Academic Year 2005 - 2006 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. 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 students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that students of an off-campus housing residence had been playing loud music and creating a disturbance with a large crowd of students at the house.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because they had been loud and disturbed their neighbors.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the students be issued a disciplinary warning and attend an AWARE meeting by November 15, 2005. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A-E were noisy and disruptive.  The Board found that Students A-E were not in violation of the Code because it was determined that they were not consistent in the interruption of the peace; they were not loud. 

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 house was the source of noise made by a large crowd of people.  The Board found Student A was not in violation of the Code due to insufficient evidence; there was no suggestion that the student contributed to any noise or disturbance.

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. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code but not Regulation 1 because the student failed to respond to communications from the Area Coordinator.  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 Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B hosted a large party.  The Board found that Students A and B were not in violation of the Code. 

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 playing the drums late at night for a long period of time.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and construct a “Quiet Hours” sign for the lounge. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a residence had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the house had held an unauthorized and loud gathering outside.  The Board found that the house was not in violation of the Code due to evidence that there were few individuals involved and that the duration of the incident was quite brief. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a residence had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that residents had been creating excessive noise with guests outside their house.  The Board found that the residents were not in violation of the Code because all evidence suggested that they did not participate in creating the disturbance and had taken steps to prevent being issued a loud noise violation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had hosted a party from which loud music and voices could be heard.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because they had a party at which there was sufficient evidence suggesting that it was excessively loud.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the students be issued a disciplinary warning and that two of the students (with prior warnings for the same violation) each complete two hours of community service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were making noise late at night and broke a university-owned chair against a house.  The Board found the students had indeed violated Regulation 1 of the Code because they admitted to making loud noise, but not Regulation 4 of the Code because the property was not university-owned nor was it broken.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the students be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the organization had hosted a party with loud noise and alcohol present.  The Board found that the organization had indeed violated Regulation 1 of the Code, but not Regulation 13b.  Although the residents of the house did not host the party, members of the organization were present at it and directly associated with its planning.  Regarding Regulation 13b, although there was alcohol present, there was no evidence to indicate that underage drinking occurred.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the organization be issued a disciplinary warning.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a fraternity had violated Section II, Regulation 1 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that a neighbor called Public Safety because of the noise level coming from a barbecue the students were having.  The Board found that the fraternity had not violated the Code because Public Safety reported that when they arrived at the house, it was not excessively loud. 

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 playing music loudly in High-Rise at an inappropriate hour.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the clear cut nature of the incident and the report.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester as well as complete 5 hours of community service because although this was Student A’s first noise violation, Student A was already on probation for another offense. 

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 in the dorm.  After being contacted on several occasions to attend a judicial conference, Student A failed to respond; thus the Regulation 14 charge.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the description of the volume level and the failure to respond to both voicemail and email.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A complete 10 hours of community service by April 31, 2006. 

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 in the dorm and failed to respond to a request for a judicial conference.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because there was additional music playing in the area due to a party and because the rules regarding noise levels in the area are not strict.  Student A also received only one email and made several efforts to make contact with the Board after Student A realized that the opportunity to respond had passed. 

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 played loud music at 5:04 pm and again at 5:24 pm.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A continued to play music even after Public Safety came.  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 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had hosted an unregistered party that grew large enough to provoke a noise complaint.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because Public Safety made a note of a noisy crowd moving from another broken up party to this location, the students in question had little time to respond to the crowd, and they were noted to have been very cooperative with Public Safety. 

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 had disturbed the peace and tranquility of the community by playing excessively loud music and that Student A had failed to comply with university personnel demands by failing to be present at a judicial conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated 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 three students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were talking loudly and were in possession of alcohol.  The Board found that Students A and B had not violated the Code because they were not even present.  The Board found that Student C had indeed violated both regulations of the Code because the student admitted to doing so.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student C be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five student had violated Section II, Regulations 1, 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A-E were in a dorm room that contained alcohol and loud music.  In addition, it was alleged that the student’s response was passivity to the nature of the situation and to Public Safety officers.  The Board found that Students A-D had indeed violated the Code because of their involvement.  The Board found that Student E had also violated the Code because the incident had occurred in the student’s room and thereby the student was responsible for persons and items that may or may not enter the room, including sound levels, even in the student’s absence.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A-D each be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester and complete 5 hours of community service.  The Board also recommended that Student E be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester and complete 10 hours of community service. 

