UNIVERSITY OMBUDS OFFICE
ANNUAL REPORT
Professor Doug Whitman, Ombudsman
Kellie Harmon, Assistant Ombudsman
OMBUDS OFFICE CONTACTS
WITH MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
Attached is the statistical summary from March 2005 to
the end of February, 2006. It lists the numbers of “first contacts” in the
various areas of our work this past year.
The total number of contacts this year is 339. The Ombuds Office has worked diligently over
the last year to publicize the office.
The
response to such first contacts varies from a brief conversation providing
information to one person, to a much more extensive involvement with a number
of persons. Initial contacts come by phone, or in many cases, by email and
sometimes, in person.
Many problems reaching the office are highly complex and
require considerable time and follow up efforts.
TABLE OF CONTACTS FOR THE
YEAR
CONTACTS:
Total First Contacts
STUDENTS:
140
FACULTY: 45
STAFF : 106
OTHER: 48
TOTAL: 339
These contacts represent persons who initially contacted
the Ombuds Office either by email, in person or by telephone.
A mere listing of the number of contacts does not
adequately convey the intensity of feelings that arise in many of these
disputes. Some visitors find themselves dealing with a high level of anger and
frustration.
Quite
often, a visitor to the Ombuds Office has exhausted all other remedies. The
Ombuds Office is the last resort for some visitors thus intensifying the
depth of feelings such people experience.
Trend
Observed: Disruptive students
Recommendation: Sometimes student behavior in the classroom is
disruptive. A professor may set standards for classroom conduct. If a student
appears to be violating these standards, the professor may request the student
leave the classroom. Failure to comply with such a request constitutes academic
misconduct in violation of U.S.R.R. 2.6.4. and 2.6.1. Professors might also
note the rules in the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities, Article 22,
relating to Non-Academic Misconduct.
Trend
Observed: Academic Misconduct
Recommendation: If a professor deems that a student has engaged in
academic misconduct in violation of U.S.R.R. 2.6.1, Rule 2.6.2 permits a professor, after
notifying the chairperson, to treat the student’s work as unsatisfactory. It is
also possible to ask for other sanctions if the professor feels the case in question
merits additional sanctions
Trend
Observed: Time limits
Recommendation: A recurrent problem is that people do not realize
the University rules require that complaints be brought within a six month time
limit. Members of the university
community need to be informed of this rule as people are frequently upset when
they learn of this rule. The six month period in which to bring a complaint
begins on the date the action or event occurred. See U.S.R.R. 6.3.1.3.
Trend
Observed: Course repeat policy
Recommendation: A number of
students visit the Ombuds Office requesting information regarding the right to
repeat a course. Currently this is permitted by U.S.R.R. 2.2.9 This information
needs to be provided by the various schools to students as students frequently
visit the Ombuds Office to discuss this policy.
Trend
Observed: Syllabus problems
Recommendation: Frequently students complain that the syllabus used
in a class fails to give them proper guidance as to what the professor expects
of them. Professors need to take care to inform students early in the semester,
preferably in writing, what the standards for evaluating student performance
are. This is required by U.S.R.R. 2.1.2. Likewise, professors need to make
clear the rules for preparation of class assignments as required by U.S.R.R.
2.6.4.
Trend
Observed: Notice of
non-reappointment
Recommendation: Many unclassified professional staff members do not
know that they are entitled to some advance notice of termination. The Faculty
Handbook in rule C.4.h specifies the amount of time that must be given to an
unclassified professional staff member should it be necessary to terminate such
a person. Administrators need to consult this rule to determine the amount of
advance notice to be given to unclassified professional staff persons who will
not be reappointed and to inform the staff of this rule.
Students
1.
Grade issues
2.
Academic
misconduct
3.
Withdrawal
issues
4.
Final exam
issues
5.
Other Instructor-Student
Disputes (e.g., course management issues, interpersonal conflicts)
6.
Conflicts with
other students
7.
Administrative
policies and procedures
1.
Consult
regarding student situations
2.
Workplace
conflict
3.
Administrative
policies and procedures consultation
1.
Workplace
conflict
2.
Consult
regarding student situations
3.
Administrative
policies and procedures consultation
Workplace conflict
Includes,
for example: disciplinary evaluations,
loss
of a job, disputes between faculty members,
disputes
between faculty members and
administrators,
disputes between a supervisor and
an
employee, harassment, discrimination, and
disputes
between coworkers.
This
category includes non-academic bureaucratic
systems
for students, staff and faculty. It includes
such
matters as admissions, bursar, financial aid,
human
resources, tuition classification, housing,
intellectual
property rights and harassment.
Academic policies and procedures
Concerns
about such matters as: withdrawals,
advising,
academic misconduct, probation, dis-
missals,
grade appeals and final examination rules.
Concerns
about such issues as: faculty concerns
with
student conduct in the classroom, student
concerns
about the behavior of professors in the
classroom,
any interpersonal conflict between a
faculty
member and a student and improper
procedures
in conducting student evaluations of
faculty
members.
Conflicts
with other students
Examples
of issues that arise: residence hall
misconduct,
roommate disputes and harassment.
The creation of our Campus Dispute Assistance Services
group has, among other things, provided quick access to experienced mediators
who have been utilized in the mediation portion of various university grievance
procedures. Although the names of these people are not publicized, it is
important that the campus community know that such faculty members do devote a
considerable amount of time and energy to this very important function of
dispute management and resolution.
In order to enhance the general knowledge of
administrative personnel regarding issues associated with dispute resolution,
and to give them a chance to meet with one another to discuss the best fashion
in which to resolve conflicts that arise within the University, we created the
Informal Dispute Resolution Committee – a group composed of administrative
personnel throughout the University. It meets throughout the school year.
As part of his job, professor Whitman serves as a
member of the Threat Assessment Team. This university wide team meets from time
to time as the need arises.
Ombuds Harmon attended a joint conference of the
University and College Ombuds Association and The Ombudsman Association in
Atlanta, Georgia in April, 2005.
In November of 2005, Professor Whitman attended the
annual meeting of the California Caucus of College and University Ombuds. He
participated in a panel of the journal of editors of The Journal of the
California Caucus of College and University Ombuds. Starting in January of
2005, Professor Whitman joined the editorial board of The Journal of the
California Caucus of College and University Ombuds.
The
University Ombuds Office is located in rooms 28 and 34 in Carruth O’Leary Hall,
2246 West Campus Road, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7505. The Office has one full
time staff member, Kellie Harmon, Assistant Ombudsman. Professor Doug Whitman
is the University Ombudsman. We can be
contacted at 785-864-7261. Email address: ombuds28@ku.edu.
If you wish to review the role of the ombuds office,
please view our website at www.ku.edu/~ombuds.