Chair, Administrative Hearing Board

5 November, 2012

From:Tom Bitterwolf

Chair, Administrative Hearing Board

To:University of Idaho Faculty Senate

Re:Proposed changes to FS Handbook language

Background:

The Administrative Hearing Board, AdHB, was established early in the history of Faculty Governance to adjudicate challenges to administrative policies, regulations and rules. Unlike its sister committee, the Academic Petitions Committee, APC, the charter of the AdHB (See attached) is terse. The Board’s responsibilities concerning financial issues may be summarized as hearing and deciding

Appeals by students and employees from administrative decisions in such matters as residence status for tuition purposes, granting of student financial aid, and assessment of fees or charges.

Each Board has chosen to interpret this charter in its own way. Over a period of time a “fairness” doctrine began to be used to override administrative decisions when it was felt that the rules in question were overly restrictive or capricious. As the language of the FSH provided no mechanism for the AdHB to change or challenge policy, the Board took it upon itself to adjudicate cases based on what the rules “ought to be” rather than what they were.

Prior to assuming the Chairmanship I met with University Counsel to discuss the role and responsibility of the Board, particularly with reference to its quasi-judicial responsibilities. At that time I learned of changes in SBOE policy toward the granting of residency that severely reduced the latitude of the AdHB in those cases to reviewing the actions of staff to ensure that the rules had been followed. The past practice of granting residency in cases where a student could present a compelling case for a waiver of rules stopped immediately.

Sorting out the AdHB’s authority with respect to institutional rules and regulations has necessitated returning to the language of the FSH. At no point does this language give the AdHB authority to waive or supersede policy. Using this, and not the “fairness” doctrine, as a starting point again reduces the AdHB to checking to confirm that staff has applied rules in a consistent manner. It completely removes the role of the AdHB from making judgment calls on whether a student should receive a reimbursement of fees if they miss the deadline for droppingcourses or if they have to drop out of school for a medical reason.

It should be noted that the working relationship of the AdHB, the Registrar, Manager of Student Accounts and University Counsel has been excellent. Moving to face-to-face meetings has allowed the Registrar and Manager of Student Accounts to provide important background details on the cases, and it allows the Board to draw on their detailed knowledge of policy. Their suggestions and those of University Counsel have played an important role in crafting the modifications proposed in this memo.

Recommendations:

One clear difference between the FSH language for the AdHB and APC is the provision for providing feedback to the Senate on the effects of rules and recommendations for addressing these effects. Similar language needs to be included for the AdHB. Reforming policy rather than making arbitrary decisions on each case would appear to be a far better way of addressing problems. Item A-3 in the proposed changes addresses this issue.

The FSH language for the APC clarifies the responsibilities of the committee through a section on Assumptions and Procedures. A similar section C has been added to the proposed language for AdHB. Section C-1 charges the AdHB to avoid creating a pathway around policy. C-2 clearly indicates the AdHB authority with respect to Residency appeals, while C-3 is a reminder that ultimate responsibility for complying with deadlines lies with the student. Finally, C-4 reins in the “fairness” doctrine by instructing the AdHB to focus on whether policy has been followed, rather on the effect of that policy on students.

This brings us back to the role of the AdHB in addressing policies that appear to unfairly ensnare students or that seem insensitive to legitimate student issues. In these cases the AdHB has already begun working with the Registrar, the Manager of Student Accounts and University Counsel to effect changes in policy. These actions have been carried out on an ad hoc basis so clear language authorizing the AdHB to act in this manner is desirable.

Two current projects are illustrative of issues where the AdHB is playing a positive role. At present, there is no provision in policy for the return of fees in those cases where a student has to withdraw because of medical reasons. We have addressed this issue with the Manager of Student Accounts, Faculty Senate Leadership and with University Counsel and there appears to be strong support for introduction of such language into policy. In anticipation of such a change the AdHB is withholding action of several appeals until changes can be made.

Current policy precludes a student from dropping their last academic course (essentially withdrawing) without speaking to an advisor. While there is a warning to this effect on the web site many students overlook it and are surprised to find that they owe money for a course they think they have dropped. By working with the Registrar, Andrew Brewick, and Associate Deans modifications are being developed to eliminate this unintended snag.

There are more fundamental issues at play in the interaction of the AdHB, Faculty Senate and the Administration. While the Senate clearly “owns” academic policy relevant to the APC, the line for administrative policies is less clear. Development of a collaborative relationship between the Senate(with the AdHB serving to identify issues) and the Administration on the subject of fees and deadlines would provide a vehicle for dialogue. A committee consisting of the Chair of AdHB, the Vice-Chair of Faculty Senate, Faculty Secretary, ASUI President or designee, Registrar, Manager of Student Accounts and the VP for Financial Affairs or designee, could be convened as needed to address new or unexpected issues having to do with policy. This Committee would also have responsibility for reviewing policies for potential problems before they become effective. Details of the authority of such a committee would have to be negotiated with the Administration.

To enrich education through diversity the University of Idaho is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer