POLICY #6.28
SUBJECT: Faculty Professional Responsibility and Due Process

I. PURPOSE

This Policy establishes and describes the professional responsibilities of faculty members and provides a procedural framework for holding faculty accountable when their conduct is incongruent with their professional responsibilities.

II. REFERENCES

American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Statement on Professional Ethics
Southern Utah University Policy 5.0 Threat Management and Safety Intervention
Southern Utah University Policy 5.1 Free Speech and Advocacy on Campus
Southern Utah University Policy 5.7 Conflicts of Interest
Southern Utah University Policy 5.9 Drug-Free Workplace
Southern Utah University Policy 5.17 Campus Keys and Electronic Access
Southern Utah University Policy 5.19 Personnel Records and Privacy Management
Southern Utah University Policy 5.20 Political Activity
Southern Utah University Policy 5.24 Purchasing
Southern Utah University Policy 5.27 Non-Discrimination / Anti-Harassment
Southern Utah University Policy 5.28 Smoking
Southern Utah University Policy 5.37 Motor Pool
Southern Utah University Policy 5.39 Records Access and Management
Southern Utah University Policy 5.40 Alcoholic Beverages
Southern Utah University Policy 5.51 Information Technology Resources
Southern Utah University Policy 5.52 Intellectual Property
Southern Utah University Policy 5.54 Copyright Policy
Southern Utah University Policy 5.58 University E-mail Policy
Southern Utah University Policy 5.59 Animals on Campus
Southern Utah University Policy 5.60 Sexual Misconduct
Southern Utah University Policy 5.61 Abusive Conduct
Southern Utah University Policy 5.62 Code of Ethics
Southern Utah University Policy 5.63 Restrictions on Faculty/Staff Relationships with Subordinate Employees and Students
Southern Utah University Policy 5.67 Clery Act
Southern Utah University Policy 6.0 Definition of Faculty
Southern Utah University Policy 6.1 Faculty Evaluation, Promotion, and Tenure
Southern Utah University Policy 6.6 Academic Freedom
Southern Utah University Policy 6.14 Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct
Southern Utah University Policy 6.17 Faculty-Authored Materials
Southern Utah University Policy 6.20 Institutional Review Board for Research on Human Participants
Southern Utah University Policy 6.27 Faculty Workload
Southern Utah University Policy 6.46 Academic Scheduling and Calendar
Southern Utah University Policy 10.13 University Travel
Southern Utah University Policy 11.2 Student Conduct Code
Southern Utah University Policy 11.3 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Southern Utah University Policy 11.4 Student Complaints
Utah Code § 53B-2-106.1 et seq. Duties and responsibilities of the president of an institution of higher education
Utah Code § 53B-27-402 et seq. Institution Duties, Campus Individual Rights Act
Utah System of Higher Education Policy R481 Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, Tenure, Termination, and Post-Tenure Review
Utah System of Higher Education (USHE) Resolution Establishing Expectations for Implementing Principles of Free Expression on Campus
Utah Government Operations Division of Archives and Records Service General Retention Schedule (GRS) 891 Exempt employee performance-related records

Southern Utah University wishes to acknowledge and recognize that portions of this policy have been replicated or adapted from similar policies at the University of Utah, the University of Iowa, the University of Maryland, and expresses its thanks to those institutions for providing examples of language that clearly conveyed ideas and standards that the drafters of this Policy found instructive.

