Ombuds annual report to Fanshawe College community
The following is and excerpt from the Fanshawe College Ombuds report. A full report can be acquired by visiting the Ombuds office at A2026
ANNUAL REPORT 2006-2007
In accordance with the Ombuds Office terms of reference, this annual report is submitted to the President of the College and the Ombuds Advisory Committee. The report covers the period from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, and is available to any member of the Fanshawe College Community.
ANNUAL REPORT MESSAGE
The annual report message is used to identify themes and challenges facing the college, and make recommendations to address them.
Adding Value
Recently, I was asked to discuss with a colleague about how an Ombuds Office adds value to an institution which already has a variety of complaint or redress mechanisms available. The answer to the question is interesting, and illustrative of the role of the Ombudsperson at Fanshawe. I have included the topic here because it provides a perspective on how the office functions at the college.
There are four major categories where the Ombudsperson demonstrates and adds value in an organization. They are related to: The role of the Ombudsperson as outlined in the terms of reference for the office; Improved informal dispute resolution and increased institutional capacity to resolve complaints; The role of the Ombudsperson as a toxin handler and; The goodwill created by the position.
The role of an Ombudsman is outlined in the terms of reference or mandate for the office. Generally, Ombudsmen receive and investigate complaints and provide recommendations to redress unfair practice. They act as a form of independent oversight, with the goal of ensuring fair treatment of constituent groups (citizens for legislative Ombudsmen and students and staff for college and university Ombudspersons). This oversight creates value by reducing the chance that unfairness will occur, and allows for corrective measures in cases where the Ombudsperson deems it necessary to make a recommendation. The capacity to make specific and systemic recommendations is valuable because it improves policy and practice, which in turn prevents further complaints. This means that the institution spends less time responding directly to complaints.
An Ombudsperson helps to improve the capacity of an institution to informally resolve complaints by offering dispute resolution alternatives and by assisting the disputing parties. This can occur informally through discussions and quiet intervention, or through a more formal mediation or negotiation process. The Ombudsperson often assists individuals in articulating their concerns, and helps them to identify realistic outcomes to complaints. At other times, the Ombudsperson coaches college officials in how to appropriately respond to complaints. Activities directed toward assisting informal resolutions are largely unseen, but remain an important component of Ombuds-work.
A large component of the role of the Ombudsperson is to act as a toxin handle. Toxin handler refers to an individual who formally, or informally, is involved in decreasing anger and toxic emotions in a workplace. An Ombudsperson within the workplace plays an important role in handling emotionally toxic situations. The Ombudsperson provides an outlet where visitors can vent their emotions, and create plans of action to deal with the situation. The Ombudsperson can also reduce toxic interaction by reframing issues, carrying messages between parties and allowing visitors to feel heard. Deescalating toxic situations allows parties to a dispute to focus on the issues rather than emotional turmoil.
Finally, the existence of an Ombuds Office, and the work of an Ombudsperson, demonstrates that the institution is committed to fair treatment of its constituents, thereby creating goodwill. It is clear from my conversations with prospective students and parents that they value the fact that the college and student union have demonstrated their commitment to fair treatment of the college community by hiring an Ombudsperson. An independent office can reduce the impact of reactive devaluation. Reactive devaluation refers to the phenomenon where parties to a conflict devalue statements or offers of settlement made by the opposing party, simply by virtue of the fact that they were made by a perceived opponent. An independent Ombudsperson can validate information supplied by college officials, thereby increasing trust in the institution.
Much of the work done by the Ombudsperson is confidential, or not directly in the public eye. The annual report is one way in which the Ombuds Office can demonstrate its value, and contribution to the community by showing how the office works to resolve complaints.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood — guidance for complaint handlers.
The fifth habit of Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” This habit is essential in resolving complaints, because effective resolution requires the decision-maker to truly understand the issues at stake before responding. This is true for responding to a complaint, hearing an appeal or responding to a grievance. It is an area where college officials could improve their practice. While it is important to be decisive, I often feel when meeting with someone who is responding to a complaint, that they are more interested in responding to what they perceive the complaint to be than understanding the issues at stake. This is challenging because when the respondent does not fully understand the problem, the proposed resolutions do not address the problem at hand.
Understanding can be enhanced by: giving adequate time for parties to a dispute to tell their story; seeking the other party's perspective of the problem by asking questions to clarify; paraphrasing and summarizing discussion to ensure an accurate understand (to demonstrate understanding to other party); and delaying the urge to respond. Attempting to change how one responds to difficult situations is not an easy task, but the payoff will be evident with more effective resolutions.
Words of Caution — Academic appeals
In 2005, the academic appeals policy was revised with the intent, in part, to address issues related to the college not following the timelines proscribed in the academic appeals policy. The changes in this policy have improved the practice related to appeals, and the appeals system is working more effectively than previously. I will offer two cautionary observations related to the role of the Dean in the appeal process. In the appeal policy it states that the Dean has 14 days to respond to a first-level academic appeal. I am concerned that the number of incidents where the Dean does not meet this deadline is gradually increasing. This was a problem prior to the revised policy coming into effect, and I am hopeful that by raising awareness of the issue, it will be corrected before it becomes problematic.
