CHAPTER I - GRANT OF FACULTY STATUS TO ACADEMIC STAFF
(Established by Action of the Faculty Senate, November 25, 1981)
CHAPTER II - See UWS Faculty Personnel Rules (UWS 2)
CHAPTER III - RULES GOVERNING FACULTY APPOINTMENTS UNDER UWS 3, WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Archive - UWW Faculty Personnel Rules Chapter III (For reference only: Not in effect after April 2004)
CHAPTER IV - See UWS Faculty Personnel Rules (UWS 4)
CHAPTER V - LAYOFF AND TERMINATION FOR REASONS OF FINANCIAL EMERGENCY--RULES IMPLEMENTING UWS 5 OF THE WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (Established by Action of the Faculty Senate, November 25, 1981)
CHAPTER VI - RULES GOVERNING COMPLAINTS AGAINST AND GRIEVANCES OF FACULTY UNDER
UWS 6 OF THE WISCONSIN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
(Approved by Board of Regents on February 5, 1982 and August 18, 2006)
A. COMPLAINTS AGAINST FACULTY
1. General Principles: Administrators, students, academic staff members, faculty members, classified staff members, or members of the public shall follow the procedures and rules given in this section to assure fair, just, and timely handling of complaints and grievances against faculty members. Generally, seeking relief through a grievance procedure (See VI, A, 2, c of these rules) is preferable to seeking relief through a complaint procedure (See VI, A, 2, d and VI, A, 3-4 of these rules) because a grievance focuses on the undue effects experienced by the grievant rather than upon an alleged misconduct or punishment of an alleged offender.
a. No person shall be denied recourse to the other means of relief specified in these rules, for example, conflict resolution.
b. All proceedings shall be conducted in a climate of presumed innocence; every effort shall be made to preserve the rights and dignity of all parties.
c. If investigation convinces the Chancellor to issue a charge, the burden of proof in a hearing rests with the Chancellor.
d. At any time in the process, the complainant, faculty member, and Chancellor by mutual written consent may choose to engage in a conflict resolution process.
e. If, in the course of an investigation of an allegation, an administrator proposes reassignment of a student from a faculty member’s class to a comparable class taught by another faculty member, then the administrator shall
(1) obtain consent of the student and receiving faculty member,
(2) inform the faculty member under investigation of the reason why the change was made,
(3) inform the faculty member’s department chair and dean, and
(4) make all reasonable efforts to insure that neither the receiving faculty member nor the student is disadvantaged by the change in class.
f. If inconsistencies or conflicts arise between administrative implementation policies and these rules, these rules take precedence unless they are found to be in conflict with UW-System rules or State Statutes. In such a case, UW-System rules or State Statutes take precedence over these faculty rules.
a. Conflict resolution is a voluntary alternative means of resolving disputes by which a neutral third party helps the complainant and faculty member negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution. A conflict resolution process does not preclude further processing under the complaint procedures (See VI, A, 3 and 4 of these rules). At any point in the process, the complainant, the faculty member, and the Chancellor may mutually agree to attempt an alternative dispute resolution process. To allow time for such process, the mutual agreement must stipulate whether any time requirements indicated in these rules are to remain in effect or to be extended for a specific or unspecified period. Such agreement must be uncoerced, without precondition as to outcome, written, and signed by the complainant, the faculty member, the Chancellor, and the neutral third party.
b. An act or event is alleged conduct, or alleged pattern of conduct, or the discovery or documentation of alleged conduct, or alleged pattern of conduct which has adversely affected the faculty member’s performance of her or his obligations to the university or violates university policies.
c. A grievance alleges that conduct of a faculty member created an unfair, unjust, or hostile work environment for another person. The purpose of a grievance is corrective rather than punitive and seeks to correct the unfair, unjust, or hostile work environment.
d. A complaint alleges that conduct of a faculty member violated university rules or policies or adversely affected the faculty member’s performance of his/her obligation to the university. Such conduct could lead to punishment of the alleged offender under UWS 4 or UWS 6.
e. A charge is a written statement issued and signed by the Chancellor founded on a complaint which specifies
(1) the conduct complained of;
(2) the rule(s) or university policy(ies) the faculty member’s alleged conduct or pattern of conduct violated, and/or
(3) the manner in which the conduct adversely affected the faculty member’s performance of his/her obligation to the university;
(4) the way in which a faculty member’s alleged conduct or pattern of conduct adversely affected the faculty member’s performance of his or her obligations to the university (UWS 6.01), except that
(a) complaints of, and the reporting of, possible misconduct in science are covered by Part B of this Chapter in accordance with the regulations of the US Department of Health and Human Services (Reference: 42 CFR Part 50.102);
(b) no conduct which is constitutionally protected or protected by the principles of academic freedom shall be the subject of a complaint;
(c) students who wish to pursue changes of grade should follow the procedures described in the UWW Handbook, Student Grade Appeal; and
(d) no charge shall be founded on a complaint which the complainant refuses to sign;
(5) all of the following known as of the date of the charge with the exception of those redactions necessary to protect the identity of a minor:
(a) names of person(s) signing the complaint,
(b) names of persons investigating the complaint,
(c) names of persons drafting the charge,
(d) names of persons who may be called to offer testimony in support of the charge,
(e) names of persons providing information during the investigation, and (f) unredacted copies of all documents which will be offered in evidence of the charge;
(6) that a hearing panel shall grant a recess to enable either party to investigate evidence about which a valid claim of surprise is made;
(7) the Chancellor’s determination whether the charge falls under UWS 6 and UWW VI rather than UWS 4; and
(8) the penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) (See VI, A, 3, f, (2), (b) of these rules) the Chancellor proposes if the charge is admitted or upheld.
f. Penalty(ies) or remedy(ies) or combinations thereof as stated in the charge (II, E):
(1) Reprimand: written warning by the Chancellor that the faculty member must cease the specified conduct which violated university rules or policies or adversely affected the faculty member’s performance of his/her contractual obligations to the university. This written warning shall be delivered to the faculty member and a copy shall be placed in the faculty member's personnel file.
(2) Corrective intervention: counseling, training, or other appropriate and reasonable remedies which would support necessary changes in behavior. Such interventions may be at the faculty member’s expense.
(3) Fine: a forfeiture of up to but not to exceed 10% of the faculty member’s contract year salary. Existing benefits would continue and the faculty member would be expected to fulfill his/her contractual obligations to the university.