III. DEFINITIONS

Academic Officers: See SUU Policy 6.2 and its definitions.
Clearly Erroneous: A decision, determination, or finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, an Academic Officer or Faculty Review Board, in reviewing all the evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Day(s): Dates and times when the University conducts its regular business. Most often that is Monday thru Friday between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Mountain Daylight/Standard Time. Days and times when the University is closed for breaks between academic terms, federal and state holidays, or for emergency declarations by Government officials, are not counted in the timelines established by this Policy. University officials participating in the procedures established by this Policy do not count the day official correspondence/notice is sent/transmitted. Rather, the first day of the relevant time interval is the day immediately after correspondence/notice/decision is sent. The last day of a relevant time interval will
conclude at 5 PM.
Faculty: See SUU Policy 6.0 and its categories of Faculty.
Institutional Expectations: The University establishes expectations for faculty through:
1. This Policy and those policies it includes by reference;
2. Agreement for Appointment to a Faculty Position ; and
3. Position descriptions, as amended from time to time.
Non-employment conduct, also called Private or Personal conduct: Activities that are undertaken outside of the scope of employment.
Preponderance of Evidence: The evidentiary standard or burden of proof that a fact is more likely true than not. Also known as the “more likely than not” standard.
Respondent: Faculty that are alleged to have violated this Policy.
Sanction: A penalty or other means of enforcement used to ensure compliance with this Policy. Possible sanction determinations could include, but may not be limited to: no sanctions, verbal warning, written warning, development plan, suspension, and dismissal/termination.
Scholarly Misconduct: Conduct that does not constitute plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification under SUU Policy 6.14, but seriously deviates from practices commonly accepted in one’s discipline or in the academic and research communities. Examples of Scholarly Misconduct include abuse of confidentiality/misappropriation of ideas; deliberate misrepresentation of qualifications; and deliberate material failure to follow federal, state, or University requirements affecting research. Scholarly Misconduct does not include appropriative practices in the creative arts insofar as they align with accepted standards in the relevant discipline. Scholarly Misconduct does not include unintentional error or differences in the interpretation or judgment of research data or results that can be reasonably substantiated by the data or results.
Serious Misconduct or Unethical Behavior: The word serious connotes that the misconduct or behavior causes consequences that are not trivial. Serious misconduct or unethical behavior includes acts or omissions that meet one or more of the following conditions:
1. are done knowingly contrary to justice or honesty;
2. have an element of falsification or fraud;
3. contain an element of harm or injury directed to another person or another property;
4. are so depraved and unethical that it shocks the conscience of the academic community; or
5. are characterized by baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to other individuals, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people.