The second note of caution relates to the Dean's obligations when conducting an appeal investigation. The policy states that the Dean is required to hear from the student, speak with the faculty member, then let the student respond to the information supplied by the teacher. I am concerned that on occasion, Deans issue their decision after meeting with the teacher and neglecting to allow the student to respond to the new information. This is not consistent with the appeal policy, and is unfair because the student is unable to respond to the case against them. Some Deans meet with the student and teacher at the same time. This accomplishes the objective of allowing the appellant to present their case and respond to the case against them. When the Dean does not follow the process as stipulated in the policy it creates grounds for a second-level appeal because the college has not followed its own rules. It is my hope that by mentioning these obligations, that it will prevent problems from arising in the future.
Words of Caution — Security.
The Ombuds Office received 15 complaints about Campus Security Service last year. This is a significant increase - the previous high was two complaints in 2005-6. The complaints tended to fall into two major categories: Students with a student code of conduct offence approached the Ombuds Office to inquire about an appeal and; Students complained about the tactic of Campus Security - such as sending two security guards to call students out of a class for a meeting.
Increases in visits from students who have codes of conduct are the bi-product of increased security enforcement. This does not cause concern as the codes of conduct reports were appropriate, and it reflects that students are aware of their rights to appeal code of conduct offences. As I write this report, the college is reviewing the student code of conduct. I am hopeful that the revised code of conduct will address the perceived shortcomings of the current policy, and we will see more effective use of the policy in a manner that meets the needs of the campus community.
The rise in complaints about security corresponds to an increase in security enforcement on campus. This increase was necessary, and has placed Fanshawe College on the forefront of campus policing in Canadian community colleges however; this has led to some concern over how security conducts itself. Concern expressed by students about having security guards come to their class to take them to meetings with representatives of Campus Security is one example of the concerns I have heard. I offer these words of caution as we move forward. The college community needs to understand the necessity for more comprehensive security. At the same time, campus security needs to be aware of the impact of how they conduct themselves and how they are perceived by the college community.
2006-2007 OVERVIEW OMBUDS OFFICE MANDATE
The Ombuds Office was established in October 1993 through a joint agreement between the College and the Student Union. In 2003, the mandate was revised. The mandate of the Ombuds Office is to:
1. Receive, investigate, and seek to resolve, at the request of any member of the college community, or upon the Ombuds' own motion, any problems, or complaints with regard to any aspect of college life.
2. Provide general information about College resources, procedures and rules, and advise visitors of their rights and responsibilities in situations where problems or questions may arise.
3. Make recommendations to those in authority with a view to remedying the situation of individuals, and recommend changes in rules or procedures, which would have the effect of making the College, or Student Union more fair in their operations.
For the full text of the mandate, please refer to the Ombuds Office website (http://www.fanshawec.ca/ombuds/default.asp).
DISCUSSION OF CASES
This section provides a statistical breakdown and analysis of this year's caseload. Six hundred and seventeen members of the College community were in contact with the Ombuds office this year, regarding 334 files. This is a decrease of eight cases compared last year, which was the highest caseload since the inception of the Ombuds office, but is on-par with the number of cases in the two previous years. It took an average of 4.4 days to conclude each case, which is consistent with the previous five years.
Cases by Action
The first area of discussion, illustrates what action was undertaken by the Ombudsperson upon receipt of a complaint. This can include providing information or advice, or some form of intervention. Cases were reported as information when I provided case-specific information to the client. Cases are classified as advice when we discussed a visitor's concern, identified possible paths toward resolution, and helped the visitor to assess which path was most appropriate to their circumstances. Intervention refers to cases where the Ombudsperson took an active role in the resolution of a complaint. Whenever possible, I attempt to empower visitors to pursue their own solutions in an informed and appropriate manner. By spending time discussing expectations, fairness and options, individuals are better prepared to make choices to take effective action on their own.
Cases where the Ombudsperson intervenes are the smallest proportion of the caseload, but require the most work. The five types of intervention, including:
Clarification; Negotiate and Facilitate solutions; Mediation; Review and Recommendation; and Investigation and Recommendation. “Clarification” is when the Ombudsperson sought information with the purpose of assisting the resolution of a complaint. For example, to clarify rules or policies, or to request reasons for a decision. Cases classified as “Negotiates and Facilitates Resolution” involved a more direct intervention. In these instances, the Ombudsperson alerted College employees of problems; employed shuttle diplomacy; identified issues to be resolved; identified solutions to problems; and provided process advice to parties as they attempt to achieve resolution. “Mediation” refers to formal mediation, where the Ombudsperson facilitated a face to face negotiation between two or more parties. Review and Recommendation, refers to cases where the Ombudsperson conducted an informal review of the case, and provided an informal recommendation or conclusion based on the evidence available. The recommendation or conclusion was then used to resolve the complaint. “Investigation and Recommendation” refers to cases which required a formal investigation and written recommendations. This table demonstrates that even when an intervention is required, the preferred approach is to encourage informal resolutions at the lowest level.
