Meeting & Agendas

Mervin Jones: Welcome to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Committee for FY26.

Committee members and guests introduced themselves and stated what associations they were representing.   

• Mervin Jones: Dean of Student Affairs at Northridge Campus
• Behnaz Dehghani: Senior Administrative Assistant to Dean of Student Affairs at Northridge Campus
• Meritza Tamez: Executive Dean for Student Rights and Responsibilities
• Emily Olson: Assistant Dean for Faculty Academic Counselor; representing Full-time Faculty Senate (Assistant Dean for Faculty Advising for Science, Engineering, and Math, Academic Counselor)
• Kristine Elderkin: Clery Compliance Officer working in the Office of Equal Opportunity
• Charlene Buckley: Director, Office of Equal Opportunity Compliance (District Title IX coordinator, Student and employee)
• Troy Jefferson: Director of Student Life
• Janelle Green: Executive Dean in Student Life and Leadership
• Angela Smith: Hays Campus Rap for Adjunct Faculty in the History Department (AFA) 
• Pamela Chukwuneke: Coordinator, Bill to Pay (B2P) appointed by the APTE
• Toño Ramirez: Dean, Liberal Arts - Humanities & Communications (Adjunct Faculty, History) appointed via VC Galen Scott
• Patricia “Patty” Zuniga: Coordinator of Student Conduct

The committee reviewed the SRRC functions listed on the SRRC website (updates are in progress), https://www.austincc.edu/facstaff/organizational-reference/shared-governance-councils-and-committees/academic-and-student-affairs-council/student-rights-and-responsibilities-committee - Mervin Jones

Mervin Jones: acknowledged new member Dean Ramirez, who was appointed to the committee by Dr. Gaye Lynn Scott. Mervin expresses appreciation for participation and outlines the purpose of the session, especially for new members. The main focus was to clarify the committee’s role, emphasizing that the committee’s responsibilities are not related to staff or faculty issues but strictly student-centered. Mervin shared his screen to walk through the committee’s core functions, which include: 

1. Establishing student expectations for scholastic integrity – Led by Emily with strong group support.
2. Reviewing and simplifying student complaint and appeal procedures – Work initiated by Dr. Tamez and an Adhoc committee last year. 
3. Developing clear definitions of what constitutes a student complaint. 
4. Creating a step-by-step checklist for students to file complaints – Including website resources and links to guide them. 
5. Offering alternative conflict-resolution options before formal complaints – Encouraging students to engage with faculty directly where possible (e.g., using office hours). 
6. Outlining parameters to consolidate related student complaints into a unified review process.

Mervin emphasized mentorship, coaching, and student empowerment, echoing the chancellor’s philosophy of “loving them to success.” Finally, encourages committee members to actively contribute, share ideas, and help improve processes. The floor is opened for questions or comments before moving forward.                                                                                       

Dr. Meritza Tamez: raised a question about the last time the committee’s responsibilities were updated, noting that it appears outdated and may no longer reflect current practices.

Patricia Zuniga: responded that it has been years since the last update, possibly when Dorado was still leading the group, and mentioned a proposal for changes that never materialized (dating back to Fall 2022). 

Dr. Meritza Tamez: pointed out that while the term "student complaint" appears repeatedly in the document, the current committee work seems broader and not fully aligned with that older focus. She questioned the document's relevance and expressed interest in updating it.

Mervin Jones: supported the idea, noting this is a good opportunity to revisit and improve the document moving forward.

Dr. Meritza Tamez: suggested that any update would need to be: 

• Formally proposed and voted on by the committee.
• Reviewed and possibly approved by the ASAC (which she is also a member of).
• Potentially shared with the wider ACC community, depending on standard revision protocols for Administrative Rules (ARs) and Guiding Principles (GPs).

Patricia Zuniga:  agreed with Dr. Tamez on the need for an update.

Emily Schneider Olson:  formally motioned to move the update forward, specifically suggesting that the Shared Governance webpage be revised to more accurately reflect the current role and work.

