The Honor Council: Procedures

Investigation Procedures

Accusation
Scope
Conducting an Investigation
Making an Accusation

Hearing Procedures

Preparing for a Hearing
Conducting a Hearing
Voting on the Verdict
Flagrant Violations
Inadvertent Violations
Determination of Penalty
Students Returning After Dismissal
Hearing Documentation
Appeals
Retrials

Information and Technology Services Investigation Guidelines

The Honor Council: Procedures

Investigation Procedures
1. Accusation
  A student or faculty member may report a case to any member of the Honor Council. If a case is reported to you, contact a co-chair who will then assign investigators to the case.
2. Scope
3. Conducting an Investigation
  The investigators assigned to the case will gather all pertinent facts of the case. A common method to gather facts follows
  1. Keep a log of all verbal and written contact with the accused, witnesses, and professors. Both investigators should be present when contacting any party involved in the case.
  2. Contact the accuser and obtain all details and information that he/she knows about the event.
  3. Contact the professor of the course and find out everything that he/she knows about the event. Find out how the Honor Code applied to the event, and how the Honor Code was explained in the beginning of the class.
  4. Collect copies of the syllabus, test/paper instructions, and anything else that might be helpful.
  5. Contact another student from the class and ask them how they perceived the Honor Code applied to the class and the particular event.
  6. Contact other eyewitnesses (if there are any).
  7. Contact the suspected student prior to delivering a formal accusation. It is fine to discuss particulars of the case so long as confidential matters, such as the identification of witnesses, are not disclosed.
4. Making an Accusation
  1. Warranted Accusation
    
    Once all pertinent evidence has been collected, the investigating officers shall set up a time to meet with both of the co-chairs to determine whether or not an accusation is warranted.
  2. Drop Case
    
    A case shall only be dropped if both investigating officers and both co-chairs agree that there is insufficient evidence to warrant an accusation. If a professor made the accusation, he/she is to be informed about why the case was dropped. All information collected during the investigation must be destroyed.
  3. Accusation Letter
    If sufficient evidence exists to warrant a formal accusation, the investigators will deliver a letter of accusation and a statement certifying receipt of the letter to the accused in person (if not possible, deliver by registered letter). Every letter of accusation must explicitly state:
    
    that the trial panel may recommend a penalty of dismissal from the College if the violation is deemed flagrant by the evidence presented during the hearing; and
    
    that if the student maintains that the violation was inadvertent, he/she must present evidence to substantiate such a claim (be sure to keep a copy of these papers on file).
    
    Appendix ***** contains an example "Accusation Letter."
  4. Flagrant Charge
    
    If the investigation reveals evidence that suggests the violation could be flagrant (see definition in "Scope of Flagrancy," §B, #4(a)), the investigating officers shall decide, in conjunction with the officers of the Honor Council (co-chairs and the secretary), and in consultation with the faculty advisor, whether to add flagrancy to the charge. Flagrancy will be included in the charge only upon a unanimous vote by the Honor Council officers and investigating officers. If flagrancy is being sought based on the evidence revealed during the investigation, it must be stated in the accusation letter. If the accused pleads guilty to that accusation, the Council will recommend dismissal to the President of the College. If the accused pleads not guilty to the accusation of a flagrant violation, the case will go to trial.
  5. Plea
    
    The accused student may enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. A plea of not guilty means they are not guilty of the violation stated in the accusation letter that would result in a penalty of No Credit for the course in which the violation occurred. If the accused believes they have committed the violation inadvertently they are advised to enter a not guilty plea. All guilty pleas result in a recommendation from the Council to the professor that the accused receive a grade of No Credit for the course.
  6. Accused's Reaction
    
    Being accused of an Honor Code violation is often very difficult for the student being accused. Be prepared for the accused to become very defensive and often confrontational. The "Accusation Letter" states that the accused may wish to seek help from the counselors at Boettcher, reiterate this point if appropriate. Be as supportive and compassionate as possible remembering that the accused student is innocent until proven guilty by clear and convincing evidence.
Hearing Procedures
1. Preparing for a Hearing
  1. Character Witnesses
    
    Ask the accused for the names of two character witnesses that will testify on their behalf.
  2. Witnesses as to Fact
    
    Ask the accused if they have any evidence witnesses for their defense.
  3. Accused's Rights
    
    Go over all of the evidence with the accused. Do not disclose the identity of the accuser.
  4. Cross-check New Information
    