Caseload by Issue
At times, the nature of complaints and inquiries are difficult to categorize if they overlap or are unclear. In some cases there are multiple issues involved in a complaint. While both primary and secondary issues are recorded, for the sake of brevity, only the primary issues (recorded according to the best matching issue description) are contained in this report.
2006-7 featured a significant drop in the number of complaints about admissions. Complaints relate to all aspects of the admissions process — from admissions decisions, to concerns that arise when students loose their place in programs when they do not confirm their acceptance, or pay on time. In 2004-5 there were 19 complaints about admissions. In 2006-7 there were only four complaints. This improvement is due in part to efforts to increase the amount, and relevance of information available to students during the admission process. The result of this increased transparency is that students understand the admission process better, and they are better able to meet their obligations to supply information and pay fees by specific dates. There will always be complaints about the admission process, but the drop in complaints about admissions reflects a significant improvement.
Academic complaints account for the greatest number of cases. The largest single academic issue bringing visitors to the Ombuds office relates to academic appeals.
Outcome of Cases
The effectiveness of the Ombuds Office is often measured by its ability to facilitate the resolution of complaints. Over the past two years, the number of cases where the Ombudsperson provided information has increased over the three preceding years. Providing information can be as simple as describing an appeal process or it may entail a comprehensive conversation about how to approach resolving a concern. I have identified that there is a wide range of cases which can be described as providing information, and hope in subsequent reports to have more specific information to clarify this outcome.
CASE STUDIES:
The following case studies are offered to illustrate the principles of natural justice and to give readers a more detailed view of the work of the Ombudsperson. Each features a brief summary of the case with some comments. These cases are fictionalized accounts of actual cases. Details have been modified or omitted to protect the identity of individuals and departments. The cases are chosen for their interest and educational value.
Student confidentiality conundrum
Jessica contacted the Ombuds office upset with a practice in one department which required students to provide photocopies of their identification. The student felt that it would be appropriate to show the identification, but did not accept that the college would retain a copy. Jessica asked that the practice be overturned. Jessica was angry because when she asked why the information was required, the staff member with whom she was interacting was unable to provide an explanation. The student met with the manager of the department, and was unable to resolve the issue. The manager referred Jessica to the Ombuds office. After spending some time to gather more information from Jessica, I agreed to discuss the matter with the manager. Over the course of the investigation, I met with the manager, reviewed the chain of e-mail messages between the parties and reviewed the provisions in legislation and regulations which allow the college to collect information from students. The manager shared the department's rationale for retaining the identification. The manager stated that the copies were retained in order to make the practice consistent with other areas, and to retain copies in case there were problems in the future.
I concluded that the regulations governing community colleges allow colleges to collect personal information as long as it is consistent with the aims of the college, and that it is kept secure such that students' privacy rights are not violated. Furthermore, the practice was supported by other programs of a similar nature. Therefore, I concluded that it was appropriate for the college to collect the information, and that appropriate measures were being taken to protect the information. I met with both parties to share my conclusion. Jessica accepted my explanation of why the information was required, and findings that it was appropriate for the college to request the information. Jessica met the manager once more. During the meeting, they used the investigation findings to come to a compromise solution that both parties would be comfortable accepting. Jessica reported that she was happy with the resolution.
Discussion:
This case study is important because it reflects the increasing student awareness of importance of protecting their personal information. In 2006-7 the Ombuds Office received several complaints where confidentiality was an important element of the complaint. Examples include: teachers inappropriately disclosing personal information in class (like academic offence histories, results of evaluations and information about disability); college employees disclosing personal information over the telephone; and college employees sharing personal information which the student did not want revealed. Students have also expressed concern about why the college requires specific information (like birthdates), or why the Financial Aid Office requires students to show their social insurance card when releasing loans. In cases where there has been a breach of student's confidentiality rights, for the most part the breaches happen when well meaning employees inadvertently let something slip. That being said, once the information is released it is very difficult to right the wrong.
The college policy on confidentiality of student information provides a strong statement of the obligations of college employees to protect student information. I recommend that obligations related to student confidentiality be stressed during new employee orientation (both on a corporate and departmental level), and periodically discussed at departmental meetings. When receiving with personal information from students, employees should also make it regular practice to discuss confidentiality expectations with students and how the information will be used. This will help employees maintain awareness of their responsibilities related to personal information, and will assist students understand the legitimate use of personal information by the college.
Student-Teacher Conflict
Rupert attended the Ombuds Office to complain about the conduct of one of his teachers. Rupert reported that the teacher had made a series of inappropriate personal comments in class. The alleged behaviour included disciplining the student for poor attendance in front of the class, criticizing Rupert in class on days when Rupert was absent. Rupert stated that he spoke with the teacher about this behaviour after class one day, and received very poor marks on subsequent assignments. Rupert stated that he felt targeted and bullied. During our meeting, we reviewed the relevant policies (Student Concerns and Complaints, and the Respectful Campus Community Policy), and discussed how to attempt to resolve the problem informally. At this time Rupert angrily expressed concern that the college was already aware of the teacher's conduct and had done nothing to resolve the issues.
