The information contained in this section of the Handbook is only applicable for those participating in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).  

At times, the word “organizational” may 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 recognized student organizations or student groups and their accountability procedures. Additionally, the word “organization” or “organizational” may be used to describe a recognized student organization or student group, as they are defined in the Handbook. 

Jump to section
Definitions

OAAR

An acronym for an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review.

OACR

An acronym for an Organizational Accountability Case Review.

OAIP

An acronym for the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process.

OAOR

An acronym for an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review.

OAP

An acronym for the Organizational Accountability Process.

OAPR

An acronym for an Organizational Accountability Process Review.

OARR

An acronym for an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review.

Any individual designated by a recognized student organization or student group as their Adviser. The university may designate an Adviser or designee should a recognized student organization or student group not have an Adviser. 

Among other duties, the chairperson is the person designated during an Organizational Accountability Case Review or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review that has the responsibility of carrying out the stated procedures of the process and upholding the Rules of Decorum. This person also has the authority to determine relevancy of questions, prohibit information from being shared or instruct decision-makers to disregard information shared that violates the rights of a party, is not allowed by the process, or bears no relevancy to the hearing of the case. 

Decision-maker(s) include OSARP staff and University Case Administrators (UCAs), when applicable. 

An individual who provides information during the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process, including but not limited to a Responding Organization, Responding Organization Witness, Reporting Party, Reporting Party Witness, or University Witness. See those defined roles for more information. 

OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require Investigation Participants to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may require attendance at specific meetings. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Investigation Participant Rights to those serving in this role.

Created by an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) at the conclusion of the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process. 

The Investigation Report consists of all relevant investigation materials received during the investigation of alleged policy violation(s), excluding information redacted in accordance with the OSARP process, including but not limited to the initial report of alleged misconduct, a summary of the investigation process and timeline, investigation interview summaries, emails, photos, and videos. 

The neutral, fact-finding individual(s) or entity(ies) that investigates alleged policy violation(s) for a recognized student organization or student group in the Organizational Accountability Process. Typically, the Organizational Accountability Investigator is an OSARP staff member, but can be other individuals or entities, as designated by OSARP, including but not limited to: 

  • Full-time or part-time employees of the university 
  • External entities, agencies, or companies contracted by the university 

Individuals who serve as an Organizational Accountability Investigator complete annual training for their role as an investigator. 

The availability of an Organizational Accountability Investigator is considered when OSARP schedules an Organizational Accountability Process Review, Organizational Accountability Resolution Review, Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review, Organizational Accountability Case Review, and Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, when applicable.  

Any known or designated association or governing body affiliated with a recognized student organization or student group. Examples include but are not limited to international or national headquarters of Greek-letter organizations, national governing bodies of sport club organizations, or national honor societies. 

One elected or appointed leader (e.g., president or team captain) of a recognized student organization or student group that will receive direct communication from OSARP throughout the Organizational Accountability Process and respond on behalf of the recognized student organization or student group. At the discretion of OSARP, the organization can request that another member of the organization represent the organization during the Organizational Accountability Process. Should the eligibility of the Organizational Representative change during the Organizational Accountability Process (e.g., the representative withdraws from JMU or is no longer a member of the recognized student organization or student group), or if the organization dissolves or surrenders recognition prior to or during the Organizational Accountability Process, OSARP may designate an Organizational Representative. 

A term for any individual participating in the Organizational Accountability Process. 

Preponderance of the evidence means that there is greater than a fifty percent likelihood that the Responding Organization violated the policy. 

For the purposes of the Student Handbook and the investigation and/or review of alleged violations of university policy, a “recognized student organization” is a student group that completed the annual or new student organization registration process through the Office of Student Life and received official notice of recognition. 

  • Examples of recognized student organizations include but are not limited to sports clubs, sororities and fraternities, clubs and organizations (associated with University Recreation (UREC), Center for Multicultural Student Services (CMSS), Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL), and Student Leadership and Involvement). 

  • Information on the annual or new student organization registration process can be found on the Office of Student Life’s webpage.

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the outcome of the case. Relevant evidence includes evidence concerning the credibility of a party or witness.  

A Reporting Party is an individual who reports alleged behavior committed by a recognized student organization or student group that can be addressed by the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP). A Reporting Party need not necessarily present an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Organization, but it is often their interaction with, or knowledge of a Responding Organization that led to an alleged policy violation(s) being placed by OSARP. 

A Reporting Party may submit alleged behavior to OSARP anonymously, which may be used to place an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Organization. A Reporting Party who chooses to participate in the OAP, including but not limited to the investigation of an alleged policy violation(s), may not participate anonymously. Though initial anonymous reports of alleged behavior are permitted for the placement of alleged policy violation(s), doing so may limit OSARP’s ability to investigate and respond. 

The availability of a Reporting Party is considered when OSARP schedules the Organizational Accountability Case Review or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook.  

OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require Reporting Parties to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may require attendance at specific meetings. 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 recognized student organization or student group that can be addressed by the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) as an alleged policy violation, including but not limited to Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force; Hazing; 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 Organization, but it is often their interaction with, or knowledge of a Responding Organization that led to an alleged policy violation(s) being placed by OSARP. 

A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) may submit alleged behavior to OSARP anonymously, which may be used to place an alleged policy violation(s) against a Responding Organization. A Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) who chooses to participate in the OAP, including but not limited to the investigation of an alleged policy violation(s), may not participate anonymously. Though initial anonymous reports of alleged behavior are permitted for the placement of alleged policy violation(s), doing so may limit OSARP’s ability to investigate and respond. 

The availability of a Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) is considered when OSARP schedules the Organizational Accountability Case Review or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook.   

OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require Reporting Parties (Crimes of Violence) to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may require attendance at specific meetings. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Reporting Party (Crimes of Violence) Rights to those who meet this definition. 

A Responding Organization is a recognized student organization or student group that receives notification of an alleged policy violation(s) and is afforded rights and an Organizational Accountability Process by OSARP to respond to the alleged policy violation(s). A Responding Organization is represented by the Organizational Representative, as defined in this portion of the Handbook. 

The availability of the Organizational Representative is considered when OSARP schedules an Organizational Accountability Process Review, Organizational Accountability Resolution Review, Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review, Organizational Accountability Case Review, and Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, when applicable.  

OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Responding Organization Rights to those recognized student organizations or student groups who meet this definition.  

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

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness who chooses to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, including but not limited to the investigation of an alleged policy violation(s), may not participate anonymously.  

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident or their knowledge of the Responding Organization/Reporting Party in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Responding Organization/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 and pursue an alleged policy violation(s) if there is evidence shared regarding the Responding Organization/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) through the Individual Accountability Process if the Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness claims responsibility for the Responding Organization’s alleged policy violation(s) during their statements or interactions with OSARP.  

The availability of a Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules the Organizational Accountability Case Review or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. It is the responsibility of the Responding Organization/Reporting Party to coordinate their witnesses’ attendance when the process allows their attendance.  

OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witnesses to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may require attendance at specific meetings. OSARP confers the rights outlined in the Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness Rights to those serving in this role.  

For the purposes of the Student Handbook and the investigation and/or review of alleged violations of university Hazing policy, in accordance with Adam’s Law, a “student group” is a group of students that has not received official notice of recognition through the Office of Student Life and JMU is aware of the student group's existence prior to, or after, an alleged hazing incident is reported.  

  • Examples of student groups include but are not limited to varsity sports teams, performance groups/ensembles, honor societies, Marching Royal Dukes, Dukettes, unrecognized, formerly recognized, or underground organizations, or secret societies. 

Generally, one person who provides support to individuals participating in the Organizational Accountability Process, such as the organization’s Adviser. A Support Person may be an attorney if that individual adheres to the restrictions and guidelines in the Organizational Accountability Process for a Support Person. A Support Person may not also serve as a witness in the Organizational Accountability Process or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. The availability of a Support Person for the Organizational Representative and any Reporting Party(ies) is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules the Organizational Accountability Case Review or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook. It is the responsibility of the individual to coordinate their Support Person’s attendance when the process allows their attendance. 

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 University Case Administrators. Graduate student staff who have prior experience with OSARP but are not currently working with OSARP are also eligible for this role. A University Case Administrator 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 University Case Administrators as needed. University Case Administrators are indefinitely eligible if they remain affiliated with the university, do not have a pending disciplinary case at the university, and have the support of their direct supervisor. A University Case Administrator may withdraw from this volunteer opportunity at any time.   

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

A University Case Administrator in the Organizational Accountability Process will receive access to the case file for the sole purpose of reviewing the case.    

When appointed, a University Case Administrator is authorized to conduct the following stages of the Organizational Accountability Process:  

  • Organizational Accountability Case Reviews 
  • Organizational Accountability Appeal Reviews 
  • 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 Organization or Reporting Party, if applicable, but are determined by OSARP as having relevant information necessary for the investigation and/or review of the case. University Witnesses may include, but are not limited to, an Organizational Accountability Investigator, Office of Residence Life staff, Office of Student Life staff, Center for Multicultural Student Services staff, University Recreation staff, university faculty or staff, or police officers reporting alleged policy violation(s).  

The availability of a University Witness is considered when OSARP schedules an Organizational Accountability Case Review or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, 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 Organization notification of all alleged policy violation(s), the date(s) and location(s) of the allegation(s), and how OSARP received that information, via the official JMU email address of the Organizational Representative. 

  2. OSARP will send the Responding Organization notification of the date, time, and location of any meeting(s) with OSARP at least three days prior, via the official JMU email address of the Organizational Representative. The only exception is for an investigation interview(s), as outlined in the Rights afforded an Investigation Participant, which is notification at least one day prior. 

  3. OSARP will provide a fair and impartial process with unbiased Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision-makers that presume the Responding Organization is not responsible for violating policy. OSARP will use a preponderance of the evidence standard to determine if a Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy. 

  4. OSARP will address alleged behavior by any JMU student, recognized student organization, or student group that may violate the Interference or Retaliation with a University Process policy in the Student Handbook.  

  5. OSARP will grant immunity from individual 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.  

  6. OSARP may be required to report specific information provided during the OAP 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. 

  7. 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. 

Responding Organization Rights  

Certain Rights only apply if the Organizational Representative chooses to attend applicable meetings. 

  1. The right to accept responsibility for all alleged policy violation(s) in the case at any point in the OAP by communicating that acceptance to OSARP through the Organizational Representative. 

  2. The right for one Support Person to attend any meeting in the OAP with the Organizational Representative. The Support Person may not communicate for or speak on behalf of an Organizational Representative 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 attend an Organizational Accountability Process Review (OAPR) and select the Resolution Option, when provided the opportunity to choose by OSARP. An Organizational Representative that fails to attend the OAPR waives certain rights in the process and understands the Resolution Option will automatically be the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP). 

  4. The right to provide information to be used in the OAIP if that is the selected Resolution Option. A Responding Organization that provides information in the OAIP, through their Organizational Representative, is afforded the additional rights of an “Investigation Participant.”  

  5. The right to attend an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR) if the selected Resolution Option proceeds to an OARR. An Organizational Representative that fails to attend the OARR waives certain rights in the process and understands the OARR will proceed, as outlined in the OAP. 

  6. The right to attend an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR), if applicable. An Organizational Representative that fails to attend the OAOR waives certain rights in the process and understands the OAOR will proceed, as outlined in the OAP. 

  7. The right to choose and attend an Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR), if applicable, at the conclusion of the OAIP. An Organizational Representative that fails to attend the OACR waives certain rights in the process and understands their case will be decided by the University Case Administrators in their absence based on the information contained in the case file and information provided by other participants who attend the OACR. 

    1. At an OACR, the right to attend the entire OACR, except for closed deliberation.  

    2. At an OACR, the right to not answer the University Case Administrators’ questions or provide information to be used to make a decision in the case. 

    3. At an OACR, 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 OAP.  

    4. At an OACR, the right to question all witnesses and Reporting Parties (if any) who present at the OACR through the chairperson (if applicable). 

    5. At an OACR, the right to have Responding Organization Witnesses present in accordance with the restrictions listed in the OAP, provided witnesses are able to attend the scheduled OACR. 

    6. After an OACR, the right to be notified of the University Case Administrators’ decision, rationale, and outcomes, if applicable, within two business days from the date of the OACR. 

  8. The right to submit a written appeal of any decision in the OAP within four days of the Responding Organization receiving the decision via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. This right is only applicable for cases where the decision included an outcome of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. Appeals may only be submitted on the following grounds and must be submitted by the Organizational Representative. 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 available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review or Organizational Accountability Case Review and only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy. The appeal submission must outline the new evidence, why the new evidence was not available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review or Organizational Accountability Case Review, and how it is relevant to the decision of whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy.  

  9. The right to have access to a recording of the OACR, upon request from the Organizational Representative, solely for the purposes of preparing an appeal. 

