Student Discipline Committee

DISC05-M3

Minutes of the Meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 22 November 2005

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

By invitation: T W Cartwright, R J Kennedy

In attendance: D L Wolfe

20. Membership and Terms of Reference
(DISC05-P10)

NOTED.

21. Minutes of the Previous Meeting
(DISC05-M2)

AGREED.

22. Matters Arising

22.1 Students’ Union Disciplinary Policy
(DISC05-M2, Min. 9.2 refers)

It was reported that the current Vice-President (Democracy and Internal Affairs) and the Registrar had established an excellent relationship in dealing with potential disciplinary incidents. Nonetheless it was felt that, in the interest of continuity, formal guidelines should still be agreed.

ACTION: G Davies

22.2 Clarification of Penalties
(DISC05-M2, Min. 13 refers)

It was understood that the review of student contracts had not yet been completed.

ACTION: Registrar

22.3 Rascist Incidents
(DISC05-M2, Min. 14 refers)

The Security Manager reported that he had met with the Police and six international students to discuss recent racist incidents. Three students had made formal complaints to the Police. The English Language Support Unit had carried an article in its recent Newsletter advising students to report racist incidents to the Security Organisation and to the Police. The Security Manager was asked to write to Departmental Administrators advising them how to proceed should students report racist incidents. The incidents reported were off-campus, and the perpetrators not students; nonetheless there was a possibility that racist incidents were generally under-reported, and it was important that the situation be kept under review.
ACTION: Security Manager

22.4 Notional Cost of Disciplinary Hearings
DISC05-M2, Min. 17.2 refers)

It was suggested that the notional cost of disciplinary hearings might be identified in part through the workload model, and through staff consultancy rates. The Secretary was asked to seek advice from the Bursar.

ACTION: Secretary

23. Community Service

The Case Officer reported that the system whereby he managed Community Service orders worked well, and that liaison with Students’ Union Officers was excellent. The carrying out of Community Service was now properly documented. The Security Manager indicated that whenever he imposed such an order he would refer it to the Case Officer, and it was agreed similarly to remind Wardens of their responsibility in this regard.

24. Tampering with Fire Equipment
(DISC05-P11)

The Committee noted that, notwithstanding its previously expressed concerns, the penalties imposed by Wardens for tampering with fire equipment remained low and variable. One member reported that according to the Audit Committee the cost to the University of servicing unnecessarily discharged fire extinguishers was approximately £11,000 per annum. Other members referred to the University’s statutory duties in regard to fire safety.

The suggestion was made that interfering with fire equipment be made a major offence. It was felt, however, that were Wardens to fine at the level previously recommended this might not be necessary. A further suggestion was made that the Ordinance be amended to add the University Health and Safety Officer to those empowered to levy fines, and to ask Wardens to advise him of all transgressions. He could then determine whether to recommend to the Registrar that a particular incident be treated as a major offence. It was important to avoid demonizing students involved in relatively harmless pranks whilst emphasizing the importance of respecting the fire regulations.

The Chair indicated he would bring the Committee’s views to the attention of the Director of Student Guidance and Welfare. The Secretary would speak to the Health and Safety Officer, and report back to the next meeting. Should the Health and Safety Officer be content, it was AGREED to recommend to Senate and Council that he be added to the list of authorized officers in Ordinance XVII.
ACTION: Secretary; Chair

25. Fast-Track Procedure

Two cases had been heard under the new procedure earlier in the month, and the system had worked well. The time involved had been substantially reduced, and the students concerned had welcomed the speed of the process. Regular progress reports were now being generated by the Security Manager to ensure that the investigating process was as swift as possible.

26. Disciplinary Offences 2005-2006
(DISC05-P12)

The Committee noted a schedule of offences committed so far during the current academic year.

There was some discussion of the interpretation of paragraph 5 (iv) of Ordinance XVII – viz.: “Following a court conviction . . . The penalty imposed by the court shall be taken into consideration by the University in deciding its own penalty.” The view taken by the recent Disciplinary Panel was that its primary function in these particular cases was to discourage the students concerned from reoffending, and that it was inappropriate to punish a student simply for having been punished; hence the imposition of suspended fines and, in one case, community service. It was agreed that there might be other cases where a severe court imposed penalty might lead to a severe University penalty.

The Committee expressed surprise that, given the current external climate, LSU had held a “Commando Night”. The Security Manager indicated that he would continue to deal with the possession of firearms on an individual basis.

27. Alcohol-Related Issues

The Case Officer indicated that the Drink Action Group had been superseded by a Health Education Group, which was currently seeking to quantify the issues involved. Some concern was expressed at the apparent expectations of new students of a drinking culture at the University. In so far as the liberalization of the licensing laws was concerned, Union officers felt that this might create problems in the town, but not at the Union itself.

28. Multiple Offences

The Security Manager reported that a number of returning students took advantage of the lenient approach to traffic offences adopted at the beginning of the academic year whilst new students learned how the system worked.

It was AGREED that it was inappropriate to “wipe the slate clear” at the beginning of each academic year and that previous offences should be carried forward under the “totting-up” procedure.

ACTION: Secretary

29. Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 9 March 2006 at 10.30 am