To Those Concerned with Student’s Rights at UNR:
Please be aware that the UNR Code of Conduct departs drastically from the NSHE Code by denying UNR student’s many of the key rights and procedural protections granted students in the NSHE Code. If you find this disagreeable, please make your voice heard.
Side by Side Comparison NSHE and UNR Code
A look at UNR’s website, and presumably, the materials made available to students with regard to conduct occurring on campus is interesting. It certainly appears to fail to include any mention of the prohibitions or procedures related to misconduct by FACULTY or ADMINISTRATORS while being much more detailed in regard to what student’s are prohibited from doing and the procedures that can be used against the accused students. However, to the extent the NSHE Code applies to UNR (it is not entirely clear given the language of NSHE 6.1.1) it seems an education is in order for the student’s at UNR with regard to the rights the NSHE may afford them, rights that UNR seems awfully keen on keeping UNR’s students in the dark about and or failing to include in those rights accorded to UNR students.
The UNR Student Code of Conduct (UNR Code) begins:
“In order to maintain an academic climate conducive to each member’s success in the pursuit and transmission of knowledge, the university has established a set of policies and standards for all of its members to follow…”
It is not clear what the UNR Code means by the phrase a “set of policies and standards for all of its members to follow”. Do ‘members’ include UNR faculty, administrators, and other employees? Is there any Code of Conduct for non-student members of the UNR community? Is any such Code made available to students? What steps have been taken to make students aware of the recourse UNR makes available to them in the unfortunate event that a non-student member of the UNR community harms a student in some way?
Interestingly, NSHE 6.1.1 does speak to more than just “expectations of students”, where it states that the “procedures and sanctions established in this chapter are applicable to the resolution and determination of charges against members of the community of the Nevada System of Higher Education for allegedly engaging in conduct prohibited by the Nevada System of Higher Education Code or by other applicable stated policies, procedures, rules, regulations or bylaws of the System institutions". Further, the NSHE Code contains sections explicitly devoted to addressing non-student misconduct in NSHE 6.2.2 “Standards of Conduct. The following conduct, being incompatible with the purposes of an academic community, is prohibited for all members of the community of the System, including but not limited to the faculty and students, shall constitute cause for discipline and may lead to the procedures and disciplinary sanctions established in Section 6.3 of this chapter.” Additionally, NSHE 6.2.1 “Prohibited Activity - Faculty Only” contains a long list of prohibited conduct for ‘faculty’.
Who is included in the term ‘faculty’? Does this ‘faculty’ designation include UNR administrators? Does it include member of UNR’s Office of Student Conduct or the UNRPD or the IT Department? Does UNR have any rules or regulations in place that attach to misconduct of these various members of the UNR community? Are such rules and regulations made available to students so these students can be just as aware of the procedures and prohibitions directed toward non-student misconduct? UNR certainly makes the prohibitions and procedures attaching to student misconduct readily available…
Has UNR opted against including the sections of the NSHE Code, pursuant to NSHE 6.1.1 or some other NSHE Code section, directed towards the misconduct of non-student member of the UNR community? Or, does UNR refrain from announcing exactly which provisions of the NSHE Code it has accepted or rejected because, for one, it is more convenient for UNR to be able to use sections of the NSHE Code when it suits UNR’s needs and depart from NSHE Code sections when it does not suit UNR’s needs. Two, would failing to announce, in writing, what NSHE Code sections UNR has decided to accept and implement protect UNR and its image by making it more difficult to determine and make public exactly which sections of the NSHE Code UNR has decided are just too troublesome to live up to.