  10. If an appeal is submitted by the deadline provided by OSARP, the right to attend the Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR) if allowed by the OAP. An Organizational Representative that fails to attend the OAAR, 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 OAAR. 

    1. At an OAAR, the right to present the new evidence, according to the OAP.  

    2. At an OAAR, the right to not answer questions or provide information. 

    3. At an OAAR, the right to question all witnesses and Reporting Parties (if any) who present through the chairperson (if applicable). 

    4. At an OAAR, the right to have witnesses present regarding the new evidence at the OAAR in accordance with the restrictions listed in the OAP, provided witnesses can attend the scheduled OAAR; the right to provide witness statements regarding the new evidence to be included in the OAAR in accordance with the deadlines and restrictions provided to them. 

    5. At an OAAR, the right to be notified of the UCA’s decision, rationale, and outcomes, if applicable, within two business days from the date of the OAAR. 

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

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

  1. OSARP will provide a fair and impartial process with unbiased Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) that presumes the Responding Organization not responsible for violating policy.  

  2. OSARP will notify the Investigation Participant of the date, time, and location of an investigation interview(s) at least one day prior to an investigation interview(s) via their official JMU email address or the email address provided by the Investigation Participant.  

  3. OSARP will address alleged behavior by any JMU student, recognized student organization, or student group that may violate the Interference or Retaliation with a University Process policy in the Student Handbook.  

  4. OSARP may be required to report specific information provided during the OAP 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.  

  5. OSARP will grant immunity from individual 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.  

 An Investigation Participant has the following rights in the OAP:  

  1. The right for one Support Person to attend the investigation interview(s). The Support Person attending the investigation interview(s) may not communicate for or speak on behalf of an Investigation Participant but may provide support or advice on how to present information in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the OAP.  

  2. The right to provide information to be included in the OAP in accordance with any deadlines or restrictions that may be listed in the OAP. The right not to answer questions or provide information to be included in the OAP.  

An Investigation Participant will acknowledge one of the following regarding their decision to participate in the OAP prior to participation: 

  • They agree to participate in the OAP, which may include multiple investigation interviews or opportunities to provide information to be used in the OAP. They are expected to provide accurate and truthful information to the best of their knowledge, and they understand that any attempt to provide false or misleading information or attempts to disrupt, unfairly influence, or obstruct the OAP may be addressed by OSARP through an alleged policy violation(s) in the Individual Accountability Process. By providing information during the OAP, they understand that: 

    • The information they share during the OAP will not be anonymous and may be included in the Investigation Report. The information they share during the OAP is considered a student educational record with the university. In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974, university policy generally prohibits the release of student educational records without the express written consent of the student; the information and records maintained by OSARP are considered educational records and fall within the protections, restrictions, and exemptions outlined in FERPA.  

    • By agreeing to participate in the OAP, they authorize the release of information contained in their student educational records for the case, maintained by OSARP, to the Responding Organization (via the Organizational Representative), university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, Adviser(s), and/or individual(s) from the Organizational Governing Body, for the purpose of the investigation of alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization. In doing so, they release James Madison University, OSARP, and its employees of any responsibility for the misappropriation of the information released to these designated parties as a result of this authorization. They can revoke this authorization at any time by contacting OSARP directly. 

  • They decline to participate in the OAP. 

The Reporting Party in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) for an incident(s) that allegedly violates university policy(ies) committed by a recognized student organization or student group, and does not meeting the definition of “Crimes of Violence” as outlined in the Handbook, has the following rights:  

  1. The right to receive access to a Reporting Party case file to prepare for an Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR) or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), 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 an investigation interview via email at least one day prior to the meeting. 

  3. The right to be notified of the date, time and location of an OACR, and/or an OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, via email at least three days prior to the meeting. 

  4. The right to attend an OACR, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, to share their perspective and be questioned by the University Case Administrators and Organizational Representative according to the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the OAP.  

  5. The right to attend the OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, and participate according to the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the OAP. A Reporting Party is only able to provide their response to the new evidence according to any restrictions outlined in the Handbook.  

  6. The right for one Support Person to attend an investigation interview, OACR, or OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, according to the restrictions outlined in the OAP. The Support Person for the Reporting Party may not also serve as a witness in the OAP 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) in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) has the following rights. Typically, “crimes of violence” would be addressed by OSARP as an alleged policy violation, including but not limited to Damage, Attempted Damage, or Vandalism of Property; Hazing; Physical Force or Attempted Physical Force; Sexual Misconduct; or Title IX Sexual Harassment. Known Reporting Parties (Crimes of Violence) will be notified of outcomes relating to Damage, Attempted Damage, or Vandalism of Property only if the behavior was deemed to be willful and malicious: 

  1. The right to receive access to a Reporting Party case file to prepare for an Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR) or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), 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 an investigation interview via email at least one day prior to the meeting. 

  3. The right to be notified of the date, time and location of an OACR, and/or an OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, via email at least three days prior to the meeting. 

  4. The right to attend an OACR, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, to share their perspective and be questioned by the University Case Administrators and Organizational Representative according to the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the OAP.  

  5. The right to attend the OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, and participate according to the guidelines and restrictions outlined in the OAP. 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.  

  6. The right for one Support Person to attend an investigation interview, OACR, or OAAR based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, according to the restrictions outlined in the OAP. The Support Person for the Reporting Party may not also serve as a witness in the OAP 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. 

  7. The right to be informed of the finding(s) in the case related to the alleged policy violation(s) that meet the definition of a crime of violence and any outcome(s), if applicable.  

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness has the following rights: 

  1. The right to be notified of the date, time, and location of an investigation interview, Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR), and/or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), 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 Organization/Reporting Party. 

  2. The right for one Support Person to attend an investigation interview, OACR, and/or OAAR, based on new evidence, when permitted by the process in the Handbook, in accordance with the restrictions outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP). The Support Person for the Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness may not also serve as a witness in the OAP 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 Organization/Reporting 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 Organizational Accountability Process (OAP): 

  1. Participants may have one Support Person of their choice, which can be an attorney, provided they follow the guidelines outlined in the OAP. The University does not provide students participating in the OAP 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 OAP nor compels a Support Person to attend. It is the participant’s responsibility to coordinate their Support Person’s attendance. 

  3. An individual who serves as a Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness, University Witness, Reporting Party, or the Organizational Representative cannot also serve as a Support Person in the OAP 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 OAP 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 OAP, one Support Person may help the participant prepare, which may include accompanying the Organizational Representative or Reporting Party to any meetings, reviewing the case file in OSARP with the Organizational Representative or Reporting Party, or communicating with OSARP and/or the university about the case and/or procedures with the permission of the Organizational Representative or Reporting Party. 

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

    • Not communicate for or speak on behalf of the participant. The Organizational Representative, 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 is not disruptive to the meeting or process. 

    • 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 OAP if they are disruptive to the process or do not adhere to the requirements set forth in the OAP or in the Rules of Decorum as stated in the Handbook. 

Rules of Decorum

The Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) to gather information necessary for the investigation and/or case. During the investigation and/or case review process, Responding Organizations must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the OAP, as applicable and outlined within the Student Handbook.  

General Expectations  

Responding Organizations, via the Organizational Representative, in the OAP must:  

  • Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.  

  • Speak appropriately with, or wait to begin speaking until addressed by, an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).  

  • 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 OAP procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).  

Responding Organizations, via the Organizational Representative, when asking questions of witnesses (of any type) or Reporting Party(ies) during an Organizational Accountability Case Review or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review, when applicable:  

  • Must allow the chairperson time to evaluate each question and verbally or non-verbally permit the participant to respond. This is referenced as “through the chairperson” in the OAP.  

  • Must maintain a professional and respectful attitude towards the other party, witnesses, UCAs, 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 Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s). If a participant violates an expectation of the Rules of Decorum or the OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will issue a verbal warning, identifying the expectation violated and how it was violated.  

If a participant continues to violate these expectations or OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will immediately call for a break. During the break, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will address the problematic behavior directly. If the participant refuses to comply with the warning or causes additional problems, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) may decide to take one or more of the following actions:  

  • Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), that allows the investigation and/or case to continue in a fair manner for all participants. 

  • Remove the participant from the meeting. If a participant is removed, the investigation and/or case will proceed in their absence and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will continue the investigation and/or make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.  

  • End the meeting and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Organization 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 Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) to gather information necessary for the investigation and/or case. During the investigation and/or case review process, Reporting Parties must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the OAP, as applicable and outlined within the Student Handbook.  

General Expectations  

Reporting Parties in the OAP must:  

  • Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.  

  • Speak appropriately with, or wait to begin speaking until addressed by, an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).  

  • 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 OAP procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).  

Violation of Expectations & Procedures  

Determination regarding a participant’s violation of one of these expectations lies with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s). If a participant violates an expectation of the Rules of Decorum or the OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will issue a verbal warning, identifying the expectation violated and how it was violated.  

If a participant continues to violate these expectations or OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will immediately call for a break. During the break, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will address the problematic behavior directly. If the participant refuses to comply with the warning or causes additional problems, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) may decide to take one or more of the following actions:  

  • Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), that allows the investigation and/or case to continue in a fair manner for all participants. 

  • Remove the participant from the meeting. If a participant is removed, the investigation and/or case will proceed in their absence and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will continue the investigation and/or make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.  

  • End the meeting and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Organization 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 Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) to gather information necessary for the investigation and/or case. During the investigation and/or case review process, Support Persons must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) and outlined within the Student Handbook.  

General Expectations  

Support Persons in the OAP, must:  

  • Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.  

  • Speak appropriately with, or wait to begin speaking until addressed by, an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).  

  • 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 OAP procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).  

Additional Expectations for Support Persons  

In the OAP a Support Person may:  

  • Not communicate for or speak on behalf of the party; Responding Organization, Reporting Parties (if applicable), Responding Organization 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 investigation and/or 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 Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s). If a participant violates an expectation of the Rules of Decorum or the OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will issue a verbal warning, identifying the expectation violated and how it was violated.  

If a participant continues to violate these expectations or OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will immediately call for a break. During the break, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will address the problematic behavior directly. If the participant refuses to comply with the warning or causes additional problems, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) may decide to take one or more of the following actions:  

  • Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), that allows the investigation and/or case to continue in a fair manner for all participants. 

  • Remove the participant from the meeting. If a participant is removed, the investigation and/or case will proceed in their absence and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will continue the investigation or make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.  

  • End the meeting, and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Organization 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 Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) must be managed to ensure all participants receive a fair, impartial, and unbiased experience that allows Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) to gather information necessary for the investigation and/or case. During the investigation and/or case review process, Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witnesses must adhere to the following expectations and the procedures in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) and outlined within the Student Handbook.  

General Expectations  

Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witnesses in the OAP must:  

  • Listen respectfully to the individual speaking without interruption.  

  • Speak appropriately with, or wait to begin speaking until addressed by, an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).  

  • 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 OAP procedures, a participant should request a break to consult with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s).  

A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including what they know about the alleged incident, or their knowledge of the party who requested their participation in the process (i.e., Responding Organization/Reporting Party) in accordance with the restrictions listed in the process. A Responding Organization/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 will grant immunity from individual 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. 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 a participant claims responsibility for the Responding Organization’s alleged policy violation(s) during the course of their statements or interactions with OSARP.  

For an Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR) based on new evidence, a Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness may be called by a Responding Organization/Reporting Party to provide a statement in response to the new evidence. A Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness may provide a written or in person statement at an Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR) or OAAR in accordance with the requirements as listed in the Student Handbook.  

The availability of a Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness is reasonably considered when OSARP schedules an OACR or OAAR, when applicable in the process as stated in the Handbook. It is the responsibility of the Responding Organization/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 Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s). If a participant violates an expectation of the Rules of Decorum or the OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will issue a verbal warning, identifying the expectation violated and how it was violated.  

If a participant continues to violate these expectations or OAP procedures, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will immediately call for a break. During the break, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will address the problematic behavior directly. If the participant refuses to comply with the warning or causes additional problems, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) may decide to take one or more of the following actions:  

  • Implement other methods to address the problematic behavior, as determined by the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), that allows the investigation and/or case to continue in a fair manner for all participants. 

  • Remove the participant from the meeting. If a participant is removed, the investigation and/or case will proceed in their absence and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s) will continue the investigation or make a determination in the case based on all of the available information, including any information shared after the participant’s removal.  

  • End the meeting, and potentially reconvene at a later date, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, if the removed participant is the Responding Organization 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. 

