Toggle search Toggle Search

Office of the Assemblies

Spring 2020 Code Revisions - Section 7: Appeal Panel Procedures

Please note that a * denotes a section that has corresponding CJC comments that the committee wishes the public to review.

7.1 Panel Composition
All appeals will be heard by a three-member Panel that includes one student, one faculty member, and one staff member. The members of the Appeal Panel shall be randomly selected by the Logistics Chair in the same manner as the members of the Administrative and Hearing Panels. However, no person who served on the Administrative or Hearing Panel shall sit on the Appeal Panel in the same case.
 
7.2 Evidence and the Standard of Review
All appeals will be based solely on the hearing record, which consists of the audio recording of the hearing, the Administrative or Hearing Panel’s decision, pre-hearing submissions, written submissions made during the hearing, and the Impact/Mitigation statements (if considered by the Administrative or Hearing Panel). However, when relevant to the stated ground for appeal, the Appeal Panel may supplement the record on appeal with newly discovered evidence. If the Appeal Panel reverses a finding of not responsible, the record on appeal will be supplemented with the parties’ Impact/Mitigation Statements.
 
Findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Harmless error will be ignored.
 
7.3 Grounds for Appeals from the Decision of a Hearing Panel*
A respondent may appeal only upon one or more of the following grounds:
  • (1) A University official or officials, including the Administrative or Hearing Panel, assigned responsibility for performing specific functions by these procedures, violated the fair application of relevant University procedures, and such violation may have had a prejudicial effect upon the outcome.
  • (2) A University official or officials, including the Administrative or Hearing Panel, assigned responsibility for performing specific functions by these procedures, committed an error in interpreting the Code of Conduct, these procedures, and such error may have had a prejudicial effect upon the outcome.
  • (3) The Hearing Panel rendered a decision that is clearly erroneous.
  • (4) New evidence was discovered after the decision that could not have reasonably been discovered before the decision and that would with high probability, have changed the outcome.
  • (5) The sanctions or remedies are not commensurate with the injury/violation or are otherwise manifestly unjust.
A named complainant, other than the University, may appeal the decision to the Appeal Panel only based upon the complainant’s belief that the remedy awarded the complainant is not commensurate with the injury.
 
The OSCCS may appeal the decision to the Appeal Panel only based upon the belief that the sanction is not commensurate with the violation.
 
*The CJC requests feedback from the public on whether or not the right to appeal should be the same for the complainant, respondent, and OSCCS or different for each party.*
 
7.4 Grounds for Appeal from the Decision of an Administrative Panel*
Only the respondent has the right to appeal the decision of the Administrative Panel. A respondent may appeal only upon one or more of the following grounds:
  • (1) The Administrative Panel rendered a decision that is clearly erroneous.
  • (2) New evidence was discovered after the decision that could not have reasonably been discovered before the decision and that would with high probability, have changed the outcome.
  • (3) The sanctions or remedies are not commensurate with the injury/violation or are otherwise manifestly unjust.

*The CJC voted 5-2 to make the grounds for appeal different for the Hearing Panel and Administrative Panel. The 2 who voted against believed that the process for appeal should be the same regardless to ensure fairness. The 5 who voted to maintain difference believed that the Administrative Panel should be more restrictive since relevant sanctions are not as severe as potential Hearing Panel sanctions.*

*The CJC requests feedback from the public on whether or not the right to appeal should be the same for the complainant, respondent, and OSCCS or different for each party.*

7.5 Appeal Procedures*
The appealing party commences an appeal by submitting a written notice of appeal to the OSCCS within five (5) business days of service of the Administrative or Hearing Panel’s decision. The OSCCS shall refer the notice of appeal to the Review Panel Chair as expeditiously as possible.
 
The appealing party must submit an appeal to the Review Panel Chair within ten (10) days after submitting a written notice of appeal to the OSCCS. Failure to submit an appeal within the ten (10) business days or any approved extension constitutes waiver of the right to appeal. The Review Panel has discretion to grant any such request upon a finding of good cause for the delay.
 
The appeal statement will be limited to 2000 words for appeals from an Administrative Panel decision and 4000 words for appeals from a Hearing Panel decision. The appeal statement must set forth the determination(s) being appealed, the specific ground(s) for the appeal, and the facts supporting the grounds.
 
The Review Panel Chair will provide a copy of the appeal statement to the other party, who, within ten (10) business days may submit a written response to the Review Panel Chair. The response should address both the specific ground(s) for appeal set forth in the appealing party’s statement and the specific facts asserted by the appealing party. The response will be limited to 1500 words for appeals from an Administrative Panel decision and 3000 words for appeals from a Hearing Panel decision.
 
The Review Panel will issue a timely written decision, typically no later than fourteen (14) business days for appeals from an Administrative Panel decision and twenty (20) business days for appeals from a Hearing Panel decision after receipt of the non-appealing party’s submission or the time for submission has expired. The decision is final and binding on all parties. The decision must be by a majority vote of the Review Panel and will include the rationale for the Review Panel’s decision and any dissenting opinion.
 
The Review Panel may affirm the decision of the Administrative or Hearing Panel or sustain any of the above-specified grounds for appeal in Sections 7.3 and 7.4, in which case the Review Panel may:
  • reverse a finding;
  • change a sanction or remedy;
  • remand a case to the original Administrative or Hearing Panel for clarification or reconsideration consistent with the Review Panel’s decision, if doing so would assist with a timely, practicable, and efficient resolution of the case;
  • remand a case for a new hearing to either the original Administrative or Hearing Panel or a newly composed Administrative or Hearing Panel; or
  • remand a case for a new or additional investigation, followed by an adjudication consistent with these procedures.
If the Review Panel finds that newly discovered evidence should be considered, it must remand the case to the original Administrative or Hearing Panel or a new Administrative or Hearing Panel to render new findings based on the consideration of additional evidence.
 
*The CJC voted 7-0-0 to make the appeals process shorter. This want stems from a desire to expedite the process to decrease stress on students. However, the committee didn’t have an exact number of days in mind. The number of business days listed in this section are placeholders and would like the public to provide feedback for a better timeline.*
 
7.6 Request for a Stay Pending Appeal
The Review Panel has discretion to stay (i.e. postpone implementation of) any sanctions pending a final decision on the appeal. It may, but is not required to, stay a sanction where the appealing party clearly demonstrates the need for a stay. An application for a stay must be submitted to the OSCCS. The OSCCS will provide a copy of the stay application to the Review Panel and to the other party who is entitled to respond to the stay application by submitting a written response to the Review Panel Chair. The Review Panel will set a reasonable timeline for handling the stay application, including a deadline for the other party to respond to the stay application. The Review Panel has discretion to reconsider its decision on a stay at any time during the appeal. The stay expires at the conclusion of the appeal.

**Please submit comments on the main 2020 Proposed Amendments to the Campus Code of Conduct page.**