As a result, written codes of conduct or ethics can become benchmarks against which individual and organizational performance can be measured. Additionally, a code is a central guide and reference for employees to support day-to-day decision making.
A code encourages discussions of ethics and compliance, empowering employees to handle ethical dilemmas they encounter in everyday work. Praise "If this isn't the book that we in the pain community need in , I don't know what is. With ardor and valor, Huber renders the lived experience of chronic pain and all that attends it in a language all her own, written—as she so wonderfully phrases it—using 'pain's alphabet.
Pain Woman further establishes Sonya Huber as one of the most exciting voices writing creative nonfiction today. Now, if I have my way, this book will sneak its way into the lives of many future readers, regardless of their personal experience with chronic illness. With her lyrically written and witty account, she better describes her own pain experience than a patient rating scale of 1 to 10 ever could.
Marie Kelly Kidnapped the Wrong Sister English Words Ages 14 and up To stop his brother from an unsuitable marriage, Nikias Dranias holds the woman he believes to be Daryle prisoner on his island. Add to Favorites. William Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet English Words Ages 0 and up This play tells of a classic love between the children of two rival families.
Chanel and Life is just starting English Words Ages 16 and up A teenager who lives with her boyfriend soon learns that she becomes pregnant. Hurley The Dreamer "Where dreams become reality, and reality becomes dangerous" English Words Ages 0 and up Summer Charard has started her Junior Year of High school and her biggest wish is to have a fun, care-free, popular life.
Deajia wadley I'm in love with my Brother Loving you is wrong but my heart can't stand the wait English Words Ages 16 and up 59 Maria is in love with her brother trey and she doesn't know he loves her too they know How wrong their feelings are towards each other will they act upon their feelings or will they keep their love hidden.
To ensure optimal functioning, our website uses cookies. By using the website you agree to the use of cookies. Depending upon the nature of the allegations, additional restrictions may be added. The following conduct procedures are intended to promote accountability, healing, learning, growth and fairness. Anyone may file a report alleging that a student or student organization violated the Code.
Any report should be submitted as soon as possible after the event takes place. After a report is filed, an investigation may be conducted, either prior or subsequent to a conduct conversation. If conducted, the investigation is designed to gather information through interviews with relevant parties and the collection of additional evidence.
During the initial stages of the conduct process, there may be the opportunity for parties to consider an informal resolution process such as Restorative Justice Practices. If determined to be appropriate by the Senior Director or designee, available options will be discussed with the parties. The University will typically contact students via their official University email account.
Students are expected to regularly check their University email account as well as spam folder. The respondent will have the opportunity to meet with a case manager during a conduct conversation. If a respondent, with notice, does not participate in the conduct conversation, the meeting will take place in their absence, and all available information will be reviewed by the case manager.
Respondents and complainants if applicable may be accompanied by an advisor. An advisor should not be selected with the actual or effective purpose of disrupting or attempting to disrupt the conduct process, or of causing emotional distress to any party. The advisor shall not perform any function in the process other than advising the party and may not make a presentation or represent the party. The parties must ask and respond to questions on their own behalf, without interruptions or presentations by their advisor.
The advisee may consult with their advisor during a session, or during breaks, but the advisor may not speak on behalf of the advisee or directly participate otherwise in the proceeding. Delays in the conduct process will typically not be allowed due to scheduling conflicts with advisors.
Respondents are presumed to be not responsible. If the acquired information does not reasonably support that a violation of the Code occurred, then the case will be closed, and the respondent will be notified. Without regard to whether the acquired information reasonably supports a violation of the Code occurred, the Office of Student Conduct will share information about support resources that may include counseling and psychological and trauma-informed services to complainants, respondents, and impacted parties.
If the acquired information reasonably supports a Code violation, the case manager will identify the specific Code violation s and the recommended sanction s to the respondent, in writing. The decision does not indicate if a respondent will be found responsible in a hearing, should the respondent deny responsibility for the identified Code violation s and request a hearing. The respondent may take three 3 business days to decide whether to accept the identified Code violation s and recommended sanction s , to request a hearing, or request a sanction review when appropriate.