Does NSHE allow UNR and other member institutions to just pick and choose, cafeteria style, what elements of due process in the NSHE Code that these member institutions can see themselves being able to tolerate? What elements the ‘funding crisis’ will not make necessary to do away with? UNR cannot support having something so germane to the collegiate experience as a marching band, what makes due process principles so special that they should come before ensuring that UNR administrators and faculty remain amongst the highest paid in all the land? The existence of any actual ‘funding crisis’ at UNR is dubious at best:
http://www.npri.org/blog/unr-unlv-funding-outpaces-graduation-rates
http://www.npri.org/blog/nshe-needs-to-focus-on-graduating-its-students
http://www.npri.org/publications/obsessed-with-inputs
This “crisis” is actually more of a difficulty in maintaining even the most basic elements of a respectable education whilst paying higher and higher salaries to faculty and administrators to do more and more things that have little to nothing to do with educating students (ie, their own little ideological vanity projects, attempts at social reengineering).
“NSHE Section 6.1 Scope of the Chapter
6.1.1 Applicability of Procedures and Sanctions. The procedures and sanctions
established in this chapter are applicable to the resolution and determination of
charges against members of the community of the Nevada System of Higher
Education for allegedly engaging in conduct prohibited by the Nevada System of
Higher Education Code or by other applicable stated policies, procedures, rules,
regulations or bylaws of the System institutions. Except as otherwise provided in
this chapter, the NSHE institutions and professional schools may establish
written policies, procedures and sanctions for the discipline of its students that
may be used in lieu of the policies, procedures and sanctions of this chapter,
including but not limited to the establishment of student judicial councils, subject
to the prior review by the Chief Counsel and to the approval of the president of
the institution. (B/R 1/07)”
What exactly does NSHE 6.1.1 mean? What does “except as otherwise provided in this Chapter” mean? Does it mean if something is in NSHE Chapter 6 (like the right of accused students to know the name of their accusers, the date the complaint against them was filed, and to view a copy of the written complaint) that the member institutions cannot do away with it? Can NSHE member institutions decide to depart from sections of the NSHE Code when it is more convenient for them to do so? Is this done in the name of “furthering the institutional purpose and objectives”? What exactly must those objectives be such that they necessarily cannot be met without abrogating rights provided to students and prohibitions and procedures directed towards ‘faculty’ misconduct? Does a ‘funding crisis’ necessitate departing from the student’s rights set forth in the NSHE CODE? Are salaries at UNR perhaps a bit too high (and that is not referring to the pay of TA’s) if they are coming at the expense of ensuring that the same UNR Officer does not act as both prosecutor and judge in a misconduct hearing? Is this an example of the same types of problems that result in the University of Nevada, Reno having the 25th highest instructional spending per full-time student in the U.S., according to the database of the Education Trust, despite the fact that when UNR is compared on rates of graduation within six years, the school ranks just 211th?
UNR’s Code states “SECTION I: STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) have established regulations for student conduct that augment local, state and national law…Subsection B includes those regulations governing the entire Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE)”. However, ‘Subsection B’ does not appear to include all of ‘those regulations governing the entire’ NSHE. Does this language incorporate by reference the NSHE Code? Subsection B, in fact, excludes many key protections afforded student’s rights within the NSHE Code.
NSHE 6.7.1 "Appointment of Administrative Officer. In order to assure an appropriate separation of responsibilities, the job description of the person appointed as administrative officer must be approved by the Executive Vice Chancellor & Chief Counsel prior to appointment. The person appointed to perform the duties of administrative officer shall not represent the System institution nor engage in the practice of law on behalf of the System institution, including, but not limited to, the rendering of legal advice or opinions.” Has the NSHE Executive Vice Chancellor approved the duties of the individuals at UNR’s Office of Student Conduct currently acting as Administrative Officers? These individuals admittedly regularly issues sanctions against students, however, the NSHE Code explicitly forbids such a combination of prosecutor and judge in one person.
What is UNR’s position on “NSHE 6.7.4 Combined Duties. The president may combine the duties of the administrative officer with those of any other person employed by the System institution, but may not combine such administrative officer duties with those performed by hearing officers or hearing committee members under the procedures of this chapter. (B/R 4/08)”? Does UNR condone having the Administrative Officer in the Office of Student Conduct issuing sanctions against students? Yes, it does, according to UNR, in that cheerful way UNR announces it is trampling one’s right while characterizing the action in some high-minded terms alluding to maintaining educational purposes, blah, blah, blah. Is this an appropriate separation of duties? Perhaps those most in need of an educational experience are those in UNR’s administration and Office Student Conduct, with a required course being one in fundamentals of due process.
