1. The Proposal for Community Service and Accountability (CSA)
by
Hasani Gunn1
Chair of the Peer Review Board,
Co-Chair of the Constitutional Court,
Member of the Town of Red Hook Recreation Commission
July 2016
Draft #2a2
Abstract: ​The CSA seeks to (1) expedite and improve the conduct board processes, (2)
hold students accountable for their misconduct, (3) help students better understand the
Judiciary Branch, (4) maximize student privacy, and (5) reorient the sanctioning process
towards a stronger restorative justice model by emphasising community service. This
proposal is the final motion of my Town-Gown Relations Project which has included
thus far, the mandatory forum for new students living off-campus, the creation of the
BSG Communications Committee, a paper detailing suggestions for increasing voter
turnout among college students in local elections for the Red Hook Educational
Foundation, and BSG presentations at the Red Hook Board of Trustees meetings, to3
1
​Thank yous are owed to Mayor Ed Blundell, Deputy Mayor Brent Kovalchik, members of the Town of Red Hook
Recreation Commission, Councilwoman Sarah Imboden, Mayor Joel Griffith and Deputy Mayor Emily Majer for
their ideas and feedback throughout this long process. Special thanks are owed to Carl Amritt and Kolrick
Greathouse for their extremely helpful comments and direction.
2
​A brief presentation on the CSA was provided to the Red Hook Board of Trustees and broadcasted via PANDA
TV on May 9, 2016 (link here: http://www.pandatv23.org/node/578)
3
​Credit for the BSG presentations are shared by Mayor Blundell and Deputy Kovalchik for the idea and Zev
Fogelman for maintaining Bard’s presence at the public meetings.

2. Gunn, 2
CSA Proposal
name a few efforts. This working draft is intended to stimulate discussion and, in turn,
finalize the CSA proposal. ​All comments are welcome.
Introduction
This draft proposal proceeds as follows: I begin with a summary that reviews the basics
of the Judiciary Branch of Bard Student Government (BSG) and, jointly, the disciplinary
process at Bard. Afterwards, I discuss the CSA and current problems and their impacts in
the Peer Review Board. Next, I go into detail about how the sections within the CSA
provide a solution for the problems outlined. I conclude with a concise summary of the
benefits the Proposal offers.
1. Summary of the Judiciary Branch and Bard’s disciplinary processes
1.1 How does the judicial process work at Bard College?
Bard’s judicial process is unique in a few different, but interrelated ways—namely, its
underlying philosophy, the sanctioning process, and the punitive measures practiced.
First, rather than relying on minimum disciplinary actions for misbehavior and offenses,
the College handles each policy violation, with the exception of ‘gross misconduct,’ on a
case-by-case basis. Information on gross misconduct will be addressed later in detail, so
further elucidation is not needed at this point. Second, the sanctioning process is not
exclusively handled by administrators. Instead, the process is overseen by a body of
elected and appointed students. Currently, the body is split into two conduct boards, the
Peer Review Board (PRB) and the Student Judiciary Board (SJB). Further information on
the conduct boards is provided below. Third, the punitive measures practiced by the
conduct boards differ from other colleges in that it is seldom cut-and-dry suspension or
expulsion. Rather, the punitive measures put forth are centered on opening up a dialogue,
acknowledging and acting on the impact the misbehavior has on oneself and the
community at large, and community service.
1.1 What is gross misconduct?
Gross misconduct can best be described as student misbehavior that the college exercises
zero tolerance for. For an idea of what constitutes misconduct, consider actions such as
physical confrontations, drug-dealing, discrimination on the grounds of race/ethnicity,
gender and sexuality, and sexual misconduct. Although I cannot supply the precise
reasoning for the college’s stance for each offense, I can say with certainty that the
offenses conflict with the College’s mission, philosophy, and oftentimes are an affront to

