Can the Provost of the University of Washington (or any dean) impose “minor” discipline on a non-consenting faculty member without first holding a hearing? The Faculty Code clearly establishes that he or she cannot. Anyone left with any doubts on this issue is urged to consider the selection of historical documents below, which reveal the origins and intent of the 1994 amendments to the Code. Those amendments transformed the Code from an “appeal based” system (in which the administration decided on faculty punishment first, leaving it to the faculty member to appeal) to a “trial based” system (where a hearing is required before guilt is determined or punishment imposed) . Those without an obsessive interest in all of the details may consider particularly documents numbered 122, 126, 129 and131 below.
(Numbers in left-hand column provide hyperlinks to documents)
“Special Collections” refers to the Special Collections section of Allen Library at UW Seattle.
“Records of the UW Faculty Senate” are in the Office of the Secretary of the Faculty in Gerberding Hall, at UW Seattle.
(Numbers in left-hand column provide hyperlinks to documents)
“Special Collections” refers to the Special Collections section of Allen Library at UW Seattle.
“Records of the UW Faculty Senate” are in the Office of the Secretary of the Faculty in Gerberding Hall, at UW Seattle.
| # | Date | Title | Relevant Topics | Key Passages | Original Location |
| 1 | 12.3.90 | Memo from Rob Aronson | Early issues; Section 25-71; faculty involvement on hearing panels | When combined with Section 25-71D above, the Human Rights Office can investigate a complaint, determine guilt, recommend suspension or termination of a faculty member, and the dean can act on the recommendation. The first formal mechanism for faculty involvement is when the faculty member files a complaint with the Adjudication Panel. A number or problems in these procedures were discussed during our meetings, including: (a) the desirability of faculty input and review at an earlier stage, at least in cases in which the Human Rights Office intends to recommend suspension or termination of a faculty member. . . | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 2 | 1.8.91 | Part of letter from William Gerberding to Norman Rose and John Bollard | Section 28-43.D; emergency suspension | Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 5 |
|
| 3 | 11.5.91 | FCFA minutes (corrected) | Should the Attorney Generals Office be involved in drafting the new Code provisions? | Among the anticipated benefits are (i) the AG will be familiar with the Faculty Code on adjudication matters, which has not always been apparent in previous cases. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 4 | 11.7.91 | Faculty Code Procedures Task Force Final Report | APA compliance; investigation procedures; brief adjudication procedures; comprehensive adjudication procedures | The Task Force believes that the current faculty adjudicative processes . . . contribute unnecessarily to a perception of separation and lack of common interest on the part of faculty and administrative participants. In significant part, this undesirable result may be a function of a process structured so that faculty involvement in disciplinary cases occurs only after a disciplinary action already has been announced by the dean. Thus, the hearing committees role is seen as one of reviewing an administrative decision already madea watchdog functionrather than one of active participation in arriving at such decisions.
The following matters are deemed appropriate for resolution through a more comprehensive hearing process . . . i) Disciplinary actions . . . where the penalty may be . . . Censure, reprimand, or other sanction . . . |
Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 5 | 11.19.91 | FCFA minutes | Preparation for discussion of Task Force report | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 6 | No date | Questions to be addressed by FCFA on report of the Task Force | Mediation and conciliation; investigation procedures; brief adjudication procedures; comprehensive adjudication procedures; scientific or scholarly misconduct | Should the present process be amended, as proposed by the Task Force, to begin with a probable cause investigation that would result in a recommendation to the Provost as to what adjudication process to pursue, if any?
Does the APA require a preaction due process hearing? Irrelevant. Should there be a comprehensive formal process? a) If so, should it consider only the following: . . . censure, reprimand, or other sanction |
Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 5 |
| 7 | 12.12.91 | Memo from Karen Holbrook to Dean Dale Johnson | Comments on Task Force report, focusing on scientific misconduct | ||
| 8 | 12.16.91 | Memo from William Anderson to Norman Rose | Task Force report; brief adjudication procedures | It seems to me that there are three kinds of cases: 1. cases where brief proceedings can be mandated (because the cases involve relatively minor matters within the meaning of the statute) 2. cases where brief proceedings are forbidden (because they clearly involve matters of serious nature). 3. Cases where there is doubt, either because the significance of the matter is of medium weight and thus difficult to characterize, or because not enough is known about the significance of the case at the time the determination has to be made. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 9 | 12.17.91 | FCFA Minutes | First consideration of Task Force Report; discussion of appointing a code drafter | Task Force member Professor Vaughan and Task Force Co-Chair Associate Dean Johnson noted that the report contains only recommended changes to the procedures and does not address the specifics of them. FCFA will address the specifics. They discussed the most significant changes proposed in the report as follows: –the proposed revision to the role of the hearing panel from that of reviewer of an administrative decision to one which calls the panel into earlier participation in an investigative role and eventually go to the Provost with action. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 10 | 1.10.92 | FCFA Minutes | Continued consideration of Task Force Report; preliminary investigation; deans; adjudication | As stated in its report, the Task Force was particularly concerned that the current adjudication procedures, followed in recent sexual harassment cases, presuming guilt prior to a hearing, are backward. Presently, in cases of sexual harassment, a dean or the Human Rights Office makes a preliminary decision that a violation did occur and then takes action, such as notice of intent to terminate. After the decision is made, opportunity is given to the parties to bring their cases. The Task Force recommends that once a charge is made there should be opportunity to present a case and then a decision made as to whether to discipline to terminate, and not prior to that.
The Faculty Code currently treats all disputes with equal importance. FCFA should decide whether to categorize cases into (i) cases requiring a faster less formal decision making process (Brief Adjudicative Procedures (BAPs)); and (ii) those which will be by their nature significantly important to require a formal hearing. |
Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 11 | 1.13.92 | FCFA Minutes | More on the Task Force Report; APA compliance; investigation procedures; brief adjudication procedures; comprehensive adjudication procedures; scientific or scholarly misconduct; sexual harassment; probable cause; standard of proof. | A question was raised about what the Council thinks should be done to improve the adjudication system as opposed to what the APA requires. Currently there is a prehearing decision. The Task Force recommendation is to have a preaction due process hearing. The question was raised Does the APA require one or the other? Mr. Peterson noted the complexity of this issue and said that it helps for external legal challenges to have the institutional decision a little later in the stage. Presently, there is a decision taken by a dean which is an institutional decision. Dr. Olswang said although the dean takes an action his decision is not implemented during the appeal process, if there is one; therefore, on constitutional terms there is still a predetermination hearing. Vice Provost Olswang noted the importance of determining the point at which APA hearing to take place. The point was made that a person charged with sexual harassment might prefer an open forum to present his case. If the APA does not speak to the issue of one being required it makes a lot of sense to have the hearing before the termination notice.