UNR’s Code might or might not appear to have a prohibition against having an Administrative Officer in the Office of Student Conduct issue decisions and or sanctions, in effect acting as both prosecutor and judge in the same matter, the reality at UNR, by the OSC’s own admission, is that the Administrative Officer in the Office of Student Conduct regularly doubles as the Hearing Officer as well.
Section I, Subsection A, of UNR’s Student Code of Conduct spells out the “University of
“3. Failure to comply with the directions of university officials in the performance of their duties.
4. Failure of the student to present proper credentials, such as: student identification card, driver's license, or parking registration, to university officials upon their request.
5. Resisting or obstructing such university or other public officials in the performance of their duties.”
There is no indication that there is any check whatsoever on the unbridled exercise of the raw and open ended power these three provisions afford UNR. Well, there is the fact that President Glick must approve of them, so there’s that. And the General Counsel, of NSHE presumably (Bart Patterson?), unless NSHE 6.1.1 is referring to UNR’s General Counsel (whoever that may be, Mary Dugan? Or does she work for NSHE?). So, theoretically, a student participating in some type of protest or demonstration could be in violation of UNR Code Section I, subsection A, part 4 should they refuse to provide their driver’s license to any university official intent on taking down their contact information for the purpose of retaliating against such a student for something so minor as having a different viewpoint on some issue of the day, criticizing the police state that exists on campus, or the spying on students surfing habits on the internet. Incidentally, in 2004, reviewing a case originating in
However, if you want to attend a state university in
UNR can apparently charge a student refusing to provide identification to any random university official (does that include the fourth string Library Book Checker-Outer hatchet man? Anecdotal evidence suggests that it does at UNR) with misconduct, which can result in a punishment ranging from a warning to expulsion. But surely there is some sort of check on this absolute power other than some lone blogger posting petulant diatribes on the internet, right? No? There is no other check? Are the citizens of
For good measure, the UNR Code also goes ahead and makes having a glass of wine at lunch before returning for one’s afternoon class punishable by caning, or rather, some sanction ranging from a warning to expulsion, depending upon how badly UNR wishes to retaliate against whoever may have made direct eye contact with any of the approximately 175 faculty members making over $150,000 in annual salary for finding the strength, stamina, an immense inner will to teach an entire three hours per week.
So, the UNR Code of Conduct really eviscerates the rights granted students in the NSHE Code, except, apparently, where the NSHE Code just goes and says, “hey, the heck with it members institutions, just go ‘head and do whatever the hell you want to students, and while your at it, tell those pathetic student/trolls to hurry up and better subsidize our pet ideological projects and ridiculously bloated salaries that are in no way in line with what our meager contributions and skill levels could possibly command in a free market economy” NSHE 6.1.1.
So, on to the UNR Code’s evisceration of the rights granted students by the NSHE Code:
UNR’s Code takes care to leave out (and the following list is not complete due to space contstraints) such pesky things as those required by the follow sections of the NSHE Code;
NSHE 6.8 Decision to Hold Hearings
“6.8.1 Complaints. …The complaint shall be in
writing, shall be signed by the complainant and shall, to the extent reasonably
possible, specify the date, time, place, person or persons involved and the
circumstances of the alleged prohibited conduct, including the name or names of
persons who may have witnessed the alleged prohibited conduct.”
UNR will a undoubtedly point out that its Code does provide for, in Section I, subsection B, part 5: “The person or organization charged must receive, at least 10 college working days before the hearing, written notice from the director (and/or staff) containing: a. The date, time and place of hearing; b. Specification of the misconduct charged by citing the applicable NSHE or university regulation or policy alleged to have been violated; c. Specification to the extent reasonably possible, of the time, place, person or persons involved and the circumstances of the alleged prohibited conduct, including the name or names of persons who may have witnessed the alleged prohibited conduct.”
