Judicial Report and Case Summary, 2002-2003

August, 2003

To:          The University Community

From:      Student Judicial Board

Re:          2002-2003 Judicial Report and Case Summary

This report provides summary information pertaining to cases adjudicated by the Student Judicial Board (SJB) during the 2002-2003 academic year.  A listing of the summaries of all the cases adjudicated by the SJB may be found at the end of this report.

Judicial Violation Data

During this reporting period, there were 209 cases/incidents adjudicated by the SJB involving 386 people and 468 alleged violations of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  These data are comparable to the previous reporting period.  During the current reporting period, 14% of our student population was processed through the judicial system as a result of alleged policy violations.  30% of the individuals involved in violations of policy during the reporting period are "repeat offenders" -- having at least one prior reported violation, or at least two separate violations of policy during the reporting period.  The percentage of repeat offenders increased substantially during this reporting period (it was 11% last year).  The percentage of “repeat offenders” has varied over the years, but these data reverse the decline observed since the 1999-2000 reporting period.  The following table provides comparative data on cases adjudicated by the board over the past five years:

Student Judicial Board Cases

Comparative Data 1998-2003

Of the violations that occurred during this reporting period, 43% were for alcohol/drug policy violations, 14% were for property violations, 13% were for privacy and tranquility (noise) violations, and 11% were for violations of departmental regulations.  The most common violations during the 2002-2003 reporting period are indicated below:

Most Common Violations (Summary)

2002-2003

This data indicates that the number of alcohol/drug violations has increased by 25% compared to last year.  This increase is disappointing given that a 9% decrease was observed last year.  It is impossible to determine if this increase is attributed to students violating AOD polices more frequently or to increased enforcement and documentation of violations.  As the majority of documented alcohol violations occur in the traditional residence halls, the Residential Life staff will be asked to be more proactive in educating students about AOD policies during the coming year.  During this reporting period, there were a total of 189 alcohol policy violations (69% of these were underage possession/consumption violations), and 12 drug violations.  Alcohol was a factor in 89% of the cases adjudicated by the Board.

There was significant speculation that the number of privacy & tranquillity violations would be higher during this reporting period given the complaints by AWARE members at the beginning of the year.  However, the number of noise violations increased by only 9% -- since the Office of Public Safety does not refer students for noise violations until a residence has accumulated three complaints, the small increase in judicial referrals is probably due to the fact that most residences only received one or two noise complaints.   Residential Life and the Wesleyan Student Assembly collaborated with AWARE members to develop a new referral policy for the upcoming year – students will be referred for judicial action after two verified noise complaints rather than after three.  It is expected that the number of violations in this category will increase next year as a result of this change. 

Comparative Violation Data

2000-2001, 2001-2002

Judicial Sanction Data

In response to these violations, the SJB has continued to employ a combination of punitive and educational sanctions.  Sanctioning tends to be progressive in nature.  That is, a minor violation by a first-time offender will typically result in a disciplinary warning; a second violation results in disciplinary probation; and so on.  The distribution of sanctions given during this reporting period is as follows:

Sanctions Issued

2002-2003

This distribution of sanctions is consistent with previous reporting periods.  There were more suspensions and expulsions issued during this period than in the recent past.  These sanctions came as a result of several serious violations this year, including sexual assaults, physical altercations, driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs, and an off-campus armed robbery.

A summary of each of the cases adjudicated by the Board during the 2002-2003 academic year follows this portion of the report.  These summaries are presented in an effort to share information about the types of cases, violations, findings, and sanctions issued by the SJB during the reporting period.  If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the Office of the Dean of Student Services in North College.

2002-2003 SJB Case Summaries (listed by Regulation)

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

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student was playing music too loudly. The Board found the student in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students had been excessively loud on three occasions. The Board found the students in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that each student be issued a disciplinary warning and complete two (2) hours of community service.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, and D were playing music too loudly on several occasions. The Board found the students in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students be issued disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and Student B violated Regulation 1 and Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B had thrown a loud party with more than 50 people. In addition, Student B was charged with Regulation 13c. Student B had purchased a keg and distributed it to minors. The Board found Student B to be in violation of Regulation 15 because of the access of the keg to minors. The loud noise complaint was unfounded as it was their first complaint. The Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and that Student B be placed on disciplinary probation until March 23, 2003.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that the students of a residence had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that there were three incidents in which there were confirmed noise complaints within their unit. The Board found the students in violation, as it seemed clear that the noise was attributed to their unit. As a sanction, the Board recommended the students be issued disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and other members of the residence violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students of the residence had received three (3) noise complaints. The Board found the students in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended the students be issued disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that this group of individuals had caused an undue amount of noise from events hosted at their house.  The Board found that the students were not in violation, as the individuals creating the disturbance had been asked to leave the residence by the residents of the house.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four (4) students violated the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students who were residents of a house had been issued three loud noise complaints.  The Board found them not in violation, since the Board found one of the complaints to be unsubstantiated.

