Student Handbook: Organizational Accountability Process

The information contained in this section of the Handbook is only applicable for those participating in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).

At times, the word “organizational” may not be placed in front of various steps of the process but if it is in this section of the Handbook, it only pertains to recognized student organizations or student groups and their accountability procedures. Additionally, the word “organization” or “organizational” may be used to describe a recognized student organization or student group, as they are defined in the Handbook.

For cases alleging a violation of university policy for an individual student, see the “Individual Accountability Process” section within the Handbook.
For cases involving the interim suspension of an individual student, see the “Individual Interim Suspension Process” section within the Handbook.
For cases alleging a violation of the Sexual Misconduct policy, see the “Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process” section within the Handbook.
For cases alleging a violation of the Title IX Sexual Harassment policy, see the "Title IX Sexual Harassment Adjudication Process" section within the Handbook.

Jump to section

Definitions
Participants' Roles, Rights, and Restrictions
Rules of Decorum
Collaboration in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP)
Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct
Steps in the Organizational Accountability Process
Information on Disability Accommodations in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP)

Expand All

Definitions

Acronyms

OAAR

An acronym for an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review.

OAIP

An acronym for the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process.

OAP

An acronym for the Organizational Accountability Process.

OAPR

An acronym for an Organizational Accountability Process Review.

OARR

An acronym for an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review.

UCA-OARR

An acronym for a University Case Administrator – Organizational Accountability Resolution Review.

Adviser

Any individual designated by a recognized student organization or student group as their Adviser. This is typically a faculty or staff member at JMU, but at OSARP’s discretion, may be an individual that is affiliated with the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body (including but not limited to alumni, campus, chapter, or local Advisers).

The university may designate an Adviser and/or designee should a recognized student organization or student group not have an Adviser (e.g., designating a JMU Athletics sport administrator for a varsity sport team).

Chairperson

Among other duties, the chairperson is the person designated during an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review that has the responsibility of carrying out the stated procedures of the process and upholding the Rules of Decorum. This person also has the authority to determine relevancy of questions, prohibit information from being shared or instruct decision-makers to disregard information shared that violates the rights of a party, is not allowed by the process, or bears no relevancy to the hearing of the case.

Decision-Maker(s)

Decision-maker(s) include OSARP staff and University Case Administrators (UCAs), when applicable in the Organizational Accountability Process.

Investigation Participant

An individual who provides information during the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process, including but not limited to a Responding Organization, Responding Organization Witness, Reporting Party, Reporting Party Witness, Third-Party Reporter, or University Witness. See those defined roles for more information.

An Investigation Participant cannot be compelled, mandated, or required to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may be required to attend specific meetings. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Investigation Participant Rights to those serving in this role.

Investigation Report

Created by an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) at the conclusion of the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process.

The Investigation Report consists of all relevant investigation materials received during the investigation of alleged policy violation(s), excluding information redacted in accordance with the OSARP process, including but not limited to the initial report of alleged misconduct, a summary of the investigation process and timeline, investigation interview summaries, emails, photos, and videos.

The Investigation Report does not provide a decision regarding the alleged policy violation(s) in this case, nor does it provide assigned or suggested outcome(s).

Organizational Accountability Investigator

The neutral, fact-finding individual(s) or entity(ies) that investigates alleged policy violation(s) for a recognized student organization or student group in the Organizational Accountability Process. Typically, the Organizational Accountability Investigator is an OSARP staff member, but can be other individuals or entities, as designated by OSARP, including but not limited to:

Full-time or part-time employees of the university
Individuals who are affiliated with and/or represent an Organizational Governing Body
External entities, agencies, or companies contracted by the university

Any individual designated by OSARP as an Organizational Accountability Investigator must follow the guidelines provided by OSARP and the procedures outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.

Individuals who serve as an Organizational Accountability Investigator typically complete ongoing training for their role as an investigator.

The availability of an Organizational Accountability Investigator is considered when OSARP schedules an Organizational Accountability Process Review, Organizational Accountability Resolution Review, and Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, when applicable in the Organizational Accountability Process.

Organizational Governing Body

Any known or designated association or governing body affiliated with a recognized student organization or student group. Examples include but are not limited to international or national headquarters of Greek-letter organizations, national governing bodies of sport club organizations, leagues or associations for varsity sports teams, or national honor societies.

Organizational Representative

One elected or appointed leader, or an individual designated by OSARP (e.g., president, team captain, or student group representative) that will receive direct communication from OSARP throughout the Organizational Accountability Process and respond on behalf of the recognized student organization or student group.

At the approval of OSARP, the organization can have another member represent the organization during the Organizational Accountability Process.

Should the eligibility of the Organizational Representative change during the Organizational Accountability Process (e.g., the Organizational Representative is not actively enrolled in classes at JMU or is no longer a member of, or affiliated with, the recognized student organization or student group), or if the organization dissolves, surrenders, or loses recognition prior to or during the Organizational Accountability Process, OSARP may designate an Organizational Representative.

Participant

A term for any individual participating in the Organizational Accountability Process.

Preponderance of the Evidence

Preponderance of the evidence means that there is greater than a fifty percent likelihood that the Responding Organization violated the policy.

Recognized Student Organization

For the purposes of the Student Handbook and the investigation and/or review of alleged violations of university policy, a “recognized student organization” is a student group that completed the annual or new student organization registration process through the Office of Student Life and received official notice of recognition.

Examples of recognized student organizations include but are not limited to sport clubs, sororities, fraternities, clubs, organizations, and student government (typically associated with University Recreation (UREC), Center for Multicultural Student Services (CMSS), Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL), and Student Leadership and Involvement).
Information on the annual or new student organization registration process can be found on the Office of Student Life’s webpage: https://www.jmu.edu/osl/sli/organization-resources/start-an-organization.shtml

Relevant Evidence

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the outcome of the case. Relevant evidence includes evidence concerning the credibility of a party, witness, reporter, or other participant.

Reporting Party

A Reporting Party is an individual who experienced alleged behavior committed by a recognized student organization or student group that can be addressed by the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP). A Reporting Party need not necessarily present an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Organization, but it is often their interaction with, or knowledge of a Responding Organization that led to an alleged policy violation(s) being placed by OSARP.

A Reporting Party may submit alleged behavior to OSARP anonymously, which may be used to place an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Organization. A Reporting Party who chooses to participate in the OAP, including but not limited to the investigation of an alleged policy violation(s), may not participate anonymously. Though initial anonymous reports of alleged behavior are permitted for the placement of alleged policy violation(s), doing so may limit OSARP’s ability to investigate and respond. More information on anonymity in the OAP can be found in the “Receipt of Report(s) and Determining Alleged Policy Violation(s)” section of the Organizational Accountability Process.

The availability of a Reporting Party is considered when OSARP schedules the Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook.

A Reporting Party cannot be compelled, mandated, or required to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may required to attend specific meetings. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Reporting Party Rights to those who meet this definition.

Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence)

NOTE: This section does not apply to crimes of violence that are covered in the Sexual Misconduct or Title IX Sexual Harassment policies.

A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) is an individual who experienced alleged behavior committed by a recognized student organization or student group that can be addressed by the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) as an alleged policy violation, including but not limited to Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force; Hazing; or Damage or Attempted Damage of Property policies where the damage or attempted damage of property was deemed to be willful or malicious. A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) need not necessarily present an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Organization, but it is often their interaction with, or knowledge of a Responding Organization that led to an alleged policy violation(s) being placed by OSARP.

A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) may submit alleged behavior to OSARP anonymously, which may be used to place an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Organization. A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) who chooses to participate in the OAP, including but not limited to the investigation of an alleged policy violation(s), may not participate anonymously. Though initial anonymous reports of alleged behavior are permitted for the placement of alleged policy violation(s), doing so may limit OSARP’s ability to investigate and respond. More information on anonymity in the OAP can be found in the “Receipt of Report(s) and Determining Alleged Policy Violation(s)” section of the Organizational Accountability Process.

The availability of a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) is considered when OSARP schedules the Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook.

A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) cannot be compelled, mandated, or required to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may be required to attend specific meetings. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) Rights to those who meet this definition.

Responding Organization

A Responding Organization is a recognized student organization or student group that receives notification of an alleged policy violation(s) and is afforded rights and an Organizational Accountability Process by OSARP to respond to the alleged policy violation(s). A Responding Organization is represented by the Organizational Representative, as defined in this portion of the Handbook.

The availability of the Organizational Representative is considered when OSARP schedules an Organizational Accountability Process Review, Organizational Accountability Resolution Review, and Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, when applicable.

OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Responding Organization Rights to those recognized student organizations or student groups who meet this definition.

Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness is an individual who provides a report, statement, evidence, or other information, at the request of the Responding Organization/Reporting Party, to be used in the review of an alleged policy violation(s) in the Organizational Accountability Process.

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness who chooses to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, including but not limited to the investigation of an alleged policy violation(s), may not participate anonymously. More information on anonymity in the OAP can be found in the “Receipt of Report(s) and Determining Alleged Policy Violation(s)” section of the Organizational Accountability Process.

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Responding Organization/Reporting Party in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness may not provide their perspective on what they feel the appropriate decision or outcomes in the case should be at any time during the process. OSARP typically will not initiate the Individual Accountability Process and pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if there is evidence shared regarding the Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness’s personal consumption of drugs or alcohol while participating solely as a witness. However, if a case has already been conducted to address the witness's personal consumption of drugs or alcohol, OSARP will not revisit the outcome of that case. Additionally, OSARP will pursue an alleged policy violation(s) through the Individual Accountability Process if the Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness claims responsibility for the Responding Organization’s alleged policy violation(s) during their statements or interactions with OSARP.

The availability of a Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules the Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. It is the responsibility of the Responding Organization/Reporting Party to coordinate their witnesses’ attendance when the process allows their attendance.

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness cannot be compelled, mandated, or required to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may be required to attend specific meetings. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness Rights to those serving in this role.

Student Group

For the purposes of the Student Handbook and the investigation and/or review of alleged violations of university Hazing policy, in accordance with Virginia’s “Adam’s Law”, a “student group” is a group of students that has not received official notice of recognition through the Office of Student Life and JMU is aware of the student group's existence prior to, or after, an alleged hazing incident is reported.

Examples of student groups include but are not limited to varsity sports teams, performance groups, ensembles, bands, honor societies, unrecognized, formerly recognized, or underground organizations, or secret societies.

Support Person

Generally, one person who provides support to individuals participating in the Organizational Accountability Process, such as the organization’s Adviser. A Support Person may be an attorney if that individual adheres to the restrictions and guidelines in the Organizational Accountability Process for a Support Person. A Support Person may not also serve as an Organizational Representative or witness, have the potential to serve as an Organizational Representative or witness, or have previously served as an Organizational Representative or witness, as determined by OSARP, in the Organizational Accountability Process or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances.

The availability of a Support Person for the Organizational Representative, Reporting Party(ies), and/or Third-Party Reporter(s) is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules the Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. The availability of a Support Person for any other participant is not considered when OSARP schedules meetings during the Organizational Accountability Process nor does OSARP compel any Support Person to attend. It is the responsibility of the individual to coordinate their Support Person’s attendance when the process allows their attendance. 

A Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.

Third-Party Reporter

A Third-Party Reporter is an individual who provides a report, statement, evidence, or other information to be used in the initiation or review of an alleged policy violation(s) for a recognized student organization or student group in the Organizational Accountability Process. Typically, a Third-Party Reporter did not directly experience the alleged misconduct committed by a recognized student organization or student group, but they are reporting alleged misconduct that they witnessed or that was reported to them.

Third-Party Reporters are not called as a witness by a Responding Organization or Reporting Party, if applicable, but are determined by OSARP as having relevant information necessary for the investigation and/or review of the case.

A Third-Party Reporter can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Responding Organization/Reporting Party in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Third-Party Reporter may not provide their perspective on what they feel the appropriate decision or outcomes in the case should be at any time during the process. OSARP typically will not initiate the Individual Accountability Process and pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if there is evidence shared regarding the Third-Party Reporter’s personal consumption of drugs or alcohol while participating solely as a reporter. However, if a case has already been conducted to address the reporter’s personal consumption of drugs or alcohol, OSARP will not revisit the outcome of that case. Additionally, OSARP will pursue an alleged policy violation(s) through the Individual Accountability Process if the Third-Party Reporter claims responsibility for the Responding Organization’s alleged policy violation(s) during their statements or interactions with OSARP.

A Third-Party Reporter may submit alleged behavior to OSARP anonymously, which may be used to place an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Organization. A Third-Party Reporter who chooses to participate in the OAP, including but not limited to the investigation of an alleged policy violation(s), may not participate anonymously. Though initial anonymous reports of alleged behavior are permitted for the placement of alleged policy violation(s), doing so may limit OSARP’s ability to investigate and respond. More information on anonymity in the OAP can be found in the “Receipt of Report(s) and Determining Alleged Policy Violation(s)” section of the Organizational Accountability Process.

The availability of a Third-Party Reporter is considered when OSARP schedules an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook.

University Case Administrator

A volunteer trained by OSARP to review cases. Full-time employees, part-time employees, faculty members, Administrative and Professional faculty, and classified staff are eligible to serve as University Case Administrators. Graduate students who have prior experience with OSARP but are not currently working with OSARP are also eligible for this role. A University Case Administrator shall not hold an administrative position at a Vice President level or higher and they may not have supervisory oversight of OSARP. OSARP may appoint additional University Case Administrators as needed. University Case Administrators are indefinitely eligible if they remain affiliated with the university, do not have a pending disciplinary case at the university, and have the support of their direct supervisor. A University Case Administrator may withdraw from this volunteer opportunity at any time.

OSARP is responsible for the training of University Case Administrators. University Case Administrators are typically required to complete initial and ongoing training as determined by OSARP.

A University Case Administrator in the Organizational Accountability Process will receive access to the case file and other case-related information for the sole purpose of reviewing the case.

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

Organizational Accountability Appeal Reviews
Organizational Accountability Resolution Reviews
Other circumstances as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee

University Witness

A University Witness is an individual who provides a report, statement, evidence, or other information to be used in the initiation or review of an alleged policy violation(s) for a recognized student organization or student group in the Organizational Accountability Process. University Witnesses are not called as a witness by a Responding Organization or Reporting Party, if applicable, but are determined by OSARP as having relevant information necessary for the investigation and/or review of the case. University Witnesses may include, but are not limited to, an Organizational Accountability Investigator, Office of Residence Life staff, Office of Student Life staff, Center for Multicultural Student Services staff, University Recreation staff, JMU Athletics staff, university faculty or staff, or police officers reporting alleged policy violation(s). The availability of a University Witness is considered when OSARP schedules an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook.

In cases where a University 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).