    If the accused presents new evidence, cross-check the information and be prepared with additional witnesses during the trial to substantiate the claim or deny the claim(s).
  5. Date/Time
    
    Set a trial date/time that is mutually agreeable to the accused, accuser, and the Council. If the accused refuses to cooperate in the scheduling of the hearing, the Honor Council must set the date and inform the accused of the scheduled time.
  6. Students Called to Appear
    
    Students called to appear before the Honor Council must appear at the scheduled time as a matter of duty. For an accused not to appear is equivalent to a plea of guilty (Article III, §2e).
  7. Collaboration Trials
    
    While charges of collaboration are brought to the Council with all involved students listed as accused, each is actually entitled to a separate trial, and their verdicts are not tied to one another. The hearing is held simultaneously for convenience in scheduling and because the professor and/or accuser have identical testimony for the entire case.
  8. Trial Panel
    
    Contact seven (7) members (one co-chair, both investigating officers, and four members with no conflicts of interest) to be at the trial. Members should arrive at least one-half hour before the first witness is scheduled to testify. The Investigating Officers should be prepared to brief the trial panel on the specifics of the case.
  9. Organize Witnesses
    
    Organize the order of the witnesses by determining whose testimony will be most helpful first (accuser, professor, accused, other student in class, character witnesses, etc.).
  10. Schedule Witnesses
    
    Schedule the witnesses on the proposed date of the trial giving the accuser and the accused at least forty-five (45) minutes each. Schedule the witnesses in such a manner that no two witnesses will see each other in passing. Escort the witnesses out a different door than the next witness will be coming in.
  11. Reserve Room
    
    Reserve a room, with the Worner Desk, in which to hold the trial (Barnes 101).
  12. Security
    
    Call Security (x6707) on the day of the trial and ask them to open the room and the building if it is not during regular building hours.
  13. Copy Evidence
    
    Copy all pertinent evidence for each member of the trial panel.
  14. Tape Recorder/Tapes
    
    Obtain two tape recorders and four to six tapes for trial records.
  15. Investigating Officers are responsible for bringing extra paper, pens, tissue, batteries, a tie, and witness testimony sheets.
  16. Review all of the Hearing Procedures
2. Conducting a Hearing
  1. Hearing Records
    
    The tape recorders should be recording whenever someone is speaking about the trial. The tape recorders may be stopped between witnesses to conserve the time elapsed on tape, but the Council trial panel must refrain from conversing about the trial when the tape is not running. The recording quality should be checked once to ensure that an appeal board would be able to understand the testimony. Label each tape with appropriate trial information. One of the Investigating Officers should start the tapes with a opening statement containing the date, the name of the accused, the names of all Council members present, and the order of the witnesses. Each witness must be informed that the tape recorders is running during their testimony.
  2. Introductions
    
    Each Council panel member will introduce themselves to each witness, and the witnesses will introduce themselves.
  3. Witnesses' Rights
    
    A member of the Honor Council reads a number of sections (Article III, §2, 4, & 6) from the Constitution of the Honor System which pertain to witnesses' rights.
  4. Witness Pledge
    
    Each witness must sign the oath pledging that their testimony "is the whole truth to the best of their knowledge."
  5. Charge Against Accused
    
    The accused must be informed of the charge against him/her, including the full reason for which the accusation was delivered.
  6. Counsel
    
    Accused students are allowed to bring a member of The Colorado College community to the hearing as counsel. That is, a student, staff member, or faculty member may advise the accused during the hearing. The school's legal counsel may not, due to a potential conflict of interest. Current members of the Honor Council may not. The counsel may not speak for the accused at the hearing, and may not interfere with the Honor System process. Outside counsel is not allowed in the hearing.
  7. Questioning
    
    All attending Honor Council members may ask any questions they feel are pertinent to the case, attempting to reconstruct and understand the situation and the event. It is easier to start with simple questions, such as the environment in which the possible violation ocurred, what restrictions were placed on the assignment, and how the Honor Code was to apply to the work. At no time should the accused be informed of the accuser's identity. Remember to pose appropriate questions addressing the possibility of an inadvertent or flagrant violation.
  8. Taped Testimony
    