It was clear from Rupert's anger that it would not be appropriate for him to meet with the teacher, so I suggested that he contact the chairperson to initiate a complaint. Rupert was reluctant because he felt the chairperson was already aware of the problem. I encouraged Rupert to speak to the chairperson directly, rather than just assuming that the college was aware of the problems. Rupert was still reluctant, so I contacted the chairperson to establish a meeting between the three of us. The chairperson was unaware of the problems in the classroom. During the meeting the chairperson gathered information necessary to investigate the matter, and made the necessary arrangements for Rupert to complete the class. Following the meeting the chairperson investigated the complaint and took appropriate measures to address elements of the complaint that could be substantiated.
Rupert later complained that due to confidentiality provisions, he was not given a complete accounting of what disciplinary measures were taken. I contacted the chairperson to assess if the investigation was thorough and complete, and then reported to Rupert that the matter was appropriately handled. Although I did not tell Rupert the specific outcome of the investigation, or if the teacher received any sanction, I was able to validate that the college had responded appropriately.
Discussion
This case study illustrates the risks inherent in assuming that the college is aware of complaints. Rupert was very angry that the college allowed alleged misconduct to continue; however the meeting with the chair was the first time the chairperson heard of the concerns about the teacher. The college acted quickly to ensure Rupert had an opportunity to complete the class, and investigated the allegations once it was aware of the complaint.
The role of the Ombudsperson in this complaint was to assist the parties in following the established complaint process. By attending the meeting, the Ombudsperson's presence brought legitimacy to a process which Rupert did not trust. The Ombudsperson's presence at the meeting with the chair helped to ensure Rupert was calm enough to tell his story. The Ombudsperson was also able to validate the actions of the chairperson following the investigation. In these interventions I act as conciliator to help establish conditions where parties to a dispute can participate in creating a resolution. In these cases a significant effort is made to prepare the parties such that they can have productive discussions by identifying interests, and identifying a range of options for resolution. In cases such as Rupert's the presence of an impartial third party had a profound impact on the ability of the parties to remain calm and focus on the issues in dispute with relatively little direct intervention by the Ombudsperson.
What constitutes fair notice?
Abigail contacted the Ombuds Office in late November to complain about the delay in receiving a decision on her application for readmission. Abigail stated that she had started school the previous September, and was given a conditional continuation at the end of her first semester in the program due to a combination of low GPA and failed courses. She failed two more classes at the end of the second semester, and was required to reapply. Abigail stated that she had submitted the reapplication several weeks earlier but had not received a decision. I agreed to contact the program coordinator to inquire as to the status of the application.
The coordinator reported that Abigail had only submitted the application one week prior to her contacting my office, and that decision letter was mailed the day before we met. The coordinator indicated that the student was not successful in her reapplication because she had not done enough to address the deficiencies which led to failed courses. When questioned further, the coordinator stated that she would have liked to see the student complete upgrading prior to readmission to the program. I informed Abigail of the decision. Abigail stated that this was the first time she heard that she was required to do any upgrading.
I spoke again with the coordinator to review the decision and the communication with the student. Following the review it was clear that the decision to require the student to reapply was consistent with college policy. The requirement for upgrading was supported by past practice, and program policies as successful upgrading was correlated with improved academic success. It was not clear however that the student was informed that she would be required to upgrade. The student was informed that she would be required to reapply when her final marks were posted on web advisor. The college did not inform the student that any further action was required than reapplying for the program.
Following the review I concluded that the student had not contacted the college prior to submitting the reapplication. In fact, Abigail stated that she did not check her final marks on web advisor until September. Therefore, Abigail bore some responsibility for the situation. At the same time, the college had not taken sufficient action to notify the student of what she was required to complete in order to be eligible for readmission. Following the review it was clear that readmitting the student into the program would be setting her up to fail because she had not addressed the cause of the failures. Following discussion between the student and coordinator, I was able to provide Abigail with a list of options how to upgrade. To conclude the case I met with the coordinator, and we discussed the need to notify students of what upgrading they will be required to complete prior to readmission. The coordinator suggested that the program would review how students were notified of conditions they must meet to be readmitted to the program. Discussion: This case revolves around the concept of fair notice. When students are required to reapply to the program they are directed to contact the school in order to learn of conditions for readmission. Although Abigail did not make any effort to contact the school prior to her reapplication, the college is responsible for making timely and relevant information available to students. In the months since this case occurred, the college has improved how information about end of level decisions is provided to students. These activities include information on web advisor when students receive their grades, e-mails sent by the Office of the Registrar to notify students who are required to reapply of their obligations and next steps, and reviews by academic departments of the information provided to students. The relevance of this case extends beyond communication of end of level decisions — it demonstrates the importance of fair notice and striving to ensure that decisions are transparent. When students are provided with all information relevant to their programs of study it improves their likelihood of being successful, prevents student complaints, and protects the college from allegations that it is treating students unfairly. RECOMMENDATIONS: During 2006-7, I submitted several formal and informal recommendations, and advised of areas where improvement can be made to specific departments. These recommendations tend to be case-specific, directed toward remedying an unfair situation, or preventing further complaints. I am pleased to report that I have seen positive changes result from these recommendations. I trust that the consideration and implementation of these recommendations will improve the College's capacity to respond to complaints, and serve to prevent problems from escalating.