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 Regulation 1 of the Code because Student A contributed to the excessive noise level.  The Board found that Student A had not violated Regulations 13 b and 15 of the Code because the Board believed that it was more likely than not that Student A had not been consuming or in possession of alcohol and 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. 

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 by May 28^th, 2006. 

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, 13b, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A attended a loud party, drank alcohol while underage, and violated a departmental regulation.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 1 and 13b of the Code, because the student did drink while underage and contributed to the noise, but not Regulation 15.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service by May 28, 2006.

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 RA’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 fir failure to comply with the RA’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 RA’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 fir failure to comply with the RA’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 full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section 2, Regulations 1 and 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been creating an excessive loud level of noise and had shouted obscenities at Middletown Police.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 2 of the Code, due to the fact that the words shouted were harassing, but not Regulation 1, due to the fact that the noise was not persistent.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of this semester, as well as through the fall 2006 semester, complete 15 hours of community service by enrollment in fall 2006, and visit Public Safety for one hour by May 19, 2006.  

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulations 1 and 9a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group of students held a small fire in addition to making excessive noise and playing loud music.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because of the time of the incident, the nature of the report, and due to the fact that the small fire was contained and proper safety measures were taken.  Also, Public Safety had previously given the impression that the fire was appropriate as long as it was small and contained. 

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 failed to meet with the area coordinator.  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 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 loud and did not comply with a request made to attend a judicial conference with a Res Life staff member.  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 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 had created an excessive level of noise and disrupted the peace of the community.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because there was sufficient evidence to prove that the student had not created the noise. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students had violated Regulations 1, 7 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, and E were making loud noise and that the students had tampered with a lock in order to enter the basement. The Board found that Students A, B, C, D and E had not violated Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code because the Public Safety report indicated no persistent or excessive noise. The Board found that Students A, B, C, D and E had indeed violated Regulation 7 of the Code because the Public Safety report indicated entrance into the basement via the broken lock. As a sanction the Board recommended that each of the five students be issued disciplinary warnings.   

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 was loud. The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because of the early time frame of the complaint.

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 was in a bathroom talking loudly and illegally in possession of alcohol.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 1 and 13b of the Code due to the evidence presented, but not Regulation 15.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service by May 31, 2006. 

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 in the early morning hours and then failed to contact the area coordinator regarding a judicial conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated both regulations of the Code because of the evidence in the Public Safety report.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning, The Assistant Dean of Student Services also added 5 hours of community service to the sanction, which is to be completed by May 31, 2006. 

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. Wesleyan University’s commitment to nondiscrimination means that discriminatory harassment may be punished more severely than nondiscriminatory forms of harassment.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 2 and 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A targeted Student B and others with harassing images and messages placed near their residences.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to violating the regulations and agreed that said student should be held accountable for the possible effects of the potentially harassing words.  As a sanction the Board recommended that student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 15 hours of community service.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Section II, Regulations 2, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was intoxicated at a party, was uncooperative and menacing to event staff, and assaulted a police officer.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated all these regulations of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A see the Office of Behavioral Health for an assessment and be placed on disciplinary probation until December 31, 2006.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Section II, Regulations 2, 13b, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had consumed alcohol while underage and, when approached by both Public Safety officers and the Middletown Police, had been uncooperative and, moreover, verbally and physically harassed a member of University Event Staff.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated all these regulations of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be required to visit the Office of Behavioral Health for an assessment by the end of the semester and be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of the academic year.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A threatened Student B with abusive language and violent threats.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through the entire 2005-2006 academic year and that the student be moved to a different residential housing assignment.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group of students had sent emails to and telephoned Student B with threatening and coercive language in order to influence Student B’s testimony before the SJB.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because their actions had posed a threat to Student B and the threats were intended to coerce Student B.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the group be issued a disciplinary warning and that they complete 30 hours of community service by February 28, 2006.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had physically assaulted Student B.  The Board found that Student A had indeed the Code due to confirmed evidence that Student B was assaulted.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of their enrollment at the University as an undergraduate, avoid contact with Student B, and comply with the terms of their medical leave.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 2, 5, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had failed to meet University vehicle regulations and had tampered with the autocuff boot (University property), which had been placed on his vehicle consequently.  It was also alleged that Student A used harassing and abusive language towards the reporting Public Safety officer and provided false information.  The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the student be placed on probation until May 31, 2007.  In addition, the Board recommended that the student visit the Office of Behavioral Health for anger management as well as visit with Lisa Currie (Peer Health Educator) for counseling regarding safe driving by May 1^st, 2006.  In addition, the Board recommended that the student meet with WesWELL, the Office of Health Education to prepare and organize a presentation on driver responsibility.  They are to meet for a minimum of 5 hours or until the preparation is completed. 

