The information contained in this section of the Handbook is only applicable for those participating in the Individual Interim Suspension Process. At times, the word “individual” will not be placed in front of various steps of the process but if it is in this section of the Handbook, it only pertains to individuals and their Interim Suspension procedures. For cases alleging a violation(s) of university policy for individual students where the Individual Interim Suspension Process was not initiated, see the “Individual Accountability Process” section within this Handbook. For cases alleging a violation(s) of university policy for a recognized student organization or student group, see the “Organizational Accountability Process” section within this Handbook. For cases alleging Sexual Misconduct, see the “Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process” section within this Handbook. For cases alleging Title IX Sexual Harassment, see the "Title IX Sexual Harassment Adjudication Process" section within this Handbook.

Jump to section
Definitions

IAP

An acronym for the Individual Accountability Process.

IAAR

An acronym for the Individual Accountability Appeal Review.

IISP

An acronym for the Individual Interim Suspension Process.

IISR

An acronym for the Individual Interim Suspension Review.

UCA-IACR

An acronym for the University Case Administrator-Individual Accountability Case Review.

A Reporting Party is an individual who reports alleged behavior committed by a JMU student that can be addressed by the IISP. A Reporting Party need not necessarily present an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Party, but it is often their interaction with a Responding Party that led to an alleged policy violation(s) being placed by OSARP.

The availability of a Reporting Party is considered when OSARP schedules a UCA-IACR or IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require a Reporting Party to attend or participate in the Individual Interim Suspension Process. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Reporting Party Rights to those who meet this definition.  

NOTE: This section does not apply to crimes of violence that are covered in the Sexual Misconduct or Title IX Sexual Harassment policies. 

A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) is an individual who reports alleged behavior committed by a JMU student that can be addressed by the IISP for the Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force or Damage, Attempted Damage, or Vandalism of Property policies where the damage, attempted damage, or vandalism of property was deemed to be willful or malicious. A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) need not necessarily present an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Party, but it is often their interaction or experience with a Responding Party that led to an alleged policy violation(s) being placed by OSARP.

The availability of a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) is considered when OSARP schedules a UCA-IACR or IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require a Reporting Party (Crime of Violence) to attend or participate in the Individual Interim Suspension Process. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Reporting Party Rights to those who meet this definition. 

A Reporting Party Witness is an individual who provides a report, statement, evidence, or other information, at the request of a Reporting Party, to be used in the placing or review of an alleged policy violation(s) in the IISP.

A Reporting Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Reporting Party in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Reporting Party Witness may not provide their perspective on what they feel the appropriate decision or outcomes in the case should be at any time during the process. OSARP typically will not initiate the IAP and pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if there is evidence shared regarding the Reporting Party Witness’s personal consumption of drugs or alcohol while participating solely as a witness. However, if a case has already been conducted to address the witness's personal consumption of drugs or alcohol, OSARP will not revisit the outcome of that case. Additionally, OSARP will pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if the Reporting Party Witness claims responsibility for the Responding Party’s alleged policy violation(s) during the course of their statements or interactions with OSARP. 

For an IAAR based on new evidence, a Reporting Party Witness may be called by a Reporting Party to provide a statement in response to the new evidence. A Reporting Party Witness may provide a written or in-person statement at an IAAR in accordance with the requirements as listed in the Handbook. The availability of a Reporting Party Witness is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules IAAR and/or an UCA-IACR, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require Reporting Party Witnesses to attend or participate in the IISP. It is the responsibility of the Reporting Party to coordinate their witnesses’ attendance when the process allows their attendance. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Reporting Party Witness Rights to those serving in this role.  

A Responding Party is a student who receives notification of an alleged policy violation(s) and is afforded rights and an IISP by OSARP to respond to the alleged policy violation(s). The availability of a Responding Party is considered when OSARP schedules an IISR, a UCA-IACR, or an IAAR, when applicable.  

A Responding Party Witness is an individual who provides a report, statement, evidence, or other information, at the request of a Responding Party, to be used in the review of an alleged policy violation(s) in the IISP.

A Responding Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident, or their knowledge of the Responding Party in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Responding Party Witness may not provide their perspective on what they feel the appropriate decision or outcomes in the case should be at any time during the process. OSARP typically will not initiate the IAP and pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if there is evidence shared regarding the Reporting Party Witness’s personal consumption of drugs or alcohol while participating solely as a witness. However, if a case has already been conducted to address the witness's personal consumption of drugs or alcohol, OSARP will not revisit the outcome of that case. Additionally, OSARP will pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if the Reporting Party Witness claims responsibility for the Responding Party’s alleged policy violation(s) during the course of their statements or interactions with OSARP. 

For an IAAR based on new evidence, a Responding Party Witness may be called by a Responding Party to provide a statement in response to the new evidence. A Responding Party Witness may provide a written or in-person statement at an IAAR when permitted by the process in the Handbook. The availability of a Responding Party Witness is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules an IAAR and/or an UCA-IACR, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require Responding Party Witnesses to attend or participate in the IISP. It is the responsibility of the Responding Party to coordinate their witnesses’ attendance when the process allows their attendance. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Responding Party Witness Rights to those serving in this role.   

Reporting Parties, Reporting Parties (Crimes of Violence), Responding Parties, Reporting Party Witnesses, and Responding Party Witnesses participating in the IISP, in accordance with the restrictions in the Handbook, may be accompanied by one Support Person.

A UCA is a volunteer faculty or staff member who has been trained by OSARP to hear cases. Full-time employees, part-time employees, faculty members, Administrative and Professional faculty, and classified staff are eligible to serve as UCAs. Graduate student staff who have prior experience with OSARP but are not currently working with OSARP are also eligible for this role. A UCA shall not hold an administrative position at a Vice President level or higher and they may not have supervisory oversight of OSARP. OSARP may appoint additional UCAs as needed. UCAs are indefinitely eligible provided that they remain affiliated with the university and have the support of their direct supervisor. UCAs with a university disciplinary record maintained by OSARP will have their eligibility evaluated by OSARP on a case-by-case basis including but not limited to the facts of the case, impact on community, and time since incident. A UCA may withdraw from this volunteer opportunity at any time.

OSARP is responsible for the training of UCAs. UCAs are required to complete initial and ongoing training as determined by OSARP. 

A UCA in the Individual Interim Suspension Process will receive access to the case file for the sole purpose of reviewing the case.   

When appointed, a UCA is authorized to conduct the following stages of the Individual Interim Suspension Process: 

  • Individual Interim Suspension Review
  • UCA—Individual Accountability Case Review
  • Individual Accountability Appeal Review 
  • Other circumstances as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee 

A University Witness is an individual who provides a report, statement, evidence, or other information to be used in the placing or review of an alleged policy violation(s) in OSARP. University Witnesses are not called as a witness by a Responding Party or Reporting Party, if applicable, but are determined by OSARP as having relevant information necessary for the review of the case. University Witnesses may include, but are not limited to, Office of Residence Life staff, faculty, university staff, or police officers reporting alleged policy violation(s).

The availability of a University Witness is considered when OSARP schedules a UCA-IACR or IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. 

In cases where a University Witness is also defined as a Reporting Party or a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence), they will be permitted the same rights as a Reporting Party or a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence). 

Participants' Roles, Rights, and Restrictions

Procedural Responsibilities of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices (OSARP)

  1. OSARP will send the Responding Party notification of all policies allegedly violated, the date(s) and location(s) of the allegation(s), and how OSARP received that information via their official JMU email address. 

  2. OSARP will send the Responding Party notification of the date, time, and location of the UCA-IACR at least three days prior to the UCA-IACR via their official JMU email address.  

  3. OSARP will schedule a University Case Administrator (UCA) to provide a fair and impartial process as an unbiased decision-maker that presumes the Responding Party is not responsible for violating policy. The UCA will use a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine if a Responding Party is responsible for violating policy. 

  4. OSARP will notify the Reporting Party (if any) of the outcomes of the case related to responsible findings for policy violation(s) that are crimes of violence, as required by law. 

  5. OSARP may be required to report specific information provided during the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP) to other accountability processes, JMU department(s), or law enforcement, including but not limited to: sexual harm, harassment or discrimination based on a protected class, hazing, harm or threat of harm to self or others, or other behavior that is against the mission of the institution. 

Responding Party Rights

Rights #1 through #5 only apply if the Responding Party chooses to attend the UCA-IACR. 

  1. The right to attend the UCA-IACR meeting. A Responding Party that fails to attend the UCA-IACR waives certain rights in the process and understands their case will be decided by the UCA in their absence based on the information contained in the case file and from any witnesses who present during the UCA-IACR. 