ANNUAL REPORT 2006-2007
In accordance with the Ombuds Office terms of reference, this annual report is submitted to the President of the College and the Ombuds Advisory Committee. The report covers the period from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, and is available to any member of the Fanshawe College Community.
ANNUAL REPORT MESSAGE
The annual report message is used to identify themes and challenges facing the college, and make recommendations to address them.
Adding Value
Recently, I was asked to discuss with a colleague about how an Ombuds Office adds value to an institution which already has a variety of complaint or redress mechanisms available. The answer to the question is interesting, and illustrative of the role of the Ombudsperson at Fanshawe. I have included the topic here because it provides a perspective on how the office functions at the college.
There are four major categories where the Ombudsperson demonstrates and adds value in an organization. They are related to: The role of the Ombudsperson as outlined in the terms of reference for the office; Improved informal dispute resolution and increased institutional capacity to resolve complaints; The role of the Ombudsperson as a toxin handler and; The goodwill created by the position.
The role of an Ombudsman is outlined in the terms of reference or mandate for the office. Generally, Ombudsmen receive and investigate complaints and provide recommendations to redress unfair practice. They act as a form of independent oversight, with the goal of ensuring fair treatment of constituent groups (citizens for legislative Ombudsmen and students and staff for college and university Ombudspersons). This oversight creates value by reducing the chance that unfairness will occur, and allows for corrective measures in cases where the Ombudsperson deems it necessary to make a recommendation. The capacity to make specific and systemic recommendations is valuable because it improves policy and practice, which in turn prevents further complaints. This means that the institution spends less time responding directly to complaints.
An Ombudsperson helps to improve the capacity of an institution to informally resolve complaints by offering dispute resolution alternatives and by assisting the disputing parties. This can occur informally through discussions and quiet intervention, or through a more formal mediation or negotiation process. The Ombudsperson often assists individuals in articulating their concerns, and helps them to identify realistic outcomes to complaints. At other times, the Ombudsperson coaches college officials in how to appropriately respond to complaints. Activities directed toward assisting informal resolutions are largely unseen, but remain an important component of Ombuds-work.
A large component of the role of the Ombudsperson is to act as a toxin handle. Toxin handler refers to an individual who formally, or informally, is involved in decreasing anger and toxic emotions in a workplace. An Ombudsperson within the workplace plays an important role in handling emotionally toxic situations. The Ombudsperson provides an outlet where visitors can vent their emotions, and create plans of action to deal with the situation. The Ombudsperson can also reduce toxic interaction by reframing issues, carrying messages between parties and allowing visitors to feel heard. Deescalating toxic situations allows parties to a dispute to focus on the issues rather than emotional turmoil.
Finally, the existence of an Ombuds Office, and the work of an Ombudsperson, demonstrates that the institution is committed to fair treatment of its constituents, thereby creating goodwill. It is clear from my conversations with prospective students and parents that they value the fact that the college and student union have demonstrated their commitment to fair treatment of the college community by hiring an Ombudsperson. An independent office can reduce the impact of reactive devaluation. Reactive devaluation refers to the phenomenon where parties to a conflict devalue statements or offers of settlement made by the opposing party, simply by virtue of the fact that they were made by a perceived opponent. An independent Ombudsperson can validate information supplied by college officials, thereby increasing trust in the institution.
Much of the work done by the Ombudsperson is confidential, or not directly in the public eye. The annual report is one way in which the Ombuds Office can demonstrate its value, and contribution to the community by showing how the office works to resolve complaints.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood — guidance for complaint handlers.
The fifth habit of Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” This habit is essential in resolving complaints, because effective resolution requires the decision-maker to truly understand the issues at stake before responding. This is true for responding to a complaint, hearing an appeal or responding to a grievance. It is an area where college officials could improve their practice. While it is important to be decisive, I often feel when meeting with someone who is responding to a complaint, that they are more interested in responding to what they perceive the complaint to be than understanding the issues at stake. This is challenging because when the respondent does not fully understand the problem, the proposed resolutions do not address the problem at hand.
Understanding can be enhanced by: giving adequate time for parties to a dispute to tell their story; seeking the other party's perspective of the problem by asking questions to clarify; paraphrasing and summarizing discussion to ensure an accurate understand (to demonstrate understanding to other party); and delaying the urge to respond. Attempting to change how one responds to difficult situations is not an easy task, but the payoff will be evident with more effective resolutions.
Words of Caution — Academic appeals
In 2005, the academic appeals policy was revised with the intent, in part, to address issues related to the college not following the timelines proscribed in the academic appeals policy. The changes in this policy have improved the practice related to appeals, and the appeals system is working more effectively than previously. I will offer two cautionary observations related to the role of the Dean in the appeal process. In the appeal policy it states that the Dean has 14 days to respond to a first-level academic appeal. I am concerned that the number of incidents where the Dean does not meet this deadline is gradually increasing. This was a problem prior to the revised policy coming into effect, and I am hopeful that by raising awareness of the issue, it will be corrected before it becomes problematic.
