Welcome to Dallas/1

My 2 cents on previous question: While applying your old "policy" and definitions etc, I would likely apply the new hearing "procedures."

I think we should lean more heavily on the investigation stage. With the review of draft reports process in the regs, parties have the opportunity to propose questions for witnesses and parties at that stage before the report is final. New information should not be coming up at the hearing. Having the opportunity at that stage still affords due process.

I agree Kristal. The investigation report becomes crucial in this situation.

I've always questioned the value of the cross-examinations, particularly since the Advisor can be anyone a party wants. I think bottom line it's the training of your Decision-maker and Investigators (and thereby the quality of the investigative report) that is going to carry the day and provide fairness to both parties.

It says you can't make an inference "solely" because they did not show up. If you have another reason-- like they refused particular Q's and they are "squirrelly"

Direct is not cross

I think we must also keep in mind that a court could find (especially if done by a school post-Cardona) that the suppression of critical evidence may deny due process to one of the parties.

Thank you all for the presentation.

Thank you all for the guidance! Looking forward to reading your book, Dan!

Congrats! A novel is a HUGE accomplishment!

Thank you

Congrats, Dan. Hopeful to read the book soon!

Thanks, all, for your time and wisdom!

Great job, you four. … Looking forward to the book, Dan.

thank you!