However, providing that information well after sending the charging letter and only, at most, 10 days before a FORMAL hearing is actually quite different from providing it in the initial charging letter and before UNR’s Office of Student Conduct Administrator Officer (Carol Millie, maybe Sally Morgan if she is feeling really hands on that day) has called the student in for a “conference” (in her sneaky way of not actually telling the student they are participating in the informal hearing part of the process, encouraged to say things that can and will be used against them). And, remember, at this point UNR will still not have provided the NAME OF THE INDIVIDUAL BRINGING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE STUDENT OR A COPY OF THE SIGNED, DATED COMPLAINT, even where it is being demanded, despite the fact that the UNR Code has rules related to things like concluding the investigation within 60 days of the filing of the complaint. Guess students just need to take Carol Millie’s word for when any such complaint was filed and that Carol concluded her investigation within 60 days of the signing and filing of the complaint.
What is so insidious is that the rights UNR shaves off of students in the process are not, in most cases, so severe as to really enrage the typical, unaffected student. But you try having your whole academic life (which to many has entailed the largest expenditure of money, time, and aggravation they will ever engage in) put in jeopardy and not being afforded notice, at the beginning of UNR’s shakedown of you, of who is accusing you of what, when they made those accusations, and what evidence exists in UNR possession in support of the charges. Then, you try coordinating a defense with your lawyer (you can afford one with all those leftover student loans you got, right?) in the ten measly school days UNR grants you to prepare to defend yourself in their Kangaroo Court (where apparently the prosecutor is not practicing law without a license so as to steer clear of violating NSHE 6.7.1-“Appointment of Administrative…the person appointed to perform the duties of administrative officer shall not represent the System institution nor engage in the practice of law on behalf of the System institution, including, but not limited to, the rendering of legal advice or opinions”-, especially where the Office of Student Conduct stonewalls you on your requests for access or copies of the documentation or evidence to be used against you.
Further, while NSHE 6.8.2(b) requires that “administrative officer shall present a charging letter to the person charged who may present a written answer within 7 college working days after receipt thereof. At a minimum, the charging letter shall contain the information specified in Subsection 6.8.1 (see discussion of that section above) of the Nevada System of Higher Education Code. The administrative officer shall inform the person charged in writing (UNR apparently feels writing students an email counts a sufficient written legal notice) that, although the person charged is free to make a written reply, there is no requirement or compulsion to do so.”
However, UNR informs accused students in introductory letters that the student is required to respond to the letter (which typically does not contain all that required in a charging letter under NSHE 6.8.1, yet UNR will insist the deadlines attached to charging letters will run from the date of this initial correspondence, which typically is not sent via registered mail, as required by NSHE 6.8.1…). NSHE 6.8.2 says students face “no requirement or compulsion” to respond to these letters, yet Carol Millie writes to students and insists that the procedures she or her office have put in place carry with them the force of law and require students to do just that. Carol Millie is said to be constantly quoting some “procedures established” by her office for the resolution of this or that, though few, if any students, have actually been able to view these procedures or obtain a copy of them. Also, these letters typically contain the names of few, if any witnesses. UNR is a place where the Sixth Amendments Confrontation Clause goes to die a slow ugly death.