IV. POLICY

General Standards and Guidelines
1. Ethical Standards: Professional responsibilities are derived from shared values and ethics. When Faculty accept an appointment, they agree to abide by the professional responsibilities established by or incorporated into this Policy by reference (see section II), and to comport their conduct to the shared values and ethics that underlie each responsibility. Those shared values and ethics, most of which are established by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), include:
  1. Continuous improvement of scholarly competence;
  2. Critical self-discipline and judgment;
  3. Intellectual honesty including accurate representation of the source of ideas and impartial, consistent, fair, and criteria-based assessment;
  4. Adherence to discipline-specific standards and ethics;
  5. Establishment and maintenance of healthy professional boundaries with others;
  6. Respect for others’ humanity, autonomy, self-determination, and dignity;
  7. Commitment to refrain from doing harm to others through exploitation, harassment, discrimination, misfeasance, malfeasance, abuse, neglect, or misconduct;
  8. Observance and compliance with duly-instituted rules, regulations, and laws;
  9. Demonstration of fidelity and integrity to one’s role, relationships, discipline, and institution including diligence to avoid, and if not possible, reconcile role conflicts; and
  10. Stewardship with careful accounting for rights, privileges, obligations, authority, and resources that are entrusted to them.
2. Non-Exclusiveness: No policy or guideline can capture every form of infraction or transgression of responsibility, ethics, or policy. The responsibilities articulated in this Policy represent the most common and self-evident expectations of professional conduct for Faculty. In those circumstances where reported allegations of misconduct are not precisely prohibited by the Policy’s statement of a responsibility, the University’s administrators may still act if the conduct is incongruent with a reasonable and equitable interpretation of the values and ethics described in the previous subsection.
3. Presumption of Awareness: Faculty are presumed to have knowledge of these professional responsibilities and ethical standards by virtue of accepting employment at the University. Moreover, Faculty assume a professional responsibility for self-study to become informed of relevant policies that may pertain to or influence the discharge of their duties, responsibilities, and obligations.
Scope
1. This Policy applies to all Faculty categories defined by SUU Policy 6.0. Academic Officers with faculty appointments may be subject to this Policy at the discretion of the Provost. If a Department Chair is subjected to this Policy, the Dean will operate as the initial decision-maker and the Provost, or their designee, as the second decision-maker.
2. The professional responsibilities and ethical standards apply to any activity, regardless of its location(s), that:
  1. Can be reasonably interpreted to fit within the Faculty scope of employment; or
  2. Has been permitted, facilitated, hosted, directed, or requested by the University outside of the Faculty scope of employment.
3. Non-employment conduct, sometimes referred to as private or personal conduct, may be deemed to violate professional responsibility or ethical standards when a case-by-case review determines the private conduct at issue substantially disrupts or interferes with the University operating a safe and efficient workplace or effectively serving all members of the public. Private or personal conduct is presumed to not violate professional responsibilities. To overcome the presumption, the University must demonstrate that the balance of the following factors indicates the University’s interest in maintaining a safe and efficient workplace capable of delivering its public services has been undermined by the faculty member’s private or personal conduct. The University must consider whether the faculty member’s conduct objectively and substantially:
  1. Meaningfully interfered with the performance of their duties;
  2. Undermined a legitimate goal or mission of the University;
  3. Impaired discipline by superiors; or
  4. Sufficiently damaged the relationship of loyalty, trust, and confidence
    necessary to serve the public.
4. This Policy does not supersede SUU Policies 5.27 and 5.60. Those policies establish unique procedures for misconduct that constitutes discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The procedures set forth in those policies are controlling when the allegations implicate the subject matter of those policies.
Professional responsibilities owed to the University and others
1. General Responsibilities: Faculty shall:
  1. Complete University-required trainings by reasonably established deadlines.
  2. Not plagiarize in their work and strongly avoid the appearance that they are the authors of work done by others.
  3. Refrain from harassment, discrimination, or retaliation as defined in SUU Policies 5.27 and 5.60.
2. Students: Faculty serve as teachers, mentors, and supervisors to students and are directly responsible for creating learning environments and delivering instruction in ways that encourage learning. Faculty are to model conduct that personifies “the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline,” which includes, but is not limited to, the discharge of the following responsibilities:
  1. Provide clear and timely explanations of objectives, learning outcomes, assignments, requirements, and standards of performance for the courses they teach.
  2. Prepare for and meet classes as scheduled, including final examinations in accordance with SUU Policy 6.46. When that is not possible by virtue of circumstances, inform the supervisor and arrange for alternative activities or instruction that enable progress towards course objectives.
  3. Engage in regular, timely, and responsive communication that enables students to prepare to participate in course activities and meet course requirements. This includes maintaining regular and accessible office hours to consult with students.
  4. Instruct students in a manner and modality that corresponds to the delivery method specified in the course schedule.
  5. Refrain from using instruction or class time to present materials or personal views on topics or subjects that are unrelated to the subject matter of the course.
  6. On issues recognized as controversial within a discipline, a reasonable range of opinion and perspective should be presented with the understanding that faculty seek and state the truth as they see it. When faculty members present their own views on such issues, they should be identified as such. Whenever values, judgments, or speculative opinions constitute part of the subject matter, they should be identified as such and should not be offered as fact. (See SUU Policy 6.6 Academic Freedom for additional information.)
  7. Introduce and offer context for course content that may be reasonably viewed as challenging for students to address. While challenge is essential to good teaching, challenge is ordinarily most effective when students are adequately prepared to process course material that can create dissonance or discomfort.
  8. Evaluate students fairly and impartially while relying solely on academic bases reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, and not on the bases of student opinions or conduct unrelated to the academic standards of a course as defined by the standards of the applicable discipline or profession.
