Student Discipline Committee

DISC10-M3

Minutes of the meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 2 November 2010.

Members: A M Mumford (Chair), J Blackwell, J B C Blood, S A Brown, J Cownley, L Davidson, F T Edum-Fotwe, F Fay (ab), K Halliday, N Honey (ab), L Hopkins, R M King (ab), A Lucas-Pettit (ab), A Muir, E Paterson, M Shuker (ab), R Smith, J A M Strong, A Swinscoe, J B Thomas, A Watson.

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

In attendance: C Dunbobbin.

Apologies for absence: F Fay, R M King, J C Nutkins, E Paterson, M Shuker, S W Spinks.

________________________________________________________________

The Chair welcomed the new LSU members for 2010-11.

10/20 Minutes
DISC10-M2

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 June 2010 were confirmed as a true record.

10/21 Matters Arising from the Minutes

21.1 Amendments to Ordinance XVII Conduct and Discipline of Students

Considered under Chair’s Report (10/23 below) (minutes 10/13(ii) and (v) refer).

21.2 Paperwork for Student Disciplinary Panels

The Committee noted that for fast-track cases heard since the last SDC meeting, Panels had been provided with formal records of interviews (minute 10/14 refers).

21.3 Disciplinary Problems and Notice to Quit in University Accommodation

The Committee noted that the Chair had forwarded advice from the Office of the Independent Adjudicator to appropriate internal recipients (minute 10/15 refers).

10/22 Membership and Terms of Reference

DISC10-P11

The Membership and Terms of Reference for the Student Discipline Committee for 2010-11 were noted.

10/23 Chair’s Report

DISC10-P12

The Committee received a report from the Chair on the following matters.

23.1 Accompanying Individuals

At a training session provided by Martineau in February 2010, it had been suggested that Ordinance XVII might be amended to restrict the range of people permitted to act as accompanying individuals at contested major offence hearings. Martineau had subsequently provided a number of alternative forms of wording that could be used for this purpose, and information had been gathered on practice elsewhere in the sector.

After some discussion, the Committee agreed that there should be no restrictions on accompanying individuals, and no amendments to the Ordinance were therefore required. It was important, however, that:

i) Students accused of disciplinary offences were encouraged to seek advice from and, where appropriate, be accompanied by LSU Voice. Reassurances were given that this was already done.

ii) Students who wished to be accompanied advised the secretary of the name and status of that person at least 7 working days before the hearing, in accordance with the Ordinance. Again, it was noted that this was already done.

iii) Where a student indicated that they would be accompanied by a legal professional, that person was advised in clear terms that Ordinance XVII was intended to be operated by lay people, and that the strict rules of criminal law did not apply. In such circumstances, it would be for the Panel and COO respectively to decide whether they should also avail themselves of professional legal support.

23.2 Adjournments

The Committee decided that it was unnecessary to seek advice from Martineau, or ask Committee members to draft guidance on the use of adjournments and on other areas of discretion. Rather, it was sufficient to allow Panels to reach common-sense decisions about how to conduct proceedings depending on the circumstances of each case.

23.3 Student Discipline and the Consumption of Alcohol

The University and LSU had been working on initiatives to ensure that students did not feel pressurised into excessive drinking, and had social opportunities which did not have drinking as their focus. As part of this campaign, the Committee had been asked to consider whether increased penalties should be imposed for offences which were related to alcohol consumption.

The following points were noted in discussion:

i) The Committee agreed that being voluntarily drunk could never be, and, to the knowledge of all present, never had been accepted as a mitigating factor in a disciplinary case. However, it was felt to be problematic to impose more severe penalties on the basis of offences being alcohol-related.

ii) Notwithstanding the above, it was noted that Panels were empowered to attach conditions to the continued pursuit of a student’s studies, and that students found guilty of alcohol-related offences could be required to engage with the University Counselling Service or with dedicated alcohol support groups within Loughborough. Such services operated on a confidential basis, and the onus would therefore need to be on the student concerned to provide evidence that they had attended. It was agreed that the Director of Student Services would conduct an initial investigation of the options available for referrals of this nature in the most serious alcohol-related discipline cases. ACTION: NT

iii) There was some support for the suggestion that the publication, on the LSU web-site, of anonymised case-studies, containing details of penalties imposed by Student Disciplinary Panels for alcohol-related offences would be effective in supporting LSU’s ‘Better Decisions’ campaign. It was noted that the University had previously resisted pressure to publish data on the outcomes of student disciplinary cases, for data protection and other reasons, but it was agreed nonetheless that the Chair would explore this with the Chief Operating Officer. ACTION: Chair

iv) It was felt that it would be useful to know the proportion of major offences which were alcohol-related, and it was agreed therefore that the Security Office would indicate for all future major cases whether they were considered to be alcohol-related. ACTION: RJK/JRT. It was agreed further that the secretary would review all major cases from 2009-10 in order to identify the proportion which appeared to have been alcohol-related. ACTION: Secretary

v) There was anecdotal evidence that in some cases, alcohol was sold at a lower price in the LSU shop than in local supermarkets. LSU representatives present agreed to investigate, but noted that LSU shop prices were guided by NUS suppliers, and that supermarket prices were very difficult to monitor as they tended to change very frequently.

10/24 Major Offences 2009-10

DISC10-P13

The Committee received a complete summary of major offences dealt with by Student Disciplinary Panels in the 2009-10 academic year.

10/25 Major Offence Appeals 2009-10

The Committee noted that there were no appeals against decisions reached and/or penalties imposed by Student Disciplinary Panels in 2009-10.

10/26 Minor Offences

DISC10-P14

26.1 The Committee noted minor offences reported during the period 20 May 2010 to 31 July 2010.

DISC10-P15

26.2 The Committee received a complete summary of minor offences reported in the 2009-10 academic year, and listings of all non-traffic and parking related minor offences by “Offence Type” and “University Officer.”

There was some discussion relating to the consistency of penalties imposed by Hall Wardens. The Committee recognised that Wardens should have a degree of discretion to impose penalties which took into account all of the circumstances relating to a particular offence, and that this might result in different penalties being imposed for the same type of offence. However, there appeared to some evidence that the “usual” penalty imposed for certain types of offence differed from one hall to another. It was noted in this context that all Wardens adhered to a range of range of fines for interfering with fire detection equipment (as agreed with the Health, Safety and Environmental Office), and members asked whether it would be possible to adhere in a similar way to an agreed tariff for other types of offences. (LSU operated a penalty tariff of this kind for misbehavior on LSU premises). It was noted finally that some Hall Wardens had reported no minor offence cases, and it was not clear whether this should be viewed in a positive manner, because no minor disciplinary action was necessary, or whether there was an issue with the reporting of offences.

It was agreed that the Director of Student Services would raise these matters with the Hall Wardens. The secretary would provide a copy of the summary of minor offences for 2009-10, and the LSU President a copy of LSU’s penalty tariff to help with this discussion. ACTION: NT, LH, Secretary

One member noted that the summary contained no cycling-related offences, and it was agreed that the Security Manager would check whether there had been any such offences during 2009-10, and provide an update. Steps would also be taken to ensure that cycling-related offences were reported to the Committee in future summaries. ACTION: RJK.

10/27 Dates of Future Meetings

8 February 2011, 2pm.

7 June 2011, 10am.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Author – C Dunbobbin