UCI Policies and Procedures on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline

1. This document describes UCI administrative procedures for the review and disposition of alleged violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct and their articulation with procedures of the Academic Senate for hearing of formal charges. The Academic Personnel Office is the responsible party for carrying out the administrative procedures as described below. Procedures for the formal hearing conducted by the Academic Senate are described in Senate Bylaws 334-337.
2. Alternative procedures have been established for review of complaints in four categories, a. through d., listed below. These procedures are used in lieu of the review procedures described in Section C of this document. The specific outcome of these external review processes form the basis of the decision by the Chancellor’s Designee for the disposition of the complaint of a Faculty Code of Conduct violation per Section D of this document.
   1. Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment- see UC Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment and UCI Administrative Policy and Procedures Section 700-18: Guidelines for Reporting and Responding to Reports of Discrimination and Harassment as well as UCI Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Staff and Faculty Adjudication Frameworks.
   2. Research Misconduct- see Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy and Procedures (UCI).
   3. Health Sciences Compensation Plan- see the Health Sciences Compensation Plan APM – 670 and the UCI School of Medicine Implementing Procedures for the Health Sciences Compensation Plan (Effective July 1, 2015).
   4. Whistleblower and Whistleblower Protection- see UC Whistleblower Policy, UC Whistleblower Protection Policy, and UCI Administrative Policy and Procedures Section 700-06: Guidelines for Reporting Improper Activities and Guidelines for Filing Complaints of Retaliation for Reporting Improper Activities.

1. Roles and Definitions
   1. Chancellor’s Designee – Vice Provost, Academic Personnel is the individual responsible for the administration of the faculty disciplinary process.
   2. Campus Official(s) – individual(s) appointed by the Chancellor’s Designee to conduct the formal review of an alleged violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct (see Section C.2.a). This might be the department chair, program director, or dean of the respondent’s unit, and/or an administrator or expert in the matter raised in the complaint.
   3. Investigative Committee (IC) – the Chancellor’s Designee, depending on the nature and source of the complaint, may appoint an ad hoc administrative committee instead of Campus Official(s), to conduct the formal review of an alleged violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct. In this case the committee will include at least one (1) administrative appointee, such as a campus administrator, outside investigator, or other subject matter expert who is a non-faculty appointee and two (2) Senate faculty members, appointed by the Chancellor’s Designee.
   4. Complainant – the individual who files a complaint alleging that a faculty member has violated the Faculty Code of Conduct. The complainant may be any member of the campus community, including student, trainee, staff, Senate and non-Senate faculty and academic, and/or any member of the public.
   5. Respondent – the faculty member who is the subject of the complaint.
   6. Complaint – Written communication to Chancellor’s Designee alleging a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct.
   7. Review – the process of determining whether the respondent’s conduct constitutes a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct.
   8. Disposition – the determination, based on the review, to either dismiss the complaint or to seek formal disciplinary action against a faculty member, either by obtaining the faculty member’s agreement to accept the Chancellor Designee’s proposed discipline, or absent such agreement, by filing a formal charge with the Committee on Privilege and Tenure for a hearing.
   9. University Working Days – All days, excluding weekends and administrative holidays.
   10. Standards of Evidence:
       1. Reasonable Grounds: This means that facts exist that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the alleged misconduct, if true, may violate the Faculty Code of Conduct. This standard is applied by the Chancellor’s Designee to determine if a review is appropriate.
       2. Probable Cause: APM 015, Part III-A-4 states, “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.” This standard is applied to the Chancellor Designee’s determination concerning whether to seek formal disciplinary action against a faculty member, either by obtaining the faculty member’s agreement to accept the Chancellor’s proposed discipline, or absent such agreement, by filing a complaint with the Committee on Privilege and Tenure for a hearing on the proposed disciplinary action.
       3. Preponderance of the Evidence: Sufficient, relevant, probable, and persuasive evidence that outweighs the contravening evidence. This standard is applied to most University investigations concerning whether there has been a violation of University policy, including the alternative investigative procedures described above in Section II.A.2.
       4. Clear and Convincing: Evidence that is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but does not rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Clear and convincing is the evidence standard applied in cases involving Whistleblower Retaliation claims. Academic Senate Bylaws 334-337 also requires the Chancellor (or their Designee) to meet this evidence standard during the Committee on Privilege and Tenure hearing (in Section V) to support the proposed discipline.
2. Provisions
   1. The Chancellor’s Designee must initiate disciplinary action by delivering notice of proposed action to the respondent no later than three years after the Chancellor’s Designee is deemed to have known about the alleged violation. There is no time limit by which a complainant may report an alleged violation.
   2. The review process ends when: (a) the Chancellor’s Designee closes a case; (b) the Chancellor’s Designee notifies the respondent of the proposed sanctions (disposition), or (c) the time period of 1 year since the start of the review is exceeded and no request for an extension of time has been made and approved.
   3. When a time period is prescribed in this document, the reviewing party may request an extension of time. All requests for an extension of time must be: (1) made in writing, (2) supported by good cause, and (3) submitted to the Chancellor’s Designee prior to the applicable deadline. Response to any extension request shall also be made by written response to the requesting party with copies provided to all interested parties, including complainant(s) and respondent(s).
   4. The Campus Official(s) and each member of the Investigative Committee shall disclose to the Chancellor’s Designee any circumstances that may interfere with their objective consideration of the case and recuse themselves as appropriate. The Chancellor’s Designee will take steps to assure that no individual is involved in a review in which they have an actual or perceived conflict of interest. If the Chancellor’s Designee has a conflict of interest involving a particular case, the Chancellor’s Designee will appoint an appropriate senior administrator to serve as the Chancellor’s Designee in the said case.
   5. All proceedings are to be treated as confidential. No participant shall disclose the identity of the complainant, the respondent, witnesses, the nature of the allegation, the evidence, or the deliberations of any decision-maker, other than to individuals who have a legitimate need for such information in order to conduct the proceeding, perform their University job function, or as required by law.
   6. The Academic Personnel Office is responsible for the retention of all relevant records of informal and formal resolutions and other matters related to this policy.

