The standards for review used by the Board in considering the grounds for appeal are provided, below:
"Procedural irregularities sufficient to affect the finding of the original authority." Original authorities are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with their policies and procedures. Deviation from those policies and procedures which render their actions fundamentally unfair constitutes a sufficient basis for an appeal to the Appellate Review Board. Procedural irregularities that are considered by the Board to be harmless and that did not, in the judgment of the Board, adversely affect the process, are not a basis for upsetting the determination of the original authority.
"Insufficient information to support the finding of the original authority." It is not the role of the Appellate Review Board to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the original authority if there is a reasonable basis for that authority's finding. Deference must be given to the judgment of the original authority, which had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and to assess their credibility and demeanor. The Board may not alter the finding of the original authority unless the determination of the original authority is clearly erroneous and cannot be reasonably supported by the information considered.
"New information that was not reasonably available for presentation to the original authority, the introduction of which would reasonably be expected to affect the finding of the original authority." All available information, including testimony of witnesses, is expected to be presented to the original authority. Only on that basis can the authority reach fair and reasonable findings. A student or student organization that seeks to introduce new information has the burden of demonstrating that the information was not reasonably available for presentation to the original authority, and that the introduction of such new information can be reasonably expected to affect the finding of the original authority. If the Appellate Review Board determines that the student or student organization has satisfied this burden, the Board remands the case to the original authority with instructions to reconsider the case in light of the new information.
"Harshness of the penalty/sanction imposed by the original authority sufficient to show an abuse of discretion by that authority." Again, deference should be given by the Board to the penalties, sanctions, etc., imposed by that authority. At the same time, the Board should recognize that an original authority can make errors in judgment sufficient to show an abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion does not necessarily imply an intentional wrong or bad faith, but simply the failure to exercise reasonable judgment under the circumstances. A particular sanction is an abuse of discretion only when no reasonable person would agree the sanction is appropriate.