Collaboration in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP)

OSARP recognizes the importance of collaborating with partners to support a recognized student organization or student group going through the OAP. The following outlines the established relationships OSARP has, or seeks to create, with university and external partners related to the OAP: OAP Table

Communication with university and external partners throughout the OAP happens on a case-by-case basis considering the type of organization and the appropriate protection of individual student records. OSARP seeks partnership in the following ways, including but not limited to: 

  • Providing initial and ongoing training regarding the OAP 
  • Informing partner(s) when a report(s) is received 
  • Consulting on restriction(s) related to Organizational Interim Suspension 
  • Keeping partner(s) informed throughout the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process 
  • Inviting partner(s) to certain meetings in the OAP 
  • Seeking feedback from partner(s) on appropriate outcome(s) 
  • Providing opportunities for university partner(s) to serve as University Case Administrators in the OAP 
  • Providing partner(s) opportunities to work with Responding Organizations on the completion of assigned outcome(s) 
Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct

Throughout the Organizational Accountability Process, OSARP will consider various factors when evaluating organizational connections to alleged misconduct. These considerations and/or decisions may occur by OSARP at different stages of the process, including but not limited to the determination of whether to issue Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) in the Organizational Accountability Process or other OSARP process, whether an Organizational Interim Suspension should be initiated, what Resolution Option(s) may exist for a Responding Organization, or when determining responsibility for alleged policy violation(s). 

Evaluation of organizational connections to alleged misconduct include but are not limited to: 

  • Is the alleged misconduct covered under the “Jurisdiction – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” portion of the Handbook? 

  • Did one or more of its officers, leaders, or executive board, acting in the scope of their organizational capacities and/or duties commit the alleged misconduct? 

    • To what extent was the alleged misconduct the result of individual choice or choice with the knowledge of others in the organization? 

  • Did one or more of its officers, leaders, or executive board aid, abet, authorize, sanction, or organize the event or initiative where the alleged misconduct occurred? 

    • To what extent was the alleged misconduct the result of individual choice or choice with the knowledge of others in the organization? 

  • Did one or more of its members commit the alleged misconduct and the action that constitutes the alleged misconduct was approved by a majority vote of those members of the Responding Organization present and voting? 

  • Did one or more members of a committee of the Responding Organization commit the alleged misconduct while acting in the scope of the committee’s assignment? 

  • Did a member of the Responding Organization commit the alleged misconduct while acting with apparent or actual authority of the Responding Organization? 

  • Did one or more members of the Responding Organization or its officers, leaders, or executive board permit, encourage, aid, or assist any of its members in committing the alleged misconduct? 

  • Is the alleged misconduct against the mission of the institution, regardless of the location?  

Steps in the Organizational Accountability Process

Any JMU student, faculty, or staff member believing that an organization has violated a university policy(ies) may provide relevant details of an 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 – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” section of the Student Handbook.  

For more information on reporting an alleged policy violation(s) for an organization, including the information needed for a report, see “Organizational Resources: Reporting to OSARP”. This webpage also contains information about the on-campus resources that can provide ongoing mental and behavioral health support to any student who reports to OSARP an alleged act of hazing or bullying experienced as a result of a report of an alleged act of hazing for such incident. 

Generally, resolution of these allegations for an organization will follow the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP), except in the following circumstances: 

  • Cases involving an alleged violation(s) of university policy for an individual student will follow the separate and distinct Individual Accountability Process (IAP). 

    • The IAP may be initiated for an individual student who was involved in the reporting of, investigation of, or case review process for an alleged violation(s) of university policy by a recognized student organization or student group in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP). The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP. 

  • Cases involving an alleged violation(s) for which an individual student has been interim suspended will follow the separate and distinct Individual Interim Suspension Process as listed in the Student Handbook. 

  • Cases involving an alleged violation(s) of the Sexual Misconduct or Title IX Sexual Harassment policies for an individual student will follow the separate and distinct Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process or Title IX Sexual Harassment Adjudication Process, respectively.  

    • Responding Parties and Reporting Parties in cases involving alleged sexual misconduct should refer to the Sexual Misconduct policy, the Sexual Misconduct Accountability Process, and the "Responding & Reporting Party - Responsibilities and Rights – Sexual Misconduct".  

    • Respondents and Complainants in cases involving alleged Title IX sexual harassment should refer to the Title IX Sexual Harassment policy, the Title IX Sexual Harassment Adjudication Process, and the "Respondent & Complainant - Responsibilities and Rights – Title IX Sexual Harassment". 

Upon receiving a report(s) of alleged organizational misconduct, OSARP will determine whether there are grounds for Notification of an Alleged Policy Violation(s) and the initiation of the OAP. This preliminary assessment may include but not be limited to: 

  • Consultation with appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC) 

  • Consultation with JMU police or local law enforcement 

  • Consultation with individual(s) from the Organizational Governing Body 

  • Additional information gathering with the Reporting Party(ies) 

  • Review of any prior report(s) of alleged misconduct for the organization 

  • Any organizational records or student disciplinary records maintained by OSARP 

  • Criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” in this portion of the Handbook 

OSARP will also consider various factors in its preliminary assessment, including but not limited to what alleged misconduct is related to the organization and/or an individual(s) within the organization, whether to issue alleged policy violation(s) to a Responding Organization or refer an individual student(s) to the IAP, what Resolution Option(s) may exist for the Responding Organization, whether the alleged misconduct requires interim suspension, and whether another resource or process is better suited to address the alleged misconduct. After this preliminary assessment, OSARP will determine the next steps: 

  • If there is sufficient information to proceed, and thus, grounds for Notification of an Alleged Policy Violation(s) in the OAP: 

    • Whether potential outcomes of the case include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. To evaluate these potential outcomes, OSARP will consider a variety of factors, including but not limited to the impact on the safety of the organization, other students, and/or community; whether the behavior created a risk to the campus community, or the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP. 

    • Whether the organization will be placed on Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, which will remain in place until a final decision in the OAP unless OSARP subsequently communicates otherwise (see the “Organizational Interim Suspension” section in the Handbook for more information). 

    • The Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) assigned to the case (if applicable). 

    • As additional information is gathered throughout the OAP, OSARP reserves the right to re-issue a Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative, should alleged policy violation(s) be added, updated, or removed for the Responding Organization participating in the OAP. In the re-issue of a Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s), OSARP may update the potential outcome(s) of the case, which may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 

  • If there is insufficient information to proceed, and thus, no grounds for Notification of an Alleged Policy Violation(s) in the OAP: 

    • The report(s) are retained by OSARP as outlined in the “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” section of the Handbook.  

    • OSARP may notify the organization of information received and/or request that appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC) meet with the organization regarding the alleged misconduct or report(s). If this occurs, the organization will not receive access to the report(s) or the identities of any Reporting Party(ies). 

    • If OSARP receives additional information/report(s) at a later date related to allegations that were not pursued by the OAP, OSARP reserves the right to issue Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) and proceed with the OAP at that time. In the re-issue of a Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s), OSARP may update the potential outcome(s) of the case, which may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 

  • Whether the report(s)/alleged misconduct should be referred, including but not limited to university officials (e.g., Office of Student Life, CMSS, UREC, Office of Equal Opportunity, or Title IX Office), other university conduct processes (e.g., individual student OSARP processes, Policy 1324 process, or investigation, adjudication, and/or resolution options through the Title IX Office), law enforcement (see “Reporting Hazing that Causes Bodily Injury” section of the Handbook), or the appropriate Organizational Governing Body. This referral(s) can occur whether or not the organization is notified of the OAP. 

These determinations occur upon OSARP receiving a report(s) from a known source such as a police report, community report, incident report, incident narrative, witness statement, or record of court outcome; however, an alleged policy violation(s) may be placed in other circumstances at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. If OSARP receives a report(s) from an unknown source, or a Reporting Party who chooses to be anonymous, that anonymous report can be evaluated for an alleged policy violation(s), as noted above, and be the impetus for notification of an alleged policy violation(s) in the OAP.  

Though initial anonymous reports of alleged organizational misconduct are permitted, doing so may limit OSARP’s ability to investigate and/or respond. Additionally, there is no time limit for reporting alleged organizational misconduct, but the longer an individual(s) waits to submit a report, the more difficult it may be for OSARP to obtain information and/or make determinations on an alleged policy violation(s). Those who are aware of alleged organizational misconduct are encouraged to report it to OSARP as quickly as possible. 

While an anonymous report(s) can be used to initiate the OAP, the university cannot guarantee any request for anonymity after the OAP begins. The university is required by law to provide organizations with reasonable notice of the alleged policy violation(s) and a summary of the report(s) with enough information for the organization to understand the alleged policy violation(s) in order to present their perspective. Organizations must be able to review and respond to all information presented to the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and/or decision maker(s), requiring any information gathered in the OAP to include the identification of people, places, and events. 

If the information provides sufficient cause that an alleged policy violation(s) may have occurred, the Organizational Representative 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 email address. The notice will be considered received the day the notice is sent via email. In addition, OSARP may also send a text message as a part of this notification process. 

Partnered Resolution and/or the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) are the only opportunities for the Responding Organization or Reporting Party(ies) to submit evidence, information, personal statements, names of witnesses, and witness statements for the OAP. Only individuals who directly provided information during Partnered Resolution or the OAIP are eligible to serve as witnesses at an Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR) or Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), based on new evidence. 

The decision to proceed with the OAP rests with OSARP and is based on factors listed in this section of the Handbook. The university may proceed with an alleged policy violation(s) and the OAP regardless of the enrollment status of the Organizational Representative. If that individual is not actively enrolled in classes in the current semester, OSARP may designate another member of the Responding Organization as the Organizational Representative. 

OSARP may address behavior that occurs at any point while an organization is considered a recognized student organization or student group, as defined in the Handbook. After a final decision in the case has been rendered, the effective date of an immediate suspension or expulsion from JMU, if it was an outcome of a case, will be provided in the final decision.  

OSARP will grant immunity from individual 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. However, if a case has already been reviewed 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 a participant claims responsibility for the Responding Organization’s alleged policy violation(s) during their statements or interactions with OSARP.  More information regarding OSARP’s Enlightened Citizen Amnesty Process for individual students, which pertains directly to alcohol and drug consumption and/or possession for both bystanders and the affected party, can be found in the “Alcohol and Drug Information” section of the Handbook. 

The Individual Accountability Process can occur concurrently for a student while an organization, for which that student is a member, proceeds through the OAP, or concurrently with any other university or external investigation or conduct processes. 

Other university or external investigation or conduct processes may assign outcomes listed in the Handbook for organizations. In addition, university officials or external entities that provide oversight for an organization may require completion of outcomes. These other university or external processes and entities may assign outcomes in conjunction with or separately from an OSARP process. Regardless of whether an OSARP process was pursued or resulted in assigned outcomes, OSARP staff may work with other university officials or external entities to facilitate and/or provide guidance on outcomes they assign through their processes or oversight (i.e., facilitating or providing guidance on Restorative Practices). 

If the university determines, at any point in the OAP, there is a severely elevated risk to individual or campus safety, OSARP will typically proceed with the OAP, including an Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP), using any information received, which may include information provided by a Reporting Party(ies), regardless of their desire to be anonymous. In these circumstances, the Reporting Party(ies) known to the university will not remain anonymous in any report that is received, will be informed of the university’s decision to proceed with the Reporting Party(ies)’s information provided, and will be given the opportunity to participate in the OAIP and any subsequent proceedings. OSARP will also reach out to non-confidential faculty and staff who a Reporting Party(ies) may have provided information to about the incident(s) and request their participation in the investigation and/or review of the matter. 

If during the review of report(s) of alleged organization misconduct (see “Receipt of Report(s) and Determining an Alleged Policy Violation(s)” in this section of the Handbook) or after receiving and/or reviewing information obtained during the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) (i.e., during the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process or through additional report(s) after the OAP was initiated), the Director of OSARP or a designee may determine that an organization 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 and may place the organization under an Organizational Interim Suspension.  

Organizational 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 OAP as outlined in the Handbook. If an organization violates the terms of an Organizational Interim Suspension, that organization, or individual students, may be subject to disciplinary action by the university, arrest, and/or criminal prosecution.  

The university may issue an Organizational Interim Suspension as a measure to prevent specified organizational activities reasonably believed to pose a threat to the university community. An Organizational Interim Suspension is authorized upon information that an organization has been or is likely to be notified of alleged violation(s) of university policy involving acts of violence or other serious conduct that would reasonably support a finding that the organization is not fit to continue specified organizational activities pending the outcome of university and/or legal proceedings. 

An Organizational Interim Suspension may include but not be limited to: 

  • A full Interim Suspension of all organizational activities  

  • A partial Interim Suspension of organizational activities, such as: 

    • New member recruitment through an official university process 

    • Initiation of new members through an official university process 

    • Using resources provided by JMU 

    • Co-sponsoring or participating in any or all university-sponsored social, intramural, athletic, or other similar activities on university owned or operated property or off campus 

If initiated, a Responding Organization will be notified of an Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, via the official JMU email address of the Organizational Representative. The Responding Organization may also be notified of the alleged policy violation(s) and that they are being placed under an Organizational Interim Suspension by a full-time staff member from OSARP or designee through a method that may include but not be limited to notification in person, via phone, or through police officer delivery. 