To foster justice, UNR Code, Section I, subsection B, part 6: “Notices shall either be personally delivered to the student or shall be sent to the person by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. A copy of the applicable disciplinary hearing procedures shall accompany each notice or be provided to the student in a pre-hearing conference.” However, it has been reported that UNR’s OSC feels it is best for students to be required to visit the OSC to ‘personally’ deliver such notices to themselves. Is this another case of ‘darn it, there just isn’t money in the budget to retain all these pesky procedural protections accorded students because we wouldn’t possibly do our jobs for anything less than $100K”? Further, it is standard practice at the OSC to dispense with the tedious requirements that it provide “a copy of the applicable disciplinary hearing procedures” which are to “accompany each notice to be provided to the student”. In fact, the OSC has been known to flat out refuse to provide these “procedures” (which apparently they themselves legislate, perhaps sometimes simultaneous to enacting them, in real time). And you can forget about finding a copy of the procedures posted and made available for download on the OSC site, unlike the many rules they do post and make available which carve away at student’s rights. The UNR student community should insist that any and all procedures, rules, polices, etc. that the OSC ‘follows’ be posted and made available to students who wish to access them anonymously. UNR really needs to dispense with the institution wide practice of forcing anyone who wants to see something UNR does not necessarily want made readily available to come into some hostile office, in person, and provide identification to “access” some material (read you cannot even make or get a copy of many materials at UNR that are part of the public record or essential to getting a fair hearing, you may merely view such materials in a room for a little while) the viewing of which may be against the interest of the person providing the access for.
Interestingly, the UNR Code, Section I, subsection B, part 8: “The student shall present his or her response to the hearing board or officer. The student is not required to speak and this choice shall not be construed as an admission of responsibility for the alleged misconduct” actually accords (or at least pretends to) students the right to remain silent without such silence being admissible as evidence of guilt. This is not the case at some universities, so there’s that. But, remember, these are just words on a page, what really happens in practice at UNR? Do OSC personnel berate students who choose to remain silent and ominously imply to these students that their silence is a death sentence to their case’s chances? Do the UNRPD do this? The evidence suggests that they do, quite often.
Also, UNR Code, Section I, subsection C, part 3: “If the student wishes to have a hearing, a time must be set up for this hearing which in not less than 10 college working days from the date that the student is formally notified of the charges of misconduct in writing, and notified in person as to the specific hearing body that will hear the case” attempts to shift the burden to the student to “set up” a time for this hearing, rather than require UNR’s OSC (which apparently makes lots of grant money, Nanny State-style, off the backs of students by sticking them with MIP’s and the like, off campus, that will stay on that student’s record forever- have fun in those graduate school and future employment applications) and its well-funded staff of nine women and one man to actually provide, as required by UNR Code, Section I, subsection B, part 5 and 6, UNR’s OSC to ensure that legal notice be “personally delivered to the student or shall be sent to the person by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested” and which the student must “receive, at least 10 college working days before the hearing, written notice from the director (and/or staff) containing: a. The date, time and place of hearing; b. Specification of the misconduct charged by citing the applicable NSHE or university regulation or policy alleged to have been violated; c. Specification to the extent reasonably possible, of the time, place, person or persons involved and the circumstances of the alleged prohibited conduct, including the name or names of persons who may have witnessed the alleged prohibited conduct”.
Somehow the rules that require UNR to provide sufficient legal notices of a charge become, in the parallel reality that is UNR’s OSC, a requirement upon the student to do the job of the OSC staff, to deliver things, to schedule things, etc. It cannot be confirmed at this time whether the OSC staff has ‘established procedures’ in place requiring accused students to pick up OSC staff’s dry cleaning, take their kids to day-care, and just generally do their part to pitch in and make sure our wittle OSC staff doesn’t get too tuckered out cookin’ up all that justice they dispense. However, NSHE 6.9.2 “Hearing Arrangements. The administrative officer shall make physical and scheduling arrangements for hearings required by Sections 6.9 through 6.11 of the Nevada System of Higher Education Code” would seem to indicate that the OSC staff needs to at least do a little bit of the work there, though the OSC staff usually interprets that to mean they must tell the student to do the things the rules require the OSC staff to do. It is a rather efficient transfer of work responsibilities to people who are not actually getting paid to work at UNR, but who rather are paying UNR for the privilege of attending its fourth rate corrupt state university.
