Student Life Committee Minutes
April 5, 2000
Present: Kris Bartanen, Heather Douglas, Jim Jasinski, Terry Mace, Carol Smith, Carrie
Washburn
Jasinski called the meeting to order shortly after 2:00 p.m. The minutes of March 29, 2000 were
approved with one clarification. Mace agreed to add to those minutes information that proposed
amendments to the Integrity Code itself would be forwarded to the Student Senate, while
proposed changes to the procedures section would be forwarded to the Dean of Students.
The committee then turned to discussion of the proposed changes to the Integrity Code. Jasinski
reported that after consultation with Bartanen about adding the sentence “Students residing in the
neighboring community represent the University at all times” to the Code (p. 60), they decided to
propose a clearer alternative.
MSP: To replace the sentence (p. 60 of the Logger) “As such, the Standards of Integrity apply to
all students and student groups, both on-campus and off-campus, who are engaged in activities
sponsored by the University or by a University organization, or who represent the University in
some recognized capacity” with the following language:
“The Standards of Integrity as embodied in the Integrity Code apply to all students
enrolled at the University of Puget Sound, both on University property and in the
neighboring community, and to all student activities sponsored by the University or by
any registered University organization on University property or elsewhere, or in vehicles
owned or leased by the University.”
The revised language is drawn in large part from Section I.A. on page 65, but is clearer in stating
the jurisdiction of the Code. It retains the idea of “in the neighboring community” that was
discussed at the last meeting.
MSP: To change, for purposes of clarification, the sentence (p. 64): “While conduct probation
allows the student to continue attending classes and living in University residences, he or
she may not represent the University in any capacity co-curricular or extracurricular
activities (for example, in performing musical or dramatic groups, forensics,
intercollegiate sports competition) or run for or hold office in any student group or
organization during the probationary period.”
The revised language removes the ambiguous term “capacity” by providing the more specific
terms “co-curricular and extracurricular activities.”
Jasinski will forward these two recommended amendments to the Student Senate for the April 13,
2000 agenda, in accord with the amendment process outlined on page 65 of the Student Integrity
Code.
The committee approved recommending to the Dean of Students the following changes to the
“Procedures for Implementation” section of the Code; these changes can be made
administratively during the next updating of The Logger.
1. Pending approval of language on p. 60, as noted above, delete Section I.A on page 65.
2. Revise language on p. 66 as follows: “Major violations include any acts which pose a
significant threat to personal or University-owned property or to the physical safety or
psychological security of individuals and/or groups within the University and neighboring
community. . . . Minor violations include those which pose no significant threat to property or
individuals, but which indicate a lack of regard for the rights, property, or personal privileges of
individuals or groups within the University and neighboring community. . . .
3. Revise Sections VI.E, VIII.D and IX.B.5.c as recommended by the Integrity Code Task Force
Report to read: “In situations where a complaint involves request for restitution of property
damage, monetary sanction will be limited to reasonable and verifiable out-of-pocket expenses
for repair and/or an insurance deductible. Costs for improvement or upgrade of facilities,
property, etc. will not be levied in judicial sanctions. Other financial arrangements can be made in
mediated settlements provided that all parties involved are in agreement.”
Bartanen noted, with reference to the latter change, that the Code section on “Sanctions” (p. 63)
allows for a number of educational and creative sanctions in addition to those listed specifically
on page 64. Jasinski provided the committee with a list of sanctions levied in the Fall 1999
conduct cases; restitution was used in five cases.
The recommendation of the Integrity Code Task Force regarding review of potential inconsistency
between Standard V.C and the discretion of the Associate Dean for Student Development
concerning the choice of hearing options will be taken up by the Student Life Committee next fall.
The committee then turned briefly to discussion of the subcommittee reports on Lighting/Bicycle
Parking; Food Service; and Counseling, Health and Wellness Services. Jasinski suggested that
the committee could either modify the original reports in light of responses from the administrators
of each of the three service areas or let the reports stand and provide a summary of the
administrators’ responses to the reports, noting areas where action had already been taken,
where work is underway, or where a recommendation is deemed unworkable. The committee
preferred the latter option.
The committee then discussed how to notify students of the findings on student services.
Jasinski will draft an email message that will note major recommendations and contain the URL
for the posted end-of-year committee report. Washburn will assist with technical details.
At the next meeting, April 19th, the committee will work on its end-of-year report to the Faculty
Senate.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris Bartanen