Circumstances that surround an Organizational Interim Suspension may involve concurrent criminal charges, civil litigation, or other university or external investigation or conduct processes. OSARP or its designee may implement an Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, prior to the conclusion of the criminal process, civil process, or other university or external investigation or conduct process; decisions made as a part of the OAP will not be revisited at the conclusion of the criminal process, civil process, or other university or external investigation or conduct process. For more information, see “Jurisdiction – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in this Handbook. 

In cases where an organization has extenuating circumstances that prevent participation in the OAP, including but not limited to incarceration of the Organizational Representative or other students relevant to the investigation and/or review of an alleged policy violation(s), the decision to continue with or delay any part of the OAP is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

In the notification of an Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, the Responding Organization will be informed that an Organizational Interim Suspension remains in place until a final decision is rendered in the case, unless OSARP subsequently communicates otherwise. If OSARP receives information during the OAP that warrants a removal of, or update to, an Organizational Interim Suspension or specific provisions, the Responding Organization will be notified immediately via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. During the OAP, OSARP will continually review and assess the Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions, to determine if updates are needed. A Responding Organization may submit a request in writing to the Director of OSARP or designee at any point during the OAP to request a reassessment of an Organizational Interim Suspension, including any specific provisions. The decision to remove an Organizational Interim Suspension or update any specific provisions is at the sole discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.   

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances 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. Other alterations to the process may be made 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, the Responding Organization will be notified of the alleged policy violation(s) through the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. Other individuals may be copied on this email notification, including but not limited to: 

  • Appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC) 
  • Adviser(s) 
  • Organizational Governing Body 

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 on the Interference or Retaliation with a University Process policy and possible outcome(s) should an organization or individual student be found responsible for this behavior 

  • Instructions for attending or scheduling the Organizational Accountability Process Review (OAPR) 

  • Information about a Responding Organization’s responsibilities and rights in the OAP, including any rights waived by failing to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) and the ability for the Organizational Representative to bring one Support Person with them to any meeting in OSARP 

  • Contact information for OSARP to ask questions about the OAP 

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

  • When applicable, notice that the potential outcomes of the case may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing 

  • When applicable, information about Organizational Interim Suspension, with or without specific provisions 

  • 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 OAP, this initial email will serve as the official notification regarding the bulleted items above for the case unless the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) is re-issued by OSARP during the OAP. 

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

As additional information is gathered throughout the OAP, OSARP reserves the right to re-issue a Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative, should alleged policy violation(s) be added, updated, or removed for the Responding Organization participating in the OAP. Additionally, this re-issue of the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) may include information about the initiation of, or update to, an Organizational Interim Suspension as well as notification regarding the potential outcome(s) of the case, which may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 

For more information on organizational records, including how and when information is publicly available on OSARP’s website, see the “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” section of the Handbook. 

When a Responding Organization is notified of an alleged policy violation(s), the Organizational Representative will be provided the opportunity to attend an OAPR with OSARP in accordance with the following procedures. The purpose of an OAPR is to orient the Organizational Representative, and any individuals in attendance, to the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP), including but not limited to the Responsibilities and Rights of the Responding Organization and the Resolution Option(s) for the alleged policy violation(s). 

  • The Organizational Representative will typically have their OAPR set based on their academic schedule. The Organizational Representative will be informed of the date, time, and location via their official JMU email with at least three days' notice.  

    • Individuals in attendance at an OAPR may include, but not be limited to OSARP staff, appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, or individual(s) from the Organizational Governing Body. 

    • The Organizational Representative can bring one Support Person to the OAPR, which is typically an Adviser for the organization, if person is willing and able to attend. A Support Person must meet the criteria and follow the guidelines and expectations as listed in the Handbook. A Support Person for the Organizational Representative may not also serve as a witness in the OAP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. 

    • The availability of participants, other than the Organizational Representative and OSARP staff, will be reasonably considered with scheduling the OAPR. 

  • If the Organizational Representative is not actively enrolled in classes in the current semester, OSARP may designate another member of the Responding Organization as the Organizational Representative.  

  • The OAPR is typically conducted in person in the OSARP office on the 2nd floor of the Student Success Center for participants on or near campus. A virtual option will typically be provided for those participants who are not on or near campus. All in-person appointments will follow recommended local, state, and federal health and safety guidelines if any are in effect at the time of the meeting. For good cause, the Organizational Representative may request they be able to attend virtually, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.  

  • In some circumstances, including but not limited to threats to campus, student health or safety, the timeliness of the case, or the Organizational Representative not being physically present on or near campus, OSARP may schedule the OAPR to occur entirely virtually, with no in-person option, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.   

    • For virtual appointments, instructions will be provided via email for accessing the OAPR. If the Organizational Representative is unable to secure a private location for their virtual OAPR or requires an in-person appointment as an accommodation, the Organizational Representative should contact OSARP immediately upon receiving the notification email to reschedule their virtual OAPR, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

If the Organizational Representative attends the OAPR: 

  • The Organizational Representative will check in with OSARP staff and wait in the lobby until their OAPR begins. During this waiting period, OSARP staff may request that an Organizational Representative complete a survey or pre-assessment related to the process. This is not required for participation in the OAPR. 

  • OSARP staff, typically the Associate Director of Case Management or designee and any other OSARP staff relevant to the OAP (e.g., Organizational Accountability Investigator), will greet the Organizational Representative in the lobby and escort them to a private office or meeting room in OSARP. The following is reviewed by the OSARP staff: 

    • Organizational Representative directory information on file with the university to ensure accuracy. 

    • The alleged policy violation(s) in the case and the information sent to OSARP that is being used in the case, including access to report(s) or information that were used to initiate the OAP. 

    • Responsibilities & Rights for a Responding Organization in the OAP, including how information is gathered and shared during the OAP, information regarding university policy on Interference or Retaliation in a University Process, and whether possible outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing exist for the case. 

  • OSARP staff will then provide the Organizational Representative with the Resolution Option(s) available for the case, as determined by OSARP. See the “Resolution Options” section of the Handbook below for more information on Resolution Option(s). Although not every Resolution Option is available for every case, the four possibilities are as follows: 

    • Acceptance of Responsibility 

    • Restorative Practices 

    • Partnered Resolution 

    • Organizational Accountability Investigation Process 

  • The Organizational Representative will select the Resolution Option on behalf of the Responding Organization and next steps will be discussed. In certain circumstances, including a case with any alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, OSARP is required to conduct an investigation of the alleged misconduct and will not offer another Resolution Option to the Responding Organization. See below for more information on Resolution Option(s). 

  • Once a Resolution Option is selected and discussed by those in attendance at an OAPR, any meeting(s) associated with the selected Resolution Option are typically scheduled, and the OAPR concludes. 

While the purpose of the OAPR is to review the OAP and the selected Resolution Option, information shared by the Organizational Representative during the OAPR can be used in the OAP. 

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the educational records of students. OSARP may disclose information contained in the educational record(s) of students to all eligible persons as outlined in the exceptions listed in FERPA. For more information on FERPA and its role with the educational record(s) of individual students who are also participating in the OAP, see the “General Handbook Information” section of the Handbook. 

  • For example, OSARP may review an educational records release with a student to determine if the student would like OSARP to be able to release information gathered in the OAP with individuals from an Organizational Governing Body, unless the appropriate educational records release is already on file with the university. 

If the Organizational Representative fails to attend the OAPR: 

An Organizational Representative waives certain rights in the OAP should they fail to attend the OAPR. 

  • In the notification email a Responding Organization receives from OSARP about a case, information is provided regarding the Responding Organization’s Responsibilities & Rights in the OAP, including the right to attend the OAPR and what rights the Organizational Representative waives should they fail to attend the OAPR. 

  • An Organizational Representative who fails to attend the OAPR, regardless of whether the appointment was set based on their academic schedule or scheduled by the Organizational Representative, indicates the following to OSARP with their absence: 

    • The understanding that the OAPR will proceed in the absence of the Organizational Representative. 

    • The Resolution Option for the alleged policy violation(s) will be an Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP). 

    • The Responding Organization will not typically have the opportunity to choose another Resolution Option, unless authorized by OSARP. 

  • OSARP will communicate with the Responding Organization, through the Organizational Representative, within three business days of the date of the OAPR with further instructions regarding the OAIP. 

If an Organizational Representative missed their OAPR due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, they may request the OAPR be rescheduled; this request must be communicated as soon as practicable and OSARP will determine if it meets the unexpected and unavoidable circumstance criteria.  

The OAPR is a closed meeting between the Organizational Representative and OSARP and may include other individuals as noted earlier in this section. Individual(s) attending an OAPR are not permitted to make their own recordings. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply. 

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances 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. 

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP.  

When a Responding Organization is notified of an alleged policy violation(s), OSARP will determine which Resolution Options are available to address the alleged policy violation(s) in the case. A Responding Organization may have multiple Resolution Options available or only one option. This determination of Resolution Options may consider various factors, including but not limited to: 

  • Nature and/or severity of the allegation(s) 

  • Whether the alleged policy violation(s) are minor, major, or flexible, as defined in the Handbook 

  • Whether there are Reporting Party(ies) involved in the process 

  • The current or perceived risk of harm to other individuals, the community, the university, or physical property 

  • Any organizational records, if applicable 

  • OSARP consultation with appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body 

  • Criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” in this portion of the Handbook 

1. Acceptance of Responsibility 

After being properly notified of an alleged policy violation(s) in the OAP, the Organizational Representative may take responsibility for all alleged policy violation(s) by communicating that acceptance to OSARP. This will typically occur during the OAPR but could occur at any point in the OAP. Upon OSARP receiving this information from the Organizational Representative, OSARP will determine whether to accept this information and proceed to an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR) or if the OAP and/or Resolution Option(s) will continue. For more information on the OAOR, should OSARP determine that is the next step in the OAP, see “Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR)” within this section of the Handbook. 

  • “Adam’s Law” in the State of Virginia requires JMU to use its disciplinary process to investigate alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing and the students involved in that alleged behavior, so if an organization accepts responsibility for an alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, OSARP will include that information in the OAIP and continue with the OAIP.  

2. Restorative Practices 

The Responding Organization is provided the opportunity to resolve the alleged policy violation(s) through completion of Restorative Practices, facilitated by or in partnership with OSARP, including any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcome(s).  

Restorative Practices offer participants the opportunity to take active accountability for their actions and work within the JMU, City of Harrisonburg, and Rockingham County communities to collaboratively address any harm created. This approach emphasizes community well-being and empowers participants to repair the harm that has occurred.  

If Restorative Practices is available as a Resolution Option, as determined by OSARP, the Organizational Representative will be provided this option during the OAPR. Should the Organizational Representative choose Restorative Practices as the Resolution Option for the case, the case will be referred to an OSARP-approved staff member who facilitate Restorative Practices. For more details on Restorative Practices at JMU, including information about intake meetings, Restorative Processes, and agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcomes, visit the Restorative Practices section of the JMU Student Handbook.  

All alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization will remain pending until completion of Restorative Practices, including any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcome(s). For more information on the next steps following completion of Restorative Practices, see “Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR)” in this section of the Handbook. 

Should facilitator(s) report unsuccessful completion of Restorative Practices, including any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcome(s), OSARP will determine the Resolution Option(s) available to the Responding Organization and meet with the Organizational Representative to discuss other available Resolution Option(s) and next steps based on the selected Resolution Option.  

OSARP reserves the right to terminate Restorative Practices and select another Resolution Option and/or re-issue the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) if during Restorative Practices, information is shared with or obtained by OSARP regarding additional major and/or flexible alleged policy violation(s) not known when the OAP was initiated. Additionally, if information is shared with or obtained by OSARP regarding an alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, Restorative Practices will be terminated and the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) will commence with proper notification of such sent to the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. Any re-issue of the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) may include an update to the potential outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 

3. Partnered Resolution 

The Responding Organization and/or the Organizational Governing Body are provided the opportunity to investigate the alleged policy violation(s) in the case. 

If Partnered Resolution is available as a Resolution Option, as determined by OSARP, the Organizational Representative will be provided this option during the OAPR. Should the Organizational Representative choose Partnered Resolution as the Resolution Option for the case, the Partnered Resolution process will include the following: 

  • OSARP, in consultation with the Organizational Representative, appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body, will develop a Partnered Resolution investigation plan, which may include any expectations for the investigation process, the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” in this portion of the Handbook, the scope of the investigation, and estimated timeline for completion.  

    • OSARP will provide the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body any necessary information or report(s) related to the alleged policy violation(s), including any redactions made to that information or report(s), for the purpose of the Partnered Resolution process.  

