The basic philosophy of student conduct in the residence halls at Stony Brook is one of education.  As such, it focuses on the growth and development of the individual student by encouraging self-discipline and by fostering a respect for the rights and privileges of others. The goal of student conduct in the residence halls is to redirect the behavior of the student into acceptable patterns and to protect the rights of all students within the residential community.

Conduct appropriate to a student at Stony Brook is that conduct which promotes the individual’s own academic pursuits and which contributes to meeting the community’s educational mission.  An individual’s conduct becomes proper concern of the University if it adversely affects the academic interest of other members of the University community.  Without question, peer influences, exercised through the student conduct process can often be more effective in redirecting the behavior patters of students than other methods of discipline.  A student conduct board presents an opportunity for peers to communicate with fellow students and attitudes which seem more conductive to creating a positive environment within the residence hall community.

It should be understood that there is a fundamental difference between the nature of students discipline and that of criminal law.  The disciplining of students within the University community must be consistent with the educational mission of the institution.  For this reason, the procedures employed and the type of sanctions used on campus in no way resemble those in the criminal process.  Although student’s rights to due process and fairness must be carefully observed and protected, the rules of criminal law are neither required nor necessary to achieve the educational goals of University discipline.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

STATEMENT OF STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Each resident has the right to engage in activities that are part of University life.  However, these rights carry with them reciprocal responsibilities on the part of the individual to insure these same rights to residents.  The following is a listing of rights and responsibilities for residence hall students.

STUDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT…
- To have free access to their living conditions
- To the respect and safety of personal property
- To study without interruption or harassment
- To express themselves creatively within established guidelines
- To expect enforcement of the housing agreement
- To direct access of staff who provide assistance, guidelines
- To host guest, within established guidelines
- To equitable treatment when behavior is in question
- To enjoy individual freedoms without regard to: race, sex, national origin, handicap, age, religion, or sexual/affectional orientation
- To individual and group educational and developmental opportunities in their living community
- To written copies of University or individual building policies which govern individual and group behavior

STUDENTS HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY…
- To adhere to rules
- To comply with reasonable requests made my staff
- To meet expected room and board payment schedules
- To monitor and accept responsibility for the behavior of guest
- To respect the rights of others as noted to the left
- To participate in student conduct proceedings to determine appropriate standards of behaviors
- To contribute positively to the community by participating in educational and developmental activities
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

HEARING LEVELS AND SANCTION GUIDELINES
HEARING LEVELS:

For reasons of appropriateness, all conduct hearings are classified into one of three different levels that correspond to the case’s severity and the sanction(s) potentially levied. Examples of each level of violation are contained within the following “Minimum Sanction Guidelines” document. The levels are divided as follow:

Level I:   Violations where the sanctions may result in a verbal warning, written warning, restitution for state property, imposed reassignment, special restrictions or loss of privileges, disciplinary probation, University Services Educational Projects and Programs, and up to one semester suspension from the residence halls/apartment

This level of hearing is typically adjudicated by a Residence Hall Directors.
 

Level II:   Violations where the sanctions may result in all of the above and including: suspension from the residence halls/apartments.

This level of hearing is typically adjudicated by either a Quad Director or the Residential Conduct Board.

Level III:  Violations where the sanctions may result in all of the above and including: suspension or expulsion from the University.

This level of hearing is typically adjudicated by the University Hearing Officer, Division of Student Affairs.
 

MINIMUM SANCTION GUIDELINES:

To assist in the maintaince of consistency across the campus, the Division of Campus Residence had developed a set of “Minimum Sanction Guidelines”. These guidelines [see next few pages] look at each policy violation in the student conduct code, divide that violation into three levels of severity, and offer the minimum sanction or sanctions which must be applied when the students is found responsible for violating that particular policy. The guidelines are not to serve as a recipe book, but as a minimum foundation for sanctions that may be forced around the developmental need of the student participating in the judicial process.

For the purpose of this manual, Level II violations will be the primary focus.
 