    Every effort will be made to avoid using taped testimony. Only in extreme circumstances (emergencies, etc.) will taped testimony be permitted. The co-chairs are responsible for determining the extremity of the circumstances and whether admittance of taped testimony will permit a fair trial. This determination will be made before the trial commences. If at any time throughout the proceedings the Honor Council is unable to conduct a fair trial, due to the use of taped testimony or otherwise, a mistrial will be declared and all charges dropped. Faculty members and student witnesses are expected to appear in person at all trials and retrials at the request of the Honor Council. Every effort will be made to accommodate personal testimony without denying the accused a speedy trial. Determination of both will be the responsibility of the Honor Council co-chairs.
  9. Closing Remarks
    
    Each witness is invited to make a final statement. Following this, the trial chair reiterates the importance of maintaining confidentiality and also secures the future location of each witness in the event they are needed later to answer additional questions.
  10. Discussion
    
    Following the testimony of all witnesses the trial panel should discuss the evidence. If evidence needs to be confirmed, or if the trial panel wishes to call additional witnesses, it should be arranged immediately.
  11. Dress
    
    The Honor Council has found that hearings are taken much more seriously and the Code is treated with more respect if the members dress up for hearings. Men should wear coats and ties. Women should wear skirts, dresses, or slacks.
3. Voting on the Verdict
  1. Closure of Discussion
    
    As soon as the Council feels they have discussed the case enough to determine the guilt of the accused, discussion should be formally closed.
  2. Clear And Convincing Evidence
    
    Do not vote on a gut feeling. A verdict of guilty cannot be presented because an Honor Council member "just knows" the student was guilty. The evidence must be clear and convincing. It is often the case that the evidence just is not there, no matter how obvious it is to someone that the individual is guilty.
  3. Consideration of Verdict
    
    Verdicts must be determined objectively. That is, the Council trial panel members should not consider a student s year in school, major, whether the violation is a first or second, or what effect a guilty verdict will have on the accused. The verdict cannot be influenced by evidence that suggests the violation was inadvertent.
  4. Secret Ballot
    
    The verdict of the case should be determined by secret ballot. A simple majority is required for the conviction of a first or second violation.
  5. Records
    
    The verdict is recorded on tape, with the number voting each way. The major points which determined the verdict are also recorded for use by an appeal board.
  6. Not Guilty
    
    If the verdict of the trail is not guilty, all evidence of the investigation and trial (including the tape recordings of the trial) are to be destroyed by the investigating officers in a timely fashion.
4. Flagrant Violations
  1. Scope of Flagrancy
    An Honor Code violation may be deemed flagrant if it includes, one of the following:
    
    cheating which includes theft;
    
    a conspiracy of three or more students to give and/or receive unauthorized aid;
    
    plagiarism where most of the work in any assignment is clearly not the student's own.
    
    Other grounds for flagrancy may be developed by the Council during the course of an investigation.
  2. Accused Flagrancy
    
    If the student was accused of a flagrant violation and found guilty of committing an Honor Code violation, a second vote is necessary to establish guilt of a flagrant Honor Code violation. If the student accused of a flagrant violation is found guilty of a flagrant violation the Council will recommend to the President of the College to dismiss the student. This vote is also by secret ballot and requires a unanimous decision by the Council members hearing the case.
  3. Discovered Flagrancy
    
    If flagrancy becomes apparent in the trial but was not originally sought in the accusation letter, the trial panel may find, with a unanimous vote, that the violation constitutes a flagrant action. This determination relies on the introduction of evidence/testimony that was previously undiscovered during the investigation process. The trial panel should use caution when pursuing flagrancy where it was not expressly sought in the accusation letter.
5. Inadvertent Violations
  1. Inadvertent
    
    An inadvertent violation is one in which the student did not knowingly commit the violation and did not gain any advantage in the course. Recall that the Introduction of the Constitution states: "Ignorance of the principles embodied in this Constitution and of the way in which they apply in a particular class will be no excuse for a violation of the Honor System." In other words, the Council may consider ignorance as grounds for recommending a less severe penalty, but not grounds for determining guilt.
  2. Inadvertent Violation
    
    If the accused presents evidence, or if the trial panel discovers evidence during the hearing, that suggests the violation was inadvertent, the trial panel will then vote to determine whether a lesser penalty is warranted. A unanimous vote of the trial panel is necessary in order for the violation to be deemed inadvertent. In order to preserve the integrity of the council's decisions regarding cases involving inadvertency matters, trial panel members may in rare circumstances abstain themselves from any portion of the inadvertent trial process. Such abstentions shall not be considered as opposed to unanimity.
6. Determination of Penalty
  1. Not an Inadvertent nor a Flagrant Violation
    
