College of Staten Island.

What CSI's and CUNY's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Not stated for the initial faculty meeting. At the escalated fact-finding-hearing stage, CUNY Bylaws Article XV states "The college, the respondent and the complainant are permitted to have lawyers or other representatives or advisors act on their behalf during the pendency of a disciplinary action, which shall include the calling and examining of witnesses, and presenting other evidence." On recording: "The college shall make a record of each fact-finding hearing by some means such as a stenographic transcript, an audio recording or the equivalent." "No other recording of the proceedings may be permitted." — CUNY Bylaws, Article XV, §15.4 (retrieved Oct 1, 2026) · CUNY Bylaws — Article XV, §15.4

What follows on the record

Not stated in the sources reviewed for a case resolved only as an academic sanction through the college's grade-appeal process. Where a case reaches a disciplinary sanction under Article XV, a transcript notation "shall be removed, as a matter of right, upon the request of the respondent" "four years after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding or one year after the conclusion of any suspension, whichever is longer." — CUNY Bylaws, Article XV, §15.4 (retrieved Oct 1, 2026) · CUNY Bylaws — Article XV, §15.4

The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.

CSI's own undergraduate catalog reproduces the CUNY Policy on Academic Integrity, which it dates "Amended and replaced on June 27, 2022" (retrieved Oct 1, 2026):

Source: CUNY Academic Integrity Policy — CSI Undergraduate Catalog. At CSI, the form is forwarded to the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, 1A-301, whose Student Conduct and Services Specialist "reviews and investigates incident reports and other alleged policy violations by students in accordance with Article 15 of the CUNY Bylaws (Standards of Conduct and Student Disciplinary Procedures)" (page undated; retrieved Oct 1, 2026) — source: Student Conduct and Services Specialist — CSI Undergraduate Catalog. CSI's own policy page does not state an evidentiary standard for the informal, faculty-level stage; where a case is referred to the escalated fact-finding hearing, CUNY Bylaws Article XV states "[t]he college bears the burden of proving the charge(s) by a preponderance of the evidence," and that an appeal of that hearing's decision must be filed "within fifteen (15) calendar days after the delivery of the decision" on one of three grounds: "(i) procedural error, (ii) newly discovered evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing, or (iii) the disproportionate nature of the penalty." What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; they are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

Revision history of this page

2026-10-01 — Page created (scheduled run; cold build, no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse). Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (CSI's Center for Teaching, Learning and Professional Development, the CSI Library's Turnitin & SafeAssign guide, the AI@CSI page, the undergraduate catalog's Academic Integrity Policy and Student Conduct and Services Specialist pages) found Turnitin and SafeAssign confirmed for plagiarism/similarity checking only and Respondus LockDown Browser confirmed for test security only (no video or activity recording, Respondus Monitor not licensed by CUNY); no AI-text detector confirmed as deployed on CSI's own pages. Reused, independently attributed rather than re-derived: the CUNY-wide fact, first published by this collection from Lehman College's own Academic Integrity FAQ, that Turnitin's Generative AI detection feature exists but that CUNY OAA "has not activated" it system-wide, "[d]ue to inconsistencies with the tool, including false positives and other concerns." NOT DISQUALIFIED: no detector was ever documented as in use for AI-writing detection at CSI or system-wide at CUNY, so neither step-2 disqualification branch is met — the same disposition reached at every other CUNY campus built in this collection. PROCESS: the informal stage (Faculty Report Form to the Academic Integrity Officer, copying the department chair) is CSI's own implementation of the CUNY Policy on Academic Integrity (amended and replaced Jun 27, 2022), reached through CSI's undergraduate catalog; CSI's own Academic Integrity Form (a scanned PDF at csi.cuny.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/privacy/AcademicIntegrityForm.pdf) could not be read as text by this pass's transport and was not used as a quoted source for that reason — the catalog's own reproduction of the policy was used instead, and nothing from the form was asserted. Evidentiary standard, representation/recording rights, transcript notation and the escalated appeal window are CUNY Bylaws Article XV §15.4, independently fetched and quoted this date (the same system-wide provision already used at this collection's other CUNY campuses). SUBSTANTIVE GAP, stated rather than filled: no CSI or CUNY page reviewed states an evidentiary standard, representation right, or recording rule for the informal faculty-level stage itself, or a transcript-notation rule for a case resolved as an academic sanction alone through the grade-appeal process without reaching Article XV — both recorded as scope limits. OFFICE: Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, Building 1A, Room 301, 718-982-2335, reached via the office's own Contact Us page, which names Thomas D. Tressler-Gelok, Ed.D. as Vice President for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management and gives thomas.tresslergelok@csi.cuny.edu as the office email; the Student Conduct and Services Specialist role (same room) is the office's own description of who reviews reports under Article 15. OMBUDS: no ombudsperson or student-advocacy office was found published on csi.cuny.edu itself; CSI's own Distance Learning page names the CUNY Office of Student Conduct, Advocacy & Referral (COSAR) as the escalation address once a complaint is "not resolved by CSI," and COSAR's own cuny.edu page states it "functions in an ombudsman role to resolve student complaints" — used on that basis, the same CUNY-central office already used at this collection's City Tech and Brooklyn College pages, reached here through a CSI-published page rather than inferred from those sister pages. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Deliberate omission: CSI's scanned, non-text-extractable Academic Integrity Form PDF, noted above rather than quoted. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-01). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-10-06 — Internet Archive captures requested on 2026-10-04 by an automated capture pass and recorded this date; no human review is claimed for this entry. No quotation, date, finding or link above was changed by it. Each capture below was requested through Save Page Now and then confirmed to play back. Captures added: csi.cuny.edu — Distance Learning → https://web.archive.org/web/20261004042008/https://www.csi.cuny.edu/online-resources/distance-learning; Setting Up Assignments in Brightspace with TurnItIn — CSI Center for Teaching, Learning and Professional Development → https://web.archive.org/web/20261004042042/https://www.csi.cuny.edu/setting-assignments-brightspace-turnitin-plagiarism-detection-tool-3.

Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.