 
 

HEARING PROCESS FOR LEVEL 2 VIOLATION

HEARING OFFICERS: RESIDENCE HALL DIRECTOR SERVING AS ADVISOR TO CONDUCT BOARD
BOARD CHAIR: ROTATING HEARING BOARD MEMBER SELECTED AT EACH HEARING
HEARING BOARD: 3-5 STUDENTS
 

1. Two days before the hearing, the Hearing Officer will verify that all paperwork has been sent to respondents, complainants and witnesses.  The Hearing Officers also makes sure that a tape recorder and blank tapes are available.
2. The Hearing Officers will also determine that Board Members are as objective as possible.
A) Board Members should not reside in the same       building or quad where the incident occurred, when possible. They should have no connection with the case.
B) Board members will be available for the entire hearing.
3. Respondents and complainants are asked if they have any objections to Board Members is excused.
4. Prior to the start of the Hearing, the Hearing Officer will brief Board Members on the following topics:

A) Listening
B) Questioning with direct questions- who, what, when, where, why, how
C) Explain note taking with the split notebook procedures
D) Explain how the board will make decisions about responsibility
E) Professionalism and body language
F) Objectivity
G) Confidentiality
H) Rethinking/refocusing on original chares throughout the hearing
I) Separating facts from extraneous information
J) Summary statements from board members

5. The hearing begins with introductions of the Hearing Officer and Board Members.  Participants, advisors, attorneys, parents, university observers, complainants, and respondents are also introduced.  Introductions are made by the Chair of the Board.  Witnesses will be outside the room; witnesses for the defendant and complainant will be in different places.

SUGGESTED QUESTIONS

1. Will you describe what happened…
2. What were you thinking/feeling at the time?
3. How do you think__________felt when you did___________?
4. How did your behavior affect others?
5. Describe_______policy and its rationale…
6. What are your responsibilities as a community member of your hall?
7. What contract agreement did you make when you selected your room/suite?
8. How have you violated this agreement?
9. What rights so you have as a resident?
10. How has your behavior violated the rights of others?
11. How are your rights protected?
12. Why do we have rules in our community?

Ethics and Confidentiality Conduct Board Training

The residential conduct board member has a rather difficult position. By accepting this appointment, the student assumes the responsibilities of being a member of the student conduct board, yet remains a student living and working among peers. The following list of expectations for residential conduct board members is set forth as a proper guide for all board chairpersons and members, and as an indication of what the residence hall community has a right to expect of its residential conduct board members.

Expectation

I. The residential conduct boards exist to promote justice and fairness, and thus to serve the individual student, the campus and the residence hall interest. Therefore:
A. No residential conduct board member should hear or entertain the merits of any case except when sitting as a member of the board which hearing that specific case.
B. A residential conduct board member should not be swayed by partisan demands, public clamor, consideration of personal popularity or notoriety, nor be apprehensive of unjust criticism.
C. Aresidential conduct board member should use their discretion to disqualify him/herself from a case where s/he may be prejudiced either for or against the student that has been charged.

II. A residential conduct board members’ public and official behavior should be beyond reproach and free from impropriety.  This applies in tow major areas:
A. DISCRETION IN PERSONAL ACTIONS – Whether it is our choice or not, the residential conduct board member can be set apart and identified because of his/her role in the judicial system.  Actions that would elicit remarks if performed by a regular student, can bring discredit upon the board member as well as the residential conduct board program if performed by a board member.  Don’t put fellow board members in the position of hearing cases in which you were involved.
B. KNOWLEDGE OF AND ADHERENCE TO POLICIES, RULES AND PROCEDURES –
As a follow up to the above, if a board member does not adhere to the rules and regulations him/herself, he/she cannot expect students to comply with those rules and regulations or to have his/her authority as a residential conduct board member accepted.  This does not mean that the board member must agree with policies, but it does imply a responsibility that each must reconcile the issue with his/herself.  Talk over and resolve concerns with an advisor and your peers.
III. No case or pending case before any residential conduct board should be discussed outside the hearing by any residential conduct board member.  Specifically, the residential conduct board member should assure that:
A. The disciplinary record of a student is not shown or discussed outside of a hearing;
B. Any information elicited during the hearing should not be disclosed or discussed outside of the hearing;
C. The nature or status of any recommended sanction is not discussed outside of the hearing.
IV. When considering a question of responsible, a student conduct board member should always bear in mind that he/she is deciding whether a particular regulation has been violated and not upon agreement with that regulation.  A student conduct board member should; however, consider all relevant factors when deciding on the sanction recommended for any student who has been found to be responsible for the conduct violations(s).