    If the verdict is guilty, but the violation is neither inadvertent nor flagrant, the Council recommends to the professor a No Credit grade for the course in which the violation occurred.
  2. Inadvertent Violation
    If the trial panel finds the accused guilty of an inadvertent violation, it must request that the professor of the block in which the violation occurred join them to discuss the following matters: how the professor interpreted and presented the Honor Code, the professor's suggestions for an appropriate penalty, and the potential consequences of the proposed penalties. The purpose of this consultation is to allow the trial panel to make an informed recommendation. Also, this consultation allows the trial panel to inform the professor of the evidence of an inadvertent violation of the Honor System. This is not an opportunity for the panel to deliberate the verdict of the case. Rather, it is a forum for the professor and the Council to share the responsibility of determining an appropriate penalty.
    
    Open the discussion with the professor by giving the hearing panel's suggestions for possible penalties for the inadvertent violations. Follow these suggestions with a request for the professor's thoughts on the appropriate penalty. While the suggestion of the professor should carry considerable weight, the hearing panel and the professor need not come to consensus on the appropriate penalty.
    
    Penalties for inadvertent violations shall only affect the assignment on which the violation was committed. Penalties shall affect the assignment's weight in the course. Penalties shall not take into account the student's performance in the course.
    
    Following the consultation, the trial panel [in absence of the professor(s)] will determine the appropriate recommendation. All possible penalties must stay in the "academic realm." The ultimate recommendation rests with the individual trail panel; however, suggested penalties include, but are not limited to: a No Credit grade on the assignment, a drop in a letter grade on the assignment, or a drop in a letter grade for the class. In cases where the Council considers three or more feasible penalties, the Council shall vote in the following manner: The Council shall rank the penalties in order of severity. Starting with the most severe, the council shall vote on each proposed penalty, by secret ballot, until a majority of the panel concurs on a recommendation.
    
    The Council shall use graduated penalties only in unique cases! The purpose of this mechanism is to ensure flexibility so that exceptional violations are dealt with accordingly. Graduated penalties shall not be a common practice of the trial process.
  3. Flagrant Violation
    
    If the trial panel finds the accused guilty of a flagrant violation, it must recommend dismissal of the student to the President of the College, as well as recommending the student receive a grade of No Credit for the course in which the violation occurred.
  4. Second Violation
    
    The Honor Council recommends to the President of the College that a student who pleads or is found guilty in a second violation be dismissed from the College, and that the student s transcript be annotated to show that fact. Should the President of the College accept the recommendation only in part, or not at all, the case will be treated as a first violation for the purposes of Council procedure.
7. Students Returning After Dismissal
  
  Students who are readmitted to The Colorado College after being dismissed for a second Honor Code violation return with one Honor Code violation on record. Any further hearings concerning said student are treated as second violations. Being dismissed for two Honor Code violations is considered ample warning that the Honor Code must be obeyed.
8. Hearing Documentation
  1. Notification of Verdict
    
    The investigating officers are responsible for notifying the accused, together, in person, of the verdict and penalty. If the student is found guilty, he/she has seventy-two (72) hours to notify the Council faculty advisor that he/she desires to file an appeal. The appeal must be based either on a significant error on the part of the Honor Council or on new and pertinent evidence. The professor is also informed of the verdict and recommended penalty.
  2. Professor's Rights
    
    The professor is the final authority as to the grades in his or her course. At the same time, the professor is bound by the Faculty Handbook to uphold the College Honor System and to give highest consideration to the recommendations of the Honor Council as to penalties for violations of the Honor Code.
  3. Notify Faculty Advisor
    
    Inform the faculty advisor of guilty finds or pleas, for the purpose of relaying the information to the Vice President for Student Life.
  4. Case Summary
    The investigating officers must prepare a case summary within one week of the trial or guilty plea. This is to keep the Honor Council files accurate and to help the appeal board if the case does go to appeal. The following information should be included in the summary:
    
