Lennox gets reprimanded, files appeal
In response to a university reprimand, Topinabee junior Dennis Lennox II filed an appeal Monday via e-mail moving for an immediate dismissal of the charges.
A university official reprimanded Lennox after he was found in violation of three sections of the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Discipline Procedures on March 4.
CMU Conduct Proceedings Officer and Assistant Director of Student Life Thomas Idema e-mailed Lennox on March 4 stating he violated section 3.2.2 providing false information to a university official, section 3.2.15 not identifying oneself to a university agent when asked and section 3.2.32 distributing printed materials in violation of the Advocacy Policy from an Oct. 23 incident involving English Language and Literature professor Peter Koper.
"The university hopes in the future you will abide by the CMU Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Discipline Procedures," the letter of reprimand said. "More specifically, you will identify yourself correctly to university officials when asked to do so; you will be truthful in the information you provide to university officials; and you will adhere to all university regulations including the University Policies and Procedures Affecting Advocacy Activities."
The letter of reprimand outlined the right to appeal and Lennox had to appeal within five days, excluding Saturday and Sunday.
The Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures 5.4.2 lists an Appeal Board which consists of the Student Government Association President or designee, the chairperson of the Academic Senate or designee and the Dean of Students or designee.
Section 5.4.12 states the appeal board must hear the appeal within 15 business days from the date the appeal is made.
Central Michigan Life obtained a copy of Lennox's appeal, which consists of three components. Lennox said his family attorney and other lawyers assisted him.
First, he argues the closed meeting was in violation of the Open Meetings Act. However, Director of Student Life Tony Voisin said in an interview Friday that student disciplinary hearings are private hearings, so the Open Meetings Act does not apply.
"Because the respondent's lawful rights were violated by the capricious actions of petitioners, the charges and the verdict of the secret, closed-door hearing must be dismissed immediately," Lennox wrote in the appeal.
The Open Meetings Act 15.272 states a public official who intentionally violates the act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, and if convicted for a second time within the same term will be guilty of a misdemeanor and be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Lennox argues Voisin violated the act, and said he is waiting for his hearing process to come to a conclusion until any action will be taken, so he does not have to repeat any process. He said he will move forward as events warrant.
Second, Lennox said in the appeal that since he filed a privacy waiver with the Registrar's Office in fall 2005, he has the right to refuse disclosure of confidential information. So when Koper approached him Oct. 23, 2007, and asked for his name, he had the right to refuse a response.
Lennox appeals to the body by citing the evidence against him, Koper's complaint to Voisin, is inaccurate.
"The charges cannot move forward when the most fundamental component of an allegation, the time and date of occurrence, cannot be established in accordance with accepted rules and standards of evidence for admission in trials, hearings, or arbitration proceedings," Lennox said in the appeal.
He said he does not consider last week's hearing fair since he had no idea what went on or when it was.
"These are fundamental rights that all citizens have and the right students don't give up when they set foot on campus," Lennox said. "Obviously I'm relieved I wasn't expelled here, but a reprimand isn't acceptable."
The letter of reprimand noted since Lennox did not decide to participate in the scheduled Feb. 27 disciplinary hearing, specifically by refusing to surrender video and audio taping materials, the hearing proceeded as scheduled.
The letter listed future violations may result in further disciplinary action.
Voisin cannot discuss any student hearing took place because of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
"I'm not confirming that we're holding anything with anybody; you may be aware of information that has come through different sources, but CMU can't confirm any hearings and can't discuss any action that may be taken against any student," Voisin said.
Lennox said CMU should not have finalized the hearing over spring break because if he were vacationing he would have no chance to form an appeal within the five-day period, but Voisin said no hearings took place during spring break.
news@cm-life.com