  9. Acknowledge and honor the intellectual and academic freedom that students may reasonably expect as part of their efforts to learn. Faculty should guard against repressive or disruptive actions as they maintain their classrooms to facilitate the open discussion of relevant ideas and issues. Faculty maintain the responsibility to manage classroom activities and are extended discretion to limit, re-direct, or curtail classroom discussion that is needlessly argumentative, an unproductive use of other’s time and attention, or distracts from educational objectives.
  10. Respect students and avoid conduct that may be reasonably deemed abusive as defined in SUU Policy 5.61. Faculty have power over students by virtue of determining their academic progress in programs of study. The exercise of power should be used conscientiously with consideration for how it might be experienced by students.
  11. Maintain confidentiality for information that is shared regarding the need for academic modifications, academic misconduct, or health-related emergencies. Faculty members should observe the requirements established by FERPA for educational records within their control or possession.
  12. Do not use position, authority, or relationship to students to exploit or obtain personal or pecuniary advantage or gain. Faculty should acknowledge, attribute, and when appropriate, compensate students for their work on shared academic endeavors such as writing, research, and conference presentations. Faculty members should not limit or curtail the right of students to publish or otherwise communicate the results of their independent scholarly activities.
  13. Establish appropriate interpersonal boundaries with students including compliance with SUU Policies 5.62 and 5.63.
3. Faculty and staff colleagues: Faculty share a workplace with other University employees that rely on them for equitable and good faith efforts to perform their duties to the best of their abilities and to be respectful as they do so. When engaging with colleagues, faculty are responsible to:
  1. Maintain their knowledge, skills, and abilities to execute employment duties with competency and efficacy.
  2. Treat their colleagues with regard and respect while taking care to avoid any conduct that may constitute harassment, discrimination, retaliation, abusive action (e.g., bullying), intimidation, or a threat. When expressing views, opinions, or perspectives that diverge from colleagues’ ideas, Faculty should strive to be respectful, tactful, and open to feedback.
  3. Represent and acknowledge honestly and accurately their work and the work of their colleagues when engaged in shared research and/or writing.
  4. Refrain from using a position of leadership or supervision to exploit or obtain personal or pecuniary gain or advantage over colleagues.
  5. Exhibit reasonable care and due diligence in meeting their commitments to colleagues when working on committees, shared projects (e.g., research, writing, curriculum), or other professional efforts.
  6. Exemplify the highest standards of integrity and quality in presenting and representing the results and conclusions of their scholarly activities.
  7. Contribute to shared governance by attending and actively participating in department meetings, committee meetings, and other assignments or service to the department, the college, or the University.
4. The University: Faculty are members of the University community and should be mindful that they may be viewed by others as a representative or official of the University.
  1. Faculty should strive to
    1. Recognize that their conduct may have an influence or impact on the University’s reputation and act in ways that would not harm the University’s reputation.
    2. Make clear that when acting or speaking as a private individual or citizen that their actions, writings, or utterances are entirely their own and not those of the University.
  2. Faculty shall not engage in the following:
    1. Conduct or behavior that demonstrates professional incompetence;
    2. Serious Misconduct or Unethical Behavior;
    3. Legal misconduct substantially related to the performance of duties;
    4. Serious violations of USHE Board rules or University rules;
    5. Conviction of a crime affecting the fitness to engage in teaching, research, service, outreach, administration, or other assigned duties;
    6. Falsifying credentials or plagiarism;
    7. Substantially impaired performance;
    8. Demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to meet Institutional Expectations, including failure to address deficiencies outlined in a remediation or improvement plan;
    9. Using University facilities, equipment, supplies, or other resources to advance a personal/individual/private business or commercial interest or to obtain personal or pecuniary gain or advantage unless permission has been sought and granted or the use concurrently serves a compelling University interest; or
    10. Use or leverage their position and standing at the University for private or personal pecuniary gain or advantage. In some cases, it may be acceptable to cite or identify their connection with the University for purposes of personal identification. Faculty must not permit the impression to prevail that the University in any way sponsors any of their private or personal activities.
  3. Faculty shall:
    1. Disclose and account for outside activities that may constitute or raise the appearance of conflicts of interest with one’s duties and responsibilities, leadership assignments within the University, or as an evaluator of colleagues’ work and annual performance.
    2. Use methods for conducting research and scholarly activity that reflect sound practices consistent with standards established within a discipline including avoiding Scholarly Misconduct as defined in Section III and adhering to SUU Policy 6.20 and the Common Rule when conducting research with human participants.
    3. Receive, accept, and respond to reasonable directives or requests that are related to the Institutional Expectations for faculty, from employment supervisors or University administrators that are acting within the scope of their duties and responsibilities. Failing to do so may be deemed to be insubordination.
    4. Fulfill reporting obligations regarding disclosures of criminal victimization or the experience of misconduct under policies 5.60, 5.67 and 11.2.
    5. Demonstrate good faith, honesty, and accuracy when participating in procedures that may lead to disciplinary consequences for faculty and staff colleagues or students. This applies to reporting alleged misconduct, providing witness accounts, contributing evidence, or rendering decisions that impact Respondents. The University Code of Ethics (SUU Policy 5.62) establishes an expectation of fair dealing and provides an opportunity for submitting a grievance when Academic Officers fail to follow the substance and procedures of this policy.
Procedures when suspension or dismissal/termination is unlikely
If a Respondent’s alleged actions or conduct are less likely to have serious or significantly harmful consequences for the University or others, then Department Chairs and Deans may follow procedures to determine if the alleged actions or conduct occurred and appropriate consequences. Department Chairs and Deans should consider a range of factors in determining the seriousness of alleged violations and those factors may include but are not limited to:
- The state of mind that might have motivated or contributed to the alleged misconduct
- The actual and/or potential harm that may have resulted from the alleged misconduct
- The nature of the harm that may have resulted
- Aggravating or mitigating circumstances surrounding the alleged misconduct
  
