The information contained in this section of the handbook is only applicable for those participating in the Accountability Process. For cases alleging Sexual Misconduct, see the “Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process” section within this Handbook. For cases alleging Title IX Sexual Harassment, see the "Title IX Sexual Harassment Adjudication Process" section within this Handbook

Participants' Roles, Rights, and Restrictions

Definitions

Steps in the Accountability Process

Interim Suspension



Participants' Roles, Rights, and Restrictions

Responding Party- Responsibilities and Rights - Administrative Case Review

Procedural Responsibilities of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices

  1. OSARP will provide a fair and impartial process with unbiased decision-makers that presumes the Responding Party not responsible for violating policy. 

  2. OSARP will ensure the use of a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine if a Responding Party is responsible for violating policy. 

  3. OSARP will notify the Reporting Party of the outcomes of the case related to alleged violation(s) of crimes of violence as required by law. 

Responding Party Rights in an Administrative Case Review

A Responding Party has the following rights at an Administrative Case Review: 

  1. The right to receive notification of all policies allegedly violated via their official JMU email address; the right to know the alleged behavior leading to the allegation(s). 

  2. The right to be notified of the date, time, and location of the Administrative Case Review at least three days prior to the Administrative Case Review. 

  3. The right to attend the entire Administrative Case Review, except for administrative consultation or follow up. 

  4. The right to not answer the Case Administrator’s questions or provide information to be used in the adjudication of the case.

  5. The right for a Support Person to attend the Administrative Case Review where the case includes potential outcomes of suspension or expulsion, as acknowledged in the email notification of alleged policy violation(s) to the student. A Support Person attending an Administrative Case Review may not communicate for or speak on behalf of a Responding Party but may provide support or advice on how to present the case in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Accountability Process. 

  6. The right to know and respond to all information being used by the Case Administrator to determine whether or not the student violated policy; the right to provide information to be included in the adjudication of the case in accordance with any deadlines and restrictions that may be listed in the Accountability Process.  

  7. The right to be notified of the Case Administrator’s decision once the Case Administrator has made a determination of whether or not the student is responsible for the violation and, if applicable, the sanctions imposed. 

  8. The right to receive the decision in writing within ten business days of when the Responding Party accepts the decision made by the Case Administrator. 

  9. The right to reject the decision made by the Case Administrator and have the case re-heard by member(s) of the Accountability Board at an Accountability Board Case Review.  

[Back to top]

Responding Party - Responsibilities and Rights - Accountability Board Process

Procedural Responsibilities of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices and the Accountability Board

  1. OSARP and the Accountability Board will provide a fair and impartial process with unbiased decision-makers that presumes the Responding Party not responsible for violating policy. 

  2. OSARP and the Accountability Board will use of a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine if a Responding Party is responsible for violating policy. 

  3. OSARP will notify the Reporting Party of the outcomes of the case related to the alleged violation(s) of crimes of violence as required by law. 

Responding Party Rights in an Accountability Board Process

A Responding Party has the following rights at an Accountability Board Process:  

  1. The right to receive notification of all policies allegedly violated via their official JMU email address; the right to know the alleged behavior leading to the allegation(s). 

  2. The right to be notified of the date, time, and location of the Accountability Board Case Review and, if applicable, Appeal Review at least three days prior to the Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review. 

  3. The right to attend the entire Accountability Board Case Review, except for closed deliberation. In Appeal Reviews granted on the grounds of new evidence, the right to present the new evidence to the Appeal Board. 

  4. The right for a Support Person to attend the Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Accountability Process. A Support Person attending an Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review may not communicate for or speak on behalf of a Responding Party but may provide support or advice on how to present the case. 

  5. The right to not answer questions or provide information to be used in the adjudication of the case. 

  6. The right to know and respond to all information being used to make a decision in the case; the right to provide information to be included in the case file and used in the adjudication of the case in accordance with the deadlines and restrictions listed in the Accountability Process. 

  7. The right to question all witnesses and Reporting Parties (if any) who present at the Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review, if applicable. 

  8. The right to have witnesses present at the Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review in accordance with the restrictions listed in the Accountability Process, provided witnesses are able to attend the scheduled Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review; the right to provide witness statements to be included in the adjudication of the case in accordance with the deadlines and restrictions listed in the Accountability Process. 

  9. The right to have previous history in OSARP and/or sanctions imposed not be disclosed to the voting Board Members serving on the Accountability Board Case Review unless they find the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy in order to determine the appropriate sanctions to impose. The Responding Party may elect to share previous violations or sanctions with the Board Members as a part of their own statements. 

  10. The right to be notified of the Accountability Board’s decision and, if applicable, sanctions at the conclusion of the Accountability Board’s closed deliberation. When a student does not attend the Accountability Board Case Review, the right to receive the Accountability Board’s decision and, if applicable, sanctions on the following business day.  

  11. The right to submit a written appeal of the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review within four days of the Accountability Board Case Review on the following grounds: 

    • An allegation that OSARP violated procedural standards by failing to adhere to its responsibilities and/or the Accountability Process. 

    • New evidence that was not available or accessible at the time of the Accountability Board Case Review and only relevant to refute information relevant to the decision of whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy.

  12. The right to have access to a recording of the Accountability Board Case Review solely for the purpose of preparing a written appeal upon request. 

  13. The right to receive the decision rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review in writing within ten business days of the Accountability Board Case Review if an appeal is not submitted. If an appeal is submitted and an Appeal Review is not granted, the right to receive the decision rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review in writing within ten business days from when notification is received that the Appeal Review will not take place. 

  14. When an Appeal Review is granted, the right to receive the decision rendered at the Appeal Review in writing within ten business days of the Appeal Review.

[Back to top]

Responding Party

A Responding Party is a student who receives notification of an alleged policy violation(s) and is afforded rights and an Accountability Process by OSARP to respond to those alleged policy violation(s). The availability of a Responding Party is considered when OSARP schedules an Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review, if applicable. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Responding Party – Responsibilities and Rights – Administrative Case Review and Responding Party – Responsibilities and Rights --Accountability Board Process, as applicable, to those who meet this definition. 

[Back to top]

Reporting Party

A Reporting Party is a person who reports that they have experienced behavior committed by a JMU student that can be pursued by the Accountability Process. A Reporting Party need not necessarily present alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Party, but it is often their interaction with a Responding Party that led to an alleged policy violation being placed by OSARP. Written statements provided by a Reporting Party are typically used during Administrative Case Reviews. The availability of a Reporting Party is considered when OSARP schedules an Accountability Board Case Review. OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require Reporting Parties to attend or participate in the Accountability Process. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Reporting Party Rights to those who meet this definition. 