Failure to respond in writing, in the three 3 business days allotted, will result in the Code violation s and sanction s being finalized, unless the case manager has approved an alternative timeframe.
If the respondent accepts responsibility for the Code violation s , and sanction s , they will be finalized and implemented. If the respondent accepts responsibility for the Code violation s but contests the sanction s when they include Probation with a Transcript Notation, Suspension, Indefinite Expulsion, Expulsion, or Loss of Housing for students, or Suspension or higher for student organizations , the matter will be referred to a sanction review.
The sanction review will typically take place within five 5 business days of forwarding the review to the Sanction Review Officer. Also see Section VI, C. If the respondent contests responsibility for the Code violation s , the matter will be referred to a hearing. The hearing will take place as soon as reasonably possible, but not sooner than five 5 business days after the respondent has been notified of the identified Code violation s , unless the respondent waives the five-day notice and the University can accommodate a shortened timeframe.
A hearing is a formal meeting. The hearing type is based upon the potential sanction s. If the respondent is determined by the hearing authority to have violated the Code of Conduct, the hearing authority will determine appropriate sanction s , which may or may not be the same as those originally recommended by the case manager. An administrative hearing will typically be utilized in cases that will likely result in outcomes up to and including conduct probation with transcript notation or loss of privilege but likely will not result in sanctions ranging from suspension to expulsion, if the respondent is determined to be responsible.
However, administrative hearings may also be utilized when a respondent s request such, and the request is granted by the Senior Director. For individual student cases, the hearing authority in administrative hearings is a single faculty or staff member; in cases involving student organizations, a panel of three 3 students authorized by the Senior Director comprises the hearing authority.
The University Conduct Board UCB hearing will typically be utilized in cases in which there is the potential that the respondent may be suspended or expelled from the University should they be found responsible. The UCB is comprised of a specific group of faculty, staff and students authorized by the Senior Director. Hearings shall normally be conducted in private unless the respondent requests an open hearing. Even if an open hearing is requested, the Senior Director or designee may determine that a hearing be closed if, in their opinion, an open hearing would have an adverse impact on any participant; would disclose personal, psychological or medical information of a sensitive nature; or would otherwise jeopardize the privacy or welfare of any participant.
An open hearing means that only current faculty, staff, or students who show a current PSU identification card, and are not participating or involved in the case, would be admitted. The hearing authority shall determine the number of persons to be admitted, and under no circumstances shall the hearing be open to more than the normal capacity of the typical hearing room.
The respondent will be allowed to submit a written response to the identified Code violation s prior to the hearing, which will be added to the hearing information. In addition, the respondent may provide a consideration statement that will be shared only with the hearing authority should it find that the respondent is responsible for violating the Code.
The respondent and their advisor will be allowed to attend the entire portion of the hearing, excluding deliberations. If a respondent, with notice, does not appear before the hearing authority, the hearing will take place in their absence, and all available evidence will be reviewed by the hearing authority.
If the matter involves more than one respondent, the Senior Director, at their discretion, may permit the hearing concerning each respondent to be conducted either jointly or separately. The respondent, hearing authority, and University Presenter if applicable will be allowed to ask questions of all witnesses who participate in the hearing. All witnesses will be considered University witnesses.
Names of witnesses may be provided by the respondent, impacted parties and others who may have been involved with the case. Prior to the hearing, it is important that the case manager understand the role of each witness in the case. To assist this process, those who have not met with the investigator or case manager will be requested to provide a brief statement outlining the relevant information they will share at least two 2 business days in advance of the hearing.
Note, witness participation in this process is voluntary. The testimony of unknown or unidentified witnesses shall not be admissible. In student organization cases, individuals who provide information as part of an investigation may remain anonymous throughout the conduct process, provided their identities are known to the University and the investigative entity serves as a witness.
Evidence not previously provided in advance of the hearing may be accepted for consideration at the discretion of the hearing authority. After the portion of the hearing concludes in which evidence has been received, the hearing authority shall determine whether the respondent is responsible for each alleged violation of the Code. The determination shall be made using a preponderance of the evidence standard.
