Greek Conduct Board Hearings

The Greek Conduct Board is a group of Greek community members appointed to hear serious infractions of Greek organization and/or university policies. The board is charged with determining whether a group’s actions constitute a violation of any policies and, if so, an appropriate response. In determining an appropriate response, consideration is given to the group’s best interests as well as the Greek community’s and university’s interests in maintaining high standards. All Greek Conduct Board hearings are conducted in private.

Advisors

An advisor may accompany accused groups to a Greek Conduct Board hearing. The role of the advisor is to assist and support the group through the disciplinary process. The advisor must be a member of the university community (which includes a chapter advisor) and may not be a member of the Greek Conduct Board. The advisor may not address the hearing panel or any witness during the hearing.

Hearing Panels

Hearing panels charged with determining a verdict and a sanction shall consist of a majority of justices from the accused group’s umbrella organization and justices of the other umbrella organizations whose total number shall be less than or equal to the number of justices from the accused umbrella organization (for example, if the accused group is an IFC chapter, the hearing panel may consist of three IFC justices, two NPC justices, and one NPHC/IGC justice). The hearing chair will be the accused group’s umbrella organization conduct chair. The chair will have a voice, but no vote, unless there is a tie.

Hearing panels charged with determining only a sanction shall consist of two students from the Greek Conduct Board justices and the hearing chairperson who will be part of the accused umbrella organization. The hearing chairperson will be allowed to vote in sanction-only hearings. (In some circumstances, the hearing chairperson may choose to utilize a full panel hearing consisting of majority of justices from the accused group’s umbrella organization and justices of the other umbrella organizations whose total number shall be less than or equal to the number of justices from the accused umbrella organization; for example, if the accused group is an IFC chapter, the hearing panel may consist of three IFC justices, two NPC justices, and one NPHC/IGC justice.

For both types of hearings, members of the accused chapter may not serve on the hearing panel. An accused group may agree to a smaller panel or to a different umbrella group ratio in the event that a full panel is not available. The accused group may also challenge any panel member if there is a significant conflict of interest. Such a challenge must be made to the chair at least 24 hours prior to the hearing and will be granted only for sufficient cause. In the event that the hearing chair’s chapter is also the accused organization, the president from the representative umbrella organization will chair the hearing.

Notice

The principal investigator(s) will set the date and time for Greek Conduct Board hearings. They will also select justices and alternates. An accused group will be notified of a Greek Conduct Board hearing at least 48 hours in advance. The notice will include the date and time of the hearing, the specific charges at issue, the names of the panel members, and copies of all written information given to the hearing chair and the group’s inter/national organization. The principal investigator(s) also may include information clarifying or noting any additional information gathered through the investigation without expressing any personal opinion about the merits of the case.

The complainant will be notified of the hearing if his/her presence is required. The chair will determine what information, if any, may be shared with the complainant. Upon proper notice, if the group fails to attend the hearing, the hearing panel may proceed in its absence.

Witnesses

The chair may request the presence of any witness with pertinent information about a case. If a witness is unidentified or unavailable to be questioned by the principal investigator(s) or to attend the hearing, his/her statement may not constitute a sole or substantial basis for determining responsibility. If he/she is necessary and unidentified or unavailable, the chair may suspend or dismiss the proceedings.

In the case of a witness requesting to remain confidential, the principal investigator(s) will interview him/her prior to the hearing and will provide a written and oral summary of the witness’ testimony. If further questioning of the witness is necessary during the course of a hearing, arrangements may be made for the principal investigator(s) to question the witness outside of the hearing room or the chair may call a recess and reconvene the hearing later to make time for further investigation/questioning by the principal investigator(s).

The accused group may bring relevant material witnesses to speak on its behalf and may submit two written character references. An accused group should inform the principal investigator(s) prior to the hearing of the names of any witnesses who it wishes to testify, and to what they will attest. The chair will determine the extent to which witnesses will be permitted in the hearing, including relevancy of questioning and information presented.

An accused group has the right to rebut any witness testimony presented against it, including written statements of witnesses unavailable to attend a hearing.

Procedure

The general course of procedure for a GCB hearing is as follows: introductions; presentation of facts by the principal investigator(s); the accused group submits a plea; opening comments from the accused; questions; testimony/questions of other material witnesses (if applicable); closing comments from complainant (if applicable); closing comments from the accused.

The GCB chairperson, in consultation with the panel, may impose time limits on any stage of the procedure. The GCB chairperson may also determine the relevance of any witness or information to be presented and/or considered by the Board.

Information to be Considered by the Panel

The panel may consider any information deemed relevant, including documentation and expressions of opinion. If the panel needs additional information during a hearing, such as verification of fact at issue, an expert opinion, etc., the panel may request such information and may suspend their decision until such information is obtained. The accused group will have the right to respond to any additional information that is to be used in considering an outcome.

Outcome

Using a “clear and convincing” standard, the panel may find a group responsible for an alleged violation by majority vote. The panel, also by majority vote, may dismiss any charge. In the case of a tie, the chair will cast the deciding vote.

Upon finding a group responsible for a violation, the panel may determine and impose an appropriate sanction. Consideration may be given to the nature of and circumstances surrounding the violation, the group’s acceptance of responsibility, the group’s standing with its national organization, prior disciplinary violations for the previous three years, the impact of a sanction on the group, precedent cases, Greek community and university interests, and any other information deemed relevant by the hearing panel. All sanctions must be decided by majority vote with the exception of dissolution of a group. The hearing panel and chair must support dissolution unanimously.

Notification and Record of the Hearing

The chair will notify the accused group of the outcome of the hearing typically within one week of the conclusion of the hearing. A written hearing report describing the outcome, with a brief explanation of the reasoning, will be given to the accused group. A copy of the written hearing report will be sent to the group’s inter/national headquarters and another copy will be placed in the precedent files with any personally identifying information removed.

An audio recording of each hearing will be made and kept on file for three years. Reasonable care will be taken to create a quality recording and minimize technical problems; however, technical problems that result in no recording or an inaudible one will not be a valid argument for an appeal.