ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ UNION

September 29, 2011

Authored by: Vice President Education, Craig Mazerolle

St. Thomas University Code of

Student Conduct

Recommended Edits and Additions

1

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

St. Thomas University Code of Student

Conduct

Recommended Edits and Additions

Summary of Requests:

1.) Expand the Rights of Students within the ―Disciplinary Process for Cases

of Social Misconduct‖.

2.) Clarify Language in Respect to the Code’s Jurisdiction.

3.) Create Standardized Forms to Better Streamline and Explain the Charges

and Procedures of the Code of Student Conduct.

4.) Extend the Period for Appealing Decisions of Various Disciplinary Bodies.

5.) Put Into Place a Review Process to Continually Test the Code’s

Effectiveness.

2

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

Discussions around student conduct are commonplace at universities across Canada, and St.

Thomas University is no exception. Conversations at various levels within the university

have been going on for many years, particularly in regards to student drinking and academic

misconduct, but, after seeing very real gaps in pre-existing policy regarding student

conduct, former President Dennis Cochrane formally called for the creation of the

President’s Advisory Committee on Student Conduct during the 2010-2011 academic year.

Working with a series of sub-committees on issues of particular interest (such as sexual

harassment and assault that was strongly pushed for by students and the Students’ Union),

the advisory committee met several times in early 2011 before its last meeting in May. A

draft of the proposed Code of Student Conduct was produced on September 7th, and since

then the document has been a subject of intense discussion within the St. Thomas

community.

Student representatives have so far met and informally discussed a variety of issues in regards

to both the content of the proposed Code, as well as what the adoption and consultation

process should look like moving forward. An initial report from the Students’ Union was

given to both the administration and campus media, and was meant to formally outline

several key elements students wanted to see in the consultation process. This second report

is therefore a formal listing of various changes and additions that students would like to see

in the proposed Code.

Some of these proposed changes have come from conversations with students around

campus, while others have come from comparing and contrasting our proposed Code with

disciplinary codes from other Canadian universities. Ultimately though, these changes come

from the hope of the St. Thomas University Students’ Union that a respectful and

enlightened conversation can occur between all stakeholders of the university, so that we

can arrive at a document that best fulfills the needs of St. Thomas University.

3

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

Student Rights within the “Disciplinary Process for

Cases of Social Misconduct”

1. Edits to the ―Dean’s Review‖:

a.) Change language from ―Any student called upon to speak to the Dean in

connection with a disciplinary matter may ask another member of the current St.

Thomas University community to serve as his or her advisor…‖ to read, ―Any

student called upon to speak to the Dean in connection with a disciplinary matter

may ask another individual to serve as his or her advisor…‖.

b.) Insert: ―In the event that the Dean’s Review results in a case being brought

forward to the Student Conduct Committee, the Dean shall inform the student

that they have the right to bring legal counsel or the Students’ Union’s Student

Advocate to their hearing. The Dean of Students shall supply the student with a

copy of the Code of Student Conduct.‖

c.) Insert: ―The Dean shall halt any investigation if it is discovered that the incident in

question occurred more than 2 years before the complaint was brought to his or

her attention (unless the Dean believes that the SCC could find exceptional

grounds for such a delayed investigation).‖

2. Edits to the Student Conduct Committee’s Constitution and Authority:

a.) Change language of Section 1, Part i from ―the Chair, to be named by the

President and to be drawn from the administration of the University;‖ to read,

―the Chair, to be named by the President and to be drawn from the

administration of the University (excluding the Dean of Students);‖.

b.) Strike ―Each SCC shall establish its own modus operandi.‖ from Section 9 of ―SCC

Procedures‖.

c.) Add, ―viii. Cross-examination of witnesses by complainant(s) and respondent(s).‖

to Section 9 of ―SCC Procedures‖.

4

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

d.) Add, ―ix. Closing statements from complainant(s) and respondent(s).‖ to Section

9 of ―SCC Procedures‖.

e.) Strike Section 10 of ―SCC Procedures‖ and replace with, ―10. All hearings of the

SCC shall be open to the public, unless the SCC decides that private financial or

deeply personal matters may be disclosed, at which time the SCC may declare

all/part of the hearing be held in camera. Any party may make a request to the

SCC to allow their statements or testimony to be made public or in camera.‖

f.) Change language of Section 15 of ―SCC Procedures‖ from ―Campus Security‖ to

―UNB Security‖.

g.) Change language of Section 22, Part iv of ―SCC Procedures‖ from ―iv. Require up

to 6 hours/per week of non-academic community or university service, for a

specified period‖, to read, ―iv. Require up to 4 hours/per week of non-

academic community or university service, for a specified period, not

exceeding 40 hours/semester for 2 semesters.‖

h.) Add, ―The SCC does not have the intent to sanction students to do non-academic

community or university service that would be otherwise done by paid individuals

on campus.‖ to Section 25 of ―SCC Procedures‖.