As to quantum of proof, Dr. Remick said that probable cause is defined differently in discrimination law that as was used by the Task Force. In discrimination law there is either probable cause to find discrimination occurred or there is none. |
Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
| 12 | 1.15.92 | Letter from Gerberding to Andersen, Johnson, Peterson, and Worthington-Roberts | Selection of Code drafter; advisory committee to code drafter; APA compliance | It is difficult to over-emphasize the importance of having a Code which fairly serves our community and is in correspondence with the states Administrative Procedure Act. | Records of the UW Faculty Senate, 91/92, vol. 42 |
| 13 | 1.27.92 | FCFA Minutes | Brief adjudication procedures; discussion with Professors Andersen and Peck; hearing officers; remedies; investigations; quantum of proof; scientific misconduct; sexual harassment; flow charts | Flow Chart prepared by Dale Johnson showing charge of sexual harassment and charge of scientific misconduct leading to APA hearing before action by provost under proposed new system. | Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 5 |
| 14 | 1.31.92 | Memo from Julie Stein, Special Committee on Faculty Women re Task Force Final Report | Gender discrimination; sexual harassment; faculty hearing panels | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 15 | 2.19.92 | Letter from Norman Rose to Charles Hirschman, with copy of letter from Gerberding | Task Force; appeals; sexual harassment | In cases involving appeals by faculty from disciplinary actions taken on the basis of student complaints of sexual harassment, the revised Faculty Code procedures should include the following . . . | Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
| 16 | 2.24.92 | FCFA minutes | Action on revisions proposed by Professor Peck; Section 25-71; Introduction of Ms. Karen Boxx; Code drafter; probable cause; preliminary processes; adjudication processes; sexual harassment; scientific misconduct | The following general policy issues were agreed: I. PRELIMINARY PROCESSES A. In General The present process should be amended, as proposed by the Task Force, to begin with a probable cause investigation that would result in a recommendation to the Provost as to what adjudication process to pursue. . . . II. ADJUDICATION PROCESSES . . . . 3. There should be a comprehensive formal process to consider the following cases: a. Disciplinary actions (including, but not limited to, case involving allegations of sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, and scientific or scholarly misconduct) where the penalty may be: –revocation of tenure/terminationdemotion/reduction in paycensure, reprimand, or other sanction . . . . | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 17 | 3.2.92 | FCFA minutes | Revisions proposed by Professor Peck; selection of panelists; APA requirements; legal assistance for faculty; quantum of proof | Dr. Johnson noted that it is important to recall that the intention of the new procedures is to change the context of the adjudication from one that is administration vs. faculty to one that attempts to determine the facts. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 18 | 3.3.92 | Memo to Charles Hirschman from Cornelius Peck | Section 28-61; remedies; legal representation for faculty members | Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
|
| 19 | 3.17.92 | Memo from Charles Hirschman to Advisory Committee to the Faculty Code Advisor | The Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs has completed the first phase of our review of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Task Force on Adjudication Matters. I am enclosing the minutes of the Councils February 24 and March 2 meetings which contain the complete summary of the Councils discussion on the proposed recommendations by the Task Force. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 20 | 5.5.92 | Memo from Advisory Committee and Karen Boxx | Role of Faculty Panel; suggests using hearing officer as initial fact finder; faculty panel would review hearing officers findings and conclusions | The Advisory Committee and the Code Drafter have been meeting to finalize a draft of the revised adjudicatory procedures to submit to the Council for review. We have discussed a procedural structure that was not considered by the Council, but since this new structure appears to accommodate the dual concerns of efficiency and fairness more effectively than the previous proposals, we ask that the Council discuss it and give us comments. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 21 | 5.5.92 | FCFA minutes | Summary of sexual harassment cases from 1987 to 1992 (30 formal charges, 500 cases resolved informally over past decade); Advisory Committee proposal | In response to the concerns that the [Advisory Committee] proposal would remove the faculty from the fact finding process, Professor Andersen said that is the whole point of it. He said that the fact finding is a technical professional activity and that the best way to get at the truth is to have a professionally trained person act as the fact finder. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 22 | 5.7.92 | Agenda for FCFA meeting on 5.11.92 | Advisory Committee proposal | Adjudication procedurescontinued discussion of the Advisory Committee proposal | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 23 | 5.11.92 | FCFA minutes | Advisory Committee proposal for hearing officers; role of the Code Drafter; what issues are subject to the hearing process | Concern was expressed that the Advisory Committees proposal was contrary to the expectation that the Council would be provided with a draft Code to respond to based on its policy directions rather than with the suggested policy from the Advisory Committee. . . . Ms. Boxx will submit the Advisory Committees second proposal in writing. Ms. Boxx said that her requests for clarification by the Advisory Committee of several fundamental issues have not yet been resolved. One basic question she had concerns the identification of issues subject to the hearing process. It was agreed that Ms. Boxx will draft the Code on the understanding that in doing so she will make assumptions she feels appropriate. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 24 | 5.19.92 | FCFA minutes | Role of the Advisory Committee; Karen Boxx; Section 28-31 | Concern was expressed of a potential misunderstanding by the Advisory Committee misreading its role in the adjudication revision process. The Advisory Committee is to assist with specific technical issues as an adviser to the Code Drafter in her preparation of Faculty Code language which she will draft on the basis of the Councils recommendations contained in its February 24 and March 2 minutes. Dean Johnson responded that the Advisory Committees initial task was to bring Ms. Boxx up to speed on the issues. The proposal for alternative procedures was simply an idea to explore with the Council. He said that the Council should not assume that this format will be the mode of operation. The plan is for Ms. Boxx to draft each section for the Councils comments.
Dean Johnson expressed concern that Section 28-31 requires more attention than just the proposed amendment referred back to the Council by the SEC. He said the new adjudication process will change to one in which the panel helps to find facts and makes recommendations before an administrative action is taken. The introduction to Section 28 must be revised to reflect this change in the process. |
Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 25 | 5.21.92 | Letter to Charles Hirschman from Norman Rose | Injustice that does not involve violation of the Faculty Code or law; proposed amendments to Section 28-31 | Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
|
| 26 | 6.2.92 | FCFA minutes | Gender balance on hearing panels; presentation by Professor Julie Stein of the Special Committee on Faculty Women | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 27 | 6/5/92 | Memo from Code Drafter Karen Boxx to FCFA with First Draft of Code Revisions | Code Drafters Note [to 28-1]: Please note that we have separated this section into two new parts. Section 28-1.A describes the cases where the Provost requests a hearing, and section 28.1.B describes the cases where a faculty member may ask for a hearing. This reflects the major change recommended by the Task Force and approved by the Council that in cases of sexual harassment, scientific misconduct, or other allegations that may lead to serious sanction or dismissal, the administration must first bring a hearing rather than dismissing or sanctioning the faculty member first and requiring the faculty member to then ask for a hearing. The specific circumstances where a Dean or the Provost is required to seek a hearing, rather than take disciplinary action directly, should be delineated elsewhere in the Code, such as in the scientific misconduct section.
B. A faculty member has the right to an adjudicative proceeding under this chapter upon making petition for a hearing within the time limits specified below, for resolution of a dispute which falls within one of the following categories: 1. Cases in which authorized University official initiates action on behalf of the University to censure or warn a faculty member for any alleged violation by the faculty member of rules or regulations of the University, or for any alleged dereliction or misconduct by the faculty member . . . . CODE DRAFTERS COMMENT: Sections 1 through 4 are essentially identical to the existing section 28-31s sections B through E (except for the addition of promotion in new section 2). This language retains the limitations on review of decisions affecting tenure, promotion, renewal of appointment, discriminatory salary reduction, and program elimination. We have not received specific guidance on whether the list of cases where a faculty member could initiate a hearing should be revised. Presumably new section 1 would remain as a category for a faculty to initiate a hearing, because we assume a Dean would retain the right to censure or warn a faculty member without first sending the issue to a hearing. |
Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 28 | 6.8.92 | FCFA minutes | Consideration of first draft of Code revisions; presentation by Ms. Boxx | She requested Council input on several points: –The major change to the present 28-31E. Page 5 of the draft contains a proposed statement that would satisfy the concerns expressed by Professor Peck.
Comments by participants: . . . Address the question Which cases can the Provost take to a panel? Should the penalty decide it? |
Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 29 | 6.18.92 | FCFA agenda for June 22, 1992 | Sets additional summer meetings for 7.6.92, 7.20.92, 8.3.92, 8.17.92, and 8.31.92 | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 30 | 6.22.92 | Second Draft of Adjudication Procedures from Karen Boxx | Brief adjudications; comprehensive adjudications; probable cause; reasonable cause; hearings before discipline or hearings after discipline. | Section 28-31. CASES SUBJECT TO ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS
A. Before taking any disciplinary or punitive action against a faculty member, including removal under Section 25-51, the Provost may shall initiate a hearing upon receipt of a written report from the Human Rights Office or from a Dean . . . documenting that probable reasonable cause exists to adjudicate charges of wrongdoing brought against a faculty member. Code Drafters Note: Please note that we have separated this section into two new parts. Section 28-31.A describes the cases where the Provost requests a hearing, and section 28.31.B describes the cases where a faculty member may ask for a hearing. This reflects the major change recommended by the Task Force and approved by the Council that in cases of sexual harassment, scientific misconduct, or other allegations that may lead to serious sanction or dismissal, the administration must first bring a hearing rather than dismissing or sanctioning the faculty member first and requiring the faculty member to then ask for a hearing. The specific circumstances where a Dean or the Provost is required to seek a hearing, rather than take disciplinary action directly, should be delineated elsewhere in the Code, such as in the scientific misconduct section. B. A faculty member has the right to an adjudicative proceeding under this chapter upon making petition for a hearing within the time limits specified below, for resolution of a dispute which falls within one of the following categories: 1. Cases in which authorized University official initiates action on behalf of the University to censure or warn a faculty member for any alleged violation by the faculty member of rules or regulations of the University, or for any alleged dereliction or misconduct by the faculty member. |
Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
| 31 | 6.3.92 and 6.4.92 | UW Daily articles (by Tom Warner) re sexual harassment case that influenced efforts to revise Code | Student participation on hearing panels | Very poor quality scan from microfilmed original.