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 2 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had beaten and hit Student B.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of Student A’s testimony and acknowledgment that Student A had struck Student B numerous times without Student B striking back.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be suspended until the fall 2007 semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section 2, Regulation 2 and that Student B had violated Regulations 2, 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically it was alleged that Student A and B engaged in a verbal altercation and that Student B was drinking illegally and failed to comply with Public Safety. The Board found that neither student was in violation of Regulation 2 because there was no harassment and abuse, simply “a loud” and “in good fun argument.” The Board found that Student B had indeed violated Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code because Student B admitted to drinking and did not comply with requests made by Public Safety.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student B be placed on probation for the remainder of this semester, as well as until the end of the fall 2006 semester, and asked to meet with the Director of Public Safety.

In a joint panel, the Board considered an allegation that five students were involved in a verbal and physical altercation.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C disputed with Students D and E.  The Board found that all the students had indeed violated the Code because they all participated in the altercation to some extent.  Students A and D appeared to have been more involved than the other students.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A and D be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through May 30, 2006.  Students B, C, and E were each issued a disciplinary warning.  The Board also recommended that all the students write a reflection paper about the incident and how they could have better handled the situation. 

Regulation 3 - Sexual Misconduct Sexual misconduct, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual assault, coercion, and threats or use of force, is prohibited.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 3 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had harassed Student B with verbally and sexually abusive language.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code Student A’s graphic and harassing sexual statements had offended Student B.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester and complete 10 hours of community service by December 31, 2005.  This time includes discussing issues of sexual harassment with WesWELL, the Office of Health Education and helping to arrange a workshop on sexual harassment.   

Regulation 4 - Property The unauthorized use, or the abuse, destruction, or theft of University property or any of its members, guests, or neighbors is prohibited.  This regulation prohibits the unauthorized appropriation or “borrowing” of common property for personal use. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 10 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Student B was also alleged to have violated Regulation 13b of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student B consumed alcohol and gave Student A permission to drive said student’s car.  Allegedly, Student A then drove the vehicle over University property in an unauthorized area, recklessly endangering its residents.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because of the damage caused to University property and because of the potential danger posed to themselves and the residents in the area. The Board also found Student B in violation of Regulation 13b.  As a sanction the Board recommended that students A and B be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A painted university property without authorization.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because this violation was previously documented.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be given a disciplinary warning and perform 7 hours of community service