  • OSARP will provide an Organizational Accountability Investigator to serve as a liaison to the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body during Partnered Resolution. They are available to answer questions and consult on the investigation process or the OAP but they will not assist with investigation interviews or information gathering.  

  • The Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body must conduct the investigation of alleged policy violation(s), implementing any requirements established by OSARP, and submit their full investigation report and investigation materials to OSARP within the agreed-upon timeline, unless approved otherwise by OSARP. 

    • OSARP will provide the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body with a template for an investigation report that must be used when submitting final investigation materials to OSARP. 

  • Once the investigation report and investigation materials are received by OSARP, all information will be reviewed and OSARP will make one of the following determinations: 

    • Partnered Resolution is complete – OSARP will schedule an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR) to discuss the Partnered Resolution process and the next steps in the OAP. 

    • Partnered Resolution is pending completion – OSARP determines the investigation of alleged policy violation(s) was insufficient or incomplete and provides instructions to the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body to adequately complete Partnered Resolution. 

    • Partnered Resolution is terminated – OSARP determines the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body provided inaccurate or incomplete information, obstructed the process, or was otherwise noncompliant or uncooperative. OSARP will notify the Responding Organization of the next steps in the OAP, including the manner in which the alleged policy violation(s) will be resolved in this case. 

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student(s) who was involved in Partnered Resolution for an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the OAP. The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after Partnered Resolution. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP. 

All alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization will remain pending until completion of Partnered Resolution. For more information on the next steps following completion of Partnered Resolution, see “Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR)” in this section of the Handbook. 

OSARP reserves the right to terminate Partnered Resolution and select another Resolution Option and/or re-issue the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) if during Partnered Resolution, information is shared with or obtained by OSARP regarding additional major and/or flexible alleged policy violation(s) not known when the OAP was initiated. Additionally, if information is shared with or obtained by OSARP regarding an alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, Partnered Resolution will be terminated and the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) will commence with proper notification of such sent to the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. Any re-issue of the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) may include an update to the potential outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 

4. Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) 

The Responding Organization is provided the opportunity to have the alleged policy violation(s) in the case investigated by an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s). In certain circumstances, including a case with an alleged policy violation(s) of Hazing, OSARP is required to conduct the OAIP and will not offer another Resolution Option to the Responding Organization. 

If an OAIP is available as a Resolution Option, as determined by OSARP, the Organizational Representative will be provided this option during the Organizational Accountability Process Review (OAPR). Should the Organizational Representative choose this as the Resolution Option for the case, the OAIP will proceed. If an OAIP is the only Resolution Option available for a Responding Organization, the Organizational Representative will be provided this as the only Resolution Option during the OAPR. 

Typically, once it is determined at the OAPR that an OAIP will proceed, OSARP will review the investigation process with the Organizational Representative, including but not limited to scheduling an initial investigation interview with the Organizational Representative, gathering information from the Organizational Representative regarding individuals to contact for the investigation process, or requesting that the Organizational Representative communicate with members of the Responding Organization to request their participation in the investigation process. 

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student(s) who was involved in the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) for an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).  The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAIP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP. 

For more information, see the “Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP)” in this section of the Handbook. 

If the OAIP is selected as the Resolution Option by the Organizational Representative or is selected by OSARP as outlined in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP), the OAIP will proceed until the completion of the Investigation Report and the collection of any final response from the Responding Organization. In certain circumstances, as determined by OSARP, such as the Responding Organization accepting responsibility for all alleged policy violation(s) during the investigation, the OAIP maybe terminated, and the Responding Organization will proceed to an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR). 

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student(s) who was involved in the OAIP for an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the OAP. The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAIP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP.  

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances 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. 

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP. 

Phase One: Preparation 

  • OSARP will assign an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) to investigate the alleged policy violation(s). This assignment will typically occur when the Responding Organization is notified of alleged policy violation(s) so the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) can attend the Organizational Accountability Process Review (OAPR), regardless of the Resolution Option selected by, or for, the Responding Organization.  

  • Before proceeding with the OAIP, OSARP will notify the Responding Organization of the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) assigned to investigate the alleged policy violation(s). 

  • Prior to the OAIP, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) will: 

    • Review the report(s) and/or information shared with OSARP, which were the impetus for the OAP and notification of alleged policy violation(s).  

    • Review other information relevant to the alleged policy violation(s) or the Responding Organization, including but not limited to the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP, previous report(s) received regarding the Responding Organization, or social media. 

    • Communicate with applicable university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body to discuss the OAIP, including but not limited to: 

      • Determining their role(s) and schedules for participation, if applicable 

      • Obtaining information on the Responding Organization, such as a current membership or executive board rosters 

      • Coordinating a concurrent investigation of the alleged policy violation(s) (e.g., joint investigation by OSARP and the Organizational Governing Body) or concurrent processes that arise from the same set of facts or circumstances (e.g., investigation of the Responding Organization by OSARP and investigation of students by the Title IX Office) 

  • Determine the most appropriate way to collect information during the OAIP (e.g., individual or group investigation interviews, in-person or virtual investigation interviews, survey-based information gathering, questionnaires, or a combination of approaches). 

Phase Two: Information Gathering

OSARP confers the rights outlined in the “Investigation Participant - Responsibilities and Rights – Organizational Accountability Process” to individual(s) who provide information in the OAIP, such as the Responding Organization, Reporting Party(ies), University Witness(es), or Responding Organization/Reporting Party Witness(es). Prior to participating in the OAIP, an Investigation Participant will be asked to review these Responsibilities and Rights and indicate their understanding.  

Individual(s) who choose to provide information during the OAIP may not participate and/or provide information anonymously. 

During the OAIP, individual(s) may be contacted to schedule/attend an investigation interview or to provide information if the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) determines the individual(s) may have information that is relevant to the investigation of alleged policy violation(s). This is typically done through their official JMU email if they are a student but may occur through another email provided by the individual.  

The OAIP typically begins with information gathering from, or an investigation interview with, the Organizational Representative and/or Reporting Party(ies) who are known or who have chosen not to be anonymous during the OAIP, but the circumstances of the case may alter the order in which individuals are given the opportunity to provide information. OSARP may request information from the Organizational Representative and/or any Reporting Party(ies) regarding individual(s) they feel are relevant to the investigation of alleged policy violation(s), although the ultimate determination of who will be contacted during the OAIP rests with the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s).  

Typically, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) will provide each Investigation Participant the opportunity for an investigation interview as the primary way to collect information during the OAIP. The purpose of an investigation interview is to ask questions of, and gather information from, the Investigation Participant that is relevant to the alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization. While OSARP prefers in-person, synchronous interactions with Investigation Participants, OSARP may offer an Investigation Participant the opportunity to participate differently, such as requesting information through email, an online survey, or an in-person questionnaire. This information request may be the only information-sharing opportunity provided to an Investigation Participant or it may be a way to collect initial information from individual(s) prior to extending additional opportunity(ies) for individual(s) to provide information to be used in the OAP.  

Information that may be relevant within the OAIP includes but is not limited to information provided during investigation interviews, the initial report(s) or information provided to OSARP that led to the notification of alleged policy violation(s), screenshots, photos, and/or videos, written statements, emails, or phone calls. An Investigation Participant may be required to complete a release form so OSARP can receive and/or maintain specific information provided during the OAIP (e.g., individual educational records, personal medical records, or other health-related information) if the participant wants those records to become a part of the investigation process. 

When an Investigation Participant is given the opportunity to provide information to be used in the OAP, that Investigation Participant can: 

  • Accept the invitation to provide information to be used in the OAP by scheduling/attending an investigation interview  

  • Decline the invitation to schedule/attend an investigation interview, choosing instead to provide information to be used in the OAP another way (e.g., emailing a statement, screenshots, and/or photos/videos)  

  • Decline the invitation to schedule/attend an investigation interview and/or provide information to be used in the OAP another way (e.g., emailing a statement, screenshots, and/or photos/videos), unless OSARP requires attendance at an investigation interview 

If an individual(s) chooses to participate as an Investigation Participant, OSARP may follow-up with the Investigation Participant after their participation to provide a summary of the information they shared, to seek feedback on the summary of the information they shared, or to provide resources related to the OSARP process, their participation, and/or information shared during the OAP. 

OSARP cannot compel, mandate, or require individuals to participate in the Organizational Accountability Process, but may require attendance at specific meetings. OSARP may not draw an inference about the determination regarding responsibility based solely on a party’s or witness’s absence or refusal to provide information in the OAP. 

If notified of the opportunity for an investigation interview, the Interview Participant will be provided instructions for attending or scheduling an investigation interview: 

  • An Investigation Participant will typically have their investigation interview set for them based on their academic schedule (if they are currently enrolled at the university) and will be notified in accordance with the rights outlined in the “Investigation Participant - Responsibilities and Rights – Organizational Accountability Process.”  

    • In certain circumstances, including an OAIP that involves many potential Investigation Participant(s), OSARP may use formats other than email for scheduling investigation interviews, such as online scheduling tools or surveys, to collect participant availability and/or schedule investigation interviews. 

    • In certain circumstances, including an OAIP where many Investigation Participants are scheduled during a block of time or will be interviewing one after the other, OSARP may take preventative measures to limit the interactions between Investigation Participants before, during and after an investigation interview, such as sequestering individuals in different spaces.  

  • An Investigation Participant who is not currently enrolled at the university, or who is not a student at the university, will be asked to schedule an investigation interview by contacting OSARP according to the instructions provided in their email. In some cases, the email may provide a scheduling deadline for the investigation interview, and if the deadline passes, OSARP may schedule an investigation interview for the Investigation Participant. 

  • The availability of participants (e.g., Support Person), other than the Investigation Participant and Organizational Accountability Investigator(s), will be reasonably considered when scheduling and/or rescheduling an investigation interview. 

  • An investigation interview is typically conducted in person in the OSARP office on the 2nd floor of the Student Success Center but may occur in another location as determined by OSARP. All in-person interviews will follow recommended local, state, and federal health and safety guidelines if any are in effect at the time of the interview. For good cause, individuals may request an appointment be conducted virtually, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

    • In some circumstances, including but not limited to threats to campus, student health or safety, the timeliness of the case, or the Investigation Participant not being physically present on or near campus, OSARP may schedule the investigation interview to occur virtually, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.  

    • For virtual appointments, instructions will be provided via email for accessing the investigation interview. If the Investigation Participant is unable to secure a private location for their virtual investigation interview or requires an in-person interview as an accommodation, the Investigation Participant should contact OSARP immediately upon receiving the notification email to reschedule their virtual investigation interview, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

At any point in the OAIP, OSARP may request that an Investigation Participant schedule and/or attend additional investigation interview(s) or provide additional information to be used in the OAP. This may include an additional opportunity(ies) to participate in the OAIP for individuals who have previously declined to participate.  

If an Investigation Participant missed their investigation interview or deadline to provide information due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, they may request the investigation interview be rescheduled or the deadline extended; this request must be communicated as soon as practicable and OSARP will determine if it meets the unexpected and unavoidable circumstance criteria.  

The investigation interview is a closed meeting between the Investigation Participant and the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) and may include other individuals as noted in the OAP. While OSARP may audio/video record an investigation interview, other individual(s) attending the investigation interview are not permitted to make their own recordings. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply. 

As additional information is gathered throughout the OAP, OSARP reserves the right to re-issue a Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative, should alleged policy violation(s) be added, updated, or removed for the Responding Organization participating in the OAP. Additionally, this re-issue of the Notification of Alleged Policy Violation(s) may include information about the initiation of, or update to, an Organizational Interim Suspension as well as notification regarding the potential outcome(s) of the case, which may include suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP. 

Phase Three: Investigation Report

The Investigation Report is created by an Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) at the conclusion of an investigation of alleged policy violation(s) in the OAIP. The Investigation Report consists of all relevant investigation materials received during the investigation of alleged policy violation(s), excluding information redacted in accordance with the OSARP process, including but not limited to the initial report(s) of alleged misconduct, a summary of the investigation process and timeline, investigation interview summaries, emails, photos, and videos. 

As individual(s) share information during the OAIP, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) will evaluate the relevancy of information as it pertains to the investigation of alleged policy violation(s) for the Responding Organization, utilizing the definition of relevant evidence in the OAP. Information deemed relevant will be included in the investigation report. 

The Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) may communicate with relevant university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body during the completion of the Investigation Report to gather additional information or clarify existing information for the Investigation Report. 

Typically, OSARP completes the Investigation Report within 30 days of the OAPR, however, the circumstances surrounding the case may make it necessary for the university to shorten or extend that timeline. If this occurs, the Organizational Representative will be notified through their official JMU email.  