Reporting Party Rights

The Reporting Party for an incident(s) that allegedly violates JMU policy(s) committed by a JMU student, that does not fall under the Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force policy, in the Accountability Process has the following rights: 

  1. The right to be notified of the date, time and place of the Accountability Board Case Review at least three days prior to the Accountability Board Case Review via email. 

  2. The right to attend the Accountability Board Case Review to share their perspective and be questioned by the Board Members and the Responding Party in accordance with the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the Accountability Process. 

  3. The right for a Support Person to attend the Accountability Board Case Review in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Accountability Process. A Support Person for the Reporting Party may not also serve as a witness in the case.  

[Back to top]

Administrative Witness

An Administrative Witness is a person(s) that provides a report, statement, evidence, or other information to be used in the placing or adjudication of an alleged policy violation in OSARP.  Administrative Witnesses are not called as a witness by a Responding Party or Reporting Party but are determined by OSARP as having relevant information necessary for the adjudication of the case. Administrative Witnesses may include, but are not limited to, Residence Life Staff, Faculty members, University Staff, or Police Officers reporting alleged violation(s). Administrative Witnesses do not present against a Responding Party, but it is often their interaction with a Responding Party and/or a Reporting Party that led to an alleged policy violation being placed by OSARP. The Accountability Board Case Review is scheduled by OSARP around the availability of an Administrative Witness, but OSARP cannot compel a witness to attend. If an Administrative Witness is unable to participate at an Accountability Board Case Review, the case review will be based on the Administrative Witness’ written report; written reports will be used at the Administrative Case Review. Administrative Witnesses do not have the right to be accompanied by a Support Person at an Accountability Board Case Review unless they are also defined by OSARP as a Reporting Party or a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) in a case in addition to being an Administrative Witness (e.g. a Resident Advisor or Police Officer who in the course of doing their job also experiences behavior like physical force or attempted physical force). In cases where an Administrative Witness is also defined as a Reporting Party or a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence), they will be permitted the same rights as a Reporting Party or a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence).  

[Back to top]

Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence)

A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) is a person who reports that they have experienced behavior committed by a JMU student that can be addressed by the Accountability Process for the Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force or Damage, Attempted Damage, or Vandalism of Property policies where the damage, attempted damage, or vandalism of property was deemed to be willful or malicious.  A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) need not necessarily present alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Party, but it is often their interaction or experience with a Responding Party that led to an alleged policy violation being placed by OSARP. Written statements provided by a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) are typically all that is used during Administrative Case Reviews. The availability of a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) is considered when OSARP schedules an Accountability Board Case Review. OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require Reporting Parties (Crimes of Violence) to attend or participate in the Accountability Process. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Reporting Party Rights (Crimes of Violence) to those who meet this definition.  

Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) Rights

The Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) for an incident(s) that allegedly violates the Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force or Damage, Attempted Damage, or Vandalism of Property policies where the damage, attempted damage, or vandalism of property was deemed to be willful or malicious has the following rights:  

  1. The right to be notified of the date, time and place of the Accountability Board Case Review at least three days prior to the Accountability Board Case Review via email. 

  2. The right to attend the Accountability Board Case Review to share their perspective and be questioned by the Board Members and the Responding Party in accordance with the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the Accountability Process

  3. The right for a Support Person to attend the Accountability Board Case Review in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Accountability Process. A Support Person for the Reporting Party may not also serve as a witness in the case.  

  4. The right to be informed of the outcomes in the case related to the alleged violation(s) that meets the definition of a crime of violence and any sanctions. 

[Back to top]

Reporting Party Witness

A Reporting Party Witness is a person who provides a report, statement, evidence, or other information to be used in the placement and/or adjudication of alleged policy violation(s) in OSARP’s Accountability Process at the request of a Reporting Party.  A Reporting Party Witness may provide their perspective as a written statement, in person, or both, in accordance with any restrictions put in place as listed in the Student Handbook. A Reporting Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident, or their knowledge of the Reporting Party in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Reporting Party Witness may not provide their perspective on the character of the Responding Party or what they feel the appropriate decision or sanction in the case should be at any time during the process. The availability of a Reporting Party Witness may be considered when OSARP schedules an Accountability Board Case Review depending on the level of involvement of the witness in documenting the incident.  OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require witnesses attend or participate in the Accountability Process. It is the responsibility of the Reporting Party to coordinate their witnesses’ attendance. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Reporting Party Witness Rights to those serving in this role. 

Reporting Party Witness Rights

A Reporting Party Witness called by a Reporting Party has the following rights: 

  1. The right to be notified of the date, time, and place of the Accountability Board Case Review at least three days prior to the case review via email.

  2. The right for a Support Person to attend the Accountability Board Case Review in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Accountability Process. A Support Person for a Reporting Party Witness may not also serve as a witness in the case. 

[Back to top]

Responding Party Witness

A Responding Party Witness is a person who provides a report, statement, evidence, or other information to be used in the adjudication of alleged policy violation(s) in OSARP's Accountability Process at the request of a Responding Party.  A Responding Party Witness may provide their perspective as a written statement, in person, or both, in accordance with any restrictions put in place as listed in the Student Handbook. A Responding Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident, or their knowledge of the Reporting Party in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Responding Party Witness may not provide their perspective on the character of the Reporting Party, if applicable, or what they feel the appropriate decision or sanction in the case should be at any time during the process. The availability of a Responding Party Witness is not considered when OSARP schedules an Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review, if applicable. OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require witnesses attend or participate in the Accountability Process. It is the responsibility of the Responding Party to coordinate their witnesses’ attendance. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Responding Party Witness Rights to those serving in this role. 

Responding Party Witness Rights

A Responding Party Witness called by a Responding Party has the following rights: 

  1. The right to be notified of the date, time, and place of the Accountability Board Case Review at least three days prior to the case via email. 

  2. When a Responding Party Witness is called to present at an Accountability Board Appeal Review, the right to be notified of the date, time, and place of the Appeal Review at least three days prior to the Accountability Board Appeal Review via email. 

  3. The right for a Support Person to attend the Accountability Board Case or Appeal Review in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Accountability Process. A Support Person for a Responding Party Witness may not also serve as a witness in the case.

[Back to top]

Support Person

Reporting Parties, Responding Parties, Reporting Party Witnesses, and Responding Party Witnesses participating at an Accountability Board Case Review, Accountability Board Appeal Review, and Interim Suspension Appeal Review, as applicable, may be accompanied by a Support Person; a Support Person may not attend an Administrative Case Review except in cases where the potential outcomes of the case include suspension or expulsion. In the Accountability Process: 

  1. Typically, a Support Person must be a current JMU student, faculty or staff member, or an attorney. In cases where the potential outcomes of the case include suspension or expulsion Responding Parties have the right to a Support Person of their choice. The University does not provide students participating in the Accountability Process with a Support Person. It is the participant’s responsibility to determine a Support Person and coordinate their participation. 