1. Filing of Complaint – A complainant may choose to file a complaint in writing against a faculty member for an alleged violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct. The written complaint should be submitted on the designated form to the Chancellor’s Designee.
2. Initial Assessment of Complaint – The Chancellor’s Designee will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to support a complaint alleging a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct.
   1. If there is no reasonable ground, the complaint will be dismissed and the matter is closed. The Chancellor’s Designee will inform the complainant and the respondent in writing of this decision to close the matter.
   2. If reasonable grounds are found, the complaint will be reviewed in accordance with Section C.3 below and/or there will be an attempt at informal resolution. Attempt to resolve the matter informally should generally not exceed 30 working days.
3. Formal Review
   1. As noted in Section II.A.2, alternative procedures that have been established for both initial assessment and formal review of certain types of complaints will be used in those cases in lieu of review procedures detailed here. The specific outcome of the alternative review process will form the basis of the decision by the Chancellor’s Designee for the disposition of the complaint against a respondent faculty member in Section D below.
   2. For complaints that are not under the purview of one of these alternative procedures and if reasonable grounds are found, the Chancellor’s Designee will refer the complaint for formal review to either Campus Official(s) or the IC. The decision of which to use for a particular case is at the discretion of the Chancellor’s Designee, taking into consideration the complexity and particular circumstances of the allegations. It is anticipated that Campus Official(s) will be designated for cases for which investigation does not require significant corroborating witness testimony. In cases where a Campus Official is designated, the Campus Official(s) should have no potential conflicts of interest.
   3. The Chancellor’s Designee should inform the respondent and the complainant that a review by Campus Official(s) or IC will be conducted. Specifically, the Chancellor’s Designee will:
      1. Inform the respondent that a complaint has been lodged, provide a copy of the written complaint (redacted as appropriate to protect individual privacy rights) and describe any special context or circumstances involved in the complaint.
      2. Inform the complainant and the respondent that the complaint is accepted for formal review and has been assigned to a Campus Official or IC (as defined by Section B.3).
      3. Instruct the complainant and the respondent that the University will treat the proceedings as a confidential process.
   4. Review Procedures
      1. The Campus Official(s) or the IC has the authority to define the scope of the review. They will interview the complainant and the respondent in order to gather factual background information and may interview additional witnesses, examine documents or seek other relevant evidence. To the extent allowed by University policy and the law, they shall have access to information needed to complete the review including Academic Personnel review documents if these are deemed relevant and necessary.
      2. The Campus Official(s) or the IC will communicate a reasonable timeframe to the respondent faculty member for the submission of evidence.
      3. The Campus Official or IC will make a finding as to whether a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct has occurred using probable cause and report this finding to the Chancellor’s Designee.
      4. The review must be completed within sixty (60) working days of the appointment of the Campus Official(s) or the formation of the IC. The Chancellor’s Designee may approve an extension of this deadline if warranted by exceptional circumstances based on a written request from the Campus Official or the IC.
   5. Investigation of complaints under any of the alternative procedures described in Section II.A.2 will also conclude with a written report to the Chancellor’s Designee similar in scope as described above. For example, complaints whose allegations are under the purview of the University Policy on Sexual Violence & Sexual Harassment are conducted by the OEOD (Section A.2.a). The OEOD will convey a written report of its investigative findings and its determination of whether a violation of the SVSH policy has occurred to the Chancellor’s Designee.