(4) Reduction of base salary: a reduction of up to but not to exceed 5% of the faculty member’s base salary.
(5) Suspension without pay: suspension without pay from all employment by the university and suspension of all rights and privileges derived from faculty appointment or rank or from departmental or college faculty membership up to but not more than a period equal to one contractual year.
3. Complaint procedures:a. A valid complaint must:(1) be written, signed, and dated by the complainant,
(2) describe and date the alleged act or event(s),
3) indicate whether the complainant is willing to seek resolution of the event or act through a conflict resolution process (See VI, A, 2, a; VI, A, 3, a, (3) ; and VI, A, 3, d, (1), (b), (v) of these rules),
(4) be filed with the Chancellor within 120 calendar days of the alleged act or event.
b. Acts or events listed in VI, A, 2, e, (4), (a) - (d) of these rules are excluded from these procedures.
c. The complainant has a right to an on-campus representative
(1) who may be of the complainant’s choice, or who, at the request of the complainant, shall be recommended by the
(a) Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (or designee) if the complainant is not a university employee or student,
(b) Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (or designee) if the complainant is a faculty member or an unclassified staff member,
(c) Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs (or designee) if the complainant is a classified staff member, or
(d) Assistant Chancellor for Student Affairs (or designee) if the complainant is a university student;
(2) who shall help insure that the complainant understands the process and his or her rights; however, this person shall be
(a) independent of the Chancellor and any representative of or legal counsel for the faculty member or hearing panel, and
(b) not serve as legal counsel for the complainant;
(3) who is a current or retired employee of a University of Wisconsin institution.
d. To process a valid complaint, the Chancellor
(1) informs the faculty member in writing within 14 calendar days of receipt of the valid complaint that a complaint has been filed and provides
(a) a copy of the complaint;
(b) a statement of the faculty member’s rights and protections:
i) Within 120 calendar days of receipt of the valid complaint (See VI, A, 3, a of these rules) the faculty member has the right to receive from the Chancellor a charge or notice that the complaint has been dismissed;
ii) The faculty member has the right to appeal the charge if rendered by the Chancellor;
iii) The faculty member has the right to an advocate during all aspects of the process;
iv) The faculty member has the right to retain legal counsel; however, see VI, A, 4, b, (4), (b), iii); VI, A, 4, b, (7), (a), iii) and VI, A, 4, a, (2), (c) of these rules;
v) The faculty member has the right to request resolution of the dispute through conflict resolution; and
vi) Anything the faculty member says regarding the matter may be used in investigating and hearing a charge under UWS 4 or UWS 6;
(c) notice of the faculty member’s responsibility to cooperate in the investigative process.
(2) upon investigation determines within 120 calendar days of the receipt of the valid complaint whether the complaint will be dismissed or pursued under UWS 4 or UWS 6.
e. If the Chancellor determines that no charge should be issued, the Chancellor shall inform the faculty member and the complainant in writing that the complaint has been dismissed because
(1) of the exclusions given in VI, A, 2, e, (4), (a) - (d) of these rules, and/or
(2) there is not cause to believe that the conduct complained of occurred, and/or
(3) the conduct complained of, if it occurred, did not violate university rules or policies or adversely affect the faculty member's performance of obligation to the university, and/or
(4) the complaint was not filed with the Chancellor within 120 calendar days of the alleged act or event (See VI, A, 2, b and VI, A, 3, a, (4) of these rules), and/or
(5) the investigation has not been completed within 120 calendar days of the filing of the complaint (See VI, A, 3, d, (2) of these rules).
f. If the Chancellor issues a charge,
(1) copies of the charge (See VI, A, 2, e of these rules) shall be sent to the faculty member charged;
(2) the Chancellor shall inform the complainant that a charge has been filed, but the complainant shall not receive the following parts of the charge until the charge is admitted or upheld
(a) the persons called to offer testimony in support of the charge,
(b) the penalty(ies) or remedy(ies) the Chancellor proposes, or
(c) copies of documents offered in evidence of the charge;
(3) within 5 calendar days of receipt of the faculty member’s choice to request a hearing (See VI, A, 3, g, (1), (b) or (c) of these rules) or the Chancellor’s request for a hearing panel (See VI, A, 3, f,(4) of these rules) and (See UWS 6.01(2)), the Chancellor shall
(a) request that the Chair of the Faculty Senate draw a five member hearing panel from the Faculty Appeals, Grievance, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee; and
(b) forward to the Chair of the Faculty Senate five copies of the following documents in sealed envelopes
i) the charge with date filed,
ii) the complaint with date filed, and
iii) the supporting documents;
(4) within five calendar days of the receipt of the faculty member’s choice or lack thereof (See VI, A, 3, g, (4) of these rules), the Chancellor may request in writing a hearing on the alleged misconduct or penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) even if the faculty member elects not to request a hearing on either the alleged misconduct or the penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) (See UWS 6.01(2)).
g. Faculty member’s options in response to a charge:
(1) Upon receipt of the charge, the faculty member may
(a) admit to the misconduct charged and accept the penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies), in which case the proposed penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) will be imposed by the Chancellor and proceedings in the matter under these rules will cease; or
(b) admit to the misconduct charged but contest the penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies), in which case the faculty member has the right to a hearing on the penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) under the procedures in VI, A, 4, c of these rules; or
(c) deny the misconduct charged, in which case the faculty member may
i) accept the penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) without protest; or
ii) request a hearing on the charges in which case the penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) shall be held in abeyance until completion of the hearing process under the procedures in VI, A, 4, b of these rules.
(2) The faculty member submits a written statement of his or her choice to the Chancellor within 14 calendar days of receipt of the charge.
(3) If the faculty member requests a hearing, then the faculty member also shall submit a written copy indicating his or her request to the Chair of the Faculty Senate.
(4) Failure to submit a written response to the charge indicating his or her choice of options (See VI, A, 3, g, (1), (a) - (c)) within 14 calendar days, by default, shall revert to VI, A, 3, g, (1), (a) of these rules.