  2. OSARP does not consider the availability of a Support Person when scheduling an Administrative Case Review, Accountability Board Case Review, Accountability Board Appeal Review, or Interim Suspension Appeal Review nor can OSARP compel a Support Person to attend. It is the participant’s responsibility to coordinate a Support Person’s attendance. 

  3. A Support Person may not also serve as a witness at the Administrative Case Review, Accountability Board Case Review or, if applicable, Appeal Review for the case. 

  4. Prior to an Administrative Case Review, Accountability Board Case Review, Accountability Board Appeal Review, or Interim Suspension Appeal Review, a Support Person may help the participant prepare for the case, which may include accompanying the Responding or Reporting Party to any meetings or while reviewing the case file in OSARP and communicating with OSARP and/or the University about the case and/or procedures with the permission of the Responding or Reporting Party.  

  5. During an Administrative Case Review, Accountability Board Case Review, Accountability Board Appeal Review, or Interim Suspension Appeal Review, a Support Person accompanying a participant may not communicate for or speak on behalf of the participant. Responding Parties, Reporting Parties, and witnesses, in sections of the process that allow for them, must present their statements or information themselves.   

  6. During an Administrative Case Review, Accountability Board Case Review, Accountability Board Appeal Review, or Interim Suspension Appeal Review, a Support Person may consult with the participant on how to present their statements or information by whispering, providing notes, or taking notes as long as it does not disrupt the adjudication of the case.   

  7. During an Administrative Case Review, Accountability Board Case Review, Accountability Board Appeal Review, or Interim Suspension Appeal Review, a Support Person may provide support by taking breaks with or requesting breaks on behalf of the participant they are accompanying. 

  8. OSARP may remove a Support Person from any meeting, Administrative Case Review, Accountability Board Case Review, Accountability Board Appeal Review, or Interim Suspension Appeal Review if they are disruptive to the process. 

[Back to top]

Definitions

University Case Administrator

A University Case Administrator is a faculty or staff member of the Accountability Board appointed as such by OSARP for appropriate cases. 

When appointed, a University Case Administrator is authorized to individually conduct the following stages of the Accountability Process: 

  • Interim Suspension Appeal Reviews. 

  • Accountability Board Case Reviews occurring as a result of an Interim Suspension enacted during the last three weeks of a semester or during the summer. 

  • Accountability Board Case Reviews when the decision rendered at an Administrative Case Review is rejected during the last three weeks of any regular semester or during the summer. 

  • Appeal Reviews when the appeal is granted during the last three weeks of any regular semester or during the summer. 

  • Other circumstances as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee. 

[Back to top]

Accountability Board

Members of the Accountability Board volunteer to serve on Accountability Board Case Reviews and Appeal Reviews.  

  • The Accountability Board shall have faculty, staff, and student members.  

    • Full time students, part time students, undergraduate students, and graduate students are eligible to serve as Accountability Board Members. Student members are selected by OSARP from the student body, exclusive of student government executive officers. Students are not eligible to serve as a Board Member while on probation assigned as a sanction by OSARP. 

    • Full time employees, part time employees, faculty members, A&P faculty, and classified staff are eligible to serve as Accountability Board Members. No faculty or staff member on the Accountability Board shall hold an administrative position higher than head of a department or academic unit. 

  • OSARP will appoint members of the Accountability Board to serve as Board Chairs and/or University Case Administrators. 

  • OSARP may appoint additional members to the Accountability Board as needed. 

  • Appointment to the Accountability Board shall be on an annual basis. Reappointment shall be made with consideration to the need for continuity. 

  • OSARP is responsible for the training of the Accountability Board. 

  • Faculty and Staff members of the Accountability Board are eligible to be assigned to Sexual Misconduct Case Reviews and Sexual Misconduct Appeal Reviews after sufficient experience as an Accountability Board Member, as determined by OSARP, and the completion of yearly training on adjudicating sexual misconduct cases. 

[Back to top]

Steps in the Accountability Process

Determining an Alleged Policy Violation

Any JMU student, faculty, or staff member believing that a student has violated a university policy may bring an alleged policy violation by giving relevant details of the alleged violation to OSARP. If a case is reported by a non-JMU person, it may be considered for adjudication if it follows the guidelines listed in the “Jurisdiction” section of the Student Handbook. Generally, resolution of these allegations will follow the process below. However, cases involving alleged conduct that falls under the Sexual Misconduct or Title IX Sexual Harassment policies will follow the separate and distinct Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process or Title IX Sexual Harassment Adjudication Process, respectively. Responding Parties and Reporting Parties in cases involving alleged sexual misconduct should review the Sexual Misconduct policy, the Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process, and the Responsibilities and Rights – Sexual Misconduct. Respondents and Complainants in cases involving alleged Title IX sexual harassment should review the Title IX Sexual Harassment policy, the Title IX Sexual Harassment Adjudication Process, and the Respondent & ComplainantResponsibilities and Rights – Title IX Sexual Harassment.

Throughout the Accountability Process, Responding Parties are afforded certain rights outlined in the Responding Party - Responsibilities and Rights – Administrative Case Review and the Responding Party - Responsibilities and Rights – Accountability Board Process

Upon receiving relevant details of the alleged violation, OSARP will determine: 

  • Whether there are grounds for notification of an alleged violation and the initiation of the Accountability Process. 

  • Whether the incident should be referred for restorative practices or to other university officials, administrative committees, or conduct processes. 

  • The Case Administrator who will be assigned to adjudicate the case. 

  • Whether the potential outcomes of the case include suspension or expulsion. 

To evaluate the potential of suspension or expulsion as an outcome for a case, OSARP will consider a variety of factors, including but not limited to:   the impact on the safety of the student and/or community; whether the behavior created a risk to the campus community; the student’s previous history in OSARP; how many strikes the student has for alcohol/drug violations.

These determinations occur upon OSARP receiving a police report, community report, incident report, incident narrative, witness statement, or record of court outcome, but alleged violations may be placed in other circumstances at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

If the information produced provides sufficient cause that an alleged violation(s) may have occurred, the Responding Party will be notified of the alleged policy violation(s). In accordance with JMU Policy 1209, proper notification of an alleged policy violation(s) shall consist of an email to the student’s official JMU e-mail address. The notice will be considered received the day after the notice is sent via email.  

The university may proceed with alleged violations and the Accountability Process regardless of enrollment status of the Responding Party or have alleged violations and/or sanctions remain pending until a Responding Party’s request to re-enroll is received. In most circumstances, the university will not proceed with the Accountability Process during a period in which a Responding Party is not actively enrolled in classes. The decision to proceed or not proceed with the Accountability Process when the Responding Party is not enrolled in classes is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee and will be based on the severity of the case and the availability and/or preference of relevant persons to the case, including but not limited to the Responding Party, the Reporting Party, Administrative Witnesses, and OSARP staff members. If the Responding Party is enrolled in classes and relevant persons to the case are available, OSARP will generally proceed with the Accountability Process.  