The second note of caution relates to the Dean's obligations when conducting an appeal investigation. The policy states that the Dean is required to hear from the student, speak with the faculty member, then let the student respond to the information supplied by the teacher. I am concerned that on occasion, Deans issue their decision after meeting with the teacher and neglecting to allow the student to respond to the new information. This is not consistent with the appeal policy, and is unfair because the student is unable to respond to the case against them. Some Deans meet with the student and teacher at the same time. This accomplishes the objective of allowing the appellant to present their case and respond to the case against them. When the Dean does not follow the process as stipulated in the policy it creates grounds for a second-level appeal because the college has not followed its own rules. It is my hope that by mentioning these obligations, that it will prevent problems from arising in the future.
Words of Caution — Security.
The Ombuds Office received 15 complaints about Campus Security Service last year. This is a significant increase - the previous high was two complaints in 2005-6. The complaints tended to fall into two major categories: Students with a student code of conduct offence approached the Ombuds Office to inquire about an appeal and; Students complained about the tactic of Campus Security - such as sending two security guards to call students out of a class for a meeting.
Increases in visits from students who have codes of conduct are the bi-product of increased security enforcement. This does not cause concern as the codes of conduct reports were appropriate, and it reflects that students are aware of their rights to appeal code of conduct offences. As I write this report, the college is reviewing the student code of conduct. I am hopeful that the revised code of conduct will address the perceived shortcomings of the current policy, and we will see more effective use of the policy in a manner that meets the needs of the campus community.
The rise in complaints about security corresponds to an increase in security enforcement on campus. This increase was necessary, and has placed Fanshawe College on the forefront of campus policing in Canadian community colleges however; this has led to some concern over how security conducts itself. Concern expressed by students about having security guards come to their class to take them to meetings with representatives of Campus Security is one example of the concerns I have heard. I offer these words of caution as we move forward. The college community needs to understand the necessity for more comprehensive security. At the same time, campus security needs to be aware of the impact of how they conduct themselves and how they are perceived by the college community.
2006-2007 OVERVIEW OMBUDS OFFICE MANDATE
The Ombuds Office was established in October 1993 through a joint agreement between the College and the Student Union. In 2003, the mandate was revised. The mandate of the Ombuds Office is to:
1. Receive, investigate, and seek to resolve, at the request of any member of the college community, or upon the Ombuds' own motion, any problems, or complaints with regard to any aspect of college life.
2. Provide general information about College resources, procedures and rules, and advise visitors of their rights and responsibilities in situations where problems or questions may arise.
3. Make recommendations to those in authority with a view to remedying the situation of individuals, and recommend changes in rules or procedures, which would have the effect of making the College, or Student Union more fair in their operations.
For the full text of the mandate, please refer to the Ombuds Office website (http://www.fanshawec.ca/ombuds/default.asp).
DISCUSSION OF CASES
This section provides a statistical breakdown and analysis of this year's caseload. Six hundred and seventeen members of the College community were in contact with the Ombuds office this year, regarding 334 files. This is a decrease of eight cases compared last year, which was the highest caseload since the inception of the Ombuds office, but is on-par with the number of cases in the two previous years. It took an average of 4.4 days to conclude each case, which is consistent with the previous five years.
Cases by Action
The first area of discussion, illustrates what action was undertaken by the Ombudsperson upon receipt of a complaint. This can include providing information or advice, or some form of intervention. Cases were reported as information when I provided case-specific information to the client. Cases are classified as advice when we discussed a visitor's concern, identified possible paths toward resolution, and helped the visitor to assess which path was most appropriate to their circumstances. Intervention refers to cases where the Ombudsperson took an active role in the resolution of a complaint. Whenever possible, I attempt to empower visitors to pursue their own solutions in an informed and appropriate manner. By spending time discussing expectations, fairness and options, individuals are better prepared to make choices to take effective action on their own.
Cases where the Ombudsperson intervenes are the smallest proportion of the caseload, but require the most work. The five types of intervention, including:
Clarification; Negotiate and Facilitate solutions; Mediation; Review and Recommendation; and Investigation and Recommendation. “Clarification” is when the Ombudsperson sought information with the purpose of assisting the resolution of a complaint. For example, to clarify rules or policies, or to request reasons for a decision. Cases classified as “Negotiates and Facilitates Resolution” involved a more direct intervention. In these instances, the Ombudsperson alerted College employees of problems; employed shuttle diplomacy; identified issues to be resolved; identified solutions to problems; and provided process advice to parties as they attempt to achieve resolution. “Mediation” refers to formal mediation, where the Ombudsperson facilitated a face to face negotiation between two or more parties. Review and Recommendation, refers to cases where the Ombudsperson conducted an informal review of the case, and provided an informal recommendation or conclusion based on the evidence available. The recommendation or conclusion was then used to resolve the complaint. “Investigation and Recommendation” refers to cases which required a formal investigation and written recommendations. This table demonstrates that even when an intervention is required, the preferred approach is to encourage informal resolutions at the lowest level.
Caseload by Issue
At times, the nature of complaints and inquiries are difficult to categorize if they overlap or are unclear. In some cases there are multiple issues involved in a complaint. While both primary and secondary issues are recorded, for the sake of brevity, only the primary issues (recorded according to the best matching issue description) are contained in this report.
