PANEL CALLS FOR CHANGES IN UA POLICY

Higher burden of proof recommended in disciplinary hearings for
students

The University of Akron should have to provide more proof than it does
now that a student has violated school rules, and it should use felon
informants on campus "with extreme caution and only in rare
circumstances."

Those are among 40 recommendations an independent policy review
commission submitted to the UA president Wednesday with the intent of
assuring a fairer, more transparent and more accountable disciplinary
process.

University President Luis Proenza appointed the independent commission
in April in response to Akron Beacon Journal articles about Charles
Plinton, a former graduate student who was suspended from the
university on an allegation of dealing drugs to a confidential
informant despite his acquittal by a jury in a criminal trial.

Plinton was suspended for a semester in 2004 and never returned to
campus.

In December, he took his own life, telling his mother the day he died
that he should have had his master's degree.

Although the commission recommends greater safeguards for accused
students, it does not challenge the university's right to disregard a
not-guilty verdict in criminal court.

The commission acknowledged that many people may not understand the
difference between a criminal process and an administrative hearing.

"The commentary that came up repeatedly in the newspaper, in the
public forum, on the block, at the bank, was the fact that a student
was found innocent and then found responsible," said commission
member Barbara Mathews, senior vice president and manager of public
affairs for FirstMerit Bank.

Fellow member J. Dean Carro of the UA law school explained after the
Wednesday meeting that "not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent,"
and different standards apply in different arenas.

O.J. Simpson, for example, was found not guilty of murder in criminal
court, but he was found liable for wrongful death in civil court,
which has a lower burden of proof.

Burden of Proof

The most significant recommendation places a higher burden of proof on
the university in student disciplinary hearings involving felony and
misdemeanor offenses.

The legal term for the level of evidence is "clear and convincing,"
the second highest burden of proof, behind "beyond a reasonable
doubt," which is applied in criminal court.

Ohio State University applies the same high standard to serious
nonacademic offenses. But most universities in Ohio use the less
rigorous "preponderance of evidence" standard, which applies in
civil court; it requires that more than 50 percent of the evidence
indicate guilt.

UA requires a "substantial" burden of proof, which is the lowest
standard of 12 Ohio universities surveyed for the commission's report.

Other recommendations seek to improve student awareness of the process
and involve more high-level administrators in consequential decisions
regarding findings and sanctions, especially for serious offenses.

Proenza is to meet with the board of trustees Wednesday and is to
receive a complete report from the commission Aug. 16.

Proenza asked the Rev. Ronald Fowler of the Arlington Church of God to
lead the independent commission, which comprises eight community and
campus members.

Fowler commended the members Wednesday and said he was pleased with
their work. "There's a lot here that adds safety and fairness to the
process, that ensures accountability -- we raised that
significantly," Fowler said.

Many who spoke at the commission's public forum in May also complained
about the decision to place a confidential informant with a lengthy
criminal record in student housing.

The commission recommends that informants shouldn't have a history of
violent behavior, and the university president and the vice president
of student affairs must approve the use of an informant on campus.
Both should receive monthly reports if an informant is placed in
student housing.

Criminal Background

The university currently does not have a confidential informant on
campus.

Felons are not expressly forbidden from student housing, and the
university does not ask housing applicants about their criminal
background, although registered sex offenders are not permitted in
student housing.

Richard Dale Harris was the informant who was installed in Plinton's
dorm in 2004 and identified Plinton as the one who sold him about a
third of an ounce of marijuana.

Harris had a lengthy criminal history that included a 1998 indictment
on charges of felonious assault and robbery -- charges that later were
dismissed when he pleaded guilty to theft.

Harris is no longer an informant for the Summit County Drug
Unit.

On July 24, Harris pleaded guilty in Summit County Common Pleas Court
to cocaine possession.

The commission also recommends more thorough and timely police
documentation.

A UA officer testified in Plinton's trial that the student admitted
when he was arrested that he had sold marijuana, but the officer
didn't document Plinton's alleged statement until about a week before
the trial.

At the commission's final meeting Wednesday, members discussed how the
public might perceive their work.

Carro, a UA law professor, acknowledged that some people will be
unhappy that the commission isn't ruling out the use of informants
with criminal backgrounds. "That's going to be a hard sell, given the
history," he said.

Frederic Zuch, retired assistant Summit County prosecutor, said the
commission did address at least one of the complaints.

"In addition to the felon issue, the biggest thing was that the
president didn't even know this," Zuch said. "How many times did we
hear that at the forum? And certainly this covers that issue."

The commission didn't consider how to handle not-guilty verdicts until
its final Wednesday meeting.

The panel wants hearing board members to receive some of the basic
cautions that criminal juries hear from judges about how to weigh
certain evidence.

The commission added another caution Wednesday: "The decision to
find or not find a student responsible should not be determined by
any court decision."

That means a student's not-guilty verdict in another court doesn't get
a student off the hook with the university.

"The (U.S.) Supreme Court consistently says you're not entitled to a
perfect trial, you're entitled to a fair trial," Carro said. "And
what the Reverend (Fowler) is trying to do here is create a fair process."