  Procedures vary by faculty designation as noted below:
  1. Tenured, tenure-track, non-tenure-track, adjunct or part-time, or visiting Faculty, and professional/artist-in-residence:
    1. Department Chairs receiving information that indicates a Respondent may have violated this Policy shall attempt to gather evidence that substantiates or refutes the information they received.
    2. Based on the gathered evidence, the Department Chair shall provide notice of the alleged violations to the Respondent in writing. Notice shall include:
      1. A clear and concise description of the facts, information, and evidence that may have been obtained by the University that indicates the Respondent may have violated this Policy;
      2. An explanation and citation to the particular professional responsibilities that may have been violated by the Respondent’s conduct, action, or omission;
      3. A statement requesting the Respondent meet with the Department Chair within ten (10) Days of the notice being sent;
      4. A statement that explains the Department Chair may proceed with a meeting and may make a determination that is unfavorable to the Respondent should the Respondent fail to respond to the notice or declines/fails to meet with the Department Chair; and
      5. A statement that the Department Chair’s determination is based on the preponderance of evidence (“more likely than not”).
    3. The Department Chair holds a meeting no later than 10 Days of notice being sent. If the Respondent attends the meeting, the Department Chair invites the Respondent to share information that may refute the allegations or explain circumstances that may have contributed to the alleged Policy violation and that may reduce the seriousness of the violation or its consequences.
    4. The Department Chair shall send a written determination to the Respondent and the Dean no later than five (5) Days after the meeting. The Department Chair must include an explanation and rationale for their determination including any Sanctions.
      1. If there is not a preponderance of evidence indicating a violation of this Policy, the Department Chair explains their determination and that no Sanction is appropriate.
      2. If there is a preponderance of evidence indicating a violation of this Policy, the Department Chair explains their determination and what Sanctions are commensurate with the violation. The Department Chair may recommend any or all of the following Sanctions:
        
