1. education
2. alumni and reunions

Sigma Nu Fraternity
Gamma Iota
422 Rose Lane
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40508
October 4, 2011
Dr. Joe Fink, Chair
University Appeals Board
292M College of Pharmacy Building
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
Original Delivered By Hand
Dear Dr. Fink,
In accordance with the University of Kentucky Student Code of Conduct, the Gamma Iota
Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity at the University of Kentucky respectfully appeals:
1. The decision of Associate Dean of Students Dana Macaulay as noted in the September
23, 2011, letter from Dean Macaulay to me and the decision of the University of
Kentucky Interfraternity Council (IFC) Judicial Board (of August 22, 2011) on which
Dean Macaulay’s decision was based. Copies of both decision letters are enclosed
(Appendices A and B, respectively).
2. The verbal instruction from Dean Macaulay to me, on September 16, 2011, that the
Gamma Iota Chapter must make a separate appeal to the University of Kentucky
Interfraternity Council of one specific portion of the IFC Judicial Board’s August 22,
2011 decision.
The Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity has been, for more than 100 years, and remains
today a caring and devoted member of the University of Kentucky community. We respect the
University community, including its policies and rules, and strive to honor the community in all
of our undertakings and activities. We recognize and understand that our chapter has a
responsibility to uphold the values and principles of Sigma Nu Fraternity and the University of
Kentucky and we take that responsibility seriously.
For these reasons, we believe that our Fraternity and the University of Kentucky should work in
partnership to confirm a mutually agreeable resolution to this matter of individual student
member misconduct. To that end, we propose a plan of action that is outlined at the end of this
letter.
The facts of this matter are simple and straightforward: Six individual student members of the
70-member Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity at the University of Kentucky
unlawfully entered the property and conducted an alcohol party in violation of the policies of the
chapter, the alumni house corporation and the University of Kentucky. This occurred during the
Page 1 of 11
summer break when only five collegiate members were residing in the home and on a night when
all five of these lawful residents were out-of-town. Further, it was discovered that an individual
member of this organization, in violation of the same policies, had illegally stored a small
amount of alcohol in his sleeping quarters at the chapter home.
The conclusions and decisions made in this matter by Dean Macaulay and the IFC Judicial Board
were both substantively and procedurally flawed, are not in keeping with the University Code of
Student Conduct nor with the purpose of the University of Kentucky disciplinary system and,
therefore, should be reversed. Specifically, these decisions should be reversed for the reasons
stated in this appeal.
Appeal Components
1. A complete lack of evidence to support the conclusion and decisions of the IFC Judicial
Board and Dean Macaulay.
2. Material due process errors and concerns.
3. Wrongful, arbitrary and excessive sanctioning that would unfairly penalize and
irreparably harm a large number of University of Kentucky students, alumni and their
fraternal associations and potentially threaten the related real estate asset.
4. Sanctioning that is purely punitive and devoid of any “learning experience” or “personal
growth” opportunities, both of which are expressed purposes of the University’s
disciplinary system (Student Code, Article II, #3).
I. Evidentiary Appeal Matters
The IFC failed to evaluate the evidence under the appropriate standard and also committed the
glaring error of stating that Sigma Nu had admitted guilt, when Sigma Nu had done no such
thing. We are at a loss to understand how the IFC Judicial Board failed, in this case, to adhere to
the standards of the University of Kentucky Code of Student Conduct regarding the evaluation of
evidence in judicial proceedings. Doing so would have clearly resulted in a different finding.
The conclusion of the IFC Judicial Board was based entirely upon their conclusion that I, as
representative of the Gamma Iota Chapter, made an admission during the hearing of chapter
responsibility for these violations.
The August 22, 2011, letter from Judicial Board Chairman Starnes to me states:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with the
Interfraternity Council Judicial Board regarding the
admitted violation of the University of Kentucky alcohol
policy. The board has reviewed your response in which the
chapter accepted responsibility for this violation.
[emphasis added]
Both of these sentences are false. Neither I nor the Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity
has ever admitted or accepted responsibility for a chapter violation of University policy, related
to this matter. To the contrary, we have strenuously and repeatedly denied that the chapter was
Page 2 of 11
responsible for the violations that occurred and we have presented overwhelming evidence that
proves our denial. I represented the chapter at the IFC Judicial Board Hearing and offered just
such a strenuous denial, repeatedly to the board. I also made the same denial in my August 9,
2011 (Appendix C), letter to Mr. Kelly Starnes in response to the charge letter issued by Mr.
Starnes on August 8, 2011 (Appendix D). I repeated this denial in my appeal meeting with Dean
Macaulay on September 16, 2011.
We are not aware of any explanation for the false statements in the letter from Mr. Starnes, on
behalf of the Judicial Board.
Whatever the reason for this material inaccuracy, it is clear that this wrongful conclusion by the
IFC Judicial Board led the board to assign harsh sanctions. Furthermore, it is clear that Dean
Macaulay’s decision regarding our appeal was based, in large part, on this wrongful conclusion
made by the IFC Judicial Board.
In addition to the foregoing error, the IFC Judicial Board and Dean Macaulay also failed to
evaluate the evidence according to the appropriate standard. The Code of Student Conduct of the
University of Kentucky states, “The burden of proof shall rest on the Complainant, and the
standard of proof shall be a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ (more likely than not).”
The Code of Student Conduct of the University of Kentucky further states:
48. A student group or an organization and its officers may
be held collectively responsible when violations of the
Code by those associated with the group or organization
have received the consent or encouragement of the group
or organization or the group's or organization's leaders or
officers. In addition, individuals of a student group or
organization may also be charged with a violation of this
Code. [emphasis added]
There exists no preponderance of evidence in this case that the Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma
Nu Fraternity gave, in any manner, its “consent or encouragement” to the violations that
occurred. Nor does there exist a preponderance of evidence that “the leaders or officers” of
Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity gave, in any manner, their “consent or
encouragement” of the violations that occurred.
The Gamma Iota Chapter had no knowledge whatsoever of either of these matters prior to their
occurrence and thus could not have encouraged or consented to them.
And, while two of the participants were non-executive officers at the time, their participation was
a direct violation of their oath of office and of chapter and house corporation policy.
Furthermore, their actions in this violation were outside the scope and authorization of their
officer positions and the chapter in no way authorized their actions, knew of them or condoned
them. Both of these individuals were summarily removed from their officer positions by the
Fraternity, in keeping with the Fraternity’s dedication to appropriate self-governance.
Page 3 of 11
All of this information was presented to the IFC Judicial Board during the hearing as it was
available at that time from the investigation the chapter had previously conducted in conjunction
and full cooperation with our General Fraternity and alumni leaders. All of this information was
also available to Dean Macaulay as part of the appeal proceeding.
Despite this, Dean Macaulay wrote in her September 23, 2011, letter, “More than half of the
residents of the house at this time were officers or former officers of the chapter.” That
statement is correct regarding the lawful residents at the time of the June incident. However,
Dean Macaulay’s letter fails to reference the fact that all of these lawful residents were out of
town when the June incident occurred and thus had no participation in the incident, in addition to
having no prior knowledge of it. This statement by Dean Macaulay creates a misperception that
is misleading and prejudicial to the Fraternity.
No evidence whatsoever exists that the Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity encouraged,
condoned, sponsored, paid for, endorsed, discussed, knew of in advance or assisted in planning
the violations that occurred in June and July. Furthermore, there is ample evidence of the swift
and unequivocal response and action taken by the Gamma Iota Chapter, its alumni leaders and
the General Fraternity upon learning of these violations.