NO HYPERLINK TO DOCUMENT BECAUSE FILE SIZE IS TOO LARGE |
Available on microfilm at Suzzallo Library |
| 32 | 7.9.92 | BASIC CONCERNS OF THE 1991 FACULTY CODE PROCEDURES TASK FORCE. No attribution of authorship | The Task Force believed that the current faculty adjudicative processes . . . contribute unnecessarily to a perception of separation and lack of common interest on the part of faculty and administrative participants. In significant part, this undesirable result may be a function of a process structured so that faculty involvement in disciplinary cases occurs only after a disciplinary action already has been announced by the dean. Thus, the hearing committees role is seen as one of reviewing an administrative decision already madea watchdog functionrather than one of active participation in arriving at such decisions. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 33 | 7.17.92 | Adjudicative Proceedings Involving Faculty with no named author; attribution to Faculty Senate | Burden of proof; summary of adjudication cases from 1985 to date | Hearings are conducted by a faculty committee empowered to act in a judicial capacity and to make known its findings and decisions, which may be appealed to the President. A. Cases where the burden of proof is on the University or the administrative party: 1. Removal for cause or reduction in salary for cause; 2. Censure or warn a faculty member for any alleged violation of rules or regulations of the University or for any alleged dereliction or misconduct; 3. Appeals by a faculty member from a notice of removal for reasons of program elimination. B. Cases where the burden of proof is on the petitioning faculty member: 4. Nonreappointment or discriminatory reduction in salary upon reappointment wherein the faculty member alleges that there has been a violation of provisions of the Faculty Code or unlawful discrimination; 5. Cases other than those arising under 1,2,3,4 where a faculty member alleges an injustice resulting from decisions, actions or inactions of any person(s) acting on behalf of the University in an administrative capacity and affecting the terms, conditions or course of employment of the faculty member by the University. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 34 | 7.22.92 | Letter from Norman Rose to Megan Floyd | Overview of creation of Task Force, hiring of Code drafter Karen Boxx; FCFA meetings with Ms. Boxx | Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 5 |
|
| 35 | 11.16.92 | Letter from Miceal Vaughan to William Gerberding | Gerberdings insistence on staff and student participation on hearing panels | more than a few members of the Faculty would like some reassurance from you that the reported remarks unfairly represent you as intransigent on the point of including staff and students in adjudicative processes that involve termination of faculty appointment | Records of the Faculty Senate, 92/93, volume 43, p. 055 |
| 36 | 12.9.92 | Memo to Steve Olswang from Helen Remick | Coordination of faculty code with state and federal law; timing issues; Office of Civil Rights | Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
|
| 37 | 12.11.92 | FCFA minutes | Consideration of 13th draft of the procedures; legal representation for faculty | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 38 | 12.14.92 | Memo from Tom Andrews to FCFA | Coordination of Chapter 28 with Chapter 25-71; O.M. D 46.3 (APS 46.3); scientific misconduct | I have tried to coordinate section 25-71 and related procedures with Chapter 28 so as to have unlawful discrimination, harassment, scientific misconduct and all other investigations of wrongdoing result in a reasonable cause to adjudicate finding that is reported to the Provost. Deletions are shown in strike-out mode, and additions are in redline.
Section 25-71 D. If a mutually agreeable resolution is not achieved under Paragraphs B or C of this section, and if the dean . . . determines that the alleged violation is of sufficient seriousness to justify consideration of the filing of a formal statement of charges that might lead leading to possible dismissal or disciplinary action he or she shall follow one of the following procedures: . . . |
Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
| 39 | 12.14.92 and 12.15.92 | FCFA minutes | Consideration of 13th and 14thdrafts of the Code; lists other documents considered | 38. Remedy
Include counseling, reprimand, warning, cease and desist, suspension or dismissal among the list of enumerated remedies that the panel may request (to both faculty and administrators). Unanimously approved. |
Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 40 | 1.4.93 | FCFA agenda for meeting on 1.12.93 | Consider 15thdraft of Code revisions | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 41 | 1.19.93 | Adjudicative Proceedings for the Resolution of Differences. Draft for January 19, 1993 meeting of FCFA | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
||
| 42 | 1.20.93 | Fax from Karen Boxx / Keller Rohrback of Summary and Explanation of Revisions to Faculty Code Adjudication Procedures | All topics; minor controversies; significant controversies; probable cause; | Under the existing Code, a dean can take disciplinary action against a faculty member, including revocation of tenure, before the faculty member has the opportunity to respond to the accusations at a hearing.
The major changes that would be made by the revisions, meant to resolve these problems, are as follows: –The administration could not take disciplinary action against a faculty member until a hearing has been held and a Hearing Panel finds that disciplinary action should be taken. Informal procedures, called brief adjudications, are used for minor controversies. The comprehensive adjudication, used for significant controversies, has been set within a specific timeline and a specific number of proceedings. The Provost may initiate an adjudication when an administrative official or entity, such as a Dean or the Human Rights Office, has informed the Provost by a written report that charges have been made against a faculty member and probable cause exists to pursue investigation of those charges. An adjudication may also be requested by a faculty member, in order to resolve charges that an administrative official has violated regulations . . . or charges that the faculty member has suffered an injustice caused by the administration. . . . There are some limitations on the right to bring a hearing, but in general the rights are broader than under the existing code. |
Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
| 43 | 1.27.93 | Final Draft of Adjudication Procedures from Tom Andrews of FCFA | SECTION 28-32. CASES SUBJECT TO ADJUDICATIONS. A. If the Human Rights Office, a Dean or any other authorized administrative official files with the Provost a written report that claims reasonable cause exists to adjudicate charges of wrongdoing brought against a faculty member, the Provost shall determine whether such reasonable cause exists. If the Provost believes such reasonable cause exists, then, before taking any disciplinary or punitive action against such faculty member, the Provost shall initiate an adjudication for resolution of such charges by filing a petition in the time and manner specified below. | Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
|
| 44 | 2.1.93 | Memo from Tom Andrews to FCFA | Coordination of Chapter 28 with Chapter 25-71; O.M. D 46.3 (APS 46.3); scientific misconduct | The overall object of the amendments to section 25-71 was to have unlawful discrimination, harassment, scientific misconduct, and all other investigations of wrongdoing result in a reasonable cause to adjudicate finding that is reported to the Provost, for treatment under the proposed new procedures.
D. If a mutually agreeable resolution is not achieved under Paragraphs B or C of this section, and if the dean . . . determines that the alleged violation is of sufficient seriousness to justify consideration of the filing of a formal statement of charges that might lead leading to possible dismissal, suspension, reduction of salary, or other disciplinary action of comparable seriousness or disciplinary action, he or she shall follow one of the following procedures: |
Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 45 | 2.1.93 | Fax from Karen Boxx / Keller Rohrback with revised Summary and Explanation of Revisions to Faculty Code Adjudication Procedures | All topics; any significant disciplinary action; probable cause; flow chart | The administration could not take disciplinary action against a faculty member until a hearing has been held and a Hearing Panel finds that disciplinary action should be taken.
The revisions primarily affect only Chapter 28, which are the procedures to be followed once a controversy has progressed to the adjudication stage. The only significant revision to Chapter 25 would be the requirement that an adjudication be held before any significant disciplinary action is taken . . . It should be noted that the recent revision to Chapter 25-71, requiring a deans committee to review a complaint before the dean takes any further action, has been preserved. Adjudications may be initiated by (1) the Provost, when informed by an administrative official or entity, such as a Dean or the Human Rights Office, that charges have been made against a faculty member and the Provost concludes that probably cause exists to adjudicate those charges; and (2) a faculty member . . . .There are some limitations on the right to bring a hearing, but in general the rights are broader than under the existing Code. Flow chart showing both minor cases and significant cases resolved by adjudication (respectively, brief or comprehensive) prior to decision |
Special Collections
UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102 Box 4 |
| 46 | 2.2.93 | Memo from Miceal Vaughan to SEC | Attaches Summary and Explanation dated 1.20.93 for SEC review. Other attachments not included. | The major changes that would be made by the revisions, meant to resolve these problems, are as follows:–The administration could not take disciplinary action against a faculty member until a hearing has been held and a Hearing Panel finds that the disciplinary action should be taken. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 47 | 2.4.93 | Revising our Judicial System by Miceal Vaughan, chair of the Faculty Senate | Comprehensive adjudications; brief adjudications; probable cause | Another major change in principle calls for a hearing to be conducted BEFORE any decision is made to discipline a faculty member. Currently, such a hearing is conducted only when a faculty member seeks to appeal a deans decision to discipline him or her. Under the new rules, the Provost will first have to determine that a deans case against a faculty member demonstrates probable cause for taking disciplinary action, and such action can only come after the Provost convinces a hearing panel that such action is warranted. | University Week, February 4, 1993; original available at UW News and Information Office, B-54 Gerberding Hall |
| 48 | 2.?.93 | Draft of Revising Our Judicial System, by Miceal Vaughan, with comments by Tom | Comprehensive adjudications; brief adjudications; probable cause | Second, you may want to modify the part about composition of panels to make clear that it is not only when there are students or staff that we have five person panels: that occurs whenever there is a discrimination claim, e.g., unlawful discrimination complaint by a faculty against faculty or administration.