Participants' Roles, Rights, and Restrictions

Responding Organization - Responsibilities and Rights - Organizational Accountability Process (OAP)

Procedural Responsibilities of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices (OSARP)

OSARP will send the Responding Organization notification of all alleged policy violation(s), the date(s) and location(s) of the allegation(s), and how OSARP received that information, via the official JMU email address of the Organizational Representative.
OSARP will send the Responding Organization notification of the date, time, and location of any meeting(s) with OSARP at least three days prior, via the official JMU email address of the Organizational Representative. The first exception is for an investigation interview(s), as outlined in the Rights afforded an Investigation Participant, which is notification at least one day prior. The second exception is for appeals, where notification of the date, time, and location of the OAAR is only sent to the Organizational Representative with three days’ notice if the appeal is based on new evidence.
OSARP will provide a fair and impartial process with unbiased Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision-maker(s) that presume the Responding Organization is not responsible for violating policy. OSARP will use a preponderance of the evidence and the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” criteria to determine if a Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy.
OSARP will address alleged behavior by any JMU student, recognized student organization, or student group that may violate the Interference or Retaliation with a University Processpolicy in the Student Handbook.
OSARP will grant immunity from individual disciplinary action based on hazing or personal consumption of drugs or alcohol where such disclosure is made by a bystander not involved in such acts in conjunction with a good faith report of an act of hazing in advance of or during an incident of hazing that causes injury or is likely to cause injury to a person.
OSARP may be required to report specific information provided during the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) to other OSARP or JMU accountability processes, JMU department(s), or law enforcement, including but not limited to: hazing or other alleged misconduct by a recognized student organization or student group, sexual harm, harassment or discrimination based on a protected class, harm or threat of harm to self or others, or other behavior that is against the mission of the institution. In addition, the specific information reported in the OAP typically will not be anonymous and may be used to initiate or add to another OSARP or JMU accountability process, such as the Individual Accountability Process.
OSARP will notify the Reporting Party(ies) (if any) of the outcomes of the case related to responsible findings for policy violation(s) that are crimes of violence, as required by law.

Responding Organization Rights

Certain Rights only apply if the Organizational Representative chooses to attend applicable meetings.

The right to make case-related decisions on behalf of the Responding Organization, including but not limited to decisions regarding responsibility, assigned outcomes, and appeals, if applicable.
The right for one Support Person to attend any meeting in the OAP with the Organizational Representative. The Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.
The right for the Organizational Representative to attend an Organizational Accountability Process Review (OAPR) and select the Resolution Option, when provided the opportunity to choose by OSARP. An Organizational Representative that fails to attend the OAPR waives certain rights in the process and understands the OAPR will proceed, as outlined in the OAP.
The right for the Organizational Representative to know and respond to all information being used to make a decision in the case; the right to provide information to be used in the OAP and in the review of the case in accordance with the deadlines and restrictions listed in the OAP. An individual that provides information in the OAIP is afforded the additional rights of an “Investigation Participant.”  
The right for the Organizational Representative to attend an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR). An Organizational Representative that fails to attend the OARR waives certain rights in the process and understands the OARR will proceed, as outlined in the OAP. The right to submit a written appeal of the decision in the OAP within four days of the Responding Organization receiving the decision via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. This right is only applicable for cases where the decision included an outcome of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 
- Appeals may only be submitted on the following grounds and must be submitted by the Organizational Representative. When referenced below, “affected the outcome of the matter” refers to the entirety of the decision rendered including the determination regarding responsibility or outcomes assigned, if applicable:
  - Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter. The appeal submission must outline the procedural irregularity and how that affected the decision in the case.
  - Excessively harsh outcome(s) for a case with a responsible finding(s) on policy. The appeal submission must outline the reason(s) the outcome(s) assigned are excessively harsh.
  - New evidence that was not available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR) or University Case Administrator – Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (UCA-OARR) and only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy. The appeal submission must outline the new evidence, why the new evidence was not available or accessible at the time of the OARR or UCA-OARR and how it is relevant to the decision of whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy.
If an appeal is submitted by the deadline provided by OSARP, the right for the Organizational Representative to attend the Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR) if allowed by the OAP. An Organizational Representative that fails to attend the OAAR, when permitted, waives certain rights in the process and understands their case will be decided by the UCAs in their absence based on the information contained in the Case File and from anyone who participates during the OAAR.
- The right for the Organizational Representative to receive an electronic copy of all information in the Case File for the OAAR.
- At an OAAR on the ground of new evidence, the right for the Organizational Representative to present the new evidence.
- At an OAAR on the ground of new evidence, the right for the Organizational Representative to not answer questions or provide information. 
- At an OAAR on the ground of new evidence, the right for the Organizational Representative to question all witnesses, parties, and reporters who participate, through the chairperson (if applicable). 
- At an OAAR on the ground of new evidence, the right for the Organizational Representative to have witnesses present regarding the new evidence in accordance with the restrictions listed in the OAP, provided witnesses can attend the scheduled OAAR; the right for the Organizational Representative to provide witness statements regarding the new evidence to be included in the OAAR in accordance with the deadlines and restrictions provided. 
- The right to be notified of the UCAs decision, rationale, and outcomes, if applicable, within two business days from the date of the OAAR, via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. 
The right to receive the final decision of an OAP case in writing via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative within 10 business days of a final decision being rendered.

Investigation Participant - Responsibilities and Rights - Organizational Accountability Process (OAP)

Procedural Responsibilities of the Office of Student Accountability & Restorative Practices (OSARP): 

OSARP will coordinate a fair and impartial process with unbiased Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) that presumes the Responding Organization not responsible for violating policy.
The Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) will notify the Investigation Participant of the date, time, and location of an investigation interview(s) at least one day prior to an investigation interview(s) via their official JMU email address or the email address provided by the Investigation Participant.
OSARP will address alleged behavior by any JMU student, recognized student organization, or student group that may violate the Interference or Retaliation with a University Process policy in the Student Handbook.
OSARP may be required to report specific information provided during the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) to other OSARP or JMU accountability processes, JMU department(s), or law enforcement, including but not limited to: hazing or other alleged misconduct by a recognized student organization or student group, sexual harm, harassment or discrimination based on a protected class, harm or threat of harm to self or others, or other behavior that is against the mission of the institution. In addition, the specific information reported in the OAP typically will not be anonymous and may be used to initiate or add to another OSARP or JMU accountability process, such as the Individual Accountability Process.
OSARP will grant immunity from individual disciplinary action based on hazing or personal consumption of drugs or alcohol where such disclosure is made by a bystander not involved in such acts in conjunction with a good faith report of an act of hazing in advance of or during an incident of hazing that causes injury or is likely to cause injury to a person.

 An Investigation Participant has the following rights in the OAP:

The right for one Support Person to attend the investigation interview(s). The Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.
The right to provide information to be included in the OAP in accordance with any deadlines or restrictions in the OAP. The right not to answer questions or provide information to be included in the OAP.

An Investigation Participant will acknowledge one of the following regarding their decision to participate in the OAP prior to participation:

They agree to participate in the OAP, which may include multiple investigation interviews or opportunities to provide information to be used in the OAP. They are expected to provide accurate and truthful information to the best of their knowledge, and they understand that any attempt to provide false or misleading information or attempts to disrupt, unfairly influence, or obstruct the OAP may be addressed through an OSARP process. By providing information during the OAP, they understand that:
- The information they share during the OAP will not be anonymous and may be included in the Investigation Report. The information they share during the OAP is considered a student educational record with the university. In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974, university policy generally prohibits the release of student educational records without the express written consent of the student; the information and records maintained by OSARP are considered educational records and fall within the protections, restrictions, and exemptions outlined in FERPA.
- By agreeing to participate in the OAP, they authorize the release of information contained in their student educational records for the case, maintained by OSARP, to the Responding Organization (via the Organizational Representative), university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, Adviser(s), individual(s) from the Organizational Governing Body, Organizational Accountability Investigator(s), and/or decision-maker(s)) for the purpose of the investigation of alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization. Additionally, they authorize the release of information contained in their student educational records should any OSARP or other university investigation or conduct process be initiated as a result of the information gathered in this case. They can revoke this authorization at any time by contacting OSARP directly.
They decline to participate in the OAP.

Reporting Party Rights

The Reporting Party in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) that does not meeting the definition of “Crimes of Violence” as outlined in the Handbook, has the following rights:

The right to receive access to a Reporting Party case file to prepare for an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. Reporting Party case files will consist of evidence provided by the Reporting Party and public information related to the case.
The right to be notified of the date, time and location of an investigation interview via email at least one day prior to the meeting.
The right to be notified of the date, time and location of an OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, via email at least three days prior to the meeting.
The right to attend the OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, and participate according to the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the OAP. A Reporting Party is only able to provide their response to the new evidence according to any restrictions outlined in the Handbook.
The right for one Support Person to attend an investigation interview or OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, according to the restrictions outlined in the OAP. The Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.

Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) Rights

The  Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) has the following rights. Typically, “crimes of violence” would be addressed by OSARP as an alleged policy violation, including but not limited to Damage or Attempted Damage of Property; Endangerment; Hazing; Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force; Sexual Misconduct; or Title IX Sexual Harassment. Known Reporting Parties (Crimes of Violence) will be notified of outcomes relating to Damage or Attempted Damage of Property only if the behavior was deemed to be willful and malicious:

The right to receive access to a Reporting Party case file to prepare for an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. Reporting Party case files will consist of evidence provided by the Reporting Party and public information related to the case.
The right to be notified of the date, time and location of an investigation interview via email at least one day prior to the meeting.
The right to be notified of the date, time and location of an OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, via email at least three days prior to the meeting.
The right to attend the OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, and participate according to the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the OAP. A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) is only able to provide their response to the new evidence according to any restrictions outlined in the Student Handbook.
The right for one Support Person to attend an investigation interview or OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, according to the restrictions outlined in the OAP. The Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.
The right to be informed of the finding(s) in the case related to the alleged policy violation(s) that meet the definition of a crime of violence and any outcome(s), if applicable.

Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness Rights

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness has the following rights:

The right to be notified of the date, time, and location of an investigation interview or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, at least one day prior to a meeting via email if their name and contact information has been provided to OSARP by the Responding Organization/Reporting Party.
The right for one Support Person to attend an investigation interview or OAAR, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP). The Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.

The Role of a Support Person

In the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP):

Participants may have one Support Person of their choice, which can be an attorney, provided they follow the guidelines outlined in the OAP. The university does not provide students participating in the OAP with a Support Person. It is the participant’s responsibility to determine a Support Person and coordinate their participation.
The availability of a Support Person for the Organizational Representative and any Reporting Party(ies) is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules the Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. The availability of a Support Person for any other participant is not considered when meetings are scheduled during the Organizational Accountability Process, nor can anyone compel a Support Person to attend.
A Support Person may not also serve as an Organizational Representative or witness, have the potential to serve as an Organizational Representative or witness, or have previously served as an Organizational Representative or witness, as determined by OSARP, in the OAP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. A person who serves as a Support Person in the OAP or other OSARP processes cannot serve in any other capacity at any point in cases that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances.
During the OAP, one Support Person may help the participant prepare, which may include accompanying the participant to any meetings or reviewing the case file in OSARP with the Organizational Representative or Reporting Party A Support Person may not communicate for, speak on behalf of, or make case-related decisions for a participant or the Responding Organization.
During a meeting within the OAP, the one Support Person may:
- Not communicate for or speak on behalf of the participant. The participant, in portions of the process that allow for them, must present their statements or information themselves.
- Consult with the participant on how to present their statements or information by whispering, providing notes, sending messages via electronic communication, or taking notes as long as it is not disruptive to the meeting or process.
- Provide support by taking breaks with, or requesting breaks on behalf of, the participant they are accompanying.
A Support Person may be removed from any meeting within the OAP if they are disruptive to the process or do not adhere to the requirements set forth in the OAP or in the Rules of Decorum as stated in the Handbook.

Rules of Decorum

Responding Organizations

The Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) to gather information necessary for the investigation and/or case. During the investigation and/or review process, Responding Organizations must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the OAP, as applicable and outlined within the Student Handbook.

General Expectations

Responding Organizations, via the Organizational Representative, in the OAP must:

Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.
Speak appropriately with, or wait to begin speaking until addressed by, an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).
Avoid speaking over other participants.
Use respectful language that is not demeaning, derogatory, or disrespectful.
Avoid raising their voices.
Remain seated in their predetermined locations.
Refrain from making distracting or offensive gestures (e.g., rolling eyes, throwing arms in the air, etc.) or audible reactions (e.g., scoffing, speaking under their breath, etc.).
For questions about the Rules of Decorum or OAP procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).

Responding Organizations, via the Organizational Representative, when asking questions of participants during an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, when applicable:

Must allow the chairperson time to evaluate each question and verbally or non-verbally permit the participant to respond. This is referenced as “through the chairperson” in the OAP.
Must maintain a professional and respectful attitude towards the other participants in the review process.

A participant has the right not to answer questions or provide information to be used in the review of the case.

Violation of Expectations & Procedures

Determination regarding a participant’s violation of one of these expectations lies with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s). If a participant violates an expectation of the Rules of Decorum or the OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will issue a verbal warning, identifying the expectation violated and how it was violated.

If a participant continues to violate these expectations or OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will immediately call for a break. During the break, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will address the problematic behavior directly. If the participant refuses to comply with the warning or causes additional problems, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) may decide to take one or more of the following actions:

Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), that allows the investigation and/or case to continue in a fair manner for all participants.
Remove the participant from the meeting. If a participant is removed, the investigation and/or case will proceed in their absence and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will continue the investigation and/or make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.
End the meeting and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Organization or Reporting Party (if applicable).

Participants may receive an alleged policy violation(s) for their behavior if they meet the definition of a student as listed in the Student Handbook.

Reporting Parties

The Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) to gather information necessary for the investigation and/or case. During the investigation and/or review process, Reporting Parties must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the OAP, as applicable and outlined within the Student Handbook.

General Expectations

Reporting Parties in the OAP must:

Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.
Speak appropriately with, or wait to begin speaking until addressed by, an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).
Avoid speaking over other participants.
Use respectful language that is not demeaning, derogatory, or disrespectful.
Avoid raising their voices.
Remain seated in their predetermined locations.
Refrain from making distracting or offensive gestures (e.g., rolling eyes, throwing arms in the air, etc.) or audible reactions (e.g., scoffing, speaking under their breath, etc.).
For questions about the Rules of Decorum or OAP procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).

Violation of Expectations & Procedures

Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), that allows the investigation and/or case to continue in a fair manner for all participants.
Remove the participant from the meeting. If a participant is removed, the investigation and/or case will proceed in their absence and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will continue the investigation and/or make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.
End the meeting and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Organization or Reporting Party (if applicable).

Participants may receive an alleged policy violation(s) for their behavior if they meet the definition of a student as listed in the Student Handbook.

Support Persons

The Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) to gather information necessary for the investigation and/or case. During the investigation and/or review process, Support Persons must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).

General Expectations

Support Persons in the OAP, must:

Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.
Speak appropriately with, or wait to begin speaking until addressed by, an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).
Avoid speaking over other participants.
Use respectful language that is not demeaning, derogatory, or disrespectful.
Avoid raising their voices.
Remain seated in their predetermined locations.
Refrain from making distracting or offensive gestures (e.g., rolling eyes, throwing arms in the air, etc.) or audible reactions (e.g., scoffing, speaking under their breath, etc.).
For questions about the Rules of Decorum or OAP procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).

