Student Activities Committee Agenda
March 17, 2004
Present: Mary-Frances Panettiere (Faculty Member), Brent Carter (Faculty member, Chair), Tom Morley (Faculty Member), Danielle McDonald (Student Affairs representative, Secretary), Gregory Abowd (Faculty Member), Jude Leblanc (Faculty Member), David O’Brian (Sky Watchers rep), Julie Rugg (American Marketing Association rep), Patrick Jarrett (Society of Creative Anachronism rep), Jessica Li (DanceTech rep),
Absent: Linda Cabot (Exec Board Liaison), three student members—not yet appointed
Meeting called to order at 12:35 pm.
I. Approval of November 19, 2003 minutes
Made corrections to one typo
Gregory moved and Tom seconded the motion to approve the minutes.
II. Charters for Consideration
DanceTech – Jessica Li
Clarified that changed name from letter of Intent (DanzTech), to DanceTech in constitution. DanceTech is the official name of the organization
Article VI Clarified that dues would be no less than the minimum stipulated by SGA
Gregory moved and Jude seconded the motion to approve the charter with stipulated amendments.
Tabled due to lack of representative
Skywatchers – David O’Brian
Article IV, Section III D. Clarified that new officers will take office at the last meeting of spring semester
Article IV, Section III C. struck “or if the president feels the need of a particular individual in office” – not a democratic process
Gregory moved and Tom seconded the motion to approve the charter with amendments
American Marketing Association – Julia Rugg
Article III D. struck “1. Professionals from the community who are members of the AMA Association” – because non-GT individuals are not allowed to hold membership in organizations
Article III G. struck “Membership will take effect after an interested party passes an interview session” – representative volunteered to strike this
Article IV Section II clarified – only undergraduate students working towards or holding a GT certificate in marketing may hold office of President – representative wanted to clarify this
Article VI – clarified that Dues shall be no less than thirty-five dollars or the amount required by Student Government.
Article VIII – struck “A reading or email of the proposed amendment will be required prior to submitting the amendment for a vote” – because of redundancy
Gregory moved and Mary-Frances seconded the motion to approve the charter with the recommended amendments
Society for Creative Anachronism – Patrick Jarrett
Article IV Section 3 moved to Bylaws – rep volunteered for this change
Article IV Section 4 A. rep changed date of elections to October 1
Article IV Section 4 D. clarified that the run-off would be between the two candidates with the most votes
Article IV Section 4 E. rep changed to Fall semester
Article IV Section 5 B and C, Article VIII Section 1a and Section III – clarified that voting would occur with voting members as opposed to general members
Gregory moved and Tom seconded the motion to approve the charter with stated amendments
III. Code Changes
Rewrite of approved changes to the Conduct Codes
Brent moved and Mary-Frances seconded the motion to approve the rewritten changes to the Conduct Codes – attached
IV. Other Business
Update on Executive Council stance on Zymurgy Society
Linda Cabot emailed Danielle McDonald that “no one had a issue with it. Dr. Clough reminded the Council that we do not have a ‘dry’ campus but that we do have a responsibility to educate our students to act in a responsible manner”
Gregory Abowd informed the committee that he will be on professional leave next semester. The committee requested that he find someone to substitute for him.
Meeting adjourned at 1:30 pm
for Student Organizations
The following recommendations were approved by the Student Activity Committee November 19, 2003.
Ø Addition of webpage to the introduction of the Code
Ø Article VI. Appeals
“The Vice President of Student Affairs, within five (5) working days, shall refer the appeal to the Student Grievance and Appeal Committee. This committee shall review all facts and circumstances connected with the case and within the case and within five (5) working days shall make its findings and report thereon to the Vice President of Student Affairs. After consideration of the committee’s report, the Vice President of Student Affairs within five (5) working days shall make a decision that will be final so far as the Institute is concerned.”
“The Vice President of Student
Affairs, within five (5) working days, shall refer the appeal to the Student Grievance
and Appeal Committee. This committee shall review all facts and circumstances
connected with the case and within the case and within five (5) working days
shall make its findings and report thereon to the Vice President of Student
Affairs. After consideration of the
appeal, the Vice President of Student Affairs within five (5) working days
shall make a decision that will be final so far as the Institute is concerned.”
Ø Article V. Sanctions
Remove sections 1-5 regarding Interim suspension process and make appropriate changes to the Interim Suspension for Individuals and Student Groups/Organizations section of the Student Code of Conduct.
Moving Interim Suspension to the Student Code of Conduct reduces confusion of two polices. This policy is the same for students and organizations.
Ø Reletter C. Board of Regents’ Policy 406.01 to E. Board of Regents’ Policy 406.01
On November 19, 2003 the Student Activities Committee approved the following recommended changes to the Student Code of Conduct as they apply to Student Organizations to be forwarded to the Rules and Regulations Committee for consideration.
Ø B. Administration of the Judicial Process
Interim Suspension for Individuals and Student
Interim Suspension is for an interim period pending disciplinary
or criminal proceedings or physical or mental evaluation. In certain circumstances
the Dean of Students may impose an interim suspension, which shall become
immediately effective without advance notice and prior to the actual hearing of
1. Interim suspension may be imposed:
a. to ensure the safety and well-being of members of the Institute community or to preserve Institute property; or
b. to ensure the Student's physical or emotional safety and well-being or
c. if the Student or Student Group/Organization poses a definite threat of disruption of or interference with the normal operations of the Institute; or
d. if the Student is charged with a felony.