  2. The right for one Support Person to attend the UCA-IACR since the case includes potential outcomes of suspension, expulsion, or notice of trespass from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. The Support Person attending an UCA-IACR may not communicate for or speak on behalf of a Responding Party but may provide support or advice on how to present the case in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Handbook. 

  3. The right to have the UCA review the alleged violation(s) in the case and the information contained in the case file. 

  4. The right to not answer the UCA’s questions or provide information to be used to make a decision in the case. 

  5. The right to know and respond to all information being used to make a decision in the case; the right to provide information to be included in the case file and used in the review of the case in accordance with the deadlines and restrictions listed in the IISP.  

  6. The right to question all witnesses and Reporting Parties (if any) who present at the UCA-IACR. 

  7. The right to have witnesses present at the UCA-IACR in accordance with the restrictions listed in the IISP, provided witnesses are able to attend the scheduled UCA-IACR; the right to provide witness statements to be included in the case review in accordance with the deadlines and restrictions provided to them. 

  8. The right to be notified of the UCA’s decision, rationale, and outcomes, if applicable, within two business days from the date of the UCA-IACR. 

  9. The right to submit a written appeal of the decision by the UCA, within four days of receiving the decision via their official JMU email account. This right is only applicable for cases where the decision included an outcome of suspension, expulsion, or notice of trespass from JMU and/or removal from all university housing.  

    Appeals may only be submitted on the following grounds. When referenced below, “affected the outcome of the matter” refers to the entirety of the decision rendered including the determination regarding responsibility or outcomes assigned, if applicable. 

    • Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter. The appeal submission must outline the procedural irregularity and how that affected the decision in the case. 

    • Excessively harsh outcome(s) for a case with a responsible finding(s) on policy. The appeal submission must outline the reason(s) the outcome(s) assigned are excessively harsh. 

    • New evidence that was not reasonably available or accessible at the time of the UCA-IACR and only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy. The appeal submission must outline the new evidence, why the new evidence was not reasonably available or accessible at the time of the UCA-IACR, and how it is relevant to the decision of whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy.  

  10. The right to request access to a recording of the UCA-IACR solely for the purposes of preparing an appeal. 

  11. The right to receive the final decision of an IISP case in writing via their official JMU email account within 10 business days of a final decision being rendered.

Procedural Responsibilities of the Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices (OSARP) 

  1. OSARP will send the Responding Party notification of all policies allegedly violated, the date(s) and location(s) of the allegation(s), and how OSARP received that information via their official JMU email address. 

  2. For appeals on new evidence, OSARP will send the Responding Party notification of the date, time, and location of the IAAR at least three days prior to the IAAR meeting via their official JMU email address.  

  3. OSARP will schedule a University Case Administrator (UCA) to provide a fair and impartial process as an unbiased decision-maker that presumes the Responding Party is not responsible for violating policy. As applicable, the UCA will use a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine if a Responding Party is responsible for violating policy. 

  4. OSARP will notify the Reporting Party (if any) of the outcomes of the case related to responsible findings for policy violation(s) that are crimes of violence, as required by law. 

  5. OSARP may be required to report specific information provided during the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP) to other accountability processes, JMU department(s), or law enforcement, including but not limited to: sexual harm, harassment or discrimination based on a protected class, hazing, harm or threat of harm to self or others, or other behavior that is against the mission of the institution. 

Responding Party Rights  

Rights #1 through #6 only apply if the Responding Party chooses to attend the IAAR and the UCA holds the IAAR for the new evidence portion. 

  1. The right to attend the IAAR if allowed by the IISP. A Responding Party that fails to attend the IAAR, if allowed, waives certain rights in the process and understands their case will be decided by the UCA in their absence based on the information contained in the case file and from any witnesses who present during the IAAR. 

  2. The right for one Support Person to attend the IAAR, if the Responding Party is allowed to attend the IAAR by the IISP. The Support Person attending an IAAR may not communicate for or speak on behalf of a Responding Party but may provide support or advice on how to present the information in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Handbook. 

  3. The right to present the new evidence during the IAAR, according to the IISP.  

  4. The right to not answer questions or provide information to be used in the IAAR. 

  5. The right to question all witnesses and Reporting Parties (if any) who present at the IAAR. 

  6. The right to have witnesses present regarding the new evidence at the IAAR in accordance with the restrictions listed in the IISP, provided witnesses are able to attend the scheduled IAAR; the right to provide witness statements regarding the new evidence to be included in the IAAR in accordance with the deadlines and restrictions provided to them. 

  7. The right to be notified of the UCA’s decision, rationale, and outcomes, if applicable, within two business days from the date of the IAAR. 

  8. The right to receive the final decision of an IAAR in writing via their official JMU email account within 10 business days of a final decision being rendered. 

The Reporting Party for an incident(s) that allegedly violates university policy(ies) committed by a JMU student, and does not fall under the Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force or Damage, Attempted Damage, or Vandalism of Property policies where the damage, attempted damage, or vandalism of property was deemed to be willful or malicious, in the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP), has the following rights:  

  1. The right to receive access to a Reporting Party case file in order to prepare for a University Case Administrator-Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR) and/or an Individual Accountability Appeal Review (IAAR) based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. Reporting Party case files will consist of evidence provided by the Reporting Party and public information related to the case.  
  2. The right to be notified of the date, time and location of a UCA-IACR and/or an IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, via email at least three days prior to the meeting.  
  3. The right to attend a UCA-IACR, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, to share their perspective and be questioned by the UCA and the Responding Party in accordance with the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the IISP.  
  4. The right to attend the IAAR meeting based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, and participate according to the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the IISP. A Reporting Party is only able to provide their response to the new evidence according to any restrictions outlined in the Handbook.  
  5. The right for one Support Person to attend a UCA-IACR or IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, according to the restrictions outlined in the IISP. The Support Person for the Reporting Party may not also serve as a witness in the IISP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. The Support Person may not communicate for or speak on behalf of a Reporting Party but may provide support or advice on how to present the information in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Handbook.

The Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) for an incident(s) that allegedly violates the Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force or Damage, Attempted Damage, or Vandalism of Property policies where the damage, attempted damage, or vandalism of property was deemed to be willful or malicious, in the IISP, has the following rights:   

  1. The right to receive access to a Reporting Party (Crime of Violence) case file in order to prepare for a UCA-IACR and/or an IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. Reporting Party case files will consist of evidence provided by the Reporting Party and public information related to the case.  
  2. The right to be notified of the date, time and place of the UCA-IACR and/or an IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, via email at least three days prior to the meeting.  
  3. The right to attend a UCA-IACR, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, to share their perspective and be questioned by the UCA and the Responding Party according to the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the IISP.  
  4. The right to attend the IAAR meeting based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, and participate according to the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the IISP. A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) is only able to provide their response to the new evidence according to any restrictions outlined in the Student Handbook.  
  5. The right for one Support Person to attend a UCA-IACR or IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, according to the restrictions outlined in the IISP. The Support Person for the Reporting Party may not also serve as a witness in the IISP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. The Support Person may not communicate for or speak on behalf of a Reporting Party but may provide support or advice on how to present the information in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Handbook.
  6. The right to be informed of the findings in the case related to the alleged violation(s) that meet the definition of a crime of violence and any outcomes, if applicable.  

A Reporting Party Witness called by a Reporting Party has the following rights: 

  1. The right to be notified of the date, time, and location of the UCA-IACR and/or an IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, at least one day prior to a meeting via email if their name and contact information has been provided to OSARP by the Reporting Party. 
  2. The right for one Support Person to attend a UCA-IACR or IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Individual Accountability Process (IAP). The Support Person for the Reporting Party Witness may not also serve as a witness in the IISP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. The Support Person may not communicate for or speak on behalf of a Reporting Party Witness but may provide support or advice on how to present the information in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Handbook.

A Responding Party Witness called by a Responding Party has the following rights:  

  1. The right to be notified of the date, time, and location of the UCA-IACR and/or an IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, at least one day prior to a meeting via email if their name and contact information has been provided to OSARP by the Responding Party. 
  2. The right for one Support Person to attend a UCA-IACR or IAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the IISP. The Support Person for the Responding Party Witness may not also serve as a witness in the IISP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. The Support Person may not communicate for or speak on behalf of a Responding Party Witness but may provide support or advice on how to present the information in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Handbook.

In the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP): 

  1. Participants may have one Support Person of their choice, which can be an attorney, provided they follow the guidelines outlined in the IISP. The University does not provide students participating in the IISP with a Support Person. It is the participant’s responsibility to determine a Support Person and coordinate their participation.