1. The Chancellor’s Designee must inform the respondent of the outcome of the review completed by the Campus Official or the IC by providing a copy of any written findings (subject to applicable University policies concerning access, confidentiality, and redaction). The respondent has the right to reply in writing to the Chancellor’s Designee within ten (10) working days of receiving the written findings. The Chancellor’s Designee may extend the response deadlines if the circumstances warrant it.
2. Upon receipt of the respondent’s written response, or if no written response from the respondent was received, the Chancellor’s Designee has the following three (3) options:
   1. Decide that no disciplinary sanctions are warranted and close the matter.
   2. Discuss and reach an agreement with the respondent faculty member regarding a resolution of the matter. As part of the agreement, the respondent faculty member might accede to sanctions or penalties.
   3. File disciplinary charges against the respondent faculty member with the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. Disciplinary charges shall be in writing and shall contain notice of proposed disciplinary action and a full statement of the facts underlying the charges. Filing of disciplinary charges should occur within two (2) calendar months (or 40 working days) of the Chancellor’s Designee receiving a report (through the review process or any of the alternative review processes).
3. In cases involving substantiated findings of SVSH policy violations, the Chancellor’s Designee will follow the process as described in Section D.2 above, only after receiving and in consideration of a recommendation from the campus Peer Review Committee (PRC). The PRC is charged by the UC SVSH policy and UCI Sexual Harassment and Sex Offense Investigation and Adjudication Framework for Senate Faculty to review all OEOD determinations involving faculty respondents and to recommend appropriate sanction and/or discipline to the Chancellor’s Designee.

The Chancellor’s Designee and the respondent’s department chair, program director and/or dean have the authority to take certain administrative actions, short of discipline, to ensure the safe and effective operation of the University (see APM 016, Section I), including temporary adjustment to the faculty member’s duties. Such administrative action taken should be the least intrusive option necessary to ensure the safe and effective operation of the university. It is critical that any temporary adjustment be attentive to issues of confidentiality and the respondent’s reputation.

The Chancellor’s Designee has the authority to implement an involuntary leave, with full pay, in cases where there is a strong risk that the respondent’s continued assignment to regular duties will cause immediate and serious harm to the University community or impede the investigation of their alleged wrongdoing, or in situations where the respondent’s conduct represents a serious crime or felony that is the subject of investigation by a law enforcement agency.

The respondent has the right, if they choose, to have an expedited hearing before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure concerning the justification for any imposed interim actions. The Committee on Privilege and Tenure must initiate the hearing within ten (10) working days of a request by the respondent for such a hearing, unless the respondent agrees in writing to an extension of this time period. The scope of this hearing shall be limited to the appropriateness of the interim actions.

In the event that an interim action has been imposed, the Chancellor’s Designee shall not hold the matter in abeyance following completion of the review without the respondent’s agreement. During the imposition of interim action, any anticipated delays in investigating the case and bringing it to formal hearing before the Committee on Privilege and Tenure, other than those agreed to by the respondent, must be submitted to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure for a recommendation to the Chancellor as to whether compelling need exists to support the delays.

If the Chancellor’s Designee’s decision is to file charges against the respondent based on the outcome of the review, the Committee on Privilege and Tenure conducts a formal hearing on the issues referred by the Chancellor’s Designee (Senate Bylaws 334-337). At the hearing, the Chancellor’s Designee has the burden of proving the allegations by the clear and convincing standard. The Hearing Committee appointed by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure may accept into evidence the findings of another hearing body or investigative agency and shall accord it weight at its discretion taking account of the nature of its source. However, the Hearing Committee is not bound by the recommendation of another hearing body. The respondent will be given full opportunity to challenge the findings of the other body. Based on the facts found in the formal hearing, the Committee on Privilege and Tenure makes recommendations to the Chancellor regarding the appropriate disposition of the case.