    Name of Accused
    
    Name of Accuser
    
    Course and Block
    
    Professor
    
    Accused Violation
    
    Witnesses
    
    Council Members Present at Hearing
    
    Verdict (Final Vote)/Plea
    
    Summary of Important Points Leading to Decision
9. Appeals
  In the event the accused believes that a significant error might have affected the outcome of the hearing or that there is new and pertinent evidence which might alter the outcome of the hearing, the student may appeal the conviction. The procedure follows
  1. The request for the appeal must be submitted within seventy-two (72) hours from the time the verdict was delivered. The accused contacts the Council faculty advisor to initiate proceedings.
  2. Appeal requests are granted at the discretion of the Council faculty advisor.
  3. A group of five (5) students, chosen randomly from the student body by the registrar, shall act as the Appeal Board. No member of the Honor Council or any individual appearing before the Honor Council shall serve on the Appeal Board.
  4. The Appeal Board shall designate a member of the faculty or administration occupying a disinterested position, and preferably with legal training, to preside over the appeal.
  5. The accused may, at any time during the process, terminate the appeal.
  6. All records pertaining to the guilty verdict shall be available to the Appeal Board whose members shall be sworn to secrecy regarding the evidence and the identity of all witnesses. The faculty advisor of the Honor Council shall instruct the Appeal Board on its duties and responsibilities. The Appeal Board may request the reappearance of witnesses who testified before the Honor Council or the appearance of new witnesses who have pertinent information concerning the error which prompted the appeal. All witnesses shall testify under oath. The names of the members of the Appeal Board shall not be disclosed to the accused. In the event that one person is found guilty and one is found not guilty on a charge of collaboration, all information referring to both parties is released to the Appeal Board, but the Board shall be bound by confidentiality. The Appeal Board may not question the verdict of not guilty.
  7. If a simple majority of the Appeal Board members determine that important evidence beneficial to the accused was not considered by the Honor Council or that some other significant procedural error was committed, the Appeal Board shall present its findings to the Honor Council and recommend a retrial. The written recommendation shall include a summary of the major points which were the basis of the recommendation, and a summary of any new testimony heard by the Appeal Board. The Honor Council shall grant a retrial on the basis of the Appeal Board's recommendation. None of the Honor Council members present at the initial hearing shall participate in the retrial.
  8. The faculty member presiding over the appeal shall have no vote in the recommendations of the Appeal Board. The faculty member's responsibilities shall be to rule on the admissibility of evidence and to exercise discretion as to what evidence is relevant to the case. The presiding officer may instruct the Appeal Board concerning the weight attached to the evidence submitted and may question all parties for clarification purposes.
10. Retrials
  Retrials shall be conducted in the same manner as regular hearings before the Honor Council except that
  1. Nine (9) voting members of the Honor Council shall be present.
  2. A seven out of nine (7/9) vote shall be required for a verdict of guilty.
  3. No member of the Honor Council who was present at the accused's original hearing shall participate in the retrial.
  4. The accused and all witnesses who appeared at the original hearing shall again be given the opportunity to testify. New witnesses who have pertinent information shall also have the opportunity to testify.
  5. The same records shall be kept of retrial proceedings as of original hearings. In the event of a guilty verdict, the record of the retrial proceedings shall be kept together with the records of the original hearing before the Honor Council. In the event the accused is found not guilty at retrial, all records shall be destroyed.
  6. There shall be no right of appeal after a retrial.
Information and Technology Services Investigation Guidelines
1. When the council seeks information from ITS incident to an investigation or hearing, the first contact should be between the faculty advisor and the Director of ITS. The faculty advisor will explain what information is sought and why (within the limits of the council s confidentiality rules). The purposes are to:
  - Decide if any information sought is protected. If it is, authorities may be consulted as to ITS release, and council receipt, of the information.
  - Decide the feasibility of the information search and the extent of staff resources ITS is able or willing to apply to the search.
  - Decide who the council will deal with in ITS. This person might eventually be called as a witness.
  - Decide if the information is transitory, and assure that it should be retained until the case is disposed of.
  - Decide if others in the administration should be informed of the information request. Such additional consultations would be unusual.
2. A student being investigated in an honor case may want information from ITS files made available for his or her own defense. Such occasions would be handled in the same manner as in paragraph 1 above. Investigators, upon learning of a student's desires along these lines, should direct the student to the faculty advisor.
3. The council would not ordinarily ask ITS to collect information on particular students that is not part of the ordinary and routine archiving of information. Should the council decide to collect such information, the request would be cleared at higher levels by both ITS and the faculty advisor.
4. On the other hand, routine collection of information by ITS may reveal abuses. In such cases, ITS may consult both the faculty advisor and the Dean of Students in deciding disciplinary steps.

The Honor Council: Procedures

Table of Contents

The Honor Council: Procedures