V. Proceedings of the hearings should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum, and should reflect the importance and seriousness of the hearing.  The board member should be sensitive to the needs of the individual students.  He/she must learn how to listen to others with an attitude of objective understanding rather that judgement.  If your mind is made up when you walk in the door, ask yourself if you will really be able to listen and decide fairly.  Your concern should be to help students learn how to live in a community situation, how their behavior impacts on others, and how to make more mature decisions. BE aware of your limitations...

VI. The main goal of the residential conduct board system is to educate.  Words like “guilty”, “not guilty” and “punishment” do not help the ‘student identify this as an educational process.  Try to help the student more positive ways to live in a group setting.  Finally, be aware of your own values and attitudes, for it can greatly determine whether this will be an education experience for the student.  If there is a behavior you absolutely cannot tolerate, be aware of it.  Talk over your concerns with fellow board members and the advisor(s).

The very existence of a residential conduct board system depends upon its ability to guarantee these provisions. If the students learn through unfortunate experience that boards cannot provide confidentiality, it stands to reason that their credibility with the residents will be lost and that, more likely, students will ignore residential boards on favor of an administrative hearing.
 

It is particularly important that residential conduct board members become, in a sense, role models for the other residents of the community. Therefore, it is especially important that members both uphold and obey the regulations and policies of the University.
 

      RESIDENTIAL HEARING BOARD
      FACTS / DEFINITIONS
 

I. Physical configuration of the hearing room: The five
Board members and presiding hearing officer will ordinarily sit on one side of a long conference table. The Complaint(s) and respondent(s) and their advisor(s) sit in front of the table at opposite ends. Witnesses testifying at the hearing still sit in front of the table in between the complaint(s) and the respondent(s) while giving the information.

II. Participants in the hearing:

Case manager: This person (typically the Quad director responsible for the area where the violation occurred) ensures that all paperwork (i.e. summons/notice of charges, dispositions, etc.) are completed. Also arranges the time for hearing with all participants.

Board: 3-5 students selected from the residential student population at the university at Stony Brook. The composition of the board is meant to reflect the diversity within the student population.

Hearing Officer: The presiding Hearing Officer convenes the hearing will be a designed staff hearing Officer. The role of the Hearing Officer is to ensure the process is adhered to, and that due process prevails during the hearing. The hearing officer may not question or cross-examine any party of the hearing, but may voice their concerns quietly through the board members (similar to the role of the complaint(s) and respondent(s) advisor).

Complaint(s): Present the complaint to the board, prepare their complaint for presentation to the board, and review statements from parties to the case.

Respondent(s): Contest the allegation(s)/ charge(s), prepare their defense for presentation to the board, review statements from parties to the case.

Advisor(s): Both the complaint(s) and respondent(s) may be accompanied by an advisor to the hearing. The advisor may advise the complaint(s) and/or respondent(s) prior to and during the hearing, but may not verbalize the complaint, the defense, or cross-examine the other party, or cross-examine the witness during the actual hearing.

Witnesses: Are present by the complaint(s) and respondent(s). Witnesses describe their knowledge of the matter to the board. Must be truthful. The following statement is read to all witnesses prior to giving testimony: “While we do not swear in witnesses, it is expected that all testimony to the board be truthful. False testimony presented in a hearing may result in charges in accordance with Article II.A.3.a. of the University Student Conduct Code.”
 

III. THINGS TO REMEMBER

A. During Every Hearing

1. Maintain your concentration throughout the hearing and remain attentive. Good posture and eye contact should be demonstrated anytime the hearing is in session.

2. Carefully listen to everything that is said.

3. Watch for non- – verbal behavior which may indicate attitudes, true feelings, or emotions.

4. Be sure that you clarify any conflicting information before you enter into deliberation. Continue to ask questions until you have all of the necessary regarding the incident. Do not wait until you are in deliberation and then start guessing at reasons why the information presented was conflicting.

5. Carefully examine the time/date sequence of the incident. Follow up on contradictions when questioning.

6. Avoid jumping from one line of questioning to another; attempting to examine one area completely before moving on. Board members should learn to look to the other board members before changing lines of questioning.

