A proposed revision of the University’s medical leave policy “comes up a little short” in helping students who may be suicidal, ASUO President Adam Petkun said Friday at a hearing about the changes. He said the alterations no longer guarantee students’ rights to receive credit for interrupted work, to be readmitted after being placed on leave or to use the health-care provider of their choice, among other issues.
He also said in written testimony that students weren’t adequately included in the revision process, calling it a “serious oversight.”
“I support the University’s efforts to update the student medical leave policy and to address suicide issues in a way that protects the University community,” he said. “However, I am concerned that it comes up a little short in terms of helping, assisting and showing concern for students who are at a difficult time in their lives, usually for reasons beyond their control.”
As the only student who spoke at the event, Petkun was one of three people to attend the hearing organized by the Office of the General Counsel.
Vice President for Student Affairs Anne Leavitt and Student Advocacy Director Hilary Berkman also attended the hearing.
Leavitt, who helped create the revision along with General Counsel to the University Melinda Grier and Counseling and Testing Center Director Robin Holmes, said she would take the testimony “to share it with others and take a look and see if there’s something there we haven’t thought through.”
She added that if Petkun and Berkman find aspects of the change confusing, others might find them confusing as well.
“If there’s a showstopper in there we’ll fix it,” she said, adding that if no major changes are needed the revision will move forward.
If approved, the changes will amend the Oregon Administrative Rules governing medical leave at the University.
Petkun, whose written testimony was the only one logged at the hearing, said he worked with Berkman to formulate it.
Berkman said that while she’s had “opportunities to consult the rule and advise students about the rule,” she’s never been involved in the application of the medical leave policy.
“I have a lot of questions about the rule, and I think a lot of the comments made address small features,” she said. “The students that this rule is going to impact are … in a really difficult moment in their lives, and I would think that the University would want to be in the position of both doing what they consider best practices for the University and also taking into account the individual needs of the student.”
Petkun said that under the changes, students are no longer guaranteed incompletes in classes they have substantially completed. In a memorandum to Hearings Officer Connie Tapp, Petkun said incompletes suggest a student will return, while a withdrawal “does not leave a similar suggestion.”
“Under the existing rule, a student is assured of not losing the work that he or she has earned at the time of the medical leave, if that leave occurs late in the term,” Petkun wrote. “Under the proposed rule it is entirely up to the Vice President’s discretion whether the student forfeits the work. …
“(The University) should continue to require mandatory incompletes for students that must leave on medical leave late in the term.”
Petkun also expressed concerns that the changes no longer guarantee students readmission after being placed on mandatory leave, noting that the new rule’s “requirement that a student submit a ‘plan’ for re-enrollment is vague, unclear and confusing.”
“It appears that the rule anticipates that a student returning from medical leave will or should be required to act differently than other students, but it is unclear in what manner,” he wrote. “The new rule should provide clear direction to students attempting to resume their student status and should not include ambiguous requirements.”
He added that “there are no rules for re-entry for those students that have taken a voluntary leave.”
Leavitt said voluntary medical leave cases will be treated like other instances when a student leaves voluntarily.
Petkun also wrote that while students are currently “entitled to select professional assistance and evaluation by a private physician or psychiatrist of their own choice,” the proposed rule mandates that a newly formed Suicide Assessment Team must approve students’ choices.
“It seems unlikely that members of the Suicide Assessment Team will be more knowledgeable and skilled than licensing boards in assessing the ability of individuals to practice their professions,” Petkun wrote. “The new rule adds a level of unnecessary arbitrariness and potential bias to the process.”
Leavitt said the changes are designed to give students a choice but also to give administrators a check on students’ selection to “ensure us that they use someone who we have some confidence in.”
Petkun wrote that there “appears to have been no opportunity for students to participate in formulation of this rule change or to offer advice and suggestions.”
“As ASUO president, I never actually received a physical copy of the draft of the proposed rule,” he said. “I was never included in the conversations on the specific rule.”
He proposed forming a committee, which would include students, to “review and comment on the proposed rule in some detail.”
Leavitt said officials working on the policy consulted with Petkun but did not include him in the process. She added that she thought both her office and the Office of the General Counsel shared a copy with him.
Community members have until noon today to comment on the proposed changes.

[email protected]