Student Discipline Committee

DISC07-M2

Minutes of the Meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 27 November 2007

Members: M D Morley (Chair), S Black, J V Blackwell (ab), Dr J B C Blood, Dr H P Drake (ab),
S Driscoll (ab), Dr F T Edum-Fotwe, D Gerty (ab), D Goss (ab), D Green (ab), R M King, S A Mason,
R H Mayo (ab), M Shuker (ab), J A M Strong, Professor J B Thomas (ab), Dr A Watson

By invitation: T W Cartwright, R J Kennedy, J C Nutkins, W Spinks

In attendance: D L Wolfe

Apologies for Absence: J V Blackwell, Dr H P Drake, S Driscoll, D Goss, R H Mayo,
Professor J B Thomas

10. Membership and Terms of Reference
(DISC07-P4)

The Committee noted its current membership and terms of reference. It was further noted that membership comprised a minimum of five and a maximum of seven members from each constituent group.

11. Minutes
(DISC07-M1)

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2007 were agreed.

12. Matters Arising from the Minutes

.1 Student References
(DISC07-M1, Min. 3.3(i), DISC07-P5)

The Committee received and considered advice from the University Solicitor, together with the comments of the Academic Registrar and the Director of the Careers Service.

The Committee noted the potential for bias in references, and the need for a consistent approach. All members of the University writing references were acting as agents of the University, and were under an obligation to comply with University policy.

It was felt that Disciplinary Panels considering major offences should determine whether or not mention of the offence should be made in any reference written on behalf of the University. In such cases the Secretary to the Panel should liaise with the Head of Department or their nominee to ensure that staff were alerted as appropriate, and a flag should be put on the Student Record. The Panel’s decision in this regard would relate to the offence, and not to the severity of the penalty, and would not be regarded as part of any penalty. Nonetheless the student would have a right to make representations against this decision to the Appeals Committee: officers of the Student Discipline Committee would discuss the issue with officers of the Appeals Committee with a view to ensuring consistency.

It was agreed to ask the Director of the Careers Service to mention this policy in Notes for the Guidance of Staff writing references. ACTION: DLW

.2 Major Offences 2006-2007
(DISC07-M1, Min. 4)

The Chair indicated that she hoped to meet with the Chair of the Appeals Committee shortly. ACTION: MDM

.3 Ordinance XVII
(DISC07-M1, Min. 6)

It was noted that Senate and Council had agreed to increase the size of the Committee as recommended.

13. Office of the Independent Adjudicator
(DISC07-P6)

The Committee received and considered a report from the OIA concerning a complaint from a student which had been upheld.

In its conclusions the OIA had stated that the University should not have instigated disciplinary procedures as the matter had already been resolved. The Committee noted that there had been a lengthy delay in the University’s investigatory process during the summer vacation, and that developments during that time had not been taken into account. It was essential that internal investigations were always conducted as a matter of urgency.

The OIA had also stated that the Student Discipline Committee and the Student Discipline Appeals Committee had both failed to investigate properly whether the student’s conduct actually constituted criminal behaviour, and drew attention to the 1994 Report of the CVCP Task Force on Student Disciplinary Procedures. In this instance the Committee felt the wording of the University’s charge against the student had been unfortunate, and emphasized that great care needed to be taken in framing charges against students, particularly to avoid the issue of double jeopardy.

14. Wardens’ Sub-Group
(DISC07-P7)

The Committee received and considered a minute of the Wardens’ Sub-Group meeting held in April 2007. A Warden had felt that the penalty resulting from disciplinary action taken against a particular student had been too lenient, and had complained that there was no formal procedure for appealing against a Disciplinary Panel’s decision.

The Secretary indicated that there was a mechanism under Ordinance XVII for the Registrar to appeal against the outcome of a Disciplinary Hearing, and that the Warden could have raised his concerns with the Registrar.

The Secretary was asked to remind the Wardens that they had the right under Ordinance XVII to relocate a student to another Hall as a penalty for a Minor Offence. ACTION: DLW

15. Minor Offences
(DISC07-P8)

The Committee received details of minor offences penalized during the current session up to 14 November 2007.

The Committee expressed concern at the lack of consistency in penalties imposed by Wardens, and recommended that the Committee’s officers liaise with the Senior Warden and the Chief Operating Officer to determine an indicative tariff for Wardens and Sub-Wardens. ACTION: DLW

It was noted that some officers – notably the Librarian and the Director of Computing Services – had not reported minor offences to the Committee. The Secretary was asked to remind all responsible officers of their responsibilities in this regard. ACTION: DLW

The Case Officer reminded the Committee that it had at its previous meeting expressed concern at the increased use of cannabis. He drew attention to the inconsistency in penalties imposed by Wardens for its use, and emphasized both the University’s duty of care to its students, and the potential damage to its reputation. The Committee’s officers might wish, as part of their discussion on tariffs, to consider redesignating the use of cannabis as a major offence, although this might in practice lead to less reporting. It was agreed that the officers should raise the Committee’s concerns with the Director of Student Guidance and Welfare and discuss the feasibility of a “zero tolerance” policy. It was noted that LSU currently gave advice on alcohol abuse, and suggested that this might be extended to drug abuse. ACTION: DLW

16. Date of next meeting

To be arranged (February or March 2008)