Running head: OAP SJP 1

Organizational Analysis Paper: Student Judicial Programs

Amy Bielicki

Western Illinois University

OAP SJP 2

Organizational Analysis Paper: Student Judicial Programs

This paper will attempt to engage a theory to practice analysis, linking different lenses

found in the text Images of Organization by Gareth Morgan to a specific situational occurrence

from my practicum site in Student Judicial Programs (SJP). My analysis will include three

lenses with which the specific situation will be viewed from: the lenses of mechanical, culture,

and political systems. The overarching aim of connecting these different lenses to a situational

analysis of Student Judicial programs is to promote an all-encapsulating view of the office and of

what my experience working in this office has been over the last semester.

Descriptions

The Organization

Timothy Sheridan is the current Director of the Office of Student Judicial Programs and

has fulfilled this role for close to thirty years. Jennie Hemingway is a Hearing Officer within the

office and has been with the office for approximately three years. Michema LaFontant is a

Graduate Assistant in the office and there are three student workers whom work in SJP, one of

which is also a Hearing Officer. According to the SJP website:

The mission of Student Judicial Programs (SJP) is to fairly and reasonably develop,

disseminate, interpret, and enforce regulations while protecting student rights, addressing

student behavioral problems, reinforcing standards of academic excellence and social

responsibility, promoting educational opportunity and personal growth, and encouraging

activities that prevent violations of the Code of Student Conduct (Mission).

In other words, SJP oversees student discipline at Western Illinois University (WIU).

Reports of alleged student misconduct are reported to SJP who then delegates the misconduct out

through a Disciplinary Conference or through a University Judicial Board (UJB) Hearing.

OAP SJP 3

Disciplinary Conferences. Disciplinary Conferences typically occur for incidents or

cases which are less severe (i.e. first time Code of Conduct violations vis-à-vis underage

drinking). During these conferences, students will meet one on one with a Hearing Officer, have

a chance to convey their side of the incident, and the student and Hearing Officer work to

develop appropriate sanctions for the student depending on the situation which transpired. At

any point during a Disciplinary Conference, or if a student and Hearing Officer cannot

reasonably agree on a sanction, students may ask to have their case reviewed by the UJB

(Frequently Asked Questions).

University Judicial Board. The UJB is comprised of students, faculty, and staff

members whom gather to hear, review, and analyze evidence regarding alleged cases of student

misconduct. For all UJB hearings (as well as Disciplinary Conferences) a preponderance of the

evidence standard exists – this means that an incident need only more likely to have occurred

than not for a student to be found in violation of the Code of Student Conduct (CSC). UJB

Hearings typically occur for cases that are more severe – Title IX, Fighting, or cases where

suspension or expulsion from WIU may be considered. However, UJB Hearings can include any

aspect of the CSC and students can be charged with multiple codes at once (same for

Disciplinary Conferences). Sanctions, which are consequences associated with student

misconduct (FAQ), can be assigned at all levels and vary depending on the severity of the

incident with the least intrusive sanction being Disciplinary Reprimand (close to a Verbal

Warning) and the most intrusive being Expulsion. Overall, the goal of SJP is to foster student

learning, growth, and development (Code of Student Conduct).

OAP SJP 4

The Situation

Recently, Tim and Jennie instructed myself and Michema that we would be the Chairs of

a UJB Hearing. The Hearing was regarding a Code 22g violation, which is: “failing to comply

with a sanction imposed under the Code of Student Conduct” (Code of Student Conduct). The

sanction which was marked as incomplete was a Step 1 AOD Assessment with the Alcohol and

Other Drugs Office. This is a standard sanction required for first time alcohol/drug policy

violations, can be assigned as deemed appropriate, and/or may be reassigned if a student is

currently in good judicial standing but has a previous record of violating the drug or alcohol

policy. In this case, the student had a prior case history with drugs and alcohol as well as a prior

history of not completing his sanctions or showing up to Disciplinary Conferences.

When setting up the Hearing and printing out the appropriate documents necessary for

the UJB Hearing, Michema consulted Jennie. Jennie stated that the Code 22 incident report

would be helpful, and that no other documentation was necessary. Tim then sat in on the UJB

Hearing to observe our procedure. Three UJB members sat in on the Hearing. After waiting for

fifteen minutes after the recorded start time, the student did not appear for the Hearing, which

means that the UJB heard the board In Abstentia and determined appropriate sanctions based on

the provided evidence.

After the UJB Hearing, Tim stated that we should have printed out more documents.

Having a complete record of all incidents from the past would have helped the board members.

Further, we should have tried to draw more information out of each UJB member to understand

their thought processes, as the deliberation was quite quiet at times. During the deliberation

process as well, Tim interjected the consensus decision of the UJB to offer a different option.

