WSR 20-17-004
[Filed August 5, 2020, 1:26 p.m.]
Original Notice.
Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 20-01-092.
Title of Rule and Other Identifying Information: WAC 172-90-160 Academic integrity board review process.
Hearing Location(s): On September 22, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., at Eastern Washington University, Main Campus, 526 5th Street, Room 215A, Tawanka Hall, Cheney, WA 99004.
Due to COVID-19, this hearing will also be held via Zoom video conferencing.
Date of Intended Adoption: October 9, 2020.
Submit Written Comments to: Joseph Fuxa, Eastern Washington University, Main Campus, 526 5th Street, Cheney, WA 99004, email, fax 509-359-2874, by September 22, 2020.
Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact Joseph Fuxa, phone 509-359-7496, fax 509-359-2874, email, by September 22, 2020.
Purpose of the Proposal and Its Anticipated Effects, Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: Updates are needed to change the decision-maker for academic integrity board appeals.
Reasons Supporting Proposal: Modifications are needed due to changes in employee positions.
Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 28B.35.120(12).
Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.
Name of Proponent: Eastern Washington University, governmental.
Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting: Joseph Fuxa, 211A Tawnaka [Tawanka] Hall, 509-359-7496; Implementation and Enforcement: Dr. David May, 214 Showalter Hall, 509-359-6362.
A school district fiscal impact statement is not required under RCW 28A.305.135.
A cost-benefit analysis is not required under RCW 34.05.328. Pursuant to RCW 34.[0]5.328 (5)(a)(i), this agency is not an agency mandated to comply with RCW 34.05.328. Further, the agency does not voluntarily make that section applicable to the adoption of this rule pursuant to subsection (5)(a)(iii), and to date, the joint administrative rules review committee has not made the section applicable to the adoption of this rule.
This rule proposal, or portions of the proposal, is exempt from requirements of the Regulatory Fairness Act because the proposal:
Is exempt under RCW 19.85.025(4).
August 5, 2020.
Joseph Fuxa
Policy and Compliance Manager
AMENDATORY SECTION(Amending WSR 19-07-045, filed 3/14/19, effective 4/14/19)
WAC 172-90-160Academic integrity board review process.
(1) Initiation: The AIB review process will be initiated when:
(a) The instructor or student requests AIB review;
(b) The instructor refers the matter to the AIB because the instructor and student could not agree to a conference date/time or did not reach an agreement during a conference; or
(c) The AVP determines that the AIB review process is appropriate to the circumstances.
(2) Scheduling: Within five instruction days of determining that an AIB review is in order, the AVP shall schedule a review for the next available meeting of the AIB.
(3) Notification: The AVP will notify the student, instructor, and AIB chair. Notification will include:
(a) All information provided by the instructor when the violation was reported and all documents related to the alleged violation. However, any such information and documents that were previously provided to the student are not required to be included in this notification. Also, information and documents should be redacted to the extent their release would compromise test or examination contents or if the documents include other student's education records;
(b) The date/time of the AIB review;
(c) Instructions on how to submit documents, statements, and other materials for consideration by the AIB;
(d) A clear statement that the AIB review is a closed process (no student, instructor or person other than the board is present at the review);
(e) A description of the specific rules governing the AIB review process;
(f) A description of the university's academic integrity rules and processes; and
(g) Contact information for the AVP's office where the student and/or instructor can request further information and assistance. Notifications will strongly encourage the student to contact the AVP to ensure that the student understands the process, the violation, and the potential sanctions.
(4) Student and instructor response: The student must prepare a written statement and submit the statement to the AVP's office within three instruction days after receiving the AIB review notice. The student may include any relevant written documentation, written third-party statements, or other evidence deemed relevant to the student's interests. Unless already provided, the instructor should submit the syllabus, the relevant test/assignment, and other materials that are pertinent to the violation to the AVP's office.
(5) Failure to respond: If the student does not respond to the notification of the AIB review within three instructional days, the AVP will send another notification to the student. Failure of the student to respond to the second notification within three instruction days will be treated as an admission of responsibility and acceptance of the proposed sanctions. The AVP will coordinate sanctioning with the instructor and/or the AIB as needed. If a recommended sanction requires higher level authority to impose, the AIB will proceed with a hearing.
(6) Proceedings: The board's responsibility is to review the statements and other materials provided by each party, review other relevant records, information, or materials, and make a determination as to whether the alleged academic integrity violation occurred. The board primarily reviews written evidence. Neither the student nor the instructor is permitted to attend the AIB review. The board may, at its discretion, consult with the instructor, the student or others as deemed appropriate or necessary. All evidence collected in this process will be made available to the student and/or instructor upon request.
(7) Sanctions: The board will determine what, if any, sanctions will be imposed. The board may impose the same sanctions assigned and/or recommended by the instructor, or may impose greater or lesser sanctions. If the student has any previous violation(s) of academic integrity standards, the AIB may increase the sanction imposed to account for repeat offenses. If the board decides to pursue sanctions that include suspension or expulsion, the board shall initiate an AIB hearing per WAC 172-90-170.
(8) Conclusion: The board should conclude its review and issue a decision within thirty days after the violation was initially reported. The AVP shall notify the student and instructor of the board's decisions, along with the right to request reconsideration.
(9) Requests for review: Either the student or the instructor may request reconsideration by the ((AVP))provost or designee by submitting a request in writing to the ((AVP))provost or designee within twenty-one days after the board issues its written decision. The ((AVP))provost or designee shall allow the student and the instructor an opportunity to respond in writing to the request for review. The student and instructor's responses, if any, must be submitted within five instructional days of the request for review. After reviewing the responses and materials considered by the board, the ((AVP))provost or designee shall issue a decision in writing within twenty days of receipt of the request for review. The decision must include a brief statement of the reasons for the ((AVP's))provost or designee decision and notice that judicial review may be available. All decisions of the ((AVP))provost or designee are final and no appeals within the university are permitted. Judicial review may be available under chapter 34.05 RCW.