Dr. Meritza Tamez: provided a detailed update on recent and upcoming changes within the Student Rights and Responsibilities structure as part of a broader institutional realignment: 

• Regional Director Positions:
  • New regional director roles across functional areas (including Student Rights & Responsibilities) will be posted next week.
  • Open to the entire ACC community, not just Student Affairs employees.
  • Positions will be open for one week.
  • A Director of Compliance position is also being proposed (title still under discussion with HR).

• Functional Area Prioritization:
  • Four functional areas have been identified as priority, including Student Rights and Responsibilities.
  • These areas are being addressed first due to the sunsetting of the Dean of Student Affairs roles.

• Transition and Role Clarification: 
  • Despite the changes, for now, Deans of Students remain the point of contact on campuses. They continue to handle student conduct and behavioral interventions (formerly "CARES," now transitioning to BIT – Behavioral Intervention Teams).
  • Deans no longer oversee advising or testing.
  • All Student Affairs Deans now report directly to Dr. Tamez, with a District wide approach.

• Future Staffing: 
  • Once director roles are filled, the next wave will include Student Conduct Officer positions (titles still pending).The team has been working over the past couple of years to strengthen student support, especially through student governance.
  • One key initiative: establishing peer-to-peer support during student conduct processes.
  • Students are allowed to have an advocate (not a lawyer) — someone who can coach them before/after meetings, explain their rights and responsibilities, and help them understand the consequences.
  • Student Life has been a strong partner in this effort.
  • Introduced Troy Jefferson to share current progress and next steps.
  • These are projected to be posted around October–November, depending on how the first hiring wave proceeds.
  • Once new staff are in place, clear communication will go out on who replaces the deans as points of contact.

• Communication During Transition: 
  • Until transitions are complete, continue contacting current deans for student conduct or behavioral concerns.
  • If there is a change, the current contacts will direct staff to the correct person.

Janelle Green: confirmed the update was accurate "based on what we know now," emphasizing the rapid pace of change.

Dr. Meritza Tamez: closed with appreciation for everyone’s flexibility and patience, reinforcing that no one will be left without support during the transition.

Mervin Jones:  The team has been working over the past couple of years to strengthen student support, especially through student governance. One key initiative: establishing peer-to-peer support during student conduct processes. Students are allowed to have an advocate (not a lawyer) — someone who can coach them before/after meetings, explain their rights and responsibilities, and help them understand the consequences. 

Student Life has been a strong partner in this effort. Introduced Troy Jefferson to share current progress and next steps.

Troy Jefferson: shared the current status of the Student Advocacy Peer Group initiative:

• The idea is based on the need for peer-to-peer support in the student conduct process, where students often feel intimidated or alone. 
• A peer advocate would not serve as legal representation, but as:
  • A support system.
  • Someone who’s trained in institutional policy and student rights.
  • A bridge between students and the process.

• Current Status: 
  • Outreach to Student Government yielded only one volunteer.
  • There is now a need to expand recruitment beyond Student Government to:
    • Other student organizations (e.g., PTK).
    • Students at large.
    • Specific academic areas aligned with advocacy or social responsibility.

Janelle Green: Suggested partnering with faculty from academic programs where student interests align with this kind of service — areas like human services, counseling, or criminal justice.

Emily Schneider Olson: Specifically recommended reaching out to the students of the Social Work Department and faculty in Liberal Arts and Behavioral Sciences, noting that: 

• These students often seek real-world advocacy experience.
• The program aligns with their educational and career goals.

Emily Schneider Olson: Suggested recruiting students from Liberal Arts and Behavioral Sciences, especially those studying fields like social work, since they are already focused on ethical, advocacy-driven careers. Many of these students are actively seeking hands-on experience, making them a great fit for the peer advocacy role. She recommended sharing the opportunity with faculty advisors in those areas so they can help identify interested students.

Troy Jefferson: supported the idea of recruiting from aligned academic programs and emphasized the value of the peer advocacy program, both for students receiving support and those serving as advocates.

Janelle Green: asked whether a formal description of the student advocate role exists and suggested creating or updating one to share with faculty and students.

Mervin Jones: added that the group should also define eligibility criteria, especially since the role is unpaid.

