Student Discipline Committee

DISC06-M1

Minutes of the Meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 9 March 2006

Members: Dr J E Davies (Chair), J B C Blood, G Chivers (ab), G Davies (ab), R Dicks (ab),
Dr H P Drake (ab), D Green (ab), R M King, S A Mason, R H Mayo, M Shuker (ab), J Steele (ab),G Stone (ab), Professor J B Thomas (ab), K Whittingham

By invitation: T W Cartwright, Professor P Conway, R J Kennedy

In attendance: D L Wolfe

Apologies for Absence: R Dicks, H P Drake, D Green, M Shuker, J Steele, G Stone, Professor J B Thomas

1. Membership

The Committee noted the resignation of Mr J E Mutton. It was AGREED to record the Committee’s thanks to Mr Mutton for his wise contribution to its deliberations since its inception.

2. Minutes
(DISC05-M3 – previously circulated)

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 November 2005 were confirmed.

3. Matters Arising from the Minutes

.1 Notional Cost of Disciplinary Hearings
(DISC05-M3, Min. 22.4 refers)

The Committee noted the Bursar’s views that the notional cost of Disciplinary Hearings in terms of staff time alone exceeded £100 per hour.

.2 Alcohol Related Issues
(DISC05-M3, Min. 27 refers)

The Secretary informed the Committee that the Student Services Committee was interested in its view on the abuse of alcohol in the University. Members observed that commercial factors meant that the provision of cheap alcohol on the campus remained a cause of concern. The recently established Health Education Group included representation from the local NHS Primary Care Trust as well as internal stakeholders. A survey on the role of alcohol was currently being undertaken through the LSU website.

The Secretary was asked to review the major hearings conducted since the Committee’s establishment, and to advise the Student Services Committee of whenever alcohol had been a contributory factor.

.3 Multiple Offences
(DISC05-M3, Min 28 refers)

Some concern was expressed that policy and procedures in regard to multiple minor offences was unclear. The relevant paragraphs of Ordinance XVII read: “A student who has been found guilty of a series of Minor Offences may be referred for action under the Major Offences procedures if he/she commits a further Minor Offence,” and “where a series of Minor Offences has been referred for action under the Major Offences procedure, the Chair of the Student Discipline Committee may, where appropriate, authorize the Security Manager to ban an offender from bringing a vehicle onto the campus, or impose a lesser penalty related to traffic and car parking, without a Hearing taken place . . .”

The Chair reiterated his encouragement to the Security Manager to deal appropriately with multiple offenders. In so far as non-traffic, or hybrid traffic and non/traffic offences were concerned, it was AGREED that the Secretary should continue to issue warning letters after a third offence, and that fast-track hearings would be convened after a fourth offence at the Case Officer’s discretion.

.4 Students’ Union Disciplinary Policy
(DISC05-M3, Min. 22.1 refers)

The Committee was informed that discussions between the Registrar and the LSU Vice-President (Democracy and Internal Affairs) were continuing.

The Committee was pleased to learn that fewer major incidents had taken place in the LSU Building this year, due in large part to a policy of ejecting potential troublemakers at an early stage.

.5 Clarification of Penalties
(DISC05-M3, min. 22.2 refers)

It was understood that the review of student contracts was still ongoing.

.6 Racist Incidents
(DISC05-M3, Min. 22.3 refers)

The Security Manager reported that regular sessions were now conducted jointly by the Police and the Security Organisation under the aegis of English Language Study Unit and International Students’ Programme to advise students on how to deal with racist incidents.

4. Relationship with Warden Service
(DISC06-P1)

The Committee received and noted a memorandum from the Secretary, together with a response from a Warden. The Committee also received a memorandum from Mr Shuker indicating his concern should the Health, Safety and Environment Manager assume a disciplinary role. The Chair invited Professor Conway, as Senior Warden, to address the Wardens’ concerns.

Professor Conway referred to the importance of trust between Warden and students. Incidents involving the abuse of fire extinguishers often incurred in the middle of the night, and Wardens needed the cooperation of the student body to identify miscreants. Higher fines, or the involvement of an external person, might well lead to students not owning up. It was important for Wardens to be seen to be responsible for discipline within their own Halls.

The Chair emphasised that Wardens, the Committee, and the Health, Safety and Environment Manager shared the common objective of ensuring safety by reducing the number of incidents to a minimum. It was AGREED to defer the Committee’s earlier recommendation that the Health, Safety and Environment Manager be empowered to fine students in anticipation of greater cooperation between the Wardens’ Service and his office. Similarly, the Chair reemphasized the invitation to the Senior Warden to attend meetings of the Committee.

Professor Conway raised the issue of the apparent infrequency with which fire extinguishers were checked in halls managed by UNITE. Whilst this was outwith the Committee’s terms of reference, it was nonetheless AGREED that this should be referred to the Registrar as a matter of urgency.

6. OIA Report
(DISC06-P2)

The Committee received and noted a formal decision from the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education in regard to a student complaint related to a disciplinary hearing and subsequent appeal. The OIA had found the complaint “not justified”. The complaint was that a fine imposed had been excessive, and was imposed without taking account of ability to pay.

The Committee noted that both Disciplinary Panels and Appeals Committees now routinely ensured that their decisions were fully supported by reasons. The Committee reiterated its view that a student’s financial circumstances should not be taken into account in determining the penalty to be imposed. It would be wrong to impose differential penalties because of relative levels of affluence. Panels should continue to be permitted flexibility in determining penalties, using precedents where appropriate, but not subject to a formal tariff. If ability to pay were to be raised as part of an Appeal, it was important that a rigorous review of a student’s financial circumstances be undertaken, akin to the procedure followed by the Student Hardship Fund.

6. Statute XIV

It was RESOLVED to recommend to Senate that a discrepancy between the Statute XIV and Ordinance XVII be addressed by amending Paragraph 6 (xxiv) of Statute XIV to read:

“Subject to the provisions of Statute XXIV, to expel any student who appears to the Senate after consideration of a report from a body established under Ordinance to have been guilty of grave misconduct.”

7. Recent Major Hearings
(DISC06-P3)

The Committee received a report of recent major hearings, and was pleased to note that the “fast-track” procedure was working well. Cases fell into two major areas: drunken assault, and computer misuse. The Chair expressed some concern that in some cases the outcome of appeals had been disappointingly lenient.

8. Minor Offences
(DISC06-P4)

The Committee noted a schedule of Minor Offences committed to date in the current Academic year.

9. Dissemination of Information

A member noted that members of staff were frequently asked for character references in regard to students, and had no knowledge of a student’s disciplinary record. A reference on University headed notepaper could be regarded as a statement on behalf of the whole University. Was it appropriate to preface all references with a disclaimer or should the outcome of disciplinary hearings be circulated more widely than at present?

The Secretary reported that information on disciplinary issues was restricted on a “need to know” basis, and was not reported to the Student Records Office. The only instances where Academic Departments or the Student Records Office were informed were when penalties had an academic impact: for example suspension of studies. It was AGREED to seek the Registrar’s advice on this issue.

10. Date of Next Meeting

Friday 16 June 2006 at 10.30 am.