GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015
REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES DRAFT (Showing Revisions)
Faculty Conduct and Administration of Discipline; 4/3/01
Including The Faculty Code of Conduct
015-0 Policy
The University policy on faculty conduct and the administration
of discipline is set forth in its entirety on the following pages.
UNIVERSITY POLICY ON FACULTY CONDUCT AND
THE ADMINISTRATION OF DISCIPLINE
[NOTE: The text from Section I of the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and
the Administration of Discipline has been moved to new APM - 016]
Section I
This Policy, as recommended by the President of the University and approved by The
Regents on June 14, 1974, supersedes the President's interim statement on the same subject,
issued on January 15, 1971. The present This policy incorporates is the Faculty Code of
Conduct as approved by the Assembly of the Academic Senate on June 15, 1971, and
amended by the Assembly on May 30, 1974, and with amendments approved by the
Assembly on March 9, 1983, May 6, 1986, and May 7, 1992, and XXXX, 2001, and by The
Regents on July 18, 1986, May 15, 1987, and June 19, 1992, and XXXX, 2001. In addition,
technical changes were made September 1, 1988.
Additional policies regarding the scope and application of the Faculty Code of Conduct and
the University's policies on faculty conduct and the administration of discipline are set forth
in APM - 016, the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of
Discipline.
Part I of the Faculty Code notes the responsibility of the administration to preserve
conditions that protect and encourage the faculty in its central pursuits. Part II defines
normative conditions for faculty conduct and sets forth types of unacceptable faculty conduct
subject to University discipline. Part III makes recommendations and proposes guidelines to
assure the development of fair procedures for enforcing the Code.
Nothing in the Faculty Code, or in this Policy, is intended to change the various authorities
and responsibilities of the Academic Senate, the administration, and The Regents as
currently set forth in the Standing Orders of The Regents, the policies and regulations of the
University, and the By-Laws and Regulations of the Academic Senate.
The Faculty Code explicitly does not deal with policies, procedures, or possible sanctions
pertaining to strikes by members of the faculty. These are covered by Regental and
administrative policies external to the Code.
Except for the matter of strikes, and with recognition that Part III of the Code consists solely
of suggested guidelines and recommendations to the Divisions of the Academic Senate and
the campus administrations, the Faculty Code, as incorporated into this Policy, is the official
basis for imposing discipline on members of the faculty for professional misconduct.
With respect to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, the Faculty Code deals only with
professional conduct or misconduct. However, faculty members, in common with all other
members of the University community, are subject to the general rules and regulations of the
University -- e.g., those pertaining to parking, library privileges, health and safety, and use
of University facilities -- and are subject to appropriate sanctions for failure to comply with
such rules and regulations.
To maintain consistency in the future between the Code, if it should be further amended by
the Academic Senate, and any new or changed Regental or administrative policies relating to
faculty conduct that might be adopted, the President will consult with appropriate agencies
of the Academic Senate, and will undertake to facilitate any needed joint action by the
Senate and The Regents or the administration.
In case of disagreement between the administration and the faculty over the interpretation or
application of the Code, conflicts will be resolved on a case-by-case basis, with the fullest
consideration given to peer judgments achieved through procedures for discipline.
Disciplinary action is to be distinguished from certain other administrative actions taken as
the result, not of willful misconduct but rather, for example, of disability or incompetence.
The administration naturally bears the responsibility of assuring that the University's
resources are used productively and appropriately. In meeting this responsibility,
administrators must occasionally take actions which resemble certain disciplinary sanctions
but which are actually of an entirely different character. These actions are subject to
separate procedures with due process guarantees and should not be confused with
disciplinary action with its implications of culpability and sanction.
Authority for discipline derives from The Regents. The Regents have made the Chancellor
of each campus responsible for discipline on the campus (Standing Order 100.6(a)), subject
to certain procedures and safeguards involving the President and the Academic Senate
(Standing Orders 100.4(c) and 103.9 and 103.10).
The types of discipline that may be imposed on a member of the faculty are as follows:
written censure, suspension (other than interim suspension with pay), demotion, and
dismissal from the employ of the University. The severity and type of discipline selected for
a particular offense must be appropriately related to the nature and circumstances of the case.
1. Written Censure
A formal expression of institutional rebuke, conveyed by the Chancellor or by a Dean to
whom the Chancellor has delegated authority for this kind of disciplinary action.
