Student Discipline Committee

DISC09-M1

Minutes of the meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 10 February 2009.

Members: M D Morley (Chair), J Bernstein (ab), J Blackwell, J B C Blood, H P Drake, F T Edum-Fotwe, D Goss, D Green (ab), R M King, S A Mason, R H Mayo (ab), D McNeice (ab), C Morris, J Naylor (ab), G Payne (ab), M Shuker (ab), J A M Strong (ab), J B Thomas, W Thomas (ab), A Watson (ab).

By invitation: P P Conway (ab), R J Kennedy (ab), S W Spinks (ab), N Thomas (ab).

In attendance: C Dunbobbin, C Atkins.

Apologies for absence: J Bernstein, R H Mayo, J Naylor, J Strong, S W Spinks, N Thomas, W Thomas.

09/1 Minutes
DISC08-M3

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2009 were confirmed, subject to a correction to minute 3.1 which stated that: “There had been no new incidents involving illicit drug-taking, so the policy on the use of illicit drugs agreed at the meeting of the Committee on 6 March 2008… had not been tested further.” In fact there had been a further incident in June 2008, which was dealt with by the Chief Operating Officer.

09/2 Matters Arising from the Minutes

2.1 Membership and Terms of Reference

(DISC08-M3, Min. 2 refers)

(i) The Committee noted that Council had agreed that the membership of Court would be amended with effect from 2009-10, and that it had been proposed that no action be taken to fill the vacancy on Student Discipline Committee for a lay member of Court until the implications of those new arrangements had been assessed. The Committee agreed, however, that notwithstanding the above, immediate action should be taken to fill the vacancy, in order to ease the burden on other members for Student Disciplinary Panel meetings, and that the secretary should liaise with the Academic Registrar in order to find a way forward. ACTION: Secretary.

(ii) The Committee noted that the Guide to Ordinance XVII, circulated with the agenda for the meeting on 4 November 2008 had been updated to refer to Chief Operating Officer rather than Registrar. The Committee noted further that there was still a concept of “academic and academic-related” staff within the University, as referred to in paragraph 1(v) of Ordinance XVII in relation to the membership of the Student Discipline Committee. However, to aid clarity in this area, a note had been placed on the Registry web-pages to explain which job families were encompassed by the term.

2.2 Policy on the Use of Illicit Drugs
(DISC08-M3, Min. 3 refers)

The Committee noted that a paper confirming the Committee’s policy on the use of illicit drugs had been circulated.

2.3 Minor Offences

(DISC08-M3, Min 5 refers)

The Committee noted that the issue of cycle-path provision in the context of alleviating the incidence of dangerous cycling on campus had been raised with the Transport Sustainability Group. It was anticipated that a response from the Group would be available in time for the next meeting.

09/3 Preparation and Prosecution of Student Disciplinary Cases

DISC09-P1

The Committee received an update on arrangements for the preparation and prosecution of Student Disciplinary Cases in the 2008-09 academic year.

The Committee felt that the decision not to replace Tom Cartwright as Case Officer was regrettable. Concern was expressed in particular that:

(i) The timeliness and quality of the preparation and presentation of cases would be adversely affected without a dedicated member of staff acting as Case Officer.

(ii) The Security Office would frequently have an involvement in cases under consideration (and therefore a conflict of interests), and it was unclear who would be identified to act as the Chief Operating Officer’s nominee in such circumstances, and whether they would have the requisite knowledge and experience.

(iii) Mr Cartwright had undertaken a number of important activities which did not feature explicitly in the Case Officer’s job description, including the management of community service penalties, and the informal liaison with students at risk of being referred for action under the major disciplinary procedures. The latter was considered to be particularly important in a preventative context, and it was felt that the relatively small number of major offences that arose during 2007-08 could be attributed in part to Mr Cartwright’s efforts in this area. It was unclear how these activities would now be discharged.

It was agreed that the Chair would ask the Chief Operating Officer to clarify the reasons for not replacing Mr Cartwright, and would stress that in the view of the Committee, this decision should be reconsidered, and a replacement Case Officer recruited, as soon as possible.

ACTION: Chair

09/4 Minor Offences

DISC09-P2

The Committee noted minor offences reported during the period 28 October 2008 to 23 January 2009. The following matters were noted in particular:

(i) Item 10. This appeared to be a very serious case, involving conduct which constituted a criminal offence. The Committee asked to receive more details from the Warden as to why it had not been referred for consideration under the major offence procedures. ACTION: Secretary

(ii) Some offences, such as Item 2, appeared to have attracted very slight penalties.

(iii) There was some variation in the penalties imposed for interfering with fire-safety equipment. The Committee noted that the Health, Safety and Environmental Officer had issued guidance to Hall Wardens to achieve more consistency in this area, and looked forward to seeing this reflected in the penalties imposed.

09/5 Major Hearings

DISC09-P3

The Committee received a report of a Student Disciplinary Panel held on 23 January 2009. It was noted that there had been a delay in bringing forward the charges against the students concerned, and that the evidence presented had been insufficient to allow the Panel to conclude that one had been guilty of submitting a falsified record of his previous academic achievement. The allegations against the students concerned had emerged in the period immediately following the resignation of Tom Cartwright, but it was agreed nonetheless, that the Chair would alert the Chief Operating Officer to the view of the Panel that the charges would have been prepared and presented more effectively, and in a more timely manner, had a dedicated Case Officer been in post. ACTION: Chair

The Committee noted that it was good practice for a member of the academic or academic related staff to be invited to attend Panel meetings, to act as an observer (or as a reserve Panel member if required). It was agreed that this would be done for all future Panel meetings.

09/6 Any Other Business

DISC09-P4 (Tabled)

The Committee agreed to recommend to Senate and Council an amendment to Ordinance XVII, to allow a more realistic time-frame in which to make arrangements for “fast-track” hearings. It was noted, however, that the recommendation was made with reluctance, given that it was required only as a consequence of the decision not to recruit a new Case Officer. The Committee hoped that as a consequence of the Chair’s representations to the Chief Operating Officer, a new Case Officer would be recruited, and the proposed amendment would, at that stage, be repealed. It was noted further that every effort should continue to be made to convene Panels at the earliest available date, within 10 working days where possible.

09/7 Valedictory

The Committee recorded its thanks, for her excellent contribution to its work, to Mary Morley, who was retiring from the University, and therefore as Chair of the Student Discipline Committee, in May 2009.

09/8 Date of Next Meeting

9 June 2009, 10am.

Author – C Dunbobbin