57 NSU STUDENT HANDBOOK 2023-24 witnesses. If the institution rejects or modifies the proposed determination of the hearing examiner, or any part thereof, the institution shall provide the reasons for doing so in writing to the parties. The written determination must include: 5.4.1. Identification of the allegations potentially constituting sexual harassment; 5.4.2. A description of the procedural steps taken from the receipt of the formal complaint through the determination, including any notifications to the parties, interviews with parties and witnesses, site visits, methods used to gather other evidence, and hearings held; 5.4.3. Findings of fact supporting the determination; 5.4.4. Conclusions regarding the application of the institution’s code of conduct to the facts; 5.4.5. A statement of, and rationale for, the result as to each allegation, including a determination regarding responsibility, any disciplinary sanctions the institution imposes on the respondent, and whether remedies designed to restore or preserve equal access to the institution’s education program or activity will be provided by the recipient to the complainant; and 5.4.6. The institution’s procedures and permissible bases for the complainant and respondent to petition for administrative review. 5.5. The institution must provide the proposed written determination to the parties simultaneously. The proposed determination regarding responsibility becomes final either at the conclusion of the petition for administrative review to the Executive Director provided for in section 6 below, or if a petition for administrative review is not filed by either party in accordance therewith, the date on which the petition for administrative review would no longer be considered timely. If no petition for administrative review is filed within the timeframe provided in section 6 below, upon the expiration thereof, the proposed determination of the institution shall constitute the final decision on the matter, which is subject to appeal to circuit court in accordance with the provisions of SDCL ch. 1-26. 5.6. The TitleIX Coordinator is responsible for effective implementation of any remedies. 6. Petition for Administrative Review 6.1. The complainant and respondent may petition for administrative review of an institution’s proposed determination regarding responsibility, and an institution’s dismissal of a formal complaint or any allegations therein, by petitioning in writing to Executive Director of the Board of Regents no later than ten (10) working days after notice of the institution’s decision is deemed received. Petitions for administrative review under this section are limited those made on the following bases: 6.1.1. A procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter; 6.1.2. New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination regarding responsibility or dismissal was made, that could affect the outcome of the matter; and 6.1.3. The Title IX Coordinator, investigator(s), or decision-maker(s) had a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or the individual complainant or respondent that affected the outcome of the matter. 6.2. A petition filed with the Executive Director must include the party’s supporting arguments and documentation. Petitions that fail to include supporting arguments and documents or which are not made on one of the bases set forth in section 6.1 above will be rejected. 6.3. Within five (5) working days of receiving a petition for administrative review, the Executive Director, or their designee, shall provide written notice of the petition to the other party. That