Additional Expectations for Support Persons

In the OAP a Support Person may:

Not communicate for or speak on behalf of the participant; the participant must present their statements or information themselves.
Consult with the participant on how to present their statements or information by whispering, providing notes, sending messages via electronic communication, or taking notes as long as it does not disrupt the investigation and/or review of the case.
Provide support by taking breaks with or requesting breaks on behalf of the participant they are accompanying.

Violation of Expectations & Procedures

Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), that allows the investigation and/or case to continue in a fair manner for all participants.
Remove the participant from the meeting. If a participant is removed, the investigation and/or case will proceed in their absence and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will continue the investigation or make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.
End the meeting, and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Organization or Reporting Party (if applicable).

Participants may receive an alleged policy violation(s) for their behavior if they meet the definition of a student as listed in the Student Handbook.

Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witnesses and Third-Party Reporters

The Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) to gather information necessary for the investigation and/or case. During the investigation and/or review process, Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witnesses and Third-Party Reporters must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) and outlined within the Student Handbook.

General Expectations

Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witnesses and Third-Party Reporters in the OAP must:

Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.
Speak appropriately with, or wait to begin speaking until addressed by, an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).
Avoid speaking over other participants.
Use respectful language that is not demeaning, derogatory, or disrespectful.
Avoid raising their voices.
Remain seated in their predetermined locations.
Refrain from making distracting or offensive gestures (e.g., rolling eyes, throwing arms in the air, etc.) or audible reactions (e.g., scoffing, speaking under their breath, etc.).
For questions about the Rules of Decorum or OAP procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness and Third-Party Reporter can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident, or their knowledge of the party who requested their participation, if applicable, in the process (i.e., Responding Organization/Reporting Party) in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness and Third-Party Reporter may not provide their perspective on what they feel the appropriate decision or outcomes in the case should be at any time during the process.

OSARP will grant immunity from individual disciplinary action based on hazing or personal consumption of drugs or alcohol where such disclosure is made by a bystander not involved in such acts in conjunction with a good faith report of an act of hazing in advance of or during an incident of hazing that causes injury or is likely to cause injury to a person. However, if a case has already been conducted to address the witness's and/or reporter’s personal consumption of drugs or alcohol, OSARP will not revisit the outcome of that case. Additionally, OSARP will pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if a participant claims responsibility for the Responding Organization’s alleged policy violation(s) during the course of their statements or interactions with OSARP.

For an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR) based on new evidence, a Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness may be called by a Responding Organization/Reporting Party to provide a statement in response to the new evidence. A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness may provide a written or in person statement at an OAAR in accordance with the requirements as listed in the Student Handbook.

The availability of a Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules an OAAR, when applicable in the process as stated in the Handbook. It is the responsibility of the Responding Organization/Reporting Party to coordinate their witnesses’ attendance when the process allows their attendance.

The availability of a Third-Party Reporter is considered when OSARP schedules an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook.

Violation of Expectations & Procedures

Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), that allows the investigation and/or case to continue in a fair manner for all participants.
Remove the participant from the meeting. If a participant is removed, the investigation and/or case will proceed in their absence and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will continue the investigation or make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.
End the meeting, and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Organization or Reporting Party (if applicable).

Participants may receive an alleged policy violation(s) for their behavior if they meet the definition of a student as listed in the Student Handbook.

Collaboration in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP)

OSARP recognizes the importance of collaborating with partners to support a recognized student organization or student group going through the OAP. The following outlines the established relationships OSARP has, or seeks to create, with university and external partners related to the OAP:

Table of Organizational Relationships
Organization Type	University Partner(s)	External Partner(s)
Fraternities & Sororities, typically affiliated with the Interfraternity Council (IFC) or Panhellenic Council	Fraternity & Sorority Life (FSL) staff and Adviser(s)	International and National Headquarters Governing Bodies Advisers
Clubs & Organizations	Student Leadership & Involvement (SLI) staff and Adviser(s)
Sport Clubs	University Recreation (UREC) staff and Adviser(s)
Fraternities & Sororities, typically affiliated with the Intercultural Greek Council (ICGC)	Center for Multicultural Student Services (CMSS) staff and Adviser(s)
Varsity sports teams, typically affiliated with JMU Athletics	JMU Athletics staff
Student groups, as they are defined in this Handbook	JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group and Adviser(s)

Communication with university and external partners throughout the OAP happens on a case-by-case basis considering the type of organization and the appropriate protection of individual student records. OSARP seeks partnership in the following ways, including but not limited to:

Providing initial and ongoing training regarding the OAP
Informing partner(s) when a report(s) is received
Consulting on restriction(s) related to Organizational Interim Suspension
Keeping partner(s) informed throughout the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process
Inviting partner(s) to certain meetings in the OAP
Seeking feedback from partner(s) on appropriate outcome(s)
Providing opportunities for university partner(s) to serve as University Case Administrators in the OAP
Providing partner(s) opportunities to work with Responding Organizations on the completion of assigned outcome(s)

Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct

Throughout the Organizational Accountability Process, OSARP will consider various factors when evaluating organizational connections to alleged misconduct. These considerations and/or decisions may occur at different stages of the process, including but not limited to the determination of whether to issue Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) in the Organizational Accountability Process or other OSARP process, whether an Organizational Interim Suspension should be initiated, what Resolution Option(s) may exist for a Responding Organization, or when determining responsibility for alleged policy violation(s).

Evaluation of organizational connections to alleged misconduct include but are not limited to:

Is the alleged misconduct covered under the “Jurisdiction – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” portion of the Handbook?
Did one or more of its officers, leaders, or executive board, acting in the scope of their organizational capacities and/or duties commit the alleged misconduct?
- To what extent was the alleged misconduct the result of individual choice or choice with the knowledge of others in the organization?
Did one or more of its officers, leaders, or executive board aid, abet, authorize, sanction, or organize the event or initiative where the alleged misconduct occurred?
- To what extent was the alleged misconduct the result of individual choice or choice with the knowledge of others in the organization?
Did one or more of its members commit the alleged misconduct and the action that constitutes the alleged misconduct was approved by a majority vote of those members of the Responding Organization present and voting?
Did one or more members of a committee of the Responding Organization commit the alleged misconduct while acting in the scope of the committee’s assignment?
Did a member of the Responding Organization commit the alleged misconduct while acting with apparent or actual authority of the Responding Organization?
Did one or more members of the Responding Organization or its officers, leaders, or executive board permit, encourage, aid, or assist any of its members in committing the alleged misconduct?
Did the alleged misconduct occur at a location in which the Responding Organization or its officers, leaders, executive board, or members had possession of the location, as defined in the “Definitions” section of this Handbook?
Is the alleged misconduct against the mission of the institution, regardless of the location?

Steps in the Organizational Accountability Process

Receipt of Report(s) and Determining an Alleged Policy Violation(s)

Any JMU student, faculty, or staff member believing that an organization has violated a university policy(ies) may provide relevant details of an alleged policy violation(s) to OSARP. If a case is reported by a non-JMU individual, it may be considered if it follows the guidelines listed in the “Jurisdiction – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” section of the Student Handbook.

For more information on reporting an alleged policy violation(s) for an organization, including the information needed for a report, see “Organizational Resources: Reporting to OSARP”. This webpage also contains information about the on-campus resources that can provide ongoing mental and behavioral health support to any student who reports to OSARP an alleged act of hazing or bullying experienced as a result of a report of an alleged act of hazing for such incident.

Generally, resolution of these allegations for an organization will follow the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP), except in the following circumstances:

Cases involving an alleged violation(s) of university policy for an individual student will follow the separate and distinct Individual Accountability Process (IAP).
- The IAP may be initiated for an individual student who was involved in the reporting of, investigation of, or review process for an alleged violation(s) of university policy by a recognized student organization or student group in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP). The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP or from the original report(s) received by OSARP
Cases involving an alleged violation(s) for which an individual student has been interim suspended will follow the separate and distinct Individual Interim Suspension Processas listed in the Student Handbook.
Cases involving an alleged violation(s) of the Sexual Misconduct or Title IX Sexual Harassment policies for an individual student will follow the separate and distinct Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process or Title IX Sexual Harassment Adjudication Process, respectively.
- Respondents and Complainants in cases involving alleged sexual misconduct should refer to the Sexual Misconduct policy, the Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process, and the "Respondent & Complainant - Responsibilities and Rights – Sexual Misconduct".
- Respondents and Complainants in cases involving alleged Title IX sexual harassment should refer to the Title IX Sexual Harassment policy, the Title IX Sexual Harassment Adjudication Process, and the "Respondent & Complainant - Responsibilities and Rights – Title IX Sexual Harassment".

Upon receiving a report(s) of alleged organizational misconduct, OSARP will determine whether there are grounds for Notification of an Alleged Policy Violation(s) and the initiation of the OAP. This preliminary assessment may include but not be limited to:

Consultation with appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group)
Consultation with JMU police or local law enforcement
Consultation with individual(s) from the Organizational Governing Body
Additional information gathering with the Reporting Party(ies) and/or Third-Party Reporter(s)
Review of any prior report(s) of alleged misconduct for the organization
Any organizational records or student disciplinary records maintained by OSARP
Criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” in this portion of the Handbook

OSARP will also consider various factors in its preliminary assessment, including but not limited to what alleged misconduct is related to the organization and/or an individual(s) within the organization, whether to issue alleged policy violation(s) to a Responding Organization or refer an individual student(s) to the IAP, what Resolution Option(s) may exist for the Responding Organization, whether the alleged misconduct requires interim suspension, and whether another resource or process is better suited to address the alleged misconduct. Additionally, OSARP will consider the specificity and detail of the information contained in the report and whether the report was submitted by someone with direct knowledge of the alleged misconduct. The university may be limited in its response or may be unable to pursue a process if insufficient information is provided, as determined by OSARP.

After this preliminary assessment, OSARP will determine the next steps:

If there is sufficient information to proceed, and thus, grounds for Notification of an Alleged Policy Violation(s) in the OAP:
- Whether potential outcomes of the case include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. To evaluate these potential outcomes, OSARP will consider a variety of factors, including but not limited to the impact on the safety of the organization, other students, and/or community; whether the behavior created a risk to the campus community, or the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP.
- Whether the organization will be placed on Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, which will remain in place until a final decision in the OAP unless OSARP subsequently communicates otherwise (see the “Organizational Interim Suspension” section of the Organizational Accountability Process for more information).
- The Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision-maker(s) assigned to the case (if applicable).
- As additional information is gathered throughout the OAP, OSARP reserves the right to re-issue a Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative, should alleged policy violation(s) be added, updated, or removed for the Responding Organization participating in the OAP. In the re-issue of a Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s), OSARP may update the potential outcome(s) of the case, which may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.
If there is insufficient information to proceed, and thus, no grounds for Notification of an Alleged Policy Violation(s) in the OAP:
- The report(s) are retained by OSARP as outlined in the “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” section of the Handbook.
- OSARP may notify the organization of information received and/or request that appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group) meet with the organization regarding the alleged misconduct or report(s). If this occurs, the organization will not receive the identities of any Reporting Party(ies) and/or Third-Party Reporter(s).
- If OSARP receives additional information/report(s) at a later date related to allegations that were not pursued by the OAP, OSARP reserves the right to issue Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) and proceed with the OAP at that time. In the re-issue of a Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s), OSARP may update the potential outcome(s) of the case, which may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.
Whether the report(s)/alleged misconduct should be referred, including but not limited to university officials (e.g., Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, faculty/staff with oversight of a student group, Office of Equal Opportunity, or Title IX Office), other university conduct processes (e.g., individual student OSARP processes, Policy 1324 process, or investigation, adjudication, and/or resolution options through the Title IX Office), law enforcement (see “Reporting Information per Legal Requirements” section of the Handbook), or the appropriate Organizational Governing Body. This referral(s) can occur whether or not the organization is notified of alleged policy violation(s).
- If a Reporting Party(ies) and/or Third-Party Reporter(s) are known to OSARP and requested anonymity, OSARP will attempt to contact the Reporting Party(ies) and/or Third-Party Reporter(s) when a referral of report(s)/alleged misconduct occurs to discuss whether they can remain anonymous for the referral.

These determinations occur upon OSARP receiving a report(s) from a known source such as a police report, community report, incident report, incident narrative, witness statement, or record of court outcome; however, an alleged policy violation(s) may be placed in other circumstances at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. If OSARP receives a report(s) from an unknown source, or a Reporting Party and/or Third-Party Reporter who chooses to be anonymous, that anonymous report can be evaluated for an alleged policy violation(s), as noted above, and be the impetus for notification of an alleged policy violation(s) in the OAP.

Though initial anonymous reports of alleged organizational misconduct are permitted, doing so may limit the ability to investigate and/or respond. Additionally, there is no time limit for reporting alleged organizational misconduct, but the longer an individual(s) waits to submit a report, the more difficult it may be to obtain information and/or make determinations on an alleged policy violation(s). Those who are aware of alleged organizational misconduct are encouraged to report it as quickly as possible.

Anonymity can be applied to the identity of the individual reporting the alleged organizational misconduct, but not to the information provided in a report(s) that is associated with the alleged organizational misconduct. If an individual provides their name and/or contact information in a report(s), OSARP will typically attempt to contact the individual to discuss their report(s) and the OAP. Should an individual fail to communicate their desire for anonymity in the process, either within their report(s) or through communication with OSARP, their identity will not be anonymous when the OAP is initiated. If an individual does communicate their desire for anonymity in the process, and if they choose to remain anonymous throughout the OAP, their identity will not be considered in the decision-making process for the case unless there is a severely elevated risk to individual or campus safety, at which point the procedures described below will be followed. Additionally, JMU faculty or staff members who report alleged organizational misconduct are typically not anonymous in the OAP. In rare circumstances, OSARP may permit an anonymous report from a JMU faculty or staff member if doing so upholds the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee. While an anonymous report(s) can be used to initiate the OAP, the university cannot guarantee any request for anonymity after the OAP begins. The university is required by law to provide organizations with reasonable notice of the alleged policy violation(s) and a summary of the report(s) with enough information for the organization to understand the alleged policy violation(s) in order to present their perspective. Organizations must be able to review and respond to all information presented to the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), requiring any information gathered in the OAP to include the identification of people, places, and events. Additionally, while OSARP endeavors to honor any request for anonymity when a report(s) is submitted, student disciplinary records, educational records, and corresponding case files may be subject to disclosure through court orders or subpoenas.

If the information provides sufficient cause that an alleged policy violation(s) may have occurred, the Organizational Representative 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 email address. The notice will be considered received the day the notice is sent via email. In addition, OSARP may also send a text message as a part of this notification process.