  2. OSARP does not consider the availability of a Support Person when scheduling meetings within the IISP nor compels a Support Person to attend. It is the participant’s responsibility to coordinate their Support Person’s attendance.

  3. A person who serves as a witness, University Witness, Responding Party, Reporting Party, OSARP Case Administrator or University Case Administrator (UCA) cannot also serve as a Support Person in the IISP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. A person who serves as a Support Person in the IISP or other OSARP processes cannot serve in any other capacity at any point in the process cases that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances.

  4. Prior to a meeting within the IISP, one Support Person may help the participant prepare for the case, which may include accompanying the Responding or Reporting Party to any meetings, reviewing the case file in OSARP with the Responding or Reporting Party, or communicating with OSARP and/or the University about the case and/or procedures with the permission of the Responding or Reporting Party.

  5. During a meeting within the IISP, the one Support Person may:

    • Not communicate for or speak on behalf of the participant. Responding Parties, Reporting Parties, and witnesses, in portions of the process that allow for them, must present their statements or information themselves.

    • Consult with the participant on how to present their statements or information by whispering, providing notes, sending messages via electronic communication, or taking notes as long as it does not disrupt the review of the case.

    • Provide support by taking breaks with, or requesting breaks on behalf of, the participant they are accompanying.

  6. OSARP may remove a Support Person from any meeting within the IISP if they are disruptive to the process or do not adhere to the requirements set forth in the IISP or in the Rules of Decorum.

Rules of Decorum

The case review process must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows the University Case Administrator (UCA) to gather information necessary to make a decision regarding responsibility for the alleged policy violation(s) in the case. During the case review process, Responding Parties must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the University Case Administrator-Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR) or the Individual Accountability Appeal Review (IAAR) processes, as applicable and outlined within the Student Handbook. 

General Expectations

Responding Parties in the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP) must:  

  • Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.  
  • Speak appropriately with the UCA or wait to begin speaking until addressed by the UCA.  
  • Avoid speaking over other participants.  
  • Use respectful language that is not demeaning, derogatory, or disrespectful.  
  • Avoid raising their voices.  
  • Remain seated in their predetermined locations.  
  • Refrain from making distracting or offensive gestures (e.g., rolling eyes, throwing arms in the air, etc.) or audible reactions (e.g., scoffing, speaking under their breath, etc.).  
  • For questions about the Rules of Decorum or case review procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the UCA. 

Responding Parties, when asking questions of Witnesses (of any type) or Reporting Party(ies) during a UCA-IACR: 

  • Must allow the UCA time to evaluate each question and verbally or non-verbally permit the participant to respond. This is referenced as “through the UCA” in the IISP. 
  • Must maintain a professional and respectful attitude towards the other party, witnesses, UCA, and any other participants in the case review process.

A witness has the right not to answer questions or provide information to be used in the review of the case. 

Violation of Expectations & Procedures

Determination regarding a participant’s violation of one of these expectations lies with the UCA. If a participant violates an expectation of the Rules of Decorum or the case review procedures outlined in the UCA-IACR, or IAAR processes, the UCA will issue a verbal warning, identifying the expectation violated and how it was violated.

If a participant continues to violate these expectations or case review procedures, the UCA will immediately call for a break. During the break, the UCA will address the problematic behavior directly. If the participant refuses to comply with the warning or causes additional problems, the UCA may decide to take one or more of the following actions:  

  • Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the UCA that allows the case to continue in a fair manner for all participants. 
  • Remove the participant from the UCA-IACR or IAAR. If a participant is removed, the case will proceed in their absence and the UCA will make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.  
  • End the UCA-IACR or IAAR and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Party or Reporting Party (if applicable). 

Participants may receive an alleged policy violation(s) for their behavior if they meet the definition of a student as listed in the Student Handbook. 

The case review process must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows the University Case Administrator (UCA), to gather information necessary to make a decision regarding responsibility for the alleged policy violation(s) in the case. During the case review process, all participants must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the University Case Administrator-Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR) and Individual Accountability Appeal Review (IAAR) processes, when these processes are utilized in the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP), as outlined within the JMU Student Handbook. 

General Expectations

Reporting Parties in the IISP, must: 

  • Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.  
  • Wait to begin speaking until addressed by the UCA. 
  • Avoid speaking over other participants.  
  • Use respectful language that is not demeaning, derogatory, or disrespectful.  
  • Avoid raising their voices.  
  • Remain seated in their predetermined locations.  
  • Refrain from making distracting or offensive gestures (e.g., rolling eyes, throwing arms in the air, etc.) or audible reactions (e.g., scoffing, speaking under their breath, etc.).  
  • For questions about the Rules of Decorum or case review procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the UCA.  

Violation of Expectations & Procedures 

Determination regarding a participant’s violation of one of these expectations lies with the UCA. If a participant violates an expectation of the Rules of Decorum or the procedures outlined in the IISP, the UCA will issue a verbal warning, identifying the expectation violated and how it was violated. 

If a participant continues to violate these expectations or procedures, the UCA will immediately call for a break. During the break, the UCA will address the problematic behavior directly. If the participant refuses to comply with the warning or causes additional problems, the UCA may decide to take one or more of the following actions:  

  • Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the UCA, that allows the case to continue in a fair manner for all participants. 
  • Remove the participant from the UCA-IACR or IAAR. If a participant is removed, the case will proceed in their absence and the UCA will make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.  
  • End the UCA-IACR or IAAR and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Party or Reporting Party (if applicable).  

Participants may receive an alleged policy violation(s) for their behavior if they meet the definition of a student as listed in the Student Handbook.

The case review process must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows the University Case Administrator (UCA) to gather information necessary to make a decision regarding responsibility for the alleged policy violation(s) in the case. During the case review process, Support Persons must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the University Case Administrator-Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR) or Individual Accountability Appeal Review (IAAR) processes, as applicable and outlined within the JMU Student Handbook.

General Expectations

Support Persons for any party in the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP) must: 

  • Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.  
  • Wait to begin speaking until addressed by the UCA.  
  • Avoid speaking over other participants.  
  • Use respectful language that is not demeaning, derogatory, or disrespectful.  
  • Avoid raising their voices.  
  • Remain seated in their predetermined locations.  
  • Refrain from making distracting or offensive gestures (e.g., rolling eyes, throwing arms in the air, etc.) or audible reactions (e.g., scoffing, speaking under their breath, etc.).  
  • For questions about the Rules of Decorum or case review procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the UCA, when applicable.  

Additional Expectations for Support Persons  

In the IISP a Support Person may: 

  • Not communicate for or speak on behalf of the party; Responding Parties, Reporting Parties (if applicable), Responding Party Witnesses (if applicable), and Reporting Party Witnesses (if applicable) must present their statements or information themselves.  
  • Consult with the party on how to present their statements or information by whispering, providing notes, sending messages via electronic communication, or taking notes as long as it does not disrupt the review of the case.  
  • Provide support by taking breaks with or requesting breaks on behalf of the party they are accompanying. 

Violation of Expectations & Procedures  

Determination regarding a participant’s violation of one of these expectations lies with the UCA. If a participant violates an expectation of the Rules of Decorum or the case review procedures outlined in the UCA-IACR or IAAR process, the UCA will issue a verbal warning, identifying the expectation violated and how it was violated.  

If a participant continues to violate these expectations or case review procedures, the UCA will immediately call for a break. During the break, the UCA will address the problematic behavior directly. If the participant refuses to comply with the warning or causes additional problems, the UCA may decide to take one or more of the following actions:  

  • Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the UCA that allows the case to continue in a fair manner for all participants. 
  • Remove the participant from the UCA-IACR or IAAR. If a participant is removed, the case will proceed in their absence and the UCA will make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.  
  • End the UCA-IACR or IAAR and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Party or Reporting Party (if applicable). 

Participants may receive an alleged policy violation(s) for their behavior if they meet the definition of a student as listed in the Student Handbook.

The case review process must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows the UCA to gather information necessary to make a decision regarding responsibility for the alleged violations in the case. During the case review process, all participants must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the University Case Administrator-Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR) and Individual Accountability Appeal Review (IAAR) processes, when these processes are utilized in the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP), as outlined within the JMU Student Handbook.

General Expectations 

Responding/Reporting Party Witnesses in the IISP must: 

  • Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.  
  • Wait to begin speaking until addressed by the University Case Administrator (UCA).  
  • Avoid speaking over other participants.  
  • Use respectful language that is not demeaning, derogatory, or disrespectful.  
  • Avoid raising their voices.  
  • Remain seated in their predetermined locations.  
  • Refrain from making distracting or offensive gestures (e.g., rolling eyes, throwing arms in the air, etc.) or audible reactions (e.g., scoffing, speaking under their breath, etc.).  
  • For questions about the Rules of Decorum or case review procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the UCA.  