Once the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) completes the Investigation Report, the Organizational Representative will be notified through their official JMU email of the availability and instructions to access the Investigation Report. The Organizational Representative will be provided four days from receiving access to the Investigation Report to provide a final response, which will be incorporated into the Investigation Report if it is received by the deadline provided by OSARP.  

Once the deadline for a final response passes, or once a final response is received from the Organizational Representative, the Organizational Accountability Investigator(s) will provide the Investigation Report and all investigation materials to the Associate Director of Case Management or designee, who will review the information and schedule an OARR to review the OAIP. See “Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR)” in this section of the Handbook for more information. 

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP. 

The Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) proceeds to an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR) when the selected Resolution Option is complete, as determined by OSARP, including but not limited to: 

  • The facilitator(s) of Restorative Practices report successful completion, including any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcome(s). 

  • Partnered Resolution concludes when the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body provides their investigation report and investigation materials to OSARP and OSARP determines their investigation of the alleged policy violation(s) was adequately completed. 

  • The Organizational Accountability Investigation Process concludes and the Investigation Report and all investigation materials are provided to the Associate Director of Case Management or designee. 

When OSARP approves the Acceptance of Responsibility by the Responding Organization (for more information, see “Resolution Options” in this section of the Handbook), the case will proceed directly to an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review. For more information, see “Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR)” in this section of the Handbook.  

When OSARP determines that a case within the OAP can proceed to an OARR, the Organizational Representative is provided the opportunity to attend an OARR with OSARP in accordance with the following procedures. The purpose of an OARR is to review the status of the selected Resolution Option and discuss the next steps in the OAP.  

  • The Organizational Representative will typically have their OARR set based on their academic schedule. The Organizational Representative will be informed of the date, time, and location via their official JMU email with at least three days' notice.  

    • Individuals in attendance at an OARR may include, but not be limited to OSARP staff, appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, or the Organizational Governing Body. 

    • The Organizational Representative can bring one Support Person to the OARR, which is typically an Adviser for the organization, if person is willing and able to attend. A Support Person must meet the criteria and follow the guidelines and expectations as listed in the Student Handbook. A Support Person for the Organizational Representative may not also serve as a witness in the OAP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. 

    • The availability of participants, other than the Organizational Representative and OSARP staff, will be reasonably considered with scheduling the OARR. 

  • If the Organizational Representative is not actively enrolled in classes in the current semester, OSARP may designate another member of the Responding Organization as the Organizational Representative.  

  • The OARR is typically conducted in person in the OSARP office on the 2nd floor of the Student Success Center for participants on or near campus. A virtual option will typically be provided for those participants who are not on or near campus. All in-person appointments will follow recommended local, state, and federal health and safety guidelines if any are in effect at the time of the meeting. For good cause, the Organizational Representative may request they be able to attend virtually, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.  

  • In some circumstances, including but not limited to threats to campus, student health or safety, the timeliness of the case, or the Organizational Representative not being physically present on or near campus, OSARP may schedule the OARR to occur entirely virtually, with no in-person option, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.   

    • For virtual appointments, instructions will be provided via email for accessing the OARR. If the Organizational Representative is unable to secure a private location for their virtual OARR or requires an in-person appointment as an accommodation, the Organizational Representative should contact OSARP immediately upon receiving the notification email to reschedule their virtual OARR, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

If the Organizational Representative attends the OARR: 

  • The Organizational Representative will check in with OSARP staff and wait in the lobby until their OARR begins. During this waiting period, OSARP staff may request that an Organizational Representative complete a survey or pre-assessment related to the process. This is not required for participation in the OARR. 

  • OSARP staff, typically the Associate Director of Case Management or designee and any other OSARP staff relevant to the OAP (e.g., Organizational Accountability Investigator), will greet the Organizational Representative in the lobby and escort them to a private office or meeting room in OSARP.  

  • OSARP staff will provide an opportunity for the Organizational Representative to ask any questions about the OAP, including questions they have about the Responsibilities & Rights afforded to a Responding Organization in the OAP. 

  • OSARP staff will provide an overview of the status of the selected Resolution Option and the next steps in the OAP: 

    • If Restorative Practices was the selected Resolution Option 

      • Should the facilitator(s) of Restorative Practices report successful completion, including completion of any agreed-upon or facilitator-assigned outcomes, the case will typically result in a finding(s) of “Voluntarily Completed Restorative Practices” for all alleged policy violation(s), which results in the removal of any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable. 

      • OSARP staff will then inform the Organizational Representative that they will receive an email from OSARP that will provide the final decision. The Organizational Representative will receive this communication via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR.  

      • For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook. 

    • If Partnered Resolution was the selected Resolution Option 

      • The Associate Director of Case Management or designee will have reviewed the investigation report and investigation materials provided by the Responding Organization and/or the Organizational Governing Body prior to the OARR, including the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” in this portion of the Handbook, and will present the Organizational Representative with the following options: 

        • No Policy Violation(s) – If the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body determine that no policy(ies) were violated, and OSARP chooses to accept that determination, the case will typically result in a finding(s) of “Not Responsible” for all alleged policy violation(s) and the removal of any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable. OSARP staff will then inform the Organizational Representative that they will receive an email from OSARP that will provide the final decision. The Organizational Representative will receive this communication via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR.  

        • Responsibility Accepted for All Alleged Policy Violation(s) – If the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body determine that the Responding Organization is responsible for all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, and OSARP chooses to accept this determination, the OAP will proceed to an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR) to determine outcomes, if applicable.  

        • Responsibility Not Accepted for All Alleged Policy Violation(s) – If the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body determine that the Responding Organization is responsible for some, but not all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, OSARP will make one of the following determinations: 

          • OSARP can accept the determinations from the Partnered Resolution and proceed to an OAOR to determine outcomes, if applicable, for the alleged policy violation(s) for which the Responding Organization took responsibility. The other alleged policy violation(s) for which the Responding Organization did not take responsibility will typically result in a finding(s) of “Not Responsible.” 

          • OSARP can reject the determinations from the Partnered Resolution and proceed to the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) for investigation of the alleged policy violation(s). 

      • For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook. 

    • If the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process was the selected Resolution Option 

      • The Associate Director of Case Management or designee will have reviewed the Investigation Report and all investigation materials, including any response submitted by the Organizational Representative, prior to the OARR and will present the Organizational Representative with the following options: 

        • No Policy Violation(s) – OSARP determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, that no policy(ies) were violated. The case will typically result in a finding(s) of “Not Responsible” for all alleged policy violation(s) and the removal of any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable. OSARP staff will then inform the Organizational Representative that they will receive an email from OSARP that will provide the final decision. The Organizational Representative will receive this communication via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR.  

        • OSARP Determination Accepted – OSARP determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, that the Responding Organization is responsible for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case. Should the Organizational Representative decide to accept OSARP’s determination, the OAP will proceed to an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR) to determine outcomes, if applicable. 

        • OSARP Determination Not Accepted – OSARP determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, that the Responding Organization is responsible for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case. If the Organizational Representative decides not to accept OSARP’s determination, they choose to proceed to an Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR). OSARP will advise the Organizational Representative on the OACR during the OARR or by scheduling an additional meeting. For more information, see “Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR)” in this section of the Handbook. 

      • For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook. 

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the educational records of students. OSARP may disclose information contained in the educational record(s) of students to all eligible persons as outlined in the exceptions listed in FERPA. For more information on FERPA and its role with the educational record(s) of individual students who are also participating in the OAP, see the “General Handbook Information” section of the Handbook. 

  • For example, OSARP may review an educational records release with a student to determine if the student would like OSARP to be able to release information gathered in the OAP with individuals from an Organizational Governing Body, unless the appropriate educational records release is already on file with the university. 

If the Organizational Representative fails to attend the OARR: 

An Organizational Representative waives certain rights in the OAP should they fail to attend the OARR. 

  • In the notification email a Responding Organization receives from OSARP about a case, information is provided regarding the Responding Organization’s Responsibilities & Rights in the OAP, including the right to attend the OARR and what rights the Organizational Representative waives should they fail to attend the OARR. 

  • An Organizational Representative who fails to attend the OARR, regardless of whether the appointment was set based on their academic schedule or scheduled by the Organizational Representative, indicates the following to OSARP with their absence: 

    • The understanding that the OARR will proceed in the absence of the Organizational Representative. 

  • If Restorative Practices was the selected Resolution Option 

    • Should the facilitator(s) of Restorative Practices report successful completion, including completion of any agreed-upon or facilitator-assignment outcomes, the case will typically result in a finding(s) of “Voluntarily Completed Restorative Practices” for all alleged policy violation(s), which results in the removal of any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable. 

    • The Organizational Representative will receive the final decision via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR.  

    • For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook. 

  • If Partnered Resolution was the selected Resolution Option 

    • The Associate Director of Case Management or designee will have reviewed the investigation report and investigation materials provided by the Responding Organization and/or the Organizational Governing Body, including the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” in this portion of the Handbook, prior to the OARR: 

      • No Policy Violation(s) – If the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body determine that no policy(ies) were violated, and OSARP chooses to accept that determination, the case will typically result in a finding(s) of “Not Responsible” for all alleged policy violation(s) and the removal of any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable. The Organizational Representative will receive the final decision via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR.  

      • Responsibility Accepted for All Alleged Policy Violation(s) – If the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body determine that the Responding Organization is responsible for all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, and OSARP chooses to accept this determination, the OAP will proceed to an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR) to determine outcomes, if applicable.  

      • Responsibility Not Accepted for All Alleged Policy Violation(s) – If the Responding Organization and/or Organizational Governing Body determine that the Responding Organization is responsible for some, but not all alleged policy violation(s) in the case, OSARP will make one of the following determinations: 

        • OSARP can accept the determinations from the Partnered Resolution and proceed to an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR) to determine outcomes, if applicable, for the alleged policy violation(s) for which the Responding Organization took responsibility. The other alleged policy violation(s) for which the Responding Organization did not take responsibility will typically result in a finding(s) of “Not Responsible.” 

        • OSARP can reject the determinations from the Partnered Resolution and proceed to the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) for investigation of the alleged policy violation(s). 

    • For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook. 

  • If the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process was the selected Resolution Option 

    • The Associate Director of Case Management or designee will have reviewed the Investigation Report and all investigation materials, including any response submitted by the Organizational Representative, prior to the OARR: 

      • No Policy Violation(s) – OSARP determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, that no policy(ies) were violated. The case will typically result in a finding(s) of “Not Responsible” for all alleged policy violation(s) and the removal of any restrictions related to an Organizational Interim Suspension, if applicable. The Organizational Representative will receive the final decision via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OARR. 

      • OSARP Determination Automatically Accepted – OSARP determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, that the Responding Organization is responsible for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case. Since the Organizational Representative failed to attend the OARR, OSARP’s determination is automatically accepted and the OAP will proceed to an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR) to determine outcomes, if applicable. 

    • For more information on organizational records, see “Records – Recognized Student Organizations and Student Groups” in the Handbook. 

If an Organizational Representative missed their OARR due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, they may request the OARR be rescheduled; this request must be communicated as soon as practicable and OSARP will determine if it meets the unexpected and unavoidable circumstance criteria.  

The OARR is a closed meeting between the Organizational Representative and OSARP and may include other individuals as noted earlier in this section. Individual(s) attending an OARR are not permitted to make their own recordings. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply. 

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student who was involved in the resolution of an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).  The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAIP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP. 

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances 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. 

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP. 

The Organizational Accountability Process (OAP) typically proceeds to an Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR) after specific determinations are made during an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR) or when OSARP allows the Acceptance of Responsibility by the Responding Organization (for more information, see “Resolution Options” in this section of the Handbook).  

Prior to the OAOR, OSARP will typically communicate with appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body to discuss appropriate outcomes for the Responding Organization, based on the alleged policy violation(s) for which there is a “Responsible” finding. 

Outcome(s) are typically assigned in a case by reviewing various details and information, including but not limited to the current case file, information provided by those in attendance at the OAOR, information gathered from appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body(ies) prior to the OAOR, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP. 

When OSARP determines that a case within the OAP can proceed to an OAOR, the Organizational Representative is provided the opportunity to attend an OAOR with OSARP in accordance with the following procedures. The purpose of an OAOR is to determine appropriate outcomes, if any, for the Responding Organization.  

  • The Organizational Representative will typically have their OAOR set based on their academic schedule. The Organizational Representative will be informed of the date, time, and location via their official JMU email with at least three days' notice.  

    • Individuals in attendance at an OAOR may include, but not be limited to OSARP staff, appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body. 

    • The Organizational Representative can bring one Support Person to the OAOR, which is typically an Adviser for the organization, if person is willing and able to attend. A Support Person must meet the criteria and follow the guidelines and expectations as listed in the Student Handbook. A Support Person for the Organizational Representative may not also serve as a witness in the OAP or other OSARP processes that derive out of the same set of facts or circumstances. 

