Visual Illustration: The Student Code of Conduct Grievance Process

UH WEST O`AHU PLAYERSAUTHORITYPROCESSES
  • Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs (VCSA).
  • Student Conduct Officer (SCO).
  • Complainant.
  • Respondent: The student who allegedly to have violated the Student Code of Conduct.
  • VCSA has ultimate oversight and authority.
  • VCSA designated the SCO to render decisions and sanctions, assign cases and/or administratively resolve cases.
  • SCO determines if the allegation(s) has merit or can be resolved administratively.
  • SCO conducts conference with Respondent.
  • SCO renders decision which is final, which is subject to appropriate appeal.
  • Appellate Officer is assigned by VCSA.
  • Appellate Officer shall have the sole authority to determine whether or not an appeal warrants further review and decide the
    outcome of the appeal.
  • 3 separate Grievance Process and procedures.
  • Discriminations: Allegations including but not limited to involving any unlawful discrimination or related harassment based on sex, race, age, religion, color, sexual orientation, veteran’s status.    
  • Sexual Misconduct: Allegations involving sexual harassment, sexual assault,  domestic/dating violence, stalking, and retaliation,
  • Student Conduct: 21 prohibited conduct.

Student Conduct Process Graph and Flowsheet

Complaint Intake/Preliminary Fact Findings:

(See the graphs on the left)

  1. The Student Conduct Office (SCO) receives an incident report of an alleged violation(s) under the Student Code of Conduct.
  2. The SCO conducts an impartial and reliable preliminary fact finding investigation to determine if the allegation(s) has merit, no merit, or if it can be resolved administratively.
  3. The SCO will meet with the Complainant and witness(es), if any.
  4. The SCO will review which of the 21 prohibited conduct may have been violated based on the information provided by the reporter and witness(es), if any.
  5. The SCO determines if the information provided has sufficient or insufficient information that a policy violation occurred. 

Decision: 

Resolve Administratively:

  1. If the allegations can be resolved administratively the report is resolved and shall be final.

No Merit:

  1. If the SCO determines there is insufficient information (no merit) that a policy violation may have occurred, the report is dismissed and the decision by the SCO is final. 
  2. Educational Opportunity: The SCO will use this opportunity to educate and remind the student of the Student Code of Conduct.
    • An email will be sent to the student (Respondent) requesting a non-mandatory meeting to meet with the SCO to discuss the issue and to remind the student of their responsibility as a UH West O`ahu student. If the meeting request is decline or no response, an email will be sent a summary of the Complainant’s issue or concerns, the Complainant’s request, and to remind the student of their responsibility. Also, remind the student if the behavior continues, the student may be notice for a potential violation under the Student Code of Conduct.
  3. The Complainant will be sent a letter that there was insufficient information to move the case to a formal process and the case is closed.

Merit:

  1. If the SCO determines there is sufficient information (merit) that a policy violation may have occurred. The case will move forward to a formal process.
  2. The SCO will send the Respondent (student) a notification (5 days to respond) of the potential violation(s) and a summary of the incident.
  3. The Respondent can either schedule a meeting with the SCO or submit a written statement for review by the SCO.
  4. The Complainant is sent a letter that the Respondent was notified for a potential violation under the Student Code of Conduct. 

Alternative Option:

Informal Resolution: Either parties can request an alternative form of resolution and the other party must agree. The parties will engage in an informal resolution to informally resolve the issue. If the resolution results in a mutual satisfaction of both parties then the case will be considered resolved. If the case is not resolved, then the SCO may move the case forward to a formal resolution.

Notification of Alleged Violation:

(See the graphs on the left)

The Respondent responds to the notification from the Student Conduct Office for a potential violation under the Student Code of Conduct. The Respondent can either submit a written statement or schedule a meeting with the SCO.

****If the Respondent fails to respond to the notification within 5 days of receiving the notification, a hold will be placed on the Respondent’s account (which may delay registration and other institutional transaction), until a response is received.****

Written Statement:

  1. The Respondent submits a written statement of their account of the alleged incident along with documents and/or names of witness(es), if any.
    • If the Respondent provided witness(es):
      • The SCO will schedule an interview with the witness(es) to gather information.
  2. The SCO reviews the statement.
  3. The SCO may follow up with questions or ask for clarification regarding statements made via email.
  4. The SCO may follow up with further questions, if any, to the Respondent before making a determination on responsibility. 
  5. The SCO reviews the information provided from the statement, report, the Complainant, and witness(es), if any, to render a determination on responsibility whether “more likely than not” a policy violation occurred. 