A Responding/Reporting Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident, or their knowledge of the person who requested their participation in the process (i.e., Responding/Reporting Party) in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Responding/Reporting Party Witness may not provide their perspective on what they feel the appropriate decision or outcomes in the case should be at any time during the process. OSARP typically will not initiate the Individual Accountability Process (IAP) and pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if there is evidence shared regarding the Responding/Reporting Party Witness’s personal consumption of drugs or alcohol while participating solely as a witness. However, if a case has already been conducted to address the witness's personal consumption of drugs or alcohol, OSARP will not revisit the outcome of that case. Additionally, OSARP will pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if the Responding/Reporting Party Witness claims responsibility for the Responding Party’s alleged policy violation(s) during the course of their statements or interactions with OSARP.

For an IAAR based on new evidence, a Responding/Reporting Party Witness may be called by a Responding/Reporting Party to provide a statement in response to the new evidence. A Responding/Reporting Party Witness may provide a written or in person statement at a UCA-IACR or an IAAR in accordance with the requirements as listed in the Student Handbook. The availability of a Responding/Reporting Party Witness is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules an IAAR and/or a UCA-IACR, when applicable in the process as stated in the Handbook. OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require witnesses to attend or participate in the IISP. It is the responsibility of the Responding/Reporting Party to coordinate their witnesses’ attendance when the process allows their attendance. 

Violation of Expectations & Procedures

Determination regarding a participant’s violation of one of these expectations lies with the UCA. If a participant violates an expectation of the Rules of Decorum or the procedures outlined in the IISP, the UCA will issue a verbal warning, identifying the expectation violated and how it was violated. 

If a participant continues to violate these expectations or procedures, the UCA will immediately call for a break. During the break, the UCA will address the problematic behavior directly. If the participant refuses to comply with the warning or causes additional problems, the UCA may decide to take one or more of the following actions:  

  • Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the UCA, that allows the case to continue in a fair manner for all participants. 
  • Remove the participant from the UCA-IACR or IAAR. If a participant is removed, the case will proceed in their absence and the UCA will make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.  
  • End the UCA-IACR or IAAR and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Party or Reporting Party (if applicable). 

Participants may receive an alleged policy violation(s) for their behavior if they meet the definition of a student as listed in the Student Handbook.

Steps in the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP)

Any JMU student, faculty, or staff member alleging that a student has violated a university policy(ies) may provide relevant details of the alleged policy violation(s) to OSARP. If a case is reported by a non-JMU individual, it may be considered if it follows the guidelines listed in the “Jurisdiction” section of the Student Handbook.

If the Director of OSARP or a designee determines that a student presents a significant risk to the orderly operation of the university or to the health, safety, or welfare of any member of the University community, the Director of OSARP or designee may initiate the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP) and place the Responding Party under an Individual Interim Suspension Status.

Interim suspension is an action that is protective in nature. It is designed to mitigate the risk to members of the university community by deterring future prohibited conduct, while alleged policy violation(s) are pending for reported misconduct. This interim action is separate and distinct from the final decision of the Individual Interim Suspension Process as outlined in the Handbook. If a student violates the terms of an interim suspension, that student may be subject to disciplinary action by the University, arrest, and/or criminal prosecution.

The university may issue an interim suspension as a measure to remove a student reasonably believed to pose a threat to the University community. An interim suspension is authorized upon information that a student has been or is likely to be notified of alleged violation(s) of JMU policy involving acts of violence or other serious conduct that would reasonably support a finding that the student is not fit to remain a member of the University community pending the outcome of university or legal proceedings.

Since a Responding Party under an Individual Interim Suspension Status is immediately suspended from JMU, pending a final decision in the case, Responding Parties are afforded certain rights outlined in the "Responding Party - Responsibilities and Rights –University Case Administrator- Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR)".

These determinations occur as OSARP receives a report(s) from a known reporter, including but not limited to a police report, community report, incident report, incident narrative, witness statement, information from the Organizational Accountability Process, or record of a court outcome; however, an alleged violation(s) may be placed in other circumstances at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

Upon receiving relevant details, OSARP will determine the alleged policy violation(s). Due to the faster processing of an Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP) case, there are often times that OSARP will provide notice of an additional alleged policy violation(s) if OSARP receives more information to warrant them.

If the information received by OSARP provides sufficient cause that an alleged policy violation(s) may have occurred, the Responding Party will be notified of the alleged policy violation(s). In accordance with JMU Policy 1209, proper notification of an alleged policy violation(s) shall consist of an email to the student’s official JMU e-mail address. The notice will be considered received the day the notice is sent via email. In addition, OSARP may also send a text message to the Responding Party’s cell phone that is on file with the university as a part of this notification process.

The university may proceed with an alleged policy violation(s) and the IISP regardless of enrollment status of the Responding Party or have an alleged policy violation(s) and/or outcomes remain pending until a Responding Party’s request to re-enroll is received. In most circumstances, the university will not proceed with the IISP during a period in which a Responding Party is not actively enrolled in classes in the current semester. The decision to proceed or not proceed with the IISP when the Responding Party is not enrolled in classes is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee and will be based on the severity of the case and the availability of relevant persons to the case, including but not limited to the Responding Party, the Reporting Party, University Witnesses, and OSARP staff members. If the Responding Party is enrolled in classes and relevant persons to the case are available, OSARP will generally proceed with the IISP.

OSARP may address behavior that occurs at any point while a person is considered a student, as defined in the Handbook. For any Responding Party who receives an immediate suspension or expulsion from JMU, regardless of academic year, the immediate suspension or expulsion from JMU will be deemed effective for the current semester or, if it is rendered for a graduating senior, for the most recent semester the student attended, which may mean a loss of academic credits for that semester. Further, after a final decision in the case has been rendered, the effective date of an immediate suspension or expulsion from JMU will be the date of the initial University Case Administrator-Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR). The removal from university owned or operated property associated with a decision of immediate suspension or expulsion does not go into effect until the decision in the case is final, unless the Responding Party is under an Individual Interim Suspension Status or Emergency Removal that provides for this removal until the final decision in the case.

Per Virginia Code § 23.1-900.2. Release of student transcripts, OSARP is not permitted to withhold a student’s official academic transcript pending the conclusion of the IISP and/or the completion of any pending outcomes. 

OSARP will grant immunity from disciplinary action based on hazing or personal consumption of drugs or alcohol where such disclosure is made by a bystander not involved in such acts in conjunction with a good faith report of an act of hazing in advance of or during an incident of hazing that causes injury or is likely to cause injury to a person. More information regarding OSARP’s Enlightened Citizen Amnesty Process, which pertains directly to alcohol and drug consumption and/or possession for involved individuals, can be found in the “Alcohol and Drug Information” section of the Handbook.

Circumstances that surround the IISP often involve concurrent criminal charges, and sometimes involve concurrent civil litigation. OSARP or its designee may implement an Individual Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, prior to the conclusion of the criminal or civil process; decisions made as a part of the IISP or Individual Accountability Process (IAP) will not be revisited at the conclusion of the criminal or civil process.

In cases where a student has extenuating circumstances, including but not limited to incarceration, that prevent attendance at an Individual Interim Suspension Review (IISR), UCA-IACR, or Individual Accountability Appeal Review (IAAR), the decision to continue with or delay any part of the IISP is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, procedures, or assigned educational or restorative outcomes listed within an OSARP process will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances in order to uphold the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved by the Director of OSARP or designee. Any requests for alterations must be communicated to the Director of OSARP or designee as soon as practicable.

If information shared with OSARP provides sufficient cause that an alleged policy violation(s) may have occurred and an Individual Interim Suspension Status should be implemented, the Responding Party will be notified of the alleged policy violation(s) via their official JMU email address. The Responding Party may also be notified of the alleged policy violation(s) and that they are being placed under an Individual Interim Suspension Status by a full-time staff member from OSARP or designee through a method that may include, but is not limited to, notification in person, via phone, or through police officer delivery.

  • While under an Individual Interim Suspension Status, the Responding Party may not attend classes in person, live in or enter residence halls, or enter university owned or operated property without permission from the Director of OSARP or designee. At their discretion, the Director of OSARP or designee may choose to provide specific provisions that allow the student to enter university owned or operated property as a part of the Individual Interim Suspension Status (i.e., to attend classes only; to attend a meeting related to the Individual Accountability Process (IAP)); if this special provision is made, it will be communicated to the student and to JMU Police Department. If the Responding Party violates the expectations of the Individual Interim Suspension Status, they will be subject to arrest for trespassing and additional alleged policy violation(s) in OSARP.