To our knowledge, the University has not pursued any disciplinary action against the individual
students responsible for these violations. We do not know or understand why this is the case.
The preponderance of the evidence in this matter clearly shows that the Gamma Iota Chapter of
Sigma Nu Fraternity was not responsible for these violations of University of Kentucky policy
but that individual student members, acting on their own and in violation of University, chapter
and house corporation rules, were solely responsible for the violations.
On this basis alone, the decisions of Dean Macaulay and the IFC Judicial Board in this matter
should be completely reversed before any further harm is caused to the Gamma Iota Chapter of
Sigma Nu Fraternity.
II. Due Process Appeal Matters
A. The IFC was not the appropriate venue for the initial hearing and decision.
In an August 24, 2011 (Appendix E), email, Dean Macaulay explained that our case was
assigned to the IFC Judicial Board because the Dean of Students office had concluded that our
case was not “serious.” In light of this fact, it is incomprehensible that the Dean of Students
office would “revoke Sigma Nu’s status as a registered student organization” through December
31, 2012.
Loss, or potential loss, of University recognition is a very serious matter with far-reaching and
permanent implications for not only the student organization and its current student members,
but also the alumni members of the organization and the General (national) Fraternity. In our
case, loss of University recognition may also threaten the real estate asset of the Fraternity, our
chapter home. It is evident that the University’s Dean of Students office knew and understood
that this situation had the potential to result in a loss of University recognition for our chapter.
Page 4 of 11
Susan West, Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, told Fred Dobry, Director of Risk
Reduction of Sigma Nu General Fraternity, in discussing this matter initially during a July 19,
2011 telephone conversation, that the result of a chapter violation would most likely be “loss of
University recognition because they’re already on probation.”
Considering the obviously serious nature of this matter, we do not know why, or understand
why, our case was not assigned to the University’s Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Office, in
accordance with the internal policy as stated in Dean Macaulay’s August 24 email. We believe
that many of the subsequent due process failures as well as the wrongful conclusions by the IFC
Judicial Board could have likely been avoided if this matter had been originally assigned to the
Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Office. For instance, Dean Macaulay’s decision on the matter
would not have been based on the IFC’s decision, which erroneously stated that Sigma Nu had
admitted responsibility for the charges.
B. Sigma Nu was prejudiced by delayed proceedings.
This matter could have and should have been resolved much sooner and such timely resolution
would have prevented harm already caused to our chapter.
The first evidence in this case was apparently produced during an inspection of the chapter house
that took place on or about June 6, 2011, conducted by University of Kentucky Assistant Fire
Marshal Jason Ellis. A follow up inspection by Ellis and Susan West was conducted
approximately one month later, on or about July 5, 2011, and also produced some evidence.
For whatever reason, the first notice of any concern was not given to Sigma Nu by the University
until July 19, 2011, when Susan West contacted Fred Dobry of the General Fraternity staff and
Mike Herndon, chapter alumnus and president of the alumni house corporation by telephone.
Had notice of this situation been provided to the Fraternity immediately after the first inspection
and had the assigned jurisdiction been the Fraternity and Sorority Affairs office, this case could
have been accurately and appropriately resolved in a timely manner and the Gamma Iota Chapter
would have been able to fully participate in all activities at the outset of the fall 2011 academic
term, including the recruitment of new members.
Because of delays in notice and the assignment of the case to the IFC Judicial Board, the case
was not heard until August 22, 2011, eleven weeks after the first inspection and at the very
beginning of the fall term.
And while the filing of our first appeal of the IFC decision theoretically restored our ability to
participate in all activities, such as recruitment, we did not do so for two reasons: first, the
compilation and submission of a proper appeal in a timeframe that would have allowed us to
participate in recruitment was not feasible; and, second, we were advised by a University official
that our participation in recruitment would hurt the chances of our appeal succeeding because
doing so would send a signal that we assume we will win the appeal. This advice was clearly
inappropriate; yet we had no choice but to comply with it out of concern for our appeal.
Page 5 of 11
The harm caused to our chapter by not participating in the regular fall recruitment process could
have been avoided if these delays had not occurred and if our case had been assigned to the
Fraternity and Sorority Affairs office for prompt resolution. This harm – even if it was caused
unintentionally – constitutes a punishment that has already been imposed upon our chapter, but
should have been avoided.
C. The IFC failed to follow its own Judicial Board Procedures which was prejudicial to
Sigma Nu.
The document entitled IFC Judicial Board Procedures (Appendix F) was provided to us by the
IFC as the document that governs the proceedings of the IFC Judicial Board. Unfortunately, the
IFC Judicial Board did not adhere to several of its own procedures in handling our case.
This document states, among other things:
Prior to the Hearing
1. Before receipt of a signed, written notice of a
violation(s), the IFC Judicial Chairman, Assistant Dean
of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs and the Associate
Dean for Students and the Judicial Board shall meet to
determine the following:
a. Whether there is enough information to warrant
formal charges.
b. Whether formal charges should be brought
forward against the organization as an
organizational event, or individuals. Including,
but not limited to:
i. Would it appear like an organizational
event to an outsider?
ii. Was there a substantial amount of
membership involved?
iii. Did the officers have knowledge of the
event?
iv. Was the event advertised as a chapter
event?
v. Were chapter funds collected?
This portion of the document sets forth mandatory guidelines for determining whether a charge
should be made against an organization or against individuals. To our knowledge, these
questions were not answered – nor could they have been answered accurately based upon the
evidence available to the IFC Judicial Board Chairman, the Assistant Dean of Fraternity and
Sorority Affairs and the Associate Dean of Students – prior to the issuance of the August 8,
2011, notice of violations from the IFC Judicial Board Chairman. Answering these questions
would have required a relatively simple inquiry; yet, such an inquiry was never made.
The answer to each one of these questions is “no.” The violations that occurred were the sole
responsibility of the few individual student members involved in them. The remainder of the
Page 6 of 11
chapter’s membership was not only unaware and not involved, these members were not even
living at the property at the time because it was summer. The five members who were lawfully
residing in the property at that time, were all out-of-town. Neither the chapter nor its officer
corps had any knowledge of the planned violations beforehand. The violations were not in any
way advertised as a chapter event. And no chapter funds were collected or spent related to the
event.
Had these mandatory guidelines been followed, it would have been apparent to a reasonable
reviewer of fact that organizational charges against our chapter should never have been “brought
forward,” but that judicial proceedings against individual student members (by the University
and Fraternity) would have been the appropriate response.
D. An error in IFC correspondence was prejudicial to Sigma Nu.
Worsening matters, the written notice of violations from the IFC Judicial Board Chairman, dated
August 8, 2011, contained a prejudicial error in the following sentence:
IFC received a report from the UK Fire Marshal’s office
which shows evidence that large amounts of alcohol were
noted in the Sigma Nu Fraternity house located at Rose
Lane during two fire inspections in June and July of 2011.
This sentence states that on two separate occasions, one in June and one in July, “large amounts”
of alcohol were noted in the chapter house. This is not correct. According to the July 6, 2011,
email from Susan West to Dana Macaulay-Walton and Lance Broeking (Appendix G), Jason
Ellis reported to her that during an inspection in June he saw evidence of alcohol beverages.
While there exists no known photographic evidence of this observation, we believe the
observation is accurate – from our own efforts to investigate these matters – and we have openly
and readily admitted that our information shows that a group of non-resident individuals, without
the knowledge of and without any authorization or approval from the chapter or our alumni
house corporation, unlawfully entered the chapter house and consumed some amount of alcohol
on or about June 5, 2011.
