Student Discipline Committee

DISC08-M1

Minutes of the Meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 6 March 2008

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

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

In attendance: D L Wolfe

Apologies for Absence: M Shuker, J A M Strong

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Minutes
(DISC07-M2)

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2007 were confirmed.

2. Matters Arising from the Minutes

.1 Student References
(DISC07-M2, Min. 12.1 refers)

(i) The Committee noted that at the Major Hearing held since its last meeting the Panel had determined that the offence concerned should not be recorded on the Student Record.

(ii) The Committee noted that the Director of the Careers Service had been advised of its request to revise Notes for Guidance of Staff writing references.

.2 Major Offences

It was noted that the Chair had had a constructive meeting with the Chair of the Appeals Committee, together with the officers of the two Committees.

.3 Wardens’ Working Group
(DISC07-M2, Min. 14 refers)

It was noted that the Secretary had advised the Wardens’ Working Group of the Wardens’ right under Ordinance XVII to relocate a student to another Hall as a penalty for a Minor Offence.

.4 Minor Offences
(DISC-07-M2, Min. 15 refers)

.1 The Committee noted a memorandum from the Secretary to the Director of Student Guidance and Welfare, inviting comments on an indicative tariff for minor offences which had been in use since 2003. There had been discussions amongst the Wardens, and a revised paper was now tabled for the Committee’s consideration. It was pointed out that the list of Major Offences in Ordinance XVII was only indicative, and that it was within the Committee’s competence to designate any offence as “major”, if it felt it appropriate so to do.

The Committee welcomed the Wardens’ proposals, but determined that two of the nine offences should be deemed major:-

(i) Violence/intimidation/harassment:-

The proposal was that such incidents should normally be referred to the Registrar [COO], but that a fine of up to £200 might be imposed at the Warden’s discretion if there were mitigating circumstances. The Senior Warden indicated that mitigation might involve, for example, an apology, the withdrawal of a complaint, mental illness, or remorse following an alcohol-fuelled incident. The committee felt that all incidents of violence should be referred to the Registrar for further investigation; any mitigating circumstances could then be taken into account when a decision was made whether to refer the incident to a Panel, to deem it a minor offence, or to dismiss it.

(ii) Illicit drug taking:-

The proposal was that for the use of cannabis there should be a fine in the range £75-£200, plus the possibility of removal to another Hall. The use of other illicit drugs should be referred to the Registrar. The Committee felt that removal to another Hall was totally inappropriate, as a likely outcome was that the use of drugs would continue and might involve a wider circle of students. Furthermore, it was a criminal offence to allow premises to be used for smoking cannabis, and any action other than requiring a student to leave Hall might be seen as condoning such an offence. On arrival at the University freshers were advised that the University’s policy on the use of cannabis was one of “zero tolerance”. The Senior Warden defended the current policy suggesting the University had a duty of care to students who had taken drugs which was best carried out by their remaining in Hall; other members of the Committee questioned the extent to which there was a duty of care in this context, and pointed out that, if this were the case, it should in any event apply equally to students living off campus. Accordingly the Committee agreed that all incidents involving drug taking should be referred to the Registrar for further investigation, with the same caveats as referred to in minute 4.1(i) above.

The changes in procedures agreed above would be implemented from the beginning of the forthcoming Summer Term (14 April 2008).

.2 It was noted that all appropriate officers had been reminded that penalties for minor offences should be reported to the Committee.

3. Fire Safety
(DISC08-P2)

The Committee received a report from the Case Officer about a meeting held on 24 January 2008 to review fire safety arrangements. The proposals in the paper were AGREED.

The Committee was assured that arrangements for health and safety in UNITE Halls had now been aligned with those for University-run halls.

4. Minor Offences
(DISC08-P3)

The Committee noted details of minor offences reported up to 14 February 2008. The Secretary indicated that a further 62 offences had been reported since that date, including filming the deliberate setting fire of a toilet roll. The Senior Warden undertook to advise the Warden concerned of the Committee’s view that the penalty imposed (£75 fine) was far too lenient.

There was some discussion of the misuse of internet discussion sites, and in particular the abuse of University facilities such as the discussion fora and blogs on the enhanced Learn VLE. Ms Mason and the Chair undertook to raise the issue with colleagues in IT Services and the VLE Project Steering Group.

5. Major Hearings

The Committee noted that one Hearing had taken place since the previous meeting; a student was fined £500 and required to undertake 50 hours’ Community Service for theft.

6. Possible Harassment of Staff

The Case Officer reminded the Committee of a previous incident where obscene photographs had been displayed in corridors and posted in a cleaner’s cupboard, as a result of which a group of students had been disciplined. The issue had now been raised of photographs which cleaners found to be offensive being displayed in a student’s bedroom. The normal procedure was for the cleaner to raise concerns through her supervisor, who would bring the issue to the Warden’s attention. However sometimes there was then no further action or feedback, and the cleaners continued to feel harassed. Given that the bedroom was part of a cleaner’s workplace, the employee might then be able to bring a case against the University for sexual harassment. The Secretary was asked to advise imago that the initial way forward in such circumstances should be to contact the University’s Harasssment Adviser. In the event of the issue not being resolved informally, there would then be a formal investigation under the University’s Code of Practice on Harassment and Bullying, which might result in the Chief Operating Officer recommending that further action be taken.

It was felt that the Wardens’ training programme should include advice on harassment, and on how to define it to students.

It was felt that the issue would become less and less important as fewer bedrooms were to be cleaned under the new letting agreements.

7. Date of Next Meeting

Tuesday 10 June 2008 at 10 am

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________