If the hearing authority determines that the information provided during the hearing should have resulted in a different identified Code of Conduct violation, the hearing authority, in consultation with the Senior Director or designee, may provide the respondent with revised identified Code violation s and sanction s.
The respondent may then avail themselves of the full conduct process related to the newly identified Code violation s. Should the respondent be found responsible of violating the Code, the hearing authority will review the consideration statement s , if submitted, and other documentation relative to sanctioning, including any conduct history.
There shall be a single recording of all University Conduct Board hearings not including deliberations , unless the respondent requests the hearing not be recorded and the Senior Director approves.
Administrative Hearings are typically not recorded. The hearing authority will typically submit its finding of responsibility or non-responsibility, sanction s , if any, and rationale in writing to the case manager within five 5 business days of the hearing.
Decisions made by a hearing authority are final pending the normal review and appeal process. After any appeal process has been completed, the respondent will be notified in writing of the outcome. Sanction reviews may be conducted when a respondent accepts responsibility for the Code violation s through a conduct conversation, receives a sanction that includes Probation with a Transcript Notation or higher, or a Loss of Housing, and would like to have that sanction reviewed.
Requests for a sanction review shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the Senior Director or designee. When a respondent requests a sanction review and submits accompanying rationale, the case shall be forwarded to the Sanction Review Officer for review and consideration. The scope of the sanction review will ordinarily be a review of the written record of the case, unless otherwise determined by the Sanction Review Officer. The Sanction Review Officer will typically forward a decision and rationale to the Senior Director or designee within five 5 business days of receiving the sanction review request.
At the completion of the sanction review, there are no opportunities for further review or appeal. The case manager will then share the outcome in writing with the respondent and complainant if applicable. Cases resulting in sanctions of Suspension to Expulsion after a hearing may be appealed to the Student Conduct Appeals Officer by the respondent within five 5 business days of receiving official notification of the results of the hearing.
Such appeals shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the Senior Director or designee. The appeal shall consist of a written statement outlining the basis for appeal and all relevant information to substantiate the request. The Senior Director, at their discretion, may impose page limits for all written appeal statements.
An appeal may be requested on one or more of the following grounds :. In addition, the Senior Director or designee, for all cases, may appeal the decision s of a University hearing on behalf of the University within five 5 business days following the date that the respondent receives official notification of the results of the hearing.
The respondent will be informed that an appeal is being requested. The Senior Director may request an appeal based on the three 3 grounds listed above and one 1 additional ground:. The Student Conduct Appeals Officer will review the case records and any additional information that is submitted as may be requested by the Student Conduct Appeals Officer.
The original decision s regarding responsibility and sanction s may be sustained, modified or reversed. No decision should be overturned or modified without consultation with the Vice President for Student Affairs, Senior Director, or Chancellor. If an appeal is granted, one of the following processes will take place :.
If the error occurred as part of the investigative process, the matter will be referred back to the investigative process to address the error, and the process will resume from that stage.
When an appeal is granted on the grounds that new evidence is presented that was not available during the time of the original hearing or review and that is relevant to establishing whether it is more likely than not that the respondent is responsible for misconduct, the Student Conduct Appeals Officer shall return the case to the investigative process or the original hearing authority to be reheard with the new evidence. The Appeals Officer will typically forward their decision and rationale to the Senior Director or designee within five 5 business days of receiving the appeal request.
The respondent and complainant if applicable will be notified in writing. If an appeal is denied, there will be no opportunity for further review. In cases involving a potential crime of violence, excepting potential Sexual Harassment and Misconduct See Section VIII , the following additional procedures will be followed :.
The University addresses reports of alleged sexual and gender-based harassment and related misconduct pursuant to its policies AD85 for Title IX sexual harassment and related misconduct and AD91 for non-Title IX sexual and gender-based harassment and related misconduct. Further, OSC is committed to supporting impacted parties and informing them of support resources available to them. The following sanctions may be imposed as part of the outcomes upon any student or student organization found to have violated the Code.
More than one of the sanctions listed below may be imposed for any single violation. Sanctions will be elevated for violations that involve Acts of bias.
0コメント