i.) Edit Sections 28 and 29 of ―SCC Procedures‖ to reflect the open meetings

requested in 2e.) of this report.

j.) Edit Section 29 of ―SCC Procedures‖ to allow for both the complainant(s) and

respondent(s) (as well as their advisors) to see all documents, evidence and

testimony brought forward to the hearing.

k.) Add a clause to ―SCC Procedures‖ stating that, ―30. The SCC shall halt any

hearing if it is discovered during the hearing process that the incident in question

occurred more than 2 years before the complaint was initially launched (unless

the SCC finds exceptional grounds for such a delayed investigation).‖

5

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

Explanations:

1a.)

The use of the term ―member of the current St. Thomas University community‖ is confusing

at best, since it could be interpreted to include only students and faculty, or perhaps

students, faculty, and alumni, etc. Instead, the Students’ Union proposes clarifying the

language to suggest students can bring any other individual, regardless of their affiliation to

St. Thomas University.

1b.)

As a way to both speed up the SCC process, and to ensure that students feel they have been

properly informed of all their rights and responsibilities going into their hearing, this clause

will allow students the opportunity to properly defend themselves before the SCC.

1c.)

The inclusion of this clause (as well as the proposed clause in recommendation 2j.) will

insert a statute of limitations into the Code of Student Conduct. While we want to ensure

that members of the St. Thomas community have time to bring forward concerns to the

proper bodies within the university, the Students’ Union also believes that students should

not have to worry about an indiscretion in first year coming back to haunt them as they

graduate, for instance. Two years should be a reasonable amount of time to bring forward a

complaint against a student (it is the length of time written into UNB’s Student Disciplinary

Code), and yet there will be language that will allow a Complaint to bring forward reasons

for why it may have taken longer to file a complaint (e.g., fear of reprisal from a fellow

student in residence, etc.).

2a.)

A small change meant to ensure that the same person who conducts the Dean’s Review is

not in a position of power on the SCC. Since the Dean of Students is the one who will

initially decide whether or not an issue should go to the SCC, the Students’ Union feels that

a more removed member of the administration would be a better fit for this position.

2b.)

Encouraging different committees to function by their own modus operandi will make it

difficult for the Student Advocate of the Students’ Union to prepare to defend students at

6

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

the SCC year to year. Instead, the SCC should lay out—in clear terms—how the

proceedings of any given hearing should take place. It is fine for the SCC to add additional

steps to particular cases, just so long as a basic list of pre-prescribed steps makes up the

backbone of each hearing.

2c.)

The addition of this step will allow both the complainant(s) and the respondent(s) to

question and gain additional information from the witnesses being brought forward to a

hearing. As it stands now, both the complainant(s) and respondent(s) have no way to

question the validity of the testimony being brought forward by witnesses, including

whether or not a witness should have even been asked to testify in the first place.

2d.)

The addition of this step will allow the complainant(s) and respondent(s) to speak one final

time to the SCC before they render their verdict. This will allow the complainant(s) to

rebut the respondent(s) (who currently has no chance to speak after the respondent has

spoken), as well as to allow both the complainant(s) and respondent(s) the opportunity to

rebut any claims made by the witnesses.

2e.)

Following procedures from UNB, the Students’ Union believes that the option for public

hearings should be allowed, as opposed to automatically imposing blanket confidentiality.

Though many matters before the SCC will probably require the committee to move in

camera for most or all of any particular hearing, this option for a completely or partially

open meeting could, for instance, allow a respondent (whose name has been splashed across

campus media) the opportunity to make a public case for their innocence. Furthermore, by

giving parties the opportunity to ask that different sections of the hearing be made public or

confidential, it gives complainant(s) and respondent(s) more opportunities to ensure that a

fair and even-handed process is followed.

2f.)

With the jurisdiction of UNB Security covering all of the STU campus, this change from

―Campus Security‖ to ―UNB Security‖ is merely a clarification to define exactly what groups

are allowed to submit incident reports without question.

2g.)

7

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

The language on the sanction of community service should both have a specified limit (that

is, ―not exceeding 40 hours/semester for 2 semesters‖), as well a slight reduction in hours

per week. Students are already very short on time, and, while the possibility of community

service should be left in place as a possible sanction, four hours per week seems like a

reasonable limit.

2h.)

This clause is meant to protect jobs currently being done on campus by students and staff.

As opposed to filling positions that students and staff would otherwise be paid for, the

university should have students working at volunteer organizations on campus and in the

community (e.g., food banks, soup kitchens, etc.).

2i.)