4. Hearing procedures:
a. When the faculty member charged or the Chancellor has requested a hearing panel, within 30 calendar days, the Chair of the Faculty Senate shall
(1) request of the Secretary of the Faculty Senate the names of five potential panel members and two alternates from the Faculty Appeals, Grievance, and Disciplinary Hearing Committee, except that
(a) no potential member or alternate shall be a member of the charged faculty member’s department, and
(b) no potential member or alternate shall be a person whom the Chair of the Faculty Senate and Secretary of the Faculty Senate determine to be ineligible due to conflict of interest or personal or professional hardship; and
(2) convene an organizational meeting of the potential panel members and alternates at which
(a) the Faculty Senate Chair shall inform the panel of its tasks (See VI, A, 4, b - d of these rules) and provide
i) copies of these rules and
ii) copies of the relevant documents in sealed envelopes including the
a) charge with the date filed,
b) complaint with the date filed, and
c) supporting documents;
(b) the Faculty Senate Chair shall request that the panel immediately elect a chair and establish a meeting time within 15 calendar days.
(c) the Faculty Senate Chair shall inform the panel of its right to legal counsel at the university’s expense if the faculty member chooses to be represented by an attorney. Such counsel shall help the panel conduct impartial, complete, and comprehensive proceedings. In addition, counsel may advise the panel in writing the rationale for its findings and recommendation.
b. Conduct of a hearing of a denied charge:
(1) All meetings of the panel shall be conducted in accordance with the state law governing meetings of public bodies. The panel may hear witness testimony and deliberate in closed meeting in accordance with all the requirements of s.19.85 (1), (a) & (b) WI Stats.
(a) The panel shall make a reasonable effort to accommodate anyone who wants to record, film, or photograph an open meeting so long as the activity does not interfere with the meeting (see s.19.90 WI Stats.).
(b) No one may record a closed meeting under circumstances that might mean its private and secret nature could be violated. If the panel desires to record its closed meeting, it should arrange for the security of the records to prevent their improper disclosure (see 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 318,325).
(2) A hearing shall be confined to a single charge against a faculty member.
(3) The hearing shall begin not more than 60 calendar days after the request for a hearing unless the Chancellor and the faculty member agree to another date. The panel shall provide written notice of the meeting at least 5 calendar days in advance.
(4) The notice of the hearing should include
(a) time, date, and location of hearings;
(b) a request that each party provide
i) any new documents regarding procedures for the panel to consider,
ii) copies of documents for each panel member and the other party, and
iii) the name of an advocate (however, if the faculty member chooses to be represented by an attorney, then the Chancellor and panel also may be represented by separate legal counsel, [see VI, A, 4, a, (2), (c) of these rules]); and
(c) a statement that both parties have the right and obligation to be present, and if either or both parties are absent, the hearing panel may recess or proceed at its discretion.
(5) The panel’s record of proceedings shall include
(a) time and date of the meetings,
(b) names of panel members and participants present,
(c) a written record of the motions and roll call votes, (s.19.88(3)), and
(d) findings and recommendations.
(6) The panel shall conduct a procedural review (See VI, A, 3, a - d, f of these rules). If any significant procedural error is found, the panel shall
(a) terminate the proceedings under these rules,
(b) report its findings, in writing, to the faculty member, the Chancellor, and the Faculty Senate Chair, and
(c) return all copies of all documents to the Faculty Senate Chair who shall file one copy and destroy all other copies.
(7) If there are no procedural errors, the panel shall conduct a substantive review by the following procedures:
(a) Request that each party provide
i) additional documents, if any, concerning substantive issues for the panel to consider,
ii) a list of witnesses to be called,
iii) name of advocate (however, if the faculty member chooses to be represented by an attorney, then the Chancellor and the panel also may be represented by separate legal counsel [see VI, A, 4, a, (2), (c) of these rules]), and
iv) copies for each panel member and the other party.
(b) Review the documents given to them by the Faculty Senate Chair regarding the substantive issues of the charge.
(c) Grant a recess if the faculty member or the Chancellor presents substantive new information under section VI, A, 4, b, (7), (a), i) of these rules. The panel may grant a recess if such recess is necessary for a fair hearing and the need for such recess does not arise from neglect.
(d) Hear oral testimony or take written statements from witnesses about information of which the witnesses have firsthand knowledge. The witnesses shall be available for questioning and cross examination. To this end, the hearing body shall
i) request the attendance of witnesses,
ii) direct the university to assist in securing the attendance of witnesses who university employees, and
iii) give the faculty member access to relevant documents which are in the possession of the university and which are necessary to his or her defense.
(e) Call on its own initiative qualified witnesses to testify as to the charge. Such witnesses may be cross examined.
(f) Dismiss evidence which is redundant or lacks reasonable probative value.
(8) Faculty member’s rights during a hearing:
(a) to have access to all documents presented in evidence (See VI, A, 4, b, (4), (b), ii) and VI, A, 4, b, (7), (a), i) of these rules),
(b) to call witnesses (See VI, A, 4, b, (7), (a), ii) and VI, A, 4, b, (7), (d) of these rules),
(c) to question witnesses (See VI, A, 4, b, (7), (d) and (e) of these rules),
(d) to request a recess if such recess is necessary for a fair hearing and the need for such recess does not arise from neglect (See VI, A, 2, e, (6) and VI, A, 4, b, (7), (c) of these rules),
(e) to have the university’s assistance in securing the witnesses’ presence at the hearing when such witnesses are university employees (See VI, A, 4, b, (7), (d), ii) of these rules),
(f) to be represented by an advocate (See VI, A, 4, b, (4), (b), iii) of these rules), and
(g) to be heard in his or her own behalf.
(9) Concerning the disciplinary action, the panel may make recommendations to the Chancellor
(a) to uphold the Chancellor’s charge and the proposed penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies),
(b) to uphold some or all of the Chancellor’s charge, but recommending reduction of the proposed penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies), or
(c) to dismiss the Chancellor’s charge.
(10) In writing, the panel shall inform the faculty member and the Chancellor of its rationale for the findings and recommendation of penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies). Penalty(ies) and/remedy(ies) (See VI, A, 2, f of these rules) may include any one or combination of the following:
(a) written reprimand,
(b) corrective intervention,
(d) reduction in base salary,
(e) suspension without pay.
(11) The panel’s report of its findings and recommendations terminates all faculty responsibility for processing the complaint unless the faculty member contests the proposed penalty(ies) or (remedy(ies) (See VI, A, 4, c of these rules).
c. Hearing on contested penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies):
(1) When a faculty member has contested a proposed penalty for a charge which has been heard and upheld under VI, A, 4, b, (9), (a) or (b) and (10) of these rules, the hearing on the proposed penalty and recommendation to the Chancellor shall be conducted by the hearing panel which heard the charge.