>> Student Organizations' Code of Conduct Interim Suspension Section (Article V. D) amended to allow for Interim Suspension of Student Organizations if they fail to contact the Dean of Students designee upon request. A student can be placed on hold if they fail to respond to an OSI request to meet. There is no similar incentive for a student organization.
During the interim suspension, individuals may be denied access to classes, campus facilities, and all other Institute activities or privileges.
2. During the interim suspension, individuals and organizations may be denied access to classes, campus facilities, and all other Institute activities or privileges and organizations must cease all organizational activities.
Ø E. Procedural Rights, Adjudication, and Sanctions
Current: Administrative Conference/Resolution
After the Dean of Students completes a sufficient investigation, charges the Accused with a violation of the Student Conduct Code, and outlines appropriate sanctions for the incident, the Accused may accept responsibility for the charges and agree to abide by the sanctions. This choice will close the case, as a Student, Group, or Organization that accepts the terms of an administrative conference/resolution is granted no right of appeal.
The Accused may elect to accept an administrative conference/resolution, if offered, at any time before a Hearing Panel convenes. If the Accused chooses an administrative conference/resolution, the Accused will be provided notice of a final disciplinary action from the administrative hearing officer containing the official charges and terms of the sanctions. If the sanctions are not fulfilled according to the terms, additional charges or sanctions may result, and/or a hold may be placed on the Accused’s record until terms are met.
Conference Resolution with New Administrative Conference/Resolution
After the Dean of Students completes the original investigation, a proposed administrative resolution maybe developed and presented to the accused upon the discretion of the Dean of Students. A proposed administrative resolution includes the charges under the Student Conduct Code, and outlines sanctions deemed by the Dean of Students and will be delivered via email. Reasonable attempts should be made to discuss the allegations and proposed Administrative Resolution with the Accused before its formal communication. The Accused (with the exception of non-greek organizations) may request to have the allegations reviewed by a hearing panel. If the Accused does not make this request within 6 business days after the communication of a proposed Administrative Resolution, the Resolution will be implemented. The Resolution is notice of a final disciplinary action with no right to appeal and contain the official record of charges and terms of the sanctions. If the Administrative Resolution would require a suspension, expulsion or removal from Housing, the allegations will be automatically forwarded to a hearing panel unless the Accused specifically waives their right to go before a hearing panel and requests the administrative resolution to take effect.
For clarity, the Dean of Students referred to herein means the Dean of Students or the Dean’s designee. In academic integrity cases, a faculty member may choose to serve as the Dean’s designee and hold an informal conference with a student suspected of academic misconduct.
The Institute’s judicial process currently requires a student, organization or group to formally accept an administrative resolution for charges to be resolved without a hearing panel. The responsibility should be transferred to the student and the process should include a default that requires less due process to resolve incidents resulting in sanctions less than suspension, expulsion, or removal from Housing.
Currently, the only way to resolve allegations if the Accused chooses to not respond to a request to meet or doesn’t come back to hear the final resolution is for a full hearing panel to meet. This presents the biggest challenge to Georgia Tech achieving an efficient judicial process. Hearing panels are extremely time consuming and resource draining. The value of a panel is threefold…to review if the allegations are actually true, if the sanctions proposed in the administrative process are fair and to increase the likelihood of the accused learning from the situation. The ability to give students and organizations these legitimate and valuable benefits is seriously being challenged by students who don’t even engage in the process. The default should be, unless the proposed sanction is so serious, that the Institute can simply resolve minor situations if the student, organization or group chooses not to engage in the process – respond to requests to meet or make an active decision about an administrative resolution. Without this, students, groups and organizations have a built in delay tactic that is harmful to our ability to respond in a timely manner.
Ø E. Procedural Rights, Adjudication, and Sanctions
An accused Student, Group or Organization may choose adjudication.
An accused Student,
Group or greek Organization may choose
adjudication before a hearing panel. The Student or greek
Organization must request to go before a hearing panel within 6 business days
of receipt of a proposed administrative resolution.
Only Greek organizations have the option to elect to go before a hearing panel. Placing a time limit on the student’s or greek Organization’s decision to go before a hearing panel enhances the judicial process’s efficiency. The six business day recommendation was proposed by the Academic Misconduct Process Review committee composed of an equal number of students and faculty.
Ø E. Procedural Rights, Adjudication, and Sanctions
Organizational Judicial Board Procedures
All organizational hearing panels (for example, IFC, NPHC, and Panhellenic, etc.) designated by the Dean of Students to hear allegations of organizational violations of Institute policy are recommending bodies to the Dean of Students.
If the Dean of Students does not receive a recommendation from the Organizational Judicial Board within 2 months of the case being formally forwarded to the Board, the Dean will render the Institute’s decision without the benefit of the Board’s recommendation. The group will retain the right to appeal the decision to the vice president for Student Affairs. Failure for the Board to recommend is not grounds for an appeal.
>The Dean of Students has been given the responsibility to adjudicate student organizational misconduct. The Dean has requested the advice and recommendations of the greek governing board's judicial bodies, prior to making a final decision. If for some reason, a student organization has been forwarded to a greek panel for a recommendation and the panel has failed to make a recommendation within 2 months of the case being formally forwarded to the panel, the Dean of Students Office is granted permission to make the administrative resolution without the advice of the governing board. The Dean of Students will make every effort to assist the governing board judicial panel in hearing allegations and forwarding a recommendation.