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, C, D, E and F were in the WestCo tunnels.  In addition, Student A was charged with violating Regulation 5 and Student B was charged with violating Regulation 13b.  The Board found that all the students had indeed violated the Code although it was recognized that the language of the Code could be more clear on this issue.  Students A and B were also found in violation of the other regulations.  As a sanction for violating Regulation 4, the Board recommended that the students be issued a disciplinary warning.  As a sanction for Student A violating Regulation 5 and Student B violating Regulation 13b, the Board recommended that they complete two hours of community service by the end of the semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A stole merchandise from Wes Shop.  The Board found that the Student A had indeed violated the Code because of evidence given by Public Safety and the Wes Shop staff.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that students failed to comply with fire safety regulations because they failed to evacuate a residential area during a fire alarm.  It was also alleged that students were trespassing in an unauthorized area of school property.  Students stated that they were unaware of having violated any regulations.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code because they had failed to evacuate the area despite the fire alarm.  The Board found only one student in violation of Regulation 4.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the students be issued disciplinary warnings and speak with Barbara Spalding on the importance of fire safety.  For the student also found in violation of Regulation 4, as a sanction the Board recommended that the student complete 2 hours of community service by  October 31, 2005. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that students were found using property although not unauthorized to.  It was also alleged that acts performed by students were part of an initiation.  The Board found 5 members had indeed violated Regulation 4 of the Code.  The Board also found the organization not in violation of Regulation 15 of the Code because the initiation was not associated with the organization.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the students be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students violated Section II, Regulations 4, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C failed to comply with Public Safety and a Dean’s request and also used a roof space to engage in the unauthorized hanging of artwork.  The Board found that Student A not in violation of the Code.  The Board found Students B and C were only in violation of Regulation 4 of the Code because the actions were an appropriate form of protest.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student B be issued a disciplinary warning and that Student C be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 7 hours of community service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that students had taken a piece of university owned furniture without authorization.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because they did take the property.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the students be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A entered onto unauthorized property through a gap in the perimeter fence and walked around the building until Public Safety escorted the student out.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s own 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 a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had stolen items from Wes Shop.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the student’s own 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 a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A entered property without permission.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated 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 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A urinated on the carpet inside a fraternity house.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student admitted to the charge.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A receive a disciplinary warning and pay for the cost of cleaning the carpet. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that 10 students were involved in a party in the tunnels of Butterfield B.  The students were invited via email by a secret society.  The doors for going into the tunnel were wide open.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because there was no indication that this was an unauthorized place. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B entered a dorm during winter break.  Allegedly, the students also came back to the dorm after Public Safety told them not to.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code and that Student B had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student B, who has a history with violations of similar regulations, ought to be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester and complete 5 hours of community service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had entered a university building after it was locked for the holidays.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because the student was deemed exempt by Res Life; the student was only going back to throw out old milk that had been left out. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had painted along university streets and failed to comply with Public Safety’s requests during the investigation.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student had damaged university property and had failed to comply with Public Safety’s investigation by running away.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 7 hours of community service by April 21, 2006. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 10 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had broken the window of a dorm in order to enter said student’s room.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 4 of the Code because the student had damaged university property.  The Board found that the student had not violated Regulation 10 of the Code because there was no sufficient evidence that the student’s actions had endangered the larger community or other individuals.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student’s standing probation at the time of the incident be extended until December 2006 and that the student complete 10 hours of community service by April 21, 2006. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had been found present in a restricted area of the Butterfield B dorms during a party.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because the area was unmarked and open to the people since the space is adjacent to a common space. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B had entered a dorm without being authorized to in order to retrieve their passports.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had not violated the Code because, although they had entered the area after closing time, they would have been granted access by Public Safety, which was their next step. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in a restricted area of campus.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A was on a part of campus that was off limits.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had attended a party in the tunnels of the Butterfield dorms and failed to reply to an email instructing them to contact their AC’s.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code, but not Regulation 4.  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 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A defecated in a shower while intoxicated and failed to appear to a scheduled judicial conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code, but not 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 a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in a dorm residence during winter break and failed to respond to a request for a meeting from the Area Coordinator.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the clear nature of the incident.  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 2, Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically it was alleged that there was graffiti found above a sink in the student’s residence. The Board found the students not in violation because their space was under a rental contract putting another group in charge of the space at the time of the damages; furthermore, they contacted physical plant to repair the damages long before the SJB referral was issued.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4 and 5 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was caught damaging university property and then told Public Safety false identification information.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student admitted to the damage and to lying to Public Safety.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning, pay restitution, and complete 10 hours of community service by May 31, 2006. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 4, 14, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A removed a boot from the student’s vehicle without authorization.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated all the regulations of the Code based on the evidence presented.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service by May 25, 2006. 

Regulation 5 - False Information Knowingly furnishing false information to a University officer or member of any constituted 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 group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 5 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had failed to provide accurate and complete information during a previous incident hearing before the SJB.  The Board found that the students had not violated the Code because the reports against the students were contradictory and that the students’ testimonies were the only consistent facts available.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 5 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A, who was carrying a 30-pack of beer, falsely claimed to be 21.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code.  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 a student had violated Section II, Regulations 5 and 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A possessed bottles of alcohol and beer while underage and told Public Safety the wrong identity.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student was in possession of alcohol underage and gave false identification.  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 5, 13b, and 13d of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A possessed alcoholic beverages, which the student had purchased with false identification.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulations 13b and 13d of the Code because there was sufficient evidence that the student had used a false id to purchase alcohol.  Student A was found not in violation of Regulation 5 of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service by May 31, 2006. 