Janelle Green:  recommended that, at minimum, student advocates should be in academic and disciplinary good standing.

Toño Ramirez:  asked whether peer advocates and SGA representatives on appeal panels are related roles.

Troy Jefferson: clarified SGA students still reliably serve on panels, but not as peer advocates.

Dr. Meritza Tamez: noted growing difficulty with SGA participation due to: 

• Automatic appeal requirement (policy change)
• Increase in student suspensions 
• SGA scheduling conflicts

Dr. Tamez and Patty are exploring policy changes to allow any student in good standing (not just SGA) to serve on appeal panels.

Toño Ramirez: suggested getting input from academic deans to help define what traits and behaviors make for strong student advocates or panelists.

Mervin Jones: emphasized that since SGA participation is limited, the team should build its own criteria for student advocates — with input from academic deans. He stressed the importance of training and setting clear expectations for behavior and commitment.

Janelle Green:  added that students need to understand: Time commitment (training and case support),

role expectations up front to prevent confusion or drop-off.

Emily Schneider Olson: suggested creating an FAQ sheet for students and faculty. Sending a survey to academic deans for feedback on ideal student qualities. She also offered to follow up with academic integrity contacts for insights.

Toño Ramirez: offers to reach out to Beth initially and later volunteers to represent the group at a committee meeting, suggesting he could get an item on the agenda and gather feedback.

Mervin Jones: indicates that if someone sends him an invite for the 24th, he’ll attend and support the effort; however, agreed Toño representing the group is the “even better” option.

Mervin Jones: summarizes that the group is not planning to rely heavily on SGA (Student Government Association) for this initiative. Instead, they’re looking to identify any student who meets the criteria and can serve their peers.

Charlene Buckley: is invited to comment, particularly since she has received student complaints. She doesn't have anything additional to add unless there's a specific question.

Kristin Elderkin: I'd love to be involved in a segment of the training for any advocates. They, under the Clery Act, become campus security authorities who are obliged to report crimes that are brought to their attention as part of that process.

Mervin Jones: Emily, you want to give any updates?…

Emily Schneider Olson: The team is actively finalizing the redline draft of the revised Academic Integrity Administrative Regulation (AR). This has been a multi-year effort, with significant collaboration involving Patty, Dr. Tamez, and other stakeholders. The focus has been on: 

• Aligning language with the Student Conduct processes
• Increasing clarity and transparency 
• Outlining defined steps and terminology
• Ensuring consistency across both academic and conduct policies

Once alignment with Student Affairs is complete and new point-person roles are clarified: the redline draft will return to ASAC (Academic Standards and Assessment Committee) for further review. Following ASAC’s input, the draft will likely be distributed to the broader college community for an additional round of feedback and comments.

Toño Ramirez:  was acknowledged for indicating interest or asking a related question at this point in the discussion. 

Mervin Jones: We've maintained notes for the last couple of years on the work and everything we've done. The notes are posted on the website for reference by stakeholders and the broader campus community.

There were student complaints raised during campus visits by Dr. Buchanan and the Chancellor about the academic integrity appeal process being perceived as biased. Students felt the process was too faculty-driven, with too many faculty members involved, leading to concerns about fairness. The subcommittee addressed this by revising the panel composition:

Dr. Meritza Tamez: encouraged proceeding with scheduling a follow-up meeting promptly to avoid delays, acknowledging everyone’s multiple responsibilities, including involvement with CLI. She noted that updates on role assignments are expected soon if prioritized by her area.
Emily Schneider Olson: plans to poll the subcommittee for availability to schedule a meeting within the next couple of weeks. Emily invited others to join the subcommittee.
Toño Ramirez: expressed strong interest in joining the subcommittee and contributing suggestions prior to the presentation to ASAC, specifically related to the Academic Integrity (AI) policy.

Mervin Jones: Can I get a motion to end this meeting? The initial motion was made by Toño Ramirez, seconded by Pamela, Angela, and all Committee approved.

Meeting Adjourned: 12:05 pm

Next Meeting Date: Nov 14th, 2025
Time: 11:00 am - 12:30 pm
Location: Zoom