Hearing Process

Charge Letter


If the Office of Community Standards and Responsibility receives a report and determines that the student may have violated The Code of Community Standards, the hearing process is initiated by sending the student a charge letter. The charge letter will include information on the alleged policy violation as well as a copy of the report.  This letter will be e-mailed to the student at their Rollins e-mail address.

 

Hearing

The hearing is the student’s opportunity to share their side of the story and present information related to the incident. There are three different types of hearings:

 

Community Hearing Council (CHC)

CHC is a panel of students who are selected and trained by the Office of Community Standards and Responsibility. CHC is advised by the Community Standards and Responsibility Graduate Assistant.

Administrative Hearing

Administrative hearings are conducted by a representative of the Office of Community Standards and Responsibility (usually the Director, Assistant Director or Graduate Assistant). 

Administrative Panel Hearing

Administrative panels include a student, faculty member and staff member.  All panel members are trained by the Office of Community Standards and Responsibility. A staff member from the Office of Community Standards and Responsibility serves as an advisor to the administrative panel.

 

The Office of Community Standards and Responsibility determines which type of hearing the student will have and will communicate this information in the charge letter.   It is the student’s responsibility to schedule and attend a hearing with the Office of Community Standards and Responsibility. 

 

Guidelines for Hearings


1. Hearings will be conducted in private.
2. Students may be accompanied by an advisor.
3. Students may bring witnesses to their hearing.  Witnesses will be present only during their own testimony. 
4. Students will have the opportunity to present evidence on their behalf.
5. Students may choose not to answer any or all of the questions posed by the hearing body.
6. It is expected that all information provided by the student is truthful.

 

Decision Letter


Following the hearing, the hearing officer or hearing body will decide, based on the preponderance of evidence (more likely than that), if the student violated College policy.  This information will be communicated to the student in a written decision letter.  If a student is found responsible for violating College policy, the decision letter will also include the assigned sanctions. Decision letters are e-mailed to students at their Rollins e-mail address.

 

Appeal Process

 

New Information

Prior to an appeal, if the student believes that there is new evidence or relevant facts that were not brought out in the original hearing, and may be sufficient to alter the original finding, the student may make a request that this information be considered. The student must make such a request in writing to the Program Dean or designee by the appeal deadline in the sanction letter. The matter will be returned to the original hearing board or Administrative Hearing Officer for reconsideration.

 

Appeals


If a student is dissatisfied with the outcome of their hearing, they can appeal on the grounds listed below.  All appeals must be done in writing and submitted to the Office of Community Standards and Responsibility by the appeal deadline in the decision letter. Appeals are reviewed by an Appellate Board and recommendations will be made to the Program Dean.  The review will be limited to the verbatim record of the initial hearing, supporting documents and the written appeal. New evidence or other relevant facts not part of the original hearing will not be considered. The Appellate Board may uphold, reduce or increase the sanction(s) imposed by the hearing board or Administrative Hearing Officer or remand the case to the original judicial body. The accused student will be notified in a timely fashion with the board’s determination. Decisions of the Appellate Board are final.

 

 Grounds for Appeals

  1. There was procedural misconduct by the hearing body which was prejudicial to the accused student
  2. The sanction(s) imposed was inappropriate for the violation of College policy
  3. The preponderance of evidence standard, as described in the Charges and Hearings section (k) was not met.