Members at last night's Honor Committee meeting debated proposed changes in bylaws regarding appeals in the post-trial process.
Submitted by the ad-hoc Committee on Procedures, the proposal seeks to simplify the appeals process and further involve non-Executive Committee members.
Currently, the five-member Executive Committee, composed of the committee chair, vice chair for investigations, vice chair for education, vice chair for trials and the vice chair for community relations, decides whether there is a substantial basis for appeal.
The proposal aims to change the members of the Appeal Review Committee from the five Executive Members to two executive members and three Committee members who are not part of the Executive Committee.
Members of the ad-hoc Committee on Procedures said they felt this was a beneficial change that would allow "fresh eyes" on an Honor case, noting that Executive Committee members follow cases from the time they are reported to the trial.
"The 'fresh eyes' idea stands out as a major point, because the Executive Committee is privy to a lot of information from previous cases," Commerce School Representative Eric Flow said.
The ad-hoc proposal also notes that a combination of Executive and non-Executive Committee members would provide a good mix of perspectives.
Debate arose over the fact that executive members have more knowledge of bylaws and are more conscious of the legal aspect of the Committee. Currently, a legal counsel, a lawyer hired specifically to work with the Committee, meets with the chair of the Committee to answer any legal questions. The chair then updates the rest of the executive members on the meeting with legal counsel once a week. Some Committee members expressed concern that non-Executive Committee members might not have this detailed familiarity with bylaws and legal ins and outs of the Committee.
"The Executive Committee are the members who are routinely involved in the process," Honor Chair Ben Cooper said.
Cooper stressed the benefit of having the Executive Committee privy to any legal information, adding that legal knowledge would be lost if a new appeal group was formed separate from the Executive Committee.
"What's deemed as being 'fresh eyes' ... they would not have that knowledge," Cooper said. "In that sense we would see a longer timeline. The Executive Committee as a group would have been aware of legal issues going on. I think essentially the cons listed here seem to outweigh the pros."
The Committee also discussed simplifying the appeals process.
Under the proposed change, an appeal investigator would investigate the appeal and gather facts and evidence to be reviewed by the Appeals Review Committee once a substantial question of appeal has been declared. Then the Appeal Review Committee would decide by a majority vote whether to grant the appeal and what relief to grant.
Under the current system, once the Executive Committee decides that there could be reason for an appeal, an appeals committee composed of three Committee members investigates the appeal and returns its findings with a recommendation under the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee may then accept the committee's recommendation or send the appeal back to a different appeals committee. The proposal, then, would cut out this recommendation process.
Currently, a dismissed student may file an appeal within two years of the trial date if new evidence has been uncovered. A student may also appeal on the grounds of "good cause" within 30 calendar days. "Good cause" relates to the fairness and timeliness of proceedings that were applied during the investigation or trial.
"There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the process currently," Vice Chair for Trials Brian O'Neill said. "There's a decision maker and then a pseudo-decision maker. The main rationale was that it was unnecessary to have the recommendation process in there."
Engineering Representative Vanessa Trahan expressed her concern about the addition of the appeal investigator.
"It seems another potential area for bias," Trahan said.
O'Neill stressed that the appeal investigator's duty would simply be to collect facts.
"I don't see it as injecting bias into our system," O'Neill countered.
The only non-Executive Committee member who spoke at last night's meeting in favor of the appeals decision remaining with the Executive Committee was Commerce School Representative Alyssa Guo.
"As elected executive members, they have the most responsibility when it comes to upholding Honor," Guo said. "I would be much more comfortable if appeals decisions were made by people who have the utmost responsibility."
The Committee plans to vote on the proposed change in bylaws toward the end of the semester.
Read More
Winsome Earle-Sears talks higher education in first U.Va. event of the campaign
By Ford McCracken | 15 hours agoA Jamaican immigrant and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Earle-Sears is the first female lieutenant governor of Virginia,
U.Va.'s Earth Day Eco-Fair 2025 spotlights sustainability advocacy
By Leigh Bailey | 16 hours agoStudents from Contracted Independent Organizations and University Office of Sustainability leadership programs each shared their unique perspectives about sustainability advocacy on Grounds.
Student Council votes to relocate Hereford orchard and basketball hoop
By Lauren Seeliger | YesterdayStudent Council passed a resolution Tuesday to relocate the orchard and basketball hoop of Hereford Residential College due to construction in the surrounding area.