3. Gunn, 3
CSA Proposal
Bard’s policies, and state and federal law. In sum, although the PRB and SJB have
original jurisdiction in campus cases, involving alleged violations of college social and
residential rules, neither board has jurisdiction for those cases involving alleged
violations of academic regulations, cases involving alleged sexual misconduct, and other
cases with considerable impact. ​For more detailed and clearer information on the topic
of gross misconduct and other issues related to misbehavior, please consult the Student
Handbook.4
1.2 What are the conduct boards?
a) Peer Review Board (PRB): This board is the lower of the conduct boards, hearing
(but not being limited to) cases involving first-time policy violations, less severe policy
violations, and cases in which a clear violation of policy has occurred. The PRB has the
power to impose sanctions upon any student found in violation of college policy.
However, the Board does not have the authority to determine that a student leave the
college via suspension or expulsion. Operating through a restorative justice model, the
PRB attempts to improve any negative community impact through methods such as,
including conversations with other community members and/or administrators, creative
programming, and restitution hours, and assigning Social Probation.
b) Student Judiciary Board (SJB): The SJB serves as the higher Conduct Board,
hearing (but not being limited to) cases involving repeat policy violations, more severe
policy violations, and cases in which the occurrence of a policy violation is unclear.
Cases may be referred to the SJB by the Dean of Student Affairs Office, the PRB, or
initiated by a student complaint to the chair of the board. The SJB has the authority to
impose sanctions upon any student found in violation of college policy, as well as the
authority to determine that a student leave the college via suspension or expulsion.
c) The PRB and the SJB derive their powers equally from the students,
administration, and faculty of Bard College. The purpose of the Conduct Boards is to
enforce, protect, and preserve, within the limits of its jurisdiction, the rights of all Bard
students by means of peer-to-peer conduct hearings.5
4
Link here: http://www.bard.edu/dosa/handbook/index.php?aid=1201&sid=705
5
​Peer-to-peer conduct hearings provide a unique opportunity for students to hold one another accountable for their
behavior and has proven to establish a greater sense of cohesiveness that exclusively faculty/staff boards cannot
emulate. Although faculty/staff are qualified to conduct mediation and determine appropriate disciplinary measures,
students are (i) directly affected by policy violations that take place on campus; (ii) oftentimes are currently or have
experienced similar circumstances to summoned students; (iii) likely to have a relationship with the summoned
student(s) which can inform a richer, more in depth discussion; and (iv) in some cases, more willing to hear out
other students’ concerns and thought processes—all of which render the student representatives more effective for
many of the cases presented. Meanwhile, faculty/staff members hold advisory positions that provide support and
guidance to the student representatives.

4. Gunn, 4
CSA Proposal
1.3 What do the Chairs do?
a) The Chair of the SJB and the Chair of the PRB are responsible for maintaining contact
with and disseminating information to all parties involved in conduct hearings, prior to
and after the hearings occur.
b) The Chair of the SJB and the Chair of the PRB jointly organize and run a conduct
retreat at least once a semester. The retreat serves as a checkpoint, where collective6
discussion about the nature of the student conduct system shall occur.
1.4 What is the composition of the conduct boards?
a) The SJB is composed of the Chair of the SJB, seven student members (one of whom
must be a Freshman Representative), four staff members, four faculty members, and a
silent advisor from either the Dean of Student Affairs Office or the Office of Residence
Life and Housing. Representatives from each of these groups will comprise the Board on
rotation as determined by the Chair of the SJB.
b) The student membership of the SJB is determined based on a completed application
designed by the Chair of the SJB.
c) The term for each member of the SJB is one semester.
d) The Peer Review Board is composed of the Chair of the PRB, at least seven and no
more than nine student members, all Area Coordinators, and a silent advisor from either
the Dean of Student Affairs Office or the Office of Residence Life and Housing.
Representatives from each of these groups will comprise the Board on rotation as
determined by the Chair of the PRB.
e) The student membership of the PRB is determined based on a completed application
designed by the Chair of the PRB.
f) The term for each member of the PRB is one semester.
g) Students who are currently on Social or Academic Probation cannot be members of
either the PRB or the SJB.
h) One student member of the PRB and one student member of the SJB serve as each
respective Board’s Vice Chair. The Vice Chair of the PRB is chosen via internal election
from the membership of the PRB, and the Vice Chair of the SJB shall be chosen via
internal election from the membership of the SJB.
6
The conduct retreat is attended by ​all members of the PRB, SJB, and the Student Advocate.