Regulation 6 - Misuse of Documents Forgery, alteration, or the unauthorized possession or use of University documents, records or instruments of identification is prohibited.

Regulation 7 - Tampering with Locks and Duplication of Keys Tampering with locks in University buildings, unauthorized possession or use of University keys, and alteration or unauthorized duplication of University keys are prohibited.

Regulation 8 - Fire Protection Systems Tampering with fire extinguishers, fire alarm boxes, or smoke or heat detectors anywhere on University property is prohibited.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two student had violated Section II, Regulation 8 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B were carrying a fire extinguisher down High Street.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had not violated the Code because they were on their way to Public Safety to deliver the fire extinguisher. 

Regulation 9 - Restricted Items/Fire Hazards The possession or use of items designated as fire hazards is prohibited within any University-owned or operated facility.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 9c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had used a charcoal grill on the balcony of a Foss Hill dorm.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because Student A was not the one using the grill. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 9e of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of five guns, which were later determined to be facsimile.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because Student A claimed that the facsimile guns were purchased for a film project, were not functional, and had several physical indications of their fakeness. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 9a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was burning a log outside of Butterfield B.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated 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 two students had violated Section II, Regulation 9b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B possessed and lit fireworks at their residential location.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated the Code because they confessed to being involved in the incident.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Students A and B each be issued a disciplinary warning. 

Regulation 10 – Reckless Endangerment Creating condition(s) or an environment that endangers, or has the potential to endanger, other members of the community or property is prohibited. Failure to take reasonable constructive action to remedy such conditions may also constitute a violation.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 10 and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A drove a car recklessly on campus, kept driving towards standing Public Safety officers, and failed to comply with Public Safety’s request.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student did drive the car, drove recklessly, drove towards Public Safety officers, and failed to comply with their requests.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be suspended from now through the end of the 2005-2006 academic year because of the seriousness of this offense, as well as in light of a similar prior incident. 

Regulation 11 - Pets Uncaged pets are not allowed in any University facility, including residential facilities, classrooms, libraries, laboratories, studios, sports facilities, food service areas, administrative offices, and public meeting areas.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 11 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had a dog in a room.  The Board found that only Student A had violated the Code because the dog belonged to Student A.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning. 

Regulation 12 - Disruptions The following “ground rules” for political freedom on campus are excerpted from the booklet "Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties of Students in College and University," published by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1970.

"Ground Rules. Picketing, demonstrations, sit-ins, or student strikes, provided they are conducted in an orderly and non-obstructive manner, are a legitimate mode of expression, whether politically motivated or directed against the college administration, and should not be prohibited. Demonstrators, however, do not have the right to deprive others of the opportunity to speak or be heard; take hostages; physically obstruct the movement of others; or otherwise disrupt the educational or institutional processes in a way that interferes with the safety or freedom of others.”

Regulation 13 - Drugs and Alcohol The University prohibits underage and unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14g of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was caught drinking underage and repeatedly gave Public Safety officer false information.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because Student A admitted to violating the regulations.  As a sanction the Board recommended that student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 7 hours of community service by December 31, 2005.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A possessed a keg although underage.  The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code because it was determined that said student did possess the keg.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service by December 15, 2005

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  The Board also considered an allegation that Student A had violated Regulation 4 of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group of students had engaged in underage consumption of alcohol and that Student A had destroyed private property.  The Board found that the group of students had indeed violated the Code because all available evidence suggested that it was more likely than not that the student had been drinking.  The Board found Student A not in violation of the Code because the student had caused accidental damage to the property.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the group of students be issued a disciplinary warning.  The Board recommended that one of these students, with a prior warning, complete 5 hours of community service by December 23, 2005.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B had consumed beer from a keg on their hall balcony while underage.  The Board found that Students A and B were not in violation of the Code due to insufficient evidence implicating that the students had drank from or bought the keg.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a residence had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that students had hosted an event at which alcohol was distributed to and consumed by minors.  The Board found that the residence had not violated the Code due to insufficient evidence. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged Student A was carrying alcohol and failed to comply with a Public Safety officer.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the clear evidence presented.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through the entire 2005-2006 academic year. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that students of a house hosted an event at which alcohol was distributed to minors and which was over the capacity limit.  The Board found that the students were not in violation of the Code due to insufficient evidence that alcohol had been distributed to minors or that there were greater than 50 people in attendance. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was seen by a Public Safety officer as said student carried a case of beer into a dorm  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated 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 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged Student A had been found very intoxicated an in need of medical assistance while underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student had been found highly intoxicated and admitted to have been drinking.  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 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been consuming alcohol although underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code Student A was found intoxicated and had admitted to drinking  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service by March 4, 2006. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was drinking underage on a campus street and needed to be taken to the hospital.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the Public Safety report and by the admission of Student A.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student organization had violated Section II, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the organization held an initiation event in which alcohol was distributed to minors and new members were provided with copious amounts of alcohol.  One new member of this organization was hospitalized with alcohol poisoning and released the next morning.  The Board found that the organization had not violated the Code because of the reports of the students representing the organization, the member who was hospitalized, and a third party (host of a party the hospitalized student attended).