    • The availability of participants, other than the Organizational Representative and OSARP staff, will be reasonably considered with scheduling the OAOR. 

  • If the Organizational Representative is not actively enrolled in classes in the current semester, OSARP may designate another member of the Responding Organization as the Organizational Representative.  

  • The OAOR is typically conducted in person in the OSARP office on the 2nd floor of the Student Success Center for participants on or near campus. A virtual option will typically be provided for those participants who are not on or near campus. All in-person appointments will follow recommended local, state, and federal health and safety guidelines if any are in effect at the time of the meeting. For good cause, the Organizational Representative may request they be able to attend virtually, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.  

  • In some circumstances, including but not limited to threats to campus, student health or safety, the timeliness of the case, or the Organizational Representative not being physically present on or near campus, OSARP may schedule the OAOR to occur entirely virtually, with no in-person option, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee.   

    • For virtual appointments, instructions will be provided via email for accessing the OAOR. If the Organizational Representative is unable to secure a private location for their virtual OARR or requires an in-person appointment as an accommodation, the Organizational Representative should contact OSARP immediately upon receiving the notification email to reschedule their virtual OAOR, which will be granted or denied at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

In some cases, the Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review (OAOR)will occur immediately following the Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR), at the discretion of OSARP and approval from the Organizational Representative. If this occurs, procedures from the section below will be adapted for that meeting with the Organizational Representative. 

If the Organizational Representative attends the OAOR: 

  • The Organizational Representative will check in with OSARP staff and wait in the lobby until their OAOR begins. During this waiting period, OSARP staff may request that an Organizational Representative complete a survey or pre-assessment related to the process. This is not required for participation in the OAOR. 

  • OSARP staff, typically the Associate Director of Case Management or designee and any other OSARP staff relevant to the OAP (e.g., Organizational Accountability Investigator), will greet the Organizational Representative in the lobby and escort them to a private office or meeting room in OSARP.  

  • OSARP staff will provide an opportunity for the Organizational Representative to ask any questions about the OAP, including questions they have about the Responsibilities and Rights afforded to a Responding Organization in the OAP. 

  • OSARP staff will engage the Organizational Representative about outcome(s) that are appropriate to effectively address the behavior of the Responding Organization related to the alleged policy violation(s) for which there is a “Responsible” finding. This may include discussion with appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body. 

  • If applicable, OSARP will determine any assigned outcome(s) and will share those assigned outcome(s) with the Organizational Representative, including a verbal rationale for their assignment.  

  • After answering questions from the Organizational Representative and discussing any applicable instructions for completing assigned outcome(s), if applicable, the Organizational Representative will sign documentation stating they understand the finding(s) and, if applicable, outcome(s) assigned.   

    • If the case did not result in suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, the finding(s) and outcome(s), if applicable, are considered the final decision in the case. OSARP will then inform the Organizational Representative that they will receive an email from OSARP via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OAOR that will provide the final decision and, if applicable, any instructions and deadlines for assigned outcome(s). 

    • Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome. 

  • If the case resulted in any of the following outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, then the OSARP staff will review the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal.  

    • In lieu of submitting an appeal, the Organizational Representative can choose to call or email OSARP prior to the appeal deadline and accept the decision in the case, including any of the following outcomes: suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 

  • If the Organizational Representative indicates a desire to appeal or to take time to think about an appeal, OSARP staff will send an email at the conclusion of the OAOR with the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal. For more information, see “Appeals—Organizational Accountability Process” in this section of the Handbook. 

    • If an appeal is not received by the required deadline, the finding(s) and outcome(s) provided at the OAOR will become the final decision in the case. 

If the Organizational Representative fails to attend the OAOR: 

An Organizational Representative waives certain rights in the OAP should they fail to attend the OAOR. 

  • In the notification email a Responding Organization receives from OSARP about a case, information is provided regarding the Responding Organization’s Responsibilities & Rights in the OAP, including the right to attend the OAOR and what rights the Responding Organization waives should they fail to attend the OAOR. 

  • An Organizational Representative who fails to attend the OAOR, regardless of whether the appointment was set based on their academic schedule or scheduled by the Organizational Representative, indicates the following to OSARP with their absence: 

    • The understanding that the OAOR will proceed in the absence of the Organizational Representative. 

  • OSARP staff will assign outcome(s) that are appropriate to effectively address the behavior of the Responding Organization related to the alleged policy violation(s) for which there is a “Responsible” finding. This may include discussion with appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), law enforcement, Adviser(s), or the Organizational Governing Body. 

    • If the case did not result in suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, the finding(s) and outcome(s), if applicable, are considered the final decision in the case. OSARP will then inform the Organizational Representative via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OAOR of the final decision and, if applicable, any instructions and deadlines for assigned outcome(s). 

    • Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome. 

  • If the case resulted in any of the following outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, then the Responding Organization will be provided an opportunity to appeal.  

    • In lieu of submitting an appeal, the Organizational Representative can choose to call or email OSARP prior to the appeal deadline and accept the decision in the case, including any of the following outcomes: suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 

    • OSARP staff will send an email at the conclusion of the OAOR with the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal. For more information, see “Appeals—Organizational Accountability Process” in this section of the Handbook. 

    • If an appeal is not received by the required deadline, the finding(s) and outcome(s) provided at the OAOR will become the final decision in the case. 

Upon a final decision in the case, the finding(s) and outcome(s), if appliable, will be sent to the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative within 10 business days of the final decision being rendered. If applicable, the email will include any deadlines or instructions associated with assigned outcome(s) and will typically include information for the individual(s) who will partner with the Responding Organization to oversee completion. Other individuals may be copied on this final decision email, including but not limited to: 

  • Appropriate university official(s) (e.g., staff from the Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC) 
  • Adviser(s) 
  • Organizational Governing Body 

If an Organizational Representative missed their OAOR due to unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, they may request the OAOR be rescheduled; this request must be communicated as soon as practicable and OSARP will determine if it meets the unexpected and unavoidable circumstance criteria.  

The OAOR is a closed meeting between the Organizational Representative and OSARP and may include other individuals as noted earlier in this section. Individual(s) attending an OAOR are not permitted to make their own recordings. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply. 

The Individual Accountability Process (IAP) may be initiated for an individual student who was involved in the resolution of an alleged policy violation(s) by the Responding Organization in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).  The initiation of the IAP can occur concurrently, before, or after the OAIP. Individual students and organizations can both be accountable and/or responsible for the allegations that arise out of the OAP. 

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances 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. 

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP. 

A Responding Organization has the right to proceed to an OACR if at an Organizational Accountability Resolution Review (OARR), the Organizational Representative chooses not to accept OSARP’s decision that the Responding Organization is responsible, based on a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, for some, or all alleged policy violation(s) in the case. 

The University Case Administrators (UCAs) assigned to conduct the OACR will be re-hearing the entire case and therefore, based on the totality of the evidence at the OACR, may render a decision regarding responsibility that is the same as or different from the determination made by OSARP at an OARR. The UCAs assigned to the OACR will not be informed of the determination made by OSARP at the OARR. A Responding Organization cannot choose to accept the determination made by OSARP at an OARR after a decision is rendered at an OACR.   

During the last three weeks of any regular semester or the summer sessions, if a Responding Organization chooses an OACR, the Responding Organization may also choose to have the OACR conducted as soon as practicable or choose to postpone the OACR until the following semester to be conducted as outlined in the OAP. OSARP may require that the OACR be conducted as soon as possible due to the availability of witnesses and/or the parties (e.g., graduating or transferring students, study abroad participants, off-site student teaching, etc.), or in other circumstances as determined by the Director of OSARP or designee, or may require that the OACR be postponed to the following semester. 

An OACR will be conducted by three UCAs: 

  • Two voting UCAs will typically be JMU faculty, staff, or graduate students who are associated with departments that work with organizations (e.g., Office of Student Life, CMSS, or UREC), but will typically not work directly with the Responding Organization (i.e., if a Sports Club is the Responding Organization, the UCAs will typically not work for UREC).  

  • The third voting UCA will be a JMU faculty, staff, or graduate student who serves as the chairperson. 

If any UCA feels their previous contact with the case or the individuals involved will prevent them from rendering a fair, impartial, and unbiased decision, the UCA must request that they not be assigned to the OACR. Responding Organizations and Reporting Parties (if any) will be informed of the UCAs assigned to their case. Upon receiving notification of the assigned UCAs, a Responding Organization or Reporting Party (if any) 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 Organization 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 remove a UCA and/or to postpone an OACR is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

The rights of a Responding Organization participating in an OACR are delineated in the Responding Organization – Responsibilities and Rights – Organizational Accountability Process. 

Participants who have a right to a Support Person may be accompanied by one Support Person. The Handbook section entitled “Organizational Accountability Process: 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 OACR. 

In an OACR involving a Reporting Party that occurs in-person, Responding Organizations and Reporting Parties may request reasonable safety accommodations be put in place during the OACR. Reasonable safety accommodations may include, but are not limited to, partition, teleconferencing, or police presence. 

An OACR, at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee, may be conducted virtually for reasons including but not limited to health and/or safety concerns. They may also be conducted virtually with the agreement of the Responding Organization and Reporting Party(ies), if applicable, and the approval of the Director of OSARP or designee. For virtual case reviews, OSARP will have a staff member in the virtual meeting to manage the administrative and technical aspects so the UCAs can focus solely on the review of the case. The OSARP staff member will not participate in the case review process or be present while the UCAs deliberate. 

An OACR is set based on the academic schedule of the Organizational Representative, any Reporting Party(ies) who are not anonymous during the OAIP, if applicable, and any University Witnesses, if applicable. The schedules of Responding Organization Witnesses, Reporting Party Witnesses, or Support Persons will be reasonably considered. OSARP cannot compel the Responding Organization, Reporting Parties, or witnesses of any kind to attend an OACR. If a participant of any type fails to appear at an OACR after being properly notified of its date and time, the case will generally proceed and be reviewed based on the Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, and the information provided by those in attendance at the OACR.  If an Organizational Representative fails to appear at an OACR, the Organizational Representative will be notified of the decision and written rationale via email within two business days of the OACR. 

When advised on the OACR process during or after the Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), the Responding Organization will be informed of the individuals they can request to attend the OACR. OSARP has the authority to limit the number of individual(s) who participate at an OACR (e.g., allowing a certain number of Responding Organization Witnesses) to avoid unreasonable delays, limit repetitious or unnecessary information, or to prevent information that does not contribute positively to the fair review of the case. Partnered Resolution and/or the Organizational Accountability Investigation Process (OAIP) are the only opportunities for the Responding Organization or Reporting Party(ies) to submit evidence, information, personal statements, names of witnesses, and witness statements for the OAP. Only individuals who directly provided information during Partnered Resolution or the OAIP are eligible to serve as witnesses at an OACR. 

The decision to postpone an OACR for any reason is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances 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. 

An OACR will be audio and/or video recorded; the UCAs closed deliberation will not be recorded. Individuals who participate in an OACR are not permitted to make their own recordings. 

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

An OACR will generally be conducted in accordance with the procedures below; however, UCAs may ask additional questions at any time. Additionally, the phrase “through the chairperson” used throughout the OACR procedures refers to the chairperson 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 chairperson has the authority to prohibit information from being shared that violates the rights of a party, is not allowed by the OAP, or bears no relevancy to the review of the alleged policy violation(s). The UCA chairperson also has the authority to instruct UCAs to disregard information that violates the rights of a party, is prohibited by the OAP, or bears no relevancy to the review of the alleged policy violation(s). Any participant who does not follow the requirements of the Rules of Decorum or the OAP procedures may be removed, as determined by the chairperson. 

An OACR involves the objective evaluation of all relevant evidence and utilizes a preponderance of evidence standard and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook to determine whether a Responding Organization is responsible or not responsible for a policy violation(s). 

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

  2. The UCAs and participants are introduced. 

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

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

  5. Information is presented about the alleged policy violation(s) involving the Responding Organization; each University Witness is called individually, if applicable.  

    • Each University Witness will individually share their information and be questioned by the UCAs; each University Witness will be questioned by the Organizational Representative through the chairperson. 

    • The UCAs may request witnesses to return for further clarification. 

  6. If applicable, information is presented about the alleged policy violation(s) involving the Responding Organization by the Reporting Party(ies) and/or each Reporting Party Witness. Each Reporting Party and/or Reporting Party Witness will be called individually.  

    • When called, the Reporting Party and/or each Reporting Party Witness will individually share their information and be questioned by the UCAs and then by the Organizational Representative through the chairperson. A Reporting Party Witness can provide information relevant to the case, including but not limited to what they know about the alleged policy violation(s) or their knowledge of the Reporting Party. A Reporting Party Witness may not provide their perspective on the character of the Organizational Representative, Responding Organization Witness(es), or University Witness(es), nor what they feel the appropriate decision or outcomes in the case should be. 