In a simplified, hearing the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulations 1 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was informed that the noise at the residence was too loud and another noise complaint would be referred to the SJB.  Public Safety then responded to the location again and confirmed with Student B that their case would be brought before the SJB.  The Board found that the students were in violation and as a result recommended that both students be given a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A has had a series of noise complaints brought forth the housemate, including loud guests until late hours. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code based on the series of complaints from both the housemate and Public Safety. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until May 31, 2003 and complete ten (10) hours of community service.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student residence had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students had on three separate occasions created excessive noise in their residential unit. The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code as reported by Public Safety. As a sanction, the Board recommended students A, B, and C be given a disciplinary warning. Student D received an extension of disciplinary probation until December 31, 2003.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A, B, C, D and E had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D and E were excessively loud on three (3) separate occasions while hosting parties at their residence. Based on what was presented at the hearing, the Board found that the students were not in violation.

In a simplified hearing the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was issued three (3) separate noise complaints for Student A’s living area. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student admitted responsibility for the noise. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a group of students, all housemates had been creating loud noise on several occasions. The Board found that the students were in violation as it was clear that on at least two (2) of the three (3) occasions, a significant amount of disruptive noise was coming from the residence. As a sanction the Board recommended disciplinary warnings for all of them, as none of them had any prior violations of the CNAC.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students played loud music on three (3) separate occasions. The Board found the students in violation, as it was clear in the hearing that there was loud music on all those occasions. Student A, having no prior offenses, was given a disciplinary warning. Student B, already on disciplinary probation, is to complete twenty (20) hours of community service before receiving diploma/transcript. Students C and D, each with a disciplinary warning on file was given a disciplinary warning with five (5) hours of community service to be completed by graduation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five (5) students had violated Regulation 1 of Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students, all housemates, created loud noise on three (3) separate occasions. The Board found the students in violation and recommended students A, B, C, D and E be given disciplinary warnings as sanctions for their violations.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D and E had loud noise complaints on three (3) separate occasions, two of which were on the same night. Based on the reports presented, the Board found the students in violation and as a sanction receive disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the group of students had been creating loud noise on three (3) separate occasions. The Board found them in violation as it was clear that on two of the three occasions there was loud noise coming from the residence. As a sanction, the Board recommended disciplinary warnings for each of them, since none of them had any priors.

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

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students were involved in a physical altercation that escaladed from a verbal confrontation. It was alleged that Students A and B were first involved in a conflict when Student C arrived and became involved in the altercation. The Board found the students in violation. As a sanction the Board recommended, based upon their varying levels of involvement, that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation through tenure and be given seventy-five (75) hours of community service. Student B be placed on disciplinary probation through May 31, 2003 and be given five (5) hours of community service. Student C be placed on disciplinary probation through tenure and be given ten (10) hours of community service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A harassed Student B with verbally abusive language. The Board found Student A in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remaining portion of the semester, not to initiate contact with Student B, and suggested that Student A receive anger management counseling.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A verbally harassed two other students and defaced University and private property. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until May 2003 and complete five (5) hours of community service.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A punched Student B at a fraternity party. Student B believed that the attack was a homophobic act. The Board found Student A in violation, and as a sanction recommended that the student be immediately suspended for the remainder of the academic year, and be placed on disciplinary probation upon the student’s return to campus. The Board also recommended that Student A seek alcohol and anger management counseling.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A physically assaulted Student B. The Board felt that while Student A may have been trying to assist in holding back Student B, there was not enough evidence to assert that claim or the claim of assault on Student B. As a result, the Board found the Student A not in violation.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of the Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B engaged in a verbal altercation that escalated to a physical altercation.  Further, it was alleged that Student A first struck Student B who responded with similar physical force. The Board found that Student A, who had initiated the physical altercation was in violation, while Student B was not, based upon the rationale that the student was acting in self-defense. As a sanction, the board recommended that student A receive a semester suspension, fifty (50) hours of community service, a referral to behavioral health and no further contact with Student B.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A directed racial slurs at Student B. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the board believed that Student A intended that the words be heard by Student B and knew that they would be offensive to Student B. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until May 31, 2004, conduct an interview with two (2) AFAM faculty members, and write a five (5) page paper. The topic of the paper is on the use of the word “nigger”.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that both Student A and Student B were involved in a verbal and physical altercation. Based on the reports the Board concluded that both Student A and Student B were indeed in violation of the CNAC. As a sanction, the Board recommended that both students be placed on disciplinary probation through May 31, 2003.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A verbally and physically assaulted Student B.  Similarly, it was alleged that Student B verbally and physically assaulted Student A. The Board concluded that Student B was not in violation while Student A was. As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until December 31, 2003. Similarly, the Student was referred to Behavioral Health for Anger Management.  The Board also recommended twenty (20) hours of community service to be completed by September 1, 2003.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulations 2, 4 and 9e of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B used firearms and/or replica firearms to hold up and rob a retail store off campus. The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulations 2 and 4 but did not violate Regulation 9e. As a sanction, the Board recommended that both students be expelled.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and Student B violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B got into a verbal and physical altercation. The Board found that both Student A and Student B were not in violation.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A physically assaulted Student B because Student B refused to let Student A drive a car. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code. As a sanction, the Board recommended disciplinary probation until December 31, 2003.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 2 and 5 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student was involved in an altercation with another student and then falsified a Public Safety report and/or gave false testimony at an SJB hearing regarding this matter. The Board found that the student had violated the Code. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation for one (1) year and complete twenty-five (25) hours of community service by August 15, 2003 and receive a referral to Behavioral Health.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A got into a verbal and physical altercation with a non-Wesleyan student at a party. Student A allegedly struck the non-Wesleyan student more than once after he confronted the non-Wesleyan student. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the injuries on the other student. As a sanction, the Board recommended strict disciplinary probation until the end of the semester and suspension for the Fall ’03 semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had allegedly violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had verbally threatened and physically assaulted Student B. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code. Based on the nature of the case, the Board recommended the student be given a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student threw water balloons from a residence hall window at people walking by. The Board found that the student was in violation of the Code by the student’s own statement. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be given a disciplinary warning.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had harassed another student with homophobic remarks and a third student with sexist remarks. The Board found that the student was not in violation, as the evidence was inconclusive.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a student had assaulted another student at an off-campus location. The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code because the student had behaved in aggressive manner toward the other student. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student have suspension extended for the 2003-2004 school year.