The same July 6, 2011, email goes on to state that on July 5, 2011, Susan West and Jason Ellis
returned to the Sigma Nu house to determine if this “room had been cleaned up and addressed.”
The email further states, “We found no violations until we entered room 25…I did observe 3
bottles of alcohol in the room. One was completely empty and the other two had alcohol still in
the bottles.” The photographs attached to Susan West’s July 6, 2011, email reveal that the
amount of alcohol found in room 25 was quite small (Appendix H).
Clearly, the report received by the IFC does not “show evidence that large amounts of alcohol
were noted in the Sigma Nu Fraternity house” on two occasions, “in June and July of 2011,” as
asserted by the IFC Judicial Chairman in his August 8, 2011, letter.
The concern with this error is that it creates the inaccurate perception that there had been two
separate events or activities at the chapter house where “large” amounts of alcohol were present.
Page 7 of 11
We believe this error wrongfully influenced the members of the IFC Judicial Board and
contributed to their wrongful conclusion.
E. The IFC Judicial Board failed to disclose its evidence to Sigma Nu and also failed to
record the hearing.
The IFC Judicial Board made two additional errors that had a material impact on this case which
was prejudicial to Sigma Nu.
Despite the fact that the IFC Constitution clearly states that all evidence to be used in an IFC
Judicial Hearing be presented to the organization accused of wrongdoing one week in advance of
the hearing, this did not occur. In fact, the evidence used in this matter was not presented to our
chapter until the day of the hearing and then, even after the hearing had commenced.
This failure denied our chapter the opportunity to review and fully consider the evidence in
advance of the hearing, a concept fundamental to ensuring fairness as part of a competent
judicial process.
To our knowledge, no recording of the hearing of our case by the IFC Judicial Board was made.
We did not specifically understand this to be the case at the time of the hearing; we assumed that
a recording was being made. Considering the basis stated for the finding of the IFC Judicial
Board in this matter, it is clear that a recording of the hearing would have been beneficial for
Sigma Nu.
F. It is prejudicial to Sigma Nu to require the Fraternity to appeal a portion of the original
punishment to the University of Kentucky Interfraternity Council.
Despite receiving specific earlier instructions, in writing, to the exact contrary, I was informed
during my September 16, 2011 appeal meeting with Dean Macaulay that Sigma Nu would have
to appeal the original IFC sanction that revoked Sigma Nu’s IFC membership until 2013.
The IFC Judicial Board’s decision letter from Mr. Kelly Starnes states:
You may request a review of this decision within seven business days from the
date of this letter. Your request for review should be in writing and should be
submitted to Dana Walton-Macaulay, Associate Dean of Students, 513 Patterson
Office Tower.
The letter made no mention of any need to appeal, or request review of, any matter to the IFC.
On two separate occasions, August 24, 2011, and August 25, 2011, Dean Macaulay sent emails
that advised that an appeal of the IFC Judicial Board’s decision should be directed to her and
would be decided by her. These emails (Appendix I) were sent in response to direct inquiries
from our General Fraternity, one of which specifically noted the fact that there were two parts of
the IFC Judicial Board’s decision and questioned whether appeal of both of them could and
should be made together.
Page 8 of 11
It is unreasonable, inappropriate and prejudicial for Sigma Nu to be directed to bifurcate its
appeal of the original decision of the IFC Judicial Board. The University of Kentucky Student
Code of Conduct is clear that the University Appeals Board will be the final appeal body for the
University disciplinary system.
III. Wrongful Sanctioning
The sanction imposed upon Sigma Nu is excessive and void of any educational or student
development value.
Even if Sigma Nu were responsible for any violation of University policy in this matter, the
punishment that has been imposed is excessive and is void of any opportunity for the education
and development of the University students that would be affected by it.
As members of the University community, we are compelled to express our concerns regarding
this punishment.
The University of Kentucky Code of Student Conduct states that the “purpose” of the
University’s “disciplinary system” is:
…a learning experience that can result in personal growth
as well as an understanding of the responsibilities that
accompany participation in an academic community.
The sanctions imposed by the IFC Judicial Board – revocation of membership in the
Interfraternity Council and recommended loss of status as a registered student organization of the
University of Kentucky – are divorced from this purpose as they are completely devoid of any
opportunity for personal growth or student development and, on these grounds alone, should be
summarily rejected by University officials.
Furthermore, in these circumstances, the imposition of these sanctions upon the Gamma Iota
Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity would cause irreparable personal, financial and/or academic
harm to more than 70 current undergraduate students of the University of Kentucky and more
than 1500 living alumni of the University of Kentucky.
IV. Recommended Resolution
Sigma Nu Fraternity is built upon a firm foundation of honorable self-governance and
partnerships with host institutions. Our Fraternity expects every individual member to hold
himself accountable to the principles and policies of the Fraternity. Yet, just like the colleges
and universities of which our members are students, we are not able to force or compel
individual students to comply with institutional policies and rules. When a Fraternity member
does fail in such an obligation, his collegiate chapter must respond in an appropriate manner to
ensure accountability, like a college or university must do. When a chapter fails to hold a
member accountable – or is unable to do so for whatever reason – the General Fraternity of
Sigma Nu works in partnership with alumni leaders and host institution officials to address the
Page 9 of 11
problems presented in a manner intended to be educational and supportive of the positive
development of our student members.
Our goal is to reach a mutually-agreeable, amicable resolution of this matter that will strengthen
our chapter, the University of Kentucky Interfraternity Council and the greater University of
Kentucky community, for the benefit of us all.
In keeping with our practice of honorable self-governance, upon being made aware of evidence
of these violations, the Gamma Iota Chapter, the alumni house corporation and the General
Fraternity took immediate action to conduct a proper investigation to identify the individuals
involved in and solely responsible for the violations. The collegiate leadership of the Gamma
Iota Chapter – in consultation with and with the support of its alumni leaders and General
Fraternity – immediately removed from office the two individual chapter officers involved in the
violations and began to make plans for judicial disciplinary proceedings for all individual
members involved in the violations.
Because it was summer, these judicial proceedings were planned to occur as soon as possible
when the fall academic term resumed.
Because the misconduct raised concerns about the level of understanding and acceptance of
organizational policies among the membership, in addition to the judicial proceedings, the
chapter leaders, alumni leaders and General Fraternity planned a process whereby each member
of the organization would be interviewed by a member of the alumni leadership team and the
General Fraternity staff to ensure such understanding and acceptance (Appendix J).
Furthermore, the Gamma Iota Chapter agreed to being placed under the receivership authority of
its alumni leaders for a period of 90 days, as a precautionary measure to ensure that all collegiate
members were sincere in their commitment to the success of the organization.
The plan of action described above has already been partially completed and was fully conveyed
to the IFC Judicial Board and the University of Kentucky Dean of Students office, prior to the
August 22, 2011, hearing. We are prepared to complete the plan of action as soon as all judicial
matters with the University are resolved. We are eager to do so now and were eager to do so
upon first learning of this matter.
Although he was initially supportive of this plan of action and amenable to delaying any IFC
Judicial Board hearing until the plan could be carried out in mid-September, Mr. Starnes changed
his mind, without explanation, and reported that the IFC Judicial Hearing would occur on August
22, 2011, allowing no time for membership interviews.
