Opinion ID: 1990985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Off-Campus Student Affairs Program (Conditions 3-10).

Text: Because the principal concern of the residents of communities adjoining Georgetown's campus relates to the presence and conduct of Georgetown students living in those communities, the University proposed a comprehensive Off-Campus Student Affairs Program (or OCSAP), see note 5, supra, which was designed to accommodate the neighbors' concerns. Much of the crossing of swords between the parties in this case has concerned the manner in which the Board dealt with the OCSAP. The University claims, in essence, that it negotiated in good faith and that it was rewarded for its public-spirited approach by being effectively ambushed by the Board. Indeed, the Board's attitude, as perceived by Georgetown, was that no good deed by the University should go unpunished. The University's position is stated as follows in its brief: In addition to seeking to minimize the number of students in surrounding neighborhoods, the Order imposes on Georgetown unprecedented responsibility for oversight of the District's regulation of off-campus conduct and housing of students and their landlords. This is a stark example of an underlying irony in this case, i.e., that the University has voluntarily developed and committed to pro-active measures to educate its students concerning the dictates of local law and considerate community living and to respond to errant behavior on their part. The Order, however, seeks to convert the University's good faith efforts, which were carefully tailored to function within the University's educational and administrative framework, into more expansive, governmentally-dictated policies and procedures. One of the fundamental principles at issue here is that the BZA ignored the critical difference between a university's prerogative to adopt internal educational and disciplinary measures, and a governmental agency's authority to impose its own enforcement responsibilities and priorities upon the institution. (Emphasis added.) Although the University's position is understandable, we do not believe that its basic complaint can be reconciled with a fair reading of the record. Paragraph 7 of the proposed order which the University submitted to the Board, and which it asked the Board to enter, reads in pertinent part, as follows: The New Off-Campus Student Affairs Program described in Exhibit ___ of the record and attached hereto is incorporated in this Order and these conditions as though fully set forth herein, and shall be enforceable in the same manner as any other condition contained in this Order. That Off-Campus Program includes sanctions for enforcement of the University's Code of Conduct as well as a reporting mechanism to the community, OP and the Zoning Administrator in order to monitor its progress. (Emphasis added.) The University cannot persuasively argue that the Board improperly converted the University's good faith efforts into governmentally-dictated policies and procedures when, through counsel, Georgetown proposed to the BZA that the OCSAPthe University's own synopsis of its good faith effortsshould be made an enforceable part of the Board's order. The University also argues in its brief, citing National Black Child Development Institute v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 483 A.2d 687, 691 (D.C.1984), that [z]oning authorities simply have no business regulating the operations of a university rather than regulating its use of land. Whatever merit there might be in this argument in the abstract, or if the University had taken this position at the outset, [18] the point has surely been waived in this case. In its own proposal, the University has affirmatively invited the BZA to regulate [Georgetown's] operations by making compliance with the OCSAP an enforceable part of the Board's order. The University cannot now be permitted to make a 180-degree turn, i.e., to claim in this court that the OCSAPa program which obviously relates to Georgetown's operations and not to its land useis none of the BZA's business. Given the University's position before the agency, this is not a suitable case for striking down with a meat axe every condition imposed by the Board that is not strictly confined to the regulation of the use of land. Nevertheless, the Board's order contains several quite problematic provisions to which the University did not consent. Further, the order involves the Board in the details and mechanics of the University's enforcement of student discipline and other similar concernsmatters in which a zoning body lacks any specialized competence. These details and mechanicsin some instances they are justifiably described by the University as minutiae are far removed from the BZA's expertise and area of responsibility. Further, under the terms of the order as written, the University is precluded, presumptively until 2010, from revising or modifying, without the BZA's consent, any of the conditions and procedures imposed by the Board. In the event that the University fails to comply with any of these conditions, then under Revised Condition 19, it faces a potential moratorium on further on-campus construction, it risks the revocation of previously granted building permits and certificates of occupancy, and it is subject to possible fines and penalties. We enumerate in this Part II.F of the opinion several conditions that, in our view, constitute legally unwarranted agency intrusion into the University's management prerogatives:
This Condition requires the University to operate a hotline for complaints, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, and to keep a detailed record of every complaint received. The hotline must be staffed at all times by a live operator. By contrast, the University had proposed a hotline with far more limited hours of operation. On its face, the Board's order requires the BZA's consent for any modification of the hotline's hours, even if the University should discover, e.g., that the hotline receives no calls, or very few calls, during weekdays and weeknights, or mornings. [19] We conclude that the BZA's imposition of an around-the-clock staffed hotline is arbitrary and irrational, and that this Condition is unrelated to the BZA's expertise and does not promote the goal of a reasonable accommodation between the University and its neighbors. [20]
Condition 7, which is set forth in Appendix A, requires the University to undertake extensive investigations of any violations of housing or sanitation regulations affecting students living off-campus. The University is also required to engage in extensive reporting to various agencies and to monitor what the other agencies have or have not done about any alleged violations. In its motion for reconsideration by the Board, the University stated: [T]o the extent that the BZA purports to require the University to monitor enforcement of various sanitation and housing regulations, and thereby effectively requires it to take on the regulatory burden delegated to various District agencies, we believe that the Order goes far beyond what can reasonably be imposed on a private institution. We agree with the University. Although the District and CAG claim that the University proposed or agreed to the substance of Condition 7, we do not believe, viewing the University's position as a whole, that the respondents' claim is substantiated by the record. We cannot sustain Condition 7 as written. [21]
Condition 8 reads as follows: The [University] shall ensure that complaints are heard by a Hearing Board comprising two students and two faculty members, reflecting the University's recognition of the seriousness of complaints about student misconduct. It appears that this extraordinary intrusion into the University's disciplinary procedures was precipitated by the following observation by one of the members of the Board: I believe that the composition of the hearing board, with community complaints should be the same as any other complaint where the severity is regarded by the university as great. (Emphasis added.) To the extent that this comment represented the position of the BZA, it substituted the Board's view for the University's on a matter of educational policy far removed from zoning considerations. The BZA's expertise in land use issues does not, in our view, translate into special competence regarding the proper staffing of a University's disciplinary body. Moreover, under the terms of the BZA's order, the University is powerless to alter the composition of the disciplinary hearing board without the zoning agency's consent. In its motion for reconsideration, the University stated, in pertinent part: We question whether the BZA intended to dictate that level of detail and to attempt to manage the University's internal business. . . . The question is a reasonable one. We conclude that Condition 8 is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.
This Condition requires the University to report a violation of the Code of Conduct to the parents or guardians of the violator to the extent permitted by law. The University had adopted what it has described as a tiered disciplinary system that included notification of parents, to the extent permitted by law, in some instances of particular violations.  Georgetown designed this system to balance competing interests of student privacy and self-determination against interests of safety and discipline. The balancing described above is, in our view, a responsibility more appropriately left to the University than to the BZA. We conclude that Condition 10 is arbitrary and capricious. [22]