VII.G. BSC SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY
The purpose of the Substance Abuse Policy is manifold. It serves to:
● further the BSC mission statement of providing a “quality, low-cost, cooperative housing community to
university students, thereby providing an educational opportunity for students who might not otherwise be
able to afford a university education,”
● minimize organizational liability and ensure the availability of appropriate affordable insurance.
● adhere to state and federal law
● protect the general health and welfare of the membership,
● provide clear processes and procedures for all stakeholders when substance abuse issues arise
● implement an overall strategy of community harm reduction.
For the purpose of this policy:
A substance shall be defined as alcohol or a controlled substance.
A unit shall be defined as a BSC house or apartment complex.
A respondent shall be defined as the member with an alleged substance abuse issue.
Substance abuse shall be defined a maladaptive pattern of substance use that has negative individual, unit, and
community repercussions. At the individual level, the substance abuser may fail to meet work, home, or school
responsibilities, may engage in behaviors that jeopardize his or her own safety or the safety of others, and may
experience legal, social, or interpersonal problems. At the unit level, an individual may fail to complete workshifts
or other unit obligations, may fail to meet reasonable roommate expectations, and may invite outsiders with
undesirable conduct into the unit. At the community level, a substance abuser may engage in activities that adversely
affect community and university relations, contribute to increased rates, or otherwise jeopardizes the BSC Mission
3. BSC Attitude Towards Substance Abuse
As an organization based on cooperative principles, the BSC strives to support individuals in pursuing university
and community rehabilitation resources as long as their conduct does not conflict with our underlying mission of
providing cooperative low-cost quality housing to university students.
4. Substance Abuse Procedure
A. If a member’s substance abuse:
●breaks either House/BSC rules,
●is in violation of state or federal law,
●violates the rights of others, or their reasonable expectation of safe space
●threatens life or poses a safety risk to self or others
●is in breach of a member’s contract,
●creates an organizational liability,
then a person may contact the Member Resources Supervisor. A member may also contact his or her house manager,
who should subsequently contact the Member Resources Supervisor.
The complainant may remain anonymous if he or she wishes.
B. The MRS shall be the default investigative factfinder.
If the MRS is not available, the Executive Director may assign an alternate factfinder who may be the Executive
Director, a designee of the Executive Director, or the Operations Manager.
The factfinder will decide if the complaint merits further investigation. If so, the factfinder will consult with the
house manager, the respondent, and any other relevant parties to the complaint in order to investigate the issue. The
factfinder will also direct the respondent to the services of the organizational Member Advocate.
A respondent who believes the factfinder is unable to conduct an unbiased investigation may contact the Executive
Director or have the Member Advocate contact the Executive Director and make an argument about why the
factfinder may not be able to conduct a neutral investigation. The ED shall consider the argument and assign an
alternate factfinder if warranted. The decision of the ED will be final.
C. The factfinder will have five business days to gather relevant information in order to assess the next action. This
time period can be extended with the permission of the factfinder’s supervisor.
When creating a written report of the situation, the factfinder will allow the statements of the complainant, the
respondent, and all witnesses to remain anonymous. The respondent may waive the right to remain anonymous if he
or she chooses, but may not require that any other parties reveal their identities.
D. Based on the information gathered, the factfinder may refer the member to any appropriate organizational and
Additionally, the factfinder will decide on an appropriate course of adjudication action from the following list.
Note: Any conditional contracts created as a result of actions iii and iv below will be premised on cessation of the
substance use, and may require the member to utilize available university or community services.
i. No further action – the factfinder will notifiy the complainant that based on the information gathered, no
additional action is merited at this time.
ii. Community Response – the factfinder will refer the issue back to the unit and allow the unit to
cooperatively decide on the most appropriate course of action. This option is appropriate when the
complaint can best be resolved by the input of unit's residents. This option may only be used with the
consent of the respondent.
iii. Staff-Issued Conditional Contract Policy (see Policy Directory VII.K) – If this action is chosen, then:
a. It should be noted that though the policy is entitled “Staff-Issued Conditional Contract Policy”
that it explicitly contains some specific circumstances that allow for unit councils to create and
issue these contracts instead of a staff member.
b. The respondent always has the right to refuse this option and instead send his/her case to the
iv. Send to Enforcement Committee – the factfinder will refer the issue to the Conduct Committee. If the
Conduct Committee cannot meet in a reasonable time frame, then Cabinet will hear the case.
Enforcement Committee consequences for substance abuse can range from a referral to outside resources to
termination of the member’s contract, depending on the severity of the conduct, the potential to affect the
safety of other BSC members, the overall effect on the BSC unit and BSC community, the BSC’s ability to
manage the risk of harm by relying on community and university resources, and the potential of the
behavior to jeopardize the BSC mission statement.
v. Send to ED, President, and Unit-level Manager for Clear and Present Danger Termination Consideration
– if these three individuals decide that the Clear and Present Danger option is not appropriate, then options
iii or iv may be used.
5. Good Samaritan Policy
When a person calls to get medical help for another person on BSC property, who is in an emergency relating to
alcohol or control substances, any evidence that becomes available because of the call will not be used in BSC
adjudication proceedings against the caller. Additionally, any evidence in the police and medical reports related to
the call will not be used against the caller by the BSC.
VII.H. DISTRIBUTION/MANUFACTURING/CULTIVATION POLICY
The distribution, manufacturing, or cultivation of controlled substances is strictly prohibited on BSC property. These
behaviors jeopardize the organizational mission of providing quality low-cost student housing by
- jeopardizing the health and safety of BSC members
- creating a very real risk of organizational censure from increased law enforcement attention
- creating a reasonable possibility of increased rental costs due to lawsuits, subsequent decreased occupancy, and more expensive property insurance
- fostering an environment that is not consistent with scholastic endeavors
- bringing outsiders onto BSC property to purchase, sell, or distribute controlled substances
Any person who suspects a member of the distribution, manufacturing, or cultivation of controlled substances on
BSC property is encouraged to report these offenses to the Member Resources Supervisor or a house manager, who
should subsequently report it to the Member Resources Supervisor.
The confidentiality of the informant will be maintained and reports may also be anonymous.
The Member Resources Supervisor or an appropriate factfinder will conduct an investigation and send the issue to
the Enforcement Committee (see AdCode Section XXIV). A violation of this policy shall result in termination
unless a two thirds vote of the Enforcement Committee finds that a conditional contract will reasonably prevent the
risk of an occurrence.