It is pretty telling that the UNR Code, “Subsection C: Student Rights and Responsibilities” is so chock full of protections for students that it takes all the way to Subsection C, point 2 to make sure and advise students that great care has been taken to ensure “2. The student has the option of waiving a hearing and accepting the sanction recommended by the Director of Student Conduct (and/or staff) and approved by the president.” It has been reported that great intimidation is utilized by UNR to force students to waive their rights to a hearing (or for the OSC to interpret any imagined failure on the student’s part to comply with the make believe “established procedures” put in place by the OSC as constituting a waiver of the student’s right to a hearing), for if UNR had to have all these hearings and stuff all the time, well, that’s just that much less money to plug into bloated faculty and administrator salaries. Sally Morgan, Director of the Office of Student Conduct makes over $90,000 a year. You would think $90,000 a year could buy someone who could do a bit better job of at least providing a charade version of a just student judicial affairs office. UNR students deserve someone who will at least take the most basic steps to appear to or pretend to be fair and just. It is just insulting to be so flagrant with it UNR. Come on, now. You’re better than that. Maybe there is a different reason for why the salary of the Director needs to be so high.
Also, UNR Code, Subsection C, part 6 (“The student may request an extension of time beyond the 10-day time span set for notification of the hearing and the established hearing date. This request may be made to the chairperson of the hearing body, or to the Director of Student Conduct (and/or staff). This request will be considered if based upon good and compelling”) reportedly does not entitle students to extensions of time where there is a dispute with the OSC as to the students right to have access to the signed, dated complaint against the student or to view other essential pieces of documentation and or evidence to defend themselves at any hearing. Further, students reportedly must find an attorney who is free to prepare for and appear at a hearing within 10 days of being hired, as UNR’s OSC will not work with the attorney’s schedule or allow an extension of time to schedule the hearing for when the attorney can attend it. But even if you track down an attorney who can prepare for and attend a hearing in such a short amount of time (and remember, the attorney must go down to the OSC’s office to view the evidence to be presented because, for some reason, no photocopying of such materials is allowed).
Then there is UNR Code, “Subsection C, part 8. The student has the right to have an adviser present at a university hearing who may act on the student's behalf. The student must give written notice of the name and address of the adviser to the Director of Student Conduct (and/or staff) prior to five college working days before the hearing date. If the adviser is an attorney, the director (and/or staff) will coordinate the university's preparation for the case to allow for the general counsel for the system to arrange for an attorney for the system to serve as adviser to the director (and/or staff) in the hearing.” Further, “An advisor will not be permitted at the hearing without such notice.”(Subsection E, part 1). What this means is that the student actually only has five working college days to track down, interview, and hire and attorney who can prepare for and attend a judicial hearing within five working college days. This is made harder by the fact that the attorney cannot just call or write the OSC and request the relevant discovery and documentation necessary to defend against the action, but rather must find time to go down to the OSC where they will, at least according to NSHE “6.9.4 Evidence…the person's advisor, if any, and the administrative officer shall have the right to examine, at least 5 college working days prior to the hearing during reasonable business hours, any documentary evidence to be presented at the hearing.” So, the student’s attorney cannot just call up and ask the OSC to fax the evidence against their client over for review prior to the hearing. The student must actually pay the attorney to go down to the OSC and haggle with indolent OSC staff about what they have a right to “access”.
Does the average student have the money to pay an attorney’s billable hour to drive down to the OSC and deal with the OSC’s stonewalling and delays? Are there any checks and balances in place to prevent the OSC from abusing this setup in attempts to win their cases by a financial war of attrition. Are students and tax-payers complicit in this to the extent that they fund the OSC’s side of this war against students out of the seemingly bottomless public fisc? Is it about time for UNR students and the UNR alumni who populate high ranking positions at the NSHE to take a stand and demand that people from Arizona or the North East Corridor or wherever stop coming into our community and being overpaid to rape the rights of Nevada’s students?
