Senate

Subject: Report of a Meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 28 November 2006

Origin: D L Wolfe, Secretary

The Student Discipline Committee recommends to Senate as follows:-

.1 Procedure for Expulsions and Suspensions

The Committee reiterated its concerns about the need to tighten procedures so that finalists charged with major disciplinary offences did not evade due process through the simple passage of time. It was AGREED to recommend to Senate that an outstanding disciplinary matter be deemed equivalent to a debt to the University, so that Boards of Examiners could not promulgate examination results whilst disciplinary matters were unresolved.

.2 Non-Compliance with Penalties

The Case Officer reported that a number of students had wilfully failed to comply with Community Service Orders imposed as part of a minor penalty. It was AGREED as follows:-

i. To invite the Registrar to fine such students for failure to comply with a penalty

ii. To recommend to Senate that failure to comply with the non-financial part of any penalty be regarded in the same light as failure to comply with a fine, and should be regarded as failure to comply with the University’s requirements.

iii. To authorize the Registrar to deem failure to comply with a penalty imposed for a minor offence as a major offence

Senate may also wish to note other issues discussed by the Committee as follows:-

.1 Students’ Union Disciplinary Policy

The Committee received a copy of the LSU’s current Disciplinary Policy. The Vice-President for Democracy and Internal Affairs, Mr Swaffer, accepted an offer from Mr Blood to review the Policy and to redraft sections as necessary; he was asked to contact Mr Blood as soon as possible.

.2 Clarification of Penalties

The Committee received and considered a paper from the Registrar clarifying the relationship between fees paid to the University, and disciplinary penalties imposed. It was felt that the Committee should not seek to influence contractual arrangements between students and University agencies such as Computing Services and Imago, but that Panels imposing penalties should take the Registrar’s paper into account. In particular the Committee noted the following:

· That Panels should avoid imposing the forfeiting of fees as a penalty

· That Panels may take into account whether fees are forfeit as a result of disciplinary action in determining a penalty

· That whether a fee is forfeit as a result of exclusion from a facility on disciplinary grounds is dependent on whether this is explicitly specified in the agreement between the student and the University

.3 Dissemination of Information – Student References

The Committee received advice from the University Solicitor in regard to the impact of disciplinary proceedings on student references. The advice suggested that where a student had been subjected to a disciplinary penalty, the referee must consider whether this ought to be disclosed to the recipient of the reference, given that the reference must be true, accurate and fair; penalties which were not trivial should generally be disclosed As a result of this advice, the outcome of major disciplinary hearings was now communicated to a student’s Head of Department.

There was some discussion of how to ensure that the recommendations were implemented across the University. The Secretary was asked to instigate discussions as necessary.

.4 Major Disciplinary Hearings: Autumn 2006

The Committee noted that three Hearings had taken place to date, and a further four were pending. Several related to offensive websites, and the Case Officer was liaising with Computing Services to see how this growing problem might be addressed.

Author – D L Wolfe

February 2007