        Written reprimand
        
        Reassignment of duties
        
        Probation not to exceed one (1) year to which reasonable conditions or corrective provisions may be attached.
      3. The Department Chair shall retain a copy of the letter in a secured file for reference by future Academic Officers. The letter is considered an employment record subject to the State’s general retention schedules.
    5. Within five (5) Days of the Department Chair sending a written determination, the Respondent may appeal the Department Chair’s determination including Sanctions in writing to the Dean.
    6. Within ten (10) Days of the Respondent sending a written appeal to the Dean, the Dean shall review the Respondent’s appeal and the Department Chair’s written determination. At the Dean’s discretion and within the ten-Day deadline, the Dean may also invite the Respondent to a meeting to discuss the allegations, the Department Chair’s determination, and the Respondent’s appeal.
    7. Based on the available evidence and the standard of a preponderance of evidence, the Dean makes their own determination of the alleged violation. The Dean’s determination must include an explanation and rationale for their determination including any Sanctions. The Dean’s determination may conclude that the Department Chair’s determination of Policy violation was Clearly Erroneous or that the Sanctions were not commensurate with the violation.
      1. The Dean’s written determination shall conclude one of the following:
        
        Overturn the Department Chair’s determination of Policy violation and recommended Sanctions and conclude that the Respondent did not violate this Policy. The Dean’s determination shall be final with no opportunity for further appeal.
        
        Uphold the Department Chair’s determination of Policy violation and recommended Sanctions. The Dean’s determination shall be final with no opportunity for further appeal.
        
        Uphold the Department Chair’s determination of Policy violation but with fewer or altered Sanctions that are less than suspension or dismissal/termination. The Dean’s determination shall be final with no opportunity for further appeal.
        
        Uphold the Department Chair’s determination of Policy violation but recommend more serious Sanctions of suspension or dismissal/termination. The Dean’s written determination and recommended Sanctions, in this case, must be sent to the Provost’s office within the specified timeframe for review.
    8. Within ten (10) Days of the Dean sending a written determination that this Policy was violated and a recommendation of suspension or dismissal/termination, to the Respondent, Department Chair, and Provost’s Office, the Provost carefully reviews the Department Chair’s and Dean’s written determinations and recommended Sanctions and the Respondent’s appeal and sends a written determination to the Respondent, Department Chair, and Dean. The Provost may either (1) determine that the Respondent did not violate this Policy and that no Sanctions shall be imposed; (2) the Respondent did violate this Policy with Sanctions less than suspension or dismissal/ termination; or (3) the Respondent did violate this Policy with recommended sanctions of suspension or dismissal/termination. The Provost’s written determination is:
      1. Based on the standard of preponderance of evidence and shall include supporting explanation and rationale and
      2. Final with no opportunity for further appeal, unless suspension or dismissal/termination is recommended. In the latter cases, the matter should be addressed using the procedures set forth in Section IV.E.
  2. Faculty hired as emergency appointments:Faculty hired on an emergency basis are at-will employees. As such, if information suggests that they have violated this Policy, they will be provided verbal notice (e.g., in-person, phone, or virtual/online meeting) from the Department Chair that there are allegations they have violated this Policy.
    1. At the time of providing verbal notice, the Department Chair shall permit the Respondent to address the allegations or present evidence that refutes the allegations.
    2. No later than five (5) Days after providing verbal notice and an opportunity to refute the allegations, the Department Chair determines one of the following:
      1. There is not a preponderance of evidence. The Department Chair provides a verbal or written response to the Respondent indicating no Policy violation.
      2. There is a preponderance of evidence indicating the Respondent violated this Policy. The Department Chair provides a written response concluding violation of this Policy and imposes any combination of Sanctions including a written reprimand, reassignment of duties, or probation to which reasonable conditions or corrective provisions may be attached.
      3. The Department Chair’s determination is final with no opportunity for appeal.
Procedures when suspension or dismissal/termination is probable

Suspension or dismissal/termination are significant consequences for alleged misconduct. These consequences become more likely when a faculty member’s conduct or actions constitute Serious Misconduct or Unethical Behavior, threaten the safety of the academic community, or are part of a pattern of repeated violations that invite progressively more serious consequences.