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had a single can of beer outside a dorm.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A receive a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13b, c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B were drinking along with 15 or so other students in their room on Foss Hill.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had indeed violated Regulations 13b and 15 of the Code, but not 13c because there was no evidence indicating that they were distributing alcohol.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A and Student B be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had a bag of marijuana and devices used for smoking marijuana in the student’s residence.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the marijuana and devices were found in the student’s current residence.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of this semester as well as complete 7 hours of community service by April 7, 2006.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and that Student B had violated Regulations 13b, c, and d of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol while underage and that Student B had a keg in the room and had bought it with a fake id.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had indeed violated the accused regulations of the Code because both admitted to the incident.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A and B be issued a disciplinary warning and that Student B also complete 15 hours of community service.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A and Student B had been found consuming alcohol underage and had failed to comply with university personnel demands by failing to be present at their judicial conferences.  The Board found that Student A and Student B had indeed violated Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A and Student B each be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service by April 21, 2006. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a students had violated Section II, Regulation 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and that two other students had violated 13b of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been in possession of alcohol and that Students B and C had been found consuming the alcohol.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated the accused regulations of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that each of the students be issued a disciplinary warning, that Students B and C complete 7 hours of community service, and that Student A complete 10 hours of community service.  All community service is to be complete by April 21, 2006. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A held a can of beer and was drinking from it although underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student was in possession of alcohol while underage.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as until the student’s 21^st birthday one year from now, and complete 10 hours of community service by May 1, 2006. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C had been using illicit drugs.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student was in fact in the room using marijuana.  The Board found that Students B and C had not violated the Code because they were not present when Student A was using the drug, and thus, were not involved.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 10 hours of community service by the end of the semester on May 20, 2006.   

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was carrying a case of beer although underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated 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 three students had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C were in possession of alcohol although underage.  The Board found that Students A, B, and C had indeed violated the Code because each student was found in physical possession of alcohol by Public Safety.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning because the student had no prior violations.  The Board recommended that Student B be placed on disciplinary probation because the student had a prior disciplinary warning.  The Board recommended that Student C be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as until graduation and complete 15 hours of community service by September 1, 2006 because the student had a number of prior offences of a similar nature. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was holding a cup of beer although underage and that the student had failed to respond to an email sent by an AC of Res Life.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the Public Safety report.  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 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the group of students held an unregistered party at their residence and were serving alcohol to minors.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated Regulation 15 of the Code because the party was unregistered.  The Board found that the students had not violated Regulation 13c of the Code because the Public Safety report did not detail or document any underage students obtaining alcohol at the party.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the students be issued disciplinary warnings. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b of the Code of Non Academic Conduct. Specifically it was alleged that Student A and B were seen consuming alcohol underage. The Board found Student A in violation because the student admitted to violating the regulation and did not dispute the Public Safety Report. As a sanction the Board recommended probation until Dec. 31 2006.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section 2, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had been in possession of alcohol illegally. The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a house of students had violated Section 2, Regulations 13c and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically it was alleged that the students had violated the University Social Event Policy by hosting an unregistered party of more than 50 students. It was also alleged that there was alcohol served at said party to minors. The Board found that the house of students were not in violation of the alleged regulation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 13b, 13c, and 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A’s guests were holding cans of beer and that the student failed to respond to an Area Coordinator’s notice of a judicial conference.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated Regulation 14 of the Code, but not Regulations 13b and 13c.  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 Section II, Regulations 1, 13b, and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A and B had a loud party in a bathroom with alcohol.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated all three regulations of the Code because of the evidence presented in the Public Safety report.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service by May 31, 2006.  The Board recommended that Student B be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through the entire fall 2006 semester. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulations 13b and 13c of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in illegal possession of alcohol and that Student B had given Student A the alcohol.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated the Code because they admitted to the violation.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 5 hours of community service.  The Board recommended that Student B be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of alcohol although underage.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because several full beer bottles were found in the student’s room.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as through the entire fall 2006 semester. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 13a of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in possession of marijuana.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because the student admitted to the offense.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning, complete 10 hours of community service by September 1, 2006, and meet with WesWELL, the Office of Health Education.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that Student A had violated Section II, Regulation 13b of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct and that Student B had violated Regulation 13c of the Code.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was found outside Student B’s door with alcohol although underage and that the beer that had earlier been observed in Student B’s room was now gone.  The Board found that Students A and B had indeed violated the Code because of the evidence presented by Public Safety.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and that Student B be issued a disciplinary warning as well as complete 15 hours of community service before enrollment for the fall 2006 semester. 