Written censure is to be distinguished from an informal spoken warning, and must be
delivered confidentially to the recipient. Informal spoken warning is not an official
disciplinary action.
2. Suspension
Debarment of a faculty member for some stated period of time from the continuance of
the appointment on its normal terms. Authority for the suspension of a faculty member
rests with the Chancellor and may not be redelegated.
Suspension as a disciplinary action is to be distinguished from interim suspension with
pay, which is a precautionary action, but not a form of discipline. A Chancellor is
authorized to impose an interim suspension, with full pay, on a faculty member if it is
found that there is a clear probability that the faculty member's continued assignment to
regular duties will be immediately and seriously harmful to the University community.
When such action is necessary it must be possible to impose the interim suspension
swiftly, without resorting to normal disciplinary procedures, but the Chancellor must as
soon as possible explain the reasons for the interim suspension and initiate disciplinary
procedures by bringing charges against the suspended faculty member.
3. Demotion
Reduction to lower rank, step, or salary. The authority to reduce the rank of a faculty
member who does not have tenure or security of employment rests with the Chancellor.
The authority to reduce, within rank, the step or salary of any faculty member to a lower
step or salary rests with the Chancellor. For either action, this authority may not be
redelegated.
Authority for demoting a faculty with tenure or with security of employment to a lower
rank, also with tenure or with security of employment, rests with the President, on
recommendation of the Chancellor. Demotion of a faculty member with tenure or with
security of employment to a lower rank without tenure or security of employment is not
an option.
In all cases, the Chancellor shall consult with the appropriate advisory committee(s) of
the Division of the Academic Senate prior to demoting or recommending for demotion
any member of the faculty.
4. Dismissal from the Employ of the University
The Chancellor has authority to dismiss a faculty member who does not have tenure or
security of employment. This authority may not be redelegated. Authority for dismissal
of a faculty member who has tenure or security of employment rests with The Regents,
on recommendation of the President, following consultation with the Chancellor. In all
cases, the Chancellor shall consult with the appropriate advisory committee(s) of the
Division of the Academic Senate prior to dismissing or recommending for dismissal any
member of the faculty.
Procedures for Discipline
Safeguards against arbitrary or unjust disciplinary actions, including provision for hearings
and appeals, are well established in the University.
The Standing Orders provide that actions of certain types, some of them disciplinary in
character, may not be carried out without the opportunity of a prior hearing before, or
without advance consultation with, "a properly constituted advisory committee of the
Academic Senate" (Standing Orders 100.4(c), 103.9 and 103.10). In addition, Standing
Order 103.2 provides that any member of the Academic Senate may have the privilege of a
hearing by an appropriate Senate committee on matters relating to personal, departmental, or
University welfare.
The Academic Senate has established Committees on Privilege and Tenure in each of the
nine Divisions. The composition and duties of these committees are defined by the
Academic Senate. The traditional roles of the Divisional Committees on Privilege and
Tenure are to take under consideration complaints against or by members of the Academic
Senate and -- in certain cases -- other members of the faculty. The committees hold
hearings and advise the administration.
For all academic appointees who are not members of the Academic Senate (and this group
includes certain categories of faculty members) there is an avenue for hearings and appeals
separate from that of the Senate's committees. This avenue is provided in Section 140 of the
Academic Personnel Manual and concomitant procedures established on each campus.
Beyond these existing provisions for hearings and appeals, it is desirable to establish clearly
the procedures to be followed in initiating and carrying through the various types of
disciplinary action. It is not essential that the procedures be identical on every campus -- for
example, it is left to campus option whether a prior hearing shall be required before the
imposition of a milder form of discipline such as written censure. It is important, however,
that the same basic principles and standards prevail throughout the University.
It is the responsibility of each Chancellor to establish procedures for the administration of
discipline on the campus, in consultation with the campus Division of the Academic Senate
and such other advisory groups as are appropriate. No disciplinary sanction for professional
misconduct shall be imposed except in accordance with specified procedures.
Chancellors are to keep the President informed about campus procedures and to report any
significant changes made in such procedures. The President will consult periodically with
the Chancellors and the Academic Senate about procedures that are being employed in order
to assure equitable standards for discipline throughout the University.
Section II
The Faculty Code of Conduct as Approved
by the Assembly of the Academic Senate
(Code of Professional Rights, Responsibilities,
and Conduct of University Faculty,
and University Disciplinary Procedures)
Preamble
The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending,
and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom.