OSARP may address behavior that occurs at any point while a person is considered a student, as defined in the Handbook. Accordingly, this may result in the student’s diploma and/or official transcripts being withheld pending the conclusion of the Accountability Process and/or the completion of any outstanding sanctions as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee. For any student who receives an immediate suspension or expulsion, regardless of academic year, the immediate suspension or expulsion will be deemed effective for the most recent semester the student attended, which may mean a loss of academic credits for that semester. Further, after a final decision in the case has been rendered, the effective date of an immediate suspension or expulsion will be the date of the initial Case Review. The campus ban associated with a decision of immediate suspension or expulsion does not go into effect until the decision in the case is final, unless the Responding Party is under an Interim Suspension Status that provides for this ban until the final decision in the case. 

[Back to top]

Administrative Case Review

If information shared with OSARP provides sufficient cause that an alleged violation(s) may have occurred, the Responding Party will be notified of the alleged policy violation(s) through email.  

  • The email notification will include: 

    • Relevant policy or policies for the alleged violation(s) 
    • Date and location of the alleged incident(s) 
    • How OSARP received information about the alleged violation(s) 
    • Instructions for attending or scheduling an Administrative Case Review 
    • Contact information for an OSARP staff member to ask questions about the Accountability Process 
    • Links to relevant sections of the Student Handbook to prepare for the Administrative Case Review 
    • The name of the Case Administrator assigned to adjudicate the case 
    • When applicable, notice to the student that the potential outcomes of the case may include sanctions of suspension or expulsion and information regarding additional rights afforded them.   

For purposes of notification in the Accountability Board Case Review and Appeal Review, if a student chooses to pursue them in the Accountability Process, this initial email notification will serve as the official notification regarding the bulleted items above for the case. 

  • When students are informed of their alleged violations, they may also be instructed to have "no direct or indirect contact" with specific members of the university community through the conclusion of the Accountability Process. This includes, but is not limited to, verbal or non-verbal contact in person, through electronic means, or through a third party. This instruction does not prohibit contact through a third party for the purposes of conducting lawful activity during a pending criminal or civil case, or other specific extenuating circumstances as determined by OSARP. OSARP will not pursue alleged violations of the no contact order that occur through a third party for the purposes of conducting lawful activity during a pending criminal or civil case, or other specific extenuating circumstances as determined by OSARP unless the contact may have violated the Interference or Retaliation in a University Process policy or other policies as listed in the Handbook. 

  • If any Case Administrator feels that their previous contact with the case or the students involved will prevent them from rendering a fair decision, the Case Administrator must request that they not be assigned to the Administrative Case Review. Responding Parties will be informed of the Case Administrator assigned to their case. Upon receiving notification of the assigned Case Administrator, a Responding Party may request that the Case Administrator be replaced if the Responding Party can show a bias on the part of the Case Administrator. Merely being assigned to a Case Administrator who has previously heard a case with the Responding Party does not constitute actual bias. To make such a request, a Responding Party must contact the Director of OSARP or designee immediately, setting forth their reasons in writing. The Director of OSARP or designee will review all requests, except where the Case Administrator is the Director, in which case the Associate Director of OSARP or designee will review the request. Any decision to remove a Case Administrator and/or to postpone an Administrative Case Review is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

A Responding Party notified of an alleged policy violation(s) will first have the alleged policy violation(s) reviewed in an Administrative Case Review by a Case Administrator in OSARP in accordance with the following procedures:

  • Upon notification of the alleged policy violation(s), the Responding Party will be provided instructions for attending or scheduling their Administrative Case Review with OSARP:  

    • The Responding Party will typically have their Administrative Case Review set for them based on their academic schedule. The Responding Party will be informed of the appointment date and time via email with at least three days' notice. 

    • When a student is not currently enrolled at the university, the Responding Party will be asked to schedule an Administrative Case Review by contacting OSARP according to instructions provided in their notification email. If the instructions provide a scheduling deadline and the Responding Party does not meet that deadline, an appointment date and time will be set for them based on their academic schedule during their next enrolled semester and they will be informed via email with at least three days’ notice. 

    • When social distancing is recommended or required by local, state, or federal health guidelines, Administrative Case Reviews will be conducted virtually. For virtual appointments, instructions will be provided for accessing the Administrative Case Review via email. When social distancing recommendations or requirements are no longer in effect, Administrative Case Reviews may be conducted in the OSARP office at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.  

    • If the Responding Party is unable to secure a private location for their virtual Administrative Case Review or requires an in-person appointment due to a disability, the Responding Party should contact OSARP immediately upon receiving the notification email to reschedule their Administrative Case Review. All in-person appointments will follow social distancing guidelines and the Responding Party and Case Administrator may be required to wear a mask/face covering during their appointment. In-person meeting requests are subject to approval by the Director of OSARP or designee and appropriate documentation of a disability may be requested.  

    • In some circumstances, including but not limited to threats to campus and/or student safety, the timeliness of a case, or the Responding Party’s history in OSARP, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, the Responding Party may have their Administrative Case Review scheduled to occur in the OSARP offices even when social distancing is recommended or required by local, state, or federal health guidelines. In-person meetings will follow social distancing guidelines and the Responding Party and Case Administrator may be required to wear a mask/face covering during their appointment.  

    • Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the Accountability Process will not be altered except in necessary or extreme circumstances in order to uphold the intent of the Accountability Process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee. Any requests for alterations must be communicated to the Director of OSARP or designee as soon as practicable. 

  • After reviewing the information in OSARP’s possession with the Responding Party at the Administrative Case Review, the Responding Party has the opportunity to share information, evidence, or witness statements with the Case Administrator to be considered in the adjudication of the case; Responding Parties should come to their Administrative Case Review prepared with any statements, evidence, or information they request be considered. Upon an evaluation of all available information, which may include follow up with witnesses, the Case Administrator will use a preponderance of evidence standard to determine if the Responding Party is responsible for the alleged policy violation(s). 

    • If the student fails to appear at an Administrative Case Review, regardless of whether the appointment was set based on the student’s academic schedule or scheduled by the student, the Case Administrator will make a decision in the case in their absence based solely on the information provided in the incident documentation. 

  • If the Responding Party is found responsible, the Case Administrator will inform the Responding Party of the decision and the sanction(s) that will be assigned. If the student is found not responsible, the Case Administrator will inform the Responding Party of their decision. Students who have their case decided in their absence will be notified of the Case Administrator’s decision via email. 