2006-7 featured a significant drop in the number of complaints about admissions. Complaints relate to all aspects of the admissions process — from admissions decisions, to concerns that arise when students loose their place in programs when they do not confirm their acceptance, or pay on time. In 2004-5 there were 19 complaints about admissions. In 2006-7 there were only four complaints. This improvement is due in part to efforts to increase the amount, and relevance of information available to students during the admission process. The result of this increased transparency is that students understand the admission process better, and they are better able to meet their obligations to supply information and pay fees by specific dates. There will always be complaints about the admission process, but the drop in complaints about admissions reflects a significant improvement.
Academic complaints account for the greatest number of cases. The largest single academic issue bringing visitors to the Ombuds office relates to academic appeals.
Outcome of Cases
The effectiveness of the Ombuds Office is often measured by its ability to facilitate the resolution of complaints. Over the past two years, the number of cases where the Ombudsperson provided information has increased over the three preceding years. Providing information can be as simple as describing an appeal process or it may entail a comprehensive conversation about how to approach resolving a concern. I have identified that there is a wide range of cases which can be described as providing information, and hope in subsequent reports to have more specific information to clarify this outcome.
CASE STUDIES:
The following case studies are offered to illustrate the principles of natural justice and to give readers a more detailed view of the work of the Ombudsperson. Each features a brief summary of the case with some comments. These cases are fictionalized accounts of actual cases. Details have been modified or omitted to protect the identity of individuals and departments. The cases are chosen for their interest and educational value.
Student confidentiality conundrum
Jessica contacted the Ombuds office upset with a practice in one department which required students to provide photocopies of their identification. The student felt that it would be appropriate to show the identification, but did not accept that the college would retain a copy. Jessica asked that the practice be overturned. Jessica was angry because when she asked why the information was required, the staff member with whom she was interacting was unable to provide an explanation. The student met with the manager of the department, and was unable to resolve the issue. The manager referred Jessica to the Ombuds office. After spending some time to gather more information from Jessica, I agreed to discuss the matter with the manager. Over the course of the investigation, I met with the manager, reviewed the chain of e-mail messages between the parties and reviewed the provisions in legislation and regulations which allow the college to collect information from students. The manager shared the department's rationale for retaining the identification. The manager stated that the copies were retained in order to make the practice consistent with other areas, and to retain copies in case there were problems in the future.
I concluded that the regulations governing community colleges allow colleges to collect personal information as long as it is consistent with the aims of the college, and that it is kept secure such that students' privacy rights are not violated. Furthermore, the practice was supported by other programs of a similar nature. Therefore, I concluded that it was appropriate for the college to collect the information, and that appropriate measures were being taken to protect the information. I met with both parties to share my conclusion. Jessica accepted my explanation of why the information was required, and findings that it was appropriate for the college to request the information. Jessica met the manager once more. During the meeting, they used the investigation findings to come to a compromise solution that both parties would be comfortable accepting. Jessica reported that she was happy with the resolution.
Discussion:
This case study is important because it reflects the increasing student awareness of importance of protecting their personal information. In 2006-7 the Ombuds Office received several complaints where confidentiality was an important element of the complaint. Examples include: teachers inappropriately disclosing personal information in class (like academic offence histories, results of evaluations and information about disability); college employees disclosing personal information over the telephone; and college employees sharing personal information which the student did not want revealed. Students have also expressed concern about why the college requires specific information (like birthdates), or why the Financial Aid Office requires students to show their social insurance card when releasing loans. In cases where there has been a breach of student's confidentiality rights, for the most part the breaches happen when well meaning employees inadvertently let something slip. That being said, once the information is released it is very difficult to right the wrong.
The college policy on confidentiality of student information provides a strong statement of the obligations of college employees to protect student information. I recommend that obligations related to student confidentiality be stressed during new employee orientation (both on a corporate and departmental level), and periodically discussed at departmental meetings. When receiving with personal information from students, employees should also make it regular practice to discuss confidentiality expectations with students and how the information will be used. This will help employees maintain awareness of their responsibilities related to personal information, and will assist students understand the legitimate use of personal information by the college.
Student-Teacher Conflict
Rupert attended the Ombuds Office to complain about the conduct of one of his teachers. Rupert reported that the teacher had made a series of inappropriate personal comments in class. The alleged behaviour included disciplining the student for poor attendance in front of the class, criticizing Rupert in class on days when Rupert was absent. Rupert stated that he spoke with the teacher about this behaviour after class one day, and received very poor marks on subsequent assignments. Rupert stated that he felt targeted and bullied. During our meeting, we reviewed the relevant policies (Student Concerns and Complaints, and the Respectful Campus Community Policy), and discussed how to attempt to resolve the problem informally. At this time Rupert angrily expressed concern that the college was already aware of the teacher's conduct and had done nothing to resolve the issues.