Effective performance of these central functions requires that faculty members be free within
their respective fields of competence to pursue and teach the truth in accord with appropriate
standards of scholarly inquiry.
The faculty's privileges and protections, including that of tenure, rest on the mutually
supportive relationships between the faculty's special professional competence, its academic
freedom, and the central functions of the University. These relationships are also the source
of the professional responsibilities of faculty members.
It is the intent of this The Faculty Code of Conduct to protect academic freedom, to help
preserve the highest standards of teaching and scholarship, and to advance the mission of the
University as an institution of higher learning.
Part I of this Code sets forth the responsibility of the University to maintain conditions and
rights supportive of the faculty's pursuit of the University's central functions.
Part II of this Code elaborates standards of professional conduct, derived from general
professional consensus about the existence of certain precepts as basic to acceptable faculty
behavior. Conduct which departs from these precepts is viewed by faculty as unacceptable
because it is inconsistent with the mission of the University. The articulation of types of
unacceptable faculty conduct is appropriate both to verify that a consensus about minimally
acceptable standards in fact does exist and to give fair notice to all that departures from these
minimal standards may give rise to disciplinary proceedings.
Part II a clear distinction is made between statements of (1) ethical principles and
(2) types of unacceptable behavior.
1. Ethical Principles
These are drawn primarily from the 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics and
subsequent revisions of June, 1987, issued by the American Association of University
Professors. They comprise ethical prescriptions affirming the highest professional
ideals. They are aspirational in character, and represent objectives toward which faculty
members should strive. Behavior in accordance with these principles clearly precludes
the application of a disciplinary sanction. These Ethical Principles are to be
distinguished from Types of Unacceptable Faculty Conduct referred to in the following
paragraph. The Types of Unacceptable Faculty Conduct, unlike the Ethical Principles,
are mandatory in character, and state minimum levels of conduct below which a faculty
member cannot fall without being subject to University discipline.
2. Types of Unacceptable Faculty Conduct
Derived from the Ethical Principles, these statements specify examples of types of
unacceptable faculty behavior which are subject to University discipline because, as
stated in the introductory section to Part II, they are "not justified by "violate the Ethical
Principles" and they "significantly impair the University's central functions as set forth
in the Preamble."
Although the listing in neither category of statements is exhaustive, it The Ethical Principles
encompasses major concerns traditionally and currently important to the profession. The
examples of types of unacceptable faculty conduct set forth below are not exhaustive. It is
expected that case adjudication, the lessons of experience and evolving standards of the
profession will promote reasoned adaptation and change of this Code. Faculty may be
subjected to disciplinary action under this Code for any type of conduct which, although not
specifically enumerated herein, meets the standard for unacceptable faculty behavior set
forth above. It should be noted, however, that no provision of the Code shall be construed as
providing the basis for judging the propriety or impropriety of collective withholding of
services by faculty. Rules and sanctions that presently exist to cover such actions derive
from sources external to this Code.
Part III of this Code deals with the enforcement process applicable to unacceptable faculty
behavior. That process must meet basic standards of fairness and must reflect significant
faculty involvement. Common guidelines for these enforcement procedures and sanctions
are elaborated, and procedural arrangements are suggested which may be employed, at the
option of each Division, to satisfy these guidelines. In order to guide each campus in the
development of disciplinary procedures that comply with this policy and Senate Bylaws,
Part III provides an outline of mandatory principles to which each Division must adhere and
discretionary principles which are strongly recommended.
Part I - Professional Rights of Faculty
In support of the University's central functions as an institution of higher learning, a major
responsibility of the Administration is to protect and encourage the faculty in its teaching,
learning, research, and public service. The authority to discipline faculty members in
appropriate cases derives from the shared recognition by the faculty and the Administration
that the purpose of discipline is to preserve conditions hospitable to these pursuits. Such
conditions, as they relate to the faculty, include, for example:
1. free inquiry, and exchange of ideas;
2. the right to present controversial material relevant to a course of instruction;
3. enjoyment of constitutionally protected freedom of expression;
4. participation in the governance of the University, as provided in the Bylaws and
Standing Orders of The Regents and the regulations of the University, including
(a) approval of course content and manner of instruction,
(b) establishment of requirements for matriculation and for degrees,
(c) appointment and promotion of faculty,
(d) selection of chairs of departments and certain academic administrators,
(e) discipline of members of the faculty, and the formulation of rules and procedures
for discipline of students,
(f) establishment of norms for teaching responsibilities and for evaluation of both
faculty and student achievement, and
(g) determination of the forms of departmental governance;
5. the right to be judged by one's colleagues, in accordance with fair procedures and due
process, in matters of promotion, tenure, and discipline, solely on the basis of the
faculty members' professional qualifications and professional conduct.