Despite the provisions in NSHE 6.9.6 that “Advisors, Attorneys… The person charged may be accompanied by one advisor of the person's choice, who may represent and advise the person and may present the evidence on the person’s behalf” UNR’s Code has actually taken away the right of a student’s attorney to actually, you know, speak or do stuff like that at the hearing. UNR Code, Subsection E, part 1: “The advisor does not speak during the hearing, but is introduced for the record, and is included with the student in all written communication.” There is evidence to suggest that UNR’s OSC does not actually include the student’s attorney in “all written communication” from UNR. So, you can have an attorney but UNR will be damned if they are going to let the attorney speak. Also, you have to inform UNR that the person appearing with you as an advisor is an attorney, if they are, so UNR can make sure it brings in its attorney (Kent Robison, a private attorney in Reno, has made the princely sum of something like $4 million dollars defending UNR recently in the myriad actions that have arisen against it) who, no doubt, will actually be allowed to speak.
Further, the UNR Code takes the peculiar step of offering the following advice to a student’s attorney, presumably to help the student find their bearings after being subjected to so many rules and procedures intended to aid UNR in making the judicial process “an educational one”. UNR Code mentions, in Subsection E, part 1(b) “the advisor is encouraged to support their student in preparing everything (written letter, oral presentation, etc.) in his/her own words and from his/her perspective” as opposed to taking the perspective of UNR or some other fascist entity.
Basically, UNR is a joke, a cheap punk.
If you do not necessarily like the way UNR is running this community’s higher education railroad, why don’t you give them an earful:
Jerry Marczynski, Ed. D.
(term ending 3/11)
Associate Vice President for Student Life Services
University of Nevada-Reno
Clark Administration, Room 106
University of Nevada,Reno/0132
Reno, NV 89557-0283
Tel: (775) 784-1471
E-mail: marczyns@unr.edu
Mr. Marczynski is supposedly the General Hearing Officer as UNR the person who the OSC is required to transfer a case for a hearing to should it decide one is necessary. However, there is not much attention to detail with respect to following the procedures for designating such General Hearing Officers for a term at UNR, This is, apparently, in violation of UNR Code, Subsection D, part 1: “The president shall designate one or more general hearing officers who shall serve for terms as determined by the president. Office hearings by a general hearing officer shall be informal in nature and subject to such procedures as the president may determine. Once a hearing is held, a recommendation shall be made to the associate vice president as soon as is reasonably possible, but no later than 6 months after the filing of the complaint”. Rather, UNR apparently just chooses somebody at the time a hearing is to take place to be the Hearing Officer, depending on numerous factors, apparently. Whether these factors have anything to do with the ease of rigging a hearing based on who is dubbed Hearing Officer of the day and why is unclear. However, the OSC apparently, in some cases, decides to just go ahead and issue a sanction against a student without a hearing and without transferring the case to Mr. Marczynski or whoever it is that is supposedly serving a term after being designated as the General Hearing Officer. What is clear is that Carol Millie of the OSC regularly serves as both a General Hearing Officer and the Administrative Officer bringing and prosecuting the case on the same case, and at the same time.
Office of Student Conduct telephone: (775) 784-4388
Residential Life Office telephone: (775) 784-1113
ASUN Student Legal Services: (775) 784-1113
ASUN Student Advocate (775) 784-6132
Office of Student Conduct Fax: (775) 784-4607
E-mail address: sallym@unr.edu
Address: Office of Student Conduct/0195
University of Nevada, Reno
Reno, NV 89557-0195
OSC Staff:
Sally Morgan, Director - sallym@unr.edu ----Academic Standards Policy Violations, Student Misconduct, Student Advocate, Student Intervention Team, Peronal Safety and Sexual Assault Prevention Team.
Carol Millie, Coordinator -- cmillie@unr.edu ---- Community Relations, Student Misconduct, Underage Drinking Prevention, BASICS, ACT, OnTRAC Programs
Leah Butterworth, Coordinator for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Grants -- butterworthl@unr.edu ---- AOD Prevention Programs, AlcoholEdu for College, Campus- Alcohol Coalition.