7. Avoid unnecessary writing during the hearing. You should be concentrating on the content while developing lines of questioning. The tape recorder will provide a complete record of the hearing.

8. Note passing or whispering should not occur in the hearing unless absolutely necessary. You would not be showing the respect to the speaker that you would expect if you were speaking.

9. Never accuse a student or participate in heard arguments. Maintain your composure even if others do not.

10. Carefully prepare your questions in advance. Avoid questions which are not relevant to the hearing.

IV. TESTIMONY

A. Questions to Ask Yourself

The following is a list of questions you should consider when questioning respondents, reviewing documented evidence and determining credence or rendering a decision:

1. How relevant is the testimony of this witness to the central issue(s) of the case?

2. How much does this person know about the action or incident in question?

3. How did this person come to know this information?

4. Which of the witnesses had the best opportunity to observe the action or incident in question?

5. In how much detail can the witness recall the action or incident? Is this witness’ recollection of details consistent with the recollection of other witnesses?

6. Are there circumstances which might call the reliability of the witness into question?

7. Is there any reason why a witness may not be providing complete and accurate testimony?

V. WEIGHT OF TESTIMONY

A. Most testimony has some degree of bias.  It tends to lead the listener into a single interpretation of an alleged incident.  Here are some examples of where weighing the testimony may prove beneficial.

1. A vs. B – Given equal testimony and barring other forms of evidence to aid logical inferences, the testimony of the unbiased witness is given more weight.  For example…

2. Claimed Ignorance – “Assume” that this is usually an attempt to avoid responsibility for an action.  Only in exceptional cases should this testimony be an influence on your decision.  For example…

3. Supporting Testimony – Support witnesses must meet the criteria of supporting or establishing a fact or circumstance at issue.  Numbers of witnesses should not/if rarely play a role in decisions.

4. Subcultures – Ethnicity or acculturation is not an acceptable excuse for irresponsibility to conformity with community standards and regulations as stated in the Student Conduct Code.  It should be understood that if an individual(s) are incapable of understanding the distributed and accepted rules and regulations as provided for in the S.C.C. they should not be part of the community.

5. Malice – If one witness claims another has malicious intentions, it should not hold any bearing unless it can be proven and changes the contested facts of the case.  For example…

6. Identification – Description of the subject given to an officer or other official who notes the description at that time may help substantiate an identity.  A witness may testify as to belief, opinion and judgement of identity.

7. Character Witnesses – Testimony of a character witness is valuable if their testimony indicated ability or inability on the part of the accused to commit a specific infraction.  The value of such testimony should be modified by opportunity of character witnesses to observe total behavioral pattern.  The character of the accused is not a determination of guilt or innocence.
 

VI. DETERMINATION

A. Facts

1. In order to derive a decision you need to determine what is fact in the case.  Only when this is decided will you have clear evidence to make your decision.

a. Examine each piece of evidence in a context of clear and convincing proof; witness must be credible, convincing and must be able to provide consistently detailed accounts of the events in question.
b. The facts of the case are those events, circumstances, incidents, or actions  which you firmly believe to be true in light of the evidence and testimony which you have heard.
c. Facts are not those incidents or circumstances which might or might not have occurred.  Conjecture has no place in a finding of fact.
d. The principal question in your mind at this point should not be “is this individual responsible for the alleged violations?”  The principle question should be “what happened?”
e. The findings of fact should provide an account of the incident in question.  Members of the Board must have a clear command of the facts in order to make a decision.

B. Decisions: Are To Be Made On A Preponderance Of Evidence NOT Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

1. Decision of responsibility should be based solely on facts.  There is no place for conjecture.  Board members should be careful not to consider possible sanctions/outcomes before determining responsibility.  A decision should be relatively easy if the Board has approached fact-finding systematically.

a. Restate findings of facts.

b. From findings render a decision of responsibility for specific violations.
 
 

The content on these pages was originally provided by Brian C. Steinberg, the founder of http://www.theallygroup.org and http://www.safezoneforall.com (Creater of the previous: http://www.residentassistant.com/reslifepro)

© ResidentAssistant.com.  Disclaimer.