  • The email notification will include:

    • The alleged policy violation(s) and a link to the Standards of Conduct & Policies in the Student Handbook

    • Date(s) and location(s) of the alleged incident(s)

    • How OSARP received information about the alleged policy violation(s)

    • Information about the restrictions placed on a student while under an Individual Interim Suspension Status

    • Instructions for attending an Individual Interim Suspension Review (IISR)

    • Information about the rights a student has in the process and the rights waived should they fail to attend the University Case Administrator-Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR)

    • Contact information for OSARP in order to ask questions about the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP)

    • Links to relevant sections of the Student Handbook and OSARP website

    • Notice to the student that the potential outcomes of the case may include suspension, expulsion, or notice of trespass from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, and information regarding additional rights afforded them

    • The process to request disability accommodations, if needed

    • Information on the academic, mental health, personal well-being, and campus resources available to students at James Madison University, which can be found at: https://www.jmu.edu/osarp/resources/index.shtml 

For the purposes of notification throughout all portions of the IISP, this initial email will serve as the official notification regarding the bulleted items above for the case.

  • When students are informed of the alleged policy violation(s), they may also be issued an OSARP No Contact Order for specific members of the university community through the conclusion of the IISP. The OSARP No Contact Order includes, but is not limited to, verbal or non-verbal contact in person, through electronic means, or through a third party. This instruction does not prohibit contact through a third party for the purposes of conducting lawful activity during a pending criminal or civil case, or other specific extenuating circumstances as determined by OSARP. OSARP will not pursue an alleged violation(s) of the OSARP No Contact Order that occur through a third party for the purposes of conducting lawful activity during a pending criminal or civil case, or other specific extenuating circumstances as determined by OSARP unless the contact may have violated the Interference or Retaliation in a University Process policy or other policies as listed in the Handbook.

  • If any decision-maker in the IISP feels that their previous contact with the case or the individual(s) involved will prevent them from providing a fair, impartial, and unbiased process, that decision-maker must request that they not be assigned to the case. Responding Parties will be informed of any decision-maker assigned to their case during the IISP. Upon receiving that notification, a Responding Party may request that the decision-maker be replaced if the Responding Party can show a bias on the part of the decision-maker. Merely being assigned a decision-maker who has previously heard a case with the Responding Party does not constitute actual bias. To make such a request, a Responding Party must contact the Director of OSARP or designee immediately, setting forth their reasons in writing. In cases where the Director is the individual who initiated the IISP, an Associate Director of OSARP or designee will review the request. Any decision to remove a decision-maker and/or to postpone a meeting in the IAP is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

Within three business days of the Responding Party receiving notice that they are being placed under an Individual Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, OSARP will provide an IISR. An IISR does not determine if a student is responsible for violating university policy(ies), nor does it assign any outcomes for the case. An IISR only determines if the current Individual Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, will be upheld, overturned, or altered (including the removal of previously granted specific provisions) until the decision in the case is finalized. If the current Individual Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, is upheld at the IISR, the Individual Interim Suspension Status, with or without specific provisions, will remain in place until the conclusion of the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP).

  • IISRs will be conducted by a University Case Administrator (UCA).

  • For virtual IISRs, OSARP will have a staff member in the meeting to manage the administrative and technical aspects of the virtual environment so the UCA can focus solely on the case.

  • Since suspension, expulsion, or notice of trespass from JMU and/or removal from all university housing are potential outcomes of the IISP, a Responding Party at an IISR may bring one Support Person of their choice. The Support Person attending an IISR may not communicate for or speak on behalf of the Responding Party but may give advice to the Responding Party on how to present information; the Support Person cannot also serve as a witness in the IISP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances.

  • The IISR will be audio and/or video recorded; students are not permitted to make recordings of IISRs. If information or evidence is provided during the IISR that is related to the alleged incident or behavior, OSARP reserves the right to include it in the case file being used by the decision-makers in the case.

    • The Responding Party will be notified of the outcome of the IISR, along with a written rationale of the outcome, the same calendar day as the IISR. 

After the Individual Interim Suspension Review (IISR) is completed, the UCA-IACR will occur determine the finding(s) on policy and, if applicable, outcome(s) for the case. The UCA-IACR will take place within ten business days from the date of the IISR. 

The UCA-IACR will be conducted by a different University Case Administrator (UCA) than the one who conducted the IISR for this case. If a UCA feels that their previous contact with the case or the individual(s) involved will prevent them from rendering a fair decision, the UCA must request that they not be assigned to the UCA—IACR. Responding Parties and Reporting Parties (if any) will be informed of the UCA assigned to their case. Upon receiving notification of the assigned UCA, a Responding Party or Reporting Party (if any) may request that a UCA be replaced if the student can show a bias on the part of the UCA. To make such a request, a Responding Party or Reporting Party (if any) must contact the Director of OSARP or designee immediately, setting forth their reasons in writing. The Director of OSARP or designee will review all requests. Any decision to replace a UCA and/or to postpone a UCA—IACR is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

Responding Parties are afforded certain rights outlined in the "Responding Party - Responsibilities and Rights –University Case Administrator- Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR)", including the additional rights given to students who may receive suspension, expulsion, or notice of trespass from JMU and/or removal from all university housing as a final outcome in their case.

Participants who have a right to a Support Person may be accompanied by one Support Person. The Handbook section entitled "Participants’ Roles, Rights, and Restrictions" describes the role of the Support Person, limitations and restrictions placed on the role, and who is qualified to serve in the role in different circumstances. Participants must notify OSARP of any Support Person at least two days prior to the UCA—IACR.

A UCA—IACR, will be conducted virtually for reasons including but not limited to the alleged health and/or safety concerns of an IISP. For virtual case reviews, OSARP will have a staff member in the meeting to manage the administrative and technical aspects of the virtual environment so the UCA can focus solely on the case review. In rare cases, and for good cause, the parties may request the UCA-IACR be conducted in-person. If an in-person UCA-IACR is approved by the Director of OSARP or designee, then Responding Parties and Reporting Parties may request reasonable safety accommodations be put in place during the UCA—IACR.  Reasonable safety accommodations may include, but are not limited to, a partition, police presence, or have a participant(s) join virtually.

Due to the required timelines of the IISP, the UCA-IACR times are set based on the academic schedules of the Responding Party, the Reporting Party, if applicable, if they are enrolled in classes, and the availability of the University Witnesses. If the UCA-IACR is to occur when the Responding Party and/or Reporting Party are not enrolled in classes at JMU, their availability will be considered, and reasonable efforts will be made to ensure they are able to participate. The availability or academic schedules of Responding Party Witnesses and Reporting Party Witnesses, if applicable, will be reasonably considered when scheduling a UCA-IACR. Responding Party Witnesses and Reporting Party Witnesses, if applicable, who are unable to attend the scheduled UCA-IACR may submit a written statement in their absence. OSARP cannot compel Responding Parties, Reporting Parties, or witnesses of any kind to attend a UCA-IACR. If a participant of any type fails to appear at a UCA-IACR after being properly notified of its date and time, the case will generally proceed and be heard on the basis of the case file, other items submitted as evidence to the case, the information provided by those in attendance at the UCA-IACR, and the previous disciplinary history maintained by OSARP of the Responding Party, if necessary. If a Responding Party fails to appear at a UCA-IACR, the Responding Party will be notified of the decision and written rationale via email within two business days of the UCA-IACR.

The decision to postpone a UCA-IACR for any reason is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, procedures, or assigned educational or restorative outcomes listed within an OSARP process will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances in order to uphold the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved by the Director of OSARP or designee. Any requests for alterations must be communicated to the Director of OSARP or designee as soon as practicable.

The Director of OSARP or designee will determine the appropriate course of action in circumstances where multiple Responding Parties in the same case are provided a UCA-IACR; the determination will be based on upholding the intent of the Individual Accountability Process (IAP). Multiple Responding Parties may have their cases heard together during the same UCA-IACR if their cases derive from the same set of facts and circumstances. Decisions on finding(s) and outcome(s), if applicable, will be made individually for each Responding Party by the UCA.

A UCA—IACR will be audio and/or video recorded. Students are not permitted to make their own recordings of a UCA—IACR.

The start time of the UCA-IACR includes the UCA meeting with each participant to discuss procedural information and answer questions from the participants. The length of these meetings cannot be predetermined.

A UCA-IACR will generally be conducted in accordance with the procedures below; however, the UCA may ask additional questions at any time. Additionally, the phrase “through the UCA” used throughout the UCA-IACR procedures refers to the UCA confirming or denying a University Witness, Reporting Party, or a Reporting Party Witness’ ability to respond to a question; this confirmation or denial may be verbal or non-verbal. The UCA has the authority to prohibit information from being shared that violates the rights of a party, is not allowed by the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP), or bears no relevancy to the case. Any participant who does not follow the requirements of the rules of decorum may be removed, as determined by the UCA.