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

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 3 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A sexually assaulted Student B. Furthermore, it was alleged that Student A violated the request of a University official by returning to Student A’s residence hall. The Board found that Student A was in violation of Regulation 14 due to Student A’s own testimony and the testimony of others that Student A had returned to the residence hall. The Board found that Student A was in violation of Regulations 3 because Student B was found unable to give consent to Student A. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be suspended immediately for the remainder of the 2002-2003 academic year, that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until December 31, 2003, and that Student A should not initiate contact with Student B for the remainder of Student A’s time at Wesleyan.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 3 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A engaged in forceful, non-consensual sexual intercourse with Student B. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be expelled.

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

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulations 4, 5, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B abused University property and were uncooperative with Public Safety. The Board found that both Students A and B had violated Regulation 4 but were found not in violation of Regulations 5 and 14. As sanctions, the Board recommended that Student A, who was currently on disciplinary probation as a result from a previous incident, be given twenty (20) hours of community service and disciplinary probation be extended until September 30, 2003. Student B be issued a disciplinary warning and be given five (5) hours of community service.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A broke a window on 200 High Street. The Board found the student in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning and pay a fine of $100.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Regulations 4 and 8 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that three students discharged a fire extinguisher in a University residence hall. The Board found all three students in violation of both regulations. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the three students equally split the cost of the response to the fire alarm and be placed on disciplinary probation for the duration of the 2002-2003 academic year.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students were charged with violating Regulation 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that all three students were involved in knocking over and throwing trash cans. The Board found Student A not to be in violation, while Students B and C were found in violation. As a sanction for Student B, the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning. As a sanction for Student C, the Board recommended the student be placed on disciplinary probation until May 31, 2003.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had removed furniture without permission from Clark Hall. The Board found Student A in violation because Student A admitted to removing the chair. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students entered Freeman Athletic Center during non-operational hours. The Board found both students in violation. Based upon prior violations, the Board recommended that Student A was placed on disciplinary probation through Fall 2002 and Student B be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B had entered University housing without authorization and had failed to comply with Public Safety. The Board found both students not in violation of Regulation 14 but in violation of Regulation 4 because both students had not obtained permission before entering University housing. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A and Student B be issued disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that seven students had violated Regulations 4 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the students were consuming alcohol on the roof of a residence hall. The Board found Students A, B, and C in violation of Regulations 4 and 13b, and as a sanction the Board recommended Students A, B, and C be issued a disciplinary warning. The Board found Students D, E, F, and G in violation of Regulation 4 only, and as a sanction recommended they be issued disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, Public Safety observed the student painting a residence hall stairwell without permission. The student pled in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Students A, B, and C violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and Student A was also charged with Regulation 14 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B were knocking over trashcans and Student A was not in compliance with the Middletown Police Department or Public Safety. Student C, who joined his peers after they were stopped, was also asked for his information. Based on the information available, the Board found all students not in violation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A received another student’s mail and failed to return it after several requests. Student B later received a portion of this mail. The Board determined that the Student A was in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning, forty (40) hours of community service, and reimburse $55 to Student B.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A threw a large rock through the front window of the Office of Public Safety. The Board found the student in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended expulsion, and monetary compensation for the window. This was due to the violent nature of the offense and the student’s history of serious prior violations.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been involved in an altercation with several students. The Board found that Student A was in violation of the Code. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on probation until May 31, 2003 and complete fifteen (15) hours of community service by May 31, 2003.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that a recycling bin was tipped over and spilled its contents. The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code. As a sanction, the Board recommended the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulations 4, 5 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically it was alleged that Student A stole a keg from another student and drank from it. Student A is under 21. The student admitted to the actions in a statement. The Board found that Student A was indeed in violation of all three regulations. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had stolen 2 signs and a university bench. The Board found that both students had indeed violated the Code as the contraband was located within their rooms. As a sanction, the Boards recommended that both students be given disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the organization had damaged a lock and illegally entered the basement of a university residence. The Board found that the organization had indeed violated the Code by trespassing in a restricted area. As a sanction, the Board recommended the organization complete thirty (30) hours of community service prior to the start of the next academic semester (Fall 2003). 