(a) Such hearing may be conducted expediently if consistent with the requirements of s.19.84 WI Stats; however,
(b) such hearing shall commence no more than 14 calendar days after the panel’s decision.
(2) If, within the period allowed for the written statement of his or her choice (VI, A, 3, g, (2) of these rules), a faculty member chooses to contest the proposed penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) but not the charge, then a hearing panel on the proposed penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) shall be chosen according to VI, A, 4, a of these rules.
(a) Such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of s.19.84 WI Stats.
(b) The hearing on the penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) shall begin not more than 45 calendar days after the request for a hearing on the penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) unless the Chancellor and the faculty member agree to another date. The panel shall provide written notice of the meeting at least 5 calendar days in advance unless both the Chancellor and the faculty member charged agree to a shorter time.
(c) All meetings of a panel to hear a contested penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) shall be conducted under procedures in VI, A, 4, b, (1), (4), and (5) of these rules, state law governing meetings of public bodies, and the following:
i) each party may have one opportunity to present argument or evidence as to the
a) seriousness of the offense,
b) faculty member's previous behavior,
c) severity of penalties imposed on other faculty members for similar acts, and d) extenuating or aggravating circumstances connected with the act(s) or event(s) which gave rise to the charge;
ii) each party may present one rebuttal.
(3) In writing, the hearing panel shall inform the faculty member and the Chancellor of its recommendation and rationale for either
(a) the proposed penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies), or
(b) penalty(ies) and/or remedy(ies) of lesser severity.
(4) The panel’s report of its recommendations and rationale for the penalty terminates all faculty responsibility for processing the complaint.
d. Disposition of documents: Copies of the charge, all hearing records, panel recommendations, and Chancellor’s decision shall be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file in the office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and in the University Archives.
e. The Chancellor shall not impose penalty(ies) or remedy(ies) more severe than the penalty(ies) or remedy(ies) proposed by the Chancellor at the time the charge was issued.
f. The Chancellor’s decision on the recommendations of the hearing panel or on the complaint in the absence of panel recommendation shall be final except that the Board of Regents at its option might grant a review on the record (UWS 6.01 (5)).
Part B: Complaints of Misconduct in Science
- Definitions and Policy. Recognizing that honesty in the conduct of academic research is fundamental to its integrity and credibility, and to the maintenance of public trust in the university, the UW-Whitewater adopts these policies and procedures for reviewing and investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. For purposes of these policies and procedures, "misconduct in science" or "misconduct" means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.
Misconduct in science is prohibited at the UW-Whitewater, and may be cause for discipline or dismissal.
- Initial Inquiry and Evaluation or Other Evidence of Possible Misconduct.
- Informal allegations or reports of possible misconduct in science shall be directed initially to the person with immediate responsibility for the work of the individual against whom the allegations or reports have been made. The person receiving such an informal report or allegation is responsible for either resolving the matter or encouraging the submission of a formal allegation or report. Upon receipt of formal allegations or reports of scientific misconduct, the person with immediate responsibility for the work of the individual against whom the allegations or reports have been made shall immediately inform, in writing, the Vice Chancellor.
- The Vice Chancellor shall appoint an individual or individuals to conduct a prompt inquiry into the allegation or report of misconduct.
- The individual or individuals conducting the inquiry shall prepare a written report for the Vice Chancellor describing the evidence reviewed, summarizing relevant interviews and including the conclusions of the inquiry.
- The inquiry must be completed within 30 calendar days of its initiation unless circumstances clearly warrant a longer period. If the inquiry takes longer than 30 days to complete, the reasons for exceeding the 30-day period shall be documented and included with the record.
- The individual against whom the allegation was made shall be given a copy of the report of the inquiry by the Vice Chancellor, and shall have an opportunity to respond to the report within 10 days of receipt. Any response must be in writing, and will become a part of the record of the inquiry.
- To protect the privacy and reputation of all individuals involved, including the individual in good faith reporting possible misconduct and the individual against whom the report is made, information concerning the initial report, the inquiry and any resulting investigation shall be kept confidential and shall be released only to those having a legitimate need to know about the matter.*
*Following Chapter VI Rules Governing Complaints Against and Grievances of Faculty Under UWS 6 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code as outlined in Section VI-F of the University Handbook the accused person shall be considered a person with a legitimate need to know.
- If the inquiry concludes that the allegation of misconduct is unsubstantiated and if the inquiry concludes that an investigation is not warranted, then the reasons and supporting documentation for this conclusion shall be reported to the Vice Chancellor, who shall be responsible for reviewing the conclusion of the inquiry. If the Vice Chancellor concurs in the conclusion that an investigation is not warranted, his or her determination, and all other supporting documentation from the inquiry shall be recorded and the record maintained confidentially for a period of three years after the termination of the inquiry. If the inquiry or the Vice Chancellor determines that an investigation is warranted, the procedure in paragraph (2) shall be followed.
- Investigation of Reported Misconduct in Science.
- If an investigation is determined to be warranted under paragraph (1), the Vice Chancellor shall so inform the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall immediately appoint a committee to conduct the investigation. The committee shall be composed of impartial faculty members possessing appropriate competence and research expertise for the conduct of the investigation, and no faculty member having responsibility for the research under investigation, or having any other conflict with the university's interest in securing a fair and objective investigation, may serve on the investigating committee. If necessary, individuals possessing the requisite competence and research expertise who are not affiliated with UW-Whitewater may be asked to serve as consultants to the investigating committee.
- The investigation must be initiated within 20 days of the completion of the inquiry. The investigation normally will include examination of all documentation, including but not necessarily limited to relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and memoranda of telephone calls. Interviews should be conducted of all individuals involved either in making the allegation or against whom the allegation is made, as well as others who might have information regarding the allegations. Summaries of interviews conducted shall be prepared and provided to the parties interviewed for their comment or revision. These summaries shall be made a part of the record of the investigation.
- The individual making the allegation and the individual against whom the allegation is made, and all others having relevant information, shall cooperate fully with the work of the investigating committee, and shall make available all relevant documents and materials associated with the research under investigation.