The UJB ultimately ended up selecting this option, though he was keen to interject where he felt
OAP SJP 5

we were messing up during the Hearing and continuously offer his own expertise on prior or

similar situations.

Lenses

Mechanical Lens

By just looking at the overall structure of SJP, it appears very mechanical. A student

messes up, they go to a conference of a hearing, they are found not in violation or in violation,

there are “standard” consequences for each code violation in the CSC, which get assigned,

student leaves. Theoretically, the department should operate smoothly, churning out students

who have learned great life lessons through messing up and speaking with a Hearing Officer or

the UJB. However, much like machines rarely function perfectly every time, SJP does not either.

Reflecting on the situation presented, ideally what would have happened was that the student

would have shown up for the hearing and the UJB still would have recommended the sanctions

which they did. However, the student did not show up. There was information missing when

questions were asked which meant that someone had to leaving the deliberation to obtain the

documents for everyone. A pre-established procedure for Code 22g UJB Hearings would have

been in place and Michema and myself simply would have had to follow a guideline to complete

the UJB Hearing effectively and efficiently.

As evident in the situation, the machine starts to malfunction when there are

inconsistencies. Specializations or personal touches create dissonance within the mechanical

lens. No set procedure is exactly in place of how things should be run, and thus, when left up to

interpretation, things can go wrong. In a department where everything seems very mechanical,

there is a large room for error. Humans are complex, which in turn suggests that there is no one

right way to approach a UJB Hearing or a Disciplinary Conference. Mechanical implies a rather
OAP SJP 6

mindless thought process, which does not work effectively when dealing with humans, yet,

having established procedures in place which can be followed accordingly would help SJP run

more smoothly and provide fewer inconsistencies based on subjectivity (Morgan, 2006, p. 11-

31). In other words, in the office which appears super mechanical but is not, a more mechanical

structure or lens would benefit those outsiders who are trying to learn or integrate into the SJP

office.

Culture Lens

A lot of policies and knowledge about the SJP office is held by Tim. Tim has been a

consistent member with the SJP office for close to thirty years, so he was around when most of

the policies currently in place were either created or implemented. Further, Tim has often had a

hand in creating and shaping the policies relevant to the SJP office. This drastically influences

the offices culture, as Tim is mostly a walking encyclopedia of knowledge, often relating current

cases to prior cases from years ago. From the outside, as mentioned, SJP appears to be a

machine. Inside the office, however, one can see the impact that the cultural lens has on the

office.

Since Tim was around for most of the policies or major shifts within the office, he

understands the changes that were made, the historical context as to why they were made, and

how they improved SJP and conduct at the time. However, his deep investment in the office

makes change or brining up opposing viewpoints difficult. Tim has a counterargument or story

for most points that are brought up. Thus, it is extremely difficult to separate the culture of the

SJP office from the culture of Tim.

Further, there are subcultures which exist within SJP. Jennie infuses more humor into her

conversations, Tim incorporates continual questions, I rarely see the student workers within the
OAP SJP 7

office at all. As evidenced by the situation, different subcultures will produce different results,

especially when those subcultures are overlapped (Morgan, 2006, p. 115 - 147). Jennie started

assisting with the UJB hearing, then the observation piece was transferred to Tim creating

dissonance and tension within the overall SJP culture. The culture of the office, and the

subcultural differences which exist between individuals in the office, creates an atmosphere

where one is not sure whom to follow or which process will result in a better outcome.

Political System Lens

Looking at the outlined situation through this lens, the real power of the SJP office lies

within the Associate Vice President for Student Services Jason Woods, and even perhaps further,

the Vice President for Student Services Ron Williams. Observing strictly the UJB Hearing which

played out, Tim was in a position of power and dominance over the UJB Hearing even though

Michema and I were chairing the Hearing. Further, the UJB members listened to Tim’s opinions

on recommended sanctions over their own recommendations or the ones that Michema and I

tried to guide them towards. Tim then had Michema and I draft the outcome letter to be sent to

Jason Woods, though he edited the letter to better suit his style and conveyance of the UJB

Hearing. Jennie’s opinions and way of running UJB Hearings were disregarded when Tim

stepped in to observe. Finally, myself, Michema, Tim, the UJB panel, Tim, and Jennie all had

more power than the student who did not show up to attend the conference, and we would have

retained that power if the student did show up (the UJB sits on one side of the table while the

student who allegedly violated policy sits on the other). Hence, even the layout of the room was

setup in a manner to convey power and respect. (Morgan, 2006, p. 149 - 206)

Tim knows and understands the politics which occur at levels higher than his own – for

example, that SJP obtains all their funding through University Housing and Dining Services.
OAP SJP 8

Thus, Tim may have a better grasp of understanding which sanctions may be more appropriate or

readily approved at a higher level. Within the SJP office, it is basically whatever Tim says to do,

that is what is done. Jennie and Michema push back on points where they feel they may win or

create a change, though this does not happen very often. Politics is all about connections, and

Tim, having been at WIU for a very long time, has a lot of connections to and at WIU that he

may need to work with or cater to which are unknown to the rest of the SJP staff.