Cathy Cavallo - BASICS Counselor, OnTRAC Case Manager, Act Counselor ---cavalloc@unr.edu
Cindy Veschi - Alcohol and Drug Treatment Counselor; OnTRAC Counselor ---veschic@unr.edu
Daniel Crump - Alcohol and Drug Treatment Counselor, ACT & OnTRACt Counselor ---dcrump@unr.edu
Kristine King - Conduct Coordinator for Underage Drinking Prevention, Alcohol Prevention Programs ---kingk@unr.edu
Charlene Rigdon - Coordinator for Community Coalition - Underage Drinking Prevention, Real Bar Campaign, Alcohol Prevention Programs ---crigdon@unr.edu
Adrienne Sutherland - Sanction Coordinator for ACT Program, OnTRAC Case manager ---sutherlanda@unr.edu
Janet Bicker, Office Manager, Office of Student Conduct - bicker@unr.edu
It may also be important to note that UNR’s Office of Student Conduct is somehow capable of wearing many, many hats, despite the apparent prohibition against “combined duties” found in NSHE 6.7.4. Indeed, in addition to acting as the prosecutor in cases where students are accused of misconduct, the Office of Student Conduct also apparently can be there as friend to lend a helpin’ hand to students in need:
http://www.unr.edu/sjmas/Studentconduct1.htm This link indicates that:
“Advocacy Services for Students:
The Director of Student Conduct provides advocacy services to students who have the desire to resolve a conflict or problem that is directly related to their student life on campus. This conflict or problem may be a decision made by a faculty member, by an administrator, by a campus employer, or by another student that involves the student's status on campus or the right to a safe and secure environment while attending classes at the university.
Advocacy services are provided generally when the student has less power or status than the other party involved in the concern in question.
Advocacy services are provided to assist the student in actively participating in a process of resolution with the other party. As the advocate for the student, the director will work on the student's behalf along side the student and will only take action or seek information from other parties with the approval of the student client.
Advocacy services are provided to the student by the director on a confidential bases in order to uphold the student's right to privacy and the student's right to control his or her circumstances.
Faculty members or staff members may seek consultation with the student advocate to address their respective goal of providing a student with a fair resolution process. Any faculty or staff member is encouraged to refer a student to the student advocate when it is believed that this type of support would prove beneficial.
To seek advocacy services, contact Sally Morgan in the Office of Student Conduct:
Telephone number -- 784-4388
email address - sallym@unr.edu”
Um, yeah. Would one be overly cynical to think that this ‘service’ is UNR’s way of keeping tabs on, controlling the direction of, and taking notes about anyone who might dare to criticize or challenge the more powerful on campus? Nonetheless, the “combining duties” here is inappropriate and severely compromises the administration of justice on campus.
Interestingly, while UNR’s Office of Student Conduct chooses to post and make available for download a Student Code of Conduct that contains numerous prohibitions against certain types of student misconduct (some more vague and open ended than constitutional), the OSC’s site, despite the promises above to stand up for students against those on the higher side of the teeter totter power imbalance equation, never quite gets around to posting or making available for download any of the prohibitions related to the misconduct of non-student members of the UNR Community that can be found by the industrious undergraduate who also happens to be a well trained legal researcher with an active Lexis/Nexis password within the NSHE Code. Further, the OSC’s site posts the UNR Code, which not only apparently attempts to abrogate many of the protections afforded students in the NSDE Code, but also engages in a sort of misleading chicanery with students by arguably attempting to portray the portions of the NSHE Code that the UNR Code does reproduce as being complete reproductions of ALL of the rights and protections accorded students under the NSHE Code. It is pretty clear Germany circa 1942 should not be allowed to use tax dollars to fund its own Reich-run grief counseling program for Jews, just as it is abundantly clear that UNR’s Office of Student Conduct should cease being paid out of public taxes and student’s tuition dollars (and who could forget the many, many fees) to pretend to be representing students against anyone.