- The investigation should ordinarily be completed within 60 days of its initiation. This includes conducting the investigation, preparing the report of the findings, making that report available for comment by the subjects of the investigation, and submitting the report to the Chancellor. If the investigating committee determines that it cannot complete the investigation within the 60-day period, it shall submit to the Chancellor a written request for an extension explaining the need for delay and providing an estimated date of completion. If the research under investigation is funded by an agency within the Public Health Service (PHS), the procedures under paragraph (3) (d) of this policy shall also apply.
- The report of the investigation should include a description of the policies and procedures under which the investigation was conducted, information obtained and the sources of such information, an accurate summary of the position of the individual under investigation, the findings of the committee, including the bases for its findings, and the committee's recommendation to the Chancellor concerning whether the evidence or scientific misconduct is sufficient to warrant discipline or dismissal under the applicable faculty or academic staff personnel rules. Upon completion of the investigation, all documentation substantiating the findings and recommendation of the investigating committee, together with all other information comprising the record of the investigation, shall be transmitted to the Chancellor with the report.
- A copy of the investigating committee's report shall be provided to the individual being investigated. Before taking action under paragraph (3) of this policy, the Chancellor or appropriate administrative officer shall afford the individual under investigation an opportunity to discuss the matter.
- Reporting to the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) Where research is Funded by PHS Grants, or Where Research is Funded by an Agency within PHS.
- A determination that an investigation should be initiated under paragraph (1) (c) must be reported by the Vice Chancellor in writing to the OSI Director on or before the date the investigation begins. The notification should state the name of the individuals against whom the allegations of scientific misconduct have been made, the general nature of the allegations, and the PHS application or grant numbers involved.
- During the course of the investigation, the granting agency should be apprised of any significant findings that might affect current or potential funding of the individual under investigation or that might require agency interpretation of funding regulations
- The OSI must be notified at any stage of an inquiry or investigation if the university determines that any of the following conditions exist:
- There is an immediate health hazard involved;
- There is an immediate need to protect federal funds or equipment;
- There is an immediate need to protect the interests of the person making the allegations or of the individual who is the subject of the allegations as well as his or her co-investigators and associates, if any;
- It is probable that the alleged incident is going to be reported publicly;
- There is a reasonable indication of possible criminal violation. In that instance, the university must inform OSI within 24 hours of obtaining that information.
- If the university is unable to complete the investigation within the 60-day period, as described above, the Vice Chancellor must submit to OSI a written request for an extension and an explanation of the delay, including an interim progress report and an estimated date of completion of the investigation. If the request is granted, the institution must file periodic progress reports as requested by the OSI. If satisfactory progress is not made in the institution's investigation, the OSI may undertake an investigation of its own.
- If the university plans to terminate an inquiry or investigation for any reason within completing all the relevant requirements, a report of such planned termination, including a description of the reasons for such termination, shall be made by the Vice Chancellor to OSI, which will then decide whether further investigation should be undertaken.
- Upon completion of the investigation, the Vice Chancellor will notify OSI of the outcome, in a report which shall include the information and documentation specified in paragraph (2) (e) of this policy.
- Other Action Following Completion of Investigation.
- If the allegation of scientific misconduct is substantiated by the investigation, the Vice Chancellor shall notify the agency,if any, sponsoring the research project of the result of the investigation. In such a case, the individual involved will be asked to withdraw all pending abstracts and papers emanating from the scientific misconduct, and the Vice Chancellor will notify editors of journals in which relevant papers appeared. In addition, other institutions and sponsoring agencies with which the individual has been affiliated shall be notified if, based on the results of the investigation, it is believed that the validity of previous research by the individual under investigation is questionable.
- Where scientific misconduct is substantiated, the UW-Whitewater will take appropriate action, which may include discipline or dismissal, with regard to the employment status of the individual or individuals involved. Applicable personnel rules, policies and procedures set forth in Chapters UWS 4, 6, 11 and 13, Wisconsin Administration Code and related university policies shall govern discipline or dismissal actions resulting from an investigation of scientific misconduct.
- Where allegations of scientific misconduct are not substantiated by the investigation, the UW-Whitewater shall make diligent efforts, as appropriate, to restore the reputations of persons alleged to have engaged in misconduct, and to protect the positions and reputations of those persons who, in good faith, made the allegations.
Part C - Grievances of Faculty Members
- Definition. For purposes of these rules, a grievance of a faculty member is a claim that an act of an employee of the university in his or her capacity as an employee, which affected the faculty member in his or her capacity as a faculty member, was unfair, improper, or contrary to law or the university rules or policies, or interfered with the faculty member's performance of university responsibilities, provided that if formal appeal procedures have been established by the faculty and the chancellor for acts of the type complained of, the act shall not be subject to these grievance procedures unless the rules establishing the formal appeal procedures specifically allow resort both to the formal appeal procedures and to these grievance procedures in the same matter.
- Responsibility for initial investigation and effort to remedy a grievance of a faculty member.
- The dean of a college is responsible for dealing with grievances against the acts of employees and committees of the college, except the dean.
- The vice chancellor is responsible for dealing with grievances against the acts of deans of colleges, employees in the division of academic affairs not in any college, except the vice chancellor, and university faculty committees.
- An assistant chancellor is responsible for dealing with grievances against the acts of employees under the supervision of the assistant chancellor.
- The chancellor is responsible for dealing with grievances against the vice chancellor or an assistant chancellor and against any employee or agency of the university not otherwise provided for; if any doubt or dispute exists as to the responsibility for dealing with any grievance, it shall be decided by the chancellor.
- Presentation, investigation, and resolution of a grievance of a faculty member.
- A faculty member with a grievance shall present it to the responsible officer, or to the chancellor for referral to the appropriate responsible officer, in a written statement which tells what act is complained of and why and what the faculty member has done to resolve the problem.
- If the responsible officer believes that he or she can promptly remedy a grievance or satisfy a faculty member that a grievance is not well founded, without resort to the formal procedures here provided, the responsible officer may attempt to do so, but shall not delay the initiation of formal grievance procedures more than 7 days without the consent of the aggrieved faculty member.
- If informal resolution is not achieved in this manner, a grievance officer shall be appointed by agreement between the faculty member and the responsible officer. If they cannot agree, the faculty member shall select one of three or more persons proposed by the responsible officer from a list of persons established by the Faculty Senate.
- Investigation and effort at resolution by the grievance officer.