Critical Evaluation

SJP, like anything run by humans, has its inherent flaws. The examination of the office

through three different lenses provides a basis for viewing the SJP Office in a wider worldview.

By approaching the same situation through different lenses, one can see the different intricacies

at play which cause the SJP office to function how it does. This section of the paper will

evaluate which lenses are most dominant within the SJP office and will also identify an action

plan which may help the SJP office run more smoothly.

Dominant Lens

Reviewing the outlined description of the SJP Office as well as the situation which was

analyzed for this paper, I believe that the Culture lens plays the largest role in how the SJP office

functions. Tim is the office and the office is Tim. Tim is so ingrained into the SJP Office that the

two almost blur together. Policy creation, violation, sanctions, Tim knows and has a story for it

all. His identity has become closely linked to the SJP office which is why the culture within the

office so strongly gravitates towards whatever Tim says goes. Even other established identities

within the SJP office, such as Jennie or Michema, do not have as much weight or say in how

things run as Tim does.

OAP SJP 9

Secondary Lens

The other lens which I believe strongly affects the SJP office is political systems, and it is

a secondary support to the culture lens. Tim understands and deals with the very fine details and

relationships which influence the SJP office. Further, when tricky UJB hearings arise, Tim is

always the one to facilitate them as well as lead the board to the outcome he believes is most

beneficial. Having been in the SJP office for so many years, Tim understands the power

dynamics he can manipulate to achieve the outcomes he desires, or to be able to appease those at

higher levels than himself.

Recommended Action

Analyzing the dominant and secondary lenses which affect the SJP office, one may

conclude that the common denominator is Tim. Seemingly, Tim is the person who runs the

office, makes all the decisions, and whom the office cannot function without. Thus, my

recommendation is to create a process for the different aspects of SJP that do not require Tim’s

knowledge or opinion to function. One way this can be achieved is through concretely outlining

all documents necessary for a UJB hearing, creating a script of how conversation should flow

during deliberation, and creating a checklist to go along with UJB Hearings and Disciplinary

Conferences so procedures can be accurately followed by newcomers into the office.

The outline of documents for the UJB Hearing will help the chairs and board members be

able to have a reference as to which documents they are looking at and how these pertain to the

hearing. Conversation flow during a deliberation greatly varies on who is on the UJB that day.

Sometimes it is no trouble for conversation to occur during deliberation. However, for those

instances in which deliberation is slow, key phrases to spark discussion (which Tim may be able

to provide), would be beneficial to those who have not chaired UJB hearings in the past. Tim, on
OAP SJP 10

this deliberation sheet, may also be able to include a variety of sanctions for different incidents

which have been used in the past – almost like a reference guide for UJB cases as this could also

help the Hearing flow more efficiently. Finally, creating a checklist for Disciplinary Conferences

and UJB Hearings will help all Hearing officers, UJB members, and UJB chairs to have a way to

double check that every step of the process is being followed accordingly. This checklist may

almost occur more as a flow chart, informing each party what to do during meetings if the

conversation flows positively, negatively, or not at all since a student did not show up. Thus, my

recommendation for the dominant cultural and political lenses is to impose a more mechanical

structure onto the office to provide guidance and direction autonomously of individuals within

the SJP office. Now, the SJP office should not maintain a mechanical lens during the

engagement and conversational aspects of Disciplinary Conferences and UJB Hearings, though

rather the process should be more concretely set so that anyone could come in and successfully

run a UJB hearing if necessary.

Conclusion

Overall, the SJP office has a lot of work to do. Though the office has provided me with a

pleasant work experience and some wonderful skills, I understand how SJP is often frustrating to

others and now better understand why it runs the way it does. Fostering a sense of separation

from Tim’s identity as a person as being tied to the SJP office I believe is the first step which will

help the office run more efficiently. So long as college is expected to be a learning process and

to encourage growth and development, the SJP office will still be around and hopefully serving

students and guiding them into better and more relevant life decisions.
OAP SJP 11

References

Code of Student Conduct. (2015, September 15). Retrieved April 24, 2018, from

http://www.wiu.edu/student_services/student_judicial_programs/codeofconduct.php

Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2018, from

http://www.wiu.edu/student_services/student_judicial_programs/faq.php

Mission. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2018, from

http://www.wiu.edu/student_services/student_judicial_programs/

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.