Advisor Roles and Responsibilities

Direct questions or concerns about advisor roles, responsibilities, and liability to the Director of Campus Activities (213.740.5693) or Peer Leadership Consultants (213.740.5341).

Every student organization must have a faculty or staff advisor to become a recognized or sponsored student organization. The primary role of the advisor is to serve as a resource person for the organization. Advisors will counsel and advise student organizations by asking the "tough" questions, assisting students in their thinking process, and challenging the organization to go beyond the status quo. Advisors also provide continuity for an organization as they can pass along valuable information regarding the history of the organization and their past accomplishments. An active advisor can improve the effectiveness of an organization while also assisting in the positive development of the students.

Advisors have three broad functions:

• To help with the growth and development of students: The advisor can assist students in the development of skills such as time management, problem-solving, delegation, communication, and leadership.
• To add to the continuity of the group as members graduate and serve as a liaison between the university and the organization: The advisor can share the history of the organization and explain why past decisions were made to new officers. The advisor will also explain university policies and connect students to the appropriate offices for assistance.
• To assist in the area of program content and purpose: The advisor will assist in the development of projects, events and activities.  The exact role of the advisor should be determined by the advisor and the student organization. This role may vary from organization to organization, based on the organization's needs and goals. The advisor should never be considered just a signature in order to receive recognition. The new student leadership of the organization and the advisor should have a conversation early on to determine the role and expectations of the advisor and the advisor's expectations of the students.
   

Roles And Expectations
The specific expectations of an advisor depend on the student organization's needs and the advisors leadership style and level of commitment. The following is a list of possible expectations that can be used as a starting point for the discussion between the advisor and the student organization. It’s important to determine what the advisor will and will not do from the very beginning. For those items determined not to be the responsibility of the advisor, clarify who will assume the responsibility for those tasks.

• Attend all general and executive board meetings
• Call meetings of the executive board when s/he believes it is necessary.
• Explain university policy when relevant to the discussion.
• Explain university policy to the executive board and depend upon the officers to carry them out through their leadership.
• Explain university policy to the entire membership at a general meeting once a year.
• Reserve an appointment with the chair before each meeting.
• Help the chair prepare the agenda before each meeting.
• Serve as parliamentarian for the group.
• Speak up during discussion when s/he has relevant information or when the group is likely to make a poor decision.
• Be quiet during general meetings unless called upon.
• Exert his/her influence with officers between meetings.
• Take an active part in formulating the goals of the group.
• Initiate ideas for discussion when s/he believes they will assist the group.
• Be a part of the group except for voting and holding office.
• Require the treasurer to clear all expenditures with him/her before financial commitments are made.
• Request to see the treasurer's book at the end of the semester.
• Check the secretary's minutes before they are written in a final form.
• Check all official correspondence before it is sent.
• Get a carbon copy of all official correspondence.
• Be custodian of all group paraphernalia, records, etc. during the summer and between officer transition.
• Keep the official files in his/her office.
• Inform the group of infractions of their bylaws, codes, standing rules, and constitution.
• Keep the group aware of its stated objectives when planning events.
• Veto a decision when it violates a stated objective, the bylaws and codes, standing rules, constitution or university policy.
• Mediate interpersonal conflicts that arise.
• Be responsible for planning leadership skills workshops.
• State what his/her responsibilities are, or as s/he sees them, at the beginning of the school year.
• Let the group work out its problems including mistakes and "doing it the hard way."
• Conduct an evaluation of each activity by those students responsible for planning it.
• Take the initiative in creating teamwork and cooperation.
• Let the group thrive on its merits; do not interfere unless requested to do so.
• Be familiar with university facilities, services, and procedures, which affect group activities.
• Recommend programs, speakers, etc.
• Take an active part in the orderly transition of responsibilities between old and new officers at the end of the semester or year.
• Cancel any activities when s/he believes they have been inadequately planned after consulting with the organization.

As an advisor, you will have certain expectations of the student organization. Make sure you discuss these with the organization at the beginning of the year. Some expectations may include:

• Written goals and objectives
• Advance notification of all meetings and events - semester calendar
• Awareness and adherence to all university policies
• Organization's attendance at meetings and events
• Support an understanding of the university's mission
• Financial maturity and responsibility
• Open communication
• Honesty
• Commitment to the organization

What is a Good Advisor
To be the BEST advisor you can be is to:

BELIEVE in your students. Help them realize their potential. If you believe in them and what they can accomplish, maybe then they'll learn to believe in themselves.

EVALUATE your students. Give them positive and constructive feedback. Always let them know where you stand and where they stand.

SUPPORT - Provide your students with a supportive environment. Back them 100%. If you support them, they will support you. It makes your job easier, and overall promotes a more positive attitude.

TIME enables you to get to know the students as individuals - not just as students you advise. Share your own experiences and ideas with them. Find out their thoughts and experiences, their likes and dislikes.