5. Gunn, 5
CSA Proposal
1.5 Who is the Student Advocate and what do they do?
a) The Student Advocate shall be chosen via internal election from the membership of
the PRB to serve for one academic school year, and upon election, shall relinquish all
duties associated with PRB membership.
b) The Student Advocate’s primary duty shall be to serve as a liaison between the
Conduct Boards and the students summoned before the Conduct Boards. The Student
Advocate shall be available to answer any questions or concerns summoned students
might have about the student conduct process.
2. The CSA
2.1 The proposal’s objectives
The objectives of the CSA are to (1) expedite and improve the conduct board processes,
(2) hold students accountable for their misconduct, (3) help students better understand the
Judiciary Branch, (4) maximize student privacy, and (5) reorient the sanctioning process
towards a stronger restorative justice model by emphasising community service. The first
and second objective are captured by Provision 1, the third by Provision 2, and the fourth
by Provision 3. For simplicity, each Provision is presented in a problem-solution
framework.
2.2 Current problems
The following are several issues present in the PRB system: (i) By virtue of its status as a
‘lower’ conduct board, the PRB is oftentimes plagued with a disproportionately greater
amount of cases than the SJB. (ii) When sanctioned, as of now, there is no official
mechanism by which the Board can measure a student(s)’ fidelity to the conduct system
and the Bard community—that is, keep track know of if a student has completed their
assigned task. (iii) During a case, there is no guarantee that students will be granted the
privacy they deserve. (iv) Students do not know or understand what the PRB is. (v)
Community service plays a minimal role in the sanctioning process and when it does
occur, it happens only on campus and it is difficult to confirm whether or not a student
has completed the duty assigned.
2.3 Current impacts
Now recognize the following impacts of the current problems in the PRB system: (i) The
quality of the handling of cases is compromised by there simply being too many for PRB
members to concern themselves with. (ii) The PRB is de-legitimated: effectively holds
less power than is necessary when students can get away with misbehavior without
reconciliation to the community, and moreover may not understand the gravity of their

6. Gunn, 6
CSA Proposal
actions which has and will lead to further policy infractions. (iii) Students will more
likely be peer-pressured to be dishonest, face ridicule by their peers, and details of the
case can be divulged absent the discretion of all parties involved. (iv) Students have no
reason to appreciate the distinct nature of the PRB and experience untrue fear of the
system as a whole. This lack of information propagates misinformation and muddles any
chance of clarity towards the system and process.
3. Proposed solutions
Section 1: Expand existing PRB roles and The Residential Education Board7
(i) The creation of this third conduct board is to allow the PRB and SJB to focus on more
serious violations and would relieve some of the pressure the boards feel in higher traffic
times. It would also give fellow residents the opportunity to improve their communities
by holding their peers accountable for behavior that is negatively impacting the
community. All credit for this component of the proposal is due to the North Campus
Area Coordinator, Kolrick Greathouse. He outlines the Residential Educational Board’s
(REB) composition and case-severity guidelines as follows:
Section 1.1
REB shall be comprised of PC Reps, an AC silent advisor, and residents from each area
of campus (North, Cruger, Central & South)8
REB shall Hear Residence Hall related issues such as,
a) Fire violations
b) Repeated Noise/Community Disruptions
c) Low level alcohol violations
d) Smoking Violations
Section 1.2
7
Comments: “​Have you considered creating a parole list? I might not name it that but a list of students who have
infractions or warnings that's provided provided to the PCs. It's an understanding that the student should assist the
PC with dorm programming in order to make amends. The VC can check-in with the PCs via email whether
anything was attempted. I'm confident PCs would be more than happy for the assistance, an easy to make students
contribute back to their dorm, and set an example to their peers. For example: A resident can help the PC facilitate a
fire policy violation event if that's their infraction.”
8
​Comments: “​PCs are very active and I'm not sure if they would be willing to commit to another responsibility.
Especially if it’s another scheduled meeting. I also have qualms about un-elected/appointed members on a board for
BSG. I'm not sure how boards are organized but you should consider the workflow of the boards. In other words,
have all residential violations at the end of the day or beginning of the day. Or, have multiple boards going on
concurrently? I think creating another board could become very bureaucratic.”