  • If found responsible, the Responding Party may indicate their acceptance to the Case Administrator and make a commitment to completing the required sanctions. Failure to complete the assigned sanctions could result in an additional alleged policy violation of Failure to Comply with a Disciplinary Decision. The Responding Party may also choose to reject the decision and request a re-hearing of the case at an Accountability Board Case Review.

    • If the student does not indicate whether they accept or reject the decision made by the Case Administrator at the Administrative Case Review, a follow up meeting will be scheduled for this decision. If the student does not attend this scheduled follow up meeting, the decision of the Case Administrator will become final and the student will not have the opportunity to reject the decision and request a Case Review before members of the Accountability Board in the applicable setting or by a second University Case Administrator when the defined circumstances for a case to be heard by a University Case Administrator are met.  

    • Students who have their case decided in their absence will be notified of the decision in their case via email and provided four days by which to accept or reject the decision, in accordance with their right to have the case re-heard at an Accountability Board Case Review. The decision of the case will stand if the student does not respond to the decision notification email by the deadline provided to accept or reject the decision. 

    • Students who reject the decision made by their Case Administrator will be scheduled for an advising session to go over the procedures used in an Accountability Board Case Review.  If a Responding Party does not attend this scheduled advising session, the decision of the Case Administrator will become final and the student will not have the opportunity to have the case re-heard before members of the Accountability Board in the applicable setting or by a second University Case Administrator when the defined circumstances for a case to be heard by a University Case Administrator are met. 

    • During the last three weeks of any regular semester or the summer sessions, if a Responding Party rejects the decision rendered at an Administrative Case Review the Responding Party may choose to have the Accountability Board Case Review conducted as soon as practicable by a University Case Administrator or choose to postpone the Accountability Board Case Review until the following semester to be conducted as outlined in the Accountability Process. OSARP may require that the Accountability Board Case Review be conducted by a University Case Administrator due to the availability of witnesses and the Responding Party (e.g. graduating or transferring students, study abroad participants, or off site student teaching, etc.), or in other circumstances as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or may require that the Accountability Board Case Review be postponed to the following semester.

Administrative Case Reviews are closed meetings between the student and the Case Administrator except in cases where potential outcomes include suspension or expulsion when a Support Person may attend in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Accountability Process. OSARP shall keep all information and decisions confidential and only release it with the student’s permission or to the extent permitted by law. Students are not permitted to make their own recordings of an Administrative Case Review. Support Persons are not permitted at an Administrative Case Review. The Responding Party (and Reporting Party, as applicable) shall receive notice of all rights they are guaranteed through the Accountability Process. By refusing to participate in the adjudication process, the student may be deemed to have waived any rights connected with direct involvement, such as having the decision communicated orally by the Case Administrator. In Administrative Case Reviews, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply.

A student who provides falsified or misleading information at an Administrative Case Review may receive an additional alleged policy violation of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process.

[Back to top]

Accountability Board Case Review

A Responding Party has the right to reject the decision rendered at the Administrative Case Review and have their case re-heard at an Accountability Board Case Review; the Board Members assigned to conduct the Accountability Board Case Review may render a decision less severe, more severe, or the same as the decision rendered at the Administrative Case Review. The Board Members assigned to the Accountability Board Case Review will not be informed of the decision rendered for the case at the Administrative Case Review. A Responding Party may not choose to accept the decision rendered at the Administrative Case Review after a decision is rendered at an Accountability Board Case Review.   

An Accountability Board Case Review will be conducted by a panel comprised of five members of the Accountability Board; two voting Board Members will be students and two voting Board Members will be JMU Faculty or Staff. An additional JMU Faculty or Staff Member will serve as the Board Chair and is a non-voting member. If the Accountability Board Case Review is a result of the Responding Party rejecting the decision rendered at the Administrative Case Review in the last three weeks of any regular semester or the summer, the Accountability Board Case Review will be conducted by a University Case Administrator. If the Accountability Board Case Review is a result of an Interim Suspension enacted in the last three weeks of any regular semester or the summer, or in other circumstances as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, the Accountability Board Case Review will be conducted by a University Case Administrator. 

If any member of the Accountability Board feels that their previous contact with the case or the students involved will prevent them from rendering a fair decision, the Board Member must request that they not be assigned to the Accountability Board Case Review. Responding Parties and Reporting Parties will be informed of the Board Members assigned to their case. Upon receiving notification of the assigned Board Members, a Responding Party or Reporting Party may request that a Board Member be replaced if the student can show a bias on the part of the Board Member. To make such a request, a Responding Party or Reporting Party must contact the Director of OSARP or designee immediately, setting forth their reasons in writing. The Director of OSARP or designee will review all requests. Any decision to remove a Board Member and/or to postpone an Accountability Board Case Review is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

The rights of a Responding Party participating in an Accountability Board Process are delineated in the Responding Party - Responsibilities and Rights – Accountability Board Process.

Participants who have a right to a Support Person may be accompanied by a Support Person. The handbook section entitled Accountability Process: Participants’ Roles, Rights, and Restrictions describes the role of the Support Person, limitations and restrictions placed on the role and who is qualified to serve in the role in different circumstances. Participants must notify OSARP of any Support Person at least two days prior to the Accountability Board Case Review. 

In Accountability Board cases involving a Reporting Party, Responding Parties and Reporting Parties may request reasonable safety accommodations be put in place during the Accountability Board Case Review and Accountability Board Appeal Review. Reasonable safety accommodations may include, but are not limited to, partition, teleconferencing, or police presence. 

Accountability Board Case Reviews may be conducted virtually for reasons including but not limited to health and/or safety concerns, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. Accountability Board Case Review times are set based on the academic schedule of the Responding Party, of the Reporting Party if applicable, Reporting Party Witness(es) if applicable, and the availability of the Administrative Witnesses. Accountability Board Case Review dates/times will not be scheduled around nor rescheduled due to conflicts for Responding Party Witnesses. Responding Party Witnesses who are unable to attend the scheduled Accountability Board Case Review may submit a written statement in their absence. OSARP cannot compel Responding Parties, Reporting Parties, or witnesses of any kind to attend an Accountability Board Case Review. If a participant of any type fails to appear at an Accountability Board Case Review after being properly notified of its date and time, the case will generally proceed and be heard on the basis of the written documentation, other items submitted as evidence to the case, and the information provided by those in attendance at the Accountability Board Case Review.  If a Responding Party fails to appear at an Accountability Board Case Review, the Responding Party will be notified of the decision via email. 

The decision to postpone an Accountability Board Case Review for any reason is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the Accountability Process will not be altered except in necessary or extreme circumstances in order to uphold the intent of the Accountability Process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee. Any requests for alterations must be communicated to the Director of OSARP or designee as soon as practicable. Any participant determined by the Board Chair to be unruly or disruptive will be removed. 