Regulation 14 - Failure to Comply Members of the community are expected to comply with requests made by University personnel acting within the capacity of their responsibilities. Public Safety Officers should be allowed to enter private residential spaces to address suspected policy violations. Officers may enter private residential spaces without residents' permission only with the approval of the dean of the college (or designee).

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Section II, Regulation 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Students A, B, and C refused to leave the building when asked to by RAs.  Student C also refused to give identification to Public Safety.  The Board found that Student A and B were not in violation of the Code because there was no evidence that showed that they had failed to comply with RAs or Public Safety.  The Board found that Student C had indeed violated the Code because said student did not leave when asked to do so.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student C be issued a disciplinary warning. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulations 14 and 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A routinely parked in restricted areas and did not pay the tickets, which totaled in excess of $600.  The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because of the extensive documentation of the violations.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that Student A be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester and until December, 2006, as well as complete 5 hours of community service by April 7, 2006.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 14 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A had become belligerent and argumentative with a Public Safety Officer when asked to leave a restricted area.  The Board found that Student A had not violated  the Code because, considering the circumstances, the Board felt that there was insufficient evidence of failure to comply and that Student A appeared to be merely questioning the grounds for restricting access. 

Regulation 15 - Department Regulations Members of the community are expected to abide by duly established and promulgated nonacademic regulations. This is intended to cover the operating regulations of all University programs and facilities.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged the organization hosted an unregistered party with alcohol and more people than appropriate.  The Board found that the organization had indeed violated the Code because it was determined that the allegations were true.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the organization be issued a disciplinary warning and complete 20 hours of community service by December 15, 2005.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that an organization had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the organization hosted an unauthorized party with alcohol.  The Board found that the organization had indeed violated the Code because it did host said party.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student A be issued a disciplinary warning and that the individual in charge of the event no longer be able to host events for the 2005-2006 academic year. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that groups of students residing in 5 separate residential houses had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had hosted an event at which over 200 students were in attendance; a number which exceeded the permitted amount.  The Board found that two of the houses were in violation of the Code due to sufficient evidence that the events at these houses most likely attracted the most guests.  The Board found the other 3 houses not in violation of the Code.  As a sanction the Board recommended that the residents of these houses be issued disciplinary warnings. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the students had hosted an unregistered party.  The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code because of the large number of students preset at the residence.  This decision was made despite the students’ claims that they had not invited the people present at their residence.  As a sanction, the Board recommended that each of the students be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester, as well as complete 5 hours of community service by.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that Student A did not take appropriate care of a visiting friend who got severely intoxicated.  The Board found that Student A had not violated the Code because the student did take appropriate steps to care for the friend. 

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Section II, Regulation 15 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct.  Specifically, it was alleged that the guest of Student A and B discharged a fire extinguisher.  The Board found that Students A had not violated the Code because it was not that student’s guest.  The Board found that Student B had indeed violated the Code because it was that student’s guest.  As a sanction the Board recommended that Student B be issued a disciplinary warning.