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had repeatedly stolen/shoplifted items from WesShop. The student admitted that he was in violation and the Board found that the student was responsible. The Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until May 31, 2004. Additionally, the student is to pay financial restitution to WesShop, complete fifty (50) hours of community service by September 2003, and has been referred to the Office of Behavioral Health.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 4 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A threw a bottle through a window of a campus building (residence). Furthermore, it was alleged that student A was intoxicated at the time of this incident. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code, both aforementioned regulations. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation through graduation from the University. Further, the student is to complete seventy-five (75) hours of community service and will pay reparations for the window.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been in a university building after it had closed for the night. The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code as the student admitted to being in the building after it was closed. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be given a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 4. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had returned early from break and entered the residence without authorization from Residential Life. The Board found the student was not in violation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had entered university housing during the December break without authorization from Residential Life. The student admitted breaking into the unit as there was a break-in a few days earlier. The Board found the student in violation, however, in light of the student’s rationale, the Board recommended the student be given a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that two (2) students entered Freeman Athletic Center after hours in search of a restroom. The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because the building was not open to students. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 4 and 9b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had ignited a small fire in a residence hall. The Board found that the student was not in violation of Regulation 4 because no property of the University was harmed. The Board found that the student had violated the Code under Regulation 9b because the student had ignited a fire that required a response from the Middletown Fire Department. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation for the 2003-2004 school year, that complete twenty (20) hours of community service by August 30, 2003 and that the student should meet with a fire official and write a 3 page report on fire safety due by May 30, 2003.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A and Student B violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the two students had damaged University property by rough housing. The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because the students had damaged University property through reckless behavior. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students receive a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically it was alleged that a student had damaged property at another university, including urinating in a closet. The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code because the student admitted to damaging the property. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of the next semester and complete ten (10) hours of community service by August 31, 2003.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three (3) students had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that these students removed a large orange construction sign from Brainard Avenue. The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code. As a sanction, the Board recommended that all three be given a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student allegedly violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had removed and discarded a vehicle boot placed the student’s car wheel. The Board found the student was in violation and as a sanction recommended the student be given a disciplinary warning, pay the parking tickets incurred (which resulted in the boot being placed on the car) and pay for the boot.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that two students were involved in a disruptive incident involving soap throwing in a residence hall, causing a few hundred dollars in clean-up. The Board found Student A in violation and recommended that the student be given a disciplinary warning, along with one-fifth (1/5) of the clean up costs. Student B, based on what was presented at the hearing was found not in violation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A stole items from Weshop. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A was observed taking the items from the store. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for a full year and complete thirty (30) hours of community service.

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

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 5, 13b and 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, Student A was alleged to have had a party with 2 kegs and over 40 guests. Student A’s plea was in violation for all charges. As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation until February 28, 2003 and complete five (5) hours of community service by December 31, 2002.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A violated Regulations 5 and 13a, Student B violated Regulation 2 and 13a, and Student C violated Regulation 13a. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A provided false information and was in possession of marijuana, Student B pushed a Public Safety officer and was in possession of marijuana and Student C was in possession of marijuana. It was determined that Student A was found not in violation of either regulation, that Student B violated Regulations 2 and 13a and that Student C violated Regulation 13a. The Board recommended that Student B be placed on disciplinary probation until May 31, 2003 and be given fifteen (15) hours of community service. The Board recommended that Student C be placed on disciplinary probation until February 28, 2003.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a Student had violated Regulations 5 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was a minor in possession of alcohol and lied to Public Safety. The Board found that Student A had in fact been in possession of alcohol and failed to comply with Public Safety by providing false information. The Board found the student in violation and as a sanction recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning and be given eleven (11) hours of community service.