Commenters also proposed necessitating a range of investigative procedures, such as asking the Department to call for recipients to get immediate motion to acquire and examination all proof, such as permitting recipients to interview community members and other witnesses ( e.g., roommates, dorm citizens, classmates, fraternity members). The Department declines to have to have recipients to checklist off-campus supportive methods for complainants, respondents, or the two, nevertheless the last polices do not prohibit a receiver from picking out to do this. The Department disagrees that § 106.45(b)(1)(i) implies that the protections in the grievance method do not also benefit complainants, or should not be supplied to complainants. In response to commenters' obvious notion that § 106.45(b)(1)(i) produced a normal equitability requirement that applied to the proposed principles or created conflict amongst this provision and other pieces of the proposed procedures, the remaining rules revise § 106.45(b)(1)(i) to additional obviously express its intent-that equitable treatment of a complainant signifies giving remedies, and equitable procedure of a respondent signifies imposing disciplinary sanctions only immediately after subsequent the grievance process. Changes: Section 106.45(b)(1)(i) is revised by changing "due course of action protections" with "a grievance procedure that complies with § 106.45" and by stating that managing complainants equitably implies providing solutions where by a respondent has been established to be dependable, and dealing with respondents equitably means imposing disciplinary sanctions or other actions that are not supportive steps as outlined in § 106.30 only after subsequent the § 106.45 grievance method.