7. Gunn, 7
CSA Proposal
(ii) The Student Advocate (SA) is now responsible for the communication between the
Board and the offending student. That is, their responsibilities will now go beyond
attending a weekly meeting and answering questions for the summoned student to
ensuring the student is informed and held accountable for their actions. The Vice Chair
(VC) will assume a more direct role as the assistant to the Chair and will aid in
facilitating new changes, conducting events, etc. I will create a simple way beyond
guidelines that will allow the Board to track student cases.
New duties
Student Advocate- ​If, for example, a student is assigned to talk to an administrator or
write a letter to their PC, etc, the SA or VC will (a) send an email to the administrator or
PC of interest, cc’ing the summoned student to notify them of the task, explicitly saying
“please respond with the outcome within two weeks of the date.” If no contact occurs,
they will (b) send a reminder email. If the student reportedly doesn’t go through with
their assigned task, the student will (c) be summoned to the PRB once again for
discussion. Irrespective of their reason for not completing the task (with the exception of
serious and/or personal circumstances) the student can face doubled restitution hours,
social probation, and referral to the SJB.
Vice Chair- ​The VC will now be required to attend at least every other hearing and will
provide assistance to the Chair with any of her/they/his/zer responsibilities as needed.
The VC is now explicitly the individual who will fill in indefinitely for the Chair if they
are absent, on medical leave, or resign for whatever reason.
New shared file
Maxient Companion file- ​A shared Excel file entitled, ‘Maxient Companion-PRB,’ will
be created. Listing each case from the start of the Fall 2016 school year, the file will be
used and edited by the Chair, Vice Chair, and SA, wherein details such as ‘name, year,
type of policy infraction, behavior during board, and completion of task’ will be placed in
respective columns. In sum, using this file is my way of compensating for some of the
more lackluster qualities of Maxient and doubling down on students completing their
punitive measures.
Section 2: Maximize student privacy
(iii) Although the Campus Center Red Room is a space that all students know of and can
find, its centrality and visibility render it a liability for student privacy. Furthermore, its
compromising of student privacy influences dishonest discussion among the summoned
student(s) and the PRB. For this reason, either a equally well-known, but more private

8. Gunn, 8
CSA Proposal
space will be selected for PRB cases and/or privacy screens will be purchased to block
openings whereby students can be visible to their peers and outsiders.9
Available rooms will be scouted prior to the start of the school year in spaces generally
well-known to students. If chosen to remain in current room, window measurements will
be taken and, at the discretion of the Chair, privacy panels will be purchased and stored in
the Student Government Office until put in use for cases on Fridays. Regardless of the
room selection, a white noise machine will be placed directly outside to ensure that the
discussion and proceedings are restricted to those in the room.
Section 3: ‘Get to know your Student Gov’t’ poster series
(iv) In collaboration with the Secretary of Press and SPARC, I will provide a guideline
for color, 11 x 17 posters to be made that detail PRB information along the lines of say,
‘What is the PRB? What does the PRB do? What makes conduct unique at Bard? Who
are the members of the Board?’ It is to the discretion of the above-mentioned
collaborators the design and ‘text-heaviness’ of the posters. Since the Judiciary Branch is
central to the operation of the college, I propose to have the posters placed in each
Residence Hall, the Campus Center and Kline Commons.
Section 4: Expansion of Restitution Hours
(v) Restitution hours will be assigned more liberally ranging from 4, 6-8, and 10-12 hours
contingent on the severity of the infraction respectively. The completion of restitution
hours will now be expanded to off-campus locations in an effort to mix reconciliation
with community-building and recreation. The location will vary, but will take place in the
Villages of either Red Hook or Tivoli dependent upon community event availability and
content.
Students and PRB members should be cognizant of what such restitution hours may
entail: for example, tree-planting, set-up and breakdown of arts and chocolate festivals,
volunteering with music events, etc. Having students assigned to such events will allow
them to pay their debt to the College and their community, be familiarized with local
residents and goings-on within the local community, and to develop a greater
appreciation for the world around them in a way in which ensures direct supervision,
convenience of location, and completion of the responsibility assigned.
By virtue of the nature of the restitution hours, liabilities need not be considered insofar
as they are absent intense manual labor and other forms of danger. In other words,
9
​Another thing to consider here is increasing the PRB budget from $150 to $250 to provide snacks for PRB
meetings. The purpose of which is to keep member morale high and facilitate a more relaxed environment for
summoned students.

