Student Discipline Committee

DISC10-M1

Minutes of the meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 9 February 2010.

Members: A M Mumford (Chair), J Blackwell, J B C Blood, S A Brown, H Chambers (ab) , L Davidson, F T Edum-Fotwe (ab), F Fay, N Honey, R Hulme (ab), R M King, J Morgado (ab), A Muir (ab), J Oliver (ab), C Peel, M Shuker, R Smith (ab), R Spokoini (ab), J A M Strong, J B Thomas (ab), A Watson.

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

In attendance: C Dunbobbin.

Apologies for absence: H Chambers, P P Conway, F T Edum-Fotwe, R Hulme, J Morgado, A Muir, J B Thomas, N Thomas.

________________________________________________________________

The Chair welcomed Lindsey Davidson and Frank Fay, who were attending their first meeting.

10/1 Minutes
DISC09-M3

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2009 were confirmed as a true record.

10/2 Matters Arising from the Minutes

2.1 Major Offences (Falsified records of previous academic achievement)

(Minute 09/17.2 refers)

It was noted that further information relating to the University’s approved procedure for verifying entry qualifications had been emailed to members by the Secretary.

10/3 Training for Student Discipline Committee Members

It was agreed that the training for members held on the morning of 9 February 2010 had been well-presented, informative, and very useful. Members felt that it would be beneficial for a similar session to be held every two years. The training had brought to the fore a number of potential enhancements to the University’s disciplinary procedures, and the Chair and Secretary would work on proposals for taking these forward, to be considered at the next meeting. ACTION: Chair, Secretary

10/4 Membership and Terms of Reference

DISC10-P1

4.1 The Committee agreed to approve an amendment to the its membership and terms of reference, to establish, for academic/academic-related and lay members, membership terms of 3 years duration with the possibility of two extensions, giving a maximum of nine years service (except where the Academic Registrar considered that it was in the University’s best interests for a lay member to continue beyond this, and the lay member concerned was willing to do so).

4.2 The Committee noted the retirement from the Committee of Dr Helen Drake, and thanked her for her contribution to its work. The Committee noted the appointment of the following:

Frank Fay, lay member external to the University.

Lindsey Davidson, academic/academic-related member.

Dr Adrienne Muir, academic/academic-related member.

10/5 Chair’s Report

DISC10-P2

The Committee noted an update from the Chair on issues discussed at the previous meeting.

10/6 Serious Criminal Offences and the Role of the Student Discipline Committee

DISC10-P3

The Committee received a paper from the Academic Registrar on the respective roles of the Student Discipline Committee and the Risk Assessment Panel (RAP). The latter had been convened for the first time in 2008 to consider and advise upon a case in which an undergraduate applicant had declared a very serious criminal conviction. The RAP had met again in September 2009 to consider a case involving an undergraduate student who had been convicted of offences with some similarity to those committed by the applicant referred to above - in the interests of fairness and consistency it had been felt appropriate that a RAP be convened with an analogous membership to that used in the applicant case. However, this was a new approach, and concerns had been raised about how the RAP’s recommendations, and the relationship between the RAP and other disciplinary processes, had been communicated to the Student Disciplinary Panel (SDP) which had considered a disciplinary charge that had subsequently been brought against the student concerned.

Further thought had been given to this issue, and the paper set out a proposed procedure for future cases where information came to light concerning the conviction of a registered student for a serious criminal offence. It was not anticipated that that there would be a need to convene the RAP very frequently; to date, it had met only three times in two and a half years.

It was emphasised that the roles of the RAP and SDPs were distinct and that the two Panels were responsible for considering different issues. The role of the RAP was to advise the Chief Operating Officer (COO) on the risks associated with the admission / ongoing registration of applicants / existing students who were convicted of serious criminal conduct. Where a case involving a current student was referred by the COO for consideration by a SDP under Ordinance XVII, having initially been considered by a RAP, it would be for the COO to decide on what part of the RAP’s findings were submitted as part of the case for the University. The SDP’s role was then to decide on whether the student was guilty of the disciplinary offence with which they were charged, and if so, what penalty (if any) should be imposed. A SDP would be required to take into account the RAP’s findings, but would not be bound by them; it could, for example decide to recommend to Senate that the registration of a student be terminated if it considered the disciplinary offence committed to be sufficiently serious, notwithstanding that the RAP might have indicated that based on its assessment of risk, it was content for the student to be allowed to continue. It was recognised, however, that it would be difficult for a SDP to impose a penalty that fell short of recommending the termination of a student’s registration where the RAP’s view was that the risk posed by the student was such that they should not be permitted to remain at the University. It was noted, however, that in such a scenario, it would be likely that the COO would have already recommended to the Vice-Chancellor that the student be suspended on a temporary basis under Statute V(4) pending the disciplinary hearing.

The University was taking advice from its solicitors on a related matter (concerning the situation where a student was convicted of a criminal offence committed before they commenced their programme of study), and it was agreed that the scope of this advice should be extended to take in the role of the RAP, and its interaction with other disciplinary processes, more generally. ACTION: Academic Registrar, Secretary

In the meantime, it was agreed that the proposed procedures in the Academic Registrar’s paper would be followed, but that care would be taken to ensure that SDPs were provided with very clear advice about what they were being asked to consider, and decide upon, in such cases. The operation of the procedures would be kept under review on an ongoing basis, and would take account of the legal advice referred to above.

10/7 Proposed Amendment to Ordinance XXIII Traffic and Parking in the University

DISC10-P4

The Committee noted proposals to amend Ordinance XXIII on Traffic and Parking in the University to require all students to register their motor vehicles with the University. The following points were noted in discussion:

(i) The proposed amendment would not provide a complete solution to the problem of students parking in the residential areas surrounding campus, because some students might not disclose their car registration details and unless their registration was brought to the attention of the University by some other means, it would not be possible to identify them as the owner/user if their vehicle was found to be parked contrary to a residents-only traffic order. However, it represented a step in the right direction, and demonstrated to the local community that the University was taking action in this area. In the longer term, a full solution might be provided by the introduction of residents’ parking permits in all areas surrounding the campus.

(ii) It was suggested that the proposed new paragraph 4.3 of Ordinance XXIII be reworded:

(a) To make clear that the requirement to register applied only to vehicles that would be used in Loughborough (rather than elsewhere).

(b) To make clear that the requirement to register applied to multiple vehicles used by a single student.

10/8 Major Hearings

DISC10-P5

The Committee noted a report on Student Disciplinary Panels held since the last meeting of the Committee.

10/9 Minor Offences

DISC10-P6

The Committee noted minor offences reported during the period 28 September 2009 to 29 January 2010. Overall, there appeared to be a greater level of consistency in the penalties imposed by various University Officers than in previous reports.

10/10 Date of Next Meeting

8 June 2010, 10am.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Author – C Dunbobbin