Partnered Resolution and/or the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) are the only opportunities for the Responding Organization or other reporters, witnesses, or participants to submit evidence, information, personal statements, names of witnesses, and witness statements for the OAP. Only individuals who directly provided information during Partnered Resolution or the OAIP are eligible to serve as participants at an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), based on new evidence.

The decision to proceed with the OAP rests with OSARP and is based on factors listed in this section of the Organizational Accountability Process. The university may proceed with an alleged policy violation(s) and the OAP regardless of the enrollment status of the Organizational Representative. If that individual is not actively enrolled in classes in the current semester, OSARP may designate another member of the Responding Organization as the Organizational Representative.

In cases where an organization has extenuating circumstances that prevent participation in the OAP, including but not limited to pending litigation related to the alleged policy violation(s) in the OAP or incarceration of the Organizational Representative or other students relevant to the investigation and/or review of an alleged policy violation(s), the decision to continue with or delay any part of the OAP is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

OSARP may address behavior that occurs at any point while an organization is considered a recognized student organization or student group, as defined in the Handbook. After a final decision in the case has been rendered, the effective date of an immediate suspension or expulsion from JMU, if it was an outcome of a case, will be provided in the final decision.

OSARP will grant immunity from individual disciplinary action based on hazing or personal consumption of drugs or alcohol where such disclosure is made by a bystander not involved in such acts in conjunction with a good faith report of an act of hazing in advance of or during an incident of hazing that causes injury or is likely to cause injury to a person. However, if a case has already been reviewed to address the witness's and/or reporter’s personal consumption of drugs or alcohol, OSARP will not revisit the outcome of that case. Additionally, OSARP will pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if a participant claims responsibility for the Responding Organization’s alleged policy violation(s) during their statements or interactions with OSARP.  More information regarding OSARP’s Enlightened Citizen Amnesty Process for individual students, which pertains directly to alcohol and drug consumption and/or possession for both bystanders and the affected party, can be found in the “Alcohol and Drug Information” section of the Handbook.

The Individual Accountability Process can occur concurrently for a student while an organization, for which that student is a member, proceeds through the OAP, or concurrently with any other university or external investigation or conduct processes.

Other university or external investigation or conduct processes may assign outcomes listed in the Handbook for organizations. In addition, university officials or external entities that provide oversight for an organization may require completion of outcomes. These other university or external processes and entities may assign outcomes in conjunction with or separately from an OSARP process. Regardless of whether an OSARP process was pursued or resulted in assigned outcomes, OSARP staff may work with other university officials or external entities to facilitate and/or provide guidance on outcomes they assign through their processes or oversight (i.e., facilitating or providing guidance on Restorative Practices).

If the university determines, at any point in the OAP, there is a severely elevated risk to individual or campus safety, OSARP will typically proceed with the OAP, including an Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP), using any information received, which may include information provided by a Reporting Party(ies), regardless of their desire to be anonymous. In these circumstances, the Reporting Party(ies) and/or Third-Party Reporter(s) known to the university will not remain anonymous in any report that is received, will be informed of the university’s decision to proceed with the Reporting Party(ies)’s and/or Third-Party Reporter(s)’s information provided, and will be given the opportunity to participate in the OAIP and any subsequent proceedings. OSARP will also contact non-confidential faculty and staff who a Reporting Party(ies) and/or Third-Party Reporter(s) may have provided information to about the alleged organizational misconduct and request their participation in the OAP.

Organizational Interim Suspension

If during the review of report(s) of alleged organizational misconduct (see “Receipt of Report(s) and Determining an Alleged Policy Violation(s)” in this section of the Organizational Accountability Process) or after receiving and/or reviewing information obtained during the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) (i.e., during the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process or through additional report(s) after the OAP was initiated), the Director of OSARP or a designee may determine that an organization presents a significant risk to the orderly operation of the university or to the health, safety, or welfare of any member of the university community and may place the organization under an Organizational Interim Suspension.

Organizational Interim Suspension is an action that is protective in nature. It is designed to mitigate the risk to members of the university community by deterring future prohibited conduct, while alleged policy violation(s) are pending for reported misconduct. This interim action is separate and distinct from the final decision of the OAP process as outlined in the Handbook. Failure to follow the guidelines and expectations of an Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, can result in additional disciplinary action and/or alleged policy violation(s) through OSARP for that organization, or individual students, the outcomes of which may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.

The university may issue an Organizational Interim Suspension as a measure to prevent specified organizational activities reasonably believed to pose a threat to the university community. An Organizational Interim Suspension is authorized upon information that an organization has been or is likely to be notified of alleged violation(s) of university policy involving acts of violence or other serious conduct that would reasonably support a finding that the organization is not fit to continue specified organizational activities pending the outcome of university and/or legal proceedings.

An Organizational Interim Suspension may include but not be limited to:

A full Interim Suspension of all organizational activities
A partial Interim Suspension of organizational activities, such as:
- New member recruitment through an official university process
- Initiation of new members through an official university process
- Using resources provided by JMU
- Co-sponsoring or participating in any or all university-sponsored social, intramural, athletic, or other similar activities on university owned or operated property or off campus

If initiated, a Responding Organization will be notified of an Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, via the official JMU email address of the Organizational Representative. The Responding Organization may also be notified of the alleged policy violation(s) and that they are being placed under an Organizational Interim Suspension by a full-time staff member from OSARP or designee through a method that may include but not be limited to notification in person, via phone, or through police officer delivery.

Circumstances that surround an Organizational Interim Suspension may involve concurrent criminal charges, civil litigation, or other university or external investigation or conduct processes. OSARP or its designee may implement an Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, prior to the conclusion of the criminal process, civil process, or other university or external investigation or conduct process; decisions made as a part of the OAP will not be revisited at the conclusion of the criminal process, civil process, or other university or external investigation or conduct process. For more information, see “Jurisdiction – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in this Handbook.

In the notification of an Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, the Responding Organization, through their Organizational Representative, will be informed that an Organizational Interim Suspension remains in place until a final decision is rendered in the case, unless OSARP subsequently communicates otherwise. If OSARP receives information during the OAP that warrants a removal of, or update to, an Organizational Interim Suspension or specific provisions, the Responding Organization will be notified immediately via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. During the OAP, OSARP will continually review and assess the Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, to determine if updates are needed. As such, a Responding Organization may not request a general reassessment of the full or partial Organizational Interim Suspension as originally provided to the Organizational Representative in the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s).

A Responding Organization, however, through their Organizational Representative, may request a specific alteration to a provision of the Organizational Interim Suspension or request a specific activity that is currently prohibited to be reexamined at any point during the OAP. This request must be made in writing and sent to the Director of OSARP for review. Organizational Representatives should be timely in their responses to the Director of OSARP when additional information is requested. Organizational Representatives should understand that a response to their request will only be done during business days and hours and may take up to a week or more depending on the request(s). The decision to remove an Organizational Interim Suspension or update any specific provisions is at the sole discretion of the Director of OSARP. The Director of OSARP may have a designee review and make decisions on these requests as deemed necessary or appropriate.

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances to uphold the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved by the Director of OSARP or designee. Other alterations to the process may be made with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved 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.

Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s)

If information shared with OSARP provides sufficient cause that an alleged policy violation(s) may have occurred, the Responding Organization will be notified of the alleged policy violation(s) through the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. Other individuals may be copied on this email notification, including but not limited to:

Appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group)
Adviser(s)
Organizational Governing Body

The email notification will include:

The alleged policy violation(s) and a link to the Standards of Conduct & Policies in the Student Handbook
Date(s) and location(s) of the alleged incident(s)
How OSARP received information about the alleged policy violation(s)
Information on the Interference or Retaliation with a University Process policy and possible outcome(s) should an organization or individual student be found responsible for this behavior
Instructions for attending or scheduling the Organizational Accountability Process Review (OAPR)
Information about a Responding Organization’s responsibilities and rights in the OAP, including any rights waived by failing to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) and the ability for the Organizational Representative to bring one Support Person with them to any meeting in OSARP
Contact information for OSARP to ask questions about the OAP
Links to relevant sections of the Student Handbook and OSARP website to prepare for the OAP
When applicable, notice that the potential outcomes of the case may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing
When applicable, information about Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions
The process to request disability accommodations, if needed
Information on the academic, mental health, personal well-being, and campus resources available to students at James Madison University, which can be found at: https://www.jmu.edu/osarp/resources/index.shtml

For the purposes of notification throughout all portions of the OAP, this initial email will serve as the official notification regarding the bulleted items above for the case unless the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) is re-issued by OSARP during the OAP.

If any Organizational Accountability Investigator or decision-maker in the OAP feels that their previous contact with the case, the Responding Organization, the Organizational Representative, or the individual(s) involved will prevent them from providing a fair, impartial, and unbiased process, that Organizational Accountability Investigator or decision-maker must request that they not be assigned to the case. The Organizational Representative will be informed of any Organizational Accountability Investigator or decision-maker assigned to their case during the OAP. Upon receiving that notification, an Organizational Representative may request that the Organizational Accountability Investigator or decision-maker be replaced if the Organizational Representative can show a bias on the part of the Organizational Accountability Investigator or decision-maker. Merely being assigned an Organizational Accountability Investigator or decision-maker who has previously worked on a case involving the Responding Organization, or if the individual is completing their duties or job responsibilities as an OSARP staff member, does not constitute actual bias. To make such a request, an Organizational Representative must contact the Director of OSARP or designee immediately, setting forth their reasons in writing. In cases where the Director is a decision-maker in the case, an Associate Director of OSARP or designee will review the request. Any decision to remove an Organizational Accountability Investigator or decision-maker and/or to postpone a meeting in the OAP is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

As additional information is gathered throughout the OAP, OSARP reserves the right to re-issue a Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative, should alleged policy violation(s) be added, updated, or removed for the Responding Organization participating in the OAP. Additionally, this re-issue of the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) may include information about the initiation of, or update to, an Organizational Interim Suspension as well as notification regarding the potential outcome(s) of the case, which may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.

Organizational Records

For more information on organizational records, including how and when information is publicly available on OSARP’s website, see the “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” section of the Handbook. The organizational records for recognized student organizations and student groups are available on OSARP’s website.

Organizational Accountability Process Review (OAPR)

When a Responding Organization is notified of an alleged policy violation(s), the Organizational Representative will be provided the opportunity to attend an OAPR with OSARP in accordance with the following procedures. The purpose of an OAPR is to orient the Organizational Representative, and any individuals in attendance, to the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP), including but not limited to the Responsibilities and Rights of the Responding Organization and the Resolution Option(s) for the alleged policy violation(s).

The Organizational Representative will typically have their OAPR set based on their academic schedule. The Organizational Representative will be informed of the date, time, and location via their official JMU email with at least three days' notice.
- Individuals in attendance at an OAPR may include, but not be limited to OSARP staff, appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, or individual(s) from the Organizational Governing Body.
- The Organizational Representative can bring one Support Person to the OAPR. The Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process. 
- At OSARP’s discretion, other members of the organization (e.g., specific executive board members) can attend the Organizational Accountability Process Review.
- The availability of participants, other than the Organizational Representative and OSARP staff, will be reasonably considered with scheduling the OAPR.
The OAPR is typically conducted in person in the OSARP office on the 2nd floor of the Student Success Center for participants on or near campus. A virtual option will typically be provided for those participants who are not on or near campus. All in-person appointments will follow recommended local, state, and federal health and safety guidelines if any are in effect at the time of the meeting. For good cause, the Organizational Representative may request they be able to attend virtually, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.
In some circumstances, including but not limited to threats to campus, student health or safety, the timeliness of the case, or the Organizational Representative not being physically present on or near campus, OSARP may schedule the OAPR to occur entirely virtually, with no in-person option, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.
- For virtual appointments, instructions will be provided via email for accessing the OAPR. If the Organizational Representative is unable to secure a private location for their virtual OAPR or requires an in-person appointment as an accommodation, the Organizational Representative should contact OSARP immediately upon receiving the notification email to reschedule their virtual OAPR, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

If the Organizational Representative attends the OAPR:

The Organizational Representative will check in with OSARP staff and wait in the lobby until their OAPR begins. During this waiting period, OSARP staff may request that an Organizational Representative complete a survey or pre-assessment related to the process. This is not required for participation in the OAPR.
OSARP staff, typically the Associate Director of Case Management or designee and any other OSARP staff relevant to the OAP (e.g., Organizational Accountability Investigator), will greet the Organizational Representative in the lobby and escort them to a private office or meeting room in OSARP. The following is reviewed by OSARP staff, including but not limited to:
- The alleged policy violation(s) in the case and the information sent to OSARP that is being used in the case, including access to report(s) or information that were used to initiate the OAP.
- Responsibilities & Rights for a Responding Organization in the OAP, including how information is gathered and shared during the OAP, information regarding university policy on Interference or Retaliation in a University Process, and whether possible outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing exist for the case.
OSARP staff will then provide the Organizational Representative with the Resolution Option(s) available for the case, as determined by OSARP. See the “Resolution Options” section of the Organizational Accountability Process below for more information on Resolution Option(s). Although not every Resolution Option is available for every case, the four possibilities are as follows:
- Acceptance of Responsibility
- Restorative Practices
- Partnered Resolution
- Organizational Accountability Investigation Process
The Organizational Representative will select the Resolution Option on behalf of the Responding Organization and next steps will be discussed. In certain circumstances, including a case with any alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, OSARP is required to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct and will not offer another Resolution Option to the Responding Organization.
Once a Resolution Option is selected and discussed by those in attendance at an OAPR, any meeting(s) associated with the selected Resolution Option are typically scheduled, and the OAPR concludes.

While the purpose of the OAPR is to review the OAP and the selected Resolution Option, information shared by the Organizational Representative during the OAPR can be used in the OAP. Should the Organizational Representative or other individuals in attendance share information that may constitute an individual educational record, OSARP will typically advise that individual student on their rights under FERPA as soon as practicable and may request the student complete an educational records release for those individuals in attendance at the OAPR.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the educational records of students. OSARP may disclose information contained in the educational record(s) of students to all eligible persons as outlined in the exceptions listed in FERPA. For more information on FERPA and its role with the educational record(s) of individual students who are also participating in the OAP, see the “General Handbook Information” section of the Handbook.

For example, OSARP may review an educational records release with a student to determine if the student would like OSARP to be able to release information gathered in the OAP with individuals from an Organizational Governing Body, unless the appropriate educational records release is already on file with the university.

If the Organizational Representative fails to attend the OAPR:

An Organizational Representative waives certain rights in the OAP should they fail to attend the OAPR.

In the notification email an Organizational Representative receives from OSARP about a case, information is provided regarding the Responding Organization’s Responsibilities & Rights in the OAP, including the right to attend the OAPR and what rights the Organizational Representative waives should they fail to attend the OAPR.
An Organizational Representative who fails to attend the OAPR, regardless of whether the appointment was set based on their academic schedule or scheduled by the Organizational Representative, indicates the following to OSARP with their absence:
- The understanding that the OAPR will proceed in the absence of the Organizational Representative.
- The Resolution Option for the alleged policy violation(s) will typically be an Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP), but may be another Resolution Option as determined by OSARP
- The Responding Organization will not typically have the opportunity to choose another Resolution Option, unless authorized by OSARP.
OSARP will communicate with the Responding Organization, through the Organizational Representative, within three business days of the date of the OAPR with further instructions.

