Judicial Report and Case Summary, 2007-2008

June 2, 2008

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

From:  Scott R. Backer, Assistant Dean of Students

Re:      2007-2008 Judicial Report 

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

 Judicial Cases and Violation Data

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

 Student Judicial Board Cases

2007-2008 Academic Year

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

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

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

Most Common Violation

2007-2008 Academic Year

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

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

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

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

Adjudication Methods

2007-2008 Academic Year 

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

Judicial Sanction Data

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

 Judicial Sanction Data

2007-2008 Academic Year 

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

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

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

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

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

 CASE SUMMARIES

 Regulation 1 - Privacy and Tranquility The intentional infringement upon the right to privacy of any member of the community is prohibited.  The persistent interruption of a reasonable level of peace and quiet is also a violation. Students should be aware that repeated violation of this regulation could result in administrative reassignment to another residential unit or area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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