Considering all facts of this situation, we believe that this plan of action is reflective of the
purpose of student organizations at the University of Kentucky, is reflective of the shared belief
in student and organizational self-governance and is reflective of the purposes and values of
Sigma Nu Fraternity at the University of Kentucky. Therefore, the decisions of the IFC Judicial
Board and Dean Macaulay should be rejected and the University should endorse and support this
plan of action as the appropriate response in this matter.
Page 10 of 11
We respectfully ask that this appeal be immediately granted.
Respectfully Submitted,
Daniel Roberts
Commander (President)
Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity
University of Kentucky
cc: Susan West, UK Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
Vinny Sandy, UK Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
Robert Mock, UK Vice President for Student Affairs
Victor Hazard, UK Dean of Students
Mr. Kelly Starnes, UK Interfraternity Council Judicial Board Chairman
Taylor Franklin, UK Interfraternity Council President
Barbara Jones, UK General Counsel
Mike Herndon, House Corporation President
Steve Garcia, Chapter Advisor
Brad Beacham, Executive Director
Fred Dobry, Director of Risk Reduction
Tim Braddick, Director of Fraternal Operations
Arthur Hoge, Esq.
Chad Meredith, Esq.
Appendices:
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
G:
H:
I:
J:
September 23, 2011, letter from Dean Macaulay to Daniel Roberts
August 22, 2011, letter from Kelly Starnes to Daniel Roberts
August 9, 2011, letter from Daniel Roberts to Kelly Starnes
August 8, 2011, letter from Kelly Starnes to Daniel Roberts
August 24, 2011, email from Dean Macaulay to Brad Beacham
University of Kentucky IFC Judicial Board Procedures
July 6, 2011, email from Dean Susan West
July 6, 2011, photos attached to email from Dean Susan West
August 24 and 25, 2011, emails from Dean Macaulay to Brad Beacham
October 4, 2011, letter from Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc. to Dr. Joe Fink
Page 11 of 11
Appendix A
September 23, 2011
Daniel Robinson, President
Sigma Nu Gamma Iota Chapter
422 Rose Lane
Lexington, KY 40508
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for taking time to meet with me in the matter of the alcohol found in the Sigma Nu house
during the summer. I have reviewed: the report from Assistant Dean Susan West and Assistant Fire
Marshall Jason Ellis, the photos taken by them during the house inspections, the terms of the probation
dated October 5, 2010, which is currently in effect, and my notes from our conversation last Friday.
Considerable weight was given to the recommendation of the IFC Judicial Board after their hearing and
deliberations over this matter.
Through my investigation into the incident, I find that the conduct of the residents of the house during
the summer violated the Code of Student Conduct.
More than half of the residents of the house at this time were officers or former officers of the chapter.
All members of the chapter were on notice that any conduct would be closely scrutinized. In addition,
the residents of the house did not take corrective action upon realizing there was alcohol in the house.
The failure of the chapter leadership to adequately communicate the importance of complying with the
alcohol policy leaves great doubt whether chapter leadership can adequately direct the chapter towards
appropriate behavior in the future.
At this time I am revoking Sigma Nu’s status as a registered student organization, through December 31,
2012. You will be eligible for reinstatement as a student organization after your chapter has been
inactive for this period of time, provided all other requirements for good standing as a social fraternity
are met.
Any current members who wish to be considered for membership on the newly-organized group must
have undergone a thorough interview with appropriate Sigma Nu national representatives in order to
determine their eligibility for inclusion. If any current members are included in the newly-organized
group, the organization will return under disciplinary probation for one year after reinstatement.
No new student organizations will be registered by the University that consist, wholly or in significant
proportion, of the current members of the chapter during the period of suspension. If any “sub rosa”
group is found to exist, the period of suspension may be extended at the discretion of the Dean of
Students office.
After the suspension period, if the chapter returns to its current facility, the chapter will be required to
have its house director approved by the Fraternity and Sorority Affairs office. The Chapter must
continue under supervision by the Alumni (receivership) for one year after it returns from suspension.
You may request a review of this decision within 7 class days from the date of this letter. Your request
for review should be in writing and submitted to Dr. Joe Fink, Chair of the University Appeals Board,
292M College of Pharmacy Building. Your request for review must clearly state the reason for the
request.
Sigma Nu has been a valued partner with the University of Kentucky for many years. Unfortunately, the
repeated failure of the chapter to comply with University policies on alcohol possession and
consumption is dangerous and cannot be allowed to continue. I sincerely hope this period of
suspension will achieve the ends desired by all involved, including the University, Sigma Nu, and chapter
alumni: a fraternity that exemplifies the high ideals on which the fraternity was founded. I strongly
encourage the group to reflect on what is needed to achieve that goal.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Dana Macaulay
Associate Dean of Students
cc:
Victor Hazard, Dean of Students
Chris Hartlage, UK Inter-Fraternity Council President
Fred Dobry, Director of Risk Reduction, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Susan West, Director of Fraternity & Sorority Affairs
Vinny Sandy, Assistant Director of Fraternity & Sorority Affairs.
Steve Garcia, Chapter Advisor & Alumni Board Chair, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Mike Herndon, House Corporation President, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Jim Garrison, Regional Director, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Brad Beacham, Executive Director, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Joe Gileman, National President, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Appendix B
N1d817:1.
ink! a1 !1 P'^! 93 4
.11
Additionally, F all 2013 recruitment shall not be run solely by undergraduate returning members
of the Gamma Iota chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity. At the time of this reinstatement, all
recruitment activities must be monitored and authorized by a member from Sigma Nu national
headquarters or by their local alumni designee..
You may request a review of this decision within seven business days from the date of this letter.
Your request for review should be in writing and should be submitted to Dana Walton-Macaulay,
Associate Dean of Students, 513 Patterson Office Tower. Your request for review must clearly
state the reason for the appeal.
Sigma Nu has been a valued partner with the University of Kentucky for many years.
Unfortunately, the serious nature of the alcohol policy violation coupled with the failure of the
chapter to comply with University and Interfiaternity Council policies on alcohol consumption
and possession is dangerous and cannot be allowed to continue. I sincerely hope this will
achieve the ends desired by all involved, including the University, Sigma Nu, IFC and chapter
alumni: a fraternity that exemplifies the high ideals on which the fraternity was founded.
Sincerely,
Kelly Starnes
IFC Judicial Board Chairman
cc:
zd
Victor Hazard, Dean of Students
Dana Walton-Macaulay, Associate Dean of Students
Susan West, Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
Vinny Sandy, Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
Taylor Franklin, IFC President
Chris Hartlage, IFC Executive Vice President
Lu Johnson, House Director, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Steve Garcia , Chapter Advisor, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Mike Herndon, House Corporation President, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Brad Beacham, Executive Director, Sigma Nu Fraternity
Tim Braddick, Director of Fraternal Operations, Sigma Nu Fraternity
dog z0 t 6 ZZ 6nV
Appendix C
August 9, 2011
Mr. Kelly Starnes, IFC Judicial Board Chairman
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40508
Dear Mr. Starnes:
Thank you for informing us of the current charges against our organization. Our chapter
leadership has reviewed the activities which have led to the violation of the University’s student
code of conduct. After much investigation we would like to deny the chapter’s responsibility for
the charges. Individuals, unbeknownst nor associated with chapter leadership nor the chapter as a
whole, consumed alcohol on the chapter property on the dates prior to the fire inspections in June
and July of 2011.
