Statute of Limitations Explanation

[February 2003]

Explanation of the Board on Judicial Affairs upon amending the Student Judicial Charter of 1997 during Spring Quarter 1998-1999:
The Board took up the statute of limitations after concerns were raised that the current statute is too restrictive. (It originally read, ''To have no charges filed more than six months after the alleged misconduct.") The Board does not want the statute of limitations to prevent action within the Student Judicial Process in cases which the nature of the misconduct renders its immediate discovery unlikely. Board members are concerned that some offenses might go undetected for six months. Plagiarism in a research project might be discovered after the paper's publication, or a regular annual audit might uncover theft of student funds. But if the publication or the audit happened to occur more than six months after the incident the Charter as currently written would not allow faculty or students to pursue an Honor Code or Fundamental Standard case.

The Board believes that the Charter should not prevent the enforcement of the Fundamental Standard or the Honor Code in cases in which a student was able to conceal misconduct for six months.

The Board does not intend this amendment to leave students with the proverbial axe hanging overhead. The Procedural Overview in the Charter provides a guide as to when concerns should be filed. Section III, part I, number 1 states: 'A formal concern should be made within sixty (60) days of the date of discovery of the evidence upon which it is based.' This guidance would remain under the new amendment, and the new amendment would prohibit the filing of charges against a student more than six months after the discovery of the misconduct.

The Board did not want to allow cases to proceed where misconduct was not discovered due to negligence on the part of the reporting party. To this end the proposed amendment stipulates that no charges may be filed more than six months after the alleged misconduct 'should reasonably have been discovered.' Theft of student funds discovered after three regular auditing periods might constitute an unreasonable lag in discovery. In all cases the Judicial Panel (composed of 4 students and two faculty or staff) would have the ultimate authority to dismiss or allow a case under the statute of limitations.

[January 2008]