    • The Support Person for the Reporting Party or Reporting Party Witness may not also serve as a witness at OACR or subsequent OAAR, if applicable. 

    • The UCAs may request that a Reporting Party Witness return at a later point in the OACR for further clarification. The Reporting Party will be called in at a later point in the OACR as outlined in the OACR procedures. 

    • The chairperson shall have the authority to limit the number of witnesses and/or content 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. 

  7. Information is presented by the Organizational Representative. The UCAs may question the Organizational Representative.  

    • This presentation is the Organizational Representative’s opportunity to share information they want considered by the UCAs in the review of the case. The chairperson shall have the authority to limit the information and/or content 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. 

  8. The Responding Organization will call their witnesses individually, if applicable.  

    • Each witness called by the Responding Organization will individually share their perspective and be questioned by the Organizational Representative, followed by questions from the UCAs. Witnesses called by the Responding Organization can provide information relevant to the case, including but not limited to what they know about the alleged policy violation(s) or their knowledge of the Responding Organization. A Responding Organization 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 outcomes in the case should be. 

    • The Support Person for the Organizational Representative or Responding Organization Witness may not also serve as a witness at the OACR or subsequent OAAR, if applicable. 

    • After a Responding Organization Witness has presented to the UCAs and answered all questions, the witness may be asked to leave. At such request, witnesses must leave OSARP or the virtual OACR.  

    • The Board may request that a Responding Organization Witness return at a later point in the OACR for further clarification. 

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

    • The chairperson shall have the authority to limit the number of witnesses and/or content 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. 

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

    • The Organizational Representative may ask questions through the chairperson, followed by UCAs opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the University Witness.  

    • The University Witness will then be dismissed from the OACR.  

  10. Any Responding Organization Witnesses asked by the UCAs to return will be brought in individually, if applicable.   

    • The Organizational Representative may ask questions of their witness, followed by UCAs opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the Responding Organization Witness.  

    • The Responding Organization Witnesses will then be dismissed from the OACR.  

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

    • The Organizational Representative may ask questions through the chairperson, followed by UCAs opportunity to ask any remaining questions they have of the Reporting Party Witness.  

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

  12. The Reporting Party(ies) will return to the OACR, if applicable.  

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

    • The Organizational Representative may ask final questions of the Reporting Party through the chairperson. 

    • The Reporting Party may present concluding remarks. 

  13. The UCAs may ask final questions of the Organizational Representative. 

  14. The Organizational Representative may present concluding remarks. 

  15. All persons are dismissed from the OACR while the UCAs determine whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy, utilizing a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, and, if applicable, assign outcomes.  

    • The UCAs will consider only the Investigation Report, any response submitted by the Responding Organization, and the information provided by those in attendance at the OACR. 

    • During deliberation, the UCAs will determine whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy(ies), using a preponderance of the evidence standard and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, and determined by a majority vote of the three UCAs. 

    • If a Responding Organization is found responsible, the UCAs will determine the appropriate outcomes to assign. If applicable, OSARP will provide the UCAs with any of the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP, which are considered in the assigning of appropriate outcomes for the current case. 

  16. The decision regarding finding(s) on the alleged policy violation(s), and if applicable, outcomes assigned, is provided to OSARP by the UCA who presides over the OACR. 

OSARP will notify the Organizational Representative of the decision, rationale, and outcomes, if applicable, within two business days from the date of the OACR. Typically, this notification is conducted in person or virtually with an OSARP staff member but may be sent solely via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative if, based on the circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate or necessary by the Director of OSARP or designee.  

  • If the case did not result in any of the following outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, the decision rendered at the OACR will be the final decision in the case.   

    • The Organizational Representative will receive the finding(s) and, if applicable, outcome(s) assigned at the OACR via their official JMU email within 10 business days of the OACR. This email will provide the following information: 

      • The findings(s) on policy(ies). 

      • If applicable, any outcomes assigned by the UCAs at the OACR and any instructions and deadlines for outcomes completion. Failure to complete, schedule, attend, or be on time for programs/meetings, failing to complete related assignments, or failing to follow outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome. 

  • If the case did result in any of the following outcomes of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, then OSARP will send the decision, including finding(s) and outcome(s), to the Organizational Representative via their official JMU email within two business days of the OACR. 

    • In lieu of submitting an appeal, the Organizational Representative can choose to call or email OSARP prior to the appeal deadline and accept the decision in the case, including any of the following outcomes: suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing. 

    • The Organizational Representative can submit an appeal of the decision rendered at the OACR according to the instructions and deadline for submitting an appeal as listed in the Handbook and the email sent to the Organizational Representative. See the “Appeals—Organizational Accountability Process” section of the Handbook for the procedural details. 

    • If an appeal is not received by the required deadline, the decision rendered at the OACR will become the final decision in the case. 

The OACR is a closed meeting between the Organizational Representative and OSARP and may include other individuals as noted earlier in this section. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply. 

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP, including discussing the case before the OACR with any of the UCAs.

If a Responding Organization is found responsible for a violation(s) of university policy and received an outcome(s) of suspension or expulsion from JMU and/or removal from all university housing, the Responding Organization has the right to submit a written appeal of the decision within four days of receiving the decision via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative. If an appeal is submitted, it must be submitted directly by the Organizational Representative; appeals submitted by anyone other than the Organizational Representative 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 available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review or Organizational Accountability Case Review and only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy must outline the new evidence, why the new evidence was not available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review or Organizational Accountability Case Review and how it is relevant to the decision of whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy.  

    • New evidence does not include a witness who was accessible and available to participate 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 Organizational Accountability Appeal Review (OAAR), where one 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 Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR) because an appeal was submitted 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 Organizational Representative will have the opportunity to share any new evidence at the new OACR heard by different UCAs, which will result in a new decision in the case being rendered. If the UCA does not order a new OACR 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 OAAR. Responding Organizations and Reporting Parties, if applicable, will be informed of the UCA assigned to the OAAR. Upon receiving notification of the assigned UCA, an Organizational Representative 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, an Organizational Representative 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 OAAR is at the discretion of the Director of OSARP or designee. 

An OAAR 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 OAAR, OSARP will have a staff member in the virtual meeting to manage the administrative and technical aspects so the UCA can focus solely on the review of the appeal.  

Anticipated timelines, deadlines, restrictions, or procedures listed within the OAP will not be altered except in unexpected and unavoidable circumstances 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 Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP. 

If an appeal submission is based on procedural irregularity and/or excessively harsh outcomes, the OAAR will generally proceed in accordance with the procedures below. A Responding Organization does not attend or participate in an OAAR 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 made in the appeal. The UCA will also have access to the Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP. 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.  

  • 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 previously rendered will stand unless other grounds were included in the appeal. If procedural irregularity was the only appeal submission, then the UCA will conclude the OAAR.  

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

    • If the Responding Organization 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 OAAR. 

    • If the Responding Organization did not have any other grounds in their appeal submission, then the decision previously rendered 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 previously rendered will stand unless other grounds were included in the appeal.  

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

      • If the Responding Organization 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 OAAR. 

      • If the Responding Organization did not have any other grounds in their appeal submission, then the decision previously rendered 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 OACR, conducted by different UCAs, be scheduled to render a new decision for the case. See “Organizational Accountability Case Review (OACR)” in the Handbook for the details of this process. The OAAR 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 Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records 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 already rendered. 

    • If the appeal only included excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, then the UCA will conclude the OAAR. The decision previously rendered will stand. 

    • If the appeal only included procedural irregularity and excessively harsh outcomes in the appeal submission, then the UCA will conclude the OAAR. The decision previously rendered 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 already imposed.  

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

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

    • 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 Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP. 

  • Per the OAP, new evidence is defined as information that was not available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review or Organizational Accountability Case Review and only relevant to refute information as to whether or not the Responding Organization is responsible for violating policy.  

  • The UCA will determine if the evidence was not available or accessible at the time of the Organizational Accountability Outcomes Review or Organizational Accountability Case Review based on the information submitted in the appeal. However, new evidence does not include a witness who was accessible and available to participate 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 previously rendered and they will conclude the OAAR.  

    • 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 Organization 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 Organization is responsible for violating policy, they will keep the outcomes previously and they will conclude the OAAR.  

      • 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 Organization is responsible for violating policy, the OAAR will proceed. OSARP will schedule an OAAR to provide an opportunity for relevant participants to present and/or respond to the new evidence. 

The Organizational Representative 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 Organizational Representative 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 OAAR. If a Responding Organization Witness is unable to attend the scheduled OAAR, they may submit a written statement to OSARP related to the relevant new evidence at least 24 hours prior to the OAAR for the UCA to review. The OAAR will be scheduled around the Organizational Representative’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 OAAR and may choose to have a witness(es) relevant to the new evidence present at the OAAR. 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 OAAR; the names of any witness(es) will be shared with the Organizational Representative. If a Reporting Party Witness is unable to attend the scheduled OAAR, they may submit a written statement to OSARP related to the relevant new evidence at least 24 hours prior to the OAAR 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 OAAR after being properly notified of its date and time, the OAAR will generally proceed and be heard on the basis of the Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, the information provided by those in attendance at the OAAR, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP.  

An OAAR will be audio and/or video recorded; closed deliberation will not be recorded. Individuals who participate in an OAAR are not permitted to make their own recordings. The Responding Organization shall receive notice of all rights they are guaranteed through the OAP (see “Responding Organization – Responsibilities and Rights – Organizational Accountability Process (OAP).” Any participant who does not follow the requirements of the OAAR process or the Rules of Decorum, may be removed, as determined by the UCA. 

The start time of the OAAR 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 an OAAR where the Organizational Representative and/or Reporting Party chooses to present to the UCA, the Organizational Representative and Reporting Party each have a right to one Support Person if OSARP is notified at least two days before the OAAR, if 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 OAAR procedures refers to the UCA confirming or denying a Reporting Party, Organizational Representative, Reporting Party Witness, or Responding Organization 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 OAP, 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 OAAR 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 OAAR begins and the UCA and participants introduce themselves.  

  3. The Organizational Representative presents information solely about the new evidence in the case. 

    • The UCA may question the Organizational Representative about the new evidence.  

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

    • The Organizational Representative may question the Responding Organization Witness about their statement on the new evidence. 

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

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

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

  5. The Reporting Party(ies) present 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 Organizational Representative 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 OAAR procedures. 

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

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

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

  7. The UCA may ask questions of the Organizational Representative.  

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

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

    • The Responding Organization Witnesses will then be dismissed from the OAAR.  

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

    • The Organizational Representative 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 OAAR.  

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

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

    • The Organizational Representative 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 Organizational Representative.  

  12. The Organizational Representative may present concluding remarks. 

  13. The Organizational Representative 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 Investigation Report, including any response provided by the Responding Organization, the written appeal, administrative items provided by OSARP, the information provided by those in attendance at the OAAR, and the Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP to determine if the decision previously rendered should stand or if the finding(s) on policy and/or outcome(s) previously rendered should be altered. The Responding Organization’s organizational records maintained by OSARP will only be used in determining outcomes, if applicable. 

      • If, in considering the totality of the evidence, the UCA determines, using a preponderance of the evidence and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, that the finding(s) on policy should not be altered, the decision previously rendered 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 and the criteria listed in the “Evaluation of Organizational Connections to Alleged Misconduct” portion of the Handbook, that the finding(s) on policy should be altered, the UCA will determine whether or not the Responding Organization 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 previously imposed.  

OSARP will notify the Responding Organization of the final decision of the OAAR and provide the UCA’s written rationale of the decision within two business days from the date of the OAAR. Typically, this notification is conducted in person or virtually with an OSARP staff member but may be solely sent via the official JMU email of the Organizational Representative when, 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 OAAR involves required outcome(s), the Responding Organization 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 outcome(s) expectations may result in the loss of specific access or resources, such as the BeInvolved website, until outstanding outcome(s) are verified as completed by OSARP. Repeated failure may result in an alleged policy violation(s) of Failure to Comply with an Outcome. 

The OAAR is a closed meeting between the Organizational Representative and OSARP and may include other individuals as noted earlier in this section. In the OAP, the technical rules of evidence applicable in civil and criminal cases do not apply. 

OSARP may pursue an alleged policy violation(s) of Interference or Retaliation in a University Process if it receives information that a student or recognized student organization provides falsified or misleading information or engaged in any activity which disrupts, unfairly influences, or obstructs the OAP, including discussing the case before the OACR with any of the UCAs. 

Information on Disability Accommodations in the Organizational Accountability Process (OAP)

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 ODS: Getting Started). 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