I. Call to order
Ruth Jones called to order the meeting of the Campus Committee on Sexual Responsibility & Misconduct (CCSRM) at 3:00PM on October 12, 2015 in Hameetman Science Room #225.
II. Members Attending
The following persons were present: Karla Aguilar; Ruth Jones; Richard Mora; Maureen McRae Goldberg; Vivian Garay Santiago, Dana Michels; Marianne Frapwell
III. Administrative Matters
A. Any revisions to last meeting’s minutes should be turned into Ruth by Thursday so that they can be added to the draft prior to posting the minutes on the webpage.
B. Google drive updates: A sub-folder has been added to the Google Drive titled "Campus Climate Sexual Assault Survey Resources." Copies of the questionnaires from the HEDS, ARC3, and AAU surveys have been uploaded to this folder.
C. Meeting Times: After a review of all the committee members’ schedules, the best meeting time for the fall semester is Monday from 3:00pm-4:00pm in Hameetman Science Center #225. Our last meeting for the fall semester will be held on Monday, December 7.
IV. Reviewed Proposed Revised Policy & Procedures
A. The draft under review is based on recommendations and discussion by last years CCSRM committee, incorporating recent court cases and best practices. The adoption of the policies will be the "permanent" policy, as permanent as it can be as the law is continuously changing. This committee will work in tandem with the community review process in order to speed up the process as a whole.
We reviewed the objectives of the revisions. The policy is essentially made of two parts: the policy itself and the procedures attached to it. The major change is to the hearing model.
The minutes about the changes to the policy are included below:
Objectives of Revisions:
1. Ensure that the policy is consistent with evolving state and federal law
2. Increase the clarity in the language
3. Improved gender neutral language
4. Make the policy shorter
Major Policy Revisions
1. Academic Freedom Provision
a. this was made explicit – the inclusion of an academic provision as related to sexual harassment was only implicit in the former policy
2. Revising sexual assault provision so that it is clear that what is called sexual assault includes both sexual intercourse and non-consensual sexual contact
a. To provide more clarity, this provision now divides sexual assault between non-consensual sexual intercourse and non-consensual sexual contact
3. Reasonable person definition
a. In the stalking provision on pg. 10, it has been clarified to include the reasonable person definition
4. Definition of Intimidation
a. On pg. 14, there is a new definition of intimidation
5. Consensual relationships-clarification of reporting responsibilities
a. In prohibited relationships w/ persons of authority, our policies did not specifically prohibit relationships with persons of authority. It was required to the relationships be reported so that an individual can be reassigned. However, the first paragraph did state that it was prohibited. This language has been changed to reflect the College policy to require reporting.
b. The committee brought up concerns about authority positions that are not direct supervisory positions. Does this provision need to be expanded? A committee member who works in financial aid used the example that if they were to be involved with a student and providing financial aid, there would be concerns.
c. The committee agreed to think more closely about the provision as a whole, instead of clarifying the language to support the provision as it stands.
d. Robert Mora will bring it up with the Faculty Council as well.
6. Crime Log reporting
a. The policy has clarified that incidents are reported in the Crime Log without identifying information.
7. Reporting to Law Enforcement
a. On. Pg. 26, Made clear that complainants had a right to report or not report to law enforcement
8. Standard for reviewing interim suspension.
a. This provision clarifies the process and standard of review for interim suspensions.
9. Prevention Training Provisions
a. It has been clarified that the campus provides prevention training.
Procedures
1. Title IX Office takes the lead in multiple discrimination complaints
a. If a student reports both sex discrimination and other types of discrimination, Title IX will take the lead. The reasoning behind this is that Title IX and other laws addressing sexual violence have created procedural and other requirements that are not currently necessary for complaints involving other protected classes.
2. Description of Intake Meeting with Respondent
a. On pg. 5, Ruth added a similar description of Intake Meeting with Respondents as is already described in the current policy for the meeting with the Complainant.
b. Another point that could be added is that if a Respondent chooses not to meet with Title IX, that information will be provided in writing
c. The information that must be provided to the Respondent at a minimum is outlined specifically
3. Threshold determinations Addresses bad faith cross complaints
a. In Appendix A, on Pg. 4, last line of 1st paragraph, empowers the office to consider the timing and assertions of individuals making cross-complaints; the timing is critical – if the office is able to assess cross-complaints when they are filed. If the cross-complaint is found to be a tool of retaliation, then the original complainant will not need to be involved.
4. Role of the Review Panel -Perhaps a new section and specific statement that appeals person from review panel
a. Ruth would like to have a larger conversation about this. Last spring, the committee had a more aggressive role. In the updated version, they primarily handle sanctioning. Ruth’s concern is related to the San Diego decision this summer. The concern is around individuals making findings about policy violations they have never seen and could not make a credibility decision about.
b. Policy vs. protocol
i. Policy is how a school will held accountable. Protocol can be changed quickly.
ii. Which details about review panel creation should be in policy vs. protocol.
5. On pg. 6-9, it outlines the major difference in the new investigative process.
a. The respondents must have an opportunity to see the evidence that is being used against them.
b. The investigator will create a preliminary report with their findings. The process ends with this report.
c. The committee believes it is appropriate to move from a hearing to an investigative model. In other administrative contexts, a hearing model is not used. It is not mandated or required. More information is not necessarily brought to light in a hearing, and it is a tremendous burden on those involved – respondents, complainants, witnesses, families, etc. With the investigative model, all parties can review the same information without the hearing. The hearing process can often take a long time as well.
d. This process is for all of the policy provisions. Non-sexual assault cases have internal investigators: Chad Myers, Juls White, Christy Allen, Barabara Vallente, Diego Silva. Cases of sexual assault have external investigators.
e. The committee discussed possible community concerns about the loss of the hearing process.
6. Basis of Appeals Further clarification of procedural and new evidence only
a. Ruth had concerns that the substantive basis of the appeal lacked clarity. Therefore, she removed that language.
7. Advisors – not support persons.
a. There are no longer support persons because the hearing model has been removed.
b. Advisors can be a part of every stage of the process.
A. Outline the schedule of Community Feedback Plan
The Title IX Office assessed the office and community calendar and rescheduled the 11/3 meeting to 10/26. The community meeting dates are now scheduled as follows: Monday the 26th from 12pm-1pm in Weingart 117 and Tuesday, October 27 from 5pm-6pm in Fowler 302.