Another major change in principle calls for a hearing to be conducted BEFORE any decision is made to discipline a faculty member. Currently, such a hearing is conducted only when a faculty member seeks to appeal a deans decision to discipline him or her. Under the new rules, the Provost will first have to determine that a deans case against a faculty member demonstrates probable cause for taking disciplinary action, and such action can only come after the Provost convinces a hearing panel that such action is warranted. |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-138 Box 2 |
| 49 | 2.4.93 | Memo to FCFA from Katie Murray | Lists documents submitted to SEC | The Senate Executive Committee will begin consideration of the Adjudication Procedures on Monday, February 8 at 2:30 in room 142 Administration Building. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102, Box 4 |
| 50 | 2.10.93 | Memo from Tom Andrews to FCFA re Annotated Proposal | Comments; Karen Boxx | Attached is a copy of the draft annotated proposal which sets out the comments that Karen Boxx has drafted on a section by section basis. Please read it to confirm that Karens comments (a) accurately reflect your understanding of why we included the language at issue and (b) provide as much explanation and justification as you think necessary.
COMMENT [to Section 28-32]: Section A reflects a major change in the Code: an adjudication is now required before any significant disciplinary action can be taken against a faculty member. The section requires the Provost to make an initial determination of whether a report recommending disciplinary action should be pursued. If she determines that it should be pursued, then she initiates an adjudication. Other sections of the Code also require revision in order to effectuate this change. |
Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 51 | 2.8.93 | Summary and Explanation of Revisions to Faculty Code, with handwritten notes from someone in Presidents Office | Who wrote this? Its very well done. Tom Andrews and Karen Box, presumably | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 52 | 2.16.93 | Minutes of 2.16.93 SEC meeting , approved by Miceal Vaughan and John Bollard | SEC consideration of FCFA proposal; APA compliance; pre-decision hearing versus post-decision hearing; preliminary investigation; probable cause; reasonable cause | Pre-decision hearing versus post-decision hearing: The reference for this is in the Code, Section 25.71, which deals with actions taken against faculty members by deans and/or administrators. The new version provides that a faculty member must be given the right to present his/her side of the problem at an earlier stage of the proceedings than provided currently. Under the new proposal, this will occur before any conclusion has been made by the dean and/or administrator. After probable or reasonable cause has been determined, the case must go to the provost who will make the final decision regarding whether a hearing should take place. There is to be no administrative decision made or action taken against the faculty member until after the hearing, if one is to take place. Conciliation or mediation is encouraged and can be entered into at any time during this process. It is felt that the present rules are not fair to the faculty member because, even though no action is final until after a hearing, he/she cannot present his/her side of the case until after the administration has arrived at a conclusion and a notice of intended action has been given. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
| 53 | 3.1.93 | Minutes of 3.1.93 SEC meeting | Continued SEC consideration of FCFA proposal | Composition of Comprehensive Hearing Panels (3-5 voting members, presided over by hearing officer): Professor Andrews said the major change is the reduction of the number of faculty serving on the panel from 5 to 3. It was felt this would make more efficient use of faculty time. Five members would be used in cases involving sexual harassment, for instance, where two students might be added, or where it would be important to have a minority faction or a specific gender represented to provide a given viewpoint. Three-member panels might be used in tenure cases or where a dean wanted to dismiss a faculty member because of incompetence or a conflict of interest issue. Ms. Boxx pointed out that, in general, the comprehensive hearing panels would deal more with serious issues where penalties, such as termination, might be levied that could affect a faculty members career. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
| 54 | 3.1.93 | Minority Dissent from FCFA Revision of Chapter 28 by Warren Guntheroth | Special Collections UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | ||
| 55 | ?.?.??
(No date, but located near other docs from 3.93) |
Major Principles (embodied in FCFA revision of Ch. 28) | pre-decision hearing versus post-decision hearing | Special Collections UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 56 | 3.2.93 | Proposed Adjudication Changes prepared by the Office of the President (dej). | 1) In cases of alleged wrongdoing by a faculty member, adjudication is the initial decision making process rather than an appeal process.
2) In cases of alleged wrongdoing by a faculty member, the Provost, if convinced that reasonable cause exists, will initiate the adjudication process. No action is taken until the adjudication process is complete. |
Special Collections UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 57 | 3.9.93 | Annotated Adjudication Proposal from Tom Andrews to FCFA | Requesting FCFA comments on draft to be circulated to SEC | COMMENT: Section A reflects a major change in the Code: Under the existing code (section 25-71), a Dean or other appropriate administrator investigates alleged wrongdoing and determines what action should be taken against the faculty member before the faculty member is given an opportunity to defend himself or herself. Only when the faculty member has been notified of the action that the Dean intends to take against him or her is the faculty member given a right to request an adjudication of this decision and put up a defense. The Council concluded that this method of proceeding is fundamentally unfair to the faculty member in that it builds a presumptive case against the faculty member before the faculty member has been given an opportunity to present his or her side of the story. This method of proceeding puts the faculty member at a significant disadvantage. Under the proposal, an adjudication is now required before any significant disciplinary action can be taken against a faculty member has been decided upon. The proposal contemplates that initiative will first be taken by a Dean or other appropriate administrator to do a preliminary investigation. If, as a result of that investigation, it is concluded that there is reasonable cause to have an adjudication, this conclusion is communicated to the Provost (See proposed changes to section 25-71.) The section [sic][1] Thus, section A requires the Provost to make an initial separate determination of whether a report recommending disciplinary action should be pursued. If she determines that it should be pursued, then she initiates an adjudication. Other sections of the Code also require revision in order to effectuate this change. The mechanism by which a Dean or other appropriate administrator initiates a preliminary investigation of alleged wrongdoing is contained not in Chapter 28, but in section 25-71. The proposal includes proposed changes in that section so as to coordinate with the changes proposed for this section. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
| 58 | 3.15.93 | SEC minutes for meeting of 3.15.93 | Right to legal representation or counsel; administration waiver of right to counsel; Presidents role on appeal; quantum of proof | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 | |
| 59 | 3.15.93 | Memo from Karen Boxx to Dean Dale Johnson | Proposal regarding hearing officer; attaches memo dated 5.5.92 to FCFA suggesting use of hearing officer to make initial determination, with faculty hearing panel simply reviewing hearing officers findings and conclusions | Attached is the memorandum that we circulated to the Council regarding the use of the hearing officer as the sole fact finder. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 60 | 3.17.93 | Memo from Tom Andrews to FCFA re Annotated Code and Proposed Revisions to Other Parts of the Code[2] | Section 25-71; Human Rights Office; preliminary investigation; sexual harassment; scientific misconduct; O.M. D46.3 | The overall object of the amendments to section 25-71 was to have unlawful discrimination, harassment, scientific misconduct, and all other investigations of wrongdoing result only in a reasonable cause to adjudicate finding that is reported to the Provost, for treatment under the proposed new procedures.
