Report outlines cases handled by the office in the previous academic year and provides recommendations to the university for policy changes
After its presentation before the McMaster University Senate on Oct. 18, the Ombuds Office has published their annual report for 2022-2023. The report outlines the cases handled by the office in the past year and the recommendations they have put forward to the university.
Located on the second floor of the McMaster University Students Centre, the Ombuds Office is a resource for graduate and undergraduate students, staff and community members to raise concerns about student-related matters at the university. It exists to identify areas of improvement for policies and procedures at the university from the cases that it handles during its operational year.
Providing an impartial voice for conflict resolution, the office oversaw 372 cases from May 1, 2022 to Apr. 30, 2023 and assisted in 338 within its jurisdiction. The other 34 involved inquiries, meaning that they were outside the office’s mandate — not student related — or outside the office’s jurisdiction – not university related.
245 of the cases overseen by the office were brought forward by undergraduate students. 79 per cent of those cases were academic issues and 17 per cent were non-academic, the remaining were outside the duty of the office or were withdrawn.
Grading/evaluation issues comprised 20 per cent of the academic issues raised, the largest category followed by problems relating to course and program management at 16 per cent and petitions, MSAF and appeals at 11 per cent. The most prominent non-academic issue concerned fees and financial at 33 per cent.
Graduate students brought 86 cases to the office, 79 per cent of them being academic and accommodation issues being the most common concern at 15 per cent. Non-academic issues were again topped by fees and financial concerns. Almost half of all inquiries brought to the office by McMaster employees were outside the mandate of the office. Seven cases concerned issues involving a student.
Almost all the cases brought to the Ombuds Office were resolved after providing information and referrals. In 58 per cent of the cases it saw, the Ombuds Office assisted by providing advice through the explanation of policies and procedures, providing an objective look at the issue, recommending the best steps to move forward if an appeal should be launched or simply by analyzing the issues that can be resolved to achieve a fair solution.
However, 82 cases over their reporting year required intervention to find a solution. Nearly half of those necessitated clarification with all involved parties, 34 per cent needing further inquiry and 18 per cent requiring mediation/negotiation to find an acceptable solution.
The other half of the annual report contained observations and recommendations made by the office. These proposed changes concerned McMaster policies and operations that the office thinks could be improved to prevent repeat cases in the future.
The office divided its recommendations into eight sections, each containing specific issues with proposed changes to resolve each at an administrative level. Many were simple changes that can be made while some larger issues warranted a multi-point recommendation from the office to improve the university policy or code that was involved in a case at the office.
The first section covered course management and identified three key areas where changes can be made to course outlines and setup. The office recommended changes to several components of the Undergraduate Course Management Policy.
The Ombuds Office recommends that the grades for all components of a course should be released without students making specific requests, as the case in an unspecified department who said that it is against department policy to release final assessment grades.
They also recommend that midterms scheduled outside of regular class time be displayed on Mosaic before course enrollment. This will give students time to identify timing conflicts before finalizing their course selections.
The other sections in the report covered timeliness, decision making authority, user-friendly policies, student conduct, academic accommodations, academic integrity, and graduate student issues.
A full list of all recommendations can be found in the report available on the Ombud's website.
SRA meeting on Jan. 29 involved discussions on the role of the Ombuds Office, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the MSU rejoining CASA.
he Student Representative Assembly meeting 22M took place on Jan. 29 in Gilmour Hall. In this meeting, the assembly covered the accessibility and services of the Ombuds Office, the initiatives being pushed by the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and a motion for the McMaster Students Union to have observer status on the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations.
University Ombuds Carolyn Brendon and Assistant Ombuds Meghan Rego attended the SRA meeting and spoke on the role of the Ombuds Office and the services it offers to McMaster University students.
The Ombuds Office representatives as a part of an outreach initiative to help the university better understand the role of the office within the community.
The Ombuds Office is located at MUSC 210 and offers free and confidential counseling to all members of the McMaster community. Brendan explained that the mandate of the Ombuds details three key principles by which their practices abide by — independence, impartiality and confidentiality.
The Ombuds Office operates outside of the academic and administrative hierarchy and strives for minimal institutional impediments. They also abide by standard confidentiality principles, in which all information discussed is confidential unless there is an imminent risk of harm.
The Ombuds Office operates outside of the academic and administrative hierarchy and strives for minimal institutional impediments. They also abide by standard confidentiality principles, in which all information discussed is confidential unless there is an imminent risk of harm.
The Ombuds Office deals with academic and non-academic issues, including student financial matters, behavioral and professional codes of conduct, employment and any other student-related issues and concerns.
OUSA President Jessica Look and executive director Malika Dhanani also spoke at the SRA meeting about their organization. OUSA is a collaboration of student governments across the province that advocates for affordable, accessible, accountable and high quality post-secondary education.
Some of the core functions of OUSA include developing informed substantive policy papers, lobbying the provincial government to enact changes and representing the student perspective on the provincial level.
Some of the core functions of OUSA include developing informed substantive policy papers, lobbying the provincial government to enact changes and representing the student perspective on the provincial level.
Look and Dhanani detailed how they aim to uplift the student voice through their blog, where student contributors outside of OUSA are free to submit pieces on policy issues they are passionate about. Additionally, OUSA offers summer student internships.
Following the discussion on OUSA’s initiatives and role representing the MSU, the meeting transitioned to other matters, including a discussion around seeking observership with CASA.
The motion to discuss and vote on CASA observership was moved by MSU President Simranjeet Singh and seconded by Vice President (Education) Elizabeth Wong. Singh shared that CASA is currently the largest body that does advocacy work for student unions at the federal level.
The MSU is currently part of a separate federal advocacy organization, the Undergraduates of Canadian Research-Intensive Universities. Singh explained that with UCRU, the MSU was able to meet with 20 Members of Parliament during lobbying week, while members of CASA were able to meet with 156. The MSU was a member of CASA in the past but left in 2017 due to issues with their management of affairs.
Singh and Wong are proposing CASA observership, a two-year process in which the MSU would attend meetings and try out a CASA membership. Observership would allow the MSU to make an informed decision about whether shifting to CASA involvement would be beneficial.
Singh and Wong are proposing CASA observership, a two-year process in which the MSU would attend meetings and try out a CASA membership. Observership would allow the MSU to make an informed decision about whether shifting to CASA involvement would be beneficial.
Observership can be revoked at any point with no consequence and the MSU would remain with UCRU throughout the observership. Following some discussion, the motion was passed with 26 in favour, zero opposed and two abstaining.