If an Organizational Representative missed their OAPR due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, they may request the OAPR be rescheduled; this request must be communicated as soon as practicable and OSARP will determine if it meets the unexpected and unavoidable circumstance criteria.

The OAPR is a closed meeting between the Organizational Representative and OSARP and may include other individuals as noted earlier in this section. Individual(s) attending an OAPR are not permitted to make their own recordings. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply.

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances to uphold the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved 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.

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP.

Resolution Option(s)

When a Responding Organization is notified of an alleged policy violation(s), OSARP will determine which Resolution Options are available to address the alleged policy violation(s) in the case. A Responding Organization may have multiple Resolution Options available or only one option. This determination of Resolution Options may consider various factors, including but not limited to:

Nature and/or severity of the allegation(s)
Whether the alleged policy violation(s) are minor, major, or flexible, as defined in the Handbook
Whether there are Reporting Party(ies) and/or Third-Party Reporter(s) involved in the process
The current or perceived risk of harm to other individuals, the community, the university, or physical property
Any organizational records maintained by OSARP, if applicable
Consultation with appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body
Criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” section of the Organizational Accountability Process

1. Acceptance of Responsibility

After being properly notified of an alleged policy violation(s) in the OAP, the Organizational Representative may take responsibility for all alleged policy violation(s) by communicating that acceptance to OSARP. This will typically occur during the OAPR but could occur at any point in the OAP. Upon OSARP receiving this information from the Organizational Representative, OSARP will determine whether to accept this information and proceed to an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR) or if the selected Resolution Option(s) will continue. For more information on the OARR, should OSARP determine that is the next step in the OAP, see “Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR)” in this section of the Handbook.

“Adam’s Law” in the State of Virginia requires JMU to use its disciplinary process to investigate alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing and the students involved in that alleged behavior, so if an organization accepts responsibility for an alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, OSARP will include that information in the OAIP and typically continue with the OAIP.

2. Restorative Practices

The Responding Organization is provided the opportunity to resolve the alleged policy violation(s) through completion of Restorative Practices, facilitated by or in partnership with OSARP, including any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcome(s).

Restorative Practices offer participants the opportunity to take active accountability for their actions and work within the JMU, City of Harrisonburg, and Rockingham County communities to collaboratively address any harm created. This approach emphasizes community well-being and empowers participants to repair the harm that has occurred.

If Restorative Practices is available as a Resolution Option, as determined by OSARP, the Organizational Representative will be provided this option during the OAPR. Should the Organizational Representative choose Restorative Practices as the Resolution Option for the case, the case will be referred to an OSARP-approved staff member who facilitate Restorative Practices. For more details on Restorative Practices at JMU, including information about intake meetings, Restorative Processes, and agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcomes, visit the Restorative Practices section of this Handbook.

All alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization will remain pending until completion of Restorative Practices, including any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcome(s). For more information on the next steps following completion of Restorative Practices, see “Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR)” in this section of the Handbook.

Should facilitator(s) report unsuccessful completion of Restorative Practices, including any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcome(s), OSARP will determine the Resolution Option(s) available to the Responding Organization and meet with the Organizational Representative to discuss other available Resolution Option(s) and next steps based on the selected Resolution Option.

OSARP reserves the right to terminate Restorative Practices and select another Resolution Option and/or re-issue the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) if during Restorative Practices, information is shared with or obtained by OSARP regarding additional major and/or flexible alleged policy violation(s) not known when the OAP was initiated. Additionally, if information is shared with or obtained by OSARP regarding an alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, Restorative Practices will be terminated and the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) will commence with proper notification of such sent to the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. Any re-issue of the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) may include an update to the potential outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.

3. Partnered Resolution

The Responding Organization, Organizational Governing Body, or another individual or entity, at the discretion of OSARP, are provided the opportunity to investigate the alleged policy violation(s) in the case.

If Partnered Resolution is available as a Resolution Option, as determined by OSARP, the Organizational Representative will be provided this option during the OAPR. Should the Organizational Representative choose Partnered Resolution as the Resolution Option for the case, the Partnered Resolution process will include the following:

OSARP, in consultation with the Organizational Representative, appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body, will develop a Partnered Resolution investigation plan, which may include but not be limited to expectations for the investigation process, the scope of the investigation, and estimated timeline for completion.
- OSARP will provide the Responding Organization, Organizational Governing Body, or another individual or entity, at the discretion of OSARP, any necessary information or report(s) related to the alleged policy violation(s), including any redactions made to that information or report(s), for the purpose of the Partnered Resolution process.
An OSARP staff member will serve as a liaison during Partnered Resolution. They are available to answer questions and consult on the investigation process or the OAP but they will not assist with investigation interviews or information gathering.
OSARP will designate the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s), who must follow all requirements of an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) as outlined in this Handbook. The Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) must conduct the investigation of alleged policy violation(s), implementing any requirements established by OSARP, and submit the full investigation report and investigation materials to OSARP within the agreed-upon timeline, unless approved otherwise by OSARP.
- OSARP may provide the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) with templates to be used during Partnered Resolution. Examples include but are not limited to an investigation report template that must be used when submitting final investigation materials to OSARP, investigation participant forms that must be completed by every individual who participates in the investigation of alleged policy violation(s), or email templates for communicating with investigation participants.
Once the investigation report and investigation materials are received by OSARP, all information will be reviewed by the decision-maker, who is typically the Associate Director of Case Management or designee. The decision-maker will make one of the following determinations:
- Partnered Resolution is complete – OSARP will schedule an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR) to discuss the Partnered Resolution process and the next steps in the OAP.
- Partnered Resolution is pending completion – The decision-maker determines the investigation of alleged policy violation(s) was insufficient or incomplete and provides instructions to the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) to adequately complete Partnered Resolution.
- Partnered Resolution is terminated – The decision-maker determines the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s), Responding Organization, Organizational Governing Body, investigation participant, or another individual or entity provided inaccurate or incomplete information, obstructed the process, or was otherwise noncompliant or uncooperative. OSARP will notify the Responding Organization of the next steps in the OAP, including the manner in which the alleged policy violation(s) will be resolved in this case.

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student(s) who was involved in Partnered Resolution for an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the OAP. The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after Partnered Resolution. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP or from the original report(s) received by OSARP.

All alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization will remain pending until completion of Partnered Resolution. For more information on the next steps following completion of Partnered Resolution, see “Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR)” in this section of the Handbook.

Partnered Resolution, if selected as the Resolution Option, is the only opportunity for the Responding Organization or other reporters, witnesses, or participants to submit evidence, information, personal statements, names of witnesses, and witness statements for the OAP. Only individuals who directly provided information during Partnered Resolution are eligible to serve as participants at an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), based on new evidence, when applicable in the process.

OSARP reserves the right to terminate Partnered Resolution and select another Resolution Option and/or re-issue the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) if during Partnered Resolution, information is shared with or obtained by OSARP regarding additional major and/or flexible alleged policy violation(s) not known when the OAP was initiated. Additionally, if information is shared with or obtained by OSARP regarding an alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, Partnered Resolution will be terminated and the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) will commence with proper notification of such sent to the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. Any re-issue of the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) may include an update to the potential outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.

4. Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP)

The Responding Organization is provided the opportunity to have the alleged policy violation(s) in the case investigated by an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s). In certain circumstances, including a case with an alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, OSARP is required to conduct the OAIP and will not offer another Resolution Option to the Responding Organization.

If an OAIP is available as a Resolution Option, as determined by OSARP, the Organizational Representative will be provided this option during the Organizational Accountability Process Review (OAPR). Should the Organizational Representative choose this as the Resolution Option for the case, the OAIP will proceed. If an OAIP is the only Resolution Option available for a Responding Organization, the Organizational Representative will be provided this as the only Resolution Option during the OAPR. Typically, once it is determined at the OAPR that an OAIP will proceed, OSARP will review the investigation process with the Organizational Representative, including but not limited to scheduling an initial investigation interview with the Organizational Representative, gathering information from the Organizational Representative regarding individuals to contact for the investigation process, or requesting that the Organizational Representative communicate with members of the Responding Organization to request their participation in the investigation process

An OAIP, if selected as the Resolution Option, is the only opportunity for the Responding Organization or other reporters, witnesses, or participants to submit evidence, information, personal statements, names of witnesses, and witness statements for the OAP. Only individuals who directly provided information during an OAIP are eligible to serve as participants at an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), based on new evidence, when applicable in the process.

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student(s) who was involved in the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) for an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).  The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAIP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP or from the original report(s) received by OSARP.

For more information, see the “Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP)” in this section of the Handbook.

NOTE: An exception to these procedures is when an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review orders a new OAIP to be conducted by a new Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) or a reopening of the existing OAIP. This determination occurs as outlined in the “Appeals – Organizational Accountability Process” section of this Organizational Accountability Process. When this occurs, an OAPR has already occurred in the Organizational Accountability Process; the Organizational Representative will be notified via their official JMU email, and a meeting will typically be scheduled to discuss further. For more information, see the “Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP)” section of this Organizational Accountability Process.

Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP)

If the OAIP is selected as the Resolution Option by the Organizational Representative or is selected by OSARP as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP), the OAIP will proceed until the completion of the Investigation Report and the receipt of any final response from the Organizational Representative. In certain circumstances, as determined by OSARP, such as the Organizational Representative accepting responsibility for all alleged policy violation(s) during the investigation, the OAIP may be terminated, and the Responding Organization will proceed to an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR).

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student(s) who was involved in the OAIP for an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the OAP. The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAIP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP or from the original report(s) received by OSARP.

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances to uphold the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved 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.

NOTE: An Organizational Accountability Appeal Review may order a new OAIP to be conducted by a new Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) or a reopening of the existing OAIP. This determination occurs as outlined in the “Appeals – Organizational Accountability Process” section of this Organizational Accountability Process.

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP.

Phase One: Preparation

OSARP will assign an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) to investigate the alleged policy violation(s). This assignment will typically occur when the Responding Organization is notified of alleged policy violation(s) so the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) can attend the Organizational Accountability Process Review (OAPR), regardless of the Resolution Option selected by, or for, the Responding Organization. Before proceeding with the OAIP, OSARP will notify the Responding Organization of the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) assigned to investigate the alleged policy violation(s).
- NOTE: An exception to these procedures is when an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review orders a new OAIP to be conducted by a new Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) or a reopening of the existing OAIP. This determination occurs as outlined in the “Appeals – Organizational Accountability Process” section of this Organizational Accountability Process. When this occurs, an OAPR has already occurred in the Organizational Accountability Process; the Organizational Representative will be notified via their official JMU email, and a meeting will typically be scheduled to discuss further. Prior to the OAIP, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) will:
- Review the report(s) and/or information shared with OSARP, which were the impetus for the OAP and notification of alleged policy violation(s).
- Review other information relevant to the alleged policy violation(s) or the Responding Organization, including but not limited to the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP, previous report(s) received regarding the Responding Organization, or social media.
- Communicate with applicable university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body to discuss the OAIP, including but not limited to:
  - Determining their role(s) and schedules for participation, if applicable
  - Obtaining information on the Responding Organization, including but not limited to current membership or executive board rosters
  - Coordinating a concurrent investigation of the alleged policy violation(s) (e.g., joint investigation by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and the Organizational Governing Body) or concurrent processes that arise from the same set of facts or circumstances (e.g., investigation of the Responding Organization through the OAP and investigation of students by the Title IX Office)
- Determine the most appropriate way to collect information during the OAIP (e.g., individual or group investigation interviews, in-person or virtual investigation interviews, survey-based information gathering, questionnaires, or a combination of approaches).

Phase Two: Information Gathering

OSARP confers the rights outlined in the “Investigation Participant - Responsibilities and Rights – Organizational Accountability Process” to individual(s) who provide information in the OAIP. Prior to participating in the OAIP, an Investigation Participant will be asked to review these Responsibilities and Rights and indicate their understanding.

Individual(s) who choose to provide information during the OAIP may not participate and/or provide information anonymously. More information on anonymity in the OAP can be found in the “Receipt of Report(s) and Determining Alleged Policy Violation(s)” section of this Organizational Accountability Process.

During the OAIP, individual(s) may be contacted to schedule/attend an investigation interview or to provide information if the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) determines the individual(s) may have information that is relevant to the investigation of alleged policy violation(s). This is typically done through their official JMU email if they are a student but may occur through another email provided by the individual. At the discretion of the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s), two or more individuals may be interviewed during the same investigation interview if doing so would benefit the OAIP.

The OAIP typically begins with information gathering from, or an investigation interview with, the Organizational Representative and/or Reporting Party(ies) or Third-Party Reporter(s) who are known to OSARP or who have chosen not to be anonymous during the OAIP, but the circumstances of the case may alter the order in which individuals are given the opportunity to provide information. OSARP may request information from the Organizational Representative and/or any Reporting Party(ies) or Third-Party Reporter(s) regarding individual(s) they feel are relevant to the investigation of alleged policy violation(s), although the ultimate determination of who will be contacted during the OAIP rests with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s).

Typically, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) will provide each Investigation Participant the opportunity for an investigation interview as the primary way to collect information during the OAIP. The purpose of an investigation interview is to ask questions of, and gather information from, the Investigation Participant that is relevant to the alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization. While the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) typically prefer in-person, synchronous interactions with Investigation Participants, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) may offer an Investigation Participant the opportunity to participate differently, such as requesting information through email, an online survey, or an in-person questionnaire. This information request may be the only information-sharing opportunity provided to an Investigation Participant or it may be a way to collect initial information from individual(s) prior to extending additional opportunity(ies) for individual(s) to provide information to be used in the OAP.

Information that may be relevant within the OAIP includes but is not limited to information provided during investigation interviews, the initial report(s) or information provided to OSARP that led to the notification of alleged policy violation(s), screenshots, photos, and/or videos, written statements, emails, or phone calls. An Investigation Participant may be required to complete a release form so OSARP can receive and/or maintain specific information provided during the OAIP (e.g., individual educational records, personal medical records, or other health-related information) if the participant wants those records to become a part of the investigation process.

When an Investigation Participant is given the opportunity to provide information to be used in the OAP, that Investigation Participant can:

Accept the invitation to provide information to be used in the OAP by scheduling/attending an investigation interview
Decline the invitation to schedule/attend an investigation interview, choosing instead to provide information to be used in the OAP another way (e.g., emailing a statement, screenshots, and/or photos/videos)
Decline the invitation to schedule/attend an investigation interview and/or provide information to be used in the OAP another way (e.g., emailing a statement, screenshots, and/or photos/videos), unless OSARP requires attendance at an investigation interview

If an individual(s) chooses to participate as an Investigation Participant, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)may follow-up with the Investigation Participant after their participation to provide a summary of the information they shared, to seek feedback on the summary of the information they shared, or to provide resources related to the OSARP process, their participation, and/or information shared during the OAP.