  1. The UCA meets with each participant individually to discuss procedural information and answer questions. 

  2. The UCA-IACR begins and the UCA and participants introduce themselves.

  3. The statement of the alleged policy violation(s) is presented by the UCA.

  4. Participants state any questions they have concerning rights or procedures.

  5. Information is presented about the alleged incident; each University Witness is called individually.

    • Each University Witness will individually share their perspective and be questioned by the UCA, then they will be questioned by the Responding Party through the UCA.

    • The UCA may request University Witnesses to return for further questions.

    • Step #5 repeats until all University Witnesses have participated.

  6. If applicable, information is presented about the alleged incident by the Reporting Party and each Reporting Party Witness. Each Reporting Party and/or Reporting Party Witness will be called individually.

    • The Reporting Party and/or each Reporting Party Witness will individually share their perspective and be questioned by the UCA and then by the Responding Party, through the UCA. A Reporting Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including but not limited to what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Reporting Party. A Reporting Party Witness may not provide their perspective on the character of the Responding Party, Responding Party Witness(es), or University Witness(es), nor what they feel the appropriate decision or outcome in the case should be.

    • The Support Person for the Reporting Party or Reporting Party Witness may not also serve as a witness in the IISP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances.

    • After a Reporting Party Witness has presented to the UCA and answered all questions, the witness may be asked to leave by the UCA. At such request, witnesses must leave the meeting. If the UCA does not specifically ask a witness to remain for further questions, the witness must leave the UCA-IACR.

    • The UCA may request that a Reporting Party Witness return at a later point in the UCA-IACR for further questions.

    • The UCA shall have the authority to limit the number of witnesses and/or content in order to avoid unreasonable delays, where the information would be repetitious or unnecessary, or where the information does not contribute positively to the fair review of the case.

    • Step #6 repeats until all Reporting Parties and Reporting Party Witnesses have participated.

  7. Information is presented by the Responding Party. The UCA may question the Responding Party.

    • This presentation is the Responding Party’s opportunity to share information they want considered by the UCA, including any responses to the evidence or information included in the case file. The UCA shall have the authority to limit the information and/or content in order to avoid unreasonable delays, where the information would be repetitious or unnecessary, or where the information does not contribute positively to the fair review of the case.

    • During questioning, the UCA may seek clarification on information that will assist them with making a determination regarding responsibility, using a preponderance of the evidence standard. The UCA may also seek information that may, if needed, assist them with assigning outcome(s), including questions regarding the Responding Party’s previous disciplinary history maintained by OSARP as it relates to the current case.

  8. The Responding Party will call their witnesses individually.

    • Each witness called by the Responding Party will individually share their perspective and be questioned by the Responding Party, followed by questions from the UCA. Witnesses called by the Responding Party can provide information relevant to the case, including but not limited to what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Responding Party. A Responding Party Witness may not provide their perspective on the character of the Reporting Party, Reporting Party Witness(es) or University Witness(es), nor what they feel the appropriate decision or outcome in the case should be.

    • The Support Person for the Responding Party or Responding Party Witness may not also serve as a witness in the IISP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances.

    • After a Responding Party Witness has presented to the UCA and answered all questions, the witness may be asked to leave by the UCA. At such request, witnesses must leave the UCA-IACR. If the UCA does not specifically ask a witness to remain for further questions, the witness must leave the UCA-IACR.

    • The UCA may request that a witness for the Responding Party return at a later point in the UCA-IACR for further questions.

    • After presenting to the UCA, a witness is not permitted to have any communication regarding the case with witnesses who have not presented to the UCA or with the Responding Party and their Support Person until after the UCA-IACR has concluded. This includes verbal communication, written communication, and/or electronic communication.

    • The UCA shall have the authority to limit the number of witnesses and/or content in order to avoid unreasonable delays, where the information would be repetitious or unnecessary, or where the information does not contribute positively to the fair review of the case.

    • Step #8 repeats until all Responding Party Witnesses have participated.

  9. Any University Witnesses asked by the UCA to return later will be brought in individually, if applicable. 

    • The Responding Party may ask questions through the UCA, followed by the UCA’s opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the University Witness. 

    • The University Witnesses will then be dismissed from the UCA-IACR. 

  10. Any Responding Party Witnesses asked by the UCA to return later will be brought in individually, if applicable. 

    • The Responding Party may ask questions of their witness, followed by the UCA’s opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the Responding Party Witness. 

    • The Responding Party Witnesses will then be dismissed from the UCA-IACR. 

  11. Any Reporting Party Witnesses asked by the UCA to return later will be brought in individually, if applicable. 

    • The Responding Party may ask questions through the UCA, followed by the UCA’s opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the Reporting Party Witness. 

    • The Reporting Party Witnesses will then be dismissed from the UCA-IACR. 

  12. The Reporting Party will return to the UCA—IACR.

    • The UCA may ask final questions of the Reporting Party.

    • The Responding Party may ask final questions of the Reporting Party through the UCA.

    • The Reporting Party may present concluding remarks.

  13. The Reporting Party and their Support Person, if applicable, will be dismissed from the UCA-IACR.

  14. The UCA may ask final questions of the Responding Party.

  15. The Responding Party may present concluding remarks.

  16. All persons are dismissed while the UCA determines whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating university policy(ies) and, if applicable, assigns outcome(s).

    • The UCA will consider the case file, other items submitted as evidence to the case, and the information provided by those in attendance at the UCA—IACR.

    • The UCA will determine whether or not the Responding party is responsible using a preponderance of the evidence standard.

    • If a student is found responsible for a policy violation(s), the UCA will determine the outcome(s) to assign. If applicable, the UCA will consider any previous disciplinary history maintained by OSARP pertaining to the Responding Party for the current case.

  17. The finding(s) and, if applicable, outcome(s), along with a rationale for their assignment is given to OSARP by the UCA.

OSARP will notify the Responding Party of the decision, rationale, and outcome(s), if applicable, within two business days from the date of the UCA—IACR. This notification will include information on the process for submitting an appeal, if applicable. Typically, this notification is conducted in person or virtually with an OSARP staff member but may be solely sent via their official JMU email address if, based on the circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate or necessary by the Director of OSARP or designee. The Responding Party will also be provided the opportunity to waive their right to appeal and accept the decision made at the UCA—IACR. If this occurs, the Responding Party will be sent information, if applicable, for completing required outcome(s), including any applicable deadlines. Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow program expectations may result in a $50 fine per program/meeting not completed by the deadline and a student account hold, which prevents class registration and is typically only removed once outstanding outcomes are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation of Failure to Comply with an Outcome. 

Procedures for appeals in the IAP are outlined within the section titled “Appeals”. A Responding Party may only appeal if they are found responsible for a policy violation(s) and received an outcome of suspension, expulsion, or notice of trespass from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. In these circumstances, the Responding Party has the right to submit a written appeal of the decision by the UCA, within four days of receiving the decision via their official JMU email account.

In circumstances where the Responding Party waives their right to appeal the decision made at the UCA—IACR, or if the Responding Party does not submit an appeal of the decision made at the UCA—IACR within the timeline set by the procedures listed in the Student Handbook, the decision made at the UCA—IACR will be considered final.

A student who knowingly provides falsified or misleading information at a UCA—IACR may receive an alleged policy violation of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process.

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a Responding Party or a student who is a Reporting Party attempts to discuss the case before the UCA—IACR with the UCA. OSARP will not pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of any no contact orders issued by the University when the contact occurs for the purposes of a pending criminal, civil, or legal process or other specific extenuating circumstances as determined by OSARP unless the contact may have violated Noncompliance and/or Interference or Retaliation in a University Process policies.

The UCA—IACR is a closed meeting. OSARP shall keep all information and decisions confidential and only release it with the student’s permission or to the extent permitted or required by law. The Responding Party shall receive notice of all rights they are guaranteed through the IAP (see “Responding Party – Responsibilities and Rights – UCA-Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR)”. In a UCA—IACR, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply.

If a Responding Party is found responsible for a violation(s) of university policy and received an outcome(s) of suspension, expulsion, or notice of trespass from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, the Responding Party has the right to submit a written appeal within four days of receiving the decision via their official JMU email account. If an appeal is submitted, it must be submitted directly by the Responding Party; appeals submitted by anyone other than the Responding Party will not be evaluated.

