Faculty Handbook

Inquiry

Last updated: 6/19/2009

VI. RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ENDEAVOR (Cont.)

PROCEDURES CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT 
IN RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES (Cont.)

These Procedures were approved by the Board of Trustees on April 11, 1997 and revised June 28, 2002 and June 19, 2009. 

VII. Inquiry

a. Panel. If the RIO or, pursuant to Section II(l) above, the VPRGS or a Review Panel determines that an Inquiry is warranted, the Responsible Administrator shall promptly appoint an Inquiry Panel of at least three members, chosen for their pertinent expertise. While Inquiry Panels will usually be composed of University faculty, they may also include persons other than University faculty when the Responsible Administrator determines that such persons have experience or expertise useful to the Inquiry. When a student is the Respondent, at least one student shall be a member of the Inquiry Panel. The Inquiry Panel shall select one of its members to act as its chairperson.

b. Charge. The Responsible Administrator, with the assistance of the RIO, shall draft a Charge to the Inquiry Panel based upon the Preliminary Assessment referral. The Responsible Administrator shall submit that Charge and a copy of the Preliminary Assessment referral to the Inquiry Panel and the Respondent at the beginning of the Inquiry.

c. Briefing. Before the Inquiry begins, the RIO and an attorney from the Office of the General Counsel shall brief the Responsible Administrator and the Inquiry Panel on these Procedures, other relevant University regulations, and legal and procedural issues that the Inquiry Panel and the Responsible Administrator are likely to encounter in conducting the Inquiry.

d. Standard for Determination. The Inquiry Panel shall conduct the Inquiry to determine whether an Investigation is warranted. A member of an Inquiry Panel shall determine that an Investigation is warranted if, in her or his judgment, an Investigative Committee could reasonably conclude that Misconduct occurred. To so determine, the member of the Inquiry Panel must find that the Respondent's alleged conduct could constitute Misconduct and that there is credible Evidence to support further review of the Allegation, but must also find that there is sufficient credible Evidence and credible Evidence of such merit that an Investigative Committee could reasonably conclude, in accordance with the criteria in Section VIII(e) below, that Misconduct occurred.

e. Purpose and Nature of Inquiry. Like the Preliminary Assessment, the Inquiry is a preliminary process. Its purpose is to cull out an insufficiently substantiated, erroneous, or Bad Faith Allegation before the Respondent is subjected to an Investigation. Although it is expected that the Inquiry will be more comprehensive than the Preliminary Assessment, the members of the Inquiry Panel, like the RIO, are not obligated to conduct any interviews or hearings on the Allegation or to engage in an exhaustive review of all Evidence relevant to the Allegation. When a majority of the members of the Inquiry Panel concludes that an Allegation warrants an Investigation, the Inquiry Panel shall proceed to draft the Inquiry report.

f. Assistance for Panel. The RIO shall secure for the Inquiry Panel such special scientific or technical assistance as it requests to evaluate an Allegation.

g. RIO and Responsible Administrator. Neither the RIO nor the Responsible Administrator shall participate in the deliberations of the Inquiry Panel or vote on whether an Investigation is warranted. The Inquiry Panel may request the assistance of the RIO during its deliberations and in the preparation of the Inquiry report, but shall not seek the RIO's opinion as to whether an Investigation is warranted.

h. Timing. The Inquiry shall be completed within 60 days of its inception unless circumstances warrant a longer period, in which event the Responsible Administrator shall notify the RIO and the Respondent of the reason for the delay and the date on which the Responsible Administrator expects that the Inquiry will be completed. The RIO shall decide whether the delay is warranted. If the RIO determines that it is, the RIO shall so notify the Respondent. If the RIO finds the delay unwarranted, the RIO shall work with the Responsible Administrator, the Respondent, and the Inquiry Panel to expedite completion of the Inquiry, but the Inquiry shall continue until its completion if, despite their diligent efforts, it cannot be finished in 60 days. The RIO shall make the Responsible Administrator's report about the delay part of the Misconduct Proceeding Records.

i. Inquiry Report.

(1) Content. The Inquiry Panel shall prepare an Inquiry report with the following information:

(A) the name and position of the Respondent if the Respondent is an employee of the University, or the name and degree program of the Respondent if the Respondent is a student at the University; 
(B) the nature of the alleged Misconduct and how it does or does not fit within the definition of Misconduct; 
(C) a description of the Evidence it reviewed and the sufficiency, credibility, and merit of that Evidence; 
(D) summaries of any interviews it conducted; and 
(E) a determination of whether an Investigation is warranted.

(2) Deviation from Practice. If the alleged Misconduct involves a serious deviation from commonly accepted practices, Evidence of such practices and an analysis of the Allegation in light of such practices shall be included in the Inquiry report.