For all Faculty designations discussed below, the University may on an interim basis pending the initiation of formal procedures, impose limitations or restrictions on a Respondent’s campus participation or access or may place a Respondent on administrative leave, with or without pay, during the pendency of the procedures outlined in this Policy. If the Respondent’s conduct presents a risk to the safety of others, the decision to implement an interim action will be based on the standards and procedures of SUU Policy 5.0.
1. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty:
  1. Interim Action Pending the Initiation of Procedures: If administrative leave is warranted, the presumption will be for leave with pay unless there is evidence that the misconduct was intentional or willful.
  2. Notice: The Respondent will be notified, in writing, of the alleged violations of this Policy within five (5) Days after the University learns of conduct or omission that would implicate this Policy. Notice must precede the hearing by at least twenty (20) Days. For the purposes of determining when the University has knowledge of conduct or omission, only knowledge on the part of an Academic Officer, President, or Vice President will be sufficient to initiate the deadline in this provision. The notice of allegations will include:
    1. A clear and concise description of the facts, information, and evidence that may have been obtained by the University that indicates the Respondent may have violated this Policy;
    2. An explanation and citation of the particular professional responsibilities in this Policy that may have been violated by the Respondent’s conduct, action, or omission;
    3. A brief summary of the procedures provided by this Policy;
    4. A statement requesting the Respondent meet with a representative of the Provost’s Office for a pre-hearing meeting to review evidence, schedule a hearing, and answer questions regarding the process;
    5. A statement that includes an explanation that the University may proceed with a hearing and may make a decision that is unfavorable to the Respondent should the Respondent fail to respond to the notice or declines/fails to meet within ten (10) Days of being sent the notice;
    6. A statement explaining that Respondent may be accompanied at the pre-hearing meeting and the hearing by an advisor of their choosing; and
    7. A statement that references the standard of evidence relied upon to determine whether this Policy has been violated, which is the Preponderance of Evidence (“more likely than not”).
  3. Investigation: A representative(s) of the Provost’s Office or an investigator selected by the Provost, including a qualified person outside of the University, may conduct a fact-gathering investigation for the purpose of corroborating allegations against the Respondent.
  4. Pre-Hearing Meeting:
    1. A representative from the Provost’s Office will schedule a pre-hearing meeting with the Respondent no later than 10 Days after concluding any investigation and at least ten (10) Days before a hearing.
    2. The meeting will permit the Respondent to review evidence that supports the alleged violation of this Policy, which may have been obtained by an investigation.
    3. The meeting will also provide the Respondent an opportunity to clarify the sequence and procedures to be used during the hearing.
  5. Hearing:
    1. A hearing shall occur no later than 20 Days after the pre-hearing meeting.
    2. The Faculty Review Board of the Faculty Senate will serve as the panel that determines whether the alleged violations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The University and its representatives assume the burden of proof for demonstrating the allegations are supported by a preponderance of evidence.
    3. The Faculty Review Board will establish procedures for receiving evidence from a University representative and the Respondent, which will include an opportunity for the Respondent and Panel to ask and answer questions about the evidence that supports the allegations. The Faculty Review Board chair has the discretion to facilitate questioning in a manner that maintains the order and decorum of the hearing.
    4. The Respondent shall be permitted to present evidence and information that refutes the allegations with the support of an advisor of their choosing. The advisor may not directly represent or advocate for the Respondent but may provide assistance and coaching for the Respondent in a manner that does not disrupt and that maintains the order and decorum of the hearing.
    5. The Faculty Review Board may determine the modality of the hearing which may be facilitated in person or by an online/virtual meeting platform.
    6. While the Faculty Review Board is not bound by formal rules of evidence or procedure, the Board may exclude evidence that is not relevant, material, or is unduly repetitious.
    7. Hearings shall be private and confidential. Public attendance shall not be permitted.
    8. The Faculty Review Board shall create a verbatim record of the hearing which will be considered a University record. The Respondent and their advisor shall not be permitted to record the hearing.
  6. Post-Hearing Written Determination: Within five (5) Days of the hearing, the Faculty Review Board will provide the Respondent and Provost with a written determination that includes:
    1. A clear and concise statement of the allegations giving rise to the hearing;
    2. The date, time, and location of the hearing;
    3. A statement explaining the supporting and refuting evidence that was considered and what information was persuasive to the Faculty Review Board in reaching their conclusion;
    4. A statement explaining that the Faculty Review Board relied on the preponderance of evidence in determining the facts;
    5. A clear and concise statement that identifies whether the Respondent has violated the Policy based on whether the conduct—as determined by the findings of fact—violates the provision that describes or explains a particular professional responsibility in this Policy;
    6. A clear and concise statement outlining any Sanctions that will be imposed (if the Faculty Review Board determines the Respondent is in violation of the Policy);
    7. A statement explaining the justification for the determined Sanctions; and
    8. A statement explaining the opportunity to have the Faculty Review Board’s decision on violation and/or Sanctions reviewed and reconsidered by the Provost.
    9. If the Faculty Review Board determines that the Respondent is not in violation of the Policy, the Faculty Review Board shall send a written determination electronically to the Respondent and the Provost. The written determination shall include the first five (5) components included in this list.
  7. Appeal Review:
    1. The Respondent may send a written appeal of an adverse decision to the Provost no later than five (5) Days after the Faculty Review Board sends its written determination to the Respondent only if:
      1. There was a denial of or departure from adequate and fair due process that resulted in a material error that impacted the outcome of the hearing;
      2. This Policy was applied in a Clearly Erroneous manner in reaching the decision on a/the violation finding, and/or Sanctions;
      3. The Sanction imposed was not commensurate with the violation(s) listed in the Faculty Review Board’s written determination; or
      4. There is new evidence or information that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing which is reasonably likely to have affected the outcome of the hearing.
    2. The Respondent’s request for appeal shall identify a basis that warrants an appeal;
    3. No later than twenty (20) Days after the Respondent sends a written appeal, the Provost shall evaluate the Respondent’s appeal and basis for an appeal and determine if there was Clear Error in the assessment of the evidence or application of this Policy and its procedures.
    4. If the Provost determines that there was Clear Error in the assessment of evidence or application of this Policy, the Provost shall choose one of the following actions within the twenty-Day limit:
      1. Return the matter to the Faculty Review Board with directions to remedy any error;
      2. Overrule the Faculty Review Board’s determination in favor of the Respondent;
      3. Modify the Sanctions to improve their commensurateness; or
      4. Confirm the determination in full.
    5. The Provost shall send a written appeal decision to the Respondent, the Chair of the Faculty Review Board, and the President no later than ten (10) Days after completing their evaluation of the Respondent’s appeal.
    6. The President shall review the Provost’s written appeal decision and the Faculty Review Board’s determination. The President shall finalize the Provost’s decision by confirming or rejecting it in writing to the Provost and Respondent no later than ten (10) Days after the Provost sends their written appeal decision.
