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]
Charter Amendment Adopted January 28, 2008
Statute of Limitations Section II.A.11
To have a charge filed no more than six months after the alleged misconduct occurred or
should reasonably have been discovered. In cases involving alleged sexual assault,
dating/domestic violence, sexual harassment, stalking, a hate crime, or physical assault,
to have a charge filed no more than two years after the alleged misconduct occurred.
If compelling new evidence becomes available after these stated times, a case may be charged
since a Panel maintains the ultimate authority to dismiss or allow a case.