- The grievance officer shall make inquiries of persons having knowledge of the grievance, examine university records relevant to it, and gather information useful in the determination of whether it is in whole or in part well founded. In the process of this investigation the grievance officer may, with the consent of the aggrieved faculty member, amend the statement of the grievance to clarify or correct it. The grievance officer shall determine that the gievance is well founded if he or she finds that the act complained of was in fact done and that is constitutes a grievance as defined in VI, C, (1) of these rules. If the grievance officer finds that the faculty member's grievance is not well founded even in part, the grievance officer shall so report to the faculty member in writing, with the reasons for the finding.
- If the grievance officer determines that the grievance is at least in part well founded, he or she shall so report in writing to the aggrieved faculty member and to the employee complained of, with the reasons for the finding; and the grievance officer shall, after consulting the aggrieved faculty member and the employee complained of, attempt to devise a remedy, including, if possible, a particular remedy for the injury done the aggrieved faculty member with a schedule for its accomplishment, and, when appropriate, a general remedy to prevent a recurrence of the basis for the grievance. If the grievance officer can devise a particular remedy, he or she shall propose it in writing to the aggrieved faculty member and to the employee whose act constitutes the basis for the grievance.
- An employee whose act constitutes the basis for a grievance shall respond to the proposal of a particular remedy within 10 days, either by agreeing to accomplish the remedy, or by refusing to do so, in which case the reasons for the refusal shall be stated, or by proposing an equivalent alternative remedy, or by setting date by which one of these responses will be made, with the reasons for the delay.
- If a grievance officer devises a general remedy for a grievance, he or she shall propose it to the employee whose act constitutes the basis for the grievance, to the responsible officer, to the aggrieved faculty member, and to any officer or agency of the university which has the authority to implement the general remedy or the consent of which is required for its implementation.
- If the grievance officer can devise no particular remedy for a well founded grievance, he or she shall so report in writing to the aggrieved faculty member and to the responsible officer with the reasons for the inability.
- If the grievance officer proposes a particular remedy for a grievance, the grievance officer shall consider the response of the employee to the proposal, and shall monitor the compliance of the employee with the proposed remedy, until the grievance officer concludes that the proposed remedy or an equivalent alternative remedy has been accomplished in a timely manner, or that the employee has not responded or accomplished the remedy in a timely manner. Upon reaching any of these conclusions, the grievance officer shall report it in writing to the aggrieved faculty member, to the employee, and to the responsible officer.
- Prior to being discharged of duty in the matter, a grievance officer may withdraw or modify any finding, conclusion, or proposed remedy.
- If the grievance officer is unable for any reason to perform the duties of a grievance officer, he or she shall so report to the responsible officer and the aggrieved faculty member, with the reason for the inability.
- A grievance officer shall present to the responsible officer a final report and all papers gathered in the course of the investigation of and effort to resolve the grievance, deliver a copy of the final report to the faculty member, and be discharged from duty as a grievance officer in the matter, when:
- the grievance officer reports that the grievance is not well founded even in part; or
- the grievance officer reports that he or she can devise no particular remedy for the grievance; or
- the grievance officer concludes that the proposed particular remedy or an equivalent alternative remedy has been accomplished in a timely manner; or,
- the grievance officer concludes that the employee whose act forms the basis for the grievance has not responded to the proposed remedy or accomplished the remedy in a timely manner; or
- the grievance officer has reported to the responsible officer and the faculty member his or her inability to perform the duties of a grievance officer; or
- the aggrieved faculty member requests in writing to the responsible officer that the grievance officer be discharged; or
- the responsible officer directs the grievance officer to do so.
- The grievance officer's final report shall briefly describe what he or she has done in the matter and what findings, proposals, or conclusions have been made, and shall be accompanied by all papers gathered by the grievance officer and by all correspondence of the grievance officer.
- A grievance officer shall act independently in the interest of the university and justice, and not merely as the agent of the aggrieved faculty member or the responsible officer. Service as a grievance officer by any faculty member other than the responsible officer or an assistant to the responsible officer shall be considered a contribution to the university.
- Duties and authority of the responsible officer when not personally acting as grievance officer.
- The responsible officer shall give the grievance officer such advice as the responsible officer deems appropriate.
- The responsible officer shall give the grievance officer clerical assistance.
- Referral of a grievance to the University Grievance Committee.
- When a grievance officer is discharged in accordance with VI, C, (4), (i) of these rules, the grievance shall be referred to the University Grievance Committee unless the aggrieved faculty member and the responsible officer agree either;
- that the grievance has been remedied, or
- that another grievance officer shall be appointed.
- The responsible officer shall refer a grievance to the University Grievance Committee by delivering the statement of the grievance, and the final report of the grievance officer with all accompanying papers to the chairperson of the University Grievance Committee, but if the grievance officer fails to present a final report promptly, the responsible officer shall refer the grievance by delivering the statement of grievance along with copies of any papers in the responsible officer's possession which relate to the matter.
- University Grievance Committee: formation and functions. A University Grievance Committee shall be established or designated in accordance with the rules of the faculty governing the establishment of and assignment of duties to standing committees, but pending or in the absence of such action to establish or designate a University Grievance Committee, the Faculty Senate shall establish a University Grievance Committee.
- Investigation and effort at resolution of a grievance by the University Grievance Committee. When a grievance is referred to the University Grievance Committee under these rules, the committee shall investigate it and attempt to remedy it if it is well founded, and shall have all powers and responsibilities of a grievance officer under these rules, but shall report to the chancellor rather than to the responsible officer and shall retain jurisdiction over any grievance referred to it until it presents its final report to the aggrieved faculty member.
- The University Grievance Committee may recommend a remedy for a grievance to the board of regents if the grievance is not resolved or cannot be resolved at the university.
- Upon completion of its investigation of and attempt to resolve a grievance, the University Grievance Committee shall make a final report to the aggrieved faculty member, stating its findings as to whether the grievance was well founded, the solution proposed by it, if any, and the results of its efforts.
- If an aggrieved faculty member whose grievance is referred to the University Grievance Committee is not satisfied with the final report of the committee, he or she may appeal to the chancellor, whose decision shall terminate proceedings in the matter under these rules.
