The Honor Committee met Sunday to discuss a proposed absenteeism policy presented by Cassidy Dufour, Law School Rep. and Law Student, and Penelope Multiz, third-year School of Education Rep. The policy introduces a probationary period for representatives and support officers who miss more than four consecutive meetings without notifying senior Committee members, aiming to address engagement issues and ensure that members are informed and active in their roles. The Committee reviewed an overview of the draft but tabled further debate.
Laura Howard, chair of the Committee and fourth-year College student, said that although the Committee has met quorum frequently throughout her term, the Committee demonstrated a general decline in attendance at both support officer and Committee meetings over the past few years. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift to Zoom meetings, leading the Committee to debate ways to encourage in-person attendance as they transitioned back to an in-person format. Howard said that there is currently a need to discuss ways to strengthen member participation.
“[This year], we're really close to quorum or we surpass it … so we are in a lucky position with having such great representatives,” Howard said. “But we do still see declining numbers at [support officer] pool [meetings] and occasionally at Committee [meetings].”
The Committee’s current absenteeism policy falls under its “Code of Ethics,” which outlines the expected ethical conduct for all members and support officers — including attendance. Frequent absences or misconduct may result in a hearing before the five-member Standards Panel, which governs how the Committee handles violations by members of the Honor Committee. The panel can recommend impeachment, requiring a two-thirds majority vote, or other disciplinary actions based on the severity of the issue.
Dufour and Moltiz agreed that the current policy is ineffective, as in practice members are often not referred to the Standards Panel for absences. She said that especially in light of recent bylaw changes — such as the last meeting’s sanctioning bylaw change, which expanded the role of the Counsel for the Community — it is essential for both representatives and support officers to be present to stay informed on policy.
“No one goes to [the] standards [panel], it doesn't really address the underlying concern,” Dufour said. “It’s causing more of a fairness issue in the Honor process when you are not going to [meetings] ... you're not really able to if your council represents the student or community fairly.”
Under Sunday’s proposal, members who miss four consecutive meetings without communicating with Committee leadership would enter probationary status. Members on probation would lose their respective responsibilities — representatives would not be allowed to vote or count toward quorum, while support officers would not be allowed to staff cases until completing required make-up training.
The probationary proposal would apply to both Committee representatives and support officers. Support officers assist in case processing, investigations and trial representation, while representatives — 30 in total — are elected to define violations, investigate cases, administer sanctions and vote on key issues.
Probationary members would then work with the Executive Committee or senior support officers to discuss an “action plan” — such as attending a make-up training or reading over Committee meeting summaries — for exiting the probationary period, with two weeks suggested for completion. If a member fails to fulfill the make-up plan, they would be referred to the Standards Panel for possible disciplinary action, such as impeachment.
The proposal raised questions about its alignment with the Committee’s Constitution, specifically regarding representative voting rights. Will Hancock, vice chair for sanctions and third-year College student, said that placing representatives on “nonvoting status” conflicts with the Honor Committee’s Constitution, which states that each representative "shall have one vote.” This constitutional provision implies that voting rights are an essential function of each elected representative.
“[The Constitution] says that you have Representatives, and ‘each member shall have one vote,’” Hancock said. “How does that square [if] you're telling someone who is holding the position … that they don't have their vote [even] if they come to an Honor Committee meeting?”
Seamus Oliver, vice chair for investigations and third-year College student, said the new proposal could place members on probation under the Constitution’s existing “suspended student” category, which applies to Honor members suspended for violating Honor policy. Suspended members lose privileges associated with active membership.
“Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a Representative shall enter suspended Representative status solely for an accusation,” Oliver said.
Dufour supported expanding the suspended status to include representatives on probation, allowing suspension not only for Honor violations but also for failing to meet attendance expectations. She added that the probation policy is flexible and would not apply if representatives communicate their absences with the executive committee in advance.
“Instead of [entering the Standards Panel] and impeaching … [representatives would] just be on probation [and] can come back,” Dufour said. “Having the requirement that you [inform] someone and tell someone you can't be here completely [prevents] this plan from happening.”
The proposal was only informally introduced Sunday and will be discussed again at future meetings.
The Committee also agreed to hold their new guest speaker sessions — presentations from organizations that often receive co-sponsorships from the Committee, allowing organizations to showcase their connection with the Committee — separately from public comment periods moving forward. This arrangement, which the Committee has refined over recent meetings, led to a smoother meeting schedule.
Originally proposed by Howard Sept. 24 as a way to boost engagement at public meetings, the guest speaker initiative was debated previously this term, with members considering whether to integrate the segment into the public comment period or hold it separately.
The Committee agreed that a separate guest speaker session would preserve the distinct purpose of public comment. At Sunday’s meeting, the Committee opted to host the guest speaker session after the public comment period, finding that this arrangement created a smoother flow for the session.
Guest speakers will frequently include organizations that have received co-sponsorship funding — support that the Committee provides to Contracted Independent Organizations to foster positive relations within the University community. However, Howard clarified that any organization is welcome to present.
This meeting’s guest speaker was Hoo Hacks — a student-led tech and entrepreneurial CIO — whose representatives shared that Honor had funded a breakfast for their event. In return, Hoo Hacks promoted Honor at their sponsored breakfast, featuring a presentation on Honor policy and a reflection on Honor principles. Often, the sessions will serve as a way for organizations to bridge communication with the Committee following a co-sponsorship.
At last week’s meeting, Thomas Ackleson, vice chair for operations and third-year Engineering student, announced that the Committee plans to expand its co-sponsorship budget in the first half of the Spring 2024 semester, as the current budget for sponsorships is expected to be fully allocated by the end of this semester.
“There won’t be any reduction in the amount of co-sponsorships for granting,” Ackleson said. “So don’t be hesitant to advertise those at all.”
The Committee did not have time to complete discussion of the absenteeism proposal or other agenda items. The proposed policy is expected to be reconsidered at the Committee’s next meeting Sunday at 7 p.m. in the Trial Room of Newcomb Hall.
Read More
Virginia allowed to purge 1,600 voter registrations days before election
By Merrill Hart | 4 hours agoYoungkin called for these removals Aug. 7 — right before the 90-day “quiet period” mandated by the National Voter Registration Act.
Students weigh in on America’s future after Trump victory
By Thomas Baxter and Grace Thrush | YesterdayThe buildup to the historic election, dominated by President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race in July, was mired with unknowns.
Students cast their votes in pivotal federal elections
By Thomas Baxter , Finn Trainer and Nina Broderick | 2 days agoIn interviews conducted outside of polling stations, multiple University students said they felt that this election was particularly significant for the future of the country.