In circumstances where multiple Responding Parties in the same case reject the decision of the Case Administrator, the Responding Parties will be given the option to have their cases heard together during the same Accountability Board Case Review or to have their cases heard separately at an Accountability Board Case Review. If Responding Parties choose to have their cases heard separately, the same members of the Accountability Board and/or Board Chair will be used to make the decisions for all the Responding Parties’ cases. Decisions of responsibility and sanctioning, if applicable, will be made individually for each Responding Party by the members of the Accountability Board. 

Accountability Board Case Reviews will be audio and/or video recorded; the Board Members’ closed deliberation will not be recorded. Students are not permitted to make their own recordings of Accountability Board Case Reviews.

An Accountability Board Case Review will generally be conducted in accordance with the procedures below. However, Board Members may ask additional questions at any time, including outside of the periods allotted for their questioning. Additionally, the phrase “through the Board Chair” used throughout the Accountability Board Case Review procedures refers to the Board Chair confirming or denying an Administrative Witness, Reporting Party, or a Reporting Party Witness’ ability to respond to a question; this confirmation or denial may be verbal or non-verbal. The Board Chair has the authority to prohibit information from being shared that violates the rights of a party, is not allowed by the Accountability Process, or bears no relevancy to the adjudication of the alleged policy violation(s). The Board Chair also has the authority to instruct Board Members to disregard information that violates the rights of a party, is prohibited by the Accountability Process, or bears no relevancy to the adjudication of the alleged policy violation(s).

  1. The Board Members (or University Case Administrator, as applicable) and participants are introduced.

  2. The statement of the alleged policy violation(s) is presented by the Board Chair. 

  3. Participants state any questions they have concerning rights or procedures.

  4. Information is presented about the incident allegedly involving the Responding Party; each Administrative Witness is called individually. 

    • Each Administrative Witness will individually share their perspective and be questioned by the Board Members; each Administrative Witness will be questioned by the Responding Party through the Board Chair. 

    • The Board members may request witnesses to return for further clarification. 

  5. If applicable, information is presented about the incident allegedly involving the Responding Party by the Reporting Party and each Reporting Party Witness. Each Reporting Party and/or Reporting Party Witness will be called individually. 

    • When called, the Reporting Party and/or each Reporting Party Witness will individually share their perspective and be questioned by the Board members and then by the Responding Party through the Board Chair. A Reporting Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including but not limited to what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Reporting Party. A Reporting Party Witness may not provide their perspective on the character of the Responding Party, Responding Party witness(es), or Administrative witness(es), nor what they feel the appropriate decision or sanction in the case should be. 

    • A Support Person for the Reporting Party or Reporting Party Witness may not also serve as a witness at the Accountability Board Case Review or subsequent Appeal Review, if applicable. 

    • The Board may request that a Reporting Party Witness return at a later point in the Case Review for further clarification. The Reporting Party will be called in at a later point in the Case Review as outlined in the Accountability Board Case Review procedures. 

    • The Board Chair shall have the authority to limit the number of witnesses and/or content in order to avoid unreasonable delays, where the information would be repetitious or unnecessary, or where the information does not contribute positively to the fair review of the case. 

  6. Information is presented by the Responding Party. The Board members may question the Responding Party.

    • This presentation is the Responding Party’s opportunity to share information they want considered by the Board Members in the adjudication of the case, including any responses to the evidence or information included in the case file. The Board Chair shall have the authority to limit the information and/or content in order to avoid unreasonable delays, where the information would be repetitious or unnecessary, or where the information does not contribute positively to the fair review of the case. 

  7. The Responding Party will call their witnesses individually.

    • Each witness called by the Responding Party will individually share their perspective and be questioned by the Responding Party, followed by questions from the members of the Board. Witnesses called by the Responding Party can provide information relevant to the case, including but not limited to what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Responding Party. A Responding Party Witness may not provide their perspective on the character of the Reporting Party, Reporting Party Witness(es) or Administrative Witness(es), nor what they feel the appropriate decision or sanction in the case should be. 

    • A Support Person for the Responding Party or Responding Party Witness may not also serve as a witness at the Accountability Board Case Review or subsequent Appeal Review, if applicable. 

    • After a Responding Party Witness has presented to the Board and answered all questions, the witness may be asked to leave by the Board. At such request, witnesses must leave OSARP; they are permitted to wait outside of the office until the conclusion of the Case Review. If the Board does not specifically ask a witness to remain for further questions, the witness must leave the office. 

    • The Board may request that a witness for the Responding Party return at a later point in the Case Review for further clarification. 

    • After presenting to the Board, a witness is not permitted to have any communication regarding the case with witnesses who have not presented to the Board or with the Responding Party and their Support Person until after the Case Review has concluded. This includes verbal communication, written communication, and/or electronic communication. 

    • The Board Chair shall have the authority to limit the number of witnesses and/or content in order to avoid unreasonable delays, where the information would be repetitious or unnecessary, or where the information does not contribute positively to the fair review of the case. 

  8. The Reporting Party will return to the Accountability Board Case Review. 

    • The Board may ask final questions of the Reporting Party. 

    • The Responding Party may ask final questions of the Reporting Party through the Board Chair. 

    • The Reporting Party may present concluding remarks.  

  9. The Board may ask final questions of the Responding Party.

  10. The Responding Party may present concluding remarks.

  11. All persons are excused from the Board room while the Board determines whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy and, if applicable, sanctions. 

    • The Board will consider only the written documentation, other items submitted as evidence to the case, and the information provided by those in attendance at the Accountability Board Case Review. 

    • After deliberation the Board Members will determine whether or not the Responding party is responsible using a preponderance of the evidence standard as determined by a majority vote of the Board Members, exclusive of the Board Chair. In cases of a tie vote regarding responsibility, the student will be found not responsible. 

    • If a student is found responsible, the voting members of the Board will determine the appropriate sanctions to assign. Previous violations and sanctions are to be considered in the assigning of appropriate sanctions for the current case; the Board Members and Board Chair will deliberate until a decision is made as to sanctioning. In cases of a tie vote regarding sanctioning, the student will receive the lesser of the sanctioning options (e.g. if two Board Members vote for suspension and two Board Members vote for probation and educational sanctions, the student will receive probation and educational sanctions).

  12. The decisions regarding responsibility and, if applicable, sanctioning is then given to the Responding Party and their Support Person.

After receiving the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review, a representative from OSARP will provide the student with information on the process for submitting an appeal. The student will also be provided the opportunity to waive their right to appeal and accept the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review. 

In circumstances where the Responding Party waives their right to appeal the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review, or if the Responding Party does not submit an appeal of the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review within the timeline set by the procedures listed in the JMU Student Handbook, the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review will be considered final in these circumstances. Procedures for appeals in the Accountability Process are outlined within the section titled “Appeals”. 

