Date: April 24, 2001
To: Faculty Senate
From: Student Life Committee: Kris Bartanen (ex-officio), Heather Douglas, James Jasinski,
Chair, Diane Kelley, Geoff Proehl, Alexa Tullis (fall semester only), Carrie Washburn (ex-officio
for Dean Cooney) and student members Megan Babin, Brett Broek, and Tonya Jones
Subject: Student Life Committee Year-End Report for 2000-01
The Student Life Committee (SLC) reviewed its responses to the charges set forth by the Faculty
Senate. The two senate charges were:
1. examine the Integrity Code regarding internal inconsistencies and potential ambiguity
and the fundamental fairness of implementation procedures, and
2. examine student access to, and organization of, information regarding campus life.
The committee responded to each charge as follows.
Student Integrity Code
The committee devoted considerable attention to this charge over the course of the school year.
As part of its 99-00 report, the SLC recommended amending the Integrity Code in order to clarify
what it meant to “to represent the University in some recognized capacity.” The proposed change
was submitted to the ASUPS Senate late in the spring of 2000 and rejected. Early in the fall
semester the committee considered whether it should revisit this issue. Before the committee
could reach their decision, ASUPS President Ryan Mello contacted Dean of Students Bartanen
and committee chair Jasinski to discuss SLC involvement in an ad hoc committee ASUPS wanted
to organize which would undertake a thorough review of the code. Bartanen and Jasinski
suggested that an ad hoc committee wasn’t necessary because the desired review could be
undertaken as part of the committee’s charge. ASUPS persisted in their belief that an ad hoc
committee was the appropriate venue for such a review. Given the possible duplication of effort
between its work and ad hoc committee, the SLC decided against revisiting this particular section
of the code.
The committee focused instead on a series of recommendations advanced in late September by
student affairs staff. During preliminary discussions of these recommendations, SLC members
suggested using a process framework to reorganize the “Procedures for Implementation” section
of the code. This way, students would have a much clearer idea of the specific steps that would
unfold in the adjudication of alleged violations.
Student affairs staff brought a draft proposal to the committee in the early spring. Associate Dean
for Student Services Houston Dougharty and Associate Dean for Student Development Jim
Hoppe joined the committee for discussions that stretched over four meetings. The student affairs
draft was carefully reviewed and numerous revisions were made. The committee made sure that
the language of the procedures section was consistent with the Standard Five C statement that
students have a “right to choose options for the adjudication of an alleged violation.” In order to
make sure that this right can be exercised in a meaningful manner, the SLC recommends that the
Student Honor Court, one of the key adjudication options, establish and maintain a calendar of
meeting times at the start of each semester.
It is impossible to summarize the rather extensive revisions to the implementation section that the
committee developed in cooperation with student affairs staff. The committee endorsed a revised
procedures section at its April 5, 2001 meeting. A complete copy of the revised section is
available upon request.
The committee also considered a student affairs recommendation to modify the language in the
“Sanctions” section of the code. Student Affairs staff recommended formally codifying an informal
practice of granting exceptions to the conduct probation sanction. After discussion, the committee
agreed and adopted proposed changes in the sanctions section at its April 5 meeting. The
committee recommends that two distinct levels of conduct probation be created: level one which
allows the possibility of specific exceptions and level two which does not allow for any exceptions
to probation. This recommended change has been forwarded to ASUPS.
Examination of information on campus life
The SLC approached its charge to conduct an "examination of student access to, and
organization of, information regarding campus life" by conducting and analyzing the results from
three student surveys (copies of questionnaires available upon request).
1. First year students were surveyed through their advisors/advising class. Students were asked
where they would go for certain types of information.
2. Resident Assistants. These upper-division students were asked to reflect on the types of
questions they were asked by Freshmen and to comment on what sorts of questions were the
most difficult to handle.
3. Upper-division students. These questionnaires included some of the questions from the
freshman survey instrument as well as some scenario-based questions. They went to students
living in the Greek Houses, in campus houses, and in University Hall (an upper division student
hall).
Based on its examination of student responses to the various questionnaires, the Committee
concluded that Puget Sound is an information-rich environment. The continuing challenges are
(a) to ensure students have ready access to accurate information in a variety of places and in an
organized way and (b) to ensure that students know where to turn when they are seeking
information about campus policies and activities.
Recommendations.
(These recommendations will be forwarded to the offices noted in parenthesis).
There are two broad recommendations regarding information on campus:
1. Web/Paper Redundancy
Because at least half of students do not use the Web comfortably (according to our surveys), it
seems clear that for now important information should be provided in both Web and paper
formats. This seems particularly wise with respect to policy issues, where a paper copy has
the formality that an electronic copy does not. (Division of Student Affairs, Academic and
Career Advising, Registrar's Office, Athletics Department)
2. Expansion of information in the Logger
Turn the Logger into a campus life guide. The following information will need to be added:
Information on student groups, ASUPS, athletic teams and activities. While the FAQ format is
helpful, the general campus resources for student life (e.g. health services, student
employment, etc.) should be listed in broad categories with the main functions of each
service and the key contact. Having two different presentations for the information will be
helpful to students with different approaches to information. If necessary, the calendar format
can be rethought to gain the needed pages. The Logger should also have a clear subtitle
reflecting its function, such as “A Guide to Student Life.” (Division of Student Affairs)
There are also five more focused recommendations:
1. Provide new students with a list of ASUPS–sponsored clubs and organizations. This list
should also be included in the Logger. (ASUPS, Student Development)
2. Make advisors and orientation leaders more aware of the different functions of the Bulletin
(the curriculum guide) and the Logger (the campus policies and student life guide) prior to
Orientation, so that they can inform their students about the importance of both. (Academic and
Career Advising, Student Development)
3. Print voicemail instructions in the campus phonebook. Designate in some fashion in the lists
of department staff which name is the secretary/receptionist and which is the department head.
(Human Resources, Mail and Telephone Services)
4. As a short term goal, post all (paper and email) mailings to students on the web. Also list ad
hoc and newly-forming students groups. As a long term goal, develop a portal system for
individual users. (Division of Student Affairs)
5. Institute refresher floor meetings for first year students at beginning of Spring term at which
policies and resources are reviewed and where students share their experiences in Fall term with
finding what out they wanted to know. (Department of Student Development)
The SLC proposed that the following charges to the SLC be considered by the Faculty
Senate next year.
1. In cooperation with appropriate University departments, the SLC should examine off-campus
student/neighbor relations and recommend policy and program changes where appropriate.
2. Responding to an ASUPS request late in the spring ’01 semester, the SLC should consult with
ASUPS on the proposed student bill of rights.