Under the current Code, the Dean (or the HRO, if it is doing an investigation) is expected to render a conclusion on the merits of the case and to recommend final action. This would no longer be true under the proposed procedure. Instead, the initial investigation would culminate in either dismissal of the charges or the filing of a reasonable cause finding with the Provost, thence to be handled under the procedures of Chapter 28. The Council concluded that this method of proceeding would be much fairer to a faculty member who is charged, since it would give the faculty member a fair opportunity to present a defense before anyone is expected to recommend final action. |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102, Box 4 |
| 61 | 3.23.93 | Memo to Miceal Vaughan, Tom Andrews, and the SEC from Rob Aronson | Task Force proposals; FCFA draft; student and staff participation on panels; standard of proof | Most of the Task Forces recommendations have been implemented in the proposed revisions. . . . [W]e concluded that the Office[ of Human Rights]s roles as advisor to complainants, investigator of the facts, and judge as to the validity of the complaints caused the appearance of and, in a few cases, actual unfairness. The proposed revisions to the Faculty Code address this problem (and a similar problem concerning allegations of scientific misconduct) by centralizing the determination of reasonable cause in the Provosts Office, and by requiring that any determination of misconduct by a faculty member and recommendation of a remedy be made by a Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel, and not by a Dean, the Human Rights Office, or any other administrative official. See Section 28.32. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102, Box 2 |
| 62 | 3.24.93 | Memo from Steven Olswang, Dale Johnson, and Noella Rawlings to ?? | Faculty Adjudication Process Options; proposes substituting Administrative Law Judge for faculty hearing panels in all disciplinary matters; discusses bypassing Faculty Senate to craft new adjudication procedures through the WAC rulemaking process; flow chart of proposed alternative | Through faculty legislation or regental WAC action the University can adopt the procedures of the chief administrative law judge (the model rules) to govern faculty disciplinary procedures. These procedures call for the use of an administrative law judge to preside over the adjudication proceeding. Separately, through faculty legislation, the University can adopt different procedures for faculty initiated grievances against administrators. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 63 | 3.29.93 | SEC minutes of 3.29.93 | Substantive discussion of proposed changes to Chapter 28 postponed until April 12, 1993 | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 | |
| 64 | 4.12.93 | SEC minutes of 4.12.93 (missing page 2) | Sexual harassment; procedures for moving forward with review of FCFA proposal | Missing page 2 may concern straw poll of executive committee views | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
| 65 | 4.12.93 | Straw Poll of Executive Committee Views | FCFA revision of Chapter 28 | Requiring the Provost to make a judgment regarding the reasonable cause of a deans allegations against a faculty member. [Yes, 7-4]
Requiring the Provost to submit the case to a Hearing Committee before initiating any action against a faculty member. [Yes, 9-2] |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 99-102, Box 2 |
| 66 | 4.29.93 | Memo from John Junker to SEC | Suggested amendments to the proposed revisions to Chapter 28 | I think that the grounds for taking disciplinary or punitive action against a faculty member should be carefully defined. At a minimum the definition would include violations of university regulations and of state or federal laws pertaining to the faculty members performance of her or his duties. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 67 | 5.3.93 | SEC minutes of 5.3.93 | No substantive discussion of proposed changes to Chapter 28 | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 | |
| 68 | 5.10.93 | SEC minutes of 5.10.93 | Sections 28.31, 28.32, and 28-33; standard of proof | The SEC approved Sections 28-31, 28-32, and 28-33. During discussion of 28-34, Professor Slutsky made a motion to change the standard of proof from preponderance of the evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt for adjudications that may result in the dismissal of a faculty member. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
| 69 | 5.12.93 | Memo from Olswang to Gerberding | Legal counsel for faculty members in adjudication | he could find no examples where a university funded an attorney or created an office of attorneys which would represent faculty members either in grievances they pursue against the University and/or which would provide defense for a faculty member charged with misconduct under university rules. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 70 | 5.17.93 | SEC minutes of 5.17.93 | Procedural issues with approving or amending FCFA proposal | The remainder of the meeting was spent discussing the issues presented in Chair Vaughans lists, and the level of agreement reached by SEC members on each item. Chair Vaughan pointed out the fourth item on List A and asked if it was agreed that assistant professors should be among those who may serve on adjudication panels. Positive comments were: they would bring a new perspective to the group; if students and staff can participate, assistant professors should not be excluded; they should not be excluded from the professorial community; it would increase the pool of people able to serve on adjudication panels. Negative comments were: assistant professors are too busy to serve in this capacity; serving on a panel judging faculty members might place them in a politically difficult situation. A motion was passed to include assistant professors on adjudication panels. There was no disagreement about any other items on List A. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
| 71 | 5.24.93 | SEC minutes from 5.24.93 | Approving Chapter 28 to send to Senate for first reading | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 | |
| 72 | 5.25.93 | Memo to Faculty Senate from Miceal Vaughan, with attached memo by John Junker dated 4.29.93 | Materials showing SEC positions on FCFA draft; Miceal Vaughans List A; proposed Junker amendments | A. IMPROVEMENTS CONTAINED IN FCFA REVISION RECOMMENDED BY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
1. Requiring a Dean (the Human Rights Office or other authorized administrative official) to submit to the Provost a written report detailing any allegations against a faculty member (generated in compliance with the procedures presented in 25-71, or other relevant Sections of the Code) t to make a judgment regarding the reasonable cause of a deans allegations against a faculty member. (28-32.A) 2. Requiring the Provost to submit the case to a Hearing Committee before initiating any action against a faculty member. (28.32.A) 3. Using Brief Adjudicative Proceedings to handle minor disputes. (28-33; 28-41) And from the Junker memo: Section 28-32.A (p. 3, line 28). This section authorizes the Provost to initiate a proceeding to adjudicate charges of wrongdoing. So far as I can discover, the content of the word wrongdoing is not specified or defined . . . . I think that the grounds for taking disciplinary or punitive action against a faculty member should be carefully defined. At a minimum the definition would include violations of university regulations and of state or federal laws pertaining to the faculty members performance of his or her duties. |
Records of the Faculty Senate, 1992/93, vol. 43, pp. 207-216 |
| 73 | 9.9.93 | Letter of transmittal from Susan Folk to Professors Worthington-Roberts, Dear, Bollard, Andrews, Aronson, and Junker, and attached letter from Miceal Vaughan | Status report on the proposed revisions to Chapter 28 as of summer, 1993, and areas in dispute: legal counsel; standard of proof; students and staff on hearing panels; Presidential remand. | I had presented four substantive areas of disagreement voiced in the SEC, either among its members or between a majority of that committee and the FCFA (as embodied in its proposal): 1. Making legal counsel available to faculty in adjudications; 2. Establishing the expected standard of proof for the Panels decisions; 3. The appointment of non-faculty to certain Hearing Panels; 4. Excising the current requirement that the President remand the case to its Hearing Panel when he found flaw(s) in its decision. | Records of the UW Faculty Senate, 1993/94, vol. 44, pp. 4-10 |
| 74 | 9.29.93 | Memo from Susan Folk to SEC transmitting Miceal Vaughan summary and Karen Boxxs proposed substitute amendments | Legal counsel; standard of proof; students and staff on hearing panels; Presidential remand | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 4 | |
| 75 | 10.4.93 | Minutes of SEC meeting of 10.4.93 | No substantive discussion of Chapter 28; delayed until 10.11.93 | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
|
| 76 | 10.11.93 | Minutes of SEC meeting of 10.11.93 | Burden of proof; student and staff participation on hearing panels; legal counsel for faculty; wrongdoing | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
|
| 77 | 10.25.93 | Minutes of SEC meeting of 10.25.93 | APA compliance; brief adjudications; nonparty participants | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
|
| 78 | 11.8.93 | Minutes of SEC meeting of 11.8.93 | Review procedures; summary judgment procedures; Karen Boxxs proposed substitute amendments to the FCFA draft | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
|
| 79 | 11.15.93 | Minutes of SEC meeting of 11.15.93 | Legal counsel for faculty; review of HRO (UCIRO) recom-mendations | President Gerberding pointed out that the results of a survey done in his office on this matter showed that no universities anywhere in the United States provide financial assistance to faculty members for the use of an attorney. Professor Andrews stated that the fact that university administrators have free access to legal representation on campus and faculty members do not is a definite imbalance of rights.
Professor Guntheroth expressed concern that in 28-32A (Cases Subject to Adjudications), the Human Rights Office (HRO) has the authority to send its recommendations regarding charges of faculty misconduct directly to the Provosts Office for an assessment of reasonable cause prior to submission for adjudication without a preliminary faculty hearing. It was his view that this could present an opportunity for excessive zeal in prosecution of some cases. |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
| 80 | 11.15.93 | Memo from Special Committee on Faculty Women and Minority Faculty Affairs | Guntheroth Amendments to the adjudication proposal | 28-32.A. He recommends that all charges of faculty misconduct be subjected to an additional preliminary faculty hearing to determine probable cause instead of having the Provost assess reasonable cause prior to initiating an adjudication procedure. We oppose this amendment.