An Investigation Participant cannot be compelled, mandated, or required to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may be required to attend specific meetings. The decision-maker(s) may not draw an inference about the determination regarding responsibility based solely on an individual’s absence or refusal to provide information in the OAP.

If notified of the opportunity for an investigation interview, the Interview Participant will be provided instructions for attending or scheduling an investigation interview:

An Investigation Participant will typically have their investigation interview set for them based on their academic schedule (if they are currently enrolled at the university) and will be notified in accordance with the rights outlined in the “Investigation Participant - Responsibilities and Rights – Organizational Accountability Process.”
- In certain circumstances, including an OAIP that involves many potential Investigation Participant(s), the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)may use formats other than email for scheduling investigation interviews, such as online scheduling tools or surveys, to collect participant availability and/or schedule investigation interviews.
- In certain circumstances, including an OAIP where many Investigation Participants are scheduled during a block of time or will be interviewing one after the other, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)may take preventative measures to limit the interactions between Investigation Participants before, during and after an investigation interview, such as sequestering individuals in different spaces.
An Investigation Participant who is not currently enrolled at the university, or who is not a student at the university, will be asked to schedule an investigation interview by contacting the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)according to the instructions provided in their email. In some cases, the email may provide a scheduling deadline for the investigation interview, and if the deadline passes, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)may schedule an investigation interview for the Investigation Participant.
The availability of participants (e.g., Support Person), other than the Investigation Participant and Organizational Accountability Investigator(s), will typically not be considered when scheduling and/or rescheduling an investigation interview.
An investigation interview is typically conducted in person in the OSARP office on the 2nd floor of the Student Success Center but may occur in another location as determined by OSARP. All in-person interviews will follow recommended local, state, and federal health and safety guidelines if any are in effect at the time of the interview. For good cause, individuals may request an appointment be conducted virtually, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.
- In some circumstances, including but not limited to threats to campus, student health or safety, the timeliness of the case, or the Investigation Participant not being physically present on or near campus, OSARP may schedule the investigation interview to occur virtually, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.
- For virtual appointments, instructions will be provided via email for accessing the investigation interview. If the Investigation Participant is unable to secure a private location for their virtual investigation interview or requires an in-person interview as an accommodation, the Investigation Participant should contact OSARP immediately upon receiving the notification email to reschedule their virtual investigation interview, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

At any point in the OAIP, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)may request that an Investigation Participant schedule and/or attend additional investigation interview(s) or provide additional information to be used in the OAP. This may include an additional opportunity(ies) to participate in the OAIP for individuals who have previously declined to participate.

If an Investigation Participant missed their investigation interview or deadline to provide information due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, they may request the investigation interview be rescheduled or the deadline extended; this request must be communicated as soon as practicable and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)will determine if it meets the unexpected and unavoidable circumstance criteria.

The investigation interview is a closed meeting between the Investigation Participant and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and may include other individuals as noted in the OAP. Additionally, at the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)discretion, the investigation interview may include other individuals who are conducting a concurrent investigation of the alleged misconduct, such as a representative from the Organizational Governing Body. While the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)may audio/video record an investigation interview, other individual(s) attending the investigation interview are not permitted to make their own recordings. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply.

Phase Three: Investigation Report

The Investigation Report is created by an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) at the conclusion of an investigation of alleged policy violation(s) in the OAIP. The Investigation Report consists of all relevant investigation materials received during the investigation of alleged policy violation(s), excluding information redacted in accordance with the OSARP process, including but not limited to the initial report(s) of alleged misconduct, a summary of the investigation process and timeline, investigation interview summaries, emails, photos, and videos. The Investigation Report does not provide a decision regarding the alleged policy violation(s) in this case, nor does it provide assigned or suggested outcome(s).

As individual(s) share information during the OAIP, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) will evaluate the relevancy of information as it pertains to the investigation of alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization, utilizing the definition of relevant evidence in the OAP. Information deemed relevant will be included in the Investigation Report. The Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) has the sole discretion to determine what is relevant to be included in the Investigation Report.

The Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) may communicate with relevant university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body during the completion of the Investigation Report to gather additional information or clarify existing information for the Investigation Report.

Typically, the Investigation Report is completed within 30 business days of the OAPR, however, the circumstances surrounding the case may make it necessary for the university to shorten or extend that timeline. If this occurs, the Organizational Representative will be notified through their official JMU email.

The Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) has the sole discretion to determine if the 30 business days timeline should be shortened or extended. Circumstances for alteration include but are not limited to:

Days when the university is open for operation, but classes are not in session
Holiday or other breaks when most students are not attending classes, such as Winter or Summer terms
A request for extension from the Organizational Representative
Discovery of new and relevant information that requires additional investigation
Insufficient information gathering in the OAIP as a result of low participation by investigation participants or minimal response from specific members of an organization, such as new members or executive board members.

If the Responding Organization is re-issued the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) during the Organizational Accountability Process, the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process will typically be extended.

Once the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) completes the Investigation Report, the Organizational Representative will be notified through their official JMU email of the availability and instructions to access the Investigation Report and any other investigation materials deemed relevant by OSARP. In addition to the Organizational Representative, university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body may also receive the availability and instructions to access to the Investigation Report and any other investigation materials deemed relevant by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s). The Organizational Representative will be provided four days from receiving access to the Investigation Report and any other investigation materials deemed relevant by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s)to provide a final response, which will be added to the investigation materials if it is received by the deadline provided by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s).

Once the deadline for a final response passes, or once a final response is received from the Organizational Representative, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) will provide the Investigation Report and all investigation materials to one decision-maker, who is typically the Associate Director of Case Management or designee. The decision-maker will review the information and schedule an OARR. For more information, see “Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR)” in this section of the Handbook. In rare circumstances, the decision-maker reserves the right to return the Investigation Report and all investigation materials to the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) for further investigation in the OAIP. If this occurs, the Organizational Representative will be notified of this reopening of the OAIP via their official JMU email.

Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR)

The Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) proceeds to an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR) when the selected Resolution Option is complete, as determined by OSARP, including but not limited to:

OSARP approved the Acceptance of Responsibility by the Responding Organization.
The facilitator(s) of Restorative Practices report successful completion, including any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcome(s).
Partnered Resolution concludes when OSARP receives the Investigation Report and investigation materials and OSARP determines their investigation of the alleged policy violation(s) was adequately completed.
The Organizational Accountability Investigation Process concludes and the Investigation Report and all investigation materials are provided to the decision-maker.

NOTE: The decision-maker who reviews the Investigation Report and all investigation materials at the conclusion of the OAIP is typically the Associate Director of Case Management or designee. Exceptions occur when the outcome of an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OARR) results in new decision-makers, as outlined in the “Appeals – Organizational Accountability Process” section of this Handbook.

When OSARP and/or the decision-maker determines that a case within the OAP can proceed to an OARR, the Organizational Representative is provided the opportunity to attend an OARR in accordance with the following procedures. The purpose of an OARR is to review the status of the selected Resolution Option, provide the decision in the case, and/or discuss the next steps in the OAP.

The Organizational Representative will typically have their OARR set based on their academic schedule. The Organizational Representative will be informed of the date, time, and location via their official JMU email with at least three days' notice.
- Individuals in attendance at an OARR may include, but not be limited to OSARP staff, the decision-maker, appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, or the Organizational Governing Body.
- The Organizational Representative can bring one Support Person to the OARR. The Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.
- At OSARP’s discretion, other members of the organization (e.g., specific executive board members) can attend the OARR.
- The availability of participants, other than the Organizational Representative and OSARP staff, will be reasonably considered with scheduling the OARR.
The OARR is typically conducted in person in the OSARP office on the 2nd floor of the Student Success Center for participants on or near campus. A virtual option will typically be provided for those participants who are not on or near campus. All in-person appointments will follow recommended local, state, and federal health and safety guidelines if any are in effect at the time of the meeting. For good cause, the Organizational Representative may request they be able to attend virtually, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.
In some circumstances, including but not limited to threats to campus, student health or safety, the timeliness of the case, or the Organizational Representative not being physically present on or near campus, OSARP may schedule the OARR to occur entirely virtually, with no in-person option, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.
- For virtual appointments, instructions will be provided via email for accessing the OARR. If the Organizational Representative is unable to secure a private location for their virtual OARR or requires an in-person appointment as an accommodation, the Organizational Representative should contact OSARP immediately upon receiving the notification email to reschedule their virtual OARR, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

Prior to the OARR, the decision-maker will have reviewed the Acceptance of Responsibility by the Responding Organization, the Investigation Report and investigation materials provided to OSARP at the conclusion of Partnered Resolution, or the Investigation Report and investigation materials provided by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) at the conclusion of the OAIP. If the selected Resolution Option was Restorative Practices, see the OARR procedures below for more information.

The decision-maker will determine whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy, utilizing a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” section of this Organizational Accountability Process. If the Responding Organization is found responsible for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, the decision-maker will create a written rationale for the decision to be provided to the Organizational Representative at the OARR.

If the Responding Organization is found responsible for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, the decision-maker will typically communicate with appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body prior to the OARR to discuss appropriate outcomes for the Responding Organization, based on the alleged policy violation(s) for which there is a “Responsible” finding.

Outcome(s) are typically assigned in a case by reviewing various details and information, including but not limited to the current case file, information gathered from appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body(ies) prior to the OARR, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP.

If the Organizational Representative attends the OARR:

The Organizational Representative will check in with OSARP staff and wait in the lobby until their OARR begins. During this waiting period, OSARP staff may request that an Organizational Representative complete a survey or pre-assessment related to the process. This is not required for participation in the OARR.
OSARP staff, typically the Associate Director of Case Management or designee and any other OSARP staff relevant to the OAP (e.g., Organizational Accountability Investigator), will greet the Organizational Representative in the lobby and escort them to a private office or meeting room in OSARP.
OSARP staff will provide an opportunity for the Organizational Representative to ask any questions about the OAP, including questions they have about the Responsibilities & Rights afforded to a Responding Organization in the OAP.
If Restorative Practices was the selected Resolution Option
- Should the facilitator(s) of Restorative Practices report successful completion, including completion of any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcomes, the case will typically result in a finding(s) of “Voluntarily Completed Restorative Practices” for all alleged policy violation(s), which results in the removal of any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable.
- OSARP staff will then inform the Organizational Representative that they will receive an email from OSARP that will provide the final decision. The Organizational Representative will receive this communication via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR.
- For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook.
If Acceptance of Responsibility, Partnered Resolution, or the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process was the selected Resolution Option
- OSARP staff will provide the decision from the decision-maker, which includes the finding(s) on policy, any assigned outcomes, if applicable, and a written rationale of the decision.
- If “Not Responsible” or “Dropped” for all alleged policy violation(s) in the case:
  - The decision in the case becomes the final decision, and any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable, will be removed.
  - A decision form will be signed by the Organizational Representative and they will be informed that the final decision will be sent via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR.
- If “Responsible” for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, and the case did not result in an outcome(s) of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing:
  - The decision in the case is final and any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable, will be removed.
  - A decision form will be signed by the Organizational Representative, and they will be informed that the final decision will be sent via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR, which will include any instructions and deadline for assigned outcome(s), if applicable.
  - Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome.
- If “Responsible” for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, and the case resulted in an outcome(s) of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing:
  - The Organizational Representative will be provided the opportunity to submit an appeal. OSARP staff will review the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal.
  - In lieu of submitting an appeal, the Organizational Representative can choose to call or email OSARP prior to the appeal deadline and accept the decision in the case, including any of the following outcomes: suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. The Organizational Representative can also accept the decision in the case during the OARR.
  - If the Organizational Representative indicates a desire to appeal or to take time to think about an appeal, OSARP staff will send an email at the conclusion of the OARR with the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal. For more information, see “Appeals—Organizational Accountability Process” in this section of the Handbook. If an appeal is not received by the required deadline, the finding(s) and outcome(s) provided at the OARR will become the final decision in the case and OSARP will communicate that final decision via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative, which will include any instructions and deadline for assigned outcome(s), if applicable.
  - Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome.
- For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook.
  - The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the educational records of students. OSARP may disclose information contained in the educational record(s) of students to all eligible persons as outlined in the exceptions listed in FERPA. For more information on FERPA and its role with the educational record(s) of individual students who are also participating in the OAP, see the “General Handbook Information” section of the Handbook.
    - For example, OSARP may review an educational records release with a student to determine if the student would like OSARP to be able to release information gathered in the OAP with individuals from an Organizational Governing Body, unless the appropriate educational records release is already on file with the university.

If the Organizational Representative fails to attend the OARR:

An Organizational Representative waives certain rights in the OAP should they fail to attend the OARR.

In the notification email a Responding Organization receives from OSARP about a case, information is provided regarding the Responding Organization’s Responsibilities & Rights in the OAP, including the right to attend the OARR and what rights the Organizational Representative waives should they fail to attend the OARR.
An Organizational Representative who fails to attend the OARR, regardless of whether the appointment was set based on their academic schedule or scheduled by the Organizational Representative, indicates the following to OSARP with their absence:
- The understanding that the OARR will proceed in the absence of the Organizational Representative.
If Restorative Practices was the selected Resolution Option
- Should the facilitator(s) of Restorative Practices report successful completion, including completion of any agreed-upon or facilitator-assignment outcomes, the case will typically result in a finding(s) of “Voluntarily Completed Restorative Practices” for all alleged policy violation(s), which results in the removal of any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable.
- The Organizational Representative will receive the final decision via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR.
- For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook.
If Acceptance of Responsibility, Partnered Resolution, or the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process was the selected Resolution Option
- If “Not Responsible” or “Dropped” for all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, the decision in the case becomes the final decision, and any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable, will be removed. The Organizational Representative will receive the final decision via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR.
- If “Responsible” for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, OSARP will provide the decision via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. This email will provide the finding(s), assigned outcomes and the instructions and deadlines for completion, if applicable, and a written rationale of the decision from the decision-maker. If the case did not result in an outcome(s) of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, the finding(s) and outcome(s), if applicable, are considered the final decision in the case.
  - Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome.
- If the case resulted in any of the following outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, OSARP staff will send the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal. For more information, see “Appeals—Organizational Accountability Process” in this section of the Handbook.
  - In lieu of submitting an appeal, the Organizational Representative can choose to call or email OSARP prior to the appeal deadline and accept the decision in the case, including any of the following outcomes: suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.
  - If an appeal is not received by the required deadline, the finding(s) and outcome(s) provided at the OARR will become the final decision in the case.
- For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook.
- If an Organizational Representative missed their OARR due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, they may request the OARR be rescheduled; this request must be communicated as soon as practicable and OSARP will determine if it meets the unexpected and unavoidable circumstance criteria.

The OARR is a closed meeting between the Organizational Representative and OSARP staff and may include other individuals as noted earlier in this section. Individual(s) attending an OARR are not permitted to make their own recordings. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply.