While institutions recognize students as adults and appreciate the institution's decreased liability for student actions through the demise of the in loco parentis philosophy (i.e., the institution acts in the place of students' parents), they also acknowledge the need to guide behavior which may expose the institution to complex liability issues through the advisor of student organizations. Within the court system, it is clear that the advisor is treated as an agent for the university, thereby indicating university liability when an incident occurs.

It seems that the type and level of interaction with students in an advisory capacity may have an impact on determining negligent liability for the institution. Yet, in many instances, this has not been the case within the court system. The courts have been reluctant to evaluate the level of guidance and control exercised by the institution involved in a negligent liability case. Overall, case law indicates limited liability for the university for the acts of student organizations regardless of the level of advisor interaction, because of the demise of in loco parentis philosophy.

The courts have examined many issues when determining negligent liability including university policies, foreseeability, and amount of previous intervention or control of student activities. In negligent liability cases, the plaintiff must first establish a duty of care. This duty is usually a duty to protect or a duty to supervise.

Various degrees of institutional liability can develop with the level of advisor interaction. This has been shown in the lower courts if the in loco parentis philosophy has been reinstated by the decision.

The first level of advising where the advisor exists only on paper would appear to be the lowest level of liability because interaction is minimal and the students are not being controlled in any way other than by university policy. Unfortunately, in Milliner v. Turner (1983),1 the trial court determined that Southern University of New Orleans failed to provide adequate faculty guidance to the student newspaper in a defamation case because the student handbook required two faculty advisors for student organizations. The faculty members never fulfilled their advisory duties leading to a breach of the duty to supervise. The decision was reversed based on First Amendment limitations but not faulty reasoning on advisor interaction.

Liability for campus incidents also occurs at the other end of the continuum, namely when the advisor mandates activities and has a high level of interaction. In Whitlock v. University of Denver (1985),2 the court of appeals focused on the amount of control the advisor had over fraternity activities in finding the university liable for the injuries Whitlock incurred which seemed to be substantial. However, once again, the state Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling that the university had a duty to supervise.

While Bradshaw v. Rawlings (1980)3 deals more with the duty to control student conduct and to protect than the duty to supervise, the court again analyzed the role of the advisor. In this case, Bradshaw was injured after attending a sophomore class picnic off-campus at which beer was served. Even though the advisor did not attend the picnic, he did help plan the picnic, had co-signed the check for the purchase of three to five kegs of beer for seventy-five people in attendance, and was aware that the event was to be held off-campus with no transportation provided. While the trial court examined the special duty relationship and determined a duty of care to protect from the harmful results of alcohol use in this case, the appellate court failed to acknowledge the establishment of a duty of care, again citing in loco parentis philosophy.

In Furek v. University of Delaware (1991),4 the courts refused to maintain the philosophy that no duty of care can be established due to the absence of in loco parentis. The court felt that the constant advisement and regulation of fraternity activities by the Dean and Assistant Dean of Students with regards to hazing as well as their knowledge of the continuation of hazing practices was sufficient in establishing a duty to monitor, protect and control. Furek has been regarded by some as bad case law in that it does not follow the precedent of maintaining in loco parentis.

The courts will continue to examine the special duty relationship between the university and students. Some courts will look critically at the role of the advisor, while others will faithfully maintain the denial of duty based on the lack of in loco parentis. Because institutions require advisors for student organizations, total lack of involvement from an advisor should create liability problems when medium or high risk is involved. The control-oriented involvement of an advisor also places the university in a special duty relationship for regulating and controlling student behavior. However, when foreseeable risk is involved with the activities of the student group (i.e., fraternities, alcohol use, potentially dangerous recreational activities), a lack of regulatory involvement may also influence a breach of duty.

Student organization advisors walk a tight rope in avoiding institutional liability. If an advisor elects to regulate and control activity, then he/she must be willing to accept the duties that accompany that control (as Furek indicates). If an advisor chooses to be laissez-faire, then he/she must accept the potential liability of the failure to supervise. An advisor, who strictly provides information, must balance an information-giving and an intervention approach with the student organization. Policies established by the University of a punitive or controlling nature may establish the advisor as the enforcer of such policies. Advisors are warned to avoid any impression of university sponsorship of events either through their supervisory attendance at an event or through the registration of off-campus events.  
Endnotes:

• Milliner v. Turner 436 So. 2d 1300 (La. st. App. 1983).
• Whitlock v. University of Denver 712 P. 2d 1072 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985), revised, 744 P .2d.
• 54 (Colo.1987).
• Bradshaw v. Rawlings 612 F.2d 135 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 909, 100 S. Ct. 1836 (1980).
• Furek v. University of Delaware 594 A. 2d 506 (1991).
             
  Adapted from the University of Florida’s Advisor Handbook