Student Conduct Meeting:

  1. The Respondent schedules a meeting with the SCO. 
  2. The Complainant/Reporter is sent an email that the Respondent scheduled a meeting with the SCO.
  3. In order for the meeting to continue, the Respondent must provide a valid ID prior to the meeting or bring it with them to verify the right student is present at the meeting. 
  4. During the SCO meeting, the Respondent is provided the opportunity to tell their side of the story of the alleged incident and provide any documents and/or names of witness(es), if any. 
  5. The SCO may ask questions or ask for clarification.
  6. The SCO reviews the information provided from the report, the Complainant (interviews), the Respondent (SCO Meeting), and witness(es) (interviews), if any, to render a determination on responsibility whether “more likely than not” a policy violation occurred.

Determination on Responsibility:

(See the graphs on the left)

The SCO uses Preponderance of the Evidence (51% to 49%) to render a determination based on whether “more likely than not” that a policy violation occurred. 

There are three possible determination the SCO can render regarding responsibility. 

Determination:

Found Not Responsible (Insufficient Information):

  1. The SCO determines there is insufficient information a violation occurred based on all the information provided by both parties.
  2. The Respondent is not formally charged (Found Not Responsible) for a policy violation.
  3. The case is dismissed.

Found Responsible (Sufficient Information):

  1. The SCO determines there is sufficient information a violation occurred based on all of the information provided by both parties.
  2. The Respondent is formally charged (found responsible) for a policy violation.
  3. Sanction(s) ae imposed (see graphs on the left for examples of sanctions).
    • If the Respondent does not complete the sanction(s) by the deadline or comply with the sanctions as stated in the “Responsibility Letter,” a hold will be placed on their account, which may delay registration and other institutional transaction. 

Further the Fact Finding:

  1. The SCO decides additional information is needed before making a determination on responsibility.  
    • The SCO will interview additional witness(es), if any
    • Review additional documents. 
  2. The SCO renders a determination on responsibility whether “more likely than not” a policy violation occurred.  

Both parties are sent a letter of the SCO’s decision. It will include a rationale for the decision on responsibility, the charges and/or the dismissed charges, and sanction(s) imposed (if Found Responsible) with instruction to appeal. If the Respondent is found not responsible, case dismissed (either party can appeal the SCO’s decision).

Appeal Process:

(See the graphs on the left)

A decision reached by the SCO may be appealed by either the Respondent(s) and/or the Complainant(s) within (3) business days, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays, from the date of the Responsibility Letter. The appeal shall be in writing and delivered to the office of the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs (VCSA) located in C – Building, C 237 or by submitted the online appeal form. 

Four Basis To Appeal:

****There are only four basis that either party can a appeal.****

  • There was a material deviation from the procedure that substantially jeopardized the fairness of the process;
  • There was new information that was unknown or unavailable at the time of the meeting, would have resulted in a substantially different outcome;
  • There was a demonstrable bias by the SCO (only if the SCO Meeting is recorded).
  • The sanction was substantially disproportionate to the severity of the violation, given the facts and relevant information..

Appeal Submitted:

  1. An Appellate Officer is assigned by the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs (VCSA) or the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs may serve as the Appellate Officer in the case.
  2. The Appellate Officer shall have the sole authority to determine whether or not an appeal warrants further review.
  3. Copy of the appeal submitted to the other parties and the assigned SCO to respond (within 3 business days) and provide information. The Appellate Officer shall be provided the incident report.
    • If the non-appealing party and/or the SCO does not respond to the Appellate Officer’s request, the Appellate Officer shall make a final determination using information available provided by the appealing party.

Decision:

  1. The Appellate Officer shall consider the basis for the appeal and make a determination on the issue presented that fairly addresses the alleged appeal issue only.

No Review:

  1. Appeal does not warrant a further review according to the 4 basis to appeal.
  2. The appeal is denied.
  3. The case is closed.
  4. The matter shall be considered final and binding upon all parties.
  5. Both parties are notified by email regarding the outcome of the appeal and the reason for the denial by the Appellate Officer.

Review:

  1. The appeal is granted, according to the 4 basis to appeal.
  2. The Appellate Officer will either:
    • Assign to another SCO & re-notice the Respondent in accordance with the procedure. Start the whole Student Code of Conduct process over with a new Student Conduct Officer.
    • Consider the new information & make a final determination of responsibility & impose sanctions.
    • Another SCO to review the information & make a decision regarding responsibility
    • Issue appropriate sanction(s) that are proportionate to the severity of the violation.
    • The Appellate Officer may request written clarification from the parties or involved faculty or staff (investigators, previous decision maker) that the Appellate Officer deems appropriate to make a determination regarding the appeal request.
  3. The decision of the Appellate Officer (or SCO, when the case is assigned by an Appellate Officer for an appellate purpose) in any of the circumstances listed, shall be final and binding by all parties.
  4. Both parties are notified by email regarding the outcome of the granted appeal and the reason by the Appellate Officer.