º£½ÇÉçÇø

I.      Call to order

Ruth Jones called to order the meeting of the Campus Committee on Sexual Responsibility & Misconduct (CCSRM) at 3:00PM on February 26, 2016 in HSC #225.

II.      Members Attending

The following persons were present:

Ruth Jones, Jordan Brown, Anne Schell, Katelyn Fink, Heather Lukes, Karla Aguilar, Vivian Garay Santiago, Olivia Sabins, Scott Bogue, Dana Michels, Brian Erickson, Richard Mora

III.      Administrative Matters

1. Review of Minutes from 1.29.16 meeting

2. Briefly discussed last minute cancellation of the 2.12.16 meeting. CCSRM meetings are only canceled when there is an urgent situation that requires the immediate attention of the Title IX Office.

IV.      Title IX Office Updates

A. Preferred Name/Gender Policy

• The first stage of the Preferred Name/Gender Policy training for staff will take place next week. Nancy Jean Tubbs, Director of The LGBT Resource Center at University of California, Riverside, will be provide Campus Safety, Title IX Office, and the Student Affairs Division on Gender Identity Inclusion training. A survey was sent to all invitees to assess and identify º£½ÇÉçÇø specific topics that should be addressed in the training sessions.
• The Title IX Office will continue to work on other policies that can make º£½ÇÉçÇø more inclusive, e.g. Restroom Policy and Preferred Name/Gender Policy for faculty, staff, and administrators.

B. Sexual Assault Climate Survey

• Dr. Teresa Kaldor of Institutional Research will join the CCSRM committee later this semester to discuss the design and implementation options of the next Sexual Assault Campus Climate Survey.

C. Website Revisions

• Kirstin from the Communication office will present the new website during the 3/18 meeting. Located here: /sexual-respect-title-ix

V.      Spring 2016 Meeting Dates

• Friday, March 18 (HSC 225) Note that this is a change from the March 11 meeting date.  The meeting was rescheduled because March 11 is spring break.  Kirstin from the Communication Office will join us for this meeting.
• Friday, March 25 (HSC 225)
• Friday, April 8 (HSC 225)
• Friday, April 22 (HSC 225)

VI.      Discussion of Selection of Review Panel

A. What professional characteristics would be useful for Review Panel members? (e.g. experience on CCSRM committee, etc.)

• Experience on CCSRM would be useful since members have a breadth of experience discussing Title IX issues and the º£½ÇÉçÇø policy. It was discussed, though, that SMAB members should not serve on the Review Panel during the same period they are serving on SMAB.
• Experience with Student Conduct proceedings could be beneficial because of the amount of training completed and the real case situations that have been evaluated. It was also mentioned that Campus Safety officers serving on the Review Panel could have both pros and cons; they have received a high level of professional training; yet they also could potential provide services to both the complainant/respondent in certain cases, causing a conflict of interest.
• º£½ÇÉçÇø community members who can commit to a multi-year commitment and those who have flexible enough schedules to be able to dedicate 10-20 hours of start-up training and potentially one case review a semester (hours will vary depending on the case). It may be helpful to think through differences between hourly and salary employees and how the Review Panel requirements may impact employees day-to-day responsibilities. Supervisors would need to be supportive of their employee in this role. It was suggested to speak with the Administrator & Staff Council to determine the most appropriate way to solicit staff for the Review Panel.
• In regard to faculty members on the Review Panel, some are waiting to see if members will count as committee service before making a commitment. It was also mentioned that some are interested but will wait for their children, who are currently º£½ÇÉçÇø students, to graduate. It was among consensus of the CCSRM to not exclude any faculty members from being a member of the Review Panel, except for part-time NTT adjunct faculty.

B. What current responsibilities/roles on campus would be inconsistent with serving on the Review Panel?

• Survivor Advocate – likely to be in the role of support for the Survivor
• Project Coordinator for Project SAFE – Needs to maintain perception of neutrality
• Case Management Coordinator in the Dean of Students Office – is in the role of support for all students struggling in some form; helps connect students with a variety of on and off campus resources
• All additional Confidential Resources on Campus (Emmons Counseling and Office for Religious/Spiritual Life) – likely they will be in contact with either the Complainant or Respondent during the complaint resolution process
• Any members of the Appeals Panel

C. Additional Concerns

• It may be of concern that serving on the Review Panel is a vulnerable role for some staff/faculty/administrators on campus. How can we provide protection for those who serve in this important role?
• Parameters/rules should be in place for the Review Panel members. Such rules could include recusing oneself from a case if one has heard about the case/potentially knows the complainant and/or respondent, must be in good standing with HR and Title IX Office, keep all case information highly confidential. More on this to be determined. Support/self-care resources may need to be made available for Review Panel as well, in case any of the cases are triggering or are emotionally/mentally taxing on them.
• The initial training for the review panel members will take between 10-20 hours, over the course of multiple sessions. Bias training could be an important training component; Title IX Coordinator will inquire about this training from external investigator group Public Interest Investigators.

D. Current Review Panel Members

• Title IX Coordinator has selected three internal Discrimination Investigators to serve on the current Review Panel. These individuals have all been trained extensively over the past year and will continue to receive training on the new policy and their new role on the Review Panel.