In concordance with the changes requested in 2e., the Students’ Union recommends that

changes be made to Sections 28 and 29 in the ―SCC Procedures‖ to allow for evidence and

testimony to be open as well (of course respecting the SCC’s ability to deem a need for

confidentiality).

2j.)

The current wording seems to suggest that both the complaint(s) and the respondent(s) are

unable to access documents, evidence, and testimony, and that this information must be

kept in confidence. Though the changes suggested in 2e. and 2i. should alleviate most of

these issues, the Students’ Union would like to ensure that, even if the entirety of a hearing

is deemed confidential, that both parties will have full access to all evidence entered into a

hearing.

2k.)

See the explanation for 1c.

Jurisdiction of the Code of Student Conduct

Adopt language to better define the jurisdiction of the Code of Student Conduct:

8

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

a.) Change the language of ―Section 2 – Social Misconduct‖ from ―…directly affects

another member of St. Thomas University (students, staff or faculty), or suggests

a potential danger or threat to others.‖ to read, ―…directly affects another

member of St. Thomas University (students, staff or faculty) in such a way

that these actions (or threats of action) disrupt or interfere with this

member’s participation in St. Thomas University’s activities and

programs.‖

b.) Remove ―ordinarily‖ from the line, ―The University ordinarily will only apply

the Code in instances…‖ from ―Section 2 – Social Misconduct‖.

a.)

Borrowing from language in Dalhousie University’s Code of Student Conduct, this proposed

wording around the Code’s jurisdiction would eliminate the countless ―What if?‖ questions

that have arisen since the inclusion of off-campus activities was made public. Even beyond

the scope of obvious cases (such as the actions of a sports team or a group of students

explicitly representing St. Thomas University), there is a realization from the Students’

Union that actions between students off-campus can affect the academic and personal well-

being of students on campus. But, at the same time, there must also be a limit to the

university’s ability to investigate these cases. If neither the complainant(s) nor the SCC can

prove that a student’s actions affected the ability of a member of the St. Thomas community

to actively participate in campus life, the university should have no say in these student

indiscretions, and should rather allow the courts full jurisdiction over these matters.

b.)

A small clarification meant to strengthen the force of this section of the Code. By allowing

for language like, ―ordinarily‖ or ―normally‖, it opens up the possibility that policy approved

by the university could be overlooked.

Standardized Forms for the Code of Student Conduct

Create standardized forms to better streamline and explain the charges and procedures of

the Code of Student Conduct:

9

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

a.) Summons to a Hearing of the SCC (Respondent).

b.) Summons to a Hearing of the SCC (Witness).

c.) Form Outlining the Final Verdict of the SCC.

Explanation:

These forms are all common practice at UNB, and allows not only for students to be certain

of their rights and responsibilities within the hearing process, but it would also allow

witnesses to properly prepare to give honest testimony. See Appendix A for examples of

forms used at UNB.

Period of Appeal for Code of Student Conduct

Offences

1. Extend the period of appeal from 7 days to 21 days for:

a.) Appealing a decision of the Dean of Students’ to the SCC.

b.) Appealing a decision of the SCC to the Vice-President (Academic).

c.) Appealing a decision of the Vice-President (Academic) to the President.

2. Extend the period of appeal from 24 hours to 7 days for residence students appealing

disciplinary decisions in residence to their Residence Coordinator.

Explanations:

1.

All of these extensions are meant to allow students more time to both properly form an

appeal, as well as to fully take advantage of the resources available to them on campus

and in the community. For instance, the Student Advocate of the Students’ Union would

10

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

be most students first stop when preparing an appeal, and yet, with only 10 office hours

a week, 7 days is often the amount of time needed to schedule a first appointment with

the Advocate. By extending the length for appeal to 21 days (the amount of time given at

UNB), students will have enough time to access the Student Advocate, collect evidence,

and prepare a proper appeal.

2.

Borrowing from the same logic as the first recommendation, 7 days would give students

more time to properly access the various resources on campus and file a proper appeal

with their Residence Coordinator.

Review of the Code of Student Conduct

a) The Code of Student Conduct should be reviewed by an ad hoc committee

comprising of students, faculty, staff and administrators in the winter semester of

2012.

b) Language should be written into the Code ensuring it is subjected to review by an ad

hoc committee comprising of students, faculty, staff, and administrators at least every

three years.

11

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

Appendix A – Forms for UNB’s Student Disciplinary

Committee

A.) Form F-1: Record of Complaint and Charges

12

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

13

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

B.) Form F-3: Summons to Witness

14

St.

Th

om

as U

niv

ers

ity

Co

de

of

Stu

de

nt

Co

nd

uct

|

9/2

9/2

01

1

C.) Form F-4: Record of Disposition