Reasoning: The proposed amendment would add unnecessary bureaucracy and affect the impartiality of the investigative process. One purpose of changing the adjudication procedures is to provide an impartial determination that includes faculty input as to whether or not misconduct has occurred prior to any decision by administration on the matter. The proposal is now designed to encourage negotiated resolutions and provides opportunities for faculty to dismiss charges of misconduct directly after initiation of adjudication by the Provost. The Provosts recommendation for adjudicative review only suggests that there is sufficient reason to proceed with a faculty sponsored fact finding process. . . . It is essential to the impartiality of the process that the Human Rights Office continue to be independent of faculty as, with this proposal, the faculty will determine the facts and make the judgments. |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 4 |
| 81 | 11.18.93 | Letter from Provost G. Wayne Clough to Ronald Dear, with attachments | Proposed revision to Executive Order 61, with flow chart (not adjusted to pending changes in Chapter 28) | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 82 | 11.22.93 | Minutes of SEC meeting dated 11.22.93 | Discussion of Guntheroth amendments re review of HRO investigations and size of hearing panels | Proponents of the motion felt that, like deans who bring charges against a faculty member, the HRO should also be required to have its charges heard by a panel of faculty members before the recommendations are sent to the Provost for consideration . . . . | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 4 |
| 83 | 12.1.93 | FCFA minutes from 12.1.93 | Faculty advisory committee to the provost when cases are referred by HRO; executive order 61 | Proposed Amendment to Executive Order # 61
Steve Olswang explained that the Office of Scholarly Integrity was being established to ensure that timelines are met and to provide a central location and source of assistance for deans needing to investigate matters of scholarly misconduct. Before approving these proposed changes, Council members need to receive and review the 11 page explanation of them that has not yet been forwarded to us. This document will be distributed at the next meeting. |
Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 84 | 12.2.93 | Faculty Senate minutes from 12.2.93 | Overview of proposed changes to Chapter 28 | minor controversies should be handled through a brief adjudication process designed for a quick decision. | Records of the UW Faculty Senate, 1993/94, vol. 44, pp. 67-69 |
| 85 | 12.9.93 | SEC minutes from 12.9.93 | Continued discussion of adjudication revisions; student and staff participation; nonparty participants; quantum or standard of proof; HRO investigations | Professor Koenig made a motion to change the quantum of proof to clear and convincing evidence only in cases where there might be a loss of faculty tenure/position. During discussion, several members felt this amendment would not be reasonable or fair because it would require a panel to anticipate ahead of time the penalty that should be imposed.
A motion was made and passed unanimously to accept the amended version of the proposed Faculty Code revisions to Chapter 28 as presented originally by the Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs. It was agreed that Ms. Boxx will check for consistency throughout all sections of Chapter 28, and will draft complementary legislation for Section 25.71 bringing that section also into compliance with proposed changes to Chapter 28. |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 2 |
| 86 | 12.10.93 | FCFA minutes from 12.10.93 | Gender/ethnic makeup of hearing panels | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 87 | 12.28.93 | Agenda for FCFA meeting to be held on 1.6.94 | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | ||
| 88 | 1.20.94 | FCFA minutes from 1.20.94 | Executive Order 61 | It was clarified that the order was written in accordance with current adjudication procedures, and as such, any legal counsel retained by the accused would be at the expense of the accused. The chair was advised to send a message to the Provost that the new adjudication procedures, once finalized, will affect Executive Order # 61 | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 89 | 1.27.94 | Faculty Senate Agenda for meeting on 1.27.94 | First consideration of Class A legislation re Chapter 28 | These proposed revisions have been under consideration by various faculty committees and the Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs for the past three years. The current revisions prohibit a Dean from taking disciplinary action before a case has been adjudicated; streamlines the procedures; brings certain aspects of the code into compliance with the administrative procedures act (state law); and addresses the appearance of unfairness to victims in cases of scientific misconduct and sexual harassment. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 00-058, Box 2 |
| 90 | 1.27.94 | Faculty Senate minutes from meeting on 1.27.94 | Overview of proposed changes to Chapter 28 | The administration is in full support of the proposed changes in Chapter 28 of the Faculty Code. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 91 | 2.3.94 | FCFA minutes from 2.3.94 | Morishima amendment to Section 28-33.D; ethnic and gender makeup of hearing panels; Executive Order 61 | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 92 | 2.8.94 | Memo from Ronald Dear to Faculty Senate in advance of Faculty Senate meeting dated 2.17.94 | Transmits Summary and Explanation of Revisions (dated 2.7.94) and Field Guide to the Major Issues in the Proposed Revisions to Chapter 28 | Field Guide:
What follows is a summary of the significant controversies, how they hae been resolved so far, and references to sections in the revisions. |
Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 93 | 2/17/94 | Adjudication Considered by John Stewart | Overview of proposed changes and remaining issues | For some years the procedures specified in the current code worked reasonably well, but several recent events convinced many faculty and administrators of the need for significant changes: . . . Under the existing code a dean may take disciplinary action against a faculty member (including revocation of tenure) before the faculty member has had an opportunity to respond to the accusations at a hearing.
. . . . In Spring, 1993, the FCFA submitted the 62-page fruits of its labors to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. As that body discussed the proposed new Chapter 28, it became apparent that most of the provisions it contained were noncontroversial. There was no disagreement, for example, with the provision that disciplinary action against a faculty member cannot be taken until after the opportunity for a hearing. Senate Executive Committee members also agreed that a Brief Adjudication Procedure should be available for resolving minor disputes . . . . |
University Week, February 17, 1994; original available at UW News and Information Office, B-54 Gerberding Hall |
| 94 | 2.23.94 | Letter from John Bollard to William Gerberding | Faculty Senate approval of first reading of Class A legislation; seeking Presidential response; Junker amendment to raise burden of proof in cases that may result in dismissal | Two other issue s were discussed at the Senate meeting that may or may not have an impact on the final presentation of the revisions to the Senate. One was the suggestion that commentary be added to the Code to explain how certain terms are used in Chapter 28 to avoid confusion in the future for people not familiar with the text. Another issue to be discussed at the next Executive Committee meeting is the amendment proposed by Professor John Junker in regards to raising the burden of proof for adjudication cases where the decision of a hearing panel may bring dismissal of a faculty member. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 8 |
| 95 | 2.28.94 | Letter from John Bollard to Professor Stevick | Alerting chair of Committee on Faculty Code and Regulations of need to express opinion on amended language | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 8 |
|
| 96 | 3.3.94 | Faculty Senate Agenda | Legislation to bring other aspects of University policy into compliance with new Chapter 28; O.M. D 46.3; Scientific and scholarly misconduct | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 00-058, Box 2 |
|
| 97 | 3.?.94 | Faculty Senate Report re meeting of 3.3.94 | Legislation to bring other aspects of University policy into compliance with new Chapter 28; O.M. D 46.3; Scientific and scholarly misconduct | Professor Stewart explained that two separate pieces of legislation need to be enacted in order to bring all sections of the University Handbook into compliance with the proposed revisions for Chapter 28. The first is Class A legislation involving Volume II, Section 25-71 Standard of Conduct. . . . Professor Stewart explained that agenda item 10.b involves the changing of an executive order and does not require faculty legislation. This executive order (number 61) concerns Addressing Allegations of misconduct in Scientific and Scholarly Research. The Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs has studied this legislation and sent a recommendation to President Gerberding that this executive order be changed to comply with the proposed changes in Chapter 28 of the Faculty Code. The second piece of legislation involves changes in the Operations Manual. Since this is also out of the realm of faculty control, a Resolution of Advice Concerning the Operations Manual was prepared as Class C legislation (agenda item 10c). A motion was passed asking that the administration consider changing Section D 46.3 in the Operations Manual to bring it into compliance with the proposed changes to the adjudication procedures. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 98 | 3.8.94 | Letter from William Gerberding to R.J. H. Bollard, Secretary of the Faculty | Comments on proposed amendments to Chapter28 | I approve the draft of Chapter 28 as proposed, but should the Senate Executive Committee accept Professor Junkers amendment, I would have to reconsider my position. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 8 |
| 99 | 3.10.94 | FCFA minutes from 3.10.94 | Morishima amendments; Executive Order 61; FCFA response to proposed changes in Executive Order 61 | [From memo dated 3.1.94 from John Stewart to Ronald Dear, attached to FCFA minutes]:
