Academic Standards Committee
December 5, 2011 Minutes
Present: Debbie Chee, Duane Hulbert, Ben Lewin, Gary McCall, Sarah Moore, Kali Odell (student), Lori
Ricigliano, Landon Wade, Maddi Werhane (student), Ann Wilson
Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of November 21 were approved.
Staff reporting of academic integrity violation: Moore reported that Version Two language shared with
Associate Deans DeMarais and Ferrari as they would be actors in any situations that arise. They made
slight wording changes but felt it covered needs of all parties. Chee noted that “dishonesty” and
“integrity” are interchanged and questioned if this needed to be addressed. Moore said “dishonesty”
and “integrity” are used interchangeably in the present text (Lewin noted this in current incarnation
with Wilson referencing the 2011-2012 handbook at hand; also noted that online text does not match
the text in the handbook). Language will be updated to use “integrity” throughout. McCall asked if
committee wants to specify reasons why instructor does not wish to pursue, followed by discussion of
forcing faculty to take action on acts they did not witness. “Feel competent” will be replaced with
“elect.” See Addendum for policy.
Hulbert motioned to approve changes; Lewin seconded; unanimously passed. Wilson will share with
Faculty Liaison Barry to alert at next Faculty Senate meeting.
Petitions Committee Report: Moore reported that preview team handled all cases and no subcommittee
meeting. (Registrar’s Office submitted detailed petitions report after the meeting.)
Petitions for the Period 11/15/2011 – 11/28/2011
The Petitions Sub-Committee held meetings on November 21 and on November 28, 2011. The petitions
work yielded the following results:
1 Approved Readmission
1 Denied Grading Option Change from Pass/Fail to Graded
8 Approved Registrations with Schedule Conflicts
1 Approved Waiver of a “Last 8 Units” Requirement
1 Approved Concurrent Enrollment
1 Approved Application of a Substitute Course to Mathematical Approaches Core
13 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved:
Preview Team Approved:
0
7
Sub-Committee Approved: 5
Total Approved: 12
Sub-Committee Denied: 1
Total Petitions: 13
For the year to date, 52 petitions have been acted upon with 8 involving late registration and 20
involving registration with a schedule conflict. (For comparison, by November 30, 2010, 51 petitions had
been acted upon with 15 involving late registration and 16 involving registration with a schedule
conflict.)
Of the 52 total petitions to date, 40 have been approved and 12 have been denied.
Implementation of Honor Code: more time needed to discuss with Institutional Research the feasibility
of adding questions to existing Institutional Research survey(s)
Petitions Subcommittee: Moore called for interested faculty to join petitions subcommittee for Spring
2012 as current members will rotate off at end of Fall 2011
Discussion of other work for ASC:
Chee suggested investigating change to dismissal policy for students after one semester,
discussion of institutional responsibilities to students, Hulbert asked about current outreach to
poorly performing students, data needed to support any change in policy, drain of resources for
students who most likely will be dismissed after second semester; Ricigliano asked if ASC
needed charge from Faculty Senate to begin such investigation, Moore suggested asking Barry
his thoughts on charge vs. investigation
Werhane returned to thoughts on Incomplete policy from last year, committee felt not enough
has changed/no new data to support resubmission to Faculty Senate
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Landon Wade
Addendum – Updated Language re: Mechanism for Staff Reporting of Violations of Academic Integrity
Original policy from University of Puget Sound Academic Handbook 2011-2012, p. 4, with approved
language changes.*
If a faculty member has reason to suspect a violation of academic integrity, the following actions
are taken:
A. The faculty member may consult with the department chair, program director, or the
Registrar regarding his or her suspicion of a violation. The faculty member may also consult with
a library liaison for assistance.
B. The faculty member notifies the student that she or he suspects a violation of academic
integrity and that an appropriate response will be made.
If a staff member has reason to suspect a violation of academic integrity, the staff
member will report his or her concern in writing to an Associate Academic Dean
not otherwise involved with the appeals or hearing board process. If the incident
took place in the context of a course, the Associate Academic Dean will bring the
incident to the attention of the instructor. If the instructor does not elect to
pursue the matter further because he or she did not witness or discover the
incident, or if the incident occurred outside of a course, then the Associate
Academic Dean may substitute for the faculty member in responding to violations
of academic integrity. In this role, the Associate Academic dean will, among other
actions, submit an Academic Integrity Incident Report and request that a Hearing
Board be convened to impose sanctions.
C. The faculty member meets with the student as a part of the process of determining if a
violation of academic integrity has occurred. This meeting may at the faculty member’s
discretion include the department chair or program director. If the student is not available on
campus because the semester has ended or for other reasons, the meeting can happen by
phone, mail, or e-mail. If the student is unreachable, then the faculty member determines
responsibility based on the available evidence.
D. If the faculty member determines that a violation of academic integrity has occurred, he or
she is required to submit to the Registrar an Academic Integrity Incident Report (available from
the Office of the Registrar), including reasonable documentation of the violation. The report
should also indicate
* Language updated at 1/26/12 ASC meeting; please refer to those minutes for changes.