In accordance with quorum requirements outlined in our chapter bylaws, we are unable to
conduct judicial hearings for these individuals until the beginning of the fall semester. In the
interim, the Executive Director has temporarily suspended these members pending the outcome
of the chapter’s judicial action. In addition to chapter judicial action, Gamma Iota House
Corporation has prohibited the involved members from living in the chapter house in the future.
The House Corporation has also ruled to not allow the chapter house to be open for next summer.
We intend to handle these matters in a timely and thorough manner, but would like to
respectfully request that the IFC judicial hearing be delayed until no earlier than August 22nd.
The reason for this request is that I will be out of the country until no earlier the 19th. It will be
impossible for my attendance to the hearing unless the postponement request is granted.
Sincerely
Daniel Roberts
Commander Sigma Nu
Appendix D
August 8, 2011
Mr. Daniel Roberts, President
Sigma Nu Fraternity, University of Kentucky
422 Rose Lane
Lexington, KY 40508
Dear Mr. Roberts:
The Interfraternity Council along with the Dean of Students Office recently received a report regarding a
possible violation of the University’s Code of Student Conduct during activities associated with the
Sigma Nu Fraternity at the University of Kentucky. IFC received a report from the UK Fire Marshal’s
office which shows evidence that large amounts of alcohol were noted in the Sigma Nu Fraternity house
located at Rose Lane during two fire inspections in June and July of 2011. Based on the information
provided, I have concluded that evidence exists with which to charge your organization with the
following violations of the University’s Code of Student Conduct:
Part I Article II – Section 8
R. Violation of other published University regulations or policies. Such regulations or policies include, but
are not limited to, policies regarding computer use, alcohol, tobacco, hazing, entry and use of University
facilities as well as regulations governing student organizations and residence halls.
Part IV
C. Alcoholic beverages are not permitted in undergraduate housing leased from and supervised by the
University. This includes residence halls, Fraternities, Sororities, and the undergraduate section of
Greg Page Apartments. The intent of this regulation is the promotion and maintenance of an
Environment conducive to study for its residents, the vast majority of whom are under twenty-one
years of age.
D. Violation of this regulation may result indiscipline under the Student Code of Conduct or termination
of the housing contract, or both.
E. House corporations which supervise Greek chapter houses on property leased from the University
Are expected to establish house rules consistent with civil law and University regulations and are
responsible for ensuring compliance by house residents.
In regard to article 2 sections R., and part 4 sections C., D., and E. the information I have reviewed
provides evidence that members of your organization allowed or engaged in activities consistent with
the consumption of alcohol inside the Sigma Nu Fraternity House located at 422 Rose Lane.
It should also be noted that the above is a violation of Sigma Nu’s social suspension sanctioned in
October 2010.
Please provide a written response, either accepting or denying these charges, by August 11, 2011.
Should you choose to deny any of these charges, please provide a detailed rationale or explanation of
your reasons for such denial.
Sincerely,
Kelly Starnes
IFC Judicial Board Chairman
Cc:
Victor Hazard, Dean of Students
Dana Walton-Macaulay, Associate Dean of Students
Susan West, Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
Taylor Franklin, University of Kentucky Inter-Fraternity Council President
Chris Hartlage, University of Kentucky Inter-Fraternity Council Vice President
Lu Johnson, Sigma Nu House Director
Steve Garcia, Sigma Nu Chapter Advisor
Mike Herndon, Sigma Nu House Corporation President
Brad Beacham, Executive Director
Page 1 of 5
Appendix E
From:
Walton-Macaulay, Dana [[email protected]]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:55 AM
To:
Fred Dobry; Sandy, Vincente P
Cc:
West, Susan; Hazard, Victor; Brad Beacham; 'Garcia, Stephen'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; 'Daniel Roberts'
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Here is the process for student organizations under the Code of Student Conduct:
With regard to greek letter organizations, we will let the IFC Judicial Board hear cases, and make appropriate
sanctions, except in serious cases (as determined by the associate dean). In those cases, the greek affairs office
will take appropriate action on behalf of the university.
That action will be subject to review by the associate dean (by appeal letter submitted within 7 business days
from the date of the outcome), and that action will be subject to appeal to the UAB (see Sections 50 and 42 of
the Code).
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Regards,
Dana Macaulay
From: Fred Dobry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:47 AM
To: Sandy, Vincente P
Cc: West, Susan; Walton-Macaulay, Dana; Hazard, Victor; Brad Beacham; 'Garcia, Stephen';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Daniel Roberts'
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Dear Vinny,
Thank you for your email below.
As we work with our alumni leaders and advise the collegiate chapter, we would like to review all relevant
information. So, we would like to receive all information and "documentation" regarding the "internal policy" that
you have referenced. We would appreciate receiving this material as soon as possible since any appeal must be
made in very short order. If possible, please let us know when we should expect to receive the material, for our
planning purposes.
We appreciate your help with these matters, Vinny.
Best Regards,
Fred
______________________________________
Fred Dobry
Director of Risk Reduction
Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc.
10/4/2011
Page 2 of 5
Excelling with Honor
9 N. Lewis St.
P.O. Box 1869
Lexington, VA 24450
Phone: 540.463.1869 ext. 550
Fax: 540.463.1669
Cell: 540.319.1393
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.sigmanu.org
______________________________________
-----Original Message----From: Sandy, Vincente P [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 6:19 PM
To: Fred Dobry
Cc: West, Susan; Walton-Macaulay, Dana; Hazard, Victor; Brad Beacham; 'Garcia, Stephen';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Fred,
Thank you for your review of the IFC Constitution and bringing this to my attention. I appreciate it being
brought up because this is a great opportunity for me as I am still learning about the policies and
procedures here at UK. After doing some further research into the situation, I have realized that the
Section and Item which you are referring to would apply to IFC Constitutional violations but would not
be the same appeal process for situations which violate the Code of Student Conduct. For that, I have
discovered that there is an internal (Dean of Students) policy previously created.
This internal policy is for situations under the jurisdiction of the Dean of Students (which would be a
Code of Student Conduct Violation). The Dean of Students office has allowed the hearing to go to the IFC
Judicial Board in a good faith effort to allow IFC to be self-governing, as well as seek their
recommendation. For this reason, the appeal would go to the Dean of Students. Initially, the Dean of
Students would have seen this case without any IFC recommendations or input, but now, they have
opted to seek their peer input.
If you would like to know more about our Dean of Students office, we can provide email documentation
from Dana Macaulay, Associate Dean of Students, regarding information on the aforementioned internal
policy. It is her responsibility to interpret and enforce the Code of Student Conduct.
I think at this point, it would be in my position to advise our students to further outline and clarify in our
IFC Constitution this distinction which has been raised.
Please let me know if you have any further questions on the matter and I would be happy to assist.
10/4/2011
Page 3 of 5
Fraternally,
Vinny
Vinny Sandy
Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
575 Patterson Office Tower
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
office: 859-257-3151
From: Fred Dobry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:02 PM
To: Sandy, Vincente P
Cc: Brad Beacham; 'Garcia, Stephen'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Vinny,
Thank you for your time on the phone yesterday and sending me the policies related to the University’s
judicial process to be used for the current case involving the Gamma Iota Chapter.
I have reviewed the IFC Constitution and Student Code of Conduct and had a question regarding the
appeals process. Section VI, Item 5 (Judicial Appeals) of the IFC Constitution outlines an appeal process
that would go through the entire IFC delegation, and then upon a 2/3 vote, would go to the IFC Executive
Board for review. Does the chapter have an opportunity to use this appeal process?
Thanks again for your help.
Fred
______________________________________
Fred Dobry
Director of Risk Reduction
Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc.