8. Provision b) i) needs to be brought into conformance with the policy change regarding possible discipline or dismissal of a faculty member already passed by the faculty and made more explicit in the new Adjudication Procedures; namely, that charges of wrongdoing be adjudicated before any action is taken against a faculty member. Thus we propose that this section be amended to read as follows: If the action is against a faculty member, in accordance with the Handbook (Volume II, Section 25-71E, and Chapter 28), deliver to the Provost a written report stating that reasonable cause exists to adjudicate charges of wrongdoing brought against the faculty member, with enough of the underlying facts to inform the Provost for the reasons for this conclusion. [From the minutes]: The Council discussed the draft memo to Faculty Senate Chair Dear (circulated at the meeting) concerning its response to the 1993 revisions to Executive Order #61, Procedural Guidelines for Addressing Allegations of Scientific and Scholarly Misconduct and agreed to forward it. Vice Provost Olswang said that the memo is an adequate and complete response and would be accepted without a problem. |
Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 100 | 3.21.94 | Memo from John Junker to SEC | Standard of Proof, Junker amendments | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 101 | 3.28.94 | SEC minutes from 3.28.94 | Procedural issues regarding propriety of additional amendments after faculty senate approved first reading; standard of proof; Junker amendments | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 102 | 3.30.94 | Letter from John Bollard to President Gerberding | Seeking Presidents approval of faculty amendment to proposed revisions to Chapter 28, Section 28-54 | This amendment is responsive to the Senates desire for enhanced protection in cases where dismissal or suspension of a faculty member might be involved, and it does so without reverting to a higher standard of proof. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 8 |
| 103 | 4.4.94 | Memo from Rob Aronson and Tom Andrews to Ron Dear | Junker amendments; standard of proof and super-majority requirements; discussion of compromises that had been necessary to secure general approval of proposed revisions | In the hope of assisting such a reexamination of the standard of proof proposal, we suggest that in place of any super-majority requirement, the SEC adopt a higher standard of proof before a panel can recommend suspension or dismissal, but not before it recommend [sic] other discipline. . . . Contrary to some suggestions made at the Faculty Senate, we do not think that such a requirement would present problems in practice. In every action, a majority of the panel would be required to decide whether the conduct charged has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., that it is more probable than not that it occurred). This finding would be the basis for recommendations short of suspension or dismissal. If however, suspension or dismissal were an available sanction for the conduct charged which the panel wished to recommend, then before recommending either, the panel would need to decide whether a majority believed that the conduct charged had been established by clear and convincing evidence. If it concluded that it had, it would be free to recommend suspension or dismissal; if it concluded that it had not, the panel would be entitled to recommend discipline short of suspension or dismissal, but not suspension or dismissal. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 104 | 4.4.94 | SEC minutes from 4.4.94 | Standard of proof; Junker amendments | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 105 | 4.6.94 | FCFA minutes from 4.6.94 | Update on status of revisions to Chapter 28 | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 106 | 4.11.94 | SEC minutes from 4.11.94 | A motion was passed unanimously to accept Chapter 28 as amended and to send it to the Faculty Senate for second consideration. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 107 | 4.14.94 | Faculty Senate Agenda | Second consideration of Class A legislation | The current revisions prohibit a Dean from taking disciplinary action before a case has been adjudicated . . . | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 00-058, Box 2 |
| 108 | 4.14.94 | Faculty Senate minutes from 4.14.94 | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | ||
| 109 | 4.14.94 | Memo from Gerberding to Doctors Ferrill and Clough | Comments on setback suffered by proposed revision to Chapter 28 at that days faculty senate meeting | April 14, 1994
To: Dr. Arther Ferrill Dr. G. Wayne Clough From: William P. Gerberding Two people spoke today in favor of the revision to Chapter 28. Many people spoke against it. Why is there no effort to mobilize support at these meetings? The Senate did, however, then vote overwhelmingly not to kill the issue for this academic year. Perhaps something can yet be passed, but those favoring the (reasonable) outcome of three years effort will have to be active and vocal. So far, the opponents are dominating the debate. I suggest that conversations be held with John Stewart, Tom Andrews, and Rob Aronson beginning tomorrow. |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 110 | 4.21.94 | Memo from Tom Andrews to Faculty Senate re legal defense fund | Legal defense fund; legal representation for faculty | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 111 | 4.22.94 | Memo from Ronald Dear to Faculty Senate | Attachments for meeting on April 28, 1994, including proposed amendments by Andrews, Aronson, Junker, Stewart, Vaughn, and Ehreth | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
|
| 112 | 4.28.94 | Memo from Rob Aronson and Tom Andrews | Objection to Junker amendments re burden of proof and super majority requirements | Professor Junkers Alternative 1 would increase the standard of proof to clear and convincing in all cases to remove or dismiss a faculty member. The proposal would thus apply not just to cases in which students or staff were members of the panel. And it would apply in any case in which a faculty member could be dismissed, even if the remedy actually found was quite minor. In effect, the clear and convincing proof standard would become the rule in most cases. | Special Collections
UW Presidents Records Accession No. 05-006 Box 4 |
| 113 | 5.?.94 | Faculty Senate Report of meetings dated 4.14, 4.28, and 5.12.94 | Blow by blow account of amendments and parliamentary maneuvering to reach compromise acceptable to both faculty and administration; at one point, the proposed revisions to Chapter 28 were voted down 40 in favor to 42 opposed | Professor Junker submitted the following alternative proposed amendments prepared by him:
1) Section 28-54.A (Comprehensive Adjudication-Decision) A motion was made to amend this section as follows: The decision shall be made by majority vote of all Panel Members, excluding the Hearing Officer, provided that any recommendation by the Panel of dismissal of a faculty member or suspension of a faculty member for more than one quarter shall require the affirmative vote of at least two faculty members of the Panel. in any adjudication initiated under Section 28.32.A to remove or dismiss a faculty member pursuant to Section 25.51 or 25.63 of the Faculty Code, the decision shall be made by a vote of five members of a seven person Panel or four members of a five person panel. Professor Junker explained that this amendment was being presented to provide enhanced protection for faculty in cases where the administration might seek to dismiss a faculty member for misconduct, incompetence or incapacity. Comments of faculty in opposition to this amendment were: it would dilute the vote of the student and staff Panel members too much; the proposed revisions already approved provide sufficient protection for faculty; the president may veto this amendment on the same basis as he did before. Those in favor felt the faculty should have enhanced protection in these types of cases; it is more fair than the supermajority requirement previously proposed; when the faculty vote on this legislation, this amendment may help to assure them that the new adjudication procedures do not eliminate their rights. The motion passed. |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 114 | 5.2.94 | SEC agenda for 5.2.94 meeting | Chapter 28 | The current revisions prohibit a Dean from taking disciplinary action before a case has been adjudicated. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 115 | 5.12.94 | Faculty Senate Minutes from 5.12.94 | Discussion of various additional amendments to Chapter 28 | A motion was passed to accept the amended version of the April 14, 1994 Draft Revision of Chapter 28. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 116 | 5.12.94 | Letter from R.J.H Bollard to Advisory Committee on Faculty Code and Regulations | Surveys most recent changes made by Faculty Senate that need comment by ACFCR; Sections
28.33.B, 28-33.E, 28.33.F, 28.51.B, 28.54.A, 28.54.B |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 8 |
|
| 117 | 5.12.94 | Letter from R.J.H Bollard to President Gerberding | Surveys most recent changes that need comment by President; Sections
28.33.B, 28-33.E, 28.33.F, 28.51.B, 28.54.A, 28.54.B |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 8 |
|
| 118 | 5.16.94 | Letter to John Bollard from Professor Stevick of ACFCR | Advisory Committee recommend-ations | Under VII. Section 28.54.A, rephrase the decision shall be made by . . . to read the decision shall require an affirmative vote of . . . . This is to clarify the intent of the specification, which could be interpreted to suggest only a limitation on the number of abstainers, or on how many need to be present to cast a vote. Unless, of course, the intent is not to have affirmative vote of five of seven, etc. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 8 |
| 119 | 5.16.94 | Letter to Ronald Dear from President Gerberding | Accepts latest changes by Faculty Senate | As you know, I have consistently opposed amendments to weaken student and staff representation on the hearing panels by increasing the size of the panels when students or staff are involved or by requiring a super-majority for conviction. I believe the amendments passed last week were unfortunate, but I also believe it is now time to move forward with all the other benefits of the new procedures for adjudication. | Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 04-92, Box 8 |
| 120 | 5.16.94 | SEC minutes from 5.16.94 | The motion to forward the 14 April 1994 version of Chapter 28 (as amended on 12 May) to the Senate for a second reading was approved unanimously.