(3) Investigation Warranted. If the Inquiry Panel determines that an Investigation is warranted, the Inquiry report may be summary in nature, provided that the Inquiry Panel sets forth the Evidence that supports its determination in sufficient detail for the Respondent and an Investigative Committee to understand the basis for the Inquiry Panel's decision.

(4) Investigation Not Warranted. If the Inquiry Panel determines that an Investigation is not warranted, the Inquiry report shall be more comprehensive and shall include a detailed statement of why the Respondent's alleged conduct would not, under the definition in these Procedures, constitute Misconduct, or why the available Evidence is insufficient, or lacks sufficient credibility or merit, to warrant an Investigation.

(5) Draft Report; Comments. The RIO shall send the Respondent a copy of the draft Inquiry report. The Respondent may return comments on the draft Inquiry report to the RIO within seven days of receipt of the draft Inquiry report. If the Respondent comments on the draft Inquiry report, the Inquiry Panel shall consider such comments and make any changes in the Inquiry report it deems appropriate in light of such comments. The Respondent's comments shall be included as an appendix to the final Inquiry report.

(6) VPRGS Opinion on Final Draft Report.

(A) After making any changes it deems appropriate in the draft Inquiry report in light of the Respondent's comments, the Inquiry Panel shall prepare a final draft of the Inquiry report. The RIO shall send the VPRGS a copy of the final draft of the Inquiry report, attaching any RIO comments regarding procedural questions and concerns. Within 14 days after delivery of the final draft Inquiry report to the VPRGS, the VPRGS may submit an opinion to the RIO, the Responsible Administrator, and the Inquiry Panel on either or both of the following grounds:

(i) If the VPRGS, with advice from the Office of the General Counsel, finds that the final draft Inquiry report reflects procedural error by the Inquiry Panel in conducting the Inquiry, the VPRGS shall so inform the RIO and shall identify and explain the Inquiry Panel's procedural error. The Inquiry Panel shall either correct the error before completing the Inquiry and the Inquiry report or shall notify the VPRGS in, or concurrently with the issuance of, the final Inquiry report that it does not believe a material procedural error occurred.

(ii) If the VPRGS finds that the Inquiry Panel's determination, as set forth in the final draft Inquiry report, is substantively wrong because the Evidence does not support the Inquiry Panel's determination, the VPRGS shall so inform the RIO and shall identify and explain the reason the VPRGS believes the Inquiry Panel's determination to be in error. The Inquiry Panel shall reconsider its decision in light of the opinion by the VPRGS. If the Inquiry Panel changes its determination in light of the opinion by the VPRGS, it shall submit a new draft of the Inquiry report to the Respondent for further comment. If the Inquiry Panel does not change its determination in light of the opinion by the VPRGS, the Inquiry Panel shall respond to the VPRGS in completing the Inquiry report and make any changes in the Inquiry report that it deems appropriate in light of the opinion by the VPRGS.

(B) The opinion by the VPRGS shall be included as an appendix to the final Inquiry report.

(7) Distribution of Final Report. The RIO shall send the VPRGS and the Respondent a copy of the final Inquiry report.

j. Determination regarding Investigation.

(1) Panel Initiation of Investigation. If a majority of the members of the Inquiry Panel determine that an Allegation warrants an Investigation, the Responsible Administrator shall initiate an Investigation.

(2) VPRGS Overrule - Initiation of Investigation. If a majority of the members of the Inquiry Panel determine that an Investigation is not warranted, the VPRGS may, within 14 days of receiving the final Inquiry report, issue a decision to the Responsible Administrator and the Respondent overruling the Inquiry Panel for stated cause and instructing the Responsible Administrator to initiate an Investigation immediately. Upon receiving the decision of the VPRGS, the Responsible Administrator shall initiate an Investigation.

(3) No Investigation. If a majority of the members of the Inquiry Panel determine that an Investigation is not warranted and the VPRGS does not overrule the determination of the Inquiry Panel, the determination of the Inquiry Panel will conclude the University's review of that Allegation, except as provided in Section XI below.

(4) Dissent. Any member of the Inquiry Panel who does not agree with the determination of the majority of the Inquiry Panel may file a dissent to the Inquiry report.

k. Bad Faith. If a majority of the members of the Inquiry Panel concludes that the Complainant acted in Bad Faith in making the Allegation, or that the Complainant or any witness acted in Bad Faith during the Inquiry, the Inquiry Panel shall refer the matter for administrative review and appropriate action, as set forth in Section XII(a)(1) below.

l. Notification. Promptly after completion of the Inquiry, the RIO shall notify the Complainant of its outcome and provide the Complainant with a brief summary of the Inquiry report and, if one was issued, the opinion of the VPRGS.

©