Appeal submissions can be made on one or more of the following grounds: procedural irregularity, excessively harsh outcomes, and/or new evidence. When referenced below, “affected the outcome of the matter” refers to the entirety of the decision rendered including the determination regarding responsibility or outcomes assigned, if applicable. 

  • Appeal submissions on procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter must outline the procedural irregularity and how that affected the decision in the case. 

  • Appeal submissions on excessively harsh outcome(s) for a case with a responsible finding(s) on policy must outline the reason(s) the outcomes assigned are excessively harsh. 

  • Appeal submissions on new evidence that was not reasonably available or accessible at the time of the University Case Administrator-Individual Accountability Case Review (UCA-IACR) and only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy must outline the new evidence, why the new evidence was not reasonably available or accessible at the time of the UCA-IACR, and how it is relevant to the decision of whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy.  

    • New evidence does not include a witness who was accessible and available to participate prior to the UCA-IACR, but chose not to and is now willing to participate in an appeal process. 

If an appeal is based on grounds of procedural irregularity and new evidence, grounds of excessively harsh outcomes and new evidence, or on all three grounds, OSARP will schedule an Individual Accountability Appeal Review (IAAR), where the University Case Administrator (UCA) will first evaluate the portions of the appeal on procedural irregularity, if applicable, then on excessively harsh outcomes, if applicable, proceeding as outlined in the Handbook. If the UCA orders a new UCA-IACR because an appeal was submitted based on procedural irregularity, and a procedural irregularity occurred that affected the outcome of the case, then the portion(s) of the appeal related to excessively harsh outcomes and/or new evidence will not be reviewed; the Responding Party will have the opportunity to share any new evidence at the new UCA-IACR heard by a different UCA, which will result in a new decision in the case being rendered. If the UCA does not order a new UCA-IACR because an appeal was submitted on procedural irregularity, and a procedural irregularity did not occur or did occur but did not affect the outcome of the case, the UCA will then evaluate the appeal on excessively harsh outcomes, if applicable, and then evaluate the new evidence portion of the appeal, if applicable, proceeding as outlined in the Handbook.

The appeal submission will be reviewed by one UCA. If the UCA feels that their previous contact with the case or the individual(s) involved will prevent them from rendering a fair decision, they must request that they not be assigned to the IAAR. Responding Parties and Reporting Parties, if applicable, will be informed of the UCA assigned to the IAAR. Upon receiving notification of the assigned UCA, a Responding Party or Reporting Party may request that a UCA be replaced if they can show a bias on the part of the UCA. To make such a request, a Responding Party or Reporting Party must contact the Director of OSARP or designee immediately, setting forth their reasons in writing. The Director of OSARP or designee will review all requests. Any decision to replace a UCA and/or to postpone an IAAR is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.

An IAAR based on new evidence will typically be held in person but may be conducted virtually for reasons including but not limited to health and/or safety concerns, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. For a virtual IAAR, OSARP will have a staff member in the meeting to manage the administrative and technical aspects of the virtual environment so the UCA can focus solely on the review of the appeal. 

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, procedures, or assigned educational or restorative outcomes listed within an OSARP process will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances in order to uphold the intent of the process, as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or with the agreement of the party(ies), as approved by the Director of OSARP or designee. Any requests for alterations must be communicated to the Director of OSARP or designee as soon as practicable.

The UCA will review the case documentation, other items submitted as evidence to the case, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Party’s previous disciplinary history maintained by OSARP.

If an appeal submission is based on procedural irregularity and/or excessively harsh outcomes, the IAAR will generally proceed in accordance with the procedures below. A Responding Party does not attend or participate in an IAAR granted solely based on procedural irregularity and/or excessively harsh outcomes.

Step 1: Appeal based on Procedural Irregularity, if applicable 

The UCA will first determine whether or not a procedural irregularity occurred by considering the information in the appeal. The UCA will also have access to the case documentation, other items submitted as evidence to the case, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Party’s previous disciplinary history maintained by OSARP. 

  • If the appeal submission did not include a procedural irregularity, the UCA will move to Step 2 and review the excessively harsh outcomes appeal. 

  • If the UCA determines that no procedural irregularity occurred, the decision rendered at the UCA-IACR will stand unless other grounds were included in the appeal. If procedural irregularity was the only appeal submission, then the UCA will conclude the IAAR.  

    • If the Responding Party also included excessively harsh outcomes in their appeal submission, the UCA will move to step 2 and review the appeal.   

    • If the Responding Party did not include excessively harsh outcomes but did present new evidence in their appeal submission, the UCA will move to step 3 and conduct the new evidence portion of the IAAR. 

    • If the Responding Party did not have any other grounds in their appeal submission, then the decision rendered at the UCA-IACR will stand. 

  • If the UCA determines that a procedural irregularity occurred, the UCA will then determine if the procedural irregularity can reasonably be said to have affected the outcome of the matter. 

    • If the UCA determines that the procedural irregularity cannot reasonably be said to have affected the outcome of the matter, the decision rendered at the UCA-IACR will stand unless other grounds were included in the appeal.  

      • If the Responding Party also included excessively harsh outcomes in their appeal submission, the UCA will move to step 2 and review the appeal. 

      • If the Responding Party did not include excessively harsh outcomes but did present new evidence in their appeal submission, the UCA will move to step 3 and conduct the new evidence portion of the IAAR. 

      • If the Responding Party did not have any other grounds in their appeal submission, then the decision rendered at the UCA-IACR will stand. 

    • If the UCA determines that the procedural irregularity can reasonably be said to have affected the outcome of the matter, the UCA will order a new UCA-IACR, conducted by a different UCA, be scheduled to render a new decision for the case. See “University Case Administrator—Individual Accountability Case Review Process” in the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP) section of the Handbook for the details of this process. The IAAR will end and no other grounds in the appeal submission, if applicable, will be reviewed.

Step 2: Appeal based on Excessively Harsh Outcomes, if applicable 

If the appeal submission included excessively harsh outcomes, the UCA will determine whether or not the outcomes in the case were excessively harsh by considering the information included in the appeal submission. The UCA will also have access to the case documentation, other items submitted as evidence to the case, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Party’s previous disciplinary history maintained by OSARP. 

  • If the UCA determines that the outcomes assigned in the case are not excessively harsh based on the totality of the information reviewed, they will keep the outcomes rendered at the UCA-IACR. 

    • If the appeal only included excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, then the UCA will conclude the IAAR. The decision rendered at the UCA-IACR will stand. 

    • If the appeal only included procedural irregularity and excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, then the UCA will conclude the IAAR. The decision rendered at the UCA-IACR will stand. 

    • If the appeal submission also included new evidence, the UCA will move to step 3 and review the appeal. 

  • If the UCA determines that excessively harsh outcomes were assigned in the case, the UCA will alter the outcomes to make them appropriate. If a UCA chooses to alter the outcome(s) imposed, the UCA may not impose outcome(s) more severe than those imposed at the UCA-IACR.  

    • If the appeal only included excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, then the UCA will conclude the IAAR.  

    • If the appeal only included procedural irregularity and excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, the UCA will conclude the IAAR. 

    • If the appeal submission also included new evidence, the UCA will move to step 3 and review the appeal.

Step 3: Appeal based on New Evidence, if applicable

If an appeal submission is based solely on new evidence or includes new evidence in addition to previously reviewed grounds of procedural irregularity and/or excessively harsh outcomes, the UCA will first evaluate if the new evidence included in the appeal submission meets the stated criteria to be considered new evidence by conducting the following procedures. The UCA will also have access to the case documentation, other items submitted as evidence to the case, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Party’s previous disciplinary history maintained by OSARP. 

  • Per the IISP, new evidence is defined as information that was not reasonably available or accessible at the time of the UCA-IACR and only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy.  

  • The UCA will determine if the evidence was not reasonably available or accessible at the time of the UCA-IACR based on the information submitted in the appeal. However, new evidence does not include a witness who was accessible and available to participate prior to the UCA-IACR but chose not to and is now willing to participate in an appeal process. 

    • If the UCA determines that the evidence included in the appeal submission does not meet the criteria for being new, they will keep the outcomes rendered at the UCA-IACR, and they will conclude the IAAR.  

    • If the UCA determines that the evidence included in the appeal submission does meet the criteria for being new, they will then determine if the evidence included in the appeal submission is only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy. 

      • If the UCA determines that the evidence included in the appeal submission is not solely relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy, they will keep the outcomes rendered at the UCA-IACR, and they will conclude the IAAR.  

      • If the UCA determines that the evidence included in the appeal submission is solely relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy, the IAAR will proceed. OSARP will schedule an IAAR to provide an opportunity for relevant participants to present and/or respond to the new evidence.