(CHAPTER VII deleted December 10, 1991)
CHAPTER VIII - INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES
- Distinguishing between institutional responsibilities and outside activities. Faculty members normally have the institutional responsibility to engage in professional and public service activities, which at times may produce incidental income. Faculty may also engage in activities outside their institutional responsibilities, some of which may employ the specialized knowledge, professional skills, and creative abilities which make them valuable members of the faculty. Consequently, in some cases the distinction between institutional responsibilities and outside activities may be unclear. For the guidance of faculty in governing their own behavior, counseling their colleagues, evaluating the performance of their colleagues, and establishing departmental and college rules and guidelines governing these two types of activity, the following principles are established.
- When a faculty member engages in an activity as an official representative of the university or any part of it, the activity is in fulfillment of institutional responsibilities.
- An activity engaged in as officer, agent, or member of an association of a disciplinary or professional nature is in fulfillment of institutional responsibilities.
- The fact that outside income or some other form of remuneration is derived from an activity is not of itself grounds for the conclusion that it is an outside activity, but a faculty member who receives or will receive substantial extra income or other remuneration from an activity ought to seek the guidance of disinterested colleagues before concluding that engaging in it fulfills an institutional responsibility.
- The fact that an activity employs specialized knowledge, professional skills, or creative abilities which a faculty member teaches or employs as a teaching scholar is not of itself grounds for the conclusion that engagement in it is an institutional responsibility. Among the considerations governing the classification of a particular activity of this type are the following:
- Engaging in such an activity may help a faculty member stay abreast of current developments in his or her field, acquire case studies for use in formal instruction or research, or gain broader or deeper understanding of his or her discipline; but if the attainment of such benefits is the ground for considering the activity an institutional responsibility, specific benefits of these types should be demonstrable. Further, when such an activity is engaged in to a greater extend than is necessary to or justified by the attainment of such benefits, it ceases to be a fulfillment of institutional responsibilities and becomes an outside activity.
- Faculty have an obligation to make their knowledge of their disciplines available to society; to do so is to fulfill an institutional responsibility, provided that the activity involves forms and styles of communication and other behavior characteristic of a discipline, profession, or art or of scholarly activity in general, or appropriate to the education of the audience addressed.
- Advocacy of a favorite measure or policy is a natural right enjoyed by faculty no less than others, but it is an outside activity even if expert knowledge is employed in it and even though a faculty member employing his or her knowledge in such a cause is expected to do so in conformity with the standards and ethics of his or her discipline, art, or profession.
- Outside Activities.
- Report of outside activities.
- The reports of outside activities are due by April 30 of each year. The reports required by UW-Whitewater faculty members are both restrospective and prospective and shall be submitted to the faculty member's chairperson or immediate supervisor. Each report, in a form prescribed by the Vice Chancellor, shall include the nature of any activities outside institutional responsibilities which the faculty member has pursued during the preceding calendar year or intends or expects to pursue during the current calendar year. The total number of hours that the faculty member has devoted or intends to devote to each activity shall be included in the report. If the faculty member was not employed by UW-Whitewater during the preceding calendar year, the retrospective portion of the report is not required. If there are no reportable outside activities, a report of that fact is required. EXCEPTIONS: No faculty member shall be required to report as an outside activity the membership in, or the activities of membership in, or the service as a local officer for, any church or other organization for religious worship. or any service, fraternal, social, or charitable organization, nor shall any faculty member be required to report as an outside activity any recreational activity not engaged in for profit.
- If any faculty member required to file such a report shall, during the period covered by it, undertake any activity outside institutional responsibilities (with the exceptions described above) which was not reported, he or she shall submit to his or her department chairperson or immediate supervisor an amendment to the report in the same form, describing the activity and the expected total hours of engagement. Further, before engaging in any reported activity for a substantially greater number of hours than reported, a faculty member shall amend his or her report accordingly.
- Faculty members shall file reports in accordance with this rule with department chairpersons or immediate supervisors. Chairpersons or immediate supervisors shall deliver the reports to the office of the Vice Chancellor, where they shall be maintained as personnel records, and where they may be used for the preparation of such statistical reports of the outside activities of the faculty generally as may be required of the University by the University System.
- REPORTS PUBLIC. Information required and reported under the provisions of this chapter and of UWS 8 shall, unless otherwise privileged by law, be a matter of public record.
- Determination that outside activities are excessive.
- If any faculty member's performance of institutional responsibilities in general, or any of them, is judged less than acceptable in a disciplinary proceeding or in connection with a decision to recommend his or her reappointment or attainment of tenure, the vice chancellor or the dean, or the department or committee responsible for the proceeding or decision shall, with prior notice to the faculty member, have access to the faculty member's reports of intended outside activities any may require the faculty member to report actual time spent on such activities and income derived from them during periods of fulltime employment by the university in order to determine if they are excessive.
- Any determination by any officer or body of the university that the outside activities of any faculty member are excessive shall be made only on the basis of a finding that the faculty member's performance of institutional responsibilities is less than acceptable, and the burden of proof shall be on those making the determination.
- A determination that a faculty member's outside activities are excessive shall be subject to appeal to the same appellate body to which other decisions by the person or body making the determination are appealable. If no such appellate body exists, the faculty member may employ grievance procedures to test the propriety and fairness of the determination. Permissible grounds for appealing, or initiating grievance procedures against, a determination that outside activities are excessive are limited to the following:
- that the determination was not founded on a finding that the faculty member's performance of institutional responsibilities in general, or any of them, was less than acceptable;
- that the faculty member was not given a fair hearing in connection with the determination, including notice that it was to be conducted, opportunity to present relevant information, and opportunity to confront and question sources of information about his or her outside activities;
- that the determination was based on unfounded, irrelevant, or arbitrary assumptions of fact.
- Absence from regularly scheduled duties.
- Within general guidelines which may be established by departments and colleges, and in accordance with special priorities for a particular position, it is the responsibility of each faculty member to apportion his or her time and energy among a variety of institutional responsibilities. Some responsibilities, such as teaching, maintaining regular office hours for counseling and giving assistance to students, and performing some duties of non-teaching positions, are met in accordance with regular schedules, departures from which may seriously inconvenience others. Other responsibilities, such as research and other creative activity, professional service, public service, and participation in university governance activities, may occasionally require that a faculty member alter the schedule of, or be temporarily absent from, regularly scheduled duties. It is the responsibility of each faculty member, with the advice of colleagues and in accordance with any relevant guidelines which a department or college may establish or with special priorities established for the duties of a position he or she holds, carefully to consider the relative importance of his or her various responsibilities when conflicts between them occur.