Excelling with Honor
9 N. Lewis St.
P.O. Box 1869
Lexington, VA 24450
Phone: 540.463.1869 ext. 550
Fax: 540.463.1669
Cell: 540.319.1393
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.sigmanu.org
______________________________________
10/4/2011
Page 4 of 5
-----Original Message----From: Sandy, Vincente P [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 6:16 PM
To: Fred Dobry
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Hey Fred,
It was great to speak with you today and please don’t hesitate to ask any further questions.
Here are the resources you’ve requested.
Vinny
Student Code of Conducthttp://www.uky.edu/StudentAffairs/Code/part1.html
IFC Constitution and Bylawshttp://kentuckyifc.com/images/stories/IFC_Constitution_March_2011.pdf
Vinny Sandy
Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
575 Patterson Office Tower
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
office: 859-257-3151
From: Fred Dobry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 5:19 PM
To: Sandy, Vincente P
Cc: Brad Beacham
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Hi Vinny,
I just tried to reach you but understand the office may be closed now.
If possible, please call me on my cell phone at (540) 319-1393. I would like to talk about the
chapter’s plans to file for an appeal and the impact, if any, these plans may have on the chapter’s
ability to participate in tonight’s IFC recruitment event.
I look forward to talking with you.
Thanks,
Fred
______________________________________
Fred Dobry
Director of Risk Reduction
Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc.
Excelling with Honor
9 N. Lewis St.
10/4/2011
Page 5 of 5
P.O. Box 1869
Lexington, VA 24450
Phone: 540.463.1869 ext. 550
Fax: 540.463.1669
Cell: 540.319.1393
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.sigmanu.org
______________________________________
-----Original Message----From: Sandy, Vincente P [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 3:31 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Brad
Beacham; Fred Dobry; Timothy J. Braddick
Cc: West, Susan; Walton-Macaulay, Dana; Franklin, Taylor Y
Subject: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
All,
Attached is a copy of the letter which has been submitted from the IFC Judicial Board
chairman, Kelly Starnes, to the chapter president, Daniel Roberts, of the Gamma Iota
Chapter of Sigma Nu. The chapter received this letter today, releasing the findings and
decision of the Judicial Boards’ hearing which occurred earlier this morning.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions comments and/or
concerns about this process.
Sincerely,
Vinny
Vinny Sandy
Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
575 Patterson Office Tower
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
office: 859-257-3151
10/4/2011
Appendix F
Judicial Board Hearing Procedures
Prior to the Hearing
1. Before receipt of a signed, written notice of a violation(s), the IFC Judicial Chairman, Assistant Dean of
Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, and the Associate Dean for Student and the Judicial Board shall meet to
determine the following:
a. Whether there is enough information to warrant formal charges.
b. Whether formal charges should be brought forward against the organization as a
organizational event, or individuals.
Including but not limited to:
1. Would it appear like an organizational event to an outsider?
2. Was there a substantial amount of membership involved?
3. Did the officers have knowledge of the event?
4. Was the event advertised as a chapter event?
5. Were chapter funds collected?
c. What specific charges, if any, should be brought forward?
d. The date of the hearing, if formal charges for an organization are being brought forward.
3. If formal charges are being brought forward, a charge letter is sent to the organization
specifying the charges and the date and time of the hearing.
2. After the hearing and deliberation a recommended course of action will be solidified and the IFC
Judicial Board Hearing may be scheduled.
3. Should a hearing be needed, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Board Chairman to assure that the 6
Judicial Board members and the Executive Vice President of the Interfraternity Council are in accordance
with the chosen hearing date and to notify the accused chapter formally in writing of both the charges and
the date. The Executive Vice President must also present the evidence to the Judicial Board and the
charged party one week prior to the case date.
4. The Judicial Board Chairman must review all relevant background information with his committee, to
establish a chronological sequence of events and create possible questions that could be necessary
when hearing the case.
During the Hearing
1. The Judicial Board Chairman should introduce all those present, including the 6 board members,
chapter representatives, IFC Executive Vice President and any further people in attendance that are
necessary to the hearing.
2 The Judicial Board Chairman must deliver a confidentiality statement and require that all those present
to offer an account of the incident in question must tell only the truth. Then he should ask if there are any
questions regarding this.
3. The Judicial Board Chairman then asks all witnesses to leave the room with the board members, the
accused chapter and the IFC executive vice president remaining.
4. The charges against the accused chapter should then be read as stated in the incident report form.
5. It is then the responsibility of the IFC Executive Vice President to present the full case against the
accused chapter, including any witnesses or pieces of evidence. Following each witness's account, the
accused will have the opportunity to briefly question the witness. This is followed by questions from the
board for the witness. Finally, when the executive vice president has completed his entire presentation,
the accused will have the opportunity to briefly ask questions, once again followed by the judicial board.
6. The accused chapter will then be able to present its defense, including witnesses and any further
evidence in their support. After each witness's account, the executive vice president will be able to ask
questions. This is followed by the judicial board's questioning of each witness. Finally, at the conclusion of
the accused's entire defense, the executive vice president has the opportunity to question the accused,
followed by the judicial board.
7. After each witness completes his account during the hearing, he is asked to leave the room.
8. Following the executive vice president and the accused's presentation, any final questions the board
members may have, can be answered at that time.
9. The executive vice president is then allowed to give a brief final statement to summarize his
prosecution. This is followed by the accused chapter's representative offering their final statement.
10. Finally, both parties are thanked for their cooperation during the proceedings and then excused, while
given the choice to wait for a decision or leave.
After the Hearing
1. Allow a brief period for all board members to write down their thoughts and consider their conclusions.
2. Determine first, as a group, if the hearing was clear and conclusive, and if so, then determine if the
accused chapter is innocent or guilty of the charges at hand through discussion and finally a vote. In the
case of a tie, the Judicial Board Chairman shall provide the tie breaking vote.
3. Should a verdict of guilty be decided upon, an appropriate sanction must be found through a
consensus decision making process.
4. Present the findings and rationale behind the decision of the board to the accused chapter in writing,
whereby, indicating the formal process of appeals, should the verdict be guilty.
5. The formal letter of decision should be filed in the IFC Judicial Board file of all hearings that are held.
6. Finally, it is the responsibility of the Executive Vice President to assure that the imposed sanctions are
being followed by the chapter should they be found guilty.
Appendix G
Appendix H
Photos attached to July 6, 2011, email from Dean Susan West:
(1)
(2)
Page 1 of 10
Appendix I
From:
Brad Beacham
Sent:
Monday, October 03, 2011 7:54 PM
To:
Nicholas L. Murphy; Fred Dobry
Subject: Fwd: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Walton-Macaulay, Dana" <[email protected]>
Date: August 25, 2011 8:21:07 AM EDT
To: Brad Beacham <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Good morning Brad,
1.
This policy was implemented last year; we began using it in December. It is not “published”, but
is part of the Code of Student Conduct process for adjudicating student organization conduct cases.
IFC informed organizations of the policy through regular meetings, as they adopted a new
constitution.
2.
Yes you are correct. My evaluation determines whether a case is serious or not.
3.
The Judicial Board’s decision is forwarded to me to review. If the organization would like to meet
with me or to submit more information for me to consider, then they can do so. After I review the
IFC Judicial Board decision, then the organization can appeal my decision to the University
Appeals Board.
4.
I cannot advise whether the chapter should or should not recruit new members during this period.
However, I would encourage the chapter to be upfront with potential new members about the status
of the chapter should they decide to recruit.
5.