Part II - Professional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles,
and Unacceptable Faculty Conduct
This listing of faculty responsibilities, ethical principles, and types of unacceptable behavior
is organized around the individual faculty member's relation to teaching and students, to
scholarship, to the University, to colleagues, and to the community. Since University
discipline, as distinguished from other forms of reproval or administrative actions, should be
reserved for faculty misconduct that is either serious in itself or is made serious through its
repetition, or its consequences, the following general principle is intended to govern all
instances of its application:
University discipline under this Code may be imposed on a faculty member only
for conduct which is not justified by violates the ethical principles and which
significantly impairs the University's central functions as set forth in the Preamble.
To the extent that violations of University policies mentioned in the examples
below are not also violations of the ethical principles, these policy violations may
not be independent grounds for imposing discipline as defined herein. The Types
of Unacceptable Conduct listed below in Sections A through E are examples of
types of conduct which meet the preceding standards and hence are presumptively
subject to University discipline. Other types of conduct, not specifically
enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action if they also
meet the preceding standards.
A. Teaching and Students
Ethical Principles. "As teachers, the professors encourage the free pursuit of learning
of their students. They hold before them the best scholarly standards of their discipline.
Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper
roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to
foster honest academic conduct and to assure that their evaluations of students reflects
each student's true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship
between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or
discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or
scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom." (AAUP
Statement, 1966; Revised, 1987) In this section, the term student refers to all
individuals under the academic supervision of faculty.
Types of unacceptable conduct:
1. Failure to meet the responsibilities of instruction, including:
(a) arbitrary denial of access to instruction;
(b) significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course;
(c) significant failure to adhere, without legitimate reason, to the rules of the
faculty in the conduct of courses, to meet class, to keep office hours, or to
hold examinations as scheduled;
(d) evaluation of student work by criteria not directly reflective of course
performance;
(e) undue and unexcused delay in evaluating student work.
2. Discrimination, including harassment, against a student on political grounds, or for
reasons of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, national origin,
ancestry, marital status, medical condition*, status as a Vietnam-era covered
veteran or disabled veteran, or, within the limits imposed by law or University
regulations, because of age or citizenship or for other arbitrary or personal reasons.
3. Knowing vViolation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines,
applying to nondiscrimination against students on the basis of handicap disability.
4. Use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or
conscience of a student or to cause harm to a student for arbitrary or personal
reasons.
5. Participating in or deliberately abetting disruption, interference, or intimidation in
the classroom.
B. Scholarship
Ethical Principles. "Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity
of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon
them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as
they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving
their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical
self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They
practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests,
these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry."
(AAUP Statement, 1966; Revised, 1987)
Types of unacceptable conduct:
Violation of canons of intellectual honesty, such as research misconduct and/or
intentional misappropriation of the writings, research, and findings of others.
C. The University
Ethical Principles. "As a member of an academic institution, professors seek above all
to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated
regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic
freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due
regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the
amount and character of the work done outside it. When considering the interruption or
termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the
program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions." (AAUP Statement,
1966; Revised, 1987)
Types of unacceptable conduct:
1. Intentional disruption of functions or activities sponsored or authorized by the
University.
2. Incitement of others to disobey University rules when such incitement constitutes a
clear and present danger that violence or abuse against persons or property will
occur or that the University's central functions will be significantly impaired.
3. Unauthorized use of University resources or facilities on a significant scale for
personal, commercial, political, or religious purposes.
4. Forcible detention, threats of physical harm to, harassment or intimidation of
another member of the University community, with the intent to interfere that
interferes with that person's performance of University activities.
5. Discrimination, including harassment, against University staff on political grounds,
or for reasons of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, national
origin, ancestry, marital status, medical condition, status as a covered veteran or,
within the limits imposed by law or University regulations, because of age or
citizenship, or for other arbitrary or personal reasons.
6. Violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines, applying to
nondiscrimination against staff on the basis of disability.
7. Violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty,
including but not limited to policies applying to research, outside professional
activities, conflicts of commitment, clinical practices, violence in the workplace,
and whistleblower protections.
D. Colleagues
Ethical Principles. "As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from
common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate
against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates.
In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions
of others. Professors acknowledge academic debts and strive to be objective in their
professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty
responsibilities for the governance of their institution." (AAUP Statement, 1966;
Revised, 1987)
Types of unacceptable conduct:
1. Making evaluations of the professional competence of faculty members by
criteria not directly reflective of professional performance.
2. Discrimination, including harassment, against faculty on political grounds,
or for reasons of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin,
national origin, ancestry, marital status, medical condition*, status as a
Vietnam-era covered veteran or disabled veteran, or, within the limits
imposed by law or University regulations, because of age or citizenship or
for other arbitrary or personal reasons.
3. Knowing vViolation of the University policy, including the pertinent
guidelines, applying to nondiscrimination against faculty on the basis of
handicap disability.
4. Breach of established rules governing confidentiality in personnel
procedures.
E. The Community
Ethical Principles. "Faculty members have the same rights and obligations as all
citizens. They are as free as other citizens to express their views and to participate in
the political processes of the community. When they act or speak in their personal
and private capacities, they should avoid deliberately creating the impression that
they represent the University." (U.C. Academic Council Statement, 1971)
Types of unacceptable conduct:
1. Intentional misrepresentation of personal views as a statement of position of
the University or any of its agencies. (An institutional affiliation appended
to a faculty member's name in a public statement or appearance is
permissible, if used solely for purposes of identification.)
2. Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law
and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the
faculty.
Part III - Enforcement and Sanctions
The Assembly of the Academic Senate recommends that each Division, in cooperation with
the campus Administration, promptly develop and periodically re-examine procedures
dealing with the investigation of allegations of faculty misconduct and the conduct of
disciplinary proceedings.
Procedures shall be consistent with the By-Laws Bylaws of the Academic Senate. Each
Division should duly notify the University Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction and the
University Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the procedures it has adopted and any
subsequent changes therein. These Committees in turn are directed to report periodically to
the Assembly of the Academic Senate on procedures adopted by the Divisions and to
recommend to the Assembly such action as they deem appropriate for assuring compliance
with the By-Laws Bylaws of the Academic Senate or the promotion of uniformity among
Divisions to the extent to which it appears necessary and desirable.
The following principles are recommended as guidelines in developing disciplinary
procedures.
A. In the development of disciplinary procedures, each Division must adhere to the
following principles:
1. No disciplinary sanction for professional misconduct should shall be
imposed by the Administration except in accordance with specified campus
procedures adopted after appropriate consultation with agencies of the
Academic Senate, as prescribed in the introduction to this part of the Code.
Systemwide procedures for the conduct of disciplinary hearings are set forth
in the Academic Senate Bylaw 336.
2. No disciplinary sanction should shall be imposed until after the faculty
member has had an opportunity for a hearing before the Divisional
Committee on Privilege and Tenure, subsequent to a filing of a charge by the
appropriate administrative Officer, as described in Academic Senate By-Law
Bylaw 335 336.
3. No disciplinary action may commence if more than three years have passed
between the time when the Chancellor knew or should have known about the
alleged violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct and the delivery of the
notice of proposed disciplinary action.
4. The Chancellor may not initiate notice of proposed disciplinary action
unless there has been a finding of probable cause. The probable cause standard
means that the facts as alleged in the complaint, if true, justify the
imposition of discipline for a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct and that
the Chancellor is satisfied that the University can produce credible
evidence to support the claim. In cases where the Chancellor wants a
disciplinary action to proceed, the divisional hearing committee must hold a
hearing and make findings on the evidence presented unless the accused
faculty member settles the matter with the Chancellor prior to the hearing or
explicitly waives his or her right to a hearing.
12. 5. The procedures adopted should shall include designation of permissible
disciplinary sanctions T the following disciplinary sanctions are authorized
in The Regents' statement of the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and
the Administration of Discipline, of which this Faculty Code of Conduct is
an integral part: written censure; , suspension (other than interim suspension
with pay); , reduction in salary, ; demotion (in rank or in salary step); ,
suspension, ; denial or curtailment of emeritus status, ; and dismissal from
the employ of the University. The Divisional Committee on Privilege and
Tenure shall not have the power to recommend the imposition of a sanction
more severe than that proposed in the notice of disciplinary action. More
than one disciplinary sanction may be imposed for a single act of
misconduct, e.g. a letter of censure and a suspension.