- When a faculty member concludes that the performance of other responsibilities requires, and the significance of those other responsibilities justifies, a temporary absence from regularly scheduled duties, or an alteration in the scheduling of such duties, the faculty member shall:
- provide timely advance notice to those who may be inconvenienced by the absence or altered schedule;
- if possible arrange for collegial performance of duties during the absence, or make other arrangements which will minimize the adverse effect of the absence on others; and
- report, in advance if possible, the reason for the absence or altered schedule, and the arrangements which have been made to minimize its adverse effects, to his or her department chairperson or immediate supervisor.
- When a conflict exists between the meeting of regularly scheduled institutional responsibilities and other institutional responsibilities which produce incidental income, a faculty member has a special responsibility to seek advice and guidance, and departments and colleges have the responsibility to provide them. Any faculty member reporting an intended temporary absence from, or alteration in the schedule of, regularly scheduled duties shall, if incidental income will result from the performance of the institutional responsibilities which require the absence or alteration of schedule, disclose that fact in his or her report.
- A department or college may require prior approval, by the department chairperson or immediate supervisor, by the dean, or by other departmental or college agency, of absences from regularly scheduled duties to engage in other institutional responsibilities which produce incidental income.
- Establishment of priorities among institutional responsibilities.
- In keeping with the principal mission of the university and with the intent of assignments to non-teaching positions, unless other priorities are specifically established by a department, college, or principal supervisor with the written approval of the vice chancellor, performance of teaching duties shall have the first priority among the institutional responsibilities of a faculty member assigned to a teaching position, and performance of the duties of his or her non-teaching position shall have the first priority among the duties of a faculty member assigned to a non-teaching position.
- A department or college, or a principal supervisor, may provide that a faculty member shall give priority among his or her institutional responsibilities, after teaching or performing the duties of a non-teaching position, to the performance of particular responsibilities of an unusual position or assignment, or to the acquisition of needed special knowledge or skills, or to attainment of a level of education or training appropriately expected of a tenured faculty member, or to development of a particular program, or to unusually demanding university governance tasks, and that other institutional responsibilities shall be reduced accordingly; provided that, except in connection with appointment, reappointment, or assignment to a position of an unusual nature, such special definition of priorities among institutional responsibilities shall be only for a limited period; and further provided that, except to enable a faculty member to attain a level of education or training appropriately expected of tenured faculty, no such special definition of priorities among institutional responsibilities shall be made without the consent of the faculty member.
- Use of university resources by faculty.
- In using university facilities, equipment, and supplies for purposes other than for fulfillment of their institutional responsibilities, faculty stand on the same footing and are subject to the same rules and charges as all other persons, except as the board of regents shall otherwise provide. When faculty are entrusted with control over university resources for the performance of their institutional responsibilities, they have an obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
- The creative and productive activities in their respective disciplines which are expected of faculty as part of their institutional responsibilities may produce incidental income to faculty. This is in itself unobjectionable. Individual faculty and departments and colleges, must, however, insure that the performance of institutional responsibilities, not the production of income, is the motive for the use of university resources in such activities and that, in the allocation of resources to tasks, priorities established by department, colleges, and the university are observed.
- Each faculty member must be alert to the danger of inadvertent impropriety, monitor his or her own behavior, and seek the advice of disinterested colleagues when in doubt as to the propriety of any use of university resources.
- It is the responsibility of each department and college to identify situations in which the dangers of inadvertent impropriety are great and establish principles, rules, and procedures which will serve as guides to behavior and assurances that university resources are properly employed. Means by which a department or college may meet this responsibility include, but are not limited to:
- Clearly defining, at the time an appointment or assignment is made to a position in which unusual use of university resources or amounts of incidental income may reasonably be expected, what the responsibilities of the faculty member are, what use of university resources is allowed, what priority the faculty member's claims on university resources have relative to other claims on them, and who shall enjoy title to or income from the products of the faculty member's activity which involve unusual use of university resources.
- Monitoring, or requiring reports of, or setting limits on the use of, university resources, or the incidental income that results from the use of university resources, in the performance of institutional responsibilities.
- Individual faculty shall be guided by the principles, rules, and procedures established by their departments and colleges governing use of university resources and by those university authorities charged with the administration and conservation of particular resources. A faculty member who feels that the fulfillment of institutional responsibilities is significantly hampered by such rules should seek resolution of the problem by discussion with those responsible for establishing them, by presenting the issue to his or her department or college, or to an appropriate faculty committee or to the Senate, or, if necessary, by using formal grievance procedures.
- Special activities of faculty.
- Service as staff, advisor, or consultant to granting agency.
- Prior to agreeing to serve as an advisor or consultant to, or in any other capacity with, a private or public agency which grants money or decides policy governing grants of money, a faculty member shall inform the program development officer of the university of the proposed service. This requirement to report shall apply to all faculty, whether fulltime or not, and whether or not the proposed service is to be performed during a period of fulltime employment by the university. The program development officer shall consider the probable effect of the proposed service on the eligibility of the university to receive grants from the agency, and shall report his or her conclusions to the faculty member and to the vice chancellor. The vice chancellor shall then consider the matter and either approve the proposed service, approve it conditionally, or disapprove it, and shall report his or her decision to the faculty member.
- Reporting proposed service with a granting agency under this rule shall not relieve a faculty member of responsibility to report such service in compliance with VIII, (2), and VIII, (3) of these rules.
- Service as an expert witness. Service as an expert witness in a legal proceeding need not be reported in advance except as may be required by VIII, (2) or VIII (3) of these rules.
- UW-Whitewater Professional Ethics Committee.
In accordance with the mandates of UWS-8.035, UW-Whitewater shall establish and maintain a Professional Ethics Committee, the functions of which shall be to provide to any member of the unclassified staff consultation and advice on the interpretation of this chapter, to make policy recommendations concerning the implementation of UWS-8, and to make such reports as are required of it by UW-Whitewater and UW-System policies. Committee deliberations and actions upon requests for consultation or advice shall be in meetings not open to the public. Records obtained in connection with requests for consultation or advice shall be confidential university information. Summaries of advice provided by the Ethics Committee that do not contain the identities of those who request the advice shall be made public in an annual report.
Web Development Team-UW Whitewater
For comments: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Last Web revision on October 6, 1997 by cl.