A student who knowingly provides falsified or misleading information at an Accountability Board Case Review may receive an alleged policy violation of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process

OSARP may pursue an alleged violation of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a Responding Party or a student who is a Reporting Party discusses the case before the Accountability Board Case Review with any of the Board Members. OSARP will not pursue alleged violations of any no contact orders issued by the University when the contact occurs for the purposes of a pending criminal, civil, or legal process or other specific extenuating circumstances as determined by OSARP unless the contact may have violated policy Noncompliance and/or Interference or Retaliation in a University Process

Accountability Board Case Reviews are closed meetings; the University will maintain confidentiality of all information and decisions. The Responding Party shall receive notice of all rights they are guaranteed through the Accountability Process. In Accountability Board Case Reviews, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply.

[Back to top]

Appeals

If found responsible, students have the right to submit a written appeal of the decision rendered at an Accountability Board Case Review within four days of the date the Accountability Board Case Review occurred. If an appeal is submitted, it must be submitted directly by the Responding Party.

Appeals can be made on two grounds: an alleged violation of procedural standards or new evidence. Appeals from a Responding Party on grounds of an alleged violation(s) of procedural standards must outline how the university failed to follow the stated process for the adjudication of the alleged policy violation(s) and how that affected the decision. Appeals from a Responding Party on grounds of new evidence must introduce evidence that was not available or accessible to the Responding Party at the time of the Accountability Board Case Review and only relevant to refute information relevant to the decision of whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy. The Associate Dean of Students or designee will evaluate the submitted appeal and determine if an Appeal Review will be granted; appeals that do not meet these criteria will be denied.The determination made by the Associate Dean of Students or designee to grant or deny an appeal submission is considered final. There is no mechanism for a Responding Party to appeal the determination made by the Associate Dean of Students or designee to grant or deny an appeal submission. The Accountability Process will proceed as outlined in the process based on the determination made regarding the appeal submission.

If an appeal is submitted by the Responding Party and the appeal is denied, the decision rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review will be considered final. 

If the appeal is submitted by the Responding Party and the appeal is granted, the Appeal Board will be composed of one student and one faculty or staff member of the Accountability Board. In addition to being a voting member, the faculty or staff member will also serve as the Board Chair. If an Accountability Board Case Review was conducted by a single University Case Administrator as outlined in the Accountability Process, the Appeal Review will be conducted by a single University Case Administrator. Further, if an appeal is granted in the final three weeks of the semester, during the summer session, or during a university break, the Appeal Review will proceed and be conducted by a single University Case Administrator. Appeal Reviews may be conducted virtually for reasons including but not limited to health and/or safety concerns, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

If any member of Appeal Board feels that their previous contact with the case or the students involved will prevent them from rendering a fair decision, the Board Member must request that they not be assigned to the Appeal Review. Responding Parties and Reporting Parties, as applicable, will be informed of the Board Members assigned to the Appeal Review. Upon receiving notification of the assigned Board Members, a Responding Party or Reporting Party may request that a Board Member be replaced if they can show a bias on the part of the Board Member. To make such a request, a Responding Party or Reporting Party must contact the Director of OSARP or designee immediately, setting forth their reasons in writing. The Director of OSARP or designee will review all requests. Any decision to remove a Board member and/or to postpone an Accountability Board Appeal Review is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the Accountability Process will not be altered except in necessary or extreme circumstances in order to uphold the intent of the Accountability Process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee. Any requests for alterations must be communicated to the Director of OSARP or designee as soon as practicable. 

Appeal Boards will review the written documentation, other items submitted as evidence to the case, the information provided by those in attendance at the Accountability Board Case Review, the written appeal, and the recording of the Accountability Board Case Review. 

If an appeal is submitted by the Responding Party and an Appeal Review is granted by the Associate Dean of Students or designee based on an alleged violation(s) of procedural standards, either in its entirety or with appropriate redactions, the Appeal Review will generally proceed in accordance with the procedure below. A Responding Party does not attend or participate in an Appeal Review granted solely based on an alleged violation of procedural standards. 

  1. The Appeal Board will determine whether or not a violation(s) of procedural standards occurred by considering the arguments made in the granted appeal. The Appeal Board will also have access to the case record and may consider the evidence within the record. 

    • If the Appeal Board determines that no violation of procedural standards occurred, the decision rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review will stand. 

  2. If the Appeal Board determines that a violation(s) of procedural standards occurred, the Appeal Board will then determine if the violation of procedural standards can reasonably be said to have materially affected the interests of the Responding Party. 

    • If the Appeal Board determines that the violation(s) of procedural standards cannot reasonably be said to have materially affected the interests of the Responding Party, the decision rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review will stand. 

    • If the Appeal Board determines that the violation(s) of procedural standards can reasonably be said to have materially affected the interests of the Responding Party, the Appeal Board will order that a new Accountability Board Case Review be conducted to render a decision for the case.

The determinations or decisions rendered at an Appeal Review granted on the grounds of an alleged violation(s) of procedural standards are determined by a unanimous vote of the Appeal Board Members. In cases of a tie vote, the Board will order that a new Accountability Board Case Review be conducted to render a decision for the case. 

If an appeal is submitted by the Responding Party and an Appeal Review is granted by the Associate Dean of Students based on new evidence, either in its entirety or with appropriate redactions, the Responding Party may choose to present the new evidence or provide a statement in person to the Board and may choose to have the witness(es) relevant to the new evidence present to the Board. In such circumstances, the Appeal Review will be arranged around the Responding Party's academic schedule and their participation will be audio and/or video recorded; deliberation of the Board will not be recorded. Students are not permitted to make their own recordings of Appeal Reviews.

In Appeal Reviews based on new evidence where the Responding Party chooses to present to the Appeal Board, the Responding Party has a right to a Support Person if OSARP is notified at least two days before the Appeal Review, provided that person is willing and able to attend the scheduled Appeal Review. Typically, a Support Person must be a current JMU student, faculty or staff member, or an attorney. In cases where the potential outcomes of the case include suspension or expulsion, Responding Parties have the right to a Support Person of their choice. A Support Person attending an Appeal Board Case Review may not communicate for or speak on behalf of the Responding Party but may give advice to the student on how to present their case. 

An Appeal Review based on new evidence will generally proceed in accordance with the procedure below: 

  1. The Board members (or University Case Administrator, as applicable) and participants are introduced. 

  2. If the Responding Party is in attendance, information is presented by the Responding Party solely about the new evidence in the case. The Board Members may question the Responding Party about the new evidence. 

  3. If applicable, the Responding Party’s Witnesses will be called individually. 

    • Each witness called will individually share their statement on the new evidence and be questioned by the Responding Party, if the Responding Party is in attendance, followed by questions from the members of the Board. 

    • A Support Person for the Responding Party may not also serve as a witness at the Appeal Review. 