B. In the development of disciplinary procedures, it is recommended that each Division
adhere to the following principles:
3. 1. Provision should be made for developing procedures whereby the Divisional
Committee on Privilege and Tenure may sit in panels smaller than the full
committee, to hear minor disciplinary cases or to facilitate the efficient and
timely handling of a heavy case load. In order to facilitate the efficient and
timely handling of disciplinary matters, it is recommended that procedures
be developed that allow each Divisional Committee on Privilege and Tenure
to sit in hearing panels smaller than the full committee.
4. 2. There should be an appropriate mechanism for consideration and
investigation of allegations of misconduct received from members of the
faculty, staff, students, the Aadministration, and other members of the
University community. Procedures should be developed which encourage a
single formal investigation of the allegations leading to the proposed
disciplinary action.
7. 3. Because it is desirable that the faculty meaningfully participate in its own
self-discipline, and in order to provide the Aadministration with faculty
advice in the beginning stages of what may become formal disciplinary
proceedings, appropriate procedures should be developed to involve the
faculty in participating in the investigation of allegations of misconduct
and/or in making recommendations to appropriate administrative officers
whether a disciplinary charge should be filed. Divisions are encouraged to
develop procedures to provide faculty investigators with training,
consultation, or legal counsel to assist with the investigation of faculty
disciplinary cases.
5. 4. There should be provision for a method by which efforts can be made for
informal disposition of allegations of faculty misconduct before formal
disciplinary proceedings are instituted. Procedures should be developed for
mediation of cases where mediation is viewed as acceptable by the
Chancellor and the faculty member accused of misconduct. Mediators
should be trained in mediation, be regarded as neutral third parties and have
experience in the University environment. In cases where a settlement
resolving disciplinary charges is entered into after a matter has been referred
to an Academic Senate committee, the Chancellor is encouraged to consult
with the Chair of the Divisional Privilege and Tenure committee prior to
finalizing the settlement.
6. 5. Appropriate precautions should be taken to safeguard the confidentiality of
investigative and disciplinary proceedings. Procedures should be developed
that allow information about an ongoing disciplinary proceeding, including
information about the outcome, to be shared with complainant(s), to the
extent allowable by State law and University policy.
8. 6. There should be provision, to the maximum feasible extent, for separating
investigative and judicial functions. A faculty member who has participated
in investigating an allegation of misconduct or in recommending that a
charge should be filed should thereafter not participate, as a member of the
Committee on Privilege and Tenure, in the hearing of that charge.
9. Consideration should be given to provision for the Divisional Committee on
Privilege and Tenure to reconsider a case on which the Chancellor disagrees
with the Committee's findings.
10. 7. In the implementation of all procedures, specific provisions should be made
for the time span within which certain actions may or must be taken. Every
effort should be made to conform to reasonable, specified time frames.
Ideally, a hearing should commence within 45 days of the date on which the
accused faculty member has been notified of the intention to initiate a
disciplinary proceeding. A faculty member who is entitled to a hearing
should not be permitted thereafter to delay imposition of discipline by
refusing to cooperate or being unavailable for a scheduled hearing.
A hearing shall not be postponed because the faculty member is on leave or
fails to appear.
11. There should be provision for the Chancellor to impose an interim
suspension, with full pay, on a faculty member, without having followed the
procedures otherwise applicable for imposing disciplinary sanctions, when
the Chancellor finds that there is a clear probability that the faculty
member's continued assignment to regular duties will be immediately and
seriously harmful to the University community. There should be provision
for written statement of the reasons for such a suspension, and procedures
for prompt filing by the Chancellor of a charge with the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure and for prompt hearing by that Committee.
13. 8. There should be consideration of provision for the availability of removal or
termination of a sanction, either automatically or by administrative
discretion, in individual cases. The nature and circumstances of the offense
should determine the severity and type of discipline.
9. Procedures should be developed for keeping records of disciplinary matters
in a confidential manner and sharing such records with Senate and
administrative officers with a need to know in accordance with State law and
University policy.
_________________________________________
*Medical condition, according to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
means "health impairment related to or associated with a diagnosis of cancer, for which a
person has been rehabilitated or cured."
RETURN TO CONTENTS