9. Gunn, 9
CSA Proposal
students are no more than volunteers. The sole difference is that they have been assigned
the duty and will face further punitive measures if the duty proceeds uncompleted. It is
important to note, however, that although restitution hours are assigned at the discretion
of the Chair and the Board, the location of the community service will be chosen by the
summoned student(s).10
For off-campus restitution hours, a physical and electronic form will be created; whereas
for on-campus restitution hours a simple email will do. For the former: sent or given to
the summoned student, the form will need to be printed. Next, an email with a list of the
students assigned these special restitution hours will be sent to the community leader
facilitating the event to act as a roster. The student(s) will meet with the community
leader at the onset of the event to be checked off the list. Another option is to have either
the Chair, VC or SA attend the community event to briefly observe who came or who
didn’t come. At the end, the student’s form will be signed by the community leader and
returned to the Student Government Office within two weeks of the original assignment
of sanctions.11
Section 5: Last resort measures [tentative] 12
In rare cases, students have repeatedly not complied in the completion of assigned
disciplinary measures, committed further policy violations, and demonstrated negative or
perhaps egregious behavior towards the PRB. If such actions and behavior ensues, the
PRB reserves the right, with the discretion of the Chair of the SJB and DOSA, to
a) Refer the case to the SJB
b) Assign fines
The former shall require unanimous agreement by the PRB and all parties consulted
beforehand. The latter is last resort recourse which cannot and should not be determined
by the Board, but rather through the College.
10
​Comments: “​You should consider incentives for students to complete hours at off-campus locations. For example,
you can either spend 4 hours working for BoS or 2 hours volunteering in RH. Again, I'm not sure if students can
pick where they volunteer or if they're assigned but commuting may be difficult for some students or they may
reside in RH making it easier to complete hours.”
11
Comments: “​It might be helpful to talk to Brian or Erin to see what events they have every month and directing
students to complete hours at those events.”
12
​Why reserve the right to refer cases to the SJB or assign fines? In layman terms, and in only my opinion, the great
strength and great weakness of the restorative justice model is it doesn’t go far enough to lessen repeat offenses.
These two last resort measures ‘give the Board teeth’ and by making the latter measure purely at the discretion of the
College, it provides a proper check to the power exercised by the PRB and necessitates professional staff member
intervention and participation in matters wherein peer-to-peer conduct hearings do not suffice. Moreover, by the
intentionally bureaucratic nature of such last resort measures, their invocation would likely occur in a situation that
calls for heavier punitive measures.

10. Gunn, 10
CSA Proposal
4. Summary
The CSA provides an innovative way to streamline conduct board processes, hold
students accountable for their misbehavior and policy violations, challenges
misinformation about Bard’s judicial processes, increases student privacy, and reorients
the focus of punitive measures to restorative justice and the enrichment of Bard and the
local community. By putting forth these simple changes, we can expect a better
organized, more holistic approach to conduct at Bard.