    • At the conclusion of the statement and questions for each witness, the witness will leave. 

  4. If the Responding Party is in attendance, the Board members may ask final questions of the Responding Party. 

  5. The Responding Party and Support Person will leave; the Board will enter closed deliberation.

  6. The Appeal Board will deliberate and make a decision using the procedures below:

    • The Appeal Board will consider the totality of the evidence in the case file, presented at the Accountability Board Case Review, in the granted appeal, and information presented during the Appeal Review and determine if the decision rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review should stand or if the findings on policy and/or sanctions rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review should be altered.

      • If in considering the totality of the evidence the Appeal Board determines that the findings on policy rendered at the Accountability Board Case Review should be altered, the Appeal Board will vote to determine their findings on whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy. In cases of a tie vote regarding responsibility, the student will be found not responsible. 

      • If in considering the totality of the evidence the Appeal Board determines that the sanctions assigned at the Accountability Board Case Review should be altered, the Appeal Board will vote to determine the sanctions to assign. In cases of a tie vote regarding sanctioning, the student will receive the lesser of the sanctioning options (e.g. if one Board Member votes for suspension and one Board Member votes for probation and educational sanctions, the student will receive probation and educational sanctions).

If an Appeal Board upholds the decision of responsibility and chooses to alter the sanctions imposed, the Appeal Board may not impose sanctions more severe than imposed at the Accountability Board Case Review. 

If an appeal is granted by the Associate Dean of Students based on both grounds of an alleged violation of procedural standards and new evidence, either in its entirety or with appropriate redactions, OSARP will schedule an Appeal Review that will first evaluate the portions of the granted appeal alleging a violation of procedural standards, proceeding as outlined in the JMU Student Handbook. If the Appeal Board orders a new Accountability Board Case Review be conducted based on the violation of procedural standards portion of the granted appeal, a review of the portions of the granted appeal related to new evidence will not be held; the Responding Party will have the opportunity to share that evidence at the new Accountability Board Case Review. If the Board does not order a new Accountability Board Case Review be conducted based on the violation of procedural standards portion of the granted appeal, the Appeal Board will then evaluate the new evidence portion of the granted appeal, proceeding as outlined in the Handbook.

OSARP will notify the student of the outcome of the Appeal Review via email by 5:00pm on the business day following the date on which the Appeal Review began.

[Back to top]

Interim Suspension

Interim Suspension Process

If the Director of OSARP or a designee determines that a student presents a risk to the orderly operation of the university or to the safety and welfare of members of the university community, the Director of OSARP or designee may initiate the Interim Suspension Process and place the Responding Party under an Interim Suspension Status. For incidents that result in an Interim Suspension Status, an Administrative Case Review will not occur. Instead, Interim Suspensions will proceed as follows: 

  1. The Responding Party will be notified of the alleged policy violation(s) against them and that they are being placed under an Interim Suspension Status by a professional staff member from OSARP through a method that may include, but is not limited to, in person notification, notification via the Responding Party’s JMU email address, or notification via telephone. While under an Interim Suspension Status the Responding Party is barred from the university campus; the Responding Party may not attend classes, enter or live in residence halls, or enter property owned or leased by James Madison University without permission from the Director of OSARP or designee. If the Responding Party comes to the campus without permission, they will be subject to arrest for trespassing and additional alleged policy violation(s) in OSARP. At their discretion, the Director of OSARP or designee may choose to provide specific provisions that allow the student to come onto campus as a part of the Interim Suspension Status (i.e. to attend classes only; to attend a meeting related to the accountability process); if this special provision is made, it will be communicated to the student and to JMU Public Safety.  

  2. Within two business days of the Responding Party receiving notice that they are being placed under an Interim Suspension Status with or without specific provisions, the Responding Party may request an Interim Suspension Appeal Review.  An Interim Suspension Appeal Review does not determine whether or not a student is responsible for violating university policy nor any sanctions for the case. An Interim Suspension Appeal Review only determines if the current Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, will be upheld, overturned, or altered (including the removal of previously granted specific provisions) until the decision in the case is finalized. If the current Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, is upheld at the Interim Suspension Appeal Review, the Interim Suspension Status with or without specific provisions will remain in place until the conclusion of the Accountability Process. 

    • Interim Suspension Appeal Reviews will be conducted by a University Case Administrator. 

    • Responding Parties may be accompanied at their Interim Suspension Appeal Review by a Support Person. Since suspension or expulsion are potential outcomes of the Interim Suspension Process, a Responding Party at an Interim Suspension Appeal Review may bring a Support Person of their choice. A Support Person attending an Interim Suspension Appeal Review may not communicate for or speak on behalf of the Responding Party but may give advice to the Responding Party on how to present their case; a Support Person cannot also serve as a witness in the Accountability Process.  

    • The Interim Suspension Appeal Review will be audio and/or video recorded; students are not permitted to make recordings of Interim Suspension Appeal Reviews. OSARP reserves the right to include information shared or evidence provided during the Interim Suspension Appeal Review related to the alleged incident or behavior in the case file to be used in the adjudication of the case. 

  3. An Accountability Board Case Review will be held to determine if the Responding Party is responsible for the alleged policy violation(s) and, if applicable, sanctions. See  Accountability Board Case Review for information on this process; the Responding Party has the right to submit a written appeal of the decision made at the Accountability Board Case Review as outlined in the Accountability Process.

    • In circumstances where an Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, is enacted and the Responding Party does not request an Interim Suspension Appeal Review, the Accountability Board Case Review will take place within ten business days from the date the Responding Party was originally notified of the Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions. 

    • In circumstances where an Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, is enacted and the Responding Party requests an Interim Suspension Appeal Review, the Accountability Board Case Review will take place within ten business days from the date of the Interim Suspension Appeal Review.

Circumstances that surround Interim Suspension Status often involve concurrent criminal charges, and sometimes involve concurrent civil litigation. OSARP may implement an Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, prior to the conclusion of the criminal or civil process; decisions made as a part of the Interim Suspension or Accountability Process will not be revisited at the conclusion of the criminal or civil process. 

In cases where a student has extenuating circumstances, including but not limited to incarceration, that prevent attendance at an Interim Suspension Appeal Review, Accountability Board Case Review or Appeal Review the decision to continue with or delay the Accountability Process is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

For cases where the Interim Suspension Status was implemented in response to behavior prohibited by the “Stop the Spread” agreement, the Accountability Board Case Review will be heard by a University Case Administrator along with any other alleged policy violations determined from the documentation. Additionally, if an Interim Suspension occurs during the last three weeks of the semester or during summer sessions for alleged policy violation(s), the Accountability Board Case Review will be heard by a University Case Administrator. In these circumstances, if the student chooses to appeal the University Case Administrator’s decision, the Appeal Review will be heard by an Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, or designee. 

[Back to top]

Back to Top