In answer to a question from Chair Dear as to how to best inform the faculty about the lengthy adjudication document, it was decided that, before the 26 May Senate meeting, all voting faculty on campus should receive a special letter and an information packet from the Senate Office. The letter should highlight the benefits of the amendments to Chapter 28; the fact that the President has approved the changes; a statement that further amendments will not be allowed at the 26 May Senate meeting; a reference to the three-year effort, involving many people, to prepare the amended adjudication documents; and the fact that the complete text of the adjudication document is available either from their Senator or from the Senate Office. The information should include a flow diagram of the proposed adjudication process, and a summary prepared by Karen Boxx of the major issues showing both the proposed and old versions. |
Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 | |
| 121 | 5.16.94 | Letter to Board of Regents from President Gerberding | Includes as apparent enclosures: letter dated 5.16.94 to Ronald Dear; John Bollards letter dated 5.12.94 to Gerberding; 4.14.94 memo from Gerberding to Drs. Ferrill and Clough; and 2.1.93 memo from Tom Andrews re coordination of Chapter 28 and Chapter 25-71 | To: Board of Regents
Presidents Council From: William P. Gerberding This is a major development. If adopted by the Faculty Senate on May 26, 1994 (nearly certain) and the faculty by mail ballot (uncertain), we will have completed a three-year arduous task, and vastly improved our adjudication procedures on this campus. |
Special Collections UW Faculty Senate
Records Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 122 | 5.18.94 | Letter to all faculty from Ronald Dear, chair, Faculty Senate, including Summary and Explanation | Alerts faculty to the likely upcoming faculty vote of the revisions to Chapter 28; includes Summary and Explanation and flow charts of revised adjudication procedures compared with then-current procedures | These revisions offer far greater protection to faculty and others in the university community. For example, under the existing code, a dean may take disciplinary action against a faculty member (including dismissal) before the faculty member has had an opportunity to respond to accusations at a hearing. Some especially visible discrimination and harassment cases highlighted the fact that the current code excluded alleged victims from the proceedings, creating strong perceptions of unfairness. The proposed revisions establish procedures that correct both of these situations.
By way of background, we think you should know that this legislation has been under consideration for three years by various ad hoc faculty committees, a special Task Force, the Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs, the Special Committees on Faculty Women and Minority Faculty Affairs, the Senate Executive Committee and the Faculty Senate. Literally thousands of faculty hours have gone into drafting and revising the document on which you will be asked to vote. |
Records of the Faculty Senate of the University of Washington, 1993/94, vol. 44, pp. 247-261. |
| 123 | 5.19.94 | Letter from Ronald Dear to Faculty Senate | Urging attendance at 5.26.94 Faculty Senate meeting to ensure quorum for forwarding revisions of Chapter 28 to faculty vote | Records of the Faculty Senate of the University of Washington, 1993/94, vol. 44, pp. 260-261. | |
| 124 | 5.26.94 | Faculty Senate Agenda for meeting of 5.26.94 | Class A Legislationsecond consideration | The current revisions prohibit a Dean from taking disciplinary action before a case has been adjudicated . . . . | Uncertain sourceprobably Special Collections, UW Faculty Senate records, Accession No. 04-92, Box 8. |
| 125 | 5.26.94 | Faculty Senate minutes from 5.26.94 | Approval of second reading of Chapter 28 | With the passage of the revised adjudication procedures the Senate Office will begin preparing the ballots which should be in the mail to all voting faculty early next week. The ballots will include the usual pro and con statements plus a full text of the revised adjudication procedures and a copy of the current Chapter 28 with similar information on Chapter 25, Section 25-71. For background material, Professor John Stewart is preparing a question and answer-type article for the University Week scheduled to be published 2 June, and there will be a column on this topic in the next edition of the Faculty Forum also due to be published next week. | Special Collections UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 126 | 6.2.94 | Article by John Stewart, Chair, FCFA, entitled Faculty Senate: Questions, answers about revised adjudication procedure | Q: How does the proposed code protect faculty from being victimized by disgruntled students or misinformed administrators?
A: 1. Before a complaint from a dean or other administrative officer is even adjudicated, a faculty advisory committee has to agree that there is probable cause to adjudicate. 2. Before a complaint from the Human Rights Office is adjudicated, a committee of faculty has to agree that there is probable cause to adjudicate. 3. Before any action can be taken against a faculty member, a panel of faculty members (or, in special cases, five faculty and two students or staff) has to weigh all the evidence and reach a decision. |
University Week, June 2, 1994; original available at UW News and Information Office, B-54 Gerberding Hall | |
| 127 | 6.?.94 | Progress of Class A Legislation Amending Faculty Code for Chapter 28 | Gives dates of approval milestones / legislative history (handwritten and typed) | Special Collections, UW Faculty Senate records, Accession No. 04-92, Box 8. | |
| 128 | 6.?.94 | Progress of Class A Legislation Amending Faculty Code for Section 25-71 | Gives dates of approval milestones / legislative history | Special Collections, UW Faculty Senate records, Accession No. 04-92, Box 8. | |
| 129 | 6.1.94 | Class A Bulletin No. 91 | Explanation of proposed legislation; ballot; then-current version of code; revised Chapter 28 with comments; revised Section 25-71 with rationale prepared by Tom Andrews; Pro statement for revisions to Chapter 28 by John Stewart; Con statement for revisions to Chapter 28 by Joan Martin of AAUP. | COMMENT [to 28-32]: Section A reflects a major change in the Code: Under the existing code (section 25-71), a Dean or other appropriate administrator investigates alleged wrongdoing and determines what action should be taken against the faculty member before the faculty member is given an opportunity to defend himself or herself. Only when the faculty member has been notified of the action that the Dean intends to take against him or her is the faculty member given a right to request an adjudication of this decision and put up a defense. The Council concluded that this method of proceeding is fundamentally unfair to the faculty member in that it builds a presumptive case against the faculty member before the faculty member has been given an opportunity to present his or her side of the story. This method of proceeding puts the faculty member at a significant disadvantage. Under the proposal, an adjudication is now required before any significant disciplinary action against a faculty member has been decided upon. The proposal contemplates that initiative will first be taken by a Dean or other appropriate administrator to do a preliminary investigation. If, as a result of the investigation, it is concluded that there is reasonable cause to have an adjudication, this conclusion is communicated to the Provost. (See proposed changes to section 25-71). If such a reasonable cause conclusion is sent to the Provost, section A of this section (28-31) [sic] requires the Provost to make an initial separate determination of whether a report recommending disciplinary action should be pursued. If the Provost determines that it should be pursued, then he initiates an adjudication.
Rationale [to revised Section 25-71]: . . . . The overall object of the amendment to Section 25-71 was to have unlawful discrimination, harassment, scientific and scholarly misconduct, and all other investigations of wrongdoing result in a reasonable cause to adjudicate finding that is reported to the Provost, for treatment under the proposed new procedures. Pro Statement for Proposed Adjudication Policy. . . .The new Chapter 28 requires adjudication before a complaint from an administrator, faculty member, or alleged victim can be acted upon. |
Special Collections, UW Faculty Senate records, Accession No. 04-92, Box 8. |
| 130 | 6.28.94 | Letter from John Bollard to President Gerberding | Reporting results of faculty vote in favor of new Chapter 28 and Section 25-71 | Special Collections, UW Faculty Senate records, Accession No. 04-92, Box 8. | |
| 131 | 7.11.94 | President Gerberdings approval of revised Section 25-71 | President Gerberdings signature appears immediately below the Rationale statement to the right | The overall object of the amendment to Section 25-71 was to have unlawful discrimination, harassment, scientific and scholarly misconduct, and all other investigations of wrongdoing result in a reasonable cause to adjudicate finding that is reported to the Provost, for treatment under the proposed new procedures. | Special Collections, UW Presidents Records, Accession No. 05-006, Box 4 |
| 132 | 3.13.2000 | Letter from President McCormick to Lea Vaughn, transmitting approval of 2000 amendments to Chapter 28 | Shows 2000 amendments to Chapter 28 did not substantively change Section 28-32. | Special Collections, UW Faculty Senate records, Accession No. 04-92, Box 8. |