The Responding Party may choose to present the new evidence in person to the UCA and may choose to have the witness(es) relevant to the new evidence present to the UCA. The Responding Party must let OSARP know the name(s) and email address(es) of any witness(es) they plan to have present at least two days prior to the date of the IAAR. If a Responding Party Witness is unable to attend the scheduled IAAR, they may submit a written statement to OSARP related to the relevant new evidence at least 24 hours prior to the IAAR for the UCA to review. The IAAR will be scheduled around the Responding Party's academic schedule. In cases that have a Reporting Party(ies), the new evidence will be shared with the Reporting Party(ies) and the Reporting Party(ies) will have the opportunity to respond to the new evidence at the IAAR and may choose to have a witness(es) relevant to the new evidence present at the IAAR. The Reporting Party(ies) must let OSARP know the name(s) and email address(es) of any witness(es) they plan to have present at least two days prior to the date of the IAAR; the names of any witness(es) will be shared with the Responding Party. If a Reporting Party Witness is unable to attend the scheduled IAAR, they may submit a written statement to OSARP related to the relevant new evidence at least 24 hours prior to the IAAR for the UCA to review. If there is a Reporting Party(ies), the case will also be scheduled around their academic schedule. 

If a participant of any type fails to appear at an IAAR after being properly notified of its date and time, the IAAR will generally proceed and be heard on the basis of the case file, other items submitted as evidence to the appeal, the information provided by those in attendance at the IAAR, and the previous disciplinary history maintained by OSARP of the Responding Party.

The IAAR will be audio and/or video recorded; students are not permitted to make their own recordings. The Responding Party shall receive notice of all rights they are guaranteed through the Individual Accountability Process (IAP) (see “Responding Party – Responsibilities and Rights – Individual Accountability Appeal Review (IAAR)”). Any participant who does not follow the requirements of the IAAR process, or the Rules of Decorum, may be removed, as determined by the UCA. 

The start time of the IAAR includes the UCA meeting with each participant to discuss procedural information and answer questions from the participants. The length of these meetings cannot be predetermined.

In IAARs where the Responding Party and/or Reporting Party chooses to present to the UCA, the Responding Party and Reporting Party each have a right to one Support Person if OSARP is notified at least two days before the IAAR, provided that person is willing and able to attend. Support Persons must meet the criteria and follow the guidelines and expectations as listed in the Student Handbook.  

Additionally, the phrase “through the UCA” used throughout the IAAR procedures refers to the UCA confirming or denying a Reporting Party, Responding Party, Reporting Party Witness, or Responding Party Witness the ability to respond to a question; this confirmation or denial may be verbal or non-verbal. The UCA has the authority to prohibit information from being shared that violates the rights of a party, is not allowed by the IISP, or bears no relevancy to the new evidence in the case. Any participant may be removed by the UCA if they violate the Rules of Decorum or procedures outlined in the Student Handbook.

An IAAR will generally proceed in accordance with the procedure below; however, the UCA may ask questions at any time.  

  1. The UCA meets with each participant individually to discuss procedural information and answer questions.  

  2. The IAAR begins and the UCA and participants introduce themselves.  

  3. The Responding Party presents information solely about the new evidence in the case. 

    • The UCA may question the Responding Party about the new evidence.  

  4. If applicable, the Responding Party’s Witnesses will be called individually to share their statement on the new evidence. 

    • The Responding Party may question the Responding Party Witness about their statement on the new evidence. 

    • The UCA may question the Responding Party Witness about the new evidence.

    • At the conclusion of the statement and questions for the witness, the witness will leave the room. The UCA may request that a Responding Party Witness return at a later point in the IAAR for further questions.  

    • Step #4 repeats until all Responding Party Witnesses have participated. 

  5. The Reporting Party(ies) presents information solely in response to the new evidence in the case. If there is more than one Reporting Party, they will each be called individually.  

    • The Responding Party may question the Reporting Party about the response to the new evidence through the UCA.  

    • The UCA may question the Reporting Party about the new evidence.   

    • The UCA will ask the Reporting Party to remain available as they will be called back at a later point as outlined in the IAAR procedures. 

  6. If applicable, the Reporting Party’s Witnesses will be called individually to share their response to the new evidence.   

    • The Responding Party may question the Reporting Party Witness about their response to the new evidence through the UCA.  

    • The UCA may question the Reporting Party Witness about the new evidence.   

    • At the conclusion of the statement and questions for the witness, the witness will leave the room. The UCA may request that a Reporting Party Witness return at a later point in the IAAR for further questions.  

    • Step #6 repeats until all Reporting Party Witnesses have participated. 

  7. The UCA may ask questions of the Responding Party.  

  8. Any Responding Party Witnesses asked by the UCA to return later will be brought in individually, if applicable.  

    • The Responding Party may ask questions of their witness, followed by UCA’s opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the Responding Party Witness.  

    • The Responding Party Witnesses will then be dismissed from the IAAR.  

  9. Any Reporting Party Witnesses asked by the UCA to return later will be brought in individually, if applicable.  

    • The Responding Party may ask questions through the UCA, followed by UCA’s opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the Reporting Party Witness.  

    • The Reporting Party Witnesses will then be dismissed from the IAAR.  

  10. The Reporting Party(ies) will return to the IAAR individually.   

    • The UCA may ask final questions of the Reporting Party(ies).   

    • The Responding Party may ask final questions of the Reporting Party(ies) through the UCA.   

    • The Reporting Party(ies) may present concluding remarks about the new evidence.    

    • The Reporting Party(ies) and their Support Person, if applicable, will leave.  

  11. The UCA may ask final questions of the Responding Party.  

  12. The Responding Party may present concluding remarks. 

  13. The Responding Party and their Support Person, if applicable, will leave.  

  14. The UCA will deliberate and make a decision using the procedures below: 

    • The UCA will consider the totality of the evidence in the case file, the appeal, and information presented during the IAAR to determine if the decision rendered at the UCA-IACR should stand or if the finding(s) on policy and/or outcome(s) rendered at the UCA-IACR should be altered. 

      • If, in considering the totality of the evidence, the UCA determines, using a preponderance of the evidence, that the finding(s) on policy should not be altered, the decision rendered at the IACR, Follow-Up Meeting(s), or the UCA-IACR, when applicable, will stand unless altered as a result of the current appeal based on excessively harsh outcome(s).

      • If, in considering the totality of the evidence, the UCA determines, using a preponderance of the evidence, that the finding(s) on policy should be altered, the UCA will determine whether or not the Responding Party is responsible for violating policy.  

        • If alterations are made to the finding(s) on policy, the UCA will determine whether or not the outcome(s) assigned should be altered. If the alteration of finding(s) requires a change in outcome(s), the UCA will determine the new outcome(s). If a UCA chooses to alter the outcomes imposed, the UCA may not impose outcomes more severe than ones that were imposed at the UCA-IACR. 

OSARP will notify the Responding Party of the final decision of the IAAR and provide the UCA’s written rationale of the decision within two business days from the date of the IAAR. Typically, this notification is conducted in person or virtually with an OSARP staff member but may be solely sent via their official JMU email address if, based on the circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate or necessary by the Director of OSARP or designee. If the final decision rendered at the conclusion of an IAAR involves required outcome(s), the Responding Party will be sent information for completing required outcomes, including any applicable deadlines. Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow program expectations may result in a $50 fine per program/meeting not completed by the deadline and a student account hold, which prevents class registration and is typically only removed once outstanding outcomes are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation of Failure to Comply with an Outcome.

Information on Disability Accommodations in the Individual Interim Suspension Process (IISP)

JMU and OSARP are committed to providing programs that are equally inclusive and accessible to all participants. Participants may request accommodations in accordance with JMU Policy 1331. If you are a student who needs accommodation of a disability to support your participation in an OSARP process, submit your accommodation request to ODS via the Accommodate portal available in MyMadison (see also https://www.jmu.edu/ods/getting-started/index.shtml). You may send an email to the Office of Disability Services (ODS) at disability-svcs@jmu.edu asking for an expedited review in light of the timelines associated with the OSARP process. ODS and OSARP may consult to identify potentially reasonable accommodations to support effective participation in the OSARP process. ODS will communicate with OSARP about the identified accommodations and copy you on the written notice of accommodations. All requests must be communicated to OSARP at least three business days prior to a process, so please contact the Office of Disability Services immediately. For others who may need accommodations, contact the appropriate unit as indicated in JMU policy 1331.

Back to Top
Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices
Student Success Center
MSC 2901
738 South Mason Street
Room 2122
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807
Email Us
(540) 568-6218
Fax: (540) 568-2807