The students are free to review the Dean of Students file in my office, but we do not provide copies
of anything in that file. It is possible that IFC Judicial Board has a separate file, but I do not know
what their policy/constitution says about releasing information in that file if they have one.
Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Regards,
Dana Macaulay
10/4/2011
Page 2 of 10
Associate Dean of Students
From: Brad Beacham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:11 PM
To: Walton-Macaulay, Dana
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Hello Dana,
Thanks. Fred is tied up this afternoon on other matters. We appreciate the additional information, but I have
some follow up questions:
1. When was the policy adopted and when/how were Greek organizations informed of the policy? Was it
published as some sort of larger document?
2. The policy says that "we will let the IFC Judicial Board hear cases, and make appropriate sanctions,
except in serious cases (as determined by the associate dean)." I assume that "we" is the University of
Kentucky Dean of Students office, but please confirm if this assumption is correct. Also, regarding the
pending matter for the Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity at the University of Kentucky, based on
the fact that the IFC heard this case, I assume that means that the case was not deemed serious by the
"associate dean." Is that a correct assumption and what process is used to determine if a case is serious or
not?
3. The IFC decision appears to have two parts: the first being an immediate loss of status as a member of
the IFC and the second being a recommendation that University recognition be revoked. Is the chapter able
to appeal both parts of the decision, although the second part is a recommendation that has not yet been
acted upon (to my knowledge)?
4. We understand from Vinny that if/when the chapter files an appeal of the IFC decision, the chapter's
status will be restored to normal pending the outcome of the appeal. Assuming that is true, is there any
reason that the chapter should not recruit new members during that period of time?
5. We are trying to obtain a copy of all the evidence used in this matter. Can you provide us with the
inspection reports and any other evidence?
Thank you for your assistance in helping us answer these questions.
10/4/2011
Page 3 of 10
Best Regards,
Brad
______________________________________
Brad Beacham
Executive Director
Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc.
Excelling with Honor
9 N. Lewis St.
P.O. Box 1869
Lexington, VA 24450
Phone: 540.463.1869
Fax: 540.463.1669
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.sigmanu.org
<image001.jpg>
______________________________________
<image002.jpg>
-----Original Message----From: Walton-Macaulay, Dana [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:55 AM
To: Fred Dobry; Sandy, Vincente P
Cc: West, Susan; Hazard, Victor; Brad Beacham; 'Garcia, Stephen'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; 'Daniel Roberts'
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Here is the process for student organizations under the Code of Student Conduct:
With regard to greek letter organizations, we will let the IFC Judicial Board hear cases, and
make appropriate sanctions, except in serious cases (as determined by the associate dean). In
those cases, the greek affairs office will take appropriate action on behalf of the university.
That action will be subject to review by the associate dean (by appeal letter submitted within
7 business days from the date of the outcome), and that action will be subject to appeal to the
UAB (see Sections 50 and 42 of the Code).
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Regards,
10/4/2011
Page 4 of 10
Dana Macaulay
From: Fred Dobry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:47 AM
To: Sandy, Vincente P
Cc: West, Susan; Walton-Macaulay, Dana; Hazard, Victor; Brad Beacham; 'Garcia, Stephen';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Daniel Roberts'
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Dear Vinny,
Thank you for your email below.
As we work with our alumni leaders and advise the collegiate chapter, we would like to review all
relevant information. So, we would like to receive all information and "documentation" regarding the
"internal policy" that you have referenced. We would appreciate receiving this material as soon as
possible since any appeal must be made in very short order. If possible, please let us know when we
should expect to receive the material, for our planning purposes.
We appreciate your help with these matters, Vinny.
Best Regards,
Fred
______________________________________
Fred Dobry
Director of Risk Reduction
Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc.
Excelling with Honor
9 N. Lewis St.
P.O. Box 1869
Lexington, VA 24450
Phone: 540.463.1869 ext. 550
Fax: 540.463.1669
10/4/2011
Page 5 of 10
Cell: 540.319.1393
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.sigmanu.org
<image001.jpg>
______________________________________
<image002.jpg>
-----Original Message----From: Sandy, Vincente P [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 6:19 PM
To: Fred Dobry
Cc: West, Susan; Walton-Macaulay, Dana; Hazard, Victor; Brad Beacham; 'Garcia, Stephen';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Fred,
Thank you for your review of the IFC Constitution and bringing this to my attention. I
appreciate it being brought up because this is a great opportunity for me as I am still
learning about the policies and procedures here at UK. After doing some further
research into the situation, I have realized that the Section and Item which you are
referring to would apply to IFC Constitutional violations but would not be the same
appeal process for situations which violate the Code of Student Conduct. For that, I
have discovered that there is an internal (Dean of Students) policy previously created.
This internal policy is for situations under the jurisdiction of the Dean of Students
(which would be a Code of Student Conduct Violation). The Dean of Students office
has allowed the hearing to go to the IFC Judicial Board in a good faith effort to allow
IFC to be self-governing, as well as seek their recommendation. For this reason, the
appeal would go to the Dean of Students. Initially, the Dean of Students would have
seen this case without any IFC recommendations or input, but now, they have opted to
seek their peer input.
If you would like to know more about our Dean of Students office, we can provide
email documentation from Dana Macaulay, Associate Dean of Students, regarding
information on the aforementioned internal policy. It is her responsibility to interpret
and enforce the Code of Student Conduct.
I think at this point, it would be in my position to advise our students to further outline
and clarify in our IFC Constitution this distinction which has been raised.
10/4/2011
Page 6 of 10
Please let me know if you have any further questions on the matter and I would be
happy to assist.
Fraternally,
Vinny
Vinny Sandy
Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
575 Patterson Office Tower
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
office: 859-257-3151
From: Fred Dobry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:02 PM
To: Sandy, Vincente P
Cc: Brad Beacham; 'Garcia, Stephen'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Vinny,
Thank you for your time on the phone yesterday and sending me the policies related to the
University’s judicial process to be used for the current case involving the Gamma Iota
Chapter.
I have reviewed the IFC Constitution and Student Code of Conduct and had a question
regarding the appeals process. Section VI, Item 5 (Judicial Appeals) of the IFC Constitution
outlines an appeal process that would go through the entire IFC delegation, and then upon a
2/3 vote, would go to the IFC Executive Board for review. Does the chapter have an
opportunity to use this appeal process?
Thanks again for your help.
10/4/2011
Page 7 of 10
Fred
______________________________________
Fred Dobry
Director of Risk Reduction
Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc.
Excelling with Honor
9 N. Lewis St.
P.O. Box 1869
Lexington, VA 24450
Phone: 540.463.1869 ext. 550
Fax: 540.463.1669
Cell: 540.319.1393
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.sigmanu.org
<image001.jpg>
______________________________________
<image002.jpg>
-----Original Message----From: Sandy, Vincente P [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 6:16 PM
To: Fred Dobry
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Hey Fred,
It was great to speak with you today and please don’t hesitate to ask any
further questions. Here are the resources you’ve requested.
Vinny
Student Code of Conducthttp://www.uky.edu/StudentAffairs/Code/part1.html
10/4/2011
Page 8 of 10
IFC Constitution and Bylawshttp://kentuckyifc.com/images/stories/IFC_Constitution_March_2011.pdf
Vinny Sandy
Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
575 Patterson Office Tower
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
office: 859-257-3151
From: Fred Dobry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 5:19 PM
To: Sandy, Vincente P
Cc: Brad Beacham
Subject: RE: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
Hi Vinny,
I just tried to reach you but understand the office may be closed now.