    7. Neither the Provost’s nor President’s reviews shall include meetings with the Respondent, though the Provost and President may request supplemental information, to be provided in writing, from the Respondent.
    8. The President’s review and decision are final with no further opportunity for review or appeal.
  8. Records and documents acquired or created during these proceedings will be considered employment records subject to the State’s general retention schedules. The Provost and Human Resources will be the custodians of these records.
2. Term or Non-Tenure Track Faculty including Adjunct, Visiting, and Emeritus Faculty and Professionals in Residence:
  1. Notice: The Respondent shall be notified, in writing, of the alleged violations of this Policy within five (5) Days after the University learns of conduct or omission that would implicate this Policy. For the purposes of determining when the University has knowledge of conduct or omission, only knowledge on the part of an Academic Officer, President, or Vice President will be sufficient to initiate the deadline in this provision. The notice of allegations will include:
    1. A clear and concise description of the facts, information, and evidence that may have been obtained by the University that indicates the Respondent may have violated this Policy;
    2. An explanation and citation of the particular professional responsibilities in this Policy that may have been violated by the Respondent’s conduct, action, or omission;
    3. A brief summary of the procedures provided by this Policy;
    4. A statement requesting the Respondent meet with a representative of the Provost’s Office (“representative”) for a meeting to review evidence and provide a response to the allegations;
    5. A statement that includes an explanation that the University may proceed with a determination meeting and may make a decision that is unfavorable to the Respondent should the Respondent fail to respond to the notice or declines/fails to meet within five (5) Days of being sent the notice;
    6. A statement explaining that Respondent may be accompanied at the determination meeting by an advisor of their choosing; and
    7. A statement that references the standard of evidence relied upon to determine whether this Policy has been violated, which is the Preponderance of Evidence (“more likely than not”).
  2. Determination Meeting:
    1. A representative from the Provost’s Office shall schedule a meeting at least ten (10) Days and no later than twenty (20) Days after sending the Respondent Notice.
    2. The representative shall permit the Respondent to review evidence that supports the alleged violation of this Policy, which may have been obtained by an investigation, and the Respondent may offer a response and any exculpatory evidence to refute the allegation(s).
    3. The determination meeting shall serve as the Respondent’s opportunity to be heard prior to any determination regarding their responsibility for violating this Policy.
    4. The representative is not bound by rules of evidence or procedure.
  3. Post-Meeting Written Determination: Within five (5) Days of the determination meeting, the representative from the Provost’s Office shall provide the Respondent with a written determination that includes:
    1. A clear and concise statement of the allegations giving rise to the determination meeting;
    2. The date, time, and location of the determination meeting;
    3. A statement explaining the supporting and refuting evidence that was considered and what information was persuasive to the representative in reaching their conclusion;
    4. A statement explaining that the representative relied on the preponderance of evidence in determining the facts;
    5. A clear and concise statement that identifies whether the Respondent has violated this Policy based on whether the conduct—as determined by the findings of fact and a preponderance of evidence—violates the provision that describes or explains a particular professional responsibility;
    6. A clear and concise statement outlining any Sanctions that will be imposed (if the representative of the Provost’s Office determines the Respondent is in violation of the Policy);
    7. A statement explaining the justification for the determined Sanctions; and
    8. A statement explaining the opportunity to have the determination on violation and/or Sanctions reviewed and reconsidered by the Provost.
    9. If the representative determines that the Respondent is not in violation of the Policy, the representative shall send a written determination electronically to the Respondent. The written determination shall include the first five (5) components included in this list.
  4. Appeal Review:
    1. The Respondent may send a written appeal of an adverse decision to the Provost no later than five (5) Days after the representative from the Provost’s office sends written determination to the Respondent only if:
      1. There was a denial of or departure from adequate and fair due process that resulted in a material error that impacted the outcome of the hearing;
      2. This Policy was applied in a Clearly Erroneous manner in reaching the decision on violation finding, and/or Sanctions;
      3. The Sanction imposed was not commensurate for the violation(s) which the Respondent was found to have committed; or
      4. There is new evidence or information that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing which is reasonably likely to affect the outcome of the hearing.
    2. The Respondent must submit their request for appeal to the Provost in writing and identify a basis that warrants an appeal;
    3. The Provost will have twenty (20) Days to evaluate the appeal and determine if there was Clear Error in the assessment of the evidence or application of the Policy.
    4. The Provost may, upon finding the determination or Sanctions were arrived at erroneously, may:
      1. turn the matter to the representative with directions to remedy any error;
      2. Overrule the representative’s determination;
      3. Modify the Sanctions to improve the commensurateness of them; or
      4. Confirm the determination in full.
    5. The Provost will provide an appeal decision to the Respondent in writing. The Provost’s decision is final.
  5. Records and documents acquired or created during these proceedings will be considered employment records subject to the State’s general retention schedules. The Provost and Human Resources will be the custodians of these records.
3. Faculty Hired on an Emergency Basis
  1. Interim Action Pending the Initiation of Procedures: If the circumstances warrant and there is a preponderance of evidence available, a Behavioral Assessment Team may recommend to the Department Chair that a Respondent be relieved of employment responsibilities without further process.
  2. Faculty hired on an emergency basis are at-will employees. As such, if information suggests that they have violated this Policy, they will be provided verbal notice (e.g., in-person, phone, or virtual/online meeting) from the Department Chair that there are allegations they have violated this Policy.
  3. At the time of providing verbal notice, the Department Chair should permit the Respondent to address the allegations or present evidence that refutes the allegations.
  4. After providing verbal notice and an opportunity to refute the allegations, the Department Chair may determine that there is a preponderance of evidence and impose a suspension or, dismissal/ or termination. The Department Chair may permit the Respondent to complete any course that has already begun or may relieve the Respondent of duties and responsibilities effective immediately depending on what the circumstance or situation calls for.
  5. The Department Chair’s determination is considered final and not subject to appeal.
  6. The Department Chair must document their determination in a memo to the Dean and Human Resources.
Outcome Documentation and Records
1. The outcome(s) of the procedures in this Policy are documented through determination letters. Determination letters are considered employment records and are subject to the University’s policies regarding records access and management (see SUU Policies 5.19 and 5.39). When timelines are not specified by policy, the University will follow the State of Utah’s records retention schedules as maintained by the Division of Archives and Record Services.

V. RELEVANT FORMS/LINKS

N/A

VI. QUESTIONS/RESPONSIBLE OFFICE

The responsible office for this Policy is the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs.

VII. POLICY ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT DATES

Date Approved: March 26, 2004

Amended: January 13, 2012; July 1, 2024 (temporary authorization); March 28, 2025

POLICY #6.28 SUBJECT: Faculty Professional Responsibility and Due Process