It was clear from Rupert's anger that it would not be appropriate for him to meet with the teacher, so I suggested that he contact the chairperson to initiate a complaint. Rupert was reluctant because he felt the chairperson was already aware of the problem. I encouraged Rupert to speak to the chairperson directly, rather than just assuming that the college was aware of the problems. Rupert was still reluctant, so I contacted the chairperson to establish a meeting between the three of us. The chairperson was unaware of the problems in the classroom. During the meeting the chairperson gathered information necessary to investigate the matter, and made the necessary arrangements for Rupert to complete the class. Following the meeting the chairperson investigated the complaint and took appropriate measures to address elements of the complaint that could be substantiated.
Rupert later complained that due to confidentiality provisions, he was not given a complete accounting of what disciplinary measures were taken. I contacted the chairperson to assess if the investigation was thorough and complete, and then reported to Rupert that the matter was appropriately handled. Although I did not tell Rupert the specific outcome of the investigation, or if the teacher received any sanction, I was able to validate that the college had responded appropriately.
Discussion
This case study illustrates the risks inherent in assuming that the college is aware of complaints. Rupert was very angry that the college allowed alleged misconduct to continue; however the meeting with the chair was the first time the chairperson heard of the concerns about the teacher. The college acted quickly to ensure Rupert had an opportunity to complete the class, and investigated the allegations once it was aware of the complaint.
The role of the Ombudsperson in this complaint was to assist the parties in following the established complaint process. By attending the meeting, the Ombudsperson's presence brought legitimacy to a process which Rupert did not trust. The Ombudsperson's presence at the meeting with the chair helped to ensure Rupert was calm enough to tell his story. The Ombudsperson was also able to validate the actions of the chairperson following the investigation. In these interventions I act as conciliator to help establish conditions where parties to a dispute can participate in creating a resolution. In these cases a significant effort is made to prepare the parties such that they can have productive discussions by identifying interests, and identifying a range of options for resolution. In cases such as Rupert's the presence of an impartial third party had a profound impact on the ability of the parties to remain calm and focus on the issues in dispute with relatively little direct intervention by the Ombudsperson.
What constitutes fair notice?
Abigail contacted the Ombuds Office in late November to complain about the delay in receiving a decision on her application for readmission. Abigail stated that she had started school the previous September, and was given a conditional continuation at the end of her first semester in the program due to a combination of low GPA and failed courses. She failed two more classes at the end of the second semester, and was required to reapply. Abigail stated that she had submitted the reapplication several weeks earlier but had not received a decision. I agreed to contact the program coordinator to inquire as to the status of the application.
The coordinator reported that Abigail had only submitted the application one week prior to her contacting my office, and that decision letter was mailed the day before we met. The coordinator indicated that the student was not successful in her reapplication because she had not done enough to address the deficiencies which led to failed courses. When questioned further, the coordinator stated that she would have liked to see the student complete upgrading prior to readmission to the program. I informed Abigail of the decision. Abigail stated that this was the first time she heard that she was required to do any upgrading.
I spoke again with the coordinator to review the decision and the communication with the student. Following the review it was clear that the decision to require the student to reapply was consistent with college policy. The requirement for upgrading was supported by past practice, and program policies as successful upgrading was correlated with improved academic success. It was not clear however that the student was informed that she would be required to upgrade. The student was informed that she would be required to reapply when her final marks were posted on web advisor. The college did not inform the student that any further action was required than reapplying for the program.
Following the review I concluded that the student had not contacted the college prior to submitting the reapplication. In fact, Abigail stated that she did not check her final marks on web advisor until September. Therefore, Abigail bore some responsibility for the situation. At the same time, the college had not taken sufficient action to notify the student of what she was required to complete in order to be eligible for readmission. Following the review it was clear that readmitting the student into the program would be setting her up to fail because she had not addressed the cause of the failures. Following discussion between the student and coordinator, I was able to provide Abigail with a list of options how to upgrade. To conclude the case I met with the coordinator, and we discussed the need to notify students of what upgrading they will be required to complete prior to readmission. The coordinator suggested that the program would review how students were notified of conditions they must meet to be readmitted to the program. Discussion: This case revolves around the concept of fair notice. When students are required to reapply to the program they are directed to contact the school in order to learn of conditions for readmission. Although Abigail did not make any effort to contact the school prior to her reapplication, the college is responsible for making timely and relevant information available to students. In the months since this case occurred, the college has improved how information about end of level decisions is provided to students. These activities include information on web advisor when students receive their grades, e-mails sent by the Office of the Registrar to notify students who are required to reapply of their obligations and next steps, and reviews by academic departments of the information provided to students. The relevance of this case extends beyond communication of end of level decisions — it demonstrates the importance of fair notice and striving to ensure that decisions are transparent. When students are provided with all information relevant to their programs of study it improves their likelihood of being successful, prevents student complaints, and protects the college from allegations that it is treating students unfairly. RECOMMENDATIONS: During 2006-7, I submitted several formal and informal recommendations, and advised of areas where improvement can be made to specific departments. These recommendations tend to be case-specific, directed toward remedying an unfair situation, or preventing further complaints. I am pleased to report that I have seen positive changes result from these recommendations. I trust that the consideration and implementation of these recommendations will improve the College's capacity to respond to complaints, and serve to prevent problems from escalating.