If possible, please call me on my cell phone at (540) 319-1393. I would like to talk
about the chapter’s plans to file for an appeal and the impact, if any, these plans may
have on the chapter’s ability to participate in tonight’s IFC recruitment event.
I look forward to talking with you.
Thanks,
Fred
______________________________________
10/4/2011
Page 9 of 10
Fred Dobry
Director of Risk Reduction
Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc.
Excelling with Honor
9 N. Lewis St.
P.O. Box 1869
Lexington, VA 24450
Phone: 540.463.1869 ext. 550
Fax: 540.463.1669
Cell: 540.319.1393
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.sigmanu.org
<image001.jpg>
______________________________________
<image002.jpg>
-----Original Message----From: Sandy, Vincente P [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 3:31 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Brad Beacham; Fred Dobry; Timothy J. Braddick
Cc: West, Susan; Walton-Macaulay, Dana; Franklin, Taylor Y
Subject: IFC Judicial Board Hearing Letter-University of Kentucky, Sigma Nu
All,
Attached is a copy of the letter which has been submitted from the IFC
Judicial Board chairman, Kelly Starnes, to the chapter president,
Daniel Roberts, of the Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma Nu. The chapter
received this letter today, releasing the findings and decision of the
Judicial Boards’ hearing which occurred earlier this morning.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions
comments and/or concerns about this process.
Sincerely,
Vinny
10/4/2011
Page 10 of 10
Vinny Sandy
Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
575 Patterson Office Tower
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0027
office: 859-257-3151
10/4/2011
Appendix J
SIGMA NU FRATERNITY, INC.
9 Lewis Street  P. O. Box 1869  Lexington, Virginia 24450
Phone: (540) 463-1869  Fax: (540) 463-1669  E-Mail: [email protected]  Homepage: www.sigmanu.org
October 4, 2011
Dr. Joe Fink, Chair
University Appeals Board
292M College of Pharmacy Building
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
Dear Dr. Fink:
I write to you in regard to the Gamma Iota Chapter’s (University of Kentucky) appeal of
Associate Dean of Students Dana Macaulay’s September 23, 2011, decision, the August 22, 2011
decision of the University of Kentucky Interfraternity Council (“IFC”) judicial board, and the
September 16, 2011 verbal instructions from Dean Macaulay that the Gamma Iota Chapter must
make a separate appeal to the Interfraternity Council for the IFC Judicial Board’s decision to
revoke IFC recognition of the chapter.
Sigma Nu Fraternity, Inc. (“General Fraternity”) primarily serves in an administrative and
educational role for our 177 collegiate chapters and colonies on campuses throughout North
America. As with almost all other men’s Greek-letter organizations, Sigma Nu Fraternity
supports the philosophy of chapter self-governance in which collegiate chapters are primarily
responsible, with advisory support and educational resources from local alumni leaders,
University officials and the General Fraternity, to oversee their day-to-day operations and recruit,
train and develop their membership. In accordance with this philosophy, chapters are expected to
hold members accountable when misconduct issues arise.
In cases of alleged chapter or individual member misconduct, we partner with chapter
leadership, local alumni advisors and University officials to investigate the alleged misconduct.
Through that investigation, we gather information that generally allows us to make one of three
conclusions: 1) the collegiate chapter violated aspects of the Fraternity’s policy and/or law; 2)
confirmed violations were a result of individual member misconduct that the chapter has and/or
will address through their internal adjudication process, in accordance with the philosophy of
chapter self-governance; 3) the allegations were false.
In the case of Gamma Iota Chapter which the University Appeals Board is reviewing, we
were first notified about the summer alcohol incidents on July 19, 2011, by Susan West, Director
of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs. Upon receiving this information, we immediately began an
investigation in partnership with our local alumni advisors and collegiate chapter leadership.
Throughout this investigation, we kept the Greek Life Office apprised of the information we had
obtained and consulted with the Greek Life Office and IFC on possible next steps the General
Fraternity might take to assist the chapter in learning from this situation.
Dr. Joe Fink, Chairman
University Appeals Board
Page 2 of 3
After a thorough review of all information available to us through this investigation, the
General Fraternity fully supports the position outlined in the Gamma Iota Chapter’s appeal letter
in that these incidents were matters of individual misconduct that were not authorized, consented
to, condoned or supported by chapter leadership or the chapter as whole. As such, we support the
chapter’s application of chapter self-governance by removing from office the two non-executive
officers who were involved in these incidents and Fraternity judicial charges for all other
involved members, which amounts to 6 members out of the 70 total members of the current
collegiate chapter.
The individual member misconduct from this past summer did raise concerns about the
members’ understanding and application of Fraternity and University policies and expectation.
As such, in consultation with the IFC, Greek Life Office, and alumni and collegiate chapter
leadership, the General Fraternity has and will take the following action, pending the resolution
of the appeal process:
1. Appointed an alumni board of receivers on August 18, 2011, to oversee all aspects of
chapter operations for a period of at least 90 days.
2. A General Fraternity staff member facilitated a recruitment workshop with the chapter the
Sunday before formal recruitment began this semester.
3. A member of the alumni board of receivers was present at each recruitment event and
assisted the chapter in the bid selection process.
4. The General Fraternity will conduct a membership review in which each member of the
chapter is interviewed by a General Fraternity staff member to discuss the Fraternity’s
expectations and policies and ask for their recommitment to uphold those expectations
and polices moving forward. A member’s failure to make that recommitment would
likely result in removal from the chapter. Furthermore, information obtained through the
membership review may also warrant individual member action such as suspension or
probation.
We believe the above plan of action is the appropriate approach to address this situation and hope
that the University will endorse this plan and our commitment to self-governance.
In addition to the incorrect conclusion made by the IFC Judicial Board and Dean
Macaulay that the chapter violated University policy this past summer and the resulting excessive
and purely punitive sanctions, the General Fraternity is also concerned by the due process errors
and concerns noted in Gamma Iota Chapter’s appeal letter. The University judicial process for
this matter often conflicted with procedures outlined in the University of Kentucky Student Code
of Conduct and the IFC Constitution and Bylaws, which created a process inherently prejudicial
to the Gamma Iota Chapter and lead to the erroneous findings.
In conclusion, the General Fraternity fully supports the Gamma Iota Chapter’s appeal and
looks forward to a restoration of the chapter’s IFC and University recognition so we can continue
working with our University partners, alumni advisors and collegiate chapter leaders for the
development and improvement of the Gamma Iota Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity at the
University of Kentucky.
If you should have any questions about the above information or if there is anything I can
do to assist in the University Appeals Board’s consideration of this matter, please do not hesitate
Dr. Joe Fink, Chairman
University Appeals Board
Page 3 of 3
to contact me at (540) 463-1869. I would be happy to confer with you or the entire appeal body
as you may deem appropriate.
Sincerely,
Brad Beacham
Executive Director
cc:
Susan West, UK Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
Vinny Sandy, UK Assistant Director of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs
Robert Mock, UK Vice President for Student Affairs
Victor Hazard, UK Dean of Students
Mr. Kelly Starnes, UK Interfraternity Council Judicial Board Chairman
Taylor Franklin, UK Interfraternity Council President
Barbara Jones, UK General Counsel
Mike Herndon, House Corporation President
Steve Garcia, Chapter Advisor
Brad Beacham, Executive Director
Fred Dobry, Director of Risk Reduction
Tim Braddick, Director of Fraternal Operations
Arthur Hoge, Esq.
Chad Meredith, Esq.