About 10 students and eight review committee members discussed several possible changes to the University Sexual Assault Hearing and Appeals System Tuesday night.

During the hourlong meeting at Parkes Hall, members of Women’s Coalition submitted a written proposal for changes including a redefinition of sexual assault; mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for cases involving penetration; removal from campus during appeals; and formal notation of the offense on transcripts.

Although other students contributed to the discussion, the Women’s Co. proposal was the only formal one presented.

Peggy Barr, vice president for student affairs, created the committee after the Northwestern community objected to a yearlong suspension of a male student SAHAS unanimously found guilty in connection with the sexual assault of another student. Students also were upset that the student was allowed to remain on campus during his appeals because the survivor ran into him.

Committee members said it is important to safeguard the rights of both the survivor and the accused, especially because SAHAS procedures aren’t as stringent as the judicial system.

“You have to look at due process,” said Margo Brown, review committee chairwoman and assistant to the vice president for student affairs.

Students said that protecting the rights of survivors should be NU’s priority.

Many students said they thought a one-year suspension was insufficient as a punishment for SAHAS’ finding that the incident was a sexual assault that involved penetration. The Women’s Co. proposal suggests a minimum two-year suspension for cases involving penetration.

Brown said the committee would consider minimum sentencing guidelines, but some of NU’s bylaws prohibit a student from being suspended for more than one year. Missing two years of school would be like being expelled, Brown said.

Even if the review committee were to recommend mandatory minimum sentences, Women’s Co. members said they want the guilty sentence to carry beyond the immediate punishment.

So the proposal suggests that any offender’s transcript carry a formal notation of the SAHAS findings.

NU does not mark a student’s transcript in SAHAS cases. Brown said there are often no direct witnesses in sexual assault cases, and the university probably does not want the incident to follow an offender.

But Kristina Buchthal, a Medill junior who helped write the Women’s Co. proposal, said that a note on a transcript would make other universities aware if the offender decided to transfer.

Students also discussed the possibility of having an offender stay in a nearby hotel during the appeals process.

Weinberg sophomore Leslie Jordan asked if NU could reimburse the accused for housing costs if the appeal overturned the original decision. Brown said it is very likely this issue will come up in the review committee, but she added that the appeals process is short — usually about three to four weeks — to be fair to the student.

“Due process would not allow us to remove someone for a long period of time,” Brown said.

The 12-member committee approves each of its recommendations by majority vote. It will send its recommendations to NU’s legal office for review and then to University President Henry Bienen for final approval.

It is expected to have a final report in November.