7. The Respondent may appeal the imposition of any interim
action by filing an appeal with the CSA Officer. There are no formal procedures
for this appeal, and the interim sanctions remain in effect unless overturned by
the CSA Officer.
H-8. A violation of the provisions of an interim action shall
be considered a violation of the Code.
I-1. The following sanctions may be imposed
upon any student determined to have violated the Code:
a. Warning: a written notice to the student.
b. Probation: a written reprimand accompanied by a probationary
period during which the student must not violate the Code in order to avoid more
severe disciplinary sanctions.
c. Loss of Privileges: denial of specified privileges for a
designated period of time.
d. Restitution: compensation for loss, damage, or injury. This
may take the form of appropriate service and/or monetary or material
e. Educational Sanctions: completion of work assignments,
essays, service to the University, community service, workshops, or other
related educational assignments.
f. Housing Suspension: separation of the student from
University Housing for a definite period of time, after which the student is
eligible to return. Conditions for return may be specified.
g. Housing Expulsion: permanent separation of the student from
h. University Suspension: separation of the student from the
University for a definite period of time, after which the student is eligible to
return. Conditions for return may be specified.
i. University Expulsion: permanent separation of the student
from the University.
j. Revocation of Admission and/or Degree: admission to or a
degree awarded from the University may be revoked for fraud, misrepresentation,
or other violation of University standards in obtaining the degree, or for other
serious violations committed by a student prior to graduation.
k. Withholding Degree: the University may withhold awarding a
degree otherwise earned until the completion of all sanctions imposed.
I-2. More than one of the sanctions listed
above may be imposed for any single violation.
I-3. A student who fails to comply with the sanction(s) imposed
shall have a disciplinary hold placed on his/her record until the student
complies with all sanctions imposed.
I-4. Disciplinary sanctions other than suspension, expulsion or
revocation or withholding of a degree shall not be made part of the studentís
permanent academic record, but shall become part of the studentís disciplinary
record. Such sanctions shall be expunged from the studentís disciplinary record
seven (7) years after final disposition of the case.
I-5. The student shall be responsible for administrative and
educational costs of any and all sanctions imposed for alcohol related
J-1. Agreement: At any point during the
disciplinary process prior to a final institutional decision, the Administrator
and the parties may agree to an appropriate resolution without further
investigation, hearing, or appeal. The agreed upon resolution may include the
use of appropriate alternative dispute resolution methods.
J-2. Role of an Advisor: In accordance with the educational
purpose of the Code, all students, including Respondents and Complainants, are
expected to speak for themselves at all stages of proceedings under the Code,
including, but not limited to, during the investigation, hearing, and any
appeal. Any student may have an Advisor present at any time during any
interview, meeting, or proceeding under the Code, but the Advisorís role is to
advise the student, not to speak for the student or make any presentation on
behalf of the student. The student may, at any time and for a reasonable period
of time, confer with the Advisor. If the University official conducting the
proceeding determines at any time that the Advisor is acting outside of these
parameters, the Advisor may be required to leave the proceeding at the
officialís discretion. In appropriate circumstances, at the sole discretion of
the University official conducting the proceeding, the University official may
allow the Advisor to speak on behalf of the student and/or make a presentation
on behalf of the student.
J-3. Fee: Any time a student is found to have violated the
Code, DOS may charge the student an administrative fee of $150. This is not
considered a sanction and may not be appealed.
J-4. Parent Notification: The University may notify parents of
students under the age of 21 when a student has been found to have committed a
drug or alcohol-related violation. This is not considered a sanction, and the
decision as to whether to notify the parents or not rests entirely within the
discretion of DOS.
J-5. Training: All members of the SCB, the Administrator, the
Title IX Coordinator, and the investigators shall receive annual training in
accordance with the requirements of the policies of the Board of Regents of the
University of Idaho and the Idaho State Board of Education (said policy is
currently found at Section I, Subsection T), the Clery Act and implementing
regulations (see, e.g., 34 C.F.R. ß 668.46(k)(2)(ii)), and Title IX.
J-6. Timeframe: With the exception of the deadlines for filing
an appeal (see section E) or for requesting a hearing before the SCB (see
section D-1.b.), all other timeframes contained in the Code are suggested
timeframes. While the timeframes should be followed absent exceptional
circumstances, the failure to conduct any action within a designated timeframe
is not grounds for appeal or reversal of any decision.
J-7. Interpretation: Any question of interpretation regarding
the Code or these procedures will be referred to the CSA Officer or his/her
designee for final determination.
J-8. Disclosure: The University will, upon written request,
disclose to the alleged victim of any crime of violence (as that term is defined
in section 16 of title 18, United States Code), or a non-forcible sex offense,
the report on the results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by the
University against a student who is the alleged perpetrator of such crime or
offense with respect to such crime or offense. If the alleged victim of such
crime or offense is deceased as a result of such crime or offense, the next of
kin of such victim shall be treated as the alleged victim for purposes of this
J-9. Review by President: Any decision or action taken under
the Code may be reviewed by the President at the Presidentís discretion.
J-10. Review by Board of Regentís: Appeals of a final
institutional decision to the Board of Regents must be made in accordance with
Idaho State Board of Education Governing Policies and Procedures Section
Back to Table of Contents
Forward to 2500