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student who was involved in the resolution of an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).  The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAIP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP or from the original report(s) received by OSARP.

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances to uphold the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved 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.

Appeals

If a Responding Organization is found responsible for a violation(s) of university policy and received an outcome(s) of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, the Responding Organization has the right to submit a written appeal of the decision within five business days of receiving the decision via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. If an appeal is submitted, it must be submitted directly by the Organizational Representative; appeals submitted by anyone other than the Organizational Representative will not be evaluated unless prior approval is granted by the Director of OSARP or designee.

Appeal submissions can be made on one or more of the following grounds: procedural irregularity, excessively harsh outcomes, and/or new evidence. When referenced below, “affected the outcome of the matter” refers to the entirety of the decision rendered including the determination regarding responsibility or outcomes assigned, if applicable. 

Appeal submissions on procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter must outline the procedural irregularity and how that affected the decision in the case. 
Appeal submissions on excessively harsh outcome(s) for a case with a responsible finding(s) on policy must outline the reason(s) the outcomes assigned are excessively harsh. 
Appeal submissions on new evidence that was not available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR) or University Case Administrator – Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (UCA-OARR) and only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy must outline the new evidence, why the new evidence was not available or accessible at the time of the OARR or UCA-OARR and how it is relevant to the decision of whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy.  
- New evidence does not include a witness, reporter, or other individual who was accessible and available to participate but chose not to and is now willing to participate in an appeal process.

If an appeal is based on grounds of procedural irregularity and new evidence, grounds of excessively harsh outcomes and new evidence, or on all three grounds, OSARP will schedule an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), conducted by three University Case Administrators (UCAs):

Two voting UCAs will typically be JMU faculty, staff, or graduate students who are associated with departments that work with organizations (e.g., Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, JMU Athletics, or a department with oversight of a student group), but will typically not work directly with the Responding Organization (i.e., if a Sports Club is the Responding Organization, the UCAs will typically not work for UREC).
The third voting UCA will be a JMU faculty, staff, or graduate student who serves as the chairperson.

If any UCA feels their previous contact with the case or the individuals involved will prevent them from rendering a fair, impartial, and unbiased decision, the UCA must request that they not be assigned to the OAAR. Responding Organizations and Reporting Parties (if any) will be informed of the UCAs assigned to their case. Upon receiving notification of the assigned UCAs, a Responding Organization or Reporting Party (if any) may request that a UCA be replaced if they can show a bias on the part of the UCA. To make such a request, a Responding Organization or Reporting Party (if any) 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 UCA and/or to postpone an OAAR is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

During the OAAR, three UCAs will first evaluate the portions of the appeal on procedural irregularity, if applicable, then on excessively harsh outcomes, if applicable, proceeding as outlined in the Handbook. If the UCAs determine that a procedural irregularity occurred that affected the outcome of the case after reviewing an appeal submitted on procedural irregularity, then the portion(s) of the appeal related to excessively harsh outcomes and/or new evidence will not be reviewed; the new evidence will be reviewed as outlined in the appeal process below. If the UCAs determine that a procedural irregularity did not occur or did occur but did not affect the outcome of the case, the UCAs will then evaluate the appeal on excessively harsh outcomes, if applicable, and then evaluate the new evidence portion of the appeal, if applicable, proceeding as outlined in the Handbook. 

The decisions rendered at an OAAR are based on a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct“ section of this Organizational Accountability Process and determined by a majority vote of the UCAs. During the OAAR, the chairperson has the authority to prohibit information, and/or instruct UCAs to disregard information from being shared that violates the rights of a party, is not allowed by the OAP, or bears no relevancy to the grounds for appeal submission. Any participant may be removed by the chairperson if they violate the Rules of Decorum or procedures outlined in the Student Handbook. An OAAR based on new evidence will typically be held in person but 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. For a virtual OAAR, OSARP will have a staff member in the virtual meeting to manage the administrative and technical aspects so the UCAs can focus solely on the review of the appeal.  

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances to uphold the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved 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. 

If an appeal submission is based on procedural irregularity and/or excessively harsh outcomes, the OAAR will generally proceed in accordance with the procedures below. A Responding Organization does not attend or participate in an OAAR granted solely based on procedural irregularity and/or excessively harsh outcomes.

Step 1: Appeal based on Procedural Irregularity, if applicable

The UCAs will first determine whether or not a procedural irregularity occurred by considering the information made in the appeal. The UCAs will also have access to the Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP. When referenced below, “affected the outcome of the matter” refers to the entirety of the decision rendered including the determination regarding responsibility or outcomes assigned, if applicable.  

If the appeal submission did not include a procedural irregularity, the UCAs will move to Step 2 and review the excessively harsh outcomes appeal. 
If the UCAs determine that no procedural irregularity occurred, the decision previously rendered will stand unless other grounds were included in the appeal. If procedural irregularity was the only appeal submission, then the UCAs will conclude the OAAR.  
- If the Responding Organization also included excessively harsh outcomes in their appeal submission, the UCAs will move to step 2 and review the appeal.   
- If the Responding Organization did not include excessively harsh outcomes but did present new evidence in their appeal submission, the UCAs will move to step 3 and conduct the new evidence portion of the OAAR. 
- If the Responding Organization did not have any other grounds in their appeal submission, then the decision previously rendered will stand. 
If the UCAs determine that a procedural irregularity occurred, the UCAs will then determine if the procedural irregularity can reasonably be said to have affected the outcome of the matter. 
- If the UCAs determine that the procedural irregularity cannot reasonably be said to have affected the outcome of the matter, the decision previously rendered will stand unless other grounds were included in the appeal.  
  - If the Responding Organization also included excessively harsh outcomes in their appeal submission, the UCAs will move to step 2 and review the appeal. 
  - If the Responding Organization did not include excessively harsh outcomes but did present new evidence in their appeal submission, the UCAs will move to step 3 and conduct the new evidence portion of the OAAR. 
  - If the Responding Organization did not have any other grounds in their appeal submission, then the decision previously rendered will stand. 
- If the UCAs determine that the procedural irregularity can reasonably be said to have affected the outcome of the matter, the UCAs will then determine:
  - If the procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter solely involved the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP), the UCAs will order a new OAIP to be conducted by a new Organizational Accountability Investigator(s). See “Organizational Accountability Investigation Process” in this section of the Handbook for more information on this process. At the conclusion of the new OAIP conducted by a different Organizational Accountability Investigator(s), the Investigation Report and all investigation materials will be provided to new decision-makers (two University Case Administrators) who will review the information and render a new decision in the case. That decision will be provided to the Organizational Representative by an OSARP staff member during a University Case Administrator-Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (UCA-OARR). See “University Case Administrator -Organizational Accountability Resolution Review” in this section of the Handbook for more information on this process.
    - If the appeal submission by the Responding Organization also contained new evidence, that new evidence will be provided to the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) to be reviewed during the new OAIP.
  - If the procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter solely involved the decision-making process and/or decision-maker at the conclusion of the OAIP, the UCAs will order a new decision-making process based on the existing Investigation Report and all investigation materials, which will be provided to new decision-makers (two University Case Administrators) who will review the information and render a new decision in the case. That decision will be provided to the Organizational Representative by an OSARP staff member during a University Case Administrator -Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (UCA-OARR). See “University Case Administrator -Organizational Accountability Resolution Review” in this section of the Handbook for more information on this process.
    - If the appeal submission by the Responding Organization also contained new evidence and the procedural irregularity was associated solely with the decision-maker, the new evidence will be returned to the original Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) for a reopening of the original OAIP in order to review the new evidence. At the conclusion of the reopened OAIP, the Investigation Report and all investigation materials will be provided to new decision-makers and a new decision-making process, as noted above.
  - If the procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter involved both the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP), and the decision-making process and/or decision-maker who rendered a decision at the conclusion of the OAIP, the UCAs will order a new OAIP to be conducted by a different Organizational Accountability Investigator(s). See “Organizational Accountability Investigation Process” in this section of the Handbook for more information on this process. At the conclusion of the new OAIP conducted by a different Organizational Accountability Investigator(s), the Investigation Report and all investigation materials will be provided to new decision-makers (two University Case Administrators) who will review the information and render a new decision in the case. That decision will be provided to the Organizational Representative by an OSARP staff member during a University Case Administrator -Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (UCA-OARR). See “University Case Administrator -Organizational Accountability Resolution Review” in this section of the Handbook for more information on this process.
    - If the appeal submission by the Responding Organization also contained new evidence, that new evidence will be provided to the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) to be reviewed during the new OAIP.

Step 2: Appeal based on Excessively Harsh Outcomes, if applicable

If the appeal submission included excessively harsh outcomes, the UCAs will determine whether or not the outcomes in the case were excessively harsh by considering the information included in the appeal submission. The UCAs will also have access to the Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP. 

If the UCAs determine that the outcomes assigned in the case are not excessively harsh based on the totality of the information reviewed, then the decision previously rendered will stand. 
- If the appeal only included excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, then the UCAs will conclude the OAAR. The decision previously rendered will stand. 
- If the appeal only included procedural irregularity and excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, then the UCAs will conclude the OAAR. The decision previously rendered will stand. 
- If the appeal submission also included new evidence, the UCAs will move to step 3 and review the appeal. 
If the UCAs determine that excessively harsh outcomes were assigned in the case, the UCAs will alter the outcomes to make them appropriate. If the UCAs choose to alter the outcome(s) imposed, the UCAs may not impose outcome(s) more severe than those already imposed.  
- If the appeal only included excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, then the UCAs will conclude the OAAR.  
- If the appeal only included procedural irregularity and excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, the UCAs will conclude the OAAR. 
- If the appeal submission also included new evidence, the UCAs will move to step 3 and review the appeal.

Step 3: Appeal based on New Evidence, if applicable

If an appeal submission is based solely on new evidence or includes new evidence in addition to previously reviewed grounds of procedural irregularity and/or excessively harsh outcomes, the UCAs will first evaluate if the new evidence included in the appeal submission meets the stated criteria to be considered new evidence by conducting the following procedures. The UCAs will also have access to the Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP. 

Per the OAP, new evidence is defined as information that was not available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Resolution Review and only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy.  
The UCAs will determine if the evidence was not available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Resolution Review based on the information submitted in the appeal. However, new evidence does not include a witness, reporter, or other individual who was accessible and available to participate but chose not to and is now willing to participate in an appeal process. 
If the UCAs determine that the evidence included in the appeal submission does not meet the criteria for being new, then the decision previously rendered will stand and they will conclude the OAAR.
- If the UCAs determine that the evidence included in the appeal submission does meet the criteria for being new, they will then determine if the evidence included in the appeal submission is only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy. 
  - If the UCAs determine that the evidence included in the appeal submission is not solely relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy, then the decision previously rendered will stand and they will conclude the OAAR.
  - If the UCAs determine that the evidence included in the appeal submission is solely relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy, the OAAR will proceed. OSARP will schedule an OAAR to provide an opportunity for relevant participants to present and/or respond to the new evidence.

The Organizational Representative may choose to present the new evidence in person to the UCAs and may choose to have the witness(es) relevant to the new evidence present to the UCAs. The Organizational Representative must let OSARP know the name(s) and email address(es) of any witness(es) they plan to have present at least two days prior to the date of the OAAR. If a Responding Organization Witness is unable to attend the scheduled OAAR, they may submit a written statement to OSARP related to the relevant new evidence at least 24 hours prior to the OAAR for the UCAs to review. The OAAR will be scheduled around the Organizational Representative’s academic schedule. In cases that have a Reporting Party(ies), the new evidence will be shared with the Reporting Party(ies) and the Reporting Party(ies) will have the opportunity to respond to the new evidence at the OAAR and may choose to have a witness(es) relevant to the new evidence present at the OAAR. The Reporting Party(ies) must let OSARP know the name(s) and email address(es) of any witness(es) they plan to have present at least two days prior to the date of the OAAR; the names of any witness(es) will be shared with the Organizational Representative. If a Reporting Party Witness is unable to attend the scheduled OAAR, they may submit a written statement to OSARP related to the relevant new evidence at least 24 hours prior to the OAAR for the UCAs to review. If there is a Reporting Party(ies), the case will also be scheduled around their academic schedule.  

If a participant of any type fails to appear at an OAAR after being properly notified of its date and time, the OAAR will generally proceed and be heard on the basis of the Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, the information provided by those in attendance at the OAAR, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP.  

An OAAR will be audio and/or video recorded; closed deliberation will not be recorded. Individuals who participate in an OAAR are not permitted to make their own recordings. The Responding Organization shall receive notice of all rights they are guaranteed through the OAP (see “Responding Organization – Responsibilities and Rights – Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).” Any participant who does not follow the requirements of the OAAR process or the Rules of Decorum, may be removed, as determined by the chairperson. 

The start time of the OAAR includes the chairperson meeting with each participant to discuss procedural information and answer questions from the participants. The length of these meetings cannot be predetermined. 

In an OAAR where the Organizational Representative and/or Reporting Party(is) or Third-Party Reporter(s) choose to present to the UCAs, the Organizational Representative and/or Reporting Party(ies) or Third-Party Reporter(s) each have a right to one Support Person if OSARP is notified at least two days before the OAAR, and if the Support Person is willing and able to attend. The Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.

Additionally, the phrase “through the chairperson” used throughout the OAAR procedures refers to the chairperson confirming or denying a participant’s ability to respond to a question; this confirmation or denial may be verbal or non-verbal. The chairperson has the authority to prohibit information from being shared that violates the rights of a party, is not allowed by the OAP, or bears no relevancy to the new evidence in the case. Any participant may be removed by the chairperson if they violate the Rules of Decorum or procedures outlined in the Student Handbook. 

An OAAR will generally proceed in accordance with the procedure below; however, the UCAs may ask questions at any time.  

The chairperson meets with each participant individually to discuss procedural information and answer questions.  
The OAAR begins and the UCAs and participants introduce themselves.  
The Organizational Representative presents information solely about the new evidence in the case. 
- The UCAs may question the Organizational Representative about the new evidence.  
If applicable, any University Witnesses or Third-Party Reporters relevant to the new evidence in the case will be called individually to share their statement on the new evidence.
- The Organizational Representative may question the University Witness or Third-Party Reporter about their statement on the new evidence, through the chairperson.
- The UCAs may question the University Witness or Third-Party Report about the new evidence.
- The UCAs will ask the University Witness or Third-Party Reporter to remain available as they will be called back at a later point as outlined in the OAAR procedures.
- Step #4 repeats until all University Witnesses or Third-Party Reporters have participated.
If applicable, the Responding Organization’s Witnesses will be called individually to share their statement on the new evidence. 
- The Organizational Representative may question the Responding Organization Witness about their statement on the new evidence. 
- The UCAs may question the Responding Organization Witness about the new evidence.  
- At the conclusion of the statement and questions for the witness, the witness will leave. The UCAs may request that a Responding Organization Witness return at a later point in the OAAR for further questions.  
- Step #5 repeats until all Responding Organization Witnesses have participated. 
The Reporting Party(ies) present information solely in response to the new evidence in the case. If there is more than one Reporting Party, they will each be called individually.  
- The Organizational Representative may question the Reporting Party about the response to the new evidence through the chairperson.  
- The UCAs may question the Reporting Party about the new evidence.   
- The UCAs will ask the Reporting Party to remain available as they will be called back at a later point as outlined in the OAAR procedures. 
- Step #6 repeats until all Reporting Parties have participated.
If applicable, the Reporting Party’s Witnesses will be called individually to share their response to the new evidence.   
- The Organizational Representative may question the Reporting Party Witness about their response to the new evidence, through the chairperson.  
- The UCAs may question the Reporting Party Witness about the new evidence.   
- At the conclusion of the statement and questions for the witness, the witness will leave. The UCAs may request that a Reporting Party Witness return at a later point in the OAAR for further questions.  
- Step #7 repeats until all Reporting Party Witnesses have participated. 
The UCAs may ask questions of the Organizational Representative.
The University Witnesses or Third-Party Reporters will return to the OAAR and participate individually, if applicable.
- The Organizational Representative may ask final questions of the University Witness or Third-Party Reporter, through the chairperson, followed by the UCA’s opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the University Witness or Third-Party Reporter.
- The University Witness or Third-Party Reporter will be dismissed from the OAAR.
- Step #9 repeats until all University Witnesses and Third-Party Reporters have participated.
Any Responding Organization Witnesses asked by the UCAs to return later will participate individually, if applicable.  
- The Organizational Representative may ask questions of their witness, followed by UCA’s opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the Responding Organization Witness.  
- The Responding Organization Witnesses will then be dismissed from the OAAR. 
- Step #10 repeats until all Responding Organization Witnesses have participated. 
Any Reporting Party Witnesses asked by the UCAs to return later will participate individually, if applicable.  
- The Organizational Representative may ask questions, through the chairperson, followed by UCA’s opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the Reporting Party Witness.  
- The Reporting Party Witnesses will then be dismissed from the OAAR.  
- Step #11 repeats until all Reporting Party Witnesses have participated.
The Reporting Party(ies) will return to the OAAR and participate individually, if applicable   
- The UCAs may ask final questions of the Reporting Party(ies).   
- The Organizational Representative may ask final questions of the Reporting Party(ies), through the chairperson.   
- The Reporting Party(ies) may present concluding remarks about the new evidence.    
- The Reporting Party(ies) will then be dismissed from the OAAR.
- Step #12 repeats until all Reporting Parties have participated.  
The UCAs may ask final questions of the Organizational Representative.  
The Organizational Representative may present concluding remarks. 
The Organizational Representative will then be dismissed from the OAAR.  
The UCAs will deliberate and make a decision using the procedures below: 
- The UCAs will consider the totality of the evidence in the Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, the information provided by those in attendance at the OAAR, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP to determine if the decision previously rendered should stand or if the finding(s) on policy and/or outcome(s) previously rendered should be altered. The Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP will only be used in determining outcomes, if applicable.
  - If, in considering the totality of the evidence, the UCAs determine, using a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, that the finding(s) on policy should not be altered, the decision previously rendered will stand unless altered as a result of the current appeal based on excessively harsh outcome(s).
  - If, in considering the totality of the evidence, the UCAs determine, using a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” section of the Handbook, that the finding(s) on policy should be altered, the UCAs will determine whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy.
    - If alterations are made to the finding(s) on policy, the UCAs will determine whether or not the outcome(s) assigned should be altered. If the alteration of finding(s) requires a change in outcome(s), the UCAs will determine the new outcome(s). If the UCAs choose to alter the outcomes imposed, the UCAs may not impose outcomes more severe than ones that were previously imposed.

OSARP will notify the Organizational Representative of the final decision of the OAAR and provide the UCAs written rationale of the decision within two business days from the date of the OAAR. Typically, this notification is conducted in person or virtually with an OSARP staff member but may be solely sent via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative when, based on the circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate or necessary by the Director of OSARP or designee. If the final decision rendered at the conclusion of an OAAR involves required outcome(s), the Responding Organization will be sent information for completing required outcomes, including any applicable deadlines. Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome. 

The OAAR is a closed meeting between the Organizational Representative and OSARP and may include other individuals as noted earlier in this section. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply. 

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or recognized student organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP, including but not limited to discussing the case before the OAAR with any of the UCAs.

UCA - Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (UCA-OARR)

The decision-maker who reviews the Investigation Report and all investigation materials at the conclusion of the OAIP is typically the Associate Director of Case Management or designee. However, an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review may have ordered:

A new Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) to be conducted by a new Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) or a reopening of the existing OAIP to be conducted by the original Organizational Accountability Investigator(s), after which the Investigation Report and all investigation materials will be provided to new decision-makers, who will render a new decision in the case, or;
New decision-maker will review the existing Investigation Report and all investigation materials and render a new decision in the case, after which a UCA-OARR will occur.

When either of these occur as a result of an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, the decision-makers who receive and review the Investigation Report and the investigation materials at the end of the new OAIP, or from the first OAIP, will consist of two University Case Administrators (UCAs):

One voting UCA will be a JMU faculty, staff, or graduate student, and one voting UCA will typically be JMU faculty, staff, or graduate students associated with a department that works with organizations (e.g., Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, JMU Athletics, or a department with oversight of a student group), but will typically not work directly with the Responding Organization (i.e., if a Sports Club is the Responding Organization, the UCAs will typically not work for UREC). If any UCA feels their previous contact with the case or the individuals, organization, or group involved will prevent them from rendering a fair, impartial, and unbiased decision, the UCA must request that they not be assigned to the case. Responding Organizations and Reporting Parties (if any) will be informed of the UCAs assigned to their case. Upon receiving notification of the assigned UCAs, a Responding Organization or Reporting Party (if any) may request that a UCA be replaced if they can show a bias on the part of the UCA. To make such a request, a Responding Organization or Reporting Party (if any) 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 UCA is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 
The UCAs assigned as decision-makers will be making a new decision in the case and therefore, based on the totality of the evidence in the Investigation Report and investigation materials, may render a decision regarding responsibility that is the same as or different as the original decision in the case. The UCAs assigned as decision-makers will not be informed of the decision rendered by the original decision-maker. A Responding Organization cannot choose to accept the original decision in the case once an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review orders a new OAIP and/or UCA-OARR. For more information, see “Appeals – Organizational Accountability Process” in this section of the Handbook.

When the decision-makers determine that a case can proceed to a UCA-OARR, the Organizational Representative is provided the opportunity to attend a UCA-OARR in accordance with the following procedures. The purpose of a UCA-OARR is to provide the decision for the case.

The Organizational Representative will typically have their UCA-OARR set based on their academic schedule. The Organizational Representative will be informed of the date, time, and location via their official JMU email with at least three days' notice.
- Individuals in attendance at an UCA-OARR may include, but not be limited to OSARP staff, appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, or the Organizational Governing Body.
- The Organizational Representative can bring one Support Person to the UCA-OARR. The Support Person must follow all guidelines, restrictions, and the Role of a Support Person as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process.
- At OSARP’s discretion, other members of the organization (e.g., specific executive board members) can attend the UCA-OARR.
- The availability of participants, other than the Organizational Representative and OSARP staff, will be reasonably considered with scheduling the UCA-OARR.
The UCA-OARR is typically conducted in person in the OSARP office on the 2nd floor of the Student Success Center for participants on or near campus. A virtual option will typically be provided for those participants who are not on or near campus. All in-person appointments will follow recommended local, state, and federal health and safety guidelines if any are in effect at the time of the meeting. For good cause, the Organizational Representative may request they be able to attend virtually, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.
In some circumstances, including but not limited to threats to campus, student health or safety, the timeliness of the case, or the Organizational Representative not being physically present on or near campus, OSARP may schedule the UCA-OARR to occur virtually, with no in-person option, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.
- For virtual appointments, instructions will be provided via email for accessing the UCA-OARR. If the Organizational Representative is unable to secure a private location for their virtual UCA-OARR or requires an in-person appointment as an accommodation, the Organizational Representative should contact OSARP immediately upon receiving the notification email to reschedule their virtual UCA-OARR, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

Prior to the UCA-OARR, the decision-makers will have reviewed the Investigation Report and investigation materials provided to OSARP at the conclusion of Partnered Resolution or the Investigation Report and investigation materials provided by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) at the conclusion of the OAIP.

The decision-makers will determine whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy, utilizing a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” section of this Organizational Accountability Process, and will be based on a unanimous vote by the decision-makers. If the Responding Organization is found responsible for some or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, the decision-makers will create a written rationale for the decision to be provided to the Organizational Representative at the UCA-OARR.

If the Responding Organization is found responsible for some or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, the decision-makers will typically work with an OSARP staff member not been involved in the case, who will facilitate communication with appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body prior to the UCA-OARR to discuss appropriate outcomes for the Responding Organization, based on the alleged policy violation(s) for which there is a “Responsible” finding.

Outcome(s) are typically assigned in a case by reviewing various details and information, including but not limited to the current case file, information gathered from appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Athletics, or JMU faculty/staff with oversight of a student group), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body(ies) prior to the UCA-OARR, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP.

If the Organizational Representative attends the UCA-OARR:

The Organizational Representative will check in with OSARP staff and wait in the lobby until their UCA-OARR begins. During this waiting period, OSARP staff may request that an Organizational Representative complete a survey or pre-assessment related to the process. This is not required for participation in the UCA-OARR.
OSARP staff, typically an OSARP staff member who has not previously worked with this case, will greet the Organizational Representative in the lobby and escort them to a private office or meeting room in OSARP.
- University Case Administrators will not typically attend the UCA-OARR.
The OSARP staff member will provide the Organizational Representative with the finding(s) on policy, assigned outcomes, if applicable, and the written rationale from the decision-makers.
- If “Not Responsible” or “Dropped” for all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, the UCA-OARR will conclude, the decision in the case becomes the final decision, and any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable, will be removed. The Organizational Representative will receive the final decision via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the UCA-OARR.
- If “Responsible” is the finding for one or more alleged policy violation(s) in the case, the OSARP staff member will share the assigned outcomes related to the responsible finding(s) with the Organizational Representative and the outcomes assigned by the decision-makers along with their written rationale.
- After answering questions from the Organizational Representative and discussing any applicable instructions for completing assigned outcome(s), if applicable, the Organizational Representative will sign documentation stating they understand the finding(s) and, if applicable, outcome(s) assigned. If the UCA-OARR is conducted virtually, the Organizational Representative will sign documentation electronically.
  - If the case did not include an outcome(s) of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, the finding(s) and outcome(s), if applicable, are considered the final decision in the case. The OSARP staff member will then inform the Organizational Representative that they will receive an email from OSARP via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the UCA-OARR that will provide the final decision and, if applicable, any instructions and deadlines for assigned outcome(s).
  - Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome.
- If the case resulted in any of the following outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, then OSARP staff will review the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal.
  - In lieu of submitting an appeal, the Organizational Representative can accept the decision in the case during the UCA-OARR or choose to call or email OSARP prior to the appeal deadline and accept the decision in the case, including any of the following outcomes: suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.
- If the Organizational Representative indicates a desire to appeal or to take time to think about an appeal, OSARP staff will send an email at the conclusion of the UCA-OARR with the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal. For more information, see “Appeals—Organizational Accountability Process” in this section of the Handbook.
  - If an appeal is not received by the required deadline, the finding(s) and outcome(s) provided at the UCA-OARR will become the final decision in the case.
- For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook.

For example, OSARP may review an educational records release with a student to determine if the student would like OSARP to be able to release information gathered in the OAP with individuals from an Organizational Governing Body, unless the appropriate educational records release is already on file with the university.

If the Organizational Representative fails to attend the UCA-OARR:

An Organizational Representative waives certain rights in the OAP should they fail to attend the UCA-OARR.

In the notification email an Organizational Representative receives from OSARP about a case, information is provided regarding the Responding Organization’s Responsibilities & Rights in the OAP, including the right to attend the UCA-OARR and what rights the Organizational Representative waives should they fail to attend the UCA-OARR.
An Organizational Representative who fails to attend the UCA-OARR, regardless of whether the appointment was set based on their academic schedule or scheduled by the Organizational Representative, indicates the following to OSARP with their absence:
- The understanding that the UCA-OARR will proceed in the absence of the Organizational Representative.
- If “Not Responsible” or “Dropped” for all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, the decision in the case becomes the final decision, and any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable, will be removed. The Organizational Representative will receive the final decision via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the UCA-OARR.
- If “Responsible” for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, OSARP will provide the decision via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. This email will provide the finding(s), assigned outcomes, the instructions and deadlines for completion, if applicable, and a written rationale of the decision from the decision-makers. If the case did not result in an outcome(s) of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, the finding(s) and outcome(s), if applicable, are considered the final decision in the case.
  - Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome.
If the case resulted in any of the following outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, OSARP staff will send the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal. For more information, see “Appeals—Organizational Accountability Process” in this section of the Handbook.
- In lieu of submitting an appeal, the Organizational Representative can choose to call or email OSARP prior to the appeal deadline and accept the decision in the case, including any of the following outcomes: suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.
- If an appeal is not received by the required deadline, the finding(s) and outcome(s) provided at the UCA-OARR will become the final decision in the case.
For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook.

If an Organizational Representative missed the UCA-OARR due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, they may request the UCA-OARR be rescheduled; this request must be communicated as soon as practicable and OSARP will determine if it meets the unexpected and unavoidable circumstance criteria.

The UCA-OARR is a closed meeting between the Organizational Representative and OSARP staff and may include other individuals as noted earlier in this section. Individual(s) attending a UCA-OARR are not permitted to make their own recordings. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply.

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student(s) who was involved in the resolution of an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP). The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP or from the original report(s) received by OSARP.

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances to uphold the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved 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.

Information on Disability Accommodations in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP)

JMU and OSARP are committed to providing programs that are accessible to all participants. Participants may request accommodations in accordance with JMU Policy 1331. If you are a student who needs accommodation of a disability to support your participation in an OSARP process, submit your accommodation request to ODS via the Accommodate portal available in MyMadison (see also https://www.jmu.edu/ods/getting-started/index.shtml). You may send an email to the Office of Disability Services (ODS) at disability-svcs@jmu.edu asking for an expedited review in light of the timelines associated with the OSARP process. ODS and OSARP may consult to identify potentially reasonable accommodations to support effective participation in the OSARP process. ODS will communicate with OSARP about the identified accommodations and copy you on the written notice of accommodations. All requests must be communicated to OSARP at least three business days prior to a process, so please contact the Office of Disability Services immediately. For others who may need accommodations, contact the appropriate unit as indicated in JMU policy 1331.

Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices

Student Success Center
MSC 2901
738 South Mason Street